Music: Steady On (Shawn Colvin)

Album Review: Steady On by Shawn Colvin

Shawn Colvin is another artist that I have grown up with, and listening to her music instantly makes me think back on earlier days. Thus, I'm more partial to her music than most people would be. That said, Shawn Colvin is an incredibly gifted musician by any measure. She has phenomenal vocal abilities, able to convey anything from a tough rocker to a sweet little girl - sometimes all in the same song. Her songwriting is quite strong, and the instrumentals are quite interesting and solid in quality. She is apparently categorized as both rock and contemporary folk. This album, Steady On, was her first, released in 1989. All tracks were written by Shawn Colvin (some with the help of John Leventhal).

1. "Steady On"

We start off the album with the title track here; unlike with many of the albums I review, this opening track is not either an obvious single or upbeat number. It does, however, set the tone quite nicely for the rest of the album. Which leaves the task of describing what exactly that is... sadly, I am not a music theorist and this is significantly different from a lot of other music I like (The Beatles, Coldplay, etc.). I suppose I will have to be pretty impressionistic about the music here, since I'm obviously failing at specifics. To me, the feel of this song is like going on a long car drive, especially in the chorus, just driving down one of those endless highways. It prepares your mind and mood for the relaxing yet thoughtful tone of the album.

2. "Diamond in the Rough"

This song is a bit more active than the opening title track, driven by the guitar (keep in mind, I don't mean "drive" in the rock'n'roll sense; just more of a sense of the beat). The verses give a definite sense of buildup, both from the vocal and the instrumental work; when the chorus comes in, the feel turns more to straight folk-rock. This is followed by an interesting part by a flute-like instrument (again, I'm clueless as to exactly what it is). The song contains a unique, unexpected but very neat little middle-eight section as well. Great instrumentals, great melody make this one of my favorite tracks on the album.

3. "Shotgun Down the Avalanche"

This one is also somewhat more uptempo than the opening track, but the feel here is much more mysterious than "Diamond"s. The verses are the strength here, as Shawn puts quite a bit of variety into her vocal (even compared to the other tracks), while the chorus is quite restrained and short. Guitars of several varieties make their strongest appearance yet on this track, and also features the strongest demonstration yet of Colvin's trademark, echo-y guitar sound. This is a very interesting track, and certainly worth playing through at least a few times.

4. "Stranded"

Now we go back to a slower style - this one might be the slowest on the album, in fact. The verses are very pretty, even if it starts to sound a bit too repetitive after awhile. And the chorus indeed does a great job of instilling the feeling of being stranded. It's an alright song, but I think one of the weaker points on the album. It just is slow to the point of almost plodding, and the mood downbeat to the point of almost depressing. This is one where the mood you are in while likely greatly affect how you feel about it.

5. "Another Long One"

Ah, good, we're back to something a little more uptempo, featuring percussion that almost sounds like someone banging on a garbage can (a cool effect, trust me). Shawn enters with an insistent-sounding verse before moving to the chorus, one of her best on the album and making neat use of a double-tracked vocal. The instrumental mix is quite odd, but fits perfectly, just as in the title track (which I forgot to mention there). This song was definitely a good choice to put right after "Stranded," as it quickly snaps the listener's attention back on the music.

6. "Cry Like An Angel"

Although this song is not at all fast, it's got a nice beat to tap your foot to. The verses are quite cool, a little reminiscent of "Diamond..." here. I also like the start of the chorus, which seems to be building to a nice finish - when instead it oddly seems to fizzle out. An accordion and the echo-y guitars are featured here in the instrumentals. I think this one goes on a bit too long, especially since Shawn never gives the outburst of intensity that the song seems to promise. There are some really strong points here, but some disappointment, too.

7. "Something To Believe In"

Here, Shawn does a much better in seeing it through from the beginning of the verse through the end of the chorus. The verses give the impression (and perhaps the lyrics in them as well...) of running through a list of life's questions; not posing them as bad things, but just as challenges. The chorus answers this with, well... the title of the song. Just keep pushing through. The more laid back beat gives the song a nice platform to consider those ideas, too, all while keeping your foot tapping gently. I get a little bit of the feeling from the title track, too, of the ongoing nature of the theme. Good continuity, and a nice song.

8. "The Story"

Yay, a song in 6/8 time! Beyond the song's meter signature (which also helps), this is just a really nice piece of music. Shawn uses one of her most gentle, soothing vocal styles, and it really almost makes the term "pretty song" a tangible thing. The verses are very nice, with the lyrics coming from Colvin's lips at a pretty good clip. The chorus, however, begins with an extended note on which Shawn displays her expressionism impressively. In addition, behind the gentle nature of the song is a theme of determination and strength. One of my favorite tracks on the album.

9. "Ricochet In Time"

Here we get the shortest track on the album, and it seems to me a little like a cross between "Steady On" and "Stranded," with percussion on the upbeat to give it more tempo. It's not a very ambitious track; it neither soars high nor crashes down low. Some funky instrumental work is what stands out the most here. The verses are fine, and the chorus once again gives that feeling of, as The Beatles would have said, "the long and winding road," as first created by the title track. Not bad, but not great, either.

