90 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/14/03 6:50am)
Holy Cow! Despite a setback in Game 5, the Cubbies have a chance to grab the National League Pennant tonight at Wrigley Field, the way it should be. With every twirl of Dusty Baker's toothpick I get more and more excited about this season, and the distinct possibility that in four days Kerry Wood could be pitching Game 1 of the World Series. My giddiness has started to override my paranoid superstitions and has gotten to the point where I lay in bed for hours thinking about Sammy and Kerry and Harry and ivy, and the other night it got so bad (or good) that in order to quench my Cubbie thirst I had to pop in my tape of the 1998 one-game playoff against the Giants. Yes, despite the South Siders late-season collapse, baseball is alive and well in the Windy City, particularly at 1060 W. Addison, where the Cubbies have their 95-year-old fans thanking God for yet another chance to see a World Series champ at Wrigley.\n"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the friendly confines of Wrigley Field, home of your World Champion Chicago Cubs!"\nDoes that sound right? Until Joe Borowski struck out Andruw Jones to send the Cubs to the NLCS, I never actually believed the Cubs could win the World Series. And I don't mean never this year. I mean never. Not in '89. Not in '98. Not after we clinched the NL Central. But after that final out in Game 5, I mapped out the probable pitching matchups for the NLCS, and that was the first time in my life that I'd ever seriously considered the idea of the Cubs playing in the World Series.\nMy world view hasn't been the same since.\nFor years, I could always imagine the Cubs in the Series, but I never actually believed it. And now that it's more than a dream, it's frightening. I've crossed into a new level of being. I'd imagine that it's similar to dying. Logically, everyone knows that at some point they will die, but most people don't live their lives thinking it will happen. And then one day, you've got a disease or you're really old or you're about to crash into an oncoming Mack truck, and you realize that death can happen. You begin to deal with that sensation realistically, and your world is never the same. This is how I feel about the Cubs playing in the World Series. If it does happen, my entire perception of what it means to be a sports fan in Chicago will be altered.\nTo make things crazier, the equally cursed Red Sox are trying to win the American League, to set up a Cubs-Red Sox series. A lot of fans are hoping for this "dream series," but let me tell you something: Cubs-Red Sox is bad news. Both teams are trying to break curses, and if the Cubs beat the Yankees or the Red Sox beat the Marlins, then the curses will be defeated. But if the Cubs play the Red Sox, one of those teams has to win. Neither team has a chance to beat the curse, but instead one team will be mathematically forced into victory. That freaks me out.\nBut let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is still the Cubs, after all, and if the curse really does exist, then there's still time for something terrible to happen. At this point, I have to believe in the curse, because if I don't, it means the Cubs have been fielding a crappy, uncursed team for 95 years. I think we'll win tonight, but beyond that, I refuse to guess. Writing this column was bad enough karma, so I'm going to stop before I jinx us any further.
(09/19/03 5:23am)
Watching a film like "Bowling for Columbine" is easy.\nI watched it for the first time recently, and it was exhilarating to observe a film that asked all of the questions I wanted to ask three years ago.\nIt was also incredibly frustrating. Not because Moore is unable to settle upon one ultimate answer to a challenging question about gun deaths in America, but rather because when it is all over and I have considered everything the film has to offer, I'm just a slug sitting on a couch, being entertained. That sounds like an overly pessimistic and simplistic assessment, which it may be. After all, documentaries are still movies, and movies must first be entertaining on some level if they are to be watched at all. And obviously if one is watching a two-hour film, it would be silly to stand throughout, and being that couches are quite comfortable, they seem like good places to sit. \nStill, what frustrates me is that after all of the ideas and emotions Moore has stirred in me, I'd rather just sit back down on my couch and watch the film again.\nThat is why watching a film like "Bowling for Columbine" is easy. Not because it is an "easy" film, one that asks easy questions and never bothers probing the taboo areas of a controversial issue. That it does. But it is easy because it does not require its viewer to do anything. It just asks viewers to watch it. This is in no way the fault of Michael Moore or the film; it is simply the nature of art and entertainment.\nWhat is it that prevents me from taking action and making some kind of a difference?\nWhile "Bowling for Columbine" never settles on one answer to its question about gun violence, it does point strongly to the idea that the government and the media use fear to keep citizens from questioning issues in the country. After all, if there was nothing to fear, we wouldn't need government, because we could govern ourselves without the fear of being denied what we want, or of not being able to provide ourselves with our own basic, unalienable rights. Am I afraid to go out and make change? I hope not, and I don't think I am. \nBut there is something that Michael Moore left out of his film, and that is this: as citizens of America, we have an unspoken agreement with our government that if our own personal comforts are met, we will be passive citizens. That is the definition of good citizenry as far as many politicians are concerned: be happy with what you have and shut the hell up. "Bowling for Columbine" makes me think about the problems that Moore is fighting to fix, and so I feel that I am a part of that fight, despite the fact that I have done no fighting. I am paralyzed between the right response and the easy response.\nInstead, I merely think about Moore's film and focus my energies on important distractions of greater personal immediacy than gun control, namely my education and my financial responsibilities. I try to make a difference on a person-to-person basis because these differences are tangible and easy. \nThat is not to say that the differences are bad. It is hard to tirelessly fight every day, to stand up for what you believe in when no one is asking you to stand. I want to do good, but I find myself struggling between the hardships of being a good American citizen and the appealing ease of being "A Good American Citizen." Like John Goodman said in The Big Lebowski when life got too hard to handle: \n"Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowling"
