And now, since it's a very slow day and I'm bored out of my wits, I present some toys of my childhood:
Crossbows and Catapults, Tabletop Popeye, Milton Bradley's Mystery Mansion, The Radio Shack Armatron and The Death Star Playset.
And a few from college:
The Illuminati Card Game and The Talisman Adventure Game
Enjoy!
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Review: "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" (1990)
I respect Roger Ebert and his reviews. His pure love of cinema is something that really shows in his writing. Also, he can easily straddle the line between popular commentary and deeper analysis when it comes to viewing the latest feature. Yet, as with any reviewer, there are times when I disagree with him. Then there are times when I really disagree with him as on an occasion when I looked through his archived "zero star" reviews and came upon the following title.
The film "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is based on a play of the same name by Tom Stoppard, who also co-wrote "Shakespeare in Love". This story also involves Shakespeare, namely the two characters of the title (played by Tim Roth and Gary Oldman) who happen to play a minor role in Shakespeare's play "Hamlet". Like two characters being written on the page for the first time, we see them emerge out of nothing with no memory of their past and only a vague inkling of their purpose. They're not even sure which one of them is Rosencrantz and which is Guildenstern. They are quickly met by a band of traveling actors who is lead by a man known simply as the Player (Richard Dreyfuss). Unlike our two main characters, the Player knows exactly who they all are and what is going on. He expedites our two characters into the play and acts as a mysterious guide to them as they try to find their way.
The play is a very existential work that plays with the character's reality. They soon realize something is amiss when they flip a coin 157 times and it comes down heads every time. When they arrive at the castle, they are drawn into scenes with the other characters. When they are not needed in a scene, they watch the action from afar and comment to each other about it. Then there are occasions when they leave the action entirely in order to spend some time analyzing their situation. With all respect to Samuel Beckett, It could have been called "Waiting for Hamlet".
The script is very clever and funny. It's full of the kind of verbal wordplay that resembles fencing by two skilled masters, and it often comes fast and furious. There is a scene where they come upon a tennis court and one asks the other if they want to play "Questions". As we soon discover, this is a game where two people conduct an entire conversation by only asking different questions (Whether it was inspired by this or not, the same game was adopted by the British and then American game show "Who's Line is it Anyway?"). Sometimes the dialogue is too fast and its all the audience can do to keep up, so be sure to keep your rewind button handy.
On one level, the film is enjoyable for its showcasing of two actors right before they became much larger stars in Hollywood. Oldman, though he made a big impression with "Sid and Nancy" four years before this, would make the more popular "JFK" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in the years immediately following. Oldman has shown such an incredible knack at playing villains that he's been typecast for most of his career. Despite his talent for it, I yearn to see him do lighter roles. His role in this film gives audiences a glimpse of what he's capable of. For example, a running joke in the film is how he keeps "discovering" scientific principles, only for the demonstrations to fall apart when he tries to show his partner, are simple yet hilarious slapstick.
Tim Roth was confined to small British films until two years after this one when he was tapped by Quentin Tarantino to play the pivotal Mr. Orange in "Reservoir Dogs". He has since followed up on this with roles in films great ("Rob Roy") and not so great ("Planet of the Apes"). I've been a fan of his since I unknowingly rented his first film years ago, a hitman drama called "The Hit" with Terence Stamp and John Hurt. Maybe, since Oldman has gotten himself some mainstream attention as Sirius Black in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", Roth can snatch up another Rowling role in a future installment. Perhaps we could even see the two of them on screen again, if but briefly. I, for one, would pay to see that chemistry again.
Surprisingly, all of the metaphysical stuff is not what soured Ebert on the film. Indeed, he thinks the script is brilliant. His gripe, rather, is that the translation of the play from stage to screen is an utter washout. I have never seen the stage play, so I cannot comment on this. However, I think I can see where he's coming from. There is a certain energy in a stage performance when all there is are the actors and the audience. Even if the actors are not speaking directly to the audience, there is still active communication there. In the film, that energy is zapped. Instead of a stage, we see two actor wander aimlessly through a gigantic and mostly empty castle. As Ebert observed in his review, this can make the minutes really drag in certain spots.
