Film sequels are very often reviled, and very rarely valued above the original. What are some film sequels that out-do the first installment? Here are some of my picks.
American Pie 2 & American Wedding
Bad Boys 2
Blade 2
Spider-Man 2
Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn, First Contact, and Nemisis
Terminator 2
Some films are very hard to call. The entire Naked Gun series is about equally funny. LOTR films I don't count because they were all written and green-lit and shot at the same time, though I'd argue Two Towers is easily the best of that series. Toy Story 2 is too close to call.
The most argued over series has to be Star Wars, though I'd argue that the first(1977) is the best of the series. However, anyone arguing for one of the other original films would have a very credible case; forget about the crappy prequels.
Anything I'm missing? Agreements, disagreements?
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
9
I was watching Lord of War a couple of days ago, and one scene got me thinking. Nic Cage plays an illicit arms dealer who enters his young son's room, takes his toy pistol, and throws it in the garbage. In the film, it was clumsy symbolism, but I put a lot of thought into people who take that stance in real life.
What is the exact mindset behind telling your children that they should never have anything to do with weapons, especially firearms? I don't know, because my children certainly won't be raised like that, but I am assuming the mindset covers two major points:
1. Safety. People don't want their children involved in any accidents. This, I understand, but can be well covered without hysterically scaring kids into thinking weapons are the devil.
2. Pacifism. Some parents believe that by encouraging their children (boys in particular) to handle weapons, this is telling them that violence is a viable solution to problems.
Of course, violence is a viable solution to many problems. There are times in the world where violence can be used effectively and morally, such as in self-defense, in the pursuit of justice, or most arguably, pre-emption. Yet, the line between those listed options and something wrong can be thin and blurry.
This is the kind of topic I could write about all day and not begin to cover adequately. One question that I would pose to those who act hysterically afraid around firearms and encourage their kids to do the same: why do you find it acceptable for others to have the power and responsibility of handling firearms, but not yourself? Do you really want to live in a society where the only people that can use guns are soldiers, policemen, and criminals? Is that a responsibilty that should only be entrusted to those three groups of people, two of which are beyond the shadow of a doubt wildly irresponsible?
What is the exact mindset behind telling your children that they should never have anything to do with weapons, especially firearms? I don't know, because my children certainly won't be raised like that, but I am assuming the mindset covers two major points:
1. Safety. People don't want their children involved in any accidents. This, I understand, but can be well covered without hysterically scaring kids into thinking weapons are the devil.
2. Pacifism. Some parents believe that by encouraging their children (boys in particular) to handle weapons, this is telling them that violence is a viable solution to problems.
Of course, violence is a viable solution to many problems. There are times in the world where violence can be used effectively and morally, such as in self-defense, in the pursuit of justice, or most arguably, pre-emption. Yet, the line between those listed options and something wrong can be thin and blurry.
This is the kind of topic I could write about all day and not begin to cover adequately. One question that I would pose to those who act hysterically afraid around firearms and encourage their kids to do the same: why do you find it acceptable for others to have the power and responsibility of handling firearms, but not yourself? Do you really want to live in a society where the only people that can use guns are soldiers, policemen, and criminals? Is that a responsibilty that should only be entrusted to those three groups of people, two of which are beyond the shadow of a doubt wildly irresponsible?
8
Is there ever a point where it is okay to simply disregard someone's opinion and say that they are, in fact, totally wrong? I'm not talking about an issue like taxes or Iraq or religion, issues where there literally are causes and solutions, and the opinion lies within with they are. I'm talking about something less concrete, such as someone telling me that Wedding Crashers was hilarious or that 24 really sucks.
Is it wrong for me to listen to someone harping about how great Wedding Crashers and think "This guy is seriously wrong. Not wrong like I don't agree, but wrong like 2 + 2 = 5,"? I know the value this society puts on everyones opinion, but oftentimes I feel like it is right to make a stand, and say that something crappy sucks, period, and something good is awesome, period.
But if I were to start taking this stance, where would it stop? It feels right to deny that Wedding Crashers has any redeeming value, but on most other topics I feel content to listen to the opinions of others, shitty as they may be. Is the stance something I am only entitled to use in extreme situations? Or is it for once in a great while? Or should I not use it at all?
Is it wrong for me to listen to someone harping about how great Wedding Crashers and think "This guy is seriously wrong. Not wrong like I don't agree, but wrong like 2 + 2 = 5,"? I know the value this society puts on everyones opinion, but oftentimes I feel like it is right to make a stand, and say that something crappy sucks, period, and something good is awesome, period.
But if I were to start taking this stance, where would it stop? It feels right to deny that Wedding Crashers has any redeeming value, but on most other topics I feel content to listen to the opinions of others, shitty as they may be. Is the stance something I am only entitled to use in extreme situations? Or is it for once in a great while? Or should I not use it at all?
Monday, January 30, 2006
7
Have you ever sat down and thought about 'One-Way Call' friends? These are the friends you have who you only see when you give them a call. Maybe they do call you once in a while, but the odds are that for every ten or fifteen times you call them, you're lucky if they call you even once, if at all.
How are you supposed to read this sort of person? I have about as many of these as I do fingers, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me. Most of them are not people who I have a close connection with, but in at least two cases, they are people that I consider fairly close friends of mine.
What does it say about a friendship when only one of the two ever initiates anything? Is it possible to have a very strong friendship under those circumstances? Can people simply claim that they aren't pro-active as an excuse?
Good questions, though I'm afraid that none of the answers are what I would hope for.
