Captain Kirk and Spock bring Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to justice in Star Trek Into Darkness.
The Star Trek franchise has really come a long way since its days as a television series, hasn’t it? Movies, a new series in the 90’s, a loyal following of Trekkies and even a 2009 remake of the original. Now Star Trek returns to the big screen with a remake of the sequel entitled Star Trek Into Darkness. Does it still entertain current audiences?
The movie opens with Captain Kirk defamed and demoted from his Captain position after Spock’s life is jeopardized while prevent a volcano from erupting on the planet Nibiru that would have wiped out all civilization and would have exposed all of Nibiru’s lives to the Enterprise. Admiral Pike has been reinstated but believes Kirk deserves a second chance and successfully lobbies for Kirk to be his first Officer.
The movie moves forward to London two centuries from now. A bomb has just exploded and the perpetrator is believed to be Starfleet agent John Harrison. The meeting about how to deal with Harrison is disturbed by Harrison’s jumpship. Kirk destroys the jumpship but Harrison is able to escape to the Klingon planet of Kronos. Meanwhile Pike was killed in the attack which promotes Kirk back to captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is left in charge of dealing with the Enterprise and Harrison whether to have Harrison killed by the torpedoes on board the Enterprise or brought to justice.
Their first attempt at capturing Harrison is by arriving on the Klingon planet even though they know Klingons are set to attack them. Harrison kills the Klingons but appears to surrender when aware of the torpedoes against him. It’s when Khan is held inside the Enterprise that is true identity is learned, Khan: a genetically engineered superhuman designed as a weapon 300 years ago for a war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. On top of that, the torpedoes each have one of Khan’s crew cryogenically frozen inside. In the meantime Admiral Marcus, engineer of Khan and captain of the USS Vengeance which Khan designed, demands Khan’s release. The Enterprise refuses and that leads to a war leaving the Enterprise severely damaged.
Soon after many giveaways happen to the intentions of both Khan and Marcus which almost leads to the destruction of the Enterprise had it not been for Scotty’s fast thinking on the Vengeance. A confrontation between Kirk, Spock, Marcus’ daughter Carol and Khan leads to Khan succeeding and gaining control of the Vengeance. Khan will only allow the crew of the Enterprise free if given the torpedoes. They agree but just when it’s thought that Khan has the advantage, a surprise occurs. This leads to a battle between Khan and leaders of the Enterprise with a not-so-typical ending to the movie.
This is a continuation from what started in 2009 when the first Star Trek was remade. If you remember then, they attempted to remake the very first Star Trek movie with a modern faced cast and with modern special effects. The end result was one popcorn movie remake that worked well not just with audiences but critics alike. it even became the first Star Trek movie to win an Oscar: winning Best Makeup. Here in 2013 comes a new challenge of remaking The Wrath Of Khan with the new modern cast and the new special effects.
I’ll admit that I have not seen the original Wrath Of Khan so I cannot compare it to Into Darkness. What I can do is compare it with the 2009 remake of the original. The original was good as it was able to remake and even modernize the original well with good writing, good acting and excellent effects. Into Darkness was also very good in its own way with the acting and the directing and especially the effects. There were times where the original actors (William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy) make appearances in the movie with is not uncommon for Hollywood to do in terms of movie remakes and movie versions of TV shows. However Shatner was given a good role that was atypical. As for the story, it was your typical Hollywood formulas in the story but what it lacks in original it, it makes up for in entertainment. It succeeds in being a thrill ride for those who see it with battles and even an ending that it not your typical predictable Hollywood ending.
The acting from the actors was also good. One thing I liked about the 2009 remake is that none of the actors were trying to fill the shoes of the actors past. Chris Pine knew he wasn’t to be a copy of William Shatner. Zachary Quinto knew he wasn’t to fill the shoes of Leonard Nimoy. John Cho knew that he’s not in George Takei’s shadow. Anton Yelchin knew not to compare himself to Walter Koenig. And Zoe Saldana was not trying to be Nichelle Nichols either. Each had their part to do and doing it made it work. The actors again continue to do it in Into Darkness. Mind you the role of Spock was given a new challenge by having him convey emotion despite being a Vulcan. Even Benedict Cumberbatch did a very good job in playing Kahn, even if Khan came across as an unoriginal Hollywood villain.
J.J. Abrams can add this movie to his cloud as one of the top sci-fi directors in Hollywood. He started well with Mission Impossible III, progressed with the first Star Trek in 2009 and did it again in Super 8. Although Into Darkness doesn’t compare to the first Star Trek, it does not hurt his reputation at all and even adds to his consistency. The highlights of the movie of course were the visual effects as should be expected with any sci fi movie. People don’t go to a sci fi movie for the script. They go to escape to another world. And Star Trek Into Darkness succeeds into taking us into our world two centuries from now and into the many worlds in the Star Trek universe. It was a very good trip into escapism that most will enjoy.
Star Trek Into Darkness is a sequel remake that puts its most emphasis in the escapism and the excitement of the action. It succeeds again in giving the audience a trip to another world while staying true to the Star Trek theme. The big question is if there’s to be a remake of The Search For Spock in the future, how soon will it come out and what will the end result be?
The Dove Campaign For Real Beauty is an attempt to make women feel confident about their looks.
Have you seen the campaign for Dove where they campaign ‘for real beauty?’ I’m sure we all have. They’ve been doing that for years. Many people like it while some find it annoying. However they’ve most recently taken their campaign to Youtube and the rapport has been surprising.
Dove’s worldwide Campaign For Real Beauty started back in 2004. It was created by Brazil’s branch of the advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather and bought by Unilever in 2004 when it learned in a survey that only 4% of women consider themselves beautiful. Sure, women have always struggled with the self-consciousness of their beauty for years and even decades but this was a highly critical time. Do you remember who the top celebrities were at the time? Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera. These were young female women who rose to the top of the fame game with little attention to whatever talent they had and more attention to their looks. Breast implants operations were at an all-time high. Girls getting their hair bleached like Pamela Anderson were still very popular. There were huge concerns about eating disorders in young women. Pop and hip hop videos featured scantily clad women and it paid off in taking them to the top of the charts. Not a nice picture at all.
Some of you may argue that it has always been that way. Sure there have been problems from generation to generation. Mind you it was a lot different from the time I was growing up. Back when I was a teenager–from the mid-80’s to the early 90’s–we had a mixed bag of female stars to look up to. MTV was just starting to become a vice in popular culture. There was Pat Benatar who rocked out female empowerment but wouldn’t use ‘sex as a weapon.’ There was the always controversial Madonna who raised eyebrows with whatever controversial thing she did but always had a message behind it and urged female empowerment. There was Tina Turner, a rock legend who was strong enough to leave an abusive husband. We had full-bodied models like Cheryl Tiegs, Christy Brinkley and Elle MacPherson. However it was not completely perfect. I even remember one moment back in the 80’s talking to one of my classmates just after she bought a pack of diet pills. Also in the 80’s was Karen Carpenter, a singer who died of anorexia at a time when hardly anybody knew what it was. Just like Morgan Fairchild said “Rock Hudson gave AIDS a face,” Karen Carpenter gave anorexia a face.
By the 90’s things really started to get to a concern from parents. Soon came Kate Moss and her waif look followed by ‘heroin chic’ models. The term supermodel became present and a phenomenon at the beginning of the decade as models were able to command salaries over $1 million a year. Young girls went from wanting to be models to wanting to be supermodels. Imagine making millions just for looking good. Rap videos consisted of scantily clad women dancing and acting unapologetically immodest. Baywatch babe Pamela Anderson rose to the top of the fame game with her bleached-blonde hair and breast implants and would soon be emulated by girls everywhere.
It’s not to say the whole 90’s was completely vicious to girls. In fact the 90’s should have been a more positive time for women and young girls. There was actress/comedian Roseanne who wouldn’t let her overweight looks or attempts at male dominance stand in her way. And she’s send that message in her sitcom. There was Nike promoting Jackie Joyner-Kersee as she was seen as an achiever with little attention paid to her looks. There were more and more women assuming higher political office or higher business positions. There were movies with more forceful depictions of women like Thelma And Louise and G.I. Jane. There were even attempts from the media to promote intimate singers like Jewel and Sarah McLaughlin as well as the Lilith Fair. But right while that was all taking off, the teen revolution in pop happened with the likes of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera hitting the top of the charts. You could’ve simply dropped Lilith Fair in favor of ‘Tart Fest.’ By the end of the 90’s the more positive female role models like comediennes, athletes and business executives were being shunned by promoters in favor of tart-like girls that were cute or thin or both. Hey, they were easier to guarantee sales and ratings.
You could understand with the celebrity admiration and star emulation that has been wildfire especially in the last 15 years there would be some concerns. It became apparent that the obsession of beauty was not just about fitting in but having the looks that won. If a certain look or certain body is going to put a female celebrity to the top of the ‘fame game,’ you could be sure girls wanted to copy that. You can’t blame pop star Pink for singing in her song Stupid Girls: “What happened to the dream of a girl president? She’s dancin’ in the video next to 50 Cent.” Problem was the beauty industry wanted to take full advantage of it. They wanted women to think that their product would make them more attractive or they’d be inferior without it. I even remember hearing a radio ad for a plastic surgery office and the voiceover said: “How you look on the outside affects how you feel on the inside.” What does that tell you?
