90 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/13/01 4:36am)
On Sept. 29, I was in Evanston, Ill., for Northwestern's first home game of the 2001 football season. Like in every other sports arena in America, we sang "God Bless America," held a moment of silence, and fans were given small American flag stickers. I immediately put one on the brim of my visor, and one on the back of my car. I'm not sure what my purpose was, aside from that I felt unified with the rest of the country.\nIn the month since then, I've heard a lot of mixed feelings about flags. Some feel the sentiment is insincere and will die down as we return to normal within the coming weeks and months. Others have no desire to fly a flag, a flag that for many people represents the hypocrisy, lies, and injustices of the government. My flags are still up, but unlike Sept. 29, I now have good reasons.\nI fly the flag because of what it represents, both ideally and actually. When I look at the flag, I see the hope and promise of a good life as seen by immigrants who came to this land. I also see the hate and discrimination that so many of our citizens have lived with for generations.\nI fly the flag because it reminds me that we have a government that is by the (rich) people, of the (rich) people, and for all the (rich) people in this nation. It reminds me that I don't even refer to it as "our government" but rather as "the government."\nI fly the flag because it reminds me that the government seems more concerned with problems outside of our boundaries than inside. It reminds me that if they want to help the starving, the impoverished, the undereducated, the unemployed, the oppressed and the enslaved, that they needn't look farther than any city in this country.\nI fly the flag for all that is good in this country too. \nI fly the flag for the people, all of the people, because we're all in this together. Not just recovering and healing from Sept.11, but all of the struggles that our nation has had, and all that we will have. I fly the flag because when I look at it now, I can't help but think of all the people who died, and I can't help but think about all of the soldiers who will risk their lives in war. I can't help but think that, for many people, that is what life has become.\nI also can't help but think about why flags don't go up for Matthew Shepard, Rodney King, Ricky Byrdsong, or for any injustices that happen every day. \nGranted, I do not need a visual cue to remind me about all who died in the attacks, or all who suffer otherwise. But every time I walk to my car and see that flag, a flood of images and thoughts enters my head.\nAnd I hope that when people driving behind me see it, that thoughts fill their heads. Living in America is a privilege that I have enjoyed all my life, but one that I must now fight for. I fly the flag because it reminds me not just how far we have come, but more importantly, how far we have to go.
(11/08/01 5:00am)
As I left "Monsters, Inc." -- the new computer animated film from Disney/Pixar -- I felt privileged that I had been able to watch it. In fact, that feeling began even before the film started, as I watched with delight the animated short that preceded it. As that film ended and the feature began, I could feel a collective smile growing in the theater. \nWe all know that monsters have been living in children's closets for years and years, scaring the daylights out of them during the night. But what we didn't know was that the monsters are just doing their job to help their town, Monstropolis. We also didn't know that monsters are more scared of us than we are of them, because direct physical contact with human children is deadly. \nChildren's screams provide the town with fuel, so scaring kids is a very important job. But the job is tough, and lately kids have been getting harder to scare. Sully (John Goodman), a kind-hearted monster-of-the-people, is the best scarer Monstropolis has ever had. Along with his crew chief and best friend Mikey (Billy Crystal), Sully is on pace to break the all-time scare record. Late one night, when Sully goes to investigate an open closet door on the scare floor, the unthinkable happens: the young girl (Mary Gibbs) who lives there wanders through her closet and into Monstropolis. \nMonsters everywhere hear about this child -- although authorities will neither confirm nor deny the alleged human -- and there is widespread panic. It turns out that humans and monsters are very much alike. Sully and Mikey have her and unwanted contact leads them to believe she is not toxic. \nMuch of the film revolves around the relationship between Sully and Boo (Sully names the child that because of her scare abilities). The chemistry between these two characters is wonderful. \nWith technology today, many movies have great special effects, but the story has to be good for the movie to succeed. Here, like "Toy Story," the audience forgets about the computer animation and becomes enthralled in the story. The film is funny, emotional and surprisingly honest and true to life for a movie about monsters. \nThe filmmakers constantly bring new surprises to the screen without ever seeming showy: everything fits. It very well could become the first full-length animated feature to be nominated for Best Picture since 1992's "Beauty and the Beast"
(11/08/01 4:41am)
