Posts from June 2013

Gavin's Shirtless Pic

A listener made this from one of Gavin's Instagram photos and he's pissed because he SWEARS he posted it because it was a cute picture of him and his son and NOT because he wanted compliments.

Do you believe him or not???

Listen to the Wake Up Call talk about Gavin's shirtless pic...
 (26) Comments


White House Down

Remember when you were in high school and that one big summer blockbuster came out?  You and all your friends rushed out opening day to see it?  You had so much fun that when you left the theater to get pizza slices, you and your friends would talk about it the whole time?  I'm talking about movies like Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, Die Hard, Pirates of the Caribbean or Armageddon.  Those movies were loud, exciting, fun, flashy and cheesey.  They all had quotable lines, big stars and ridiculous plots that you justified at the time because you were having a blast.  Well, White House Down captures what those hot summer nights with friends felt like and makes you feel like a teenager again.

Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Patriot) seems to be one of the masters of mayhem when it comes to f**king s**t up; especially the White House which he has now destroyed four times in his movies.  What sets him a cut above other disaster kings like Michael Bay (Transformers, Armageddon) or Wolfgang Peterson (Posideon, Perfect Storm) is that he seems aware of what kind of movie he's making and takes a slightly tongue-in-cheek approach to it.  He's had his missteps along the way; such as 2012, Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 BC, but overall is the best at depicting mass destruction because he's made his whole carreer on it.  He doesn't destroy the world in White House Down but he does turn the most famous residence in America into an all-out war zone that matches the chaos his other films have given us.

Channing Tatum proves he has the chops to be a John McClain-esque badass as he plays a Capital Policeman trying to save the President, played by Jamie Foxx, after domestic terrorists take the whole place hostage.  The two of them are an extrememly likable duo that command every frame of the action.  James Woods (Any Given Sunday, Casino), who is now an elderly person (he's jarringly old now, sadly), is a fantastic villain but I'm not sure he's ever given a bad performance.  He's joined by some great baddies who feature the fantastic  Jason Clarke (Zero Dark Thirty, The Great Gatsby) and hilarious Jimmi Simpson (FX's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Date Night) as well.

There are moments of White House Down that are head-shakingly cheesey and even lines like, "You only have five minutes to save the world or the White House is gonna be destroyed" are screamed in a panic but you don't care and embrace them if you can loose yourself in a bloated action movie.  The perfect amount of humor is injected by Foxx and Tatum to remind you that you shouldn't take any of this seriously and to just sit there and chomp your popcorn while you have fun.  That's a little ironic though because White House Down does have something to say about politics and has undertones of an agenda.  Stabs at the Military Industrial Complex, right wing nutjobs, Fox News/Glenn Beck (not by name but as a character that looks and acts just like him who is a favorite of one of the terrorists), and similarities to President Obama are all laid out in fairly clear nods.

I don't expect everyone to enjoy White House Down as much as I did and that's fine.  Maybe I was feeling a little nostalgic when I saw it and wished my high school buddies Joe, Jason, Craig, John and Sean were sitting next to me during the screening but the fact that it even made me feel that way again says a lot.  In the new world of summertime Hollywood that is just sequels and superheros, it's refreshing to see something just as tawdry and silly come out that's at least original is refreshing and completely worth a screening or two.
White House Down  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A+
 (2) Comments


World War Z

There's a saying that goes, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."  That couldn't be more true for World War Z.  For months, this film was lambasted on the internet by movie nerds who heard all about its infamous budget problems and drastic script issues that were so bad that they needed to bring in new writers to completely rewrite the last act.  Everyone was positive that this horror-adventure starring and produced by Brad Pitt would be a massive flop.  Well, those low expectations seemed to have made everyone leave loving a movie that is really only worthy of liking at best.

The source material for this is a book by the same title by Max Brooks (Mel Brooks' son actually) which came out in 2006.  It was insanely popular and one of the better horror novels in ten years.  The book follows a character who travels the world to talk to what's left of humanity to chronicle how the zombie apocalypse happened.  The movie isn't the book and it doesn't try to be.  The film version features Pitt traveling the globe trying to piece together clues on how to stop the zombie plague from killing everyone.

One of the problems that World War Z might have ran into was selecting Marc Forster to direct it.  He has had success like Quantom of Solace and Monster's Ball but more missed like Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction and Machine Gun Preacher.  Even if they all were homeruns though, I'd never think that this was the guy to tackle such a massive project.  The film feels like it's a Made-For-TV project; from the opening credits that have odd music and random stock footage, to the mega cheesey freeze frame and voice over that closes it out.  Something of this scope needed someone steeped in something of this scope and Forster wasn't it.