Dove wanted to change all that with their Campaign For Real Beauty. It was created by Brazil’s Ogilvie & Mather and its mission was: “to create a world where beauty is a source of confidence and not anxiety.” I still remember seeing ads on a bus in 2004 of women with regular bodies looking confident and the tagline ‘campaign for real beauty.’ Those pictures were taken by reputed photographer Annie Liebovitz. I also remember a television ad of a city square full of what appears to be blondes. Soon one woman takes her blonde wig off and the others follow. One thing I didn’t know at the time of the first ads was that the campaign also involved studies too about the opinions of the bodies. There were even some ads that invited people to vote on a female image if she was ‘fat or fab’ or ‘wrinkled or wonderful’ with results displayed on the billboard itself.
Like every campaign, this Campaign had to market attention. The Campaign won media coverage from talk shows, women’s magazines, as well as mainstream news broadcasts and publications. Unilever were able to purchase a $2.5 million 30-second spot during the Super Bowl XL of 2006 as part of the Little Girls branch of their campaign. With the purchase of a Campaign For Real Beauty website, the campaign was expanded into videos that started with Daughters, an interview-style piece where mothers and daughters related to the beauty industry and how it affected their perceptions of beauty. Further videos followed including Evolution, Onslaught and Amy. Evolution won two Cannes Lions awards for advertising film making. Unlike most campaigns, research was being conducted on this by Dove.
It’s not to say the campaign has had their doubters. There have been those who’ve accused Dove as being hypocritical since it belongs to the Unilever company: the same company responsible for Axe body spray products that feature overtly sexual women in their ads, Fair and Lovely skin-lightening products and Slim Fast diet bars. There would be defenders saying that Dove represents Dove, not Unilever as a whole. There were also females who posted their dissatisfaction of the ads because they believed Dove was telling them of the insecurities they felt. Also you have the odd person on the street who likes being cynical and say “They’re just doing it to sell more products.” Even if it was true, you should remember that the campaign came at a time when marketers were shelling out ads to make people insecure about themselves to get their product sold. If that argument was true, I could rightfully argue it’s great to see Dove use a positive message to sell their products instead.
However the biggest attention came as they released two videos of Dove Real Beauty Sketches on Youtube back in April of this year. The videos consisted of regular women being drawn portraits by a forensic artist. While drawing the women, he’d ask them to describe certain aspects of their looks. Before being drawn, the women were asked to get friendly with another person. Those people, both women and men, would be asked by the artist to describe their looks and features. Days later the women would return to the studio and see two drawings of herself. The first drawing would be of herself of how she described herself. The second drawing would be herself of how the other person saw her. The differences were very noticeable. It also changed the way they thought of themselves. The ads definitely caught a lot of attention as they’ve received more than 50,000,000 hits on Youtube.
The question is will it change how women, especially young women, look at themselves? We should take into account not all has been better ever since the Campaign For Real Beauty started. Girls still idolize celebrities, even no-talents like Kim Kardashian. Fashion magazines continue to sell. Girls still desire to be models. On top of it there are many complaints in recent years of female figures being photoshopped. That was especially made evident in a Youtube video entitled Fotoshop by Adobe where Adobe is pronounced “Ad Obey.” Even Dove did ads where it showed young girls in sports with a caption saying: “Six out of ten young girls would give up a sport if it made them seem unattractive.” The results of the Sketches video going viral are encouraging but its effect is still yet to be seen. Also it would be interesting if Dove releases another Real Beauty Sketches video in the future.
Dove Campaign For Real Beauty surely does take their Campaign to a new level with their Sketches video. This is only the latest in the Campaign’s efforts. Whether it will pay off in terms of a woman’s self-image is questionable in the future. I’m sure Dove will be paying close attention to the results.
Rob Ford, always a controversial figure, faces his biggest controversy thanks to Gawker.
Most of you outside of Canada or even Ontario have a bit of an idea about the Rob Ford fiasco happening there but aren’t too clear who Rob Ford is. Us Canadians on the other hand can’t walk away from it. It’s here, it’s there, it’s everywhere. But what is it and why should it matter for all of Canada? Even for a Vancouverite like myself?
NOTE: I’m sure there are many Torontonians and Ontarians that will find my article too simple. Fact is I have many followers from around the world. The point is to explain the situation to those who don’t know who Rob Ford is and what the fiasco is about. Besides I’m from Vancouver so I’m not all too familiar with Rob Ford myself.
Rob Ford was elected mayor of Toronto back in 2010 and assumed office in December of that year. He was a Toronto City Councilor for Etobicoke North the previous ten years. Rob comes from a political family with his father owning the business DECO Labels And Tags (which Rob, his mother, and his other three brothers direct) and a former Member of Provincial Parliament and his brother Doug Jr. has assumed the role of Etobicoke North City Councilor upon Rob’s election of Mayor of Toronto. He’s a huge favorite of popular hockey voice Don Cherry who was at his mayoral inauguration in a pink suit.
Ask any Torontonian and they will tell of Ford’s controversial politics as mayor. At his best, he’s against excessive government spending and calls for the ‘end of the gravy train’. At his worst, he will make opposition to policies leaning more to the left much to the chagrin of many Torontonians. He’s been long known for voicing his opinions leaning towards the right, much to the annoyance of a highly liberal city like Toronto. However it’s been his attitude and his outspoken comments and actions that had already made Ford notorious even before the whole recent Crack-smoking scandal. Having his own talk radio show on Toronto air waves may have something to do with it. As for his political verbal outbursts and such, hmmm, where do I start:
In 2002 he got into a fight with fellow councilor Giorgio Mammoliti and called him a “Gino-boy”, leading him to charges of racism.
In June 2006, he spoke out against a city donation of $1.5 million to prevent AIDS by responding: “If you’re not doing needles and you’re not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS probably.”
In March 2007, Ford made comments about cyclists use of roads saying: “Roads are built for buses, cars and trucks, not for people on bikes. My heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”
In March 2008 he said at a council meeting: “Those Oriental people, they work like dogs. They work their hearts out. They are workers non-stop. They sleep beside their machines. That’s why they’re successful in life. I’m telling you, the Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over.”
He’s been involved in many publicized incidents while driving including reading and talking on his cellphone.
He asked city officials to approve drainage and road repairs outside the DECO Labels And Tags headquarters before it’s 50th anniversary party in August 2012.
He was accused by CBC political comedian Mary Walsh for saying the F-word during one of her impromptu interviews with him.
In May 2012, he was accused by news reporter Daniel Dale of cornering him and threatening to punch him. He’s frequently referred to journalists as ‘scumbags.’
Even a month ago, he blurted out the F-word after accidentally being hit in the face by a camera. It was caught on camera and was shown on The Jimmy Kimmel Show.
Okay now you know what he’s like as a reckless politician. Now to see where all this crack-smoking fits in. Ford has had his brush with substances. He was arrested in 1999 in Miami for DUI and marijuana possession during his mayoral campaign. In 2006, Ford was accused of getting drunk at a Toronto Maple Leafs game and verbally assaulting the couple in front of him. In March 2013, former mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson accused Ford of touching her inappropriately and even suggested in a radio interview he was on cocaine. Even a Toronto City Councilor ask Ford to leave a function two weeks later because he appeared intoxicated.
Hard to believe all this that happened was just a forerunner to the ultimate, thanks to the website Gawker. Gawker claimed they had a video of Ford smoking crack cocaine from a Toronto Star reporter taken from a smartphone. Gawker said it appeared to show Ford in a clearly lit room although they also claim they can’t verify the authenticity of the video. Gawker even claimed the reporter asked for $200,000 for release of the video. Fact or fiction, the news sparked a heatwave of debate and talk all over Toronto. The heat could have come either because there’s so much opposition towards Rob Ford in Toronto or since it comes on the tails of another Canadian political scandal: senator Mike Duffy’s resignation after an expense controversy. Even Ford got into the act by claiming that the video is not true. Nevertheless this is rare for a scandal in Toronto politics to have all of Canada watching.
UPDATE: The last 48 hours have consisted of even juicier news on this. The man who reportedly showed Gawker the alleged video was recently murdered. Many councilors have since resigned over the controversy yesterday in which Ford called: ‘business as usual.’ This could lead to a bigger scandal than one thinks and could lead to Ford’s resignation in the future.
What will happen to Rob Ford after this incident and the aftermath remains unclear. He is still mayor of Toronto and shows no signs of resigning. The video is still unseen and still continues to make news. More news is expected to continue to unravel over the next days or weeks.
However the next election could tell the results. Ford might even resign before the election. I’m sure with Toronto having 2 1/2 years of experience with him, many thousands have already made up their minds should ford run for re-election. Also this incident shouldn’t really matter for all of Canada but it does show we can have some crazy politicians of our own.
Maggie Smith stars in Quartet, a film of aging musicians that scored well with critics and the box office too.
“Initially you’re overwhelmed. But gradually you realize it’s like a wave. Resist, and you’ll be knocked over. Dive into it, and you’ll swim out the other side.”
-Evelyn Greenslade from The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
In the last two years, it seems like movies are mostly set out for the Echo or Millenial generation but also intended to attract Generation X and today’s children too. It seemed like the Boomer Generation was a movie crowd that had many years and decades in the sun in terms of movies and its now past. But not so fast. They’re still leaving one last impact that been especially present in the last two years. I’ve noticed it in three films from the past while and even a current release. It’s positive there will be more to come but it does face challenges.