Still, I cannot agree with such a complete dismissal when, even in this filmed form, the script alone deserves a listen. I've tried in my reviews to point out specific audiences that certainly films should be viewed by. Any fan of Shakespeare, and anyone who knows "Hamlet" pretty well, should seek out this film. All others, well, may want to check out "Shakespeare in Love" for some Stoppard that is more accessible and better paced.
Seven out of Ten
The film "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is based on a play of the same name by Tom Stoppard, who also co-wrote "Shakespeare in Love". This story also involves Shakespeare, namely the two characters of the title (played by Tim Roth and Gary Oldman) who happen to play a minor role in Shakespeare's play "Hamlet". Like two characters being written on the page for the first time, we see them emerge out of nothing with no memory of their past and only a vague inkling of their purpose. They're not even sure which one of them is Rosencrantz and which is Guildenstern. They are quickly met by a band of traveling actors who is lead by a man known simply as the Player (Richard Dreyfuss). Unlike our two main characters, the Player knows exactly who they all are and what is going on. He expedites our two characters into the play and acts as a mysterious guide to them as they try to find their way.
The play is a very existential work that plays with the character's reality. They soon realize something is amiss when they flip a coin 157 times and it comes down heads every time. When they arrive at the castle, they are drawn into scenes with the other characters. When they are not needed in a scene, they watch the action from afar and comment to each other about it. Then there are occasions when they leave the action entirely in order to spend some time analyzing their situation. With all respect to Samuel Beckett, It could have been called "Waiting for Hamlet".
The script is very clever and funny. It's full of the kind of verbal wordplay that resembles fencing by two skilled masters, and it often comes fast and furious. There is a scene where they come upon a tennis court and one asks the other if they want to play "Questions". As we soon discover, this is a game where two people conduct an entire conversation by only asking different questions (Whether it was inspired by this or not, the same game was adopted by the British and then American game show "Who's Line is it Anyway?"). Sometimes the dialogue is too fast and its all the audience can do to keep up, so be sure to keep your rewind button handy.
On one level, the film is enjoyable for its showcasing of two actors right before they became much larger stars in Hollywood. Oldman, though he made a big impression with "Sid and Nancy" four years before this, would make the more popular "JFK" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in the years immediately following. Oldman has shown such an incredible knack at playing villains that he's been typecast for most of his career. Despite his talent for it, I yearn to see him do lighter roles. His role in this film gives audiences a glimpse of what he's capable of. For example, a running joke in the film is how he keeps "discovering" scientific principles, only for the demonstrations to fall apart when he tries to show his partner, are simple yet hilarious slapstick.
Tim Roth was confined to small British films until two years after this one when he was tapped by Quentin Tarantino to play the pivotal Mr. Orange in "Reservoir Dogs". He has since followed up on this with roles in films great ("Rob Roy") and not so great ("Planet of the Apes"). I've been a fan of his since I unknowingly rented his first film years ago, a hitman drama called "The Hit" with Terence Stamp and John Hurt. Maybe, since Oldman has gotten himself some mainstream attention as Sirius Black in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", Roth can snatch up another Rowling role in a future installment. Perhaps we could even see the two of them on screen again, if but briefly. I, for one, would pay to see that chemistry again.
Surprisingly, all of the metaphysical stuff is not what soured Ebert on the film. Indeed, he thinks the script is brilliant. His gripe, rather, is that the translation of the play from stage to screen is an utter washout. I have never seen the stage play, so I cannot comment on this. However, I think I can see where he's coming from. There is a certain energy in a stage performance when all there is are the actors and the audience. Even if the actors are not speaking directly to the audience, there is still active communication there. In the film, that energy is zapped. Instead of a stage, we see two actor wander aimlessly through a gigantic and mostly empty castle. As Ebert observed in his review, this can make the minutes really drag in certain spots.