10. "Dead Of The Night"

The instrumentals, with deep drums and high strings, give it a more dramatic feel to start, then seems to come back to a regular level of intensity during the verse, before rising again just before the chorus where Shawn lets loose without getting loud, either. I suppose this track makes a good bookend for the album with "Steady On"; again, that sense of the "long road" is present, particularly in the chorus. This track has more dramatic flair than the title track, but it definitely also has more of a sense of finality to it. Another one that I can feel quite differently about depending on my mood: it can seem either too slow and plodding, or it can seem quite powerful and beautiful.

Score: 4 out of 5. I'm afraid this is probably one of my weakest reviews I've done so far. Shawn Colvin's music is simply considerably different from what I'm used to writing about. This is certainly quite a strong album, but it is sort of like Coldplay's first album: concentrates on the strength of the artist - which isn't a bad thing exactly, but neither album really tried to move out of its comfort zone. Still, this album is definitely worth at least a listen or two.

Essentials: "Steady On", "Diamond In The Rough", "Something To Believe In", "The Story"

Weak(er) Songs: "Stranded", "Ricochet In Time"

Movies: Battle: LA

Score: **1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Battle: LA has an enticing action premise, with gritty street fighting, cool visuals, and a high level of suspense. It delivers these, but is dragged down, first and foremost, by a simply horrendous script (even for an action film). The nail in the coffin is a wretched final act that just gets worse until its abrupt ending.

For the first time in a long time, I finally got to see a movie on opening night! I have been looking forward to Battle: LA since I saw the trailer last summer. The film is about an alien invasion of a certain city in California (sadly, no mention was made of whether or not the Lakers survived); it was directed by Jonathan Liebesman (who hasn't really done anything else of note). Unfortunately, my expectations were not quite met...

Here's a synopsis of the "story" of Battle: LA. Marine Staff Sgt. Nantz (Eckhart) is a veteran soldier on the cusp of retirement; he won some medals in combat, but is currently training new troops back at home. We also meet some of his trainees, including a young guy set to take command of the unit. TV reports of a meteor shower prompt a mobilization of the military which, as Eckhart and co. arrive, knows that in reality it's a landing of extraterrestrial beings. Missions are divvied out, and Eckhart's unit has to try to retrieve some civilians stuck in an area designated for imminent carpet bombing by our own forces.

The Marines make their way through the ruins of an LA suburb, and eventually find the civilians in a busted police HQ. The next large chunk of the film shows the Marines taking them to "safety"; but they arrive to find the forward operating airbase in ruins. Somehow, they manage to call for evac, but the Marines take a detour (while the civilians get ferried to safety) that ends up saving the day.

Yes, it's a mindless action film, but I'll still talk about the acting here anyway. I'll preface individual roles by saying, whoever wrote this film (looking... Christopher Bertolini) should never ever be allowed to write dialogue ever again. It isn't too terrible for the first half, but after that, it is painfully bad. With that said, the lead actor, Aaron Eckhart, manages a pretty good job portraying a grizzled Marine veteran with genuine courage. It doesn't hurt that he both looks and sounds the part, too. Everyone else has such a small role (at least in terms of dialogue) that they're barely worth mentioning, and unfortunately Bertolini ruins most of their parts. Michelle Rodriguez is the most recognizable of the supporting cast, and she gives a pretty average performance (basically the same role she had in Avatar).

I have to give Battle: LA at least a little credit: I was on the edge of my seat with tension for just about all of the first half to two-thirds of the film. The action (at least until the last act) seems as realistic as you could make battle against aliens. The Marines (again, at least until the last act) aren't super heroes by any means, and the looming sense of danger and death is ever-present. The shaky-cam style is used, which I don't typically like; however, it's a good fit for the film, and it's done significantly better than some other films. There are a few attempts made at humor in this film, most of which fail; unfortunately, there is also a healthy dose of unintentional humor, especially toward the end.

***

The strength of the suspense and direction of the action (throughout most of the film) might have been enough to get Battle: LA three stars. However, I am frustrated because, with just a little more effort and thought behind this, it could have been a really good action film. The first thing I would have done is drop the haphazard "Hollywood" feel in the non-shooting parts, as it clashes horribly with the gritty action sequences (and worsened by the terrible writing itself). Second, the ending is completely lazy, although it really starts going downhill fast right after the Marines make it to the ruined airport. One of my pet peeves in movies is lazily or just generally badly done endings, and this is a prime offender. Thus, it only gets two and a half stars, a poor opening big-budget action flick for 2011.

Sports: NBA at midseason (sort of)

I've been neglecting the blog recently, unfortunately. Partly this is due to computer problems, and is thus why there have been no music reviews. I thought about going to see I Am Number Four this weekend, which looked fun based on the trailers. Sadly, reviews I read on Rotten Tomatoes.com described it as Twilight with aliens. I think I'll pass. Unknown has gotten decent reviews, and I'm a Liam Neeson fan. But it just looks too much like Taken, a film Neeson starred in a couple years ago, with the "spin" of basically a Bourne-memory-loss plot. Maybe Netflix. So, the next movie I see in the theater *might* be Rango, depending on RT reviews, and if not that, then definitely Battle: Los Angeles which looks awesome.