It’s hard to exactly pinpoint what birthyears define a generation. There are common assumptions of what years consist of the Baby Boomer generation but I was commonly told it was the generation that began just after World War II had ended. The most common birthyears I have seen associated with the Baby Boomer generation are from 1946 to 1964.
The Baby Boomer generation is a generation that has made an impact in many ways but is especially noticeable on its impact in movies. We first saw it in the 70’s when they went to see thrillers by Spielberg and Lucas and dramas from Scorsese and but also experimental movies like Clockwork Orange and Pulp Fiction. They’ve also made their own sets of stars like Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep, Bette Midler, Billy Crystal, Tom Hanks, Geena Davis…I could go on. Baby Boomer filmmakers, actors and audiences have contributed to the changes greatly in both Hollywood film and films of other format. Even Baby Boomer women left their mark as many showed they didn’t simply have to be in front of the camera but behind the camera too.
Even as they were getting older as the late-80’s came, they still showed that they were a viable audience market worth major focus and continued to have films and movies with them in mind. They also showed that an actor or actress can get older in age like their 30’s and 40’s and still be a big draw. They also changed family movies in the late 80’s/early 90’s too as the movies directed to their children would also have to include elements in which parents could watch and enjoy too.
Then it appeared at the turn of the millennium, it would be handed to the younger generations like Generation X and especially the Echo/Millennial generation mostly comprised of their children while most boomer actor would be relegated to supporting roles. It was thought that they would now have to make way for them. Even now with the Boomers getting older and many entering into their Golden Years, it appears the core audience for movies is now the Millennial generation mostly composed of their children or children of the generation after them. Even though the Boomer generation no longer has that decades-old grip on movies they used to, they appeared to still have a spark in them that allowed for films to be released with them in mind.
I believe the first trigger was back in 2007 with the hit movie The Bucket List. Directed by Rob Reiner and written by Justin Zackham, this featured Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman as two men with terminal lung cancer giving themselves goals to achieve before they ‘kick the bucket.’ The movie was a hit achieving $93 million at the US box office and $175 million worldwide. The box office success sent the message that Boomers and the generation before them were still a marketable film crowd and that younger generations can also be entertained by movies featuring older movie stars. Hey, didn’t we like Grumpy Old Men back in the 90’s?
The first movie that caught my attention to this was a British movie, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. The movie was directed by 64 year-old John madden and its ensemble cast consisted mostly of British actors in their 60’s and 70’s like Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Tom Wilkinson and Bill Nighy. The movie was about older retired people who come to live at what they think will be a nice hotel in India. Instead it turns out to be dingy. Over time they discover more about themselves and many learn that their life doesn’t have to end in their golden ages. They can start a new life. One can free their soul. One can even finally meet Mr. Right. The movie did very well grossing $46 million in North America and $134 million worldwide.
There was a second British movie also based on aging that scored well: Quartet. This was the directorial debut of American Dustin Hoffman. The movie starred Maggie Smith, included Ton Courtenay and Michael Gambon, and is based off of a hit British stage play. The movie is situated in a retirement home for former professional musicians. The home has always had financial issues but has always kept themselves going by teaching to young people and holding an annual gala. The gala has had its issues as many of its top former musicians have died over the years. Their best hope is to have a famous quartet as their main attraction. Their best hopes rest on soprano Jean Horton who actually is an ex-wife of one of the other quartet singers and both failed to heal the bad terms between them. The movie was not just about healing relationships. The movie was also coming to terms with aging and dealing with the changes; especially since the artistic giftedness that once made their greatness withered away with age. The movie scored very well with the critics and made $55 million worldwide at the box office.
You may have noticed that not every star actor in the movie is a Baby Boomer. Not Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and Michael Gambon. Nevertheless the theme of aging is a common theme Baby Boomers can relate to especially since the first wave of Baby Boomers–born in the first few years following World War II– have now entered into their 60’s and are dealing with the issues with aging and also attempting to overcome the obstacles associated with it.
Hollywood has noticed that too and they even sent out a more commercial movie about getting older called Parental Guidance. Since it stars Bette Midler and Billy Crystal, you know it would be a comedy. It’s not necessarily about aging but about the role of grandparents who come into the lives of their daughter, her husband and grandchildren. The movie is about grandparents trying to raise the grandchildren while the parents are away. They have a wide array of obstacles to deal with like new technology, children’s behavior, modern methods of parenting and psychology, a musically gifted granddaughter making social sacrifices, a new job pursuit and above all the role as grandparents. This was a unique movie upon release as it appeared marketed to Baby Boomer grandparents, Generation X or Echo parents and the current generation of children. The critical consensus was not too pleased with parental Guidance but it made 4477 million at the US box office and almost $120 million worldwide.
Parental Guidance may have been a hit but it’s not to say that aging Boomer stars still face challenges in Hollywood movies. Recently there was the movie The Big Wedding which featured an ensemble cast starring older stars like Robert de Niro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon and Robin Williams along with younger stars Ben Barnes, Katharine Heigl and Amanda Seyfried. The movie was written and directed by The Bucket List scriptwriter Justin Zackham. The movie was seen by the consensus of critics as unfunny and predictable. The box office didn’t fare well either grossing a total of $21 million so far.
Even the artistic film industry faces challenges as well. There was the French Language film Amour about an aging couple dealing with their love for each other as the wife suffers a stroke and is left terminally impaired. The film was nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture and won Best Foreign Language Film but achieved less than $7 million at the US box office and $20 million worldwide.
The past twelve months have showed that the aging populations, especially the aging Baby Boomers, are still a marketable and profitable movie crowd despite the majority of movies focused on the under-30’s. It’s fair to say that the film industry has done a good job in turning out movies with them in mind but it still faces a lot of challenges in the present and in the future. It’s not just the aging crowds that want to see movies but the aging actors that still want to act and aging stars that want to prove they still have it. Only time will define what works with them and what will continue to draw them to the cinemas.
Robert Downey Jr. makes it Tony Stark’s last hurrah in Iron Man 3.
The first weekend in May certifies the official beginning of the summer movie season. This is where the big studios are the most competitive where they deliver big-time attention-grabbers in an attempt to hit new highs at the box office. As expected, the first movie to kick off the 2013 summer movie season is a sequel of a huge-grossing series: Iron Man 3. The question is does it live up to the hype?
Tony Stark is back but instead of setting up for his third adventure, it goes back in time to the turn-of-the-millennium. Tony had a fling with a scientist named Maya Hansen who worked for a mechanics company named Extremis that’s experimenting with regenerating amputated limbs. Her boss, scientist Aldrich Killian who’s disabled himself, offers Stark a job but Stark refuses much to Killian’s humiliation.
Fast forward to the present, Stark and girlfriend Pepper Potts build several Iron man suits in immediate response to an alien attack which left him with panic attacks. Meanwhile Stark learns of a new rival villain: The Mandarin, who assaults his butler Happy Hogan. Stark challenges The Mandarin with a televised threat only to be faced with battle with The Mandarin and his army who leave his mansion demolished. The world believes Stark and Potts to be dead but they’re both alive with Stark being rescued by Hansen and Stark dawning an Iron Man suit whose JARVIS technology lands him in Tennessee. Stark learns more about the Mandarin thanks to the help of a young boy named Harley. Harley directs Stark to an alleged bomb explosion. Stark learns that the explosion is not only by Extremis but a possible fake to cover up Extremis’ flaws.
After a failed attack by two Extremis agents, Stark is able to get the location of The Mandarin through Harley’s help and through using improvised makeshift technology. Stark soon learns that The Mandarin is an impostor, an actor named Trevor Slattery. The Mandarin is actually a decoy of Killian who used Hansen’s program to fix his own disability and create an army of his own who successful has Potts hostage in hopes of getting Stark to fix Extremis’ flaws. That’s not all Killian has planned. Killian also stole James Rhodes’ Iron patriot outfit in an attempt to hold the plane with the President Of The United States hostage. Stark attempts to save the plane and those on board. He succeeds but misses the President whom Killian intends to kill and have the Vice President as his puppet to follow his every order to make Extremis succeed in its business.
The end battle features a lot of twists and turns but gives a surprise but somewhat expected ending to the movie and the Iron Man series as well. Oh yeah, I encourage you to sit through the credits for a surprise end.
Usually I’m not a huge fan of movie sequels. I consider Hollywood sequels to be the actors, directors and producers masturbating for two hours. However I did find Iron Man 3 to be enjoyable. This was movie that was to be, or appears to be, the end of the Iron Man series. It had quite a lot to work with and it did a very good job of it, even though I feel it could have been better. Yes it was a story with a lot of clichés and yes there were a lot of areas that felt very formulaic. Even the addition of a cute kid felt like Hollywood up to its usual tricks. What it lacks in terms of inventiveness and unpredictability, it does make up in terms of its visual effects. The fights still thrill and the effects still dazzle. It’s what one should come to expect from a superhero movie. Surely director/co-writer Shane Black knew what he had to deliver when he agreed to do Iron Man 3. He’s written for popcorn movies before. Even though he delivers an ending to a series that could have been better, he does mostly end the Iron Man series on a positive note. One thing is that even though this may mean the end of the Iron Man series, it doesn’t mean that Tony Stark won’t be back for the next Avengers movie. There was even a hint or two of The Avengers in the script.