(09/12/03 5:08am)
Christianity: America's No. 1 enemy. Pretty offensive, huh? I'd say. Certainly there have been Christians in American history who have inflicted terror upon other Americans by corrupting their religion's words and beliefs to meet their own, most notably the Ku Klux Klan. But this is only a small population of a much larger group, and I would venture to say that when most Americans think of Christianity, we do not first think of the KKK. \nEarlier this week, Pastor Marc Monte of the Faith Baptist Church in Avon, Ind., posted this sign in front of his church: "ISLAM: AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE ENEMY." It was the topic of his sermon on Sunday, where Monte had said that he hoped to "…stir interest, not alarm," later saying "Islam is a false religion, dangerous, and hate-promoting." (Indianapolis Star, Saturday). It is probably not coincidental that Monte's sermon came just four days before the two year anniversary of Sept. 11. While those responsible for the attacks did so in the name of Allah, these men, like the Klan, twisted their religion to fit their own beliefs and to give them an excuse to kill.\nTo say that Islam is "America's No. 1 Enemy" due to a small group of terrorists is to say that all Christians are white robe-wearing murderers who will lynch every black person they see. I have many Christian friends, and to imagine them committing such horrible acts is as unbearable as it is untrue. The same can be said for a friend of mine who recently became a Muslim: he has found love and understanding through his religion, and I'm sure that crashing planes into tall buildings is the last thing he wants to do. \nUnlike the majority of Muslims, my friend is white, so unless his clothes reveal his religion, one would never know that he is a follower of Islam without speaking to him. That is another problem with Monte's sign: because many Americans incorrectly assume that all Middle Easterners are Muslims, this indirectly singles out an entire race of people. \nWith all of the fear that is rampant in this country, many of us now look at Middle Easterners -- particularly the men -- with a careful eye, as if at any moment they will plant a car bomb or crash a plane. I admit that, without trying, I find myself at times cautiously making judgments. While in no way do I actually feel threatened or believe that all Muslims are terrorists, my reactions have been built by a barrage of negative images and ideas about Muslims and the religion of Islam, in the same way that America has long produced prejudices through images and untruths about many minorities. \nSunday, the same day that Pastor Marc Monte was telling his congregation about the terrors of Islam, Muhammad Ali met with the Dalai Lama to dedicate an interfaith temple right here in Bloomington. Here is Muhammad Ali, a man whose Islamic religious beliefs were so strong that he would not go to Vietnam. One man a Muslim, the other a Tibetan leader, coming together to dedicate a temple to be used by all people. Ali's beliefs have brought him peace as he has dealt with a violent and prejudiced world. If he feels anger toward those who have discriminated against him and other Muslims, I could not blame him. But like all those who truly follow a religion, Ali is filled with more love than hate. \n"Rivers, ponds, lakes, and streams all have different names," Ali said Sunday. " ... But they all contain water. So, too, different religions all contain truth." \nHis words were ones we could all learn from, even Marc Monte.
(05/01/03 4:00am)
In a movie about how people con other people out of their money, "Confidence"'s biggest con is pulled off at the expense of the viewing public who was conned into thinking that this movie is some kind of brilliant cross between "Pulp Fiction" and "The Sting." It is really more of an overly complex and less entertaining episode of "Scooby-Doo." Narrated by Edward Burns, at the behest of the man standing behind him with a gun, "Confidence" feels like it was written by a second-grader using the "Hamburger" paragraph technique. Burns alludes to what will soon be seen, and we see it while Burns explains what is happening, and then Burns gives a wrap-up. \nThe film's tagline is the best I've seen for any film: "It's not about the money. It's about the money." That is exactly how Burns and his crew talk to each other, by using ambiguous buzzwords that have no meaning. The dialogue is a brilliant mesh of con movie clichés, and dialogue that was fleeced from other films, con and otherwise. \nMovies like this have to be carried by at least one of two elements: An ensemble cast full of memorable characters and slick dialogue, or a brilliant plot that brings the viewer into the world of conning. Do these characters say anything interesting, or look like they're having any fun at all? Of course not. This is one of those "Talk Slick" movies, where every character thinks that he is super-hip, not because he necessarily is, but because he thinks he is. \nThe only character who is not following some kind of herd mentality is The King (Dustin Hoffman), who is a funny, witty, short-tempered, dangerous and sexually ambiguous crime boss. Besides the sexy stripper sisters who lick each other while dancing, The King is the only character I will still remember by June.\nDustin Hoffman is always fun, so I suppose for that reason alone, "Confidence" is watchable, but he's only on screen for about a half hour. Fortunately, in those 30 minutes, Hoffman speaks the film's biggest truth, as he gives Burns advice about how to deal with being rich: "Sometimes style can kill you." Director James Foley should have heeded his film's advice, and given it a good script.