So, what to do for now? Well, I haven't posted about sports in awhile. Sadly, the Pittsburgh Steelers lost the Super Bowl, but they surprised me by getting that far this season. And I don't really mind the Packers winning; seeing TTSNBN lose was the next best thing to seeing the Steelers win it all. With football over (and a headache of a collective bargaining agreement to make), I turn my attention fully to the NBA. This weekend is All-Star Weekend, which is typically the midpoint of the year, although this year it's a little later than that. I'll put up a few of my thoughts of what's happened thus far, and what I think (or hope) will come.

1. Carmelo

The most immediate item on the agenda is the whole Carmelo Anthony situation. As a brief summary, for those not familiar with it, Anthony will become a free agent at the end of the season. Denver has offered him a 3-year, $65 million extension, but he won't sign it. He has (mostly) consistently claimed that he only wants to play for the NY Knicks. However, a few months ago the NJ Nets reportedly came quite close to trading for him, and now the Lakers have even been rumored to have interest in him.

Personally, I'm not much of a Carmelo fan. I think it would be kind of cool to see him go to the Knicks, in order to try to match the Heat in star power (and of course, compete with the other East powerhouses). If he were to go to New Jersey, it would be a complete waste since the Nets aren't even close to being competitive. I don't think it would be a good idea for the Lakers to get him, but I also don't think it would be an obviously bad move. As Bill Simmons (I highly recommend his column/podcast) pointed out, Bynum's injury history does not bode well. So even if the Lakers' strength is their size, can they really count on Bynum to be playing, and at 100%, consistently? On the other hand, Anthony, would give them a third big-time scorer, across three different positions; that would be formidable, to put it mildly.

2. Lakers

*Sigh* You think I'd be used to it by now. The Lakers and their maddening inconsistency in the regular season; this year it seems to be the worst it's been in the Gasol era. How can you lose to a team that just recently tied the American pro sports team record for consecutive losses - a team that you beat by fifty-five point earlier this year?!? It's "only the regular season," but it's worrying. The Lakers have a miserable record against the league's best teams this year, and are 8.5 games behind the Spurs, the #1 team in the West right now.

What's the problem? A few theories. They really don't care about the regular season this year, and aren't that much better anymore to win with minimal effort/focus consistently. This seems to describe the way the team has played, but it doesn't make sense, since they have clearly struggled on the road and would want homecourt advantage if they played the Spurs in the playoffs. Second reason: Ron Artest. His statistics are down, even from last year, across the board. I haven't seen the Lakers play a ton yet this year, but not once have I seen him play well, and most disturbingly, he has looked bad on defense, his old specialty. Third: athleticism. The Lakers' bigs dominate every other team, but beyond that, it's the Lakers who fall short. Kobe is getting older and can't waste his precious legs chasing young guards around; but beyond him, there just isn't much there. Fisher is either done or (hopefully) saving himself for the playoffs like last year; Brown is athletic but is undisciplined and lacks skill; Walton is decent for what he is (a bench player to use when the other team does the same); Artest is sucking; and Barnes is hurt. Which leaves new acquisition Blake, who makes threes and does little else. I knew this would happen when they got him last summer, but I talked myself down. Turns out I was right: they DESPERATELY need at least a solid, young point guard.

What can they do? Well, one good thing that's happened this year is that Odom has improved and is often simply unstoppable due to his size, skill, and athleticism. Kobe is beginning his transition in earnest now to playing as a vet, letting the game come to him (mostly), and spreading out the scoring load. I wouldn't blame the Lakers for trying to get Carmelo for Bynum, but I hope they could figure out a way to get Billups, too (an aging point guard, but a much better one than any they have now). I'm hoping Barnes' return will help, and perhaps getting some of Artest's minutes will finally give Ron the kick in the butt he needs.

3. Season at a Glance

Through this point in the season, the East is led by the following teams, in order: Boston, Miami, Chicago, Orlando, Atlanta, New York, Philadelphia, Indiana. I am quite surprised that Boston continues to lead the East; I thought that last year's Finals were their last gasp. I think their old guys need to be tested for steroids at this point. Miami, sadly, is doing quite well. The good news is that, to me, they seem very beatable (Boston's beaten them all three meetings so far). I think the approach you have to use is the same as when LeBron was on Cleveland: let him do his thing, shut everyone else down. Yeah, he's got Wade now, but I think there is still some vulnerability here. Chicago has surprised me quite a bit. Now, I thought they might be close to this good - but not with Boozer and Noah being injured for as long as they have been. Rose has been phenomenal: 25 pts, 8 assists and 4.5 rebounds per game. With both big men, they will be really tough to take down. Orlando's big trade was alright; still to be determined, however. Giving up Gortat, Pietrus, and Carter for Turkoglu and Richardson was OK; but why in the world would you want Arenas?! They already have a point guard, Nelson, and Arenas is nowhere near the player he once was. They needed to trade Lewis for someone better; I don't think they have much of a shot in the East now. The Hawks? They get swept in the 2nd round of the playoffs each year, who cares what they do in the regular season? The Knicks' emergence has been neat, although it's the rise of role players like Felton, Gallinari, and Chandler that's been the most interesting. Without Carmelo, though, they don't have a prayer this year. The 76ers are interesting, but I haven't really followed them, and the Pacers will just be first round cannon fodder.