Once again, Robert Downey Jr. brings out the character of Tony Stark, but it felt like something was missing. I don’t know what it was but I felt there was a certain quality of Tony that was present in the first Iron Man and made him a scene-stealer in The Avengers that was missing here. Pepper Potts was given more of a role as being the one getting Tony to smarten up although Gwyneth is not as much of a scene stealer as she could be. Guy Pearce could have done more with his role of Killian but keeps him as a stockish villain. Rebecca Hall was good as Maya Hansen even though her role was nothing out of the ordinary. Don Cheadle was good at being a comedic sidekick Iron Patriot but he too lacked the scene-stealing quality. Ty Simpkins was given a typical child actor role where he’s made to look cutesy. And Ben Kingsley’s turn as the Mandarin succeeded in being both intense and comical when it was required to be.
As is to be expected with any big release of the summer movie season, Iron Man 3 succeeds in challenging for top box office results. It achieved $174.1 million in its opening weekend making it second only to last year’s The Avengers for the biggest opening weekend ever. Even now it continues to remain strong at the box office even though it was replaced at the #1 spot in its third weekend by Star Trek Into Darkness. I don’t think it will supersede The Avengers‘ total gross since The Avengers was still #1 after three weekends. I am confident that Iron Man 3 will finish its box office run in the Top 10 of all time. It’s only $86 million away right now.
Iron Man 3 is a series-ending movie in which first seems surprising but turns out to be typically expected on second-thought. It’s better than the second but not as entertaining as the first. Nevertheless it ends on a good note, if slightly flawed.
It’s happening. British Columbia will be voting for a premier: the first such election in four years and two days exactly. There’s reigning BC Premier Christy Clark and there are challenging Party leaders, most notably Adrian Dix and Jane Sterk. But how do they stack up for the vote on May 14th?
CHRISTY CLARK: LIBERAL
She is the reigning premier, albeit not elected into office. Those of you living outside of British Columbia may not have known the state of politics in the 21st century. From 2001 to 2011, the province has had Liberal Gordon Campbell as premier of the province. He has been elected into office three times having to resign back in 2011 because of his approval rating declining to the point of single-digit percentage. Christy Clark has taken the role of premier ever since. Since becoming premier of BC, her approval rating as well as the approval rating of the BC Liberals improved greatly even superseding the rating of the NDP for some period of time. However the period has been short-lived.
The opposition Clark has faced during her premiership has not been as heated or intense as Gordon Campbell’s. Nevertheless she has faced heat of her own. One former Liberal MLA accused her of conflict of interest in assisting with the selling of BC Rail during the Campbell administration while cabinet minister. She has also been witness to seeing many key Liberals resigning from parliament.
With the provincial election approaching, Clark still faces a lot of heat from the opposing parties for a lot of what Gordon Campbell did during his administration. Remember I told you about her pre-election baggage? It didn’t completely go away. Her appearance at the Party leader’s debate gave her a chance to improve her political reputation as many felt she won the debate. The BC Liberal Party has greatly decreased its gap behind the BC NDP in the past three weeks trailing them only slightly. However many journalists are claiming it may be too much too late for her political career. Only the results on Tuesday will tell.
ADRIAN DIX: NDP
He’s already been written as the frontrunner for the race for premier. But it doesn’t mean that his chances of winning are unbreakable.
One of the reasons many claim Gordon Campbell has continued to be elected premier is because there hasn’t been an NDP skilled enough to rival him. Adrian may not have much experience as a Party leader but he does have considerable political experience under his belt. Dix was born the son of an insurance agency owner. He has been with the NDP Party since 1996 and like Clark has also been a political media personality for newspapers like The Sun Columnist and the Source. Dix has been the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway since his election in 2005 and his prime areas of focus while MLA have been Children and Families and Health Issues. His biggest achievements have been bringing insulin pumps to children with type 1 diabetes and successfully preventing three Vancouver-Kingsway schools from shutting down.
He came to be elected leader of the NDP Party in 2011 upon the resignation of leader Carole James. Issues that led to his election have been Eliminating the HST, reducing business taxes, redirecting carbon tax, and increasing the minimum wage to name a few. For the provincial election, Dix has had ads marketed with the theme ‘time for a new government’. Those ads have been on television not as frequently as the BC Liberals but more commonly on Youtube. Dix has led through most of the pre-election polls and appears to be the heavy favorite to win.
However he does face stiff opposition. Firstly there was the recent Party leader debate where Christy Clark presented herself and her platform the best. That caused her to jump in the polls and even tied Dix on May 8th. Then there was bringing back the controversy Dix was responsible for during the scandal of 1990’s premier Glen Clark when Dix was Chief of Staff from 1996 to 1999. Back then he back-dated a memo to protect Clark from conflict-of-interest charges. That led to the resignation of both Clark and Dix. Dix has since redeemed himself as the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway but the incident has arisen again by the opposing parties. That could hurt him.
Yes, Dix has a lead over Christy Clark in the polls right now but it’s too close to call right now. Don’t forget polls can say one thing and elections can say another. The big question is will it be a night for the first NDP premier in 12 years? It will all be at the buzzer Tuesday night.
JANE STERK: GREEN
Outside of the Liberals and the NDP, the only other Party making the biggest news in the election is the BC green Party and its leader Jane Sterk. The Green Party is a relatively young Party that started in 1983 but it fields policies that appeal to many BC residents like environmental issues, tolerance and diversity, social justice as well as personal and global responsibility. The questions has always been would they have what it takes to win elections and would they have what it takes to be good strong leaders?
The Green Party first made a name for itself under the leadership of founder Adrianne Carr back in 2001 when the Party finished third in the provincial election with 12.4% of the vote. They would continue to finish third in the next two provincial elections but with declining percentages of votes. In the 2009 election–the first in which Jane Sterk was Party leader– the Green Party finished with 8.1% of the vote and no seats.
The position of the Green Party here in BC is still a big question mark. Even in this election the Party won’t be fielding candidates for all 85 ridings like the NDP and Liberals: 61 to be exact. However this could be the Party’s best election. Right now the election is between two leading Party’s candidates who have both been involved with a former premier and the infamies of their administrations, even scandal involvement. The Green Party has been over 10% in the polls for most of the upcoming election period however their popularity has taken a bit of a dip in recent days. Also what should be remembered is that Sterk is native to Alberta and she didn’t move to BC until 2000. That could hurt her since the leading two candidates and many other candidates have spent most of their life in BC.
The question is will the Green Party finally make a name for itself and be able to land its first ever MLA seat? Best chances could be with Sterk in her Victoria-Beacon Hill riding but she would have to win over former NDP leader Carole James who is the incumbent leader in that riding. This will be a question not just of whether the Green Party can land a seat but its ability to strike a chord with voters. It has what it takes and now’s a better time than ever but can they do it?
JOHN CUMMINS :CONSERVATIVE
The Conservative Party is a long-standing Party like the NDP and Liberals and had it’s biggest heydays from the 30’s to the 50’s. However it has had rollercoaster success since then as the Party has had a very hard time not just trying to win seats but also trying to field seats. This year the Conservative Party has fielded candidates for 56 of the 85 MLA seats, their biggest number since 1972 and double the 24 seats they fielded candidates for in the 2009 election.
Its biggest challenge has to be with the general public. I live in New Westminster and work in downtown Vancouver. Already I can tell that the big cities are not known for welcoming politician with a right-leaning platform. Most of the bigger cities have a huge and very vocal animosity for right-wing politicians that are even as much as right-to-centre. Sometimes I think Vancouver is the capital of ‘Harperphobia.’ However it’s another story in areas like Langley and Abbotsford which are known for its conservative beliefs. In fact leader John Cummins is running in the Langley riding. Cummins himself is a former MP in the Canadian Parliament under the Reform Party and the national Conservative Party under the leadership of Harper. He resigned his seat in the Richmond-Delta national riding to pursue provincial Party leadership.
This could be the first chance in decades for the Conservative Party to make a name for itself in decades however it does face opposition of its own especially from BC residents that disagree with the Party agenda very vehemently. Like the Green Party, it too has had times where it has seen days of 10% approval or higher this past month. Also like the Green Party, it’s currently sitting below the 10% mark. There’s no question that it will have a higher percentage of votes than the 2.1% received in the last election. The question is not only what percentage of votes will it receive but also what will Tuesday’s results tell for the future of the Conservative Party?
LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Only the four parties I mentioned above have candidates running for more than half the MLA seats in the BC parliament. Actually only those four have candidates running in even as little as ten provincial ridings. The biggest Party with less than ten candidates in the running is the BC Libertarian Party. If you go to their website, you will see that the BC Libertarian agenda has a lot in common with the agenda of the American Libertarian Party. Libertarianism is still a definition that’s hard to define in terms of a political stance. Bill Maher, possibly the most famous Libertarian right now, defines a libertarian as a ‘pothead in a business suit.’ For the BC Libertarian Party, just go to their website.
The Libertarian Party of BC started in 1986 with three candidates and rose to 17 upon the 1996 provincial election. There would be no Libertarian candidates back in 2001 as Party president Paul Geddes ran for the BC marijuana Party. In the provincial elections since, the BC Libertarian Party has been putting efforts into reestablishing itself. In both previous provincial elections, the Party fielded six candidates and achieved just under 1500 votes both times.