As I left "Monsters, Inc." -- the new computer animated film from Disney/Pixar -- I felt privileged that I had been able to watch it. In fact, that feeling began even before the film started, as I watched with delight the animated short that preceded it. As that film ended and the feature began, I could feel a collective smile growing in the theater. \nWe all know that monsters have been living in children's closets for years and years, scaring the daylights out of them during the night. But what we didn't know was that the monsters are just doing their job to help their town, Monstropolis. We also didn't know that monsters are more scared of us than we are of them, because direct physical contact with human children is deadly. \nChildren's screams provide the town with fuel, so scaring kids is a very important job. But the job is tough, and lately kids have been getting harder to scare. Sully (John Goodman), a kind-hearted monster-of-the-people, is the best scarer Monstropolis has ever had. Along with his crew chief and best friend Mikey (Billy Crystal), Sully is on pace to break the all-time scare record. Late one night, when Sully goes to investigate an open closet door on the scare floor, the unthinkable happens: the young girl (Mary Gibbs) who lives there wanders through her closet and into Monstropolis. \nMonsters everywhere hear about this child -- although authorities will neither confirm nor deny the alleged human -- and there is widespread panic. It turns out that humans and monsters are very much alike. Sully and Mikey have her and unwanted contact leads them to believe she is not toxic. \nMuch of the film revolves around the relationship between Sully and Boo (Sully names the child that because of her scare abilities). The chemistry between these two characters is wonderful. \nWith technology today, many movies have great special effects, but the story has to be good for the movie to succeed. Here, like "Toy Story," the audience forgets about the computer animation and becomes enthralled in the story. The film is funny, emotional and surprisingly honest and true to life for a movie about monsters. \nThe filmmakers constantly bring new surprises to the screen without ever seeming showy: everything fits. It very well could become the first full-length animated feature to be nominated for Best Picture since 1992's "Beauty and the Beast"
(11/06/01 5:30am)
What does it mean to be white in America?\nIt means that you only have to think about race if you choose to. It means that you can live your whole life without looking at any racial conflicts. You don't even have to know what it means to be white, because you probably don't feel a connection to a white community. I certainly don't. I don't feel a calling to any particular white culture, or white traditions. My Judaism, (which I don't subscribe to as a religion), is part of my identity because of my home life growing up -- but my whiteness?\nI feel no pull toward a white identity, which is in many ways what the white identity is all about. I'm not even comfortable talking about "the white race," because it seems the only people who use that term are White Supremacists.\nIt means that because of the predominantly white media, my popular culture will never be referred to as "white." Filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Kevin Smith are as much "white filmmakers" as Spike Lee and John Singleton are "black filmmakers." But Scorsese and Smith will never have that label placed upon them. \nBeing white means that even though I am a fun-loving kid who hates to work and is by all accounts quite lazy, I will have opportunities of financial stability and prosperity placed in front of me. With my work ethic, if I were a minority, I probably wouldn't have made it into college.
(10/26/01 6:03am)
I've got some requests for my birthday and Hanukkah, both of which are coming up. I want Astroturf outlawed, not just for the sake of Wendell Davis's kneecaps, (blown into his hips on a play at Veteran's Stadium in Philly in 1993), but just for the sanctity of football. Field problems should consist of mud and slush, not the carpet coming loose. \nI want the Rams back in L.A. and the Colts back in Baltimore. (The Ravens will move to Indy to even it all out). I want the Wizards to be the Bullets, and I want the Rockets to get rid of those hideous jerseys and return to the classic red and white.\nI want the Dodgers back at Ebbets Field, the Giants back at the Polo Grounds and I want every stadium that's named after the highest bidder to be renamed after someone more appropriate. I want the Marlins and D-Rays banished to Canada to start a three-team league of bad baseball with the Expos, and I want the champion to be decided by the BCS. \nI want Scottie Pippen to win a ring and an MVP without Michael or Phil. I want Antoine Walker to get his thumb out of his mouth and take the Celtics back to the finals.\nI want Mark Grace to beat the Yankees with a 9th inning home run, and the second he crosses home, for the Tribune Company to resign him and promise him a management position for whenever he retires. I want the NFL to get a clue and give up sudden death overtime in favor of college football's "match" system. \nI want to see college football and basketball players paid as much as coaches, and I want people to chill with bashing high-schoolers who turn pro. (If someone handed you millions of dollars to do what you love to do and nothing else, wouldn't you take it? I would.)\nI want the Rocket and Pedro in the National League, so they can stand on an island at home plate, knees shaking, hands sweating, looking down the barrel of a Randy Johnson fastball. I want Alex Rodriguez to hit .345 with 50 homeruns and 130 RBIs for the rest of his meaningless career, and I want him to do it while dropping a total of 300 games out of first place.\nI want to see this starting lineup form a team and win a title: Gary Payton, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing.\nBut most of all, I want to see a seven game World Series between the Cubs and the Red Sox. (The problem with this is that God would personally end the world before he let either of these clubs win a series.)\nI want an ideal sports world, where attitude and sportsmanship count more than stats and money. A world where players play with one team for their careers, winning lots of titles like Bill Russell or none like Ernie Banks. A world where all the real fans get courtside seating, and all the executives stand outside in the cold. \nThis is the world I long for, but for now I'll settle for sitting on my couch with all my good buddies, eating, laughing and having a good time watching sports. The rest of that stuff will probably just work itself out in the end.