Through this point in the season, the West is led by the following teams, in order: San Antonio, Dallas, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Portland, New Orleans, Denver, and Utah. The Spurs have been perhaps the biggest surprise this year. If anything, I figured Poppovich would try to save his seasoned stars (Duncan, Parker, Ginobli) for the playoffs, but they have really been great, with the help of Blair, Jefferson, Hill, and rookie sharpshooter Neal. Dallas has also been fairly surprising. Nowitzki just stays so consistently good, and Chandler has been huge for them. Had Butler not gotten hurt, I think they would be big time contenders (still are good, just not top tier). LA I've just talked about. Oklahoma City has been surprising in the opposite way: I thought they'd blow everyone out of the water this year. But their defense has been much worse, and Durant has not improved considerably. Poor Portland, hit with injuries as usual; I was actually surprised to see them this high. With Paul back, New Orleans is, too, and Paul has been helped by two good bigs in West and Okafor. Denver is somehow hanging around despite the Carmelo drama, and Utah has been underachieving so far.

4. What to Expect

For the East, I imagine Miami will probably take over the #1 seed, as Boston battles injuries and tries to prevent serious setbacks. They'll have to battle Chicago for the #2 seed, who will be coming strong with Noah after the All-Star break. Orlando will likely improve, as well, with their new roster, and protect the #4 seed from Atlanta. In fact, the Knicks may make a run at the #5 seed over Atlanta. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter. It's a three team conference (and three great ones at that), with Orlando having the best shot at upsetting one of them.

For the West, I think the #1 seed is still somewhat in play. The Spurs do have a big lead, but I feel like Poppovich has to at some point think about resting the big three - but maybe he's just really intent on homecourt throughout. Dallas may have a chance at it, but will need the Spurs to really start tanking. I give the Lakers a decent shot at making a drive for #1, but not the way they're playing right now. The Thunder are another team to watch; if they can start to put it all together, they could also be striking for the #2 or even #1 slot. I think you can draw a distinct line in the conference there, because the #5 to #8 seeds are probably there to stay - however, they're all really close so exact positions are up in the air. There will be plenty of attention on potential playoff matchups, I imagine. For example, the Lakers would probably prefer to get New Orleans or Utah, and avoid Portland and Denver (just guessing).


Whew, that was long! It should be a fun finish to the regular season, and then even better in the playoffs!

Movies: The Green Hornet

Score: ***1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: The Green Hornet is an action/comedy that takes the superhero genre to places it usually doesn't go. Rogen makes the main character an interesting, entertaining figure to follow/root for/root against (sometimes all at the same time). The film certainly has its share of flaws, including some disappointing action sequences, but its humor is excellent and it manages to end on a high note (unlike many similar films).

Well, a bit of a delay from my last blog post I'm afraid; and since I've seen this film, too. Life does that to you sometimes. Anyway, The Green Hornet is an action/comedy superhero film directed by Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and release on January 14. This film obviously does not have high art aspirations, but it achieves its goals quite successfully. On to the plot.

The film starts with a variety of scenes introducing the main character, Britt Reid (Rogen), as the entitled, asshole son of a mega-newpaper (ie: NY Times) owner. It is also made clear that the father and son have a relationship that is frosty at best, and so Britt's attitude shows little change when his father suddenly passes away. However, Britt soon meets his father's former servant, Kato (Chou); after much talking and drinking, the two decide that they would like to pay tribute to the man they have in common. After performing the amusing prank, the two stumble into a robbery/assault, at which time Kato shows his martial arts talents - and Britt shows his eagerness (and ineptitude) for action.

With Kato revealing all kinds of useful skills, Britt proposes that they have "fun" dealing with crime, as opposed to "just" writing about it in the paper like his father did. So they begin terrorizing the criminals themselves, with the help of the Black Beauty, a Batmobile/James Bond car. However, this draws the attention of crime lord Chudnofsky (Waltz), who soon puts a price on the Green Hornet's head. At the same time, Britt grapples with some complications at the newspaper with the help of his new assistant Ms. Case (Diaz). As you might imagine, these threads come together for a rather explosive finale.

Acting is typically secondary at best in this type of movie, but there are some fine performances nonetheless. I was impressed by Seth Rogen, who I have only seen in pure comedies before. While he makes Britt an impressively off-putting character, he balances it with enough unintentionally self-effacing humor to make Britt tolerable and interesting. I'm not too familiar with Jay Chou; I suppose he does a good job as the naive, innocent foreigner but it's only a serviceable performance. Christoph Waltz, unsurprisingly, does a fine job as the villain, and as in Inglourious Basterds, he has a great mix of humor and genuine menace. Diaz does alright, but the scenes she's in shine more because of the way the film cleverly subverts the cliches of the role she's in (ie: Lois Lane, Mary Jane, etc.) than her acting.

Obviously, the action and the comedy are the main courses in this film. There is certainly some neat action in the film, particularly some Matrix-esque scenes and some involving the Black Beauty. However, much of the action is a bit numbing to be honest and sometimes not very imaginative and/or clearly filmed. It's the comedy that works the best here, in my opinion - and much of this takes place during the action. It certainly helps that the main "hero," the Green Hornet whose name everyone in the city comes to know, is in fact just a normal, chubby guy, and it's his partner who does all the heavy lifting. But the film was simply very successful in getting me to smile almost the whole time, whether in general amusement, a brief chuckle, or a laugh out loud shared with the rest of the theater.