Still, I cannot agree with such a complete dismissal when, even in this filmed form, the script alone deserves a listen. I've tried in my reviews to point out specific audiences that certainly films should be viewed by. Any fan of Shakespeare, and anyone who knows "Hamlet" pretty well, should seek out this film. All others, well, may want to check out "Shakespeare in Love" for some Stoppard that is more accessible and better paced.
Seven out of Ten
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Skippy of the Day: Paul Bremer
Paul Bremer, who served as Presidential Envoy to Iraq for President Bush, created quite a stir recently with comments stating that our troops in Iraq were not sufficient. The following is a paragraph from the article:
For those of us who watched more than just FOX News in the days following the invasion, we knew that things were going poorly in the aftermath. How poorly? The Baghdad Library was looted and burned, including artifacts and manuscripts that were thousands of years old (a vast collection that Donald Rumsfeld belittled while flippantly referring to the looting with "Stuff Happens"). Many government offices were looted and destroyed, save for the Oil Ministry, while American troops stood ill equipped to deal with it. And, most incredible of all, after our proud claim that this was to prevent Saddam from supplying terrorists with WMD, we allowed nuclear energy facilities we knew existed to go unguarded for weeks after the invasion. When we finally got around to sending troops to guard them, we found them to be looted of dangerous documents and materials. Brilliant.
We once thumped our chest and barked at France, Germany, etc. that "we don't need your stinking support". This attitude sounds now the same as it did then: immature, unrealistic and dangerous. Now, with a coalition of the willing shrinking and fatalities rising, we need all the help we can get. This is the reason we should have built the coalition first, and this is also the reason why Dubya's "go it alone" attitudes to foreign policy is likely to get this country into even deeper trouble if he get's a second term.
Kerry and the Democrats are currently touting their claim that Bush would reinstate the draft if re-elected. I once thought that, although this was a good scare tactic, it wasn't likely. Now I'm not so sure. Despite all that has happened in Iraq, there will come a time when we will really need those troops to fight terrorists. As it now stands, they'll be too busy dodging RPG's in downtown Baghdad to be of any help.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Paul Bremer said in a speech reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday. "We never had enough troops on the ground."No doubt that this important Bush appointee will now be slandered by The White House because of his comments, as was Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil before him. I could say that it took guts for him to finally admit to mistakes, but it strikes me as "too little, too late" when he could have pressed his case back when it could have done some good (instead of announcing it now to cover his ass). And as with anybody else in this administration that have made comments about things going poorly in Iraq, Bremer was quick to add the standard "We're better off without Saddam" postscript, as if that can excuse gross incompetence.
For those of us who watched more than just FOX News in the days following the invasion, we knew that things were going poorly in the aftermath. How poorly? The Baghdad Library was looted and burned, including artifacts and manuscripts that were thousands of years old (a vast collection that Donald Rumsfeld belittled while flippantly referring to the looting with "Stuff Happens"). Many government offices were looted and destroyed, save for the Oil Ministry, while American troops stood ill equipped to deal with it. And, most incredible of all, after our proud claim that this was to prevent Saddam from supplying terrorists with WMD, we allowed nuclear energy facilities we knew existed to go unguarded for weeks after the invasion. When we finally got around to sending troops to guard them, we found them to be looted of dangerous documents and materials. Brilliant.
We once thumped our chest and barked at France, Germany, etc. that "we don't need your stinking support". This attitude sounds now the same as it did then: immature, unrealistic and dangerous. Now, with a coalition of the willing shrinking and fatalities rising, we need all the help we can get. This is the reason we should have built the coalition first, and this is also the reason why Dubya's "go it alone" attitudes to foreign policy is likely to get this country into even deeper trouble if he get's a second term.
Kerry and the Democrats are currently touting their claim that Bush would reinstate the draft if re-elected. I once thought that, although this was a good scare tactic, it wasn't likely. Now I'm not so sure. Despite all that has happened in Iraq, there will come a time when we will really need those troops to fight terrorists. As it now stands, they'll be too busy dodging RPG's in downtown Baghdad to be of any help.