(10/23/01 3:47am)
What would you fight for? \nThe question has been posed to me by teachers and I have asked myself many times. Fighting is usually not an option for me because it is against my nature and I am small, skinny and not tough. But if my freedom or my life was attacked, I would defend myself. \nOur country has not been put in a position since World War II in which we had to defend ourselves, but we are faced with one now. The perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks are ready and able to wage war against us, and they can win. \nAs much as I hate to say it, I am beginning to come around on the prospect of war as a reasonable response to the attacks. Growing up, the first war I heard about was Vietnam, and listening to my parents and my parents' records, helped form my anti-war views. If the Vietnam War began today, I would still be against it. \nIn Vietnam, we were fighting an idea, but now we are faced with a situation that attacks our freedom and our lives -- the two rights for which I would fight. My hold-up still lies in the possibility of killing innocent people. I give my full respects and prayer to those who were killed in the attacks, but just because innocent Americans died does not give us the right to kill innocent people in Afghanistan. \nFor the past month, the IDS has been filled with columns and letters addressing the Sept. 11 attacks. I have enjoyed the different viewpoints, both those with which I agree and those with which I don't. But I am disappointed in the amount of anger that I have seen toward one another. \nLetters that attack other people's responses do more harm than good, because they lose focus of the real issues: helping those directly attacked and ending terrorism. One letter that chastised the verbal protesters went so far as to call them "anti-American traitors." \nDisagreeing with someone's ideas is acceptable and understandable, and stating why you disagree helps us better understand one another as humans. But because this is such a new situation, I don't think anyone is in a position to judge the validity of anyone else's response. For those who feel war is the proper course of action, I understand, even though I don't completely agree. At this point, I am against the war because I am not yet convinced it is our only option, although I am quickly reaching that point.\nIt is possible that President George W. Bush was right to react with war, because terrorists are not going to sit down in a boardroom and discuss the problem. I have been struggling with the question of the correct response since I first heard about the attacks. It is true that signholders will have no effect on the terrorists, but attacking them won't do anything either. This is not a time to judge one another as Americans; it is a time to listen and to understand. After all, if we are going to war, we have a better chance of defeating one opponent than we do of defeating two.