***

Again, The Green Hornet is not competing for the Oscars, but it's a well-made film for what it wants to achieve. Yes, the action gets a bit stale here and there, and Britt occasionally seems to spontaneously change his character, among a number of other flaws I'm sure you can find. However, it's a well-paced film that keeps you entertained in a number of ways. And, it does something that a number of movies recently tend to really drop the ball on: it nails the last act. So, if you're looking for a fun time in the middle of the bleak winter, this one is certainly worth your while.

Movies: 2010 Review

Despite the fact that we are now 18 days into the new year, I wanted to wait until I had seen True Grit, a 2010 release, before doing my year in review for the movies of 2010. I will post my top 10, with short reasons why, and then conclude with random awards, which will probably change each year depending on what fits. Also, as a preview, I am planning on kicking off the 2011 movie season by seeing The Green Hornet, so a review for that one will most likely be coming shortly. On to the best of 2010:

10. Unstoppable (directed by Tony Scott; starring Denzel Washington and Chris Pine)

This movie was quite a fun one that resembled Speed crossed with a disaster film. The near-constant suspense is its greatest strength, but Denzel and Pine also contribute some nice acting. The rather bland ending was the weakest part. It's one of those movies that I'll probably forget about, but when reminded of it, will think "yeah, that was a pretty good one."

9. The Other Guys (directed by Adam McKay; starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlherg)

This was one of the only traditional comedies that I saw this year. I'd say it's one of Ferrell's better movies (and his performance is certainly one of his best), but it didn't get to the level of an Anchorman or Elf. Wahlberg is truly terrible in a comedic role, but the situation is made all the funnier seeing him opposite the sublimely deadpan Ferrell. The first third-to-half or so is really great here, but the humor disappointingly falters in the last stages.

8. Megamind (directed by Tom McGrath; starring Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, et. al.)

This may come as a surprise considering how much I raved about it earlier; but since then my opinion has leveled out some. That said, essentially movies #4-8 are all super close in my opinion, and could be interchangeable based on my mood. The particularly strong parts of Megamind are the perfect choices for voice acting all around, the superhero-turned-on-its-head theme (also done in Despicable Me, apparently, but I missed that one), and the humor.

7. Inception (directed by Christopher Nolan; starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, et. al.)

For some reason, I have always wanted to nitpick this one to death since I saw it (same way I felt about District 9). Perhaps my hopes for it were just too high. The biggest problem I had with it was the startling lack of any emotional connection; I also thought the winter fortress scene was too drawn out and very Bond-derivative. That said, the dream concept is extremely intriguing, most of the pacing is very good, and there are more than a few "whoa" scenes.

6. The Social Network (directed by David Fincher; starring Jesse Eisenberg, et. al.)

This might be the best film from a filmmaker's/Oscar's perspective on my list. The dialogue is great (written by The West Wing guy), it focuses on the people rather than Facebook itself, and Eisenberg's performance was one of the best I saw all year. That said, like Inception, there wasn't any emotional connection for me (though perhaps that's unfair based on the kind of film) and it's not one that will stick with me (I forgot to even put it on my list, initially!).

5. Shutter Island (directed by Martin Scorcese; starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, etc.)

The immediate comparison here is to Inception. Both star DiCaprio, whose character is similar but superior in Island. Both have reality-bending premises; both are really neat, but Inception's is certainly more ambitious. Shutter has tremendous suspense; Inception has tremendous "whoa" factor. What puts Shutter Island ahead for me is its inclusion of genuine, powerful emotional connection to the point of tears.

4. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One (directed by David Yates, starring the usual)

I'll be honest, this would probably be several spots lower if I weren't such a big Harry Potter fan. It's hard for me to judge it against other movies, as I'm both more critical but also so fond of its various characters and elements. Still, if nothing else, this is definitely the best of the films yet, undoubtedly due to the extra time given it by splitting the last book in two. We finally got great action, trademark Potter magic, and character development all in one.

3. True Grit (directed by Joel and Ethan Coen; starring Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, et. al.)

Now we get to the big three. And even though I just saw this one, I don't think I'm overrating it. There's nothing tricky about this one, it's just damn good. The story is a simple structure around which to hold fantastic performances, particularly young Steinfeld; a surprising amount, quality and appropriateness of humor; and, again, emotional impact. It seemed like the Coens wanted to try to make a straightforward yet brilliant film, and they succeeded.

2. Kick-Ass (directed by Matthew Vaughn; starring Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage, et. al.)

This is probably my most controversial pick. And perhaps I'm just in the right demographic for this one. But this film is well named, because it did kick my ass. There are so many things to say about it, and the first is a warning: yes, it is quite violent, and some of that violence is inflicted both by and upon a young girl. But that young girl is not, nor is the rest of the film, used in any kind of voyeuristic fashion. Beyond that, I'm not sure how to describe this film in an accurate yet brief way. So, if you can stomach the violence (and I think most people reading this can), give it a shot (to further intrigue you, I actually almost always hate movies this violent; the film overall overrides this for me). At the very least, I doubt you'll be yawning by the end.

