A Blockbuster Summer

There's a debate amongst geeks online about whether 2011 or 2012 is going to offer the best blockbuster summer ever. In this geek's opinion, 2012 edges out 2011. But that's next year. Let's talk about some of the major tentpole events lined up for this summer:

Sucker Punch - Zack Synder gives us another visual feast in the style of 300. This one is right up a geek's alley: guns, gals, and explosions.

Scream 4 - Wes Craven is bringing this series back from the dead. Ha ha.

Fast Five - I could point to the impossibility of reconciling the idea that god is all-powerful and good with the idea that evil exists in this world to posit that the Judeo-Christian god as he is understood cannot exist. That argument has fallen on many deaf ears over the years, so I'll offer this instead: they've now made FIVE Fast and Furious movies.

Thor - An adaption of the comic book that pulls our mythological hero out of Valhalla and sucks him into the real world. Sounds kind of cheesy until you look at who's directing: Kenneth Branagh. I like that the studios are starting to make some creative decisions with their hiring of directors for blockbusters. (Along similar lines, Shane Black has been hired to direct Iron Man 3.)

Pirates 4 - Johnny Depp plays Johnny Depp in a pirate costume.

The Hangover 2 - Probably a bad idea, but the first flick is so hysterical I'll see it regardless. Mel Gibson was slated to have a cameo until one of the cast members raised his objections. Which is kind of strange, because if Iron Mike Tyson should get a second chance, why not Mad Max?

Kung Fu Panda 2 - Jack Black is back as Po....alright, I'll own up: the first one was pretty good.

The Tree of Life - Just kidding. The word blockbuster and Terence Malick should never appear in the same sentence. Except, er, that sentence.

X-Men: First Class - James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Professor X and Magneto, respectively? Sign me the hell up.

The Green Lantern - Just when you thought there were no more superheroes left to pilfer from comic books. Martin Campbell is directing, the same man who gave us Casino Royale and Goldeneye, so this could be good.

Cars 2 - Yeah, this'll make a crap ton of money.

Transformers 3 - Okay, still not convinced that an all-powerful, benevolent God is incompatible with the fact that evil exists in this world? Michael Bay brings us Transformers 3.

Harry Potter - How long until Warner Brothers decides to reboot this series and make billions more dollars? I give it three years, tops.

Captain America - Along with Thor and Iron Man, another origin story that's also setting us up for 2012's The Avengers.

Cowboys & Aliens - A ridiculous premise that is intriguing beyond all reason. Daniel Craig as a mysterious gunslinger, Harrison Ford as a crotchety sheriff, and menacing aliens.

The Smurfs - One word: Gargamel.

Conan the Barbarian - Jason Momoa has some pretty big shoes to fill here. It's slated for an August release, which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Spy Kids 4 - Like Cars 2, this'll make some serious coin.

***

And the one I'm most looking forward to? Super 8. For a lesson in how to make an awesome trailer and perfectly capture a mood, watch this. Directed by JJ Abrams, this one's supposed to be a throwback to early Spielberg, who is involved himself. If this is anywhere near as good as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, it'll be awesome.

My Reviews of the Best Pic Nominees

I was going to post this before Oscar night. I swear. Really. Anyway, here are my reviews of the 2010 Best Pic Noms I saw.

SPOILERS THERE BE

INCEPTION - I'm an admitted, unabashed, fawning Nolan fanboy, so take my review with a 50 pound bag of rock salt, the kind that could eat a whole through your kitchen floor, poison your dog, and actually destroy Carthage. So with that out of the way, here goes: Inception is the most original film I've seen in years. It's by no means a perfect film, or even Nolan's best film. But enough disclaiming. This movie is a lot of fun. Always entertaining, never dull, and different. Remember the last time the Hollywood machine produced something ORIGINAL? Yeah, I can't either. Inception should have failed at the box office: it's a sci-fi movie, you've got to pay attention or you'll be lost, and it's not based on a comic book, video game, graphic novel, or previous movie. And no, don't tell me it's just like The Matrix, or Solaris, or whatever. Inception is without the pseudo-intellectual philosophy of The Matrix series, and Solaris...my god don't even get me started on that one. If a doctor performed a physical on Solaris, he'd have to declare that film clinically dead because it has no pulse. The same cannot be said for Inception - just the opposite. My main problem with the film is that it cheats a teeny, tiny little bit halfway through by changing its own internal rules, but I'll forgive this misstep because the game-changer ups the ante and imperils the characters in a very real way. And, the rotating hallway fight scene is so good the Academy should have created a category called Best Rotating Hallway Fight Scene because that sequence alone was Oscar worthy.