(10/16/01 4:16am)
Please check one: caucasian-American, African-American, Latino-American, Pacific Islander-American, European-American, Asian-American, Native American, Jewish-American, American. Confused? So am I. It's time we get rid of these terms that divide our country. We are Americans. \nSure I'm white. But what does "white" mean? I don't celebrate any white holidays. The holidays I celebrate are Thanksgiving and 4th of July. These aren't white holidays; they're American holidays. I cheer during fireworks just like any American, regardless of ethnicity. \nAccording to the 2000 Census, blacks and whites are considered the two biggest races in America, but they are merely groups that have been constructed with the boundaries of money, power, and skin color. After all, the first European settlers had been living here for close for 200-300 years before the great European migrations during the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Yet descendants of Britain from 1620 and descendants of Russia from 1920 would both be categorized as white today. \nIf anything positive has come out of Sept. 11th, it is the way we have embraced our country and all it stands for. Seeing the flags the past month has made me feel like an American first, and a 19-year-old Jewish male second. Even with all of the hypocrisy, injustice, poverty and violence in the country, I would still rather live here than any other place in the world. We are a country made up of people from all over the world, and that makes us unique. Aside from Native Americans, everyone who lives here came over at some point from another country, be it by choice or by force. \nOne of the idealistic customs of this nation is to celebrate diversity, but we cannot do that until we first recognize what makes us the same. We are tied together by all that is American, both good and bad. We are tied together by American holidays and American values. After we realize that we are the same, we can then celebrate and discuss all of the ways we are different. I am not suggesting that people shut away their ethnicity.\nInstead, I would like people to stop seeing their ethnicity as something that makes everyone extraordinarily different, although an important part of being American is that we are so different from each other.\nRace is an issue that frightens a lot of people, mainly because when speaking about it one can unintentionally come off as "racist," when in fact they are uninformed. I am not an expert on the subject of race, but I am an expert on myself. Since the best way to solve a problem is by talking about it, I would like to give everyone the opportunity to share their thoughts. What does your ethnicity mean to you? Do you relate more to what makes you American or what makes you ethnic? What do you think about the terms black and white? Please write in to letters@indiana.edu to let us hear your voice.\nAs we have seen this past month, there are a lot of problems in the world. But there are also a lot of problems in the United States that must be addressed first so that we can be unified when we confront the world problems. The country is listening. Start talking.
(10/11/01 4:35am)
\"Ghost World" is the story of how two high school grads see the world and their divergent paths. In a larger sense, the movie is a story about people and how they view others.\nEnid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson) were weirdos in high school. Looking through pathetic personal ads leads them to Seymour (Steve Buscemi). Enid and Rebecca respond by phone as the woman he is searching for and tell Seymour to meet "her" at a restaurant. He does, has a drink, waits and leaves. He is so sad and dorky that Enid is drawn to him, because he is the opposite of everything she is against. They begin to hang out as friends and bond while listening to old blues and ragtime records.\nMeanwhile, Enid and Rebecca are drifting apart. Rebecca is ready for a normal life: she wants an apartment and has a job at a Starbucks-like coffee shop. While Enid dyes her hair and dresses like a 1970s punk rocker, Rebecca seems ready to settle down.\n"Ghost World" is a difficult movie to interpret after one viewing, because many scenes are short vignettes that add up to one somewhat ambiguous conclusion. It is a welcome change from other films out right now because of its truth, thoughtfulness and unique sense of humor. Each character is filled with life and expression. It is also the first movie I have ever seen that uses racism as a tool to show the fakeness and robotic orderliness of day-to-day life. The film brings up interesting issues involving race, mostly to do with the way racism is still present but hidden under the surface of today's society. \nEven after the race issues come up, the film does not lose its focus. Instead, it continues with Enid, Rebecca and Seymour. It is funny and sad, perceptive and real, and for anyone who remembers their high school graduation and the time spent figuring out the future, it is a movie that will be easy to relate to. \n(By the way: Stay for an omitted scene after the credits.)
(10/11/01 4:00am)
\"Ghost World" is the story of how two high school grads see the world and their divergent paths. In a larger sense, the movie is a story about people and how they view others.\nEnid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson) were weirdos in high school. Looking through pathetic personal ads leads them to Seymour (Steve Buscemi). Enid and Rebecca respond by phone as the woman he is searching for and tell Seymour to meet "her" at a restaurant. He does, has a drink, waits and leaves. He is so sad and dorky that Enid is drawn to him, because he is the opposite of everything she is against. They begin to hang out as friends and bond while listening to old blues and ragtime records.\nMeanwhile, Enid and Rebecca are drifting apart. Rebecca is ready for a normal life: she wants an apartment and has a job at a Starbucks-like coffee shop. While Enid dyes her hair and dresses like a 1970s punk rocker, Rebecca seems ready to settle down.\n"Ghost World" is a difficult movie to interpret after one viewing, because many scenes are short vignettes that add up to one somewhat ambiguous conclusion. It is a welcome change from other films out right now because of its truth, thoughtfulness and unique sense of humor. Each character is filled with life and expression. It is also the first movie I have ever seen that uses racism as a tool to show the fakeness and robotic orderliness of day-to-day life. The film brings up interesting issues involving race, mostly to do with the way racism is still present but hidden under the surface of today's society. \nEven after the race issues come up, the film does not lose its focus. Instead, it continues with Enid, Rebecca and Seymour. It is funny and sad, perceptive and real, and for anyone who remembers their high school graduation and the time spent figuring out the future, it is a movie that will be easy to relate to. \n(By the way: Stay for an omitted scene after the credits.)