This year the Party field eight candidates including one in my riding of New Westminster. This could be the Libertarian’s best election since 1996 when they had 17 candidates and won just over 2000 votes. However lacking a Party leader could cause some problems. Plus its lack of advertisement to the public could make a lot of people unaware of Libertarian candidates in their area. This election should give a picture of where things are going for the Party.
INDEPENDENT’S DAY?
Of all the candidates running, the most interesting should be the Independents: those that won’t be running for a Party or its agenda. Independents have always been unique candidates as it has always been a case of the politician promoting their agenda that’s often unique in comparison to most formed parties’ agendas. Last year one independent candidate–Vicki Huntington of Delta South– was elected MLA. Most interesting is that since the 2009 election, two NDP MLAs and one Liberal MLA have become independents themselves. Three of the four incumbent independent MLAs will be running in this election.
This election will see 35 independent candidates running for MLA seats in 31 ridings. Each one will have their own unique agenda and/or run for their own purposes. Many have run for some of the major parties in the past. And one, Kelowna-Mission’s Dayleen Van Ryswyk, was running for the NDP three weeks ago but had to resign from the Party because of past comments that appeared bigoted in nature. She started her campaign as an independent the next day but has recently hired a bodyguard for fear of threats.
Tuesday could give a surprising glimpse as the independents could win some seats and could provide an outlook on the political culture of BC.
And there you have it. A brief rundown of the candidates for the 40th British Columbia General Election. Sure, I could talk about all the other fifteen political parties but it would be too tedious. Remember there are 85 MLA seats in BC’s parliament and the winning Party is the one that wins 43 seats for a majority. You can click on the Wikipedia link–which also happens to be my Works Cited page– here to get all the info of who’s running and which parties. So on the 14th, will it be Premier Clark elected into office or will Adrian Dix be elected BC’s new premier? Stay tuned!
The line-up for The Ridge’s very last show went past the whole block of the minimall.
“Old theatres are irreplaceable. They could never be duplicated at today’s costs – but more importantly, their spirit could not be duplicated because they remind us of a day when going to the show was a more glorious and escapist experience. I think a town’s old theatres are the sanctuary of its dreams.”
– Roger Ebert, 1942-2013
On Sunday February 3, 2013, The Ridge Theatre in Vancouver showed its last movies. It was part of a ten-day film festival put on before its closure. For many, the closing of The Ridge was another downturn in Vancouver’s entertainment business. For others, it was the loss of what was simply a great charming building.
One of its charms was its art deco clamshells that framed the screen.
The Ridge Theatre first opened its doors in the Kitsilano Region of Vancouver on April 13, 1950 screening Henry V starring Sir Laurence Olivier. It was one of many single-screen theatres in Vancouver during a time when single-screen theatres were the norm. Even as the 1980’s approached with the advent of the VCR, video rentals and multiplextheatres, The Ridge still stuck around showing movies in its familiar theatre. It would even continue as an independent reparatory theatre starting in 1978 once bought by Leonard Schein. Schein would show independent and classic films to the public as well as movie fans. Owning and running The Ridge would even help Schein launch the locally-owned Festival Theatres chain which would help bring more independent and foreign cinema to Vancouver’s screens and found the Vancouver International Film Festival in 1982.
I myself saw my first film at The Ridge back in April of 2000. I remember it was Being John Malkovich. I remember seeing it with my cousin, who I’m not speaking with anymore, after eating at the Chinese restaurant in that strip mall. Since then, I would frequently go to The Ridge Theatre. I was always pleased with whatever movie I saw each time I went. It was a good small quaint theater in a nice neighborhood. When I first went, The Ridge Theatre was independently owned and had their movies planned at least two months in advance with a newspaper-like schedule. It was later possible to sign up for e-mail updates. Another thing I liked was the low-cost popcorn and a theatre that served coffee, cookies and brownies.
Another of its charms were the unique doors still stylish and unharmed by time.
Things changed December 24, 2005 when it was no longer under its original ownership. It had been rebought by Schein for Festival Cinemas. It was a hard break for the original owners who wanted to keep it an independent cinema. Nevertheless the new ownership actually did a lot to enhance play as Festival Cinemas had a reputation of promoting some of the more independent films. Even after The Ridge became a full-price theatre with contemporary seating installed, people still enjoyed coming. It’s almost as if it was never hurt in the first place. The Ridge would also become a facility for showing films part of the Vancouver Film Festival and show live soccer games during the World Cup and Euro events.
Then news was heard months ago. Possibly more than a year ago. The area around The Ridge Theatre had been sold to developers. They wanted to turn it into condominiums. A common Vancouver situation where old buildings get sold for the sake of being crushed and turned into condominiums. That just shows how competitive land and its value is here in Vancouver. Many people were unhappy about it. There was even a picket over it months ago. Nevertheless the decision was firm. Sales for the new condos started some time ago. Already other businesses in that minimall had already either closed up or found a new place to do business at. You can read about it more in this Georgia Straight article.
Oh yes. The soundproof crying room. How many other theatres do you know having that?
It was unfortunate for The Ridge to close as it was yet another theatre in Vancouver to close up. Many of you have read my story about the closure of The Hollywood Theatre. The Hollywood still stands but as a church. Other theatres that have closed in the past two years have not even had that minor bit of luck. The VanEast is now closed and is now being turned into business area. The multi-screen Denman Theatre which was great as a second-run theatre has been turned into store area. The three-screen Oakridge theater is now being converted into its new business area. The seven-screen Granville 7 closed in November to make way for a condo development. And another multi-screen venue, the Station Square cinema, has been closed because of a radical redevelopment project in the Station Square area. And now The Ridge. This is hard times for Vancouver’s cinemas right now. I’m sure this is also especially difficult for the Vancouver International Film Festival to find a new venue for 2013 and have it for many years to come.
Another charm of The Ridge: the wall painting. It’s a shame that will be gone with the theatre.
Moving ahead, February 28th would mark the end of Festival Cinemas, the movie company that organizes showings at The Ridge as well as the Park Theatre and the Fifth Avenue. I’m sure it was shocking for many. it was shocking for me too. The owners Schein and Tom Lightburn decided to retire. Fifth Avenue Cinemas and Park Theatre are now owned by Cineplex. Schein and Lightburn reassured people in the Festival Cinema’s last email to patrons that the theatres will still continue to show the films common to what was shown during the Festival Cinema years. As of today, The Fifth Avenue does show some independent films along with a blockbuster or two. It’s great to see since that’s what Fifth Avenue patrons like myself have always come to and want to continue coming to. If they went to doing nothing but blockbusters at those theaters, they could lose a lot of patrons. Good to see them being smart about taking over Fifth Avenue as they were taking over Tinseltown.
Another unique gem from The Ridge: the old movie projector displayed in the lobby.
Going back to The Ridge’s closing, The Ridge was to close on Sunday February 3, 2013, but not without a bang. The last ten days consisted of what would be called the Last Film Festival in showing some of the most beloved movies as of recent and some classic gems at $5 admission to salute The Ridge’s last days. Saturday January 26th was a highlight with the last midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show at the Theatre. I was there and it was a fun night with the Vancouver Rocky Horror fan club in attendance. Virgins were called up to participate in a fake orgasm contest. I believe there was a contest for costumes. The rest of the time was devoted to watching the movie and participating whenever necessary. Unfortunately there were three times when the old celluloid reel broke. Nevertheless it was a fun time.
One problem with the showings was that many were sold out. In fact there was to be a special showing of the 1985 made-in-BC Canadian film My American Cousin on Thursday the 31st in which I was hoping to see with my friend. It was both a screening and a Q&A with a special guest which had a $10 admission. It was sold out before I could get to the box office. It was obvious that if I wanted to see the very last showing at The Ridge–Midnight In Paris at 9:10pm– I would have to buy my ticket well in advance. I bought it that Thursday evening. Smart move.
When I arrived, it was 8:20. Already there was a long line-up. It was halfway down the block and growing quickly before they finally let the people in. I looked around at the buildings in that minimall. The bowling alley is still active but for how long? The Chinese Restaurant will close by the end of the year upon the owner’s retirement. All the other businesses in that mall have either closed or have moved to a new location. The only other businesses still active were the McDonalds and the office buildings on the outside facing 15th Ave. Just outside there were people who were too late to get tickets for the show and waiting to be the last lucky ones. Reminds me of me back on Thursday for wanting to see My American Cousin. I think all the Ridge shows sold out.
After I entered, I wanted to tour and take pictures. I was able to take pictures of the main floor before Midnight In Paris was to be shown. The top floor which had the crying room and the camera room was off-limits for that time. I even remember as I was taking pictures outside the main entrance before the show, a man talked about his first time at The Ridge in which it was a date with the woman who would become his wife. His wife was in attendance with him too that night.
As the show was about to start, the emcee didn’t talk much before Midnight In Paris was shown. It wasn’t like the long goodbye with speeches that happened over at the Hollywood Theatre. He kept it brief and he just simply welcomed us all to the last screening at The Ridge. Actually instead of a long goodbye, we were told of all the theatres that were to get certain ‘pieces’ of The Ridge. One film company was to get its display projector, another was to get the stained glass windows, another was to get the doors. Good to see that certain items of The Ridge will be kept for a long time. Midnight In Paris played after. So the image of Owen Wilson and Lea Seydoux walking off together on a Paris street makes history as the last image to grace the screen at The Ridge.