TRUE GRIT - It's as if Charles Portis, reclusive author extraordinaire, had a crystal ball and gazed some forty years into his future before writing True Grit and his vision fell on the Coen brothers and he decided he could write a book that they would one day read and realize was the answer to all their box office prayers. Like Peter Jackson was put on this earth to direct the Lord of the Rings movies, so too were the Coens put on this earth to direct True Grit. It's a western, it's a religious parable, it's a glorious piece of decidedly American fiction. Call it whatever the hell you want, just don't try and Hooraw it. (If you haven't read the book, you should. Portis is one of the best under-read American authors.) It's a very simple story about justice, revenge, character, and life not so long ago in America. Every year people say the western is dead. This film proves otherwise.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK - David Fincher brings his immense and considerable talents to a film about...Facebook. At first blush, you have to wonder why the man who directed Seven and Zodiac would be interested in the subject matter, but it turned out alright. Aaron Sorkin penned a great screenplay full of snappy dialogue and populated it with unsympathetic, but fascinating characters. Emotionally, the film is a little hollow but that's probably the intention: these characters, with a few exceptions, geniuses they may be, all seem pretty hollow. I thought it was a good movie but not quite Best Picture material.

THE FIGHTER - Story-telling at its best and most basic: raw performances, no sentiment, no bullshit. You know how this one's going to end going in, even if you're unfamiliar with boxer Mickey Ward's story. But that doesn't stop you from cheering Mickey on as he slugs his way to the top. Bale is a force of nature, Wahlberg is understated but effective, and Melissa Leo is the mom you love to hate. You feel every punch, you cringe during every family argument, you feel bruised and battered, but ultimately, triumphant by the end. If Rocky and Raging Bull produced a child, this would be it.

BLACK SWAN - In keeping with the movie's duality, here are my two takes:

White Swan: Lurid, melodramatic, heavy-handed, ham-fisted, non-sensical, pornographic, nauseating, pretentious tripe. Why did they bother spending millions of dollars on a story the show runners of General Hospital would have rejected? When the film's not playing to your baser instincts, it's cheating you. Over and over and over. It keeps on cheating till the climax where it REALLY cheats you. Yes, it's possible for (SPOILER ALERT) Portman to stab herself and yet continue giving the greatest ballet performance anyone has ever seen. (END SPOILER ALERT) This is all things ugly rolled into one film as some sort of twisted attempt by Aronofsky to shock you into submission. I wanted to tap out, UFC style, at about the hour mark. The performances are loud, the music is loud, the story is loud, everything is loud, loud, loud. It's about as subtle as a tsunami. Don't let the critics fool you - this is nothing more than a soft-core horror movie with outstanding production values, tantamount to something you'd find on Cinemax (a.k.a. Skinemax) around 2:30 in the morning. Or so I'm told.

Black Swan: Unrelenting, unremitting, tour-de-force, roller-coaster of a ride that knocks you on your ass and keeps kicking you while you're down. This movie is supposed to be a ballet: it doesn't have to make literal sense because it's going to bypass that snooty, rational part of your brain and tap right in to that collective unconscious and make you feel something. Remember the last time you just FELT a movie? You'll be uncomfortable, grossed-out, frustrated, and, if you let it, the film will devastate you the way it should. Why does everyone pine for gritty realism in movies and art? If you want realism, go watch an effing documentary (but not a Michael Moore one, we're talking realism here). Art is supposed to shock. It's supposed to be challenging. If you want something transformative, sublime, and visceral, watch this movie. And yes, it IS a horror movie. Of course it is, you prude, White Swan. It's a damned good - maybe even a great - horror movie, and how often do those come along?