(10/04/01 4:00am)
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"
(09/25/01 3:40am)
A funny thing happened this week at sports arenas across America. One team showed up at each game, and that team had one set of fans. Jersey colors were incidental. In fact, no one even noticed them. \nThe jersey colors that were important were the red, white and blue stitched in and stamped on them. The New York Mets wore hats on the field that said "FDNY" and "NYPD," and they embraced the Atlanta Braves on the field, the team that they had been chasing in a now inconsequential pennant race. \nMeanwhile, some 2,900 miles away, the Seattle Mariners had just clinched their division for the first time since 1997. It was their 106th win of the season, giving them a chance to win the most games in Major League Baseball history. But as the game ended, there was no Mariner celebration, but instead a group of Americans standing on the field holding an American flag. All week long, our heroes were proven human, while regular humans became the heroes. \nWhen the issue of canceling last weekend's games first came up, I was opposed. I understood the two sides of the issue, and regardless of the decision I felt that what was done would have both positive and negative effects. For me, sports on the weekend -- particularly football on Sunday -- is very American, and if people were serious about getting on with life, then athletes should too. I also felt that the games could serve as a break from what would be five days of suffering and prayer. \nBut football is an emotional game, and the players had their emotions in other places, just like the rest of us. Many players, including New York Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde, did not want to play, and said they wouldn't, even if the games were on. Baseball players were caught out of town, and many had trouble getting home. So we took a week off from sports, and in that week we learned a lot about the people we admire. \nI saw the San Francisco 49ers giving blood as a team while the New York Giants and Jets helped rescue workers on the streets. I saw the Pittsburgh Pirates hand out "I love New York" buttons before a game, and I saw baseball teams across the country stand in unison as St. Louis Cardinal announcer Jack Buck addressed the nation. \nTeam cheers were replaced by team prayers, and team songs were replaced by "God Bless America." This week's games reminded me of the Jan. 27, 1991, Super Bowl, which was in the middle of the Gulf War. As during that game, there was a sense of patriotism and togetherness this week, with sports acting not as a diversion but rather as a unifier during hard times. \nThe tragedy was still in the minds of Americans while watching these games, but we had a week to grieve, heal, reflect and live. President George W. Bush wants to show the terrorists that they have not damaged our resolve. The fact is, however, that they have. What is important now is to band together as a nation and gain strength through one another. \nSports can be a great tool for healing, and when I looked at the field of play and the fans in the stands, I not only saw the athletes giving the fans strength, but also the fans giving the athletes strength. We have banded together as a people, and while we saw the true place that sports has in society, we also saw the true power that it has.