Seeing how 2013 meant the end of The Ridge, these three women wanted to put their foot down in 2012 with The Ridge still alive and thriving. Yeah, I too wished it was still 2012 that night.
As the credits were rolling, some left. More left as the credits finished but at least a hundred people wanted to stick around and get their last looks at The Ridge Theatre. I was taking pictures all over the place: the crumbly snack bar, the movie signs, the ads on the billboard, many things. I also took some photos of the inside of the theatre too and its nice set-up. Something you don’t see much of. Then I finally had my chance to check the top floor. Outside of the women’s restroom, there was a meeting room that had paper of old Ridge letterhead, a sound-proof crying room in the balcony and the projection room. The projection room was a marvel to see. It was nice to see the projector they were using. It was also nice to see the view of the screen from the projection area. I took more photos around the place.
Then finally I returned back to the theatre area. Half an hour and people still wanted to stick around. This was different than the Hollywood closing. The thing I remember most was there were three women from a writing group whom I met. They wanted pictures of them at the theatre. They also got me to take a picture of them showing they don’t want to leave 2012 when the theater was still alive and well. Yeah, I wished it was still 2012 too and The Ridge was still alive, well and thriving. Then after sticking around and taking some last photos, I finally left.
Just when you thought it was all over after I left The Ridge Sunday night, it wasn’t. The following night, I went to the Rio Theatre to see two movies and guess what I saw? Low and behold, I saw the doors of The Ridge theatre. I was happy to see that pieces of The Ridge were already being kept around. Yes, this did mean that the dismantling of The Ridge already started the day after but I was happy to see that the memory of The Ridge will be kept alive.
The closure of The Ridge was not the happiest of occasions. Yes, it was a not-so-pleasant display of the sign of the times. Nevertheless it was happy to see a theatre close surrounded by a lot of people who loved the theatre. For those that attended the last showings at The Ridge, The Ridge was a theatre that meant something to everyone. I know it meant a lot to me and I’m happy I had a chance not just to go to The Ridge Theatre but to experience it during the last thirteen years of its life. Goodbye Ridge Theatre. You’re gone but you still exist in the hearts of many.
Like my Chocolate Oscar? Find out who wins the real ones Sunday.
Yep, the Oscars will be decided this Sunday again. Seth McFarlane will host for the first time. A bit surprising to have the cartoonist of The Family Guy and director of Ted running the show but we’ll see if it’s sink or swim. Fist time hosting usually is. Just ask David Letterman, James Franco and Anne Hathaway.
Once again, I’ve seen all the Best Picture nominees. This makes it the twelfth year in a row in which I’ve done such. And I’m ready again to make my predictions for who Should Win and Will Win. Also all the Best Picture nominees as well as some of the other predictions will feature links to my full reviews of the movie. Anyways here I go:
BEST PICTURE:
For this, I will give a brief review of the nominees one by one. As I said earlier, if you click on the titles you’ll get my full reviews:
–Amour– I sensed Michael Haneke would one day be nominated for Best Director after seeing the White Ribbon. He does it with Amour and rightly so. It’s both haunting and intimate. Intense and delicate. Anyone who watches will not forget it or feel some connection to it. This is the first foreign-language film to be nominated for Best Picture since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. No foreign-language film has ever one Best Picture and I don’t think Amour will be the one to do it. This is the least hyped-up film in the Oscar race and to win awards, there has to be some marketing muscle to both the public and the Academy.
–Argo– This is a remarkable movie. This is one thriller of an event that happened 33 years ago and it succeeds in entertaining and thrilling the public. It’s also very smart too because it takes a good look at the political turmoil in Iran at that time. It also puts a face on the hostages who didn’t know what their fate would be. Its combination of comedy, thrills and honest human emotion is why I give Argo my Should Win pick. It does have very good chances of winning even without the Best Director nomination for Ben Affleck but I’ll let you know my Will Win pick later. I predict Argo to be the film most likely to upset my Will Win pick.
–Beasts Of The Southern Wild– This is this year’s little picture that could. It was a small low-budget movie shot more than three years ago that finally made its way into the cinemas first through the Sundance film festival and then the box office. It not only drew a decent-sized crowd but amazed everyone who saw it. Great first efforts from Benh Zeitlin in directing and writing and Quyvenzhane Wallis in acting. Despite its accomplishments, I don’t think it will win Best Picture since it’s up against a lot of other films that have a lot more: both in terms of production and in crowd grabbing. Yeah, that’s where the luck for the little film that could stops.
–Django Unchained– Is it just me or does Quentin Tarantino seem to be getting quite predictable these days? Not only that but I still stand by my original belief that he seems to be overobsessed with the theme of vengeance. It’s as if three stylized films about revenge isn’t enough. In all frankness, it lacks the dynamite of Pulp Fiction and it’s not as attention-grabbing and mesmerizing as Kill Bill nor does it pull unexpected surprises like Inglourious Basterds. It’s a great Tarantino film but not one of his more legendary. Plus Lincoln’s theme of doing justice to slavery made revenge on slavery look a bit like a joke. And Zero Dark Thirty made Kathryn Bigelow look like a more fearless director than Tarantino. Not this year, Quentin.
–Les Miserables– Without a doubt the musical of the year, if not the decade. The decade may be young but this would be too hard to top. Adapting a big-name Broadway musical to the big screen is a very difficult task and Tom Hooper did it. I personally felt that it should be amongst those most contending for Best Picture. Unfortunately that’s not the case. The bigger buzz is for Lincoln and Argo and possibly Life Of Pi. I don’t know about you but I sometimes feel musicals have been somewhat devalued by the Academy in this century. Sure Chicago won Best Picture but director Rob Marshall didn’t have a chance at winning Best Director. Also Dreamgirls wasn’t nominated for Best Picture, which I still feel it should have. And Moulin Rouge earned a Best Picture nod with director Baz Luhrmann snubbed out. And we see it here with Tom Hooper snubbed out. It’s one of the most deserving of the Best Picture win but I don’t think the Academy will do it.
–Life Of Pi– Leave it to Ang Lee to direct a masterpiece of a movie that touches us as much as it dazzles us. There were a lot of spellbound moments in this movie. Definitely the best special effects of the year. A lot of good acting including that from young actor Suraj Sharma. And definitely a lot of top direction from Ang Lee. Now some people are hinting that Ang Lee could win Best Director since Spielberg has already won two while Lee’s only one once. It could be possible. As for Best Picture, I don’t know if Life Of Pi has what it takes. Great movie but worthy of the Best Picture Oscar? I’m scratching my head right now.
–Lincoln– Okay I’ll probably be the first to admit that I’ve seen better from Spielberg. If you were to compile a list ranking all of Spielberg’s movies, I’m unsure if this would make the Top 5. You too probably know he’s directed more memorable movies. I will say of all of this year’s nominees, this is the one that had the best of the three key elements: acting, directing and writing. This had some of the best acting of the year, Spielberg delivered another excellent directing job and the writing was also excellent. The efforts in recreating the United States during 1865 were no easy feat either especially in terms of set design and costuming. Also like many of Spielberg’s movies in the past, this is a precise look at war during its time. It’s because of all this I pick it as my Will Win pick. Although I am anticipating a surprise from Argo.
–Silver Linings Playbook– Okay it’s not an epic recreation like Lincoln or an edge-of-your-seats drama like Argo. It is an excellent movie in terms of how they take a situation most people don’t want to deal with–mental illness– and turn it into a likeable romance. The best qualities had to be the acting. It needed excellent three-dimensional performances from all the main actors to make this work and it did. Very good direction from David O. Russell. It could be a Best Picture contender in any other year. Even I thought it was Best Picture worthy. Just this year there are at least three more movies with more Oscar boost.
–Zero Dark Thirty– Argo isn’t the only movie trying to win Best Picture without a Best Director nomination. So is Zero Dark Thirty. Kathryn Bigelow definitely delivered one of the best directing efforts of the year if not the best. Even I consider her the most fearless director in Hollywood. Even more fearless than Tarantino. However I feel this movie had its best chances of winning Best Picture if Bigelow had a Best Director nomination at the least. I feel because of that snub, its Best Picture chances have sunk. It could still win due to the acting of Jessica Chastain or the scriptwriting of Mark Boal. However I feel it would be a long shot.
BEST DIRECTOR:
-Should Win and Will Win: Steven Spielberg– Lincoln– This year has seen a lot of excellent directing efforts from many directors. So many the Academy appeared to have overlooked the efforts of Quentin Tarantino in Django Unchained, Kathryn Bigelow in Zero Dark Thirty and Ben Affleck in Argo. Affleck’s is the hardest because his directing in Argo has won him a Golden Globe, Director’s Guild and BAFTA awards. With Affleck, Bigelow and Tarantino snubbed out, there’s no real competition for Spielberg. It’s not to say that Lincoln was not that great of an effort. It still is an excellent effort but I’ve seen better from Spielberg. However the efforts of the other four nominees don’t compare. Ang Lee could win if the Academy doesn’t want to give Spielberg his third Oscar. Nevertheless it doesn’t look too likely.