THE KING'S SPEECH - I find the UK's fascination with and rationalizations of the continued financial support of the royal family baffling. I find America's fascination with the royal family even more puzzling. I have trouble sympathizing with a bunch of wealthy, pampered people who are treated like celebrities because of their birthright. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they're bad people, in fact, some of them have done some great things. I'm just saying I don't get it. Non-royal philanthropists aren't treated the same way, which means that yes, birthright has something to do with it. And yes, The King's Speech is stereotypical Oscar bait: literate British period piece about the royal family combined with a story of one man's perseverance in overcoming a handicap. And yet...it's simply brilliant. Firth and Rush are excellent, Firth especially, the camerawork is interesting, the dialogue is smart but never cute, and the underdog story IS compelling. You'll be on the edge of your seat during the climax of the movie, which is nothing more than a man giving a speech. Yes, the story-telling's that good. The English are often accused unfairly of being shut-off and bottled up emotionally, but that trope is used here to great effect, resulting in a very poignant moment of personal triumph.

Where did all the money go? Not to the screenwriter, I hope

As a relatively new parent, I've been subjected to all kinds of new experiences (horrors) and have picked up quite a few interesting habits along the way: co-workers have caught me singing "C Is For Cookie" in the kitchen, I get cranky around 9 AM and again at 1 PM (the same times Fee takes a nap), and my ever-suffering wife constantly walks in on me...you know, when I'm practicing my Elmo voice.

But enough about me. All you Dads know exactly what I'm talking about, and all you non-Dads are preparing to go Oedipus and stab your own eyeballs out due to the overwhelming sentimentality of that opening. What I really want to talk about is film. One film in particular. It goes by the name of The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland.

Let me start by saying that the film sucks.

Before you all you Elmo band-wagoners get your muppety fur in a bunch, just hear me out.

When will they ever learn that story is key? The plot centers around this Johnny-Come-Lately, a.k.a. Elmo, trying to recover his lost/misplaced/stolen blanket. Our hero, for lack of a better word, must have grown up listening to Bob Dole, because he (is it a he?) continually refers to himself in the third person. Elmo this, Elmo that.

My first problem with the story is that it's horribly contrived. Early on, Elmo bares his selfish teeth in not sharing (i.e. giving away) his blanket to his best friend, Zoe. And then the blanket just so happens to be magically transported to Grouchland, where everybody's favorite Oscar originally hails from. Grouchland just so happens to be ruled and terrorized by an evil selfish man, Huxley, who's played by pre-Criminal Minds, post-The Princess Bride Mandy Potankin. (Yes, his first name is really Mandy.) Elmo, with the help of his sidekicks (i.e. the rest of Sesame Street anymore), must reclaim what is rightfully his and thus defeat Huxley...by out-selfishing him, of course. But my main beef is this: what are the chances that Elmo would have a problem with selfishness and that his blanket would be accidentally transported to Grouchland, which just so happens to be ruled by a selfish man and which just so happens to be the perfect venue for Elmo to learn his life lesson?

I mean, come on.

Problem number two: Since when did Sesame Street start feeling the need to have a moral to every story? Seriously. Did Steven Spielberg secretly wrest control of this property from Jim Henson?

My third issue is with the moral of the story itself. Basically, Elmo is evil because he believes in private property. And his enemy is the ultimate straw-man, as one-dimensional as they come: a tyrant who steals from everybody else and has no friends. It's like they made this movie for kids or something. WTF, right?

Apparently, in the universe of Sesame Street, you can either be selfless and good or you can be an evil, sadistic, self-loathing man whose only pleasure in life comes from taking what is everybody else's. Elmo's victory in reclaiming his lost blanket from the clutches of Huxley - what we've been waiting for a whole 73 minutes and what should be so satisfying! - rings hollow. That is, it's hollow until Elmo offers his most prized possession up to his best friend Zoe. He's only allowed to be happy when he's denying himself - Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave. They might as well rename it Communist Street.