1. Toy Story (directed by Lee Unkrich; starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, et. al.)

Surprisingly, but perhaps appropriately, I don't remember the specifics of this film very well. I was 9 years old when the first Toy Story came out and I saw it, and I do remember that this third installment was made to sort of feel like that time span had elapsed. Here are two descriptions by others that I thought were good: A) it's about the fundamental truth that we start to lose things as we age; and B) it was like seeing old friends again, but realizing you all had changed. And yet it's not a sad movie; it still has Buzz and Woody and the gang's cheer. Some movies almost seem destined to be classics before you even see them, and this is one of them.


Now, for random awards for other films:

Worst Movie of the Year: Get Him To The Greek (you know, I don't mind jokes about sex and drugs. But when a film relies on them exclusively and without any subtlety? Goodbye.)

Most Overrated Movie of the Year: How To Train Your Dragon (I remember not being interested in this, then seeing it get over 90% on RottenTomatoes. Since Up! and Wall-E followed the same pattern for me, and they are two of my favorite movies recently, I thought I'd give it a try. Dragon isn't bad... but 98%? Really? There is absolutely nothing special about this movie and the formula has been done to death.)

Most Disappointing Movie of the Year: The A-Team (I was expecting really crazy, really fun. I got a little crazy, a little fun.)

Honorable Mention (fun movies not in the top 10): Knight And Day, Iron Man 2



Overall, a very good year at the movies I think, although I didn't see quite as many as I usually do. Have fun Netflixing the top ten!

Movies: True Grit

Score: ****1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: True Grit is one of those rare films that is getting both Oscar buzz and box office success, and it's certainly worthy of both. Seemingly a straightforward Western/Coen brothers concoction, this film pulls you in with its fantastic performances, particularly from the leading young girl Hailee Steinfeld. Then it keeps you emotionally invested and entertained, with great humor and suspense.

Here we have the last film released in 2010 that I will see in theaters. With the great reviews that Coen brother films always seem to get, I was eagerly looking forward to True Grit, which came out on December 22. This western is based on the novel by Charlie Portis, and was previously made into a film in 1969, starring John Wayne. It turned out to be pretty much what I expected, to my pleasure.

The first thing to say about the plot of this film is that it is not very complicated, but it didn't need to be. The film starts with some exposition describing the murder of a man named Ross by another guy called Chaney (Brolin), and then we are immediately introduced to a 14-year-old girl named Mattie Ross (Steinfeld), the daughter of the murdered man. She is in the town where her dad was killed, to see to his body and other business. It is quickly apparent that Mattie is a very determined, confident, and intelligent young girl, and after finishing various necessities, she turns her laser-like focus to finding a bounty hunter to get her father's killer. The one she seeks is U.S. Marshal "Rooster" Cogburn (Bridges), a fat old man with brutal but effective methods. She also meets Texas Ranger La Bouef (Damon), who is also searching for Chaney because of his murder of a state senator.

Rooster eventually agrees to the mission, but understandably wants to go alone; however, in a rather moving scene, Mattie chases after him and La Bouef by fording a large river on her new horse. The adult men begrudgingly allow Mattie to come along, but there is constant tension among the three, especially the arrogant, rather dim-witted La Bouef and cynical, savvy Rooster. As usual, I don't want to give too much more away, but the trio eventually catches up to Chaney and brings him to justice, although not without paying a significant price.

With stars like Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin, it isn't surprising that the acting in True Grit is fantastic. However, it's actually newcomer Hailee Steinfeld who steals the show as young Mattie Ross. The fact that a child of her age does a good job acting is in itself rather rare, but she goes above and beyond. She completely fleshes out her character, displaying genuine courage, sense of humor and warmth, in addition to moments of fear and anxiety as she realizes the situation she is in. And she expresses this through a great western twang accent and a remarkably expressive face. She isn't the only bright spot though, of course. Bridges does a great job as a grizzled old Marshal, letting Hailee shine while still maintaining a strong presence. And Damon is fun, too, conveying La Bouef's stupidity without making it a parody.

I'm not a western aficianado, nor have I seen every Coen brothers film, but True Grit seems to contain all the best elements of both. Most notably, it's quite a funny film, although it's certainly not a "comedy" by any means. Whether it's Rooster's odd antics, his bantering with La Bouef (which is pronounced by all as "la beef"), or meeting the oddest strangers along the journey, there are more than enough laughs to keep your spirits up through the film (a soundtrack of modified 19th century hymns also helps). There are several shoot-outs, but again it's not an "action" film; there's far more verbal sparring. It contains at least one scene of violence that makes you sit up and start, another Coen brother trademark. A final note is the very nice sets made of the town at the beginning, and the rather bleak, winter setting in the wild country hunt.

***

True Grit is an excellent film I think, and the critics seem to agree with me. While I love a great story, this film rightly, in my opinion, focuses on the characters and excitement and humor and atmosphere in general. The story does serve its purpose just fine, but what's really great is rooting for the indomitable will of Mattie, chuckling at Rooster's bluntness (and outright laughing at La Boeuf), and gripping your chair anxiously when the gun barrels start getting hot. Saddle up for a great time at the movies (even if it's via Netflix), as this one delivers all the elements you want from a movie, like several others I've been fortunate to see lately.