(09/20/01 4:13am)
The Glass House" is without a doubt the all-time worst movie I have ever seen. I am not saying this as an exaggeration, but as a plain fact. Nothing about it is good. It teeters on an agonizing line rarely seen in film today, being bad enough to agitate but not bad enough to amuse. \nThe trailers ruin any possible shred of suspense by giving away the evil-guardian plot, but perhaps that was in order to give the audience hope that the ambiguous nonsense of the film's first half would go somewhere. Unfortunately, right when the first half ended the second half began, and the audience's hope was cruelly dashed by an absurd but predictable "climax." In fact, I'm not sure an audience was even necessary, because I did not hear one laugh, scream, gasp or yawn that pertained to the film. A few people got up to leave, but that was it. The only audience that would appreciate it would be the two robots from "Mystery Science Theater," but even they might get too bored to be funny.\nAfter Ruby Baker's (Leelee Sobieski) parents are killed in a car accident, she and her younger brother go to live with the Glasses, who actually live in a glass house. One day, there will be laws against that kind of absurdity. To Ruby's dismay, she learns that her guardian father (Stellan Skarsgard) is in debt to some thugs, and he has learned about the $4 million inheritance from Mr. and Mrs. Baker. This sets off the inevitable battle between the guardians and the kids, as well as the obligatory struggle between the siblings, because little brother Rhett has been "bought off" with video games. But setting up this predictable storyline took so much time, that the writers found themselves in a tough spot with no action and no character development. \nThat was one of the film's many problems: it couldn't decide whether its main character would be explored psychologically as a suffering child who'd lost her parents or as a chess piece to move along the action of the plot. I felt a little bit sorry for Sobieski, because she is a much better actress than this film allowed her to be. Her character's feelings towards other characters shift from like to dislike and back again, even within the same scene. She doesn't seem like a real person, but the plot's action is so poor that we have no choice but to try and look at her as one. The movie also has difficulty deciding when to end: the kids seem to be safe with a policeman as the camera pulls back on a giant crane shot with sad music, but then three minutes later there is a "twist"
(09/20/01 4:00am)
The Glass House" is without a doubt the all-time worst movie I have ever seen. I am not saying this as an exaggeration, but as a plain fact. Nothing about it is good. It teeters on an agonizing line rarely seen in film today, being bad enough to agitate but not bad enough to amuse. \nThe trailers ruin any possible shred of suspense by giving away the evil-guardian plot, but perhaps that was in order to give the audience hope that the ambiguous nonsense of the film's first half would go somewhere. Unfortunately, right when the first half ended the second half began, and the audience's hope was cruelly dashed by an absurd but predictable "climax." In fact, I'm not sure an audience was even necessary, because I did not hear one laugh, scream, gasp or yawn that pertained to the film. A few people got up to leave, but that was it. The only audience that would appreciate it would be the two robots from "Mystery Science Theater," but even they might get too bored to be funny.\nAfter Ruby Baker's (Leelee Sobieski) parents are killed in a car accident, she and her younger brother go to live with the Glasses, who actually live in a glass house. One day, there will be laws against that kind of absurdity. To Ruby's dismay, she learns that her guardian father (Stellan Skarsgard) is in debt to some thugs, and he has learned about the $4 million inheritance from Mr. and Mrs. Baker. This sets off the inevitable battle between the guardians and the kids, as well as the obligatory struggle between the siblings, because little brother Rhett has been "bought off" with video games. But setting up this predictable storyline took so much time, that the writers found themselves in a tough spot with no action and no character development. \nThat was one of the film's many problems: it couldn't decide whether its main character would be explored psychologically as a suffering child who'd lost her parents or as a chess piece to move along the action of the plot. I felt a little bit sorry for Sobieski, because she is a much better actress than this film allowed her to be. Her character's feelings towards other characters shift from like to dislike and back again, even within the same scene. She doesn't seem like a real person, but the plot's action is so poor that we have no choice but to try and look at her as one. The movie also has difficulty deciding when to end: the kids seem to be safe with a policeman as the camera pulls back on a giant crane shot with sad music, but then three minutes later there is a "twist"
(09/13/01 4:00am)
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.
(08/31/01 4:00am)
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.
(03/29/01 5:00am)
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.
(03/29/01 5:00am)
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.
(03/22/01 5:00am)
There are two types of Brad Pitt roles: ones that focus on his natural acting ability and ones that focus on his good looks. In 1995's "12 Monkeys," Pitt plays mental patient turned insane revolutionary Jeffrey Goines whose maddening genius is trapped inside a body and a world that don't seem ready for it. The film plays on the edge of insanity and shows how sanity is judged as majority thought. Pitt's character exploits that idea, while time traveler Jim Cole (Bruce Willis) is victim to it. \nThe only role to ever garner Pitt an Academy Award nomination, Goines is a man whose words seem only sane within a mental institution. His insight into the subject of insanity makes the definition of the word hazy and leaves the viewer wondering what to make of Goines' sanity. Pitt plays the role perfectly, combining long monologs with jerky body movements. \n The film takes place in several planes of existence, with Cole being sent from the year 2035 back in time to find a cure to a deadly virus that has killed more than 90 percent of humanity in 1997. Unfortunately for him, he is sent to 1990 instead of 1996, making it difficult to accomplish his goals. Of course, once in the past, the society around him dubs him insane because no one believes his seemingly "crazy" story. Cole is placed in the mental institution and meets Goines, who in his own crazy way explains sanity to Cole and tells him that what makes people insane is their inability to live like everyone else. He even has a rant about how people in this society are just consumers, an unintentional foreshadow to his Tyler Durden character in 1999's "Fight Club."\n The film is based on a 1962 French short called "La Jette" and is directed by former Monty Python member Terry Gilliam. With good performances from Willis and Madeleine Stowe, and an incredible one from Pitt, "12 Monkeys" is a sci-fi thriller that plays with time travel in a different way than other films. Unlike "Back to the Future" and "Time Cop," films in which the future can be changed by adjusting the past, Cole cannot change the future by altering the past. Instead, he can only use the past as a tool for learning, and the film's final act is a chilling example of how we cannot escape our own destinies.