Finally, Elmo breaks the effing fourth wall repeatedly. How annoying is that?! I don't want to be reminded that I'm watching a movie. Stop turning to the audience and asking us questions, because you're just calling attention to the artifice. I want to maintain the illusion. I don't care that it's a bunch of puppets and stop-motion and ridiculous sets and actors playing parts...I just don't want to be pulled out of the story!

All of this would be forgivable of course if it weren't for the fact that the rest of the gang gets such short shrift in the story. Grover/Super Grover is relegated to a slapsticky cameo, reminiscent of Jerry Lewis way past his prime. Cookie Monster, the fucking king of the one-liner, gets to speak twice. You can tell this career-turn is having an effect on Cookie too, because his performance just ain't up to snuff. And everybody's favorite enormous yellow bird - he's gone from centerpiece in Follow That Bird to the punchline. All of our favorite characters are being nudged off the stage, because it just isn't big enough for them and Elmo's enormous ego.

I want to know where they spent all the money on this movie. According to wiki, the budget was a whopping $26,000,000! With $26,000,000, we could take over Cuba for God's sake, and that way, none of us would have to sneak these cigars past airport security anymore. IMDb lists the film's budget as a more modest 17 mill. They had to shell out some scratch for Vanessa Williams's five minute turn as the Queen of Trash (type-casting, much?), and of course some serious dough went to Mandy "You Killed My Father You Sick Serial Killer" Potankin, who does a lot with a little...but where did the rest of it go? And, if box office and reviews and Internet gossip are any indication, I am not alone in my opinion about this movie: it only made back 11 mill at the box office and enjoys a generous 5.5 rating on IMDb.

How the mighty have fallen....

***

Of course I'm taking the piss with this post. Fiona adores this movie, which means I do too. All you non-Dads can now proceed to stab your eyeballs out.

Louie Louie Louie LOUIE

Louis CK's new show on FX is called Louie. I don't know why it's not spelled Louis. Maybe the reasoning behind the orthography is so that people properly pronounce the guy's name.

On the show, Louie - I mean, Louis - plays Louie...okay this is getting silly and confusing. What I'm saying is that the stand-up comedian plays an enhanced version of himself, warts and all. Though he's a comedian, and though there are some laugh-out-loud moments on the show, you'd have to put a gun to my head for me to call it a comedy.

Please put the revolver away.

What I'm saying is the show's is more a drama. A very dark, unrelentingly bleak drama that comes up for comedic air sporadically, mostly when the show cuts to Louie doing one of his routines. Sometimes, though, it's downright uncomfortable to watch. In one episode, we're treated to a scene where Louie tells his mother how much he can't stand her and doesn't love her. It was an excruciating moment, a little too much to bear for me.

On the whole though, the show is a gem. The comparisons to Seinfeld are inevitable, and in some instances justified: antihero comedian walks the overpopulated yet lonely streets of New York, surrounded by neurotics and weirdos and absurdity. We even cut away to his stand-up routine at various times during every episode.

But. Whereas Seinfeld was about "nothing," Louie is about "everything." Divorce, middle-age, single parenthood, sex, love, and ultimately, meaning in life, or the lack thereof. The show has a way of blind-siding you with how serious it can be. At times, it's even a foray into the surreal, like when a girl Louie is poorly attempting to woo flees to a nearby helicopter and is spirited away.

My only problem with the show, hinted above, is that it's a little too uncomfortable to watch at times. The leitmotif for ground-breaking comedy in recent years has been awkwardness. Larry David pushed the envelope with Curb Your Enthusiasm, and The Office (US version, haven't seen the UK version) spends a lot of its time in the "make the audience cringe" category. But Louie, IMHO, sometimes takes it even further.

Does Louie go too far? Does comedy these days go too far? With horror films, we have a relatively new subgenre derisively referred to as torture porn (think the Saw movies)...has comedy gone down the same path with excruciatingly awkward sit-coms?