Review: "Collateral" (2004)
Cities at night have a whole other vibe to them. If you're like me and live in the suburb-strong city of Jacksonville, then you have a downtown that completely shuts down when the sun goes down. I've only briefly tasted the vitality of cities that never sleep, most notably on trips to Toronto and London. That vibe is like nothing else, and there are only a few films that can really capture it.
"Collateral" is set during one long night in Los Angeles. Max (Jamie Foxx) is a cab driver who also happens to be a nice, thoughtful guy with dreams of owning his own limo company. His big fare on this particular night is Vincent (Tom Cruise), a stylish businessman who offers him $600 to use him and his cab for the whole night. Reluctantly, Max agrees. He soon finds out, however, that Vincent is actually a contract killer. As Vincent forces Max to drive him to the five hits he has to make that night, they both get under each other's skin and encounter a lot of trouble.
Director Michael Mann understands Los Angeles, as has been proven in his previous films "L.A. Takedown" and "Heat". In "Heat", he shot scenes at all times of day and in 65 different locations around town without one soundstage. Yet it was those scenes at night, with DeNiro and Pacino driving the streets and meeting at coffee shops that had that special feel to it: The megalopolis in repose, but never completely motionless. This new film differs from "Heat" with the advent of digital photography for most of the scenes shot. This process, in addition to natural lighting, gives a you-are-there look to the film that captures well the two characters in the confined space of a taxicab.
(Sidenote - There are two other major touches that recall "Heat": Cruise looks and dresses like the unemotional criminals that worked with DeNiro's character, yet he shares his first name with the cop played by Pacino.)
Although there's a subplot involving cops following the trail of corpses left behind by Vincent, it doesn't amount to much. In terms of actors, this is all Tom and Jamie's show. Cruise effectively plays the bad guy here and does a nice alteration to his standard "look", though the salt-and-pepper hair works much better on him than the beard stubble. He still can't shake that cockiness quality to his characters, though it is of a different shade here. Suffice to say, anyone coming into this looking for your typical Cruise character will be disappointed.
Fox, meanwhile, is as revelatory as critics said he was when this was released. He's required to run through many more emotions than his stoic counterpart as the tension rises between the two men. This makes his first starring dramatic turn all the more impressive looking. Before seeing this, I was already jazzed to see him in the Ray Charles biopic later this year. Having now seen him as Max, I'll probably see "Ray" on the first weekend (which is a rarity for me).
The ending was my biggest gripe: Too many coincidences and implausibilities for it to be halfway believable. The story, though, holds up overall and fits in well with the atmosphere conjured by Mann. "Collateral" is an experience that will leave after images on your brain for days and weeks after you have left the theater; images of the neon-lit streets of L.A.
Eight out of Ten
"Collateral" is set during one long night in Los Angeles. Max (Jamie Foxx) is a cab driver who also happens to be a nice, thoughtful guy with dreams of owning his own limo company. His big fare on this particular night is Vincent (Tom Cruise), a stylish businessman who offers him $600 to use him and his cab for the whole night. Reluctantly, Max agrees. He soon finds out, however, that Vincent is actually a contract killer. As Vincent forces Max to drive him to the five hits he has to make that night, they both get under each other's skin and encounter a lot of trouble.
Director Michael Mann understands Los Angeles, as has been proven in his previous films "L.A. Takedown" and "Heat". In "Heat", he shot scenes at all times of day and in 65 different locations around town without one soundstage. Yet it was those scenes at night, with DeNiro and Pacino driving the streets and meeting at coffee shops that had that special feel to it: The megalopolis in repose, but never completely motionless. This new film differs from "Heat" with the advent of digital photography for most of the scenes shot. This process, in addition to natural lighting, gives a you-are-there look to the film that captures well the two characters in the confined space of a taxicab.