BEST ACTOR:
-Should Win and Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis– Lincoln– Ten years ago, Day-Lewis was nominated for Best Actor for playing Bill ‘The Butcher’ Cutting in Gangs Of New York. Co-star Cameron Diaz said of Daniel: “Daniel Day-Lewis doesn’t just simply play the character. He becomes the character.” I guess that’s what makes Daniel Day-Lewis stand out from other actors. You just have to see his performances for yourself: Christy Brown in My Left Foot; Gerry Conlon in In The Name Of The Father; Bill ‘The Butcher’ Cutting; Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. And now Abraham Lincoln. You just have to see it for yourself. The closest thing to a rival to Day-Lewis is Bradley Cooper who could get it if the Academy doesn’t want to make Day-Lewis a three-time Best Actor winner but I doubt it.
BEST ACTRESS:
-Should Win: Jessica Chastain – Zero Dark Thirty– What can I say? You cannot take your eyes off of Maya. She keeps you intrigued in what will happen ext and how she’ll respond. She has a toughness about her despite her tender side being tested at times. Jessica really delivered a one-of-a-kind role that’s hard to match. -Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook– You can say whatever you want about Jennifer, that she’ll get it because she’s the ‘next big thing.’ Even though I want Jessica Chastain to win, Jennifer Lawrence is very deserving in her own right. I was very impressed in seeing her play a widower much older than her 22 year-old self. It was not just in her emotional acting but her physical acting too. If she wins, I will be content.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
-Should Win: Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master – Okay so I admit I’m one of those countless people that like Philip Seymour Hoffman. One thing I have to say is like Daniel Day-Lewis, he knows how to become the role. As the svengali-like religious leader, he not only possessed the controllingness of the leader but the charisma of one too. I’m sure he knew that such people of great power not only had to possess a controllingness of them but a winsome charisma too. And Hoffman did it. I sensed it right there in my theatre seat. -Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones – Lincoln– Daniel Day-Lewis may have owned Lincoln but Tommy Lee Jones had to be his biggest challenger in who could command one’s attention and who is best at portraying a historical character. His performance of Thaddeus Stevens could just rival Day-Lewis. There were some parts of Jones’ performance where it suggested right there to me that this could just win the Oscar. And that was even before the first awards of this season were given out.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
-Should Win and Will Win: Anne Hathaway– Les Miserables– Some of you may think Anne may get the Oscar because of her fame but that’s just jumping the gun. I saw Les Miz. Right there during that scene where she sang I Dreamed A Dream, I just sat there amazed. I sensed right there that she would win the Oscar. Those of you who saw that scene will know what I’m talking about. The closest rivalry I see for her is Sally Field as Mary Lincoln but it’s Anne Hathaway all the way.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
-Should Win and Will Win: Mark Boal– Zero Dark Thirty– So Bigelow didn’t get nominated for Best Director. The next big force of the movie has to be her right-hand man Mark Boal. His scriptwriting has a lot to do with Bigelow’s standout directing efforts. It took a smart fearless script about piecing the puzzle together and the woman behind it. That’s why I give Mark my pick for the Best Original Screenplay for this year.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
-Should Win & Will Win: Chris Terrio– Argo– This was a year where the Adapted Screenplays had an edge over the original ones. Argo’s script had to be the best. It was a script that had to be as smart and well thought-out as it was suspenseful if it wanted to deliver such a story. It was a smart maze of a story without getting too overly confusing. It had its touching moments without getting overly sentimental. That’s why I predict the Argo script to do it. Also a win for the script could boost Argo’s Best Picture chances with Ben Affleck missing his Best Director nomination. We’ll just see.
Just One More:
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:
-Should Win and Will Win:Wreck-It Ralph – It’s interesting to see how there are three different contenders for the Oscar since it’s had a habit of being one Disney/Pixar film and every other film. This year’ Disney/Pixar pick Brave has a pair of rivals–Frankenweenie and Wreck-It Ralph— and they were also done by Disney associated companies so this should be a win-win for Disney this year. I give it to Ralph because it was the most create and the most entertaining. Also the images in itself were top notch quality too.
Here are some of my predictions for the other categories. In these, I will only predict who I think Will Win:
BEST ART DIRECTION:
Sarah Greenwood – Anna Karenina BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Claudio Miranda – The Life Of Pi BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
Jacqueline Durran – Anna Karenina BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: Searching For Sugar Man BEST FILM EDITING:
William Goldenberg – Argo BEST FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM: Amour – Austria BEST MAKEUP: The Hobbit BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:
Mychael Danna – Life Of Pi BEST ORIGINAL SONG:
“Skyfall” – Skyfall BEST SOUND MIXING: Les Miserables BEST SOUND EDITING: Life Of Pi BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: Life Of Pi BEST ANIMATED SHORT and BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT: Click Here BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT: Open Heart
Interesting looking over all the categories. Amour is the first foreign language film to be nominated for Best Picture in 12 years. There were only four acting nominees being nominated for the first time: the lowest since probably the early 30’s. Usually the supporting acting categories are the most newbie-friendly. Not a single newbie in the supporting acting categories this year and seven of them have already won an Oscar. The Best Actress category had new age records set this very year for both the oldest nominee ever (Riva) and the youngest nominee ever (Wallis). Silver Linings Playbook is only the fourteenth movie in history to earn Oscar nominations in all four acting categories. Interesting how the year after Martin Scorsese makes a family film, Ang Lee makes a family-friendly fantasia that also gets nominated for Best Picture. The Best Original Score nomination of Lincoln extends the record of nominations for movie composer John Williams to fifty-eight. The Best Original Song category had five nominees for the first time in three years.
As for snub-outs, hard to believe The Hunger Games and The Dark Knight Rises weren’t nominated for anything, not even for visual effects. The Dark Knight Rises is now the highest-grossing picture to never receive an Oscar nomination. And with the final Twilight movie being nominated for nothing, the Twilight series becomes the highest-grossing movie series or franchise to never receive a single Oscar nomination. And to think last year you were surprised when Harry Potter became the highest-grossing series or franchise to never win an Oscar out of its twelve nominations. Actually should we be surprised about Twilight’s consistent snub-out? All it was about was hot guys anyways.
And there you have it. My predictions for Sunday’s Oscars. Winners to be decided there and then. Let’s hope the wins go to the right movies. Also let’s see if Seth can make the show entertaining without crossing the line.
Interesting how these past few years, they’ve released the short films nominated for an Academy Award as reels at the box office. They’ve since drawn good-sized crowds as they’ve been doing it again ever since. This marks the fifth year in a row I’ve seen them and this year’s crop of nominees are both entertaining to watch and interesting to see the visions of either the director or the animators. Here’s my rundown of this year’s nominated short films:
BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM:
–Adam And Dog – dir. Minkyu Lee- Unique story how a dog became man’s best friend as Adam meets the dog before Eve. It seems charmingly cartoonish at first and gives the viewer a feel. Soon it becomes more cartoonish both in drawing and in the characters of the two. Also the plot before the ending becomes a bit awkward. Nevertheless it did end well. Overall I felt something was missing in it and I don’t think it will win.
–Fresh Guacamole – dir. PES-What can an animated film accomplish in two minutes? This film does a lot as it goes from cutting items for guacamole into turning it into gambling goodies and toy bits. It’s both entertaining and charming. It doesn’t even have to tell a story to entertain. Its ability to charm and entertain in its two minutes is why this is my Should Win pick. Great job!
–Head Over Heels – dir. Timothy Reckart- Walter and Madge are an unhappily-married couple. They live in the same house but she lives right side up while he lives upside down as the house floats in the sky. It’s a shame since they used to dance ballet together. One day Walter tries to solve things by repairing Madge’s ballet shoes. However something goes wrong between him and Madge and the separateness grows. Its use of its form of 3D ‘puppetry’ adds to the unique charm of the story but its ability to convey human emotions much like flesh and blood people is its biggest quality that makes it shine and why this is my Will Win pick.
–Maggie Simpson: The Longest Daycare – dir. David Silverman- Maggie Simpson is the star of this funny short where no dialogue is needed. If you’ve seen Ice Age 3 in the theatres, then you’ve seen this short already. Maggie is left at the Ayn Rand School For Tots. And when there’s a daycare run in the spirit of Ayn Rand, you know trouble will abound. This Simpson’s short without dialogue succeeds in entertaining while remaining true to the flavor of the Simpsons show. And you finally find out why Maggie always had animosity to the baby with the unibrow. I always had a feeling he was diabolical!
–Paperman – dir. John Kahrs- If you’ve seen Wreck-It Ralph in the theatres, then you’ve seen this short already. Done in black and white with the only color being the woman’s red lipstick. It’s a charming boy meets girl story where they meet on a subway platform and boy attempts to meet girl again by making paper planes out of his inbox papers. Eventually the paper planes become his destiny as they send the message the two were meant to be. Another charming short from the Disney studios.
One thing to say about all five of the films is that you’ll notice all are done without dialogue. I find it unique that all five nominees possess that quality. Shows how volumes can be spoken without uttering a word. Pixar’s been showing that for years in the shorts they’d shown before their features. Another thing is that it’s something that none of the nominated shorts were done in 3D computer graphics. That’s a bit of a surprise for me considering it’s now all the rage for feature-length animation.
BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM
–Asad – dirs. Bryan Buckley & Mino Jarjoura- Normally you would not expect a story of Somalian children being caught in the war to be a comedy but this is and it succeeds well. It does show a lot of the nastiness of war with the temptation of young children to become pirates but it has an ironically humorous ending that makes it a delight. Normally a story about a child being caught in an African civil war doesn’t sound like comic material at all but this film does an excellent job in making a comedy out of it without crossing the line. Also this film could be seen as a ray of hope for Somalia as most of the actors are in fact Somali refugees living in South Africa.