Okay, Movie Fans

Not that you care in the least, but here are the flicks I'm most looking forward to this summer:

5. The A-Team. The trailer is a mish-mash of tones, being both gritty and fantastical. This film version of what was honestly a campy series has a lot of questions to answer. Can the new team live up to the old team? Is Quinton Rampage Jackson "BA" enough? Can Liam Neeson smoke a cigar as good as George Peppard? Can Sharlto Copley pull off a convincing Southern American accent? And most importantly, will we be lucky enough to see some villains actually die on-screen?

4. Iron Man 2. I enjoyed the first outing, which was light and fun, but never silly. I'm hoping the second is in the same vein. Not every movie has to be dark and not every "superhero" has to be riddled with angst.

3. Robin Hood. This story's been told a million times, but Ridley's directing. That's right, Ridley. Also, the rumors about all the shenanigans on-set, from the constant rewrites to Crowe and Scott butting heads at every turn, could produce a Casablanca like effect, creating a whole greater than the sum of its parts...or it could render the movie complete and utter crap. I have faith in Ridley though, not just because of Alien and Bladerunner but because of the underrated Kingdom of Heaven, a solid period piece that suffered from mismarketing.

2. Inception. Christopher Nolan, two years removed from The Dark Knight, brings us his contemporary sci-fi story set "within the architecture of the mind." And that's about all we know of the story. This flick's plot has been more closely guarded than my Darth Vader toy carrying case. Not even Fiona will be allowed near that. Upon my death, it will be buried with me for my journey into the Underworld. Just kidding...sort of. But back to Inception - the trailer looks impressive as hell. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the man.

1. The Expendables. Watch the trailer now. No really, watch it now. This could be the action film to end all action films. A throwback to the testosteronic 80s, when heroes didn't even know what a feminine side was, and when cheesy one-liners were just as awful but somehow not so cheesy. This flick boasts the best kick-some-ass, take-no-prisoners cast ever: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren (who pulled the stake out of his heart?), Randy effing Couture, Steve Austin, Mickey Fashion Sense Rourke, Terry Crews, and Eric "who-the-hell's-Julia?" Roberts.

Historical Fiction At Its Best

Robert Harris needs to write more novels. The former journalist and BBC reporter has but seven fiction titles to his credit. Considering how well-researched (at least they seem so to me) and how well-written they are, though, maybe that does constitute a lot of books.

But still, I'm greedy and want to read more of his stuff.

I recently read Conspirata, known everywhere outside of the United States as Lustrum, because apparently publishers think we Yanks are too dumb to be interested in a book named after an obscure Roman concept of time. Lustrum - ahem, Conspirata - is the second in a planned trilogy about none other than the greatest orator of all time, Marcus Tullius Cicero. This book, Conspirata, chronicles his year as consul and the following four turbulent years of Cicero's life, while the preceding volume, Imperium, gives a rollicking account of his rise to power. I can only assume the final book will be about Cicero's exile, few remaining years, and (SPOILER ALERT) execution.

Imperium and Conspirata are both wonderful books that bring a fascinating period of history to life, and while one can easily draw parallels between the events in these stories and political happenings of today, Harris does a good job of not forcing any comparisons. Both stories are told through the eyes of Tiro, Cicero's faithful slave, who is credited with, believe it or not, the creation of shorthand. Tiro as a narrator is mostly passive, reminding me of some of Dostoevsky's narrators, who mostly observe and rarely cause any major things to happen in the story. Though Tiro does manage at times to be important to the story and offers Cicero sagely advice from time to time.

I've read some of Harris's other books, including Archangel, The Ghost, and Pompeii, this last one being about Mount Vesuvius's eruption and destruction of the eponymous city. I've enjoyed all these books immensely, but Harris takes him game - to borrow one of the many overused sports' cliches - to the next level in his stories about Cicero.

____

I've blogged before about Bernard Cornwell, whom many consider to be the best historical fiction writer working today. Cornwell is a great writer, who really excels at describing combat tactics and bloody battles. And like I said before, I consider the Warlord Trilogy to be one of my two favorite trilogies of all time.