(04/30/03 2:39pm)
In a movie about how people con other people out of their money, "Confidence"'s biggest con is pulled off at the expense of the viewing public who was conned into thinking that this movie is some kind of brilliant cross between "Pulp Fiction" and "The Sting." It is really more of an overly complex and less entertaining episode of "Scooby-Doo." Narrated by Edward Burns, at the behest of the man standing behind him with a gun, "Confidence" feels like it was written by a second-grader using the "Hamburger" paragraph technique. Burns alludes to what will soon be seen, and we see it while Burns explains what is happening, and then Burns gives a wrap-up. \nThe film's tagline is the best I've seen for any film: "It's not about the money. It's about the money." That is exactly how Burns and his crew talk to each other, by using ambiguous buzzwords that have no meaning. The dialogue is a brilliant mesh of con movie clichés, and dialogue that was fleeced from other films, con and otherwise. \nMovies like this have to be carried by at least one of two elements: An ensemble cast full of memorable characters and slick dialogue, or a brilliant plot that brings the viewer into the world of conning. Do these characters say anything interesting, or look like they're having any fun at all? Of course not. This is one of those "Talk Slick" movies, where every character thinks that he is super-hip, not because he necessarily is, but because he thinks he is. \nThe only character who is not following some kind of herd mentality is The King (Dustin Hoffman), who is a funny, witty, short-tempered, dangerous and sexually ambiguous crime boss. Besides the sexy stripper sisters who lick each other while dancing, The King is the only character I will still remember by June.\nDustin Hoffman is always fun, so I suppose for that reason alone, "Confidence" is watchable, but he's only on screen for about a half hour. Fortunately, in those 30 minutes, Hoffman speaks the film's biggest truth, as he gives Burns advice about how to deal with being rich: "Sometimes style can kill you." Director James Foley should have heeded his film's advice, and given it a good script.
(04/10/03 4:00am)
Originally set for release in fall 2001, "The Quiet American" was one of many films delayed in fear of a Sept. 11 backlash. While the film does carry an anti-American sentiment concerning our war and foreign policies, the message is conveyed so subtly and brilliantly that one hardly even realizes the implications of its meaning. Like the quiet American character played by Brendan Fraser, "The Quiet American" is a film that hides its true identity initially, slowly revealing it as the film progresses.\nMichael Caine, in an Oscar-nominated performance, plays Thomas Fowler, an old British reporter stationed in Saigon in 1952. He has been in Saigon for some time, living with a Vietnamese woman whom he would marry if he could get his London wife to grant him a divorce. He makes the point early in the film that he is a reporter, not a correspondent. He reports what he sees, takes no action and has no opinion, even though innocent people are dying around him. Of course, by pushing this film back eighteen months, Fowler's attitude toward war carries much more weight. Caine has once again delivered a masterful performance to the point where it doesn't even seem like he's acting. Fraser is excellent as well as American Alden Pyle who is hiding more than he'll say, and who falls in love with Caine's girlfriend, Phuong. Like in 1998's "Gods and Monsters," Fraser has broken from his normal diet of cartoonish comedies to take on a role of more substance and depth, showing he is a terrific actor when he wants to be.\nFrom 1978 to 1987 there were a plethora of Vietnam films, all against it that focused primarily on the American soldier's experience during combat. This film is decidedly anti-American, but I don't imagine it offending many people. It is slow-paced and honest. By the time it reveals its true meaning, we are much too far along in the story and involved with the characters to feel anything but true understanding.
(04/09/03 5:53pm)
Originally set for release in fall 2001, "The Quiet American" was one of many films delayed in fear of a Sept. 11 backlash. While the film does carry an anti-American sentiment concerning our war and foreign policies, the message is conveyed so subtly and brilliantly that one hardly even realizes the implications of its meaning. Like the quiet American character played by Brendan Fraser, "The Quiet American" is a film that hides its true identity initially, slowly revealing it as the film progresses.\nMichael Caine, in an Oscar-nominated performance, plays Thomas Fowler, an old British reporter stationed in Saigon in 1952. He has been in Saigon for some time, living with a Vietnamese woman whom he would marry if he could get his London wife to grant him a divorce. He makes the point early in the film that he is a reporter, not a correspondent. He reports what he sees, takes no action and has no opinion, even though innocent people are dying around him. Of course, by pushing this film back eighteen months, Fowler's attitude toward war carries much more weight. Caine has once again delivered a masterful performance to the point where it doesn't even seem like he's acting. Fraser is excellent as well as American Alden Pyle who is hiding more than he'll say, and who falls in love with Caine's girlfriend, Phuong. Like in 1998's "Gods and Monsters," Fraser has broken from his normal diet of cartoonish comedies to take on a role of more substance and depth, showing he is a terrific actor when he wants to be.\nFrom 1978 to 1987 there were a plethora of Vietnam films, all against it that focused primarily on the American soldier's experience during combat. This film is decidedly anti-American, but I don't imagine it offending many people. It is slow-paced and honest. By the time it reveals its true meaning, we are much too far along in the story and involved with the characters to feel anything but true understanding.