–Buzkashi Boys – dirs. Sam French & Ariel Nasr- This is a story of two poor boys in Kabul, Afghanistan. One, Rafi, is the son of a blacksmith whose father expects him to carry on the family tradition. The other, Ahmad, is a young fatherless street urchin who begs on the streets. One day Rafi’s father allows him to see a game of Buzkashi with Ahmad. Ahmad tells Rafi his dreams of being a Buzkashi star and isn’t afraid to shout out his dream from a demolished castle while Rafi is skeptical for his future. One incident changes everything that changes how Rafi thinks and dreams. This story is the one of the five that most stayed with me. It was very well-played out and gets you thinking. That’s why I declare this to be my Should Win pick.
–Curfew – dir. Shawn Christensen- This is a dark story that features some humor. The girl is a scene stealer even thought the man is the main protagonist. Often you’d wonder why a sister would let her suicidal brother babysit her daughter but it turns out to be the best thing for both of them in the end. It’s dark humor is what gives it its edge. Definitely the most original of the five.
–Death Of A Shadow – dirs. Tom van Avermaet & Ellen De Waele- This is a haunting story of Nathan, a death photographer who photographs deaths and transfers the shadows onto his master’s wall for his artistic entertainment. We later learn that Nathan died in World War I and the master will give him his life back upon 10,000 photographs. He wants to return to life to return to the love he believes he could’ve had if he wasn’t killed by soldiers. It’s the 10,000th photograph and the aftermath that changes everything including his perspective. Very dark and haunting. Very well-directed and well produced. That’s why I give it my Will Win pick.
–Henry – dir. Yan England- This is a story of an elderly man with Alzeimer’s trying to remember and reclaim the past for his memory. It starts in a bizarre situation. He’s strapped to his hospital bed and can’t remember his wife Maria or daughter Nathalie. His recollection progresses through the help of his daughter, his twentysomething self and the classical music he played with his loved ones. It’s through both of them and the music that he’s able to go back in time to remember the two for their sake and for his. It’s haunting as it is touching. It is a sad story but it does lead to an ending that’s somewhat positive. Very good and very intimate as it’s honest in human feelings.
This is the difficulty of predicting a short film. The winner could be a story that makes you think like recent past winners Toyland or The Shore. Or it could be something humorous like past winners The New Tenants or God Of Love. There’s no telling what will impress the Academy.
And there you have it. My thoughts and predictions for the short films. Predicting short films in never easy. Any five can be the winner. There’s no clear favorite. Nevertheless it’s always great to see that he audience again has a chance to see them on the big screen. Also those interested in seeing some new directing talent or animating talent, here’s your chance.
Meet Sixto Rodriguez, the music legend you never heard before, in
Searching For Sugar Man.
When you think of singing icons, which male icons come to mind? Elvis? Bob Dylan? How about Rodriguez? Yeah, I know you’ll be asking ‘Who Rodriguez?’ Searching for Sugar Man solves the mystery for us of who Rodriguez is while the documentary plays out the fan’s mystery of what happened to him.
Sixto Rodriguez was a Detroit rock/folk singer from the early 70’s who wrote songs of what he saw and felt. His songs were a mix of folk and blues and he was already being touted as the next Bob Dylan by Sussex records: the record company that discovered him. He recorded two albums under Sussex but neither sold. Rodriguez was dropped in 1972. Yet another could’ve been that didn’t. That’s that, or so it seemed.
South Africa had a different story. People had bought both of Rodriguez’s albums and it caught on. The fact that his album was banned in South Africa at a time where censorship was heavy increased the stigma of the album and bootleg versions came about into the hands of many more South Africans. There was even talk of his alleged onstage suicide in 1973 that increased the stigma of Rodriguez that made him a bigger phenomenon than Elvis. The problem was that there was not only a lot of censorship within South Africa at the time but a lot of censoring of media of what came out of South Africa. Nobody outside South Africa knew of Rodriguez’s phenomenon there. Not even Sussex Records, which folded in 1976.
Then came the time to put Rodriguez’s music on compact discs in the 1990’s. This was done with the aid of record-store owner Stephen Segerman, who’s nicknamed ‘Sugar Man’ after one of Rodriguez’s songs, and journalist Craig Bartholomew-Strydom who had to write the liner notes to the disc. They try through pictures and through lyrics to get information to no avail. Instead Strydom wrote in the liner notes asking out for knowledge. That’s what triggered the determination to find out what happened to Rodriguez and learn more about his life. Boy were they in for a surprise. They post an ad on the internet asking for knowledge. They get more than knowledge from people that know him: they learn he could be alive.
Then came the call from the man himself to Segerman. Rodriguez is alive and working as a construction worker/demolition remover in Detroit. He has been married twice and has three daughters and a grandchild. He taught his children never to feel like second-class citizens despite coming from a working class family. He even ran unsuccessfully for civic office in 1989. They’re excited but they know that all of South Africa need to know what happened to him and Rodriguez needs to know of his fame. Then he finally agrees to do concerts in South Africa in February 1998 featuring a popular South African band as his backup musicians. It’s at that moment during the very first concert that Rodriguez finally learns of his greatness and South Africans finally meet their beloved musician. After the tour, it was a return for the Rodriguez family to their regular lives and Sixto back to his construction work. Only now his co-workers know more about his fame half a world away.
One thing I liked best about the documentary is that it keeps secret the fact that Rodriguez is still alive from the audience until we hear of Segerman’s phone call from Rodriguez right in the middle. Unless you have your wireless device with you at the film–and I hope you have enough manners not to use one in the theatre while the film’s running– you too will probably think that Rodriguez is deceased because you most likely wouldn’t have known who he is either. The film did a smart move in revealing Rodriguez is alive and showing us the real life Rodriguez in the middle of the film. It makes the South Africans’ mystery of the past our mystery too.
Another good quality of the documentary is that it does remind you about the music industry. It’s cruel but it still decided the winners and losers whether we like it or not. We often think that the late-60’s early-70’s was the time most accepting of new sounds, most consisting or game-changers in the music scene and less pressure to conform to looks or less need for mass promotion. Rodriguez’s lack of success reminds you that even back then, promotion and typical music business procedures were necessary to even make a legend out of Rodriguez. He could have been the ‘Dylan Of Detroit’ that people described him as but his success never happened at home. And this was at a time before independent record labels or alternative radio or even before unsigned musicians could create and produce their own music and have it on iTunes and Youtube. Was the grass really greener back then?
Another good addition in the documentary is the use of animation, pictures and Sixto’s music. The animation shows the images of the Detroit Rodriguez knew and wrote about. The pictures of Rodriguez during the 70’s give a good example of his personality. His music shows the darkness of the life he was living and the life he saw through his eyes. The combination of it makes this out to be something more than a simple music documentary. The people interviews for the documentary also added to it. It’s not just the two South Africans, Sixto and his family but record personnel who worked with Sixto, a South African band who idolized him and would become his back-up band during his 1998 South African tour, and even co-workers of his construction job.
The documentary is not just about Sixto and the fame he never knew he had but also of South Africa and why they fell in love with his music. We should remember up until 1990, South Africa was a country under the strict rule of apartheid: the separation of races. Life was hell for non-whites but life was difficult for many whites too, especially the ones who opposed apartheid. News was censored. Entertainment was limited. And speech against apartheid even from white people was a crime punishable by 3 years in prison. You think the hippies of the late 60’s early-70’s had their things to rebel against? It was nothing compared to what the young South Africans of the time had to deal with. You could understand why censored music would attract them: because they were that disgusted with their government. They even go into South Africa’s national archives of censored music, take out one of Rodriguez’s albums that was to be the nation’s official master copy and show the scratch marks of one of his songs. Scratching out songs on albums was the censorship technique used by the South African government.
The movie does not end on a completely happy note. We still learn that people other than Rodriguez are making money off of his records. We learn that Rodriguez has toured South Africa at least three more times and he has given all of his tour money to family members. He still lives in the same Detroit house he’s lived for forty years and never complained about the fame in the US he never had. In fact he’s even happy with his construction work as he says it helps keep him in good physical condition. Shows that Rodriguez is not just quite a musician but quite a person.
Has my review stimulated interest in you to actually hear Rodriguez’s music? Guess what? The documentary has succeeded in stimulating interest in Rodriguez to the point that the soundtrack of the documentary has sold. This has also led to recent reissuing of his two albums in many countries including the US and even appearances on 60 Minutes and Letterman. Guess what? For the first time his music is charting in the US! In fact this very week, Cold Fact is #78 and the Searching For Sugar Man soundtrack is #100 on the Billboard Album chart. Yeah, it’s a shame that he had to wait 40 years for success of any kind here but better late than never.
Searching For Sugar Man is an intriguing documentary that leaves the audient engaged in Rodriguez’s music as well as the mystery the South Africans try to solve on him. In a world full of documentaries that mostly one-sided liberal propaganda being shoved down your throat, this is a welcome relief too. I went to see it because it’s heavily favored to win the Oscar for Best Documentary. Boy did I get more than my money’s worth.
Note: If you want to learn more about Rodriguez, here’s his official website: http://www.rodriguez-music.com/ You can even give your email for upcoming news and tour dates. Now if only he can come to Canada!
Jon The Blogcentric 