Harris, on the other hand, excels at telling cerebral stories brimming with political intrigue. Is one writer better than the other? It would be unfair to compare the two, since they're trying to do different things with their stories, but needless to say, I recommend both authors to all fans of historical fiction.

(Interesting tidbit: Harris's book, The Ghost, was recently made into the movie, The Ghost Writer, directed by none other than Roman Polanski.)

(Interesting tidbit 2: I share a birthday with Cicero. Now if only I shared his wit, eloquence, and oratorical skills.)

Oscar Picks

Here are my predictions for tonight's Oscars.

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Christoph Waltz

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo'Nique

Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds

Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air

Best Editing: The Hurt Locker (I think Avatar might nab this one, but the tight editing of The Hurt Locker was awesome.)

All Other Technical Stuff: Avatar

Best Skit You Won't See Aired: Ben Stiller and Sasha Baren Cohen riffing on Avatar

How about everyone else?

Bizarre Query Response

I've just started sending queries out on one of my projects, so I've got the proverbial fingers crossed. As anyone who's done this knows, it's a tedious yet exciting, hurry-up-and-wait, dancing in the dark process.

As to be expected, the responses have been mostly no's, but there have been a few bites here and there. One positive response was a bit baffling, and I wanted to share it with everyone to get their feedback. The name of the agent has been redacted to protect the (perhaps not-so) innocent, and what follows is the agent's response to my query:

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your query (I ordinarily do NOT look at queries by email). But I actually read your query and thought it very intelligent. If you are not sending this simultaneously to other agents or publishers, then you may send this same query, a one page synopsis and the first three chapters or first 50 pages to me if you like. (Please tell me if you’ve sent this to other agents or publishers previously and if so which ones and what sort of comments or feedback did you get.) Mark the outside of the package “Special Request – per XXXXX.” Then in your cover letter be sure to mention I asked you to send this after reading your electronic query. Include a list of books (with dates and publishers) of books you think are competition. Include an author bio and list of other books you’ve written (with dates of publications and publishers). These are things I must know in order to give your project its best consideration. Finally, how you found my agency and this email address. It is usually unpublished, but I recently changed my email address, so it would help if I understood how you found this email. I always need to know ALL this information. Thank you for your cooperation.

If you have any questions, feel free to call me. I appreciate your thinking of my Agency.

Let me explain why this response is so strange. For starters, this particular agent's website lists the email address I sent the query to and specifically advises writers to send queries to that address. So I was left scratching my head when the agent asked me how I got the email address and stated that he/she does not generally look at e-queries, when the website says otherwise.

The request for a list of competing books is a bit off-putting. I know a few agents ask for this information up front from writers, but at the same time, aren't they supposed to be the experts on the market? The oft-repeated advice from agents is to write what you want to write, the idea being that writers shouldn't chase some market or trend for a dollar. Agents say they'd prefer writers create something personal and thus unique. Also, I get very little time to read anymore, so I know for a fact I'm not as up to speed on the market as an agent would (should) be. I'd be hard-pressed to compile a credible list of competing books, and it would be mostly guesswork on my part.

But, the most troubling aspect of this agent's response is the request for a list of other agents/publishers I've queried, including their feedback on the manuscript. Why should this agent need that information to do their job? I have no idea, but he/she should be able to form their own opinion on the manuscript without having to review what other people have said.

After a little more research, I discovered this agent used to charge a fee for reviewing a manuscript. I don't know if that's still the case, and the agent did not ask me for any money, but that's obviously a big no-no. (To any non-writers out there: money is always supposed to flow TOWARD the writer, never away.)

I'm not going to pursue a professional relationship with this agent based on this response. It seems to me this particular agent wanted me to do his/her job: figure out the market and then supply him/her with an accounting of what other agents and editors have said about the manuscript.

Has anyone else ever gotten this kind of response, one asking for detailed information about other agents/editors and their feedback?