(03/13/03 5:00am)
It's unfortunate that such a vast group of colorful characters found themselves trapped within the confines of an obvious plot, otherwise audiences may have greatly enjoyed the time they've spent with them. "Nicholas Nickleby," a movie about the coming of age of the title character, is a film with wonderful characters, actors, costumes and spirit -- all of which are bogged down by a predictable storyline.\nNicholas (Hunnam) is a good-hearted 19-year-old. When his father dies, he takes his mother and younger sister to his rich uncle Ralph (Plummer), who gets Nicholas a job at an orphanage. The headmaster and his wife are a wicked pair who keep the boys malnourished and beat them whenever they deem it necessary. For one young crippled boy named Smike, they deem it necessary more often than not, until Nicholas steps in, stands up for the boy, and gives the headmaster a beating of his own. Good Smike was unreasonably punished by the Evil Headmaster, so Good Nicholas does the good deed and saves him. A good story in real life, but too predictable when put on screen. \nThroughout the movie, evil forces conspire against Nicholas and his loved ones, while better forces help Nicholas combat them. The headmaster kidnaps Smike, and a village man helps Nicholas rescue him. Nicholas falls in love and evil Uncle Ralph gets her father, who owes Ralph a debt, to marry the girl off to another man. The debt is called off, all of the evil men are happy, and Nicholas must figure a way to get her back. And wouldn't you know it: he gets her back.\nThese kinds of stories with overtly good and evil characters require some plot twists, music, comedy or action to keep them interesting, and indeed the film's best scenes are the comedic ones. Nathan Lane is wonderful as the head of a traveling theatre, who gives Nicholas the part of Romeo, Smike the part of the Apothecary, and tells a hilarious anecdote about an alcoholic pony. But Lane is only in the film for twenty-five minutes, and then it is back to Nicholas fending off the bad deeds of bad men. The film tries to right itself in the final ten minutes with a sudden "twist" where one character discovers a connection with another character, but by that point, who cares? Perhaps hardcore Charles Dickens fans will be swept away by the spirited mix of characters, but for my money, I'll take "Oliver"
(03/12/03 9:22pm)
It's unfortunate that such a vast group of colorful characters found themselves trapped within the confines of an obvious plot, otherwise audiences may have greatly enjoyed the time they've spent with them. "Nicholas Nickleby," a movie about the coming of age of the title character, is a film with wonderful characters, actors, costumes and spirit -- all of which are bogged down by a predictable storyline.\nNicholas (Hunnam) is a good-hearted 19-year-old. When his father dies, he takes his mother and younger sister to his rich uncle Ralph (Plummer), who gets Nicholas a job at an orphanage. The headmaster and his wife are a wicked pair who keep the boys malnourished and beat them whenever they deem it necessary. For one young crippled boy named Smike, they deem it necessary more often than not, until Nicholas steps in, stands up for the boy, and gives the headmaster a beating of his own. Good Smike was unreasonably punished by the Evil Headmaster, so Good Nicholas does the good deed and saves him. A good story in real life, but too predictable when put on screen. \nThroughout the movie, evil forces conspire against Nicholas and his loved ones, while better forces help Nicholas combat them. The headmaster kidnaps Smike, and a village man helps Nicholas rescue him. Nicholas falls in love and evil Uncle Ralph gets her father, who owes Ralph a debt, to marry the girl off to another man. The debt is called off, all of the evil men are happy, and Nicholas must figure a way to get her back. And wouldn't you know it: he gets her back.\nThese kinds of stories with overtly good and evil characters require some plot twists, music, comedy or action to keep them interesting, and indeed the film's best scenes are the comedic ones. Nathan Lane is wonderful as the head of a traveling theatre, who gives Nicholas the part of Romeo, Smike the part of the Apothecary, and tells a hilarious anecdote about an alcoholic pony. But Lane is only in the film for twenty-five minutes, and then it is back to Nicholas fending off the bad deeds of bad men. The film tries to right itself in the final ten minutes with a sudden "twist" where one character discovers a connection with another character, but by that point, who cares? Perhaps hardcore Charles Dickens fans will be swept away by the spirited mix of characters, but for my money, I'll take "Oliver"
(01/22/03 12:25am)
Warren Schmidt, played by Jack Nicholson, is a good American. At 62, he's just retired as vice president of a major life-insurance company. He's a conservative Republican, listening to Limbaugh on his way to the Dairy Queen for a Reeses Pieces Blizzard. His daughter is soon to be married. Schmidt is the simple man of American legacy and life is good. Or so he'd have the audience believe. \nAfter retirement and the sudden death of his wife, Warren is left questioning just what his legacy is and if it makes any real difference to the rest of the world. The answers leave much to be desired, according to Warren, and so he sets out on a road-trip in his 35-foot RV and thus, we -- along with Warren -- begin to learn about Schmidt.\n"Schmidt" is director Alexander Payne's third film, his last film being the critically acclaimed dark comedy "Election." This time Payne tackles a more personal agenda of what a man does when he realizes that he's never truly accomplished anything in his life. Based on the novel by Louis Begley, this story could easily fall into a cliché. Two things save "Schmidt" from veering into this more blasé condition: an excellent script from Payne and Jim Taylor that contains some of the most candid and realistic dialogue ever written, and most notably, a brilliantly understated performance from the man of over-the-top expression himself, Nicholson.\nNicholson plays Schmidt to Oscar-worthy perfection, not once flashing that trademark wolfish grin, the corners of his mouth pulled back in something of a bitter grimace instead. Nicholson moves fluidly between world-weary and childlike wonder as he journeys across the midwest. In one particular scene that had cliché tattooed all over it, Warren looks up to the night sky and asks his late wife if she can forgive him for not being the man he should have been. Cue the shooting star. But Nicholson manages to give this scene the star-struck amazement it deserves and cliché becomes a quickly forgotten word. Garnering many awards and nominations, including four Golden Globe nominations, "About Schmidt" is a worthy investment.