Music: Rubber Soul (The Beatles)

Beatles Album #6: Rubber Soul

The Beatles released this album in a shockingly low span of time after Help!: four months. It adds to the impact of Rubber Soul overall, which I feel is where The Beatles finally achieved the level of not just being a great band, but a special one; and, in my opinion, would go even further to become the best pop music act of the 20th century. Thus, such a short turnaround from Help! (a very good album anyway, of course) to this is amazing to me. Essentially, this album is a collection of finely-honed, if still somewhat standard, pop-rock songs all falling under 3 minutes except one; song creativity would come later, but this album shows that they could craft each aspect of a song to its fullest potential.

1. "Drive My Car" (Lennon/McCartney)
As usual, The Beatles get off to a great start on the album. It's immediately apparent that the music has evolved, yet again, from the previous album (although previewed in tracks like "Ticket To Ride"). But there's more to this evolution than previously; I guess the best way I can put it is that they really just put it all together. For example, this track pulls in all the elements of the song into the "car" theme nicely, from the opening guitar riff, to the lyrics (obvious; but they are also clearly several notches above similar earlier tracks), to the "beep beep" vocal effects. On a more general note, the Paul's bass part is fantastic, as are Ringo's drums (even the basic cowbell adds some nice drive). John and Paul harmonize brilliantly, a feature that is not so new but a welcome one nonetheless (Paul's vocal is primary, and he uses his awesome hard-rock style). Fantastic opener.

2. "Norwegian Wood" (Lennon/McCartney)
And now The Beatles change it up completely; this is one of the most recognizable non-single Beatles songs out there. George, having been exposed to Indian instruments during the filming of Help!, gives the sitar a try here, and it's one of the signature touches of the song, along with the hook that it shares with the guitar. This is one of John's best songs, in my opinion, and I really like the 6/8 rhythm. If the music alone weren't enough to clue you in, the lyrics are also far different from previous Beatles songs. Paul adds nice harmony at the refrain, and the backing instrumentals let the vocals dominate but are still very impressive. I think this is a little like "Yesterday," in that it's a sign of things to come, but there's nothing else like it on this particular album. A classic, obviously.

3. "You Won't See Me" (Lennon/McCartney)
Back to a more upbeat song here, although not as driving as the opener. On the surface, it seems there's little remarkable about this song, but I really like it. The composition is pretty simple, but I think it's a perfect example of Paul's incredible strides as a writer - it's a great tune, and it gives the feeling of a master's effortless ease. Once again, Ringo's drum part is just great; they may not stand out, but they're perfect in so many cases. The piano, also present in "Drive My Car," is another welcome addition. Of course, there's more harmonization too, which builds from a pretty low-key backing at the start to a much more intense one by the end. It doesn't dazzle, but it's just a great song.

4. "Nowhere Man" (Lennon/McCartney)
This one is a favorite Beatles song for a lot of people, but I'm not a terribly big fan of it. I think it's a good song, but don't see all the fuss about it. This one is simple, too, but I prefer the kind of simple on "You Won't See Me" to this - but I admit, I can't explain it. It certainly feels like it captures the sound of the era in which it was written. The harmony is of course even more dense here, although you can still hear that it's Lennon in the lead (he also was the primary writer). The lyrics again point to an evolution for John, one that continued to peel back the image of him as purely a cocky, overconfident rock star. It's a very good song, and a worthy addition to the album, but nothing in the composition, vocal or instrumental performance really stands out to me in particular.

5. "Think For Yourself" (Harrison)
Here's another jolt: George's songwriting talent took a big jump, too! I like this song quite a bit, although perhaps some of it is because I'm a sucker for songs that switch up the style (ie: "Paint It Black"). The improvement for George is two-fold: he is beginning to acquire his lyrical voice, rather than uisng generic pop stuff; and even more importantly, the musical structure is a lot better, too - and despite learning from John and Paul, it is distinct from theirs. It's getting old, but I have to repeat that the drums are again superb, and I like George's muffled-sounding guitar. John and Paul add some terrific harmony, while letting George's vocal carry most of the song. This one is great on its own, and even better as a sign of the improvement of Harrison.

6. "The Word" (Lennon/McCartney)
This is one of the few semi-blotches on the album. Part of the problem is that its placement on the album is horrific, which is unusual since I think The Beatles typically ordered the tracks quite well. The sound is just too similar to "Think For Yourself", yet this one is significantly weaker, in my opinion. The composition feels to me like it was knocked off pretty quickly - The Beatles did write and record the album remarkably fast, remember. The nice thing is that where the band may have mailed in the performance on earlier albums, this one is done well. The repetitive quality of the song can unfortunately cause headaches if you listen to it at the wrong time. It's not a bad song, but it's certainly an outlier on this album.

7. "Michelle" (Lennon/McCartney)
This McCartney ballad is pretty much the follow-up to "Yesterday". I like some things about it better, others worse. I think the composition is inferior, although that's not saying much when compared to the perfect simplicity of "Yesterday". It does, however, give a nice atmosphere of old-fashioned, foreign romance, particularly with the backing vocals. George adds a very nice, subdued guitar solo, too. There's not a lot more to say: it's just a nice, pleasant diversion. The composition doesn't impress me much, but the relaxed yet precise performance is very nice.