****

By the way, Blogger has gone crazy apparently. It seems that all comments left on posts pre-dating the January 30, 2010 Gene Hackman post have mysteriously vanished. So I'm going to ask you all a favor: if you've ever posted here before, please leave a comment on this post. Reason I ask is, agents and editors might be checking out this blog now and in the near future, so it would be a big help to be able to show them people do read this blog. Thanks!

Happy Birthday, Mr. Hackman

Today, Gene Hackman became an octogenarian, believe it or not. I found some clips on Youtube of his appearance on Inside the Actors Studio. The episode is split into five parts, and unfortunately, part four is missing. But still, it's a good watch, well worth the time if you like Hackman. Despite his success and many accomplishments, he remains a truly humble human being. He comes across as personable, thoughtful, shy, and at times vulnerable.

Hackman may just be my favorite actor of all time. The guy has tremendous range and managed throughout his career to be both a huge box-office draw and a serious actor. He won the Oscar twice, the first time for bringing Popeye Doyle to life in The French Connection and the second time for his turn as Little Bill Daggett in Unforgiven. What's neat about these two roles is that they're almost the antithesis of each other. Popeye Doyle is the tough cop who bends the rules to see that justice is done; Daggett is a tough sheriff who adjusts the rules as he goes along to see that the status quo isn't upset.

He's given many great performances, but I think my favorite scene of his comes in French Connection II. (I tried to find it on Youtube, but couldn't.) The scene takes place within the tiny confines of some dingy cell in a French police building, and Hackman has just spent the last week or so tied to a bed and being forced to take heroin by "Frog One," the guy he's spent the last one-and-a-half movies hunting down with little success. In order to help the French police, and obviously himself, he has to get off the junk that he's become involuntarily addicted to, and what follows is a gut-wrenching, harrowing performance as Hackman goes completely cold turkey. It's so good it's painful to watch.

By the way, I think French Connection II is one of the finest sequels ever made. It's a taut police thriller with wonderful acting, great locations, some nice action set pieces, and it has one of the most satisfying endings ever put on film. I won't spoil it for you, but I will say this. The ending is brilliant because it plays against your expectations, as established by the ending of the first film.

As an added bonus, here's the car chase, the one that needs no introduction. I listened to a commentary once by William Friedkin, director of The French Connection, and he said that yes, that was Hackman behind the wheel of the car, doing about seventy under the El.

I Made It to 31

I'm being lazy, but as a new Dad I think I've earned the right.

So anyway, I turned 31 today. Here's a link to my post from a year ago, in which I divulged my perfectly rational fears that I wouldn't live past 30.

Happy 2010 everyone! Thank you all for the birthday wishes. Hopefully soon I'll get back to writing posts that are little more clever, humorous, or in the very least, momentarily diverting.

Season's Greetings From Fiona

Fiona's first day on Earth.



In her favorite place, the newborn napper.

Happy Festivus

A colleague at work pointed me in the direction of this great great wiki entry. Check it out if you get a chance.

Apparently, this holiday was created long before it became popularized by its infamous appearance on Seinfeld. There are some potentially great traditions associated with it, especially the Airing of Grievances, which, if done right, could be therapeutic and constructive for all parties concerned.

______

Sort of off-topic, but in college one of my friends nicknamed me "Jerry," as it was his opinion I strongly resembled Mr. Seinfeld. I didn't see much of a resemblance back then and still don't, but my buddy was not alone in his view. As recently as last winter, while at a restaurant with my wife, a party waiting for their table approached me just to say I looked like Jerry Seinfeld. This is not the first time this has happened, though I hope it is the last. And several years ago, at a holiday party, a friend of the family pulled me aside and suggested I try to earn some money being a celebrity look-alike. Thinking she was joking, I broke into laughter, only to discover too late her advice had been given in earnest.

This picture of me was taken a few years back. I don't see a resemblance at all, though I'll let you decide for yourselves.

A Good Review of The Unearthed

Bitten by Books, a paranormal book review site, recently gave The Unearthed a good review. If you're on the fence about buying it, check out the review. It doesn't spoil the story, and it gives you a good feel for what it's about.