(01/16/03 5:00am)
Warren Schmidt, played by Jack Nicholson, is a good American. At 62, he's just retired as vice president of a major life-insurance company. He's a conservative Republican, listening to Limbaugh on his way to the Dairy Queen for a Reeses Pieces Blizzard. His daughter is soon to be married. Schmidt is the simple man of American legacy and life is good. Or so he'd have the audience believe. \nAfter retirement and the sudden death of his wife, Warren is left questioning just what his legacy is and if it makes any real difference to the rest of the world. The answers leave much to be desired, according to Warren, and so he sets out on a road-trip in his 35-foot RV and thus, we -- along with Warren -- begin to learn about Schmidt.\n"Schmidt" is director Alexander Payne's third film, his last film being the critically acclaimed dark comedy "Election." This time Payne tackles a more personal agenda of what a man does when he realizes that he's never truly accomplished anything in his life. Based on the novel by Louis Begley, this story could easily fall into a cliché. Two things save "Schmidt" from veering into this more blasé condition: an excellent script from Payne and Jim Taylor that contains some of the most candid and realistic dialogue ever written, and most notably, a brilliantly understated performance from the man of over-the-top expression himself, Nicholson.\nNicholson plays Schmidt to Oscar-worthy perfection, not once flashing that trademark wolfish grin, the corners of his mouth pulled back in something of a bitter grimace instead. Nicholson moves fluidly between world-weary and childlike wonder as he journeys across the midwest. In one particular scene that had cliché tattooed all over it, Warren looks up to the night sky and asks his late wife if she can forgive him for not being the man he should have been. Cue the shooting star. But Nicholson manages to give this scene the star-struck amazement it deserves and cliché becomes a quickly forgotten word. Garnering many awards and nominations, including four Golden Globe nominations, "About Schmidt" is a worthy investment.
(09/12/02 4:00am)
The members of the rock band Extra Blue Kind stand in a cramped basement. All four musicians are in their own worlds. They have been practicing for about ten minutes, riffing a little bit and playing two songs that they know well. While taking a short break between songs, the band members check the amps, adjust the microphone and shoot the breeze with each other. Drummer Randee Eimer looks over at lead singer David Handy and gets his attention.\n\"You want to try the new one?\" Eimer asks.\n\"Sure.\"\nHearing this, Handy starts playing the opening to their newest song, \"Walk Slowly.\" Eimer and guitarist David Barajas watch, get their rhythm and chime in. Squirt, the bassist, grooves with the music, bopping his head and plucking his bass line. Handy begins to sing. They stand in a small circle facing each other, feeding off of a vibe that grows with each note played. Eimer and Squirt have been playing drums and bass together for nearly ten years. Handy met them in Bloomington about three years ago, and Barajas joined the group a year and a half ago.\nWhile Eimer, Handy, Barajas, and Squirt are all friends, they are not just four friends who stumbled upon some instruments and threw together a garage band. Putting a successful band together takes hard work and a great deal of skill. Their dedication is paying off. They recently beat out 300 other bands in a contest put on by the Indianapolis radio station X103 to perform at X-Fest, a rock festival that will feature Stone Temple Pilots, Kid Rock and others. \nAlthough the four of them have not been together for that long, there is already a strong and noticeable chemistry between them while playing. During each song, traces of their numerous musical influences are visible, but they are quick to point out that Extra Blue Kind does not follow any pop formula.\n\"I think that we try to keep it fresh and unique,\" Barajas says. \"I don\'t know how it is for [Dave] when he writes, but I know for me I\'m not really thinking too much about another band-trying to make it sound like another band. I\'m trying to stay as far away from that as possible.\"\n\"We\'ve never sat down and discussed what sound we wanted to have, or what band we wanted to emulate,\" Handy adds.\nAt times their sound resembles Nirvana, a band that all four have cited as an influence. Squirt\'s funky bass brings 311 to mind, another one of their influences. Their sound goes up and down the board as they play song after song, adding hints of hip hop and ska to a foundation of hard rock. Handy\'s voice is gritty and emotional, and unlike many young rock band lead singers he prides himself on not sounding like a Kurt Cobain-Eddie Vedder composite. He and Barajas switch off playing lead, although normally it is Barajas who does the honors, immersing himself in the music. Eimer\'s drumming is tough and consistent, and he acts as the group\'s non-verbal leader while playing.\nThe foursome made its live debut at Dunn Meadow in April of 2001. The equipment was shoddy, the audience sparse, but worst of all the band was not yet used to performing together. Playing show after show has changed all of that, improving their chemistry and changing their mindset.\n\"It used to be more about trying to play the songs well instead of putting on a really good live stage performance,\" Eimer says. \"Now it\'s more about trying to entertain, put on a good show and play the songs really well.\"\nFor smaller bands like Extra Blue Kind, good songs and good shows are huge keys to building up a strong fan base. A contributing factor to their decision to steadily build is the story of the band Transmatic, an Indy group that signed a six-album deal a year and a half ago and have since broken up due to financial and creative problems. They are content taking a slow road, and have chosen to trade a good payoff now for a great payoff later.\n\"I think this is something we all four really believe in and all want to do in the long run,\" Squirt says. \"That\'s pretty much our goal, to still be doing this in ten years."