8. "What Goes On" (Lennon/McCartney/Starkey)
Ringo's song of the album, and it's yet another country-flavored tune. Unfortunately, I'd say this about equals "The Word" as a low on the album. Interestingly, it's the harmonies this time that kind of drag it down; they should have either been drastically changed or eliminated altogether. Again, I don't think they spent too much time writing this one. There were better Ringo songs on earlier albums, I must say. Another potential inducer of headaches if listened to at the wrong time. I don't blame you if you move on quickly to the next track.

9. "Girl" (Lennon/McCartney)
Here's a nice little ballad from John, with some interesting things going on (unlike the previous song, despite its title). The sound is quite reminiscent of "Michelle," making for a neat little pair of John-Paul songs. Speaking of sounds, The Beatles hint none too subtly at their drug use (they had met Dylan the year before and were steadily increasing their use) with the intake effects. The instrumental accompaniment is quite simple, but the guitar part is very good, again, with similarities to "Michelle". Not one of my favorites, but a very nice song, and it fits quite well on the album.

10. "I'm Looking Through You" (Lennon/McCartney)
Here's another up-tempo rocker (in fact, I think it's the fastest song to this point on the album) from Paul, and I like it quite a bit. The composition style is very similar to "You Won't See Me" in the effortless quality, but it is still quite a distinct little number. Paul brings back some of his rocker vocal style from "Drive My Car," and employs a lyric that is a little jarringly critical, if not angry. Paul does a great job of somehow reflecting the bouncy, brighter feel of the instrumental tempo with the edginess of the lyrics in his voice. Speaking of instruments, the guitar has a nice jagged edge to it as well (to be heard from again later). This is a vastly underrated song, and one of my favorites on the album.

11. "In My Life" (Lennon/McCartney)
Here is the gem of the album, of course. Sadly, it's used a little too much in montages of all kinds, but there's a good reason: it's a very beautiful song, without being at all sappy. As with so many of The Beatles' classic songs, and as I've noted before, it all just comes together here. To start, Lennon's composition features his own effortless simplicity. His lead vocal is strong but tender, while Paul and the others add varied and powerful harmonies. The backing instruments are the same, from the drums (actually, a pretty prominent part here) to the bass and guitars (very subdued but equally as influential). The lyrics are classic Lennon, bare bones and speaking from the heart. And finally, there's the hook and George Martin's baroque piano part that was played back twice as fast for the effect you hear. Another classic.

12. "Wait" (Lennon/McCartney)
This song is actually a leftover from the Help! recording sessions, but I like it. A medium-tempo rocker, this song is another that features two distinct sections, as well as some of John and Paul's better harmonies. Once again, Ringo's percussion works well here, although I'm not a big fan of what sounds like a synthesizer in a few places (something that does give it the feel of earlier albums). Otherwise, I think it's a pretty good composition with a good blend of The Beatles' instrumental and vocal strengths. A nice addition.

13. "If I Needed Someone" (Harrison)
Here is George's second song on the album, a feature that is new in itself, even if it is relegated to the end of the record. This one has a similar structure to George's other song, "Think For Yourself", but it has a distinct sound and is good as well if perhaps not quite as good. The song has starts with pretty straightforward verses, and George is soon joined by a harmony similar to that on "Think For Yourself". The middle eight drives forward a little more thanks to Ringo's percussion, and George gets this part to himself. The bright guitar part is perfect for the song, and I think has quite a big effect on the overall feel of the song in a positive way. Very solid track here, despite its position on the album.

14. "Run For Your Life" (Lennon/McCartney)
This is about as standard a rock tune as there is on the album, and so musically there's not a lot that stands out. Lennon sings the lead, as I believe he was the primary writer, and he's joined by a harmony at the chorus. The percussion provides a basic beat, and the guitars get a laid back solo in the middle. What really stands out, though, are the lyrics. Not that I believe The Beatles were any kind of saints, but I was rather shocked by the words here the first time I heard them. Perhaps it's made worse because it seems they treat it like any other song, but the anger and violence beneath it is surprising. I could simply be taking it too seriously, but this is another of The Beatles' unexpected album closers, that's for sure.

Essentials: "In My Life", "Norwegian Wood", "Drive My Car", "You Won't See Me", "Think For Yourself"
Weak(er) Songs: "The Word", "What Goes On"

My Rank of The Beatles' Albums So Far:
1. Rubber Soul
2. Help!
3. A Hard Day's Night
4. Please Please Me
5. Beatles For Sale
6. With The Beatles

Now my top ten songs of the "middle-late" period for The Beatles (albums and singles released between Beatles For Sale and Rubber Soul):

1. We Can Work It Out (again, my favorite song of the era wasn't on any of the albums; which is too bad, because this is an excellent song and it was recorded during the Rubber Soul sessions)
2. In My Life
3. Yesterday
4. Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey (yeah, it's a cover, but they absolutely nailed it)
5. Norwegian Wood
6. Help!
7. You Won't See Me
8. You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
9. Ticket To Ride
10. Eight Days A Week

Honorable Mentions: Drive My Car, Day Tripper, Think For Yourself, Baby's In Black, I'm Looking Through You