(03/22/01 5:00am)
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.
(03/22/01 4:16am)
Girls can wear jeans, cut their hair short, wear shorts and boots, because it\'s OK to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading. But secretly, you\'d love to know what it\'s like, wouldn\'t you. What it feels like for a girl."\n-- excerpt from "What It Feels Like For A Girl"\nThe first thought that comes to mind when the words "Madonna" and "controversy" are spoken in the same sentence is "sex." \nThe one-time material girl has made a name for herself by exploring sexuality in all aspects of her life. Through music videos, her movie "Truth or Dare" and her book, "Sex," Madonna has challenged and passed the boundaries that surround society's most "hush-hush" topic. \nHer videos "Justify My Love" and "Erotica," along with Prodigy\'s "Smack My Bitch Up," released under her label, were all either censored or restricted by MTV because of their sexual content. So when I heard MTV planned to show her new video, "What It Feels Like For A Girl," once, I figured it was going to be similar to past videos. Even after I heard that the video was being restricted for violence rather than sex, I still assumed the worst. When the video finally did air at 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, complete with a warning from MTV News anchor Kurt Loder, I was surprised and a little disappointed that the video\'s content did not shock me more.\nBut after multiple viewings (I taped it), the video\'s images cast a hypnotic spell, and I began to understand the underlying messages that made the video seemingly dangerous to run.\nIn the video, Madonna picks up an elderly woman from a retirement home and takes her along on a crime spree, which includes aggressive and violent acts against seemingly innocent men. They appear innocent only because during Madonna\'s attacks they are not doing anything wrong, but they are guilty of being men in a male-dominated society, which is the point. \nGuy Ritchie, Madonna\'s husband and British filmmaker ("Snatch"), directed the video in a subtly explosive manner, using the techno beat to his advantage during car crashes and explosions.\nAlthough he leaves his mark on the video, the focus never shifts from Madonna\'s character, whom she described as a "nihilistic, pissed off chick doing things girls are not allowed to do." \nIn interpreting the video, it is important to understand that many of Madonna\'s most controversial actions deal with her own fantasies, and "What It Feels Like For A Girl" is just that. The title of the song is interesting, because the video does not focus on the feelings of the girl, but rather what she would like to do with her bottled-up aggression.\nAs the video ran its course, I grew anxious, waiting for the moment when Madonna\'s sixth sense for controversy would turn the video into a topic of discussion for politicians and angry parents. When it ended, I was confused about why MTV would only play it once -- it didn't seem overly violent to me.\nAfter watching it a number of times, it dawned on me that the real threat was not the violence, but the motives behind it. The most violent act was either a man being shocked with a tazer or Madonna running people over with her car. The men in the video are portrayed realistically and are never drawn as "evil" or "sexist."\nInstead, Madonna\'s victims are nothing more than men acting like normal men -- playing hockey, getting money at an ATM and smiling at girls at red lights. As she commits each act, the words "Do you know what it feels like to be a girl in this world?" play over and over. The video never directly answers that question, but the words become more and more haunting as they go on. \nBecause her victims are never harming her directly, and because the acts of violence are easily within the limits of modern cable standards, the video\'s danger lies in the way it challenges the male establishment. \nMadonna has always pushed the envelope with the way women are allowed to act in the public eye; this video is the same, except she uses violence instead of sex. "What It Feels Like For A Girl" is an incredible work of film that gets better the more you see it.