(09/12/02 12:43am)
The members of the rock band Extra Blue Kind stand in a cramped basement. All four musicians are in their own worlds. They have been practicing for about ten minutes, riffing a little bit and playing two songs that they know well. While taking a short break between songs, the band members check the amps, adjust the microphone and shoot the breeze with each other. Drummer Randee Eimer looks over at lead singer David Handy and gets his attention.\n\"You want to try the new one?\" Eimer asks.\n\"Sure.\"\nHearing this, Handy starts playing the opening to their newest song, \"Walk Slowly.\" Eimer and guitarist David Barajas watch, get their rhythm and chime in. Squirt, the bassist, grooves with the music, bopping his head and plucking his bass line. Handy begins to sing. They stand in a small circle facing each other, feeding off of a vibe that grows with each note played. Eimer and Squirt have been playing drums and bass together for nearly ten years. Handy met them in Bloomington about three years ago, and Barajas joined the group a year and a half ago.\nWhile Eimer, Handy, Barajas, and Squirt are all friends, they are not just four friends who stumbled upon some instruments and threw together a garage band. Putting a successful band together takes hard work and a great deal of skill. Their dedication is paying off. They recently beat out 300 other bands in a contest put on by the Indianapolis radio station X103 to perform at X-Fest, a rock festival that will feature Stone Temple Pilots, Kid Rock and others. \nAlthough the four of them have not been together for that long, there is already a strong and noticeable chemistry between them while playing. During each song, traces of their numerous musical influences are visible, but they are quick to point out that Extra Blue Kind does not follow any pop formula.\n\"I think that we try to keep it fresh and unique,\" Barajas says. \"I don\'t know how it is for [Dave] when he writes, but I know for me I\'m not really thinking too much about another band-trying to make it sound like another band. I\'m trying to stay as far away from that as possible.\"\n\"We\'ve never sat down and discussed what sound we wanted to have, or what band we wanted to emulate,\" Handy adds.\nAt times their sound resembles Nirvana, a band that all four have cited as an influence. Squirt\'s funky bass brings 311 to mind, another one of their influences. Their sound goes up and down the board as they play song after song, adding hints of hip hop and ska to a foundation of hard rock. Handy\'s voice is gritty and emotional, and unlike many young rock band lead singers he prides himself on not sounding like a Kurt Cobain-Eddie Vedder composite. He and Barajas switch off playing lead, although normally it is Barajas who does the honors, immersing himself in the music. Eimer\'s drumming is tough and consistent, and he acts as the group\'s non-verbal leader while playing.\nThe foursome made its live debut at Dunn Meadow in April of 2001. The equipment was shoddy, the audience sparse, but worst of all the band was not yet used to performing together. Playing show after show has changed all of that, improving their chemistry and changing their mindset.\n\"It used to be more about trying to play the songs well instead of putting on a really good live stage performance,\" Eimer says. \"Now it\'s more about trying to entertain, put on a good show and play the songs really well.\"\nFor smaller bands like Extra Blue Kind, good songs and good shows are huge keys to building up a strong fan base. A contributing factor to their decision to steadily build is the story of the band Transmatic, an Indy group that signed a six-album deal a year and a half ago and have since broken up due to financial and creative problems. They are content taking a slow road, and have chosen to trade a good payoff now for a great payoff later.\n\"I think this is something we all four really believe in and all want to do in the long run,\" Squirt says. \"That\'s pretty much our goal, to still be doing this in ten years."