How are you supposed to read this sort of person? I have about as many of these as I do fingers, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me. Most of them are not people who I have a close connection with, but in at least two cases, they are people that I consider fairly close friends of mine.
What does it say about a friendship when only one of the two ever initiates anything? Is it possible to have a very strong friendship under those circumstances? Can people simply claim that they aren't pro-active as an excuse?
Good questions, though I'm afraid that none of the answers are what I would hope for.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
6 - 40 Year-Old Virgin review
They say that a tragedy is when something bad happens to you. On the other hand, a comedy is when something bad happens to someone else. Thus would seem to be the premise for The 40-Year Old Virgin, a film with a surprisingly efficient yet slightly misleading title.
Virgin’s topic is Andy, a 40 year old electronics store clerk who has never done the deed. Shy and sweet, he sits alone in an apartment filled with an action figure collection so geeky it includes the Six-Million Dollar Man’s boss. When trading sex stories with his buddies one night, everyone is shocked to learn they have a virgin in their midst. Andy matter-of-factly explains that he came close in his youth, but simply stopped trying; having sex wasn’t his Holy Grail of existence. Nonetheless, Andy’s friends make it their pet project to get him laid.
Much of the film’s strength lies in that it is not a mean-spirited tirade against people like Andy, but a sometimes too sweet comedy about sex and virginity. Unlike the dreadful Wedding Crashers, the writers of The 40 Year-Old Virgin actually bothered to write a script, creating unique and often hilarious characters. Steve Carell avoids playing Andy as a horrifically crippled nerd, instead making him a nice guy who’s nice nature has automatically cut him off from most women. The three friends initially seem like stereotypical jerks, but their roles are well written enough that they all function well within the plot. Paul Rudd plays David, the guy we have all seen before, obsessed with a relationship that ended a long time ago. Seth Rogen’s Cal swaggers about as if he has been laid a billion times and suggests dating drunks, while Romany Malco ‘s Jay has been laid a billion times, much to the chagrin of his wife. In short, Andy is by far the most stable and happy of his friends, blasting away the notion that sex is key to a fulfilling existence.
Unfortunately, the film throws away this effective message when Andy meets Trish(Catherine Keener), a single-mom who runs an Ebay store. Andy and her magically get along wonderfully, and even though he has another botched attempt at sex, the two agree to wait through 20 dates before sealing the deal. At the film’s end, the two are married, and have sex that is accompanied by a disastrously unfunny musical number.
Was it really necessary for the two of them to have sex? Certainly sex is one of those life experiences we all want, but the first half of the film was really on to something; sex does not make anyone happy, and you can live a fine life without it. By letting Andy score in the end, that message is replaced with one of the American Pie mentality, in which sex is the ultimate goal, without which you are not complete as a person. The characters benefit from the film’s overly saccharine nature; all of their flaws are pointed out but none of them are really taken to task for their mistakes. The 40 Year-Old Virgin is a nice film, but wouldn’t a nicer film have stuck to the message that sex isn’t everything? Wouldn’t a smarter film have shown that real life sexual obstacles are not so easily overcome? Yes, on both accounts.
2.5 out of 5
Virgin’s topic is Andy, a 40 year old electronics store clerk who has never done the deed. Shy and sweet, he sits alone in an apartment filled with an action figure collection so geeky it includes the Six-Million Dollar Man’s boss. When trading sex stories with his buddies one night, everyone is shocked to learn they have a virgin in their midst. Andy matter-of-factly explains that he came close in his youth, but simply stopped trying; having sex wasn’t his Holy Grail of existence. Nonetheless, Andy’s friends make it their pet project to get him laid.
Much of the film’s strength lies in that it is not a mean-spirited tirade against people like Andy, but a sometimes too sweet comedy about sex and virginity. Unlike the dreadful Wedding Crashers, the writers of The 40 Year-Old Virgin actually bothered to write a script, creating unique and often hilarious characters. Steve Carell avoids playing Andy as a horrifically crippled nerd, instead making him a nice guy who’s nice nature has automatically cut him off from most women. The three friends initially seem like stereotypical jerks, but their roles are well written enough that they all function well within the plot. Paul Rudd plays David, the guy we have all seen before, obsessed with a relationship that ended a long time ago. Seth Rogen’s Cal swaggers about as if he has been laid a billion times and suggests dating drunks, while Romany Malco ‘s Jay has been laid a billion times, much to the chagrin of his wife. In short, Andy is by far the most stable and happy of his friends, blasting away the notion that sex is key to a fulfilling existence.
Unfortunately, the film throws away this effective message when Andy meets Trish(Catherine Keener), a single-mom who runs an Ebay store. Andy and her magically get along wonderfully, and even though he has another botched attempt at sex, the two agree to wait through 20 dates before sealing the deal. At the film’s end, the two are married, and have sex that is accompanied by a disastrously unfunny musical number.
Was it really necessary for the two of them to have sex? Certainly sex is one of those life experiences we all want, but the first half of the film was really on to something; sex does not make anyone happy, and you can live a fine life without it. By letting Andy score in the end, that message is replaced with one of the American Pie mentality, in which sex is the ultimate goal, without which you are not complete as a person. The characters benefit from the film’s overly saccharine nature; all of their flaws are pointed out but none of them are really taken to task for their mistakes. The 40 Year-Old Virgin is a nice film, but wouldn’t a nicer film have stuck to the message that sex isn’t everything? Wouldn’t a smarter film have shown that real life sexual obstacles are not so easily overcome? Yes, on both accounts.
2.5 out of 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)