I can't believe it's been nine months since the book came out. As far as unmarketed e-books written by first-time authors go, it has done well. Looking back now, I wish I had marketed it more, but in all fairness to me I didn't (and still don't) have the time, resources, or bank account for it.

It also doesn't help that I can't stomach shameless self-promotion.

That being said, I'll take this opportunity to once again thank everyone kind enough to buy, read, recommend, and/or review it! I see The Unearthed as a stepping stone really, something I'm proud of and can use as a marketing tool in query letters for future manuscripts. And, as far as first books go, I think it's pretty good. Even the agents and other publishers who passed it up had nice things to say about the story. Sure, when I look back at it now, I can think of a few things I'd like to change, but I'm certain all authors feel that way about most of the books they write. As the saying goes, you don't really ever finish a book; at some point you just have to abandon it.

____

People have asked if there will be a sequel, and I'll answer by saying, yes, at some point there probably will be. But it will definitely be a very different story - I'm not interested in re-hashing the haunted house tale again.

Me? A Dad?

Apropos of my last post, about people using the internet to share all manner of personal information, I'm thrilled to say that Fiona Helen O'Rourke arrived last week, on December 9, 2009.

She and Jenna are doing well, as am I. Fiona came in weighing 8 pounds 13 ounces, and unfortunately for her, it looks like she may have gotten her feet from her father (I wear a size 15).

In my estimation, Jenna and I have averaged about four hours of sleep a night for the past week. I'm fairly delirious at this point, so I hope this post makes the least bit of sense.

Now I know what it feels like to be a Muslim detainee at Gitmo, being woken up every couple of hours.

In terms of this blog, well, I won't be posting with much frequency for the foreseeable future, for obvious reasons. I hope you all can forgive me, and by "all," I mean: Seana Graham, Nate Green, Marco, Adrian McKinty, Nicklas Hughes, Rita Vetere, and any lurkers (?) that might be out there, including dear old Dad. But I wanted to thank you for taking the time to read my otherwise inane ramblings and comment on same.

A bientot.

Information Overload

It's time we brought an end to this so-called Information Age.

I was reading this article this morning, about a groom who stopped his marital proceedings mid-ceremony so he could update his Facebook and Twitter pages.

Are you effing kidding me?

Why do so many human beings feel the need to alert hundreds, if not thousands, of mere acquaintances of the most personal, intimate details of their lives, in real-time nonetheless?

And conversely, why do so many human beings soak this sort of thing up?

In this day and age, we are bombarded with information, from blogs (yes, including this one), yahoo groups, tweets, facebook pages, myspace pages, text messages, and so many other different emerging "news" sources, most of it inconsequential at the end of the day. I don't think we were meant, as a species, to be barraged by all this stuff. But for whatever reason, people are spending inordinate amounts of time transmitting the most random (and often) meaningless information to one another.

The pervasive nature of this information overload - both the giving and the receiving of it - seems to be an addiction of sorts. My uneducated guess is that the ability to tell hundreds of people something about oneself makes one feel important.

But far be it from me to shake my finger at everyone else. Despite the fact I think Tiger Woods's "transgressions" (to use his word) should remain a private affair - for the sake of his family - I'll admit I've checked up on the developing story every day since it broke.

Shame on me for perpetuating this gossipy nonsense that passes for news.

Inane status updates on social networking sites bug me the most. Oh, you're having your third coffee of the morning? Good for you, as Christian Bale would say.

Oh, you don't know what to do with your day, so you decided to tweet about not knowing what to do with your day? That's awesome, thanks for the update.

Oh, you have a hangover because you were out partying last night? Actually, that's pretty cool, which bar did you go to...

I don't know what we can do to reshape the cultural zeitgeist, but I'd like to see us enter a new Age, whatever it is. Like, let's say, a Second Space Age.

Hell, I'd even take another Bronze Age over what we have right now. Okay, just kidding. But seriously, I'd love to see us enter the Think Before You Speak/Text/Tweet/Blog Age.