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The Oscar winners, like the nominations, are usually a product of politics and popularity. And as the five top categories show, this year won't be much different. With that in mind, my Oscar picks are not what will win, but what should win.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Ed Harris' directorial debut is also one of the best acting performances of his career, as he portrays the late Jackson Pollock, a drunk, manic-depressive and one of the finest artists of his time. \nThe film is arranged in much the same way that Pollock painted: beautifully and franticly. Pollock believed art did not have to have meaning but should be appreciated for what it is. \nThe movie feels like one of his famous "drip" paintings, as one scene is packed onto another, leaving the viewer with a full scope of Pollock's mood swings, home life and art but wondering what exactly to make of it. And that is the point. Harris' film and his performance bring Pollock to life, and each scene sheds new light onto this intriguing man.\nThe film opens with Pollock signing an issue of Life magazine for a fan in 1949 and then goes back to 1941, when his brother helps the drunk and enraged artist upstairs to his apartment. His brother and sister-in-law essentially baby-sit the grown man.\nThis is how many of Pollock's close relationships play out, including one with his lover-turned-wife and fellow artist Lee Krasner. Marcia Gay Harden received an Academy Award for the role of his loving wife who realized his gift more than anyone else. Harris' real-life wife, Amy Madigan, is good as the eccentric artist Peggy Guggenheim, who gives Pollock's career much needed exposure.\nAt the heart of the film is Harris' incredible performance as he brings Pollock to life both as a man and an artist. While Pollock did have many emotional problems, his biggest problem was when people criticized his work because it lacked meaning in their eyes. \nAs his fame grew, he was interviewed on a radio show, made the subject of a film and covered in Life. All three instances found him at odds with the reporter or filmmaker. When asked how he knows he is done with a painting, he responds, "How do you know when you're done making love?" Like many great artists, many of Pollock's contemporaries did not understand his talent and work. \nThis film is, if nothing else, a vehicle that society can use to better understand him. Like his art, "Pollock" is a simple film about a complicated man. It lets viewers judge for themselves.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Boy meets girl, boy likes girl, girl cuts boy's ear off, boy and girl get engaged, boy and girl are siblings.\nJust another normal day in the twisted world of the Farrelly brothers, right? Wrong. Do not be mistaken: "Say It Isn't So" is neither written nor directed by the talented duo who made us laugh ourselves silly with "Dumb and Dumber" and "There's Something About Mary." They only produced it. That is the first problem with this ridiculously stupid movie. \nThere is a big difference between trying to be funny and ending up as stupid, and writing stupid in a smart way. "Dumb and Dumber" might have been "dumb" humor, but not any bozo could sit down and do it. There was real thought put into that stupidity, something that was missing here.\nAlso missing were Jim Carrey, Ben Stiller, Woody Harrelson, Jeff Daniels or any other good male lead. Gilly Noble (Chris Klein) is sweet, innocent and pathetic, but he just isn't funny. Gilly falls in love with Jo (Heather Graham), a beautiful but horrible barber who snips the tip off his ear. But Jo's parents tell them they are siblings so that they won't marry. When Gilly discovers the truth, he takes off and tries to keep her from marrying her ex-boyfriend. While the premise is good, the movie is not. And I wonder how it might have been had it been written and directed by the Farrelly brothers.\nThere is a lot of time to wonder in between the laughs, which are sparse. Once Gilly gets on the road, the movie loses its focus and just becomes a lot of gross-out gags that don't advance the plot. The writers have a sense of what could be funny but just don't know how to carry out the jokes. \nFor example, on the road Gilly meets Dig McCaffey (Orlando Jones), a heroic, legless pilot. This has funny written all over it. There are a million crude, tasteless things you could do with a legless man. The film just doesn't do any of them. Dig's and Jo's parents (Sally Field and Richard Jenkins) provide the film's funniest moments, but they are spread out and independent of one another. \nThe film is more frustrating than funny, but the really frustrating thing is wasting $8 to see it.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Jay and Silent Bob, the ever-present stoners from Kevin Smith's four New Jersey films, are back and in fine form in Smith's fifth film, "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." \nWhen Jay and Silent Bob find out they are not getting royalties from the movie "Bluntman and Chronic," based on a comic book they inspired, the pair set out for Hollywood to stop the film's production. Along the way they hook up with a foursome of diamond-stealing girls, a nun, Scooby-Doo and the Gang and an orangutan named Suzanne (you'll remember her from the last scene of "Mallrats"). Many old characters return, including Dante, Randal, Holden, Brodie and Banky (Jason Lee in a double role). It's got the feel of the last episode of "Seinfeld," and will certainly be funnier if you've seen the previous four movies.\nKevin Smith has taken the saying "Half the fun of the trip is getting there" to the extreme, as some scenes have no bearing on the film's outcome, but are just fun. The film doesn't deal with relationships, homosexuality or religion, or any other topic from the previous films. Instead, it focuses on being fun from the first scene to the last. It pays homage to the series' characters, mocks Hollywood and gives Jay and Silent Bob a forum for their comic skills. Fans of the duo will get their fill of "nooch," "snoogins" and "fatty-boom-batty blunts" -- something they haven't gotten since "Mallrats." \n"Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" is the final chapter for Jay and Silent Bob, as Smith is retiring the characters. Jay was out of control in "Clerks," but has been tamed (relatively speaking) since then. But Smith held nothing back in writing Jay's lines this time around, as he let Jason Mewes go to the ceiling with his alter ego. Almost every word out of Mewes' mouth is dirty, and we even see in the first scene that his mother was no speech saint herself. \nThe movie can be shocking at times, but not to anyone who knows and loves Smith's work. The reintroduction of old characters, especially Dante and Randal from "Clerks," receives loud cheers and applause from the audience. And each joke from a previous film is treated like a favorite uncle you haven't seen in a while. That is one of the beauties of the film: the more you like Smith, the more you like this movie.