(Sidenote - There are two other major touches that recall "Heat": Cruise looks and dresses like the unemotional criminals that worked with DeNiro's character, yet he shares his first name with the cop played by Pacino.)
Although there's a subplot involving cops following the trail of corpses left behind by Vincent, it doesn't amount to much. In terms of actors, this is all Tom and Jamie's show. Cruise effectively plays the bad guy here and does a nice alteration to his standard "look", though the salt-and-pepper hair works much better on him than the beard stubble. He still can't shake that cockiness quality to his characters, though it is of a different shade here. Suffice to say, anyone coming into this looking for your typical Cruise character will be disappointed.
Fox, meanwhile, is as revelatory as critics said he was when this was released. He's required to run through many more emotions than his stoic counterpart as the tension rises between the two men. This makes his first starring dramatic turn all the more impressive looking. Before seeing this, I was already jazzed to see him in the Ray Charles biopic later this year. Having now seen him as Max, I'll probably see "Ray" on the first weekend (which is a rarity for me).
The ending was my biggest gripe: Too many coincidences and implausibilities for it to be halfway believable. The story, though, holds up overall and fits in well with the atmosphere conjured by Mann. "Collateral" is an experience that will leave after images on your brain for days and weeks after you have left the theater; images of the neon-lit streets of L.A.
Eight out of Ten
Monday, October 04, 2004
Chicken Caesar Review: Outback Steakhouse
Outback Steakhouse is the very popular chain of restaurants which has an Australian theme. Their Brisbane Caesar Salad is a larger version of the their side salad and includes romaine lettuce, Caesar dressing, shredded Romano cheese and seasoned croutons. You have the option of adding grilled chicken to your salad in two different sizes: The regular grilled seasoned chicken breast addition totals $9.29 and the "Aussie-sized" chicken breast addition totals $10.29. For the heck of it, I chose the larger for this review.
As I said before, the breast itself is an addition to the salad and not integrated into the tossing. Instead, the whole breast is placed on top of the salad. The larger size that I requested was indeed quite big, and was very tasty as well. I actually asked the waitress about the breast not being cut up, and she responded that they would happily do that for you if you request it, so take note. The salad itself was well chopped and tossed with a very tangy Caesar dressing that dominated with the strong taste of the Romano cheese. The croutons were buttery, crisp and melt-in-your-mouth delicious. They are, in fact, very similar to the croutons used at The Loop restaurants, whom I have previously reviewed.
Most people would probably react to the Outback salad along the lines of, "For 10 bucks, it darn well better be good". Well, I'm happy to report that it is a fabulous salad. Again, it's a bit pricey, but so are a lot of other items on their menu. So the next time you're there, go ahead and give their Chicken Caesar a shot.
As I said before, the breast itself is an addition to the salad and not integrated into the tossing. Instead, the whole breast is placed on top of the salad. The larger size that I requested was indeed quite big, and was very tasty as well. I actually asked the waitress about the breast not being cut up, and she responded that they would happily do that for you if you request it, so take note. The salad itself was well chopped and tossed with a very tangy Caesar dressing that dominated with the strong taste of the Romano cheese. The croutons were buttery, crisp and melt-in-your-mouth delicious. They are, in fact, very similar to the croutons used at The Loop restaurants, whom I have previously reviewed.
Most people would probably react to the Outback salad along the lines of, "For 10 bucks, it darn well better be good". Well, I'm happy to report that it is a fabulous salad. Again, it's a bit pricey, but so are a lot of other items on their menu. So the next time you're there, go ahead and give their Chicken Caesar a shot.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Yaphet Kotto Quote of the Month: October 2004
Another early film for Yaphet Kotto was "Blue Collar", which detailed the lives of three assembly line workers at a car plant. In one scene, he tells the character Jerry (Harvey Keitel) the reason why they all come back to work day after day:
Smokey James: Because the finance man's gonna be at your house on Saturday, right? That's exactly what the company wants - to keep you on their line. They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young, the black against the white - ANYTHING to keep us in our place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)