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Once upon a time, MTV was about non-conformity. It was a forum for many artists who had no other outlet, and it has been instrumental in making stars out of many artists, as well as bringing rap into the mainstream. Most of all, it was about playing music videos. \nBoy, have times changed.\nThe 2001 Video Music Awards were, for the most part, a showcase for mindless pop hits and shameless self-promotion. The show was not funny, uninspired and, unlike in past years, had no outrageous moments or anything that will make it memorable. \nThe closest thing to an interesting moment was Michael Jackson's surprise appearance during 'N Sync's performance, but it was way too short and he didn't sing.\nThe problems started with the host, Jamie Foxx. Hosts of huge award shows don't work unless they are huge themselves. They can't be looking at the show as a way to boost their careers' or reputations. The VMA's best hosts in the past were mega stars like Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Dennis Miller and the four-time host Arsenio Hall. Foxx, and last year's hosts Shawn and Marlon Wayans, were awed, confused and most of all, not funny. \nSo much of MTV has become style over substance, and a lot of the music reflects that. The performers onstage disappear into a slew of background dancers and elaborate sets. This year's brand new MTV2 awards honored the best music from the young station that plays only videos, and the two of the night's best performances were not surprisingly from new artists: Linkin Park and Alicia Keys. It was refreshing to see these two acts playing their own instruments with the spotlights on them and not their dancers. It was also nice to see Jay-Z, who has proved to have real staying power and who always sounds just as good live as he does on the record. This can't be said for Britney Spears, who didn't even try to match her mouth to her voice this year. Closing the show with her was a poor choice.\nAnother poor choice was letting Eminem walk away empty handed. In this age of stale, 12-year-old girl pop, Eminem is a real artist. He writes songs that are funny, thought-provoking and real, and he's not afraid of critics. Hopefully for the 2002 VMA's MTV will get its act together, and show everyone why it is still the fresh station people expects it to be.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
I will not go to war. I cannot kill anyone, and I don't wish to try. That has been my only definite response to the possibility of war. But no one seems to know what is right when it comes to our country's reaction to the attacks. \nSome think we should bomb Afghanistan, killing Osama bin Laden and anyone else who happens to be there. Others believe we should try to better understand why the terrorists did what they did and try to then work out our differences peacefully. \nI recently attended an hour-long open discussion between students and faculty members. Many ideas were exchanged, and if any conclusion was reached, it was that the attack on Sept. 11 was different from any other in American history. Thus no precedent exists when it comes to solving it. \nYet President George W. Bush seems oddly confident. Bush seemed to have everything figured out: "The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows." \nIt seems as if the president and his administration are the only people in the country who are not confused. We are chasing an enemy we cannot find or see. This affects the world, but the people making that decision seem more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing their jobs. The government seems to think that making a quick decision is better than making a good one.\nBush is faced with a problem that will drastically alter the world. But I would rather have a president who looks in the camera and admits he is just as confused as the rest of us than one who assumes that I want immediate action. Granted, I did vote for Al Gore, but I don't think he would have acted any differently.\nThe feel on campus has shifted from overtly political to overtly patriotic. The country was nearly split during the election, but we all must live with the decision President Bush makes. I decided last November that even if Bush won, I would still make my own decisions concerning my actions. For two weeks, the country has banded together like never before. But what will happen in a year or so, when the flags are put away? How long can we keep up this barrage of patriotism before we again see ourselves as Democrats and Republicans? \nThe defining moment of these attacks will be the day when the excessive patriotism ends. It is then that every American will make his or her own decision to continue caring for others. On that day, we will know whether 6,000 some lives were lost in vain. We have a chance to change the world, and we don't need any suit on television to do it for us. I am challenging myself to make the right decision, and I challenge all of you as well. This is our time to make a difference. I hope we can.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The problem with reviewing movies is that you're not allowed to leave in the middle, no matter how bad a movie gets. Ben Stiller is in over his head with "Zoolander," a film he starred in, wrote, directed and produced. The best compliment I can pay the film is that it shows that some actors are still willing to take risks and leave behind what works. \nStiller has found success as the Woody Allen-ish, why-is-this-happening-to-me lover in "There's Something About Mary" and "Meet the Parents" as well as the regular guy mixed up in a love triangle in "Reality Bites"