The film does have it's great moments and is relentlessly tense.  An outbreak on a plane carrying survivors is one of the best, which doesn't let you breath until the whole ends with a terrifying outcome.  But overall it lacked heart and gore.  Unfortunately for World War Z, since Pitt bought the film rights to it almost seven years ago, AMC's The Walking Dead has come out and set the new standard for zombie entertainment.  Not only does it splatter you with as much gore as the censors will allow (still not sure how it gets away with what it gets away with) but also infuses so much heart and emotion into the characters that you forget it's about zombies.  World War Z does neither.

It wanted a PG-13 rating and never once tried to push the limits to get it.  I understand that some people feel that less is more when it comes to horror and I'm not one to disagree with that; but when you're dealing with the zombie genre, you can't skimp.  Not only is there zero blood but the zombies aren't even scary.  The script is also so butchered and passed around that not a single character is someone you care about and they're fine with that since they don't seem to care about each other.  Pitt's scenes with his wife, played by Mireille Enos (Gangster Squad, A&E's The Killing) are horrible.  You get the sensation that those two were on the edge of divorce anyway so why bother caring if he ever makes it home to see her again?

Maybe I'm a little jaded because I loved the book and the film was anything but what made me love it.  That might be it but I feel like it's more than that and the shortcomings of a bad script, bloated budget, tired crew and an in-over-his-head director are what made this mildly entertaining overall with a few moments of "Holy S**T!"  Such a pity since a big summer blockbuster starring an Oscar-nominated A-lister about zombies was something I've been hoping for my whole life; too bad it felt more dead than the undead.
World War Z  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade:  B-
 (0) Comments


Man Throws A Spear

Here's the mugshot of the man who was roaming the streets of Sacramento with a spear...

Listen to the Wake Up Call talk about the man with the spear...
 (0) Comments


Thrift Shop By Kidz Bop

Kidz Bop came out with another CD with more covers of hit songs! Here's their version of Macklemore's "Thrift Shop."  They obviously had to change up the lyrics quite a bit! What do you think??? YAY or NAY?!

Listen to the Wake Up Call talk about the Kidz Bop version of "Thrift Shop"...
 (1) Comments
Tags :  
Topics : Entertainment_Culture
Social :


Monsters University

Not often am I asked to be a guest on a podcast so when I am, I take it seriously and get my crap in a pile.  I was asked to be on a movie nerd podcast once and the topic was the greatest film endings of all time.  We were each expected to come up with a Top 10 list and defend and argue our picks.  I had some relatively standard choices you'd expect to see; such as, The Usual Suspects, Se7en, and Big Fish.  Also on that list coming in at #3 was Monsters Inc.  I expected some groans from the panel but actually got agreement from everyone.  Why?  Because the one/two punch of emotion of having Mike, played by Billy Crystal, show his damaged hands from rebuilding Boo's door for his best friend followed right away by Sully, played by John Goodman, opening the door and seeing Boo was splendid.  But the artistic choice by director Pete Doctor to not show Boo's face but just the rush of elation on Sully's as he hear's her voice say, "Kitty!" is one of the most unexpected and tear-jerking endings of all time.  Needless-to-say, the bar for Monsters University was set very high.

This prequel follows Mike to college where his friendship with Sully develops and the two become the iconic team we grew to love.  Pixar has a mixed success rate when it comes to their sequels.  Toy Story 2 was better than the first and Toy Story 3 was the best of the series.  However, Cars 2 was worse than Cars, which was already the worst Pixar film to date.  Aside from that, audience's standards for Pixar films are already skyhigh since they've made some of the greatest animated movies of all time...in a row!  That might be one of the reasons why people are needlessly hard on Monsters University.

Some arguments are made for Pixar having zero originality in the script and say it's nothing more than Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds for kids; but I say that alone is bold and creative.  Cars was nothing more than Doc Hollywood, most of Toy Story 3 was The Great Escape and Wall-E was basically every Charlie Chaplin film.  Pixar was never this temple of originality but rather the masters of repurposing.  Monsters University is exactly that and it's very well done.

Aside from Crystal and Goodman returning as our favorite best friends, the cast is inspired featuring some unlikely choices (like Pixar has often done).  Helen Mirren, Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses, Pacific Rim), Aubrey Plaza (NBC's Parks and Rec, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World), Nathan Fillion (Much Ado About Nothing, Serenity) and Joel Murray (God Bless America, The Artist) are all hilarious and excellent filling out a world of collegiate zaniness that also feels a bit like Hogwarts.

The only problem with Monsters University is that it isn't better than Monsters Inc.  It lacks the powerful messages and soul-touching emotion that we expect from the series.  Some of that might have something to do with the fact that it has all new writers and was directed by first-timer Dan Scanlon.  But is it so rotten that a sequel is brave enough to be different and doesn't shovel out exactly what made the first one so good?  It's certainly funnier than the first one by a lot and leaves you with a feeling that you just had a really good time.  That's more than most animated films can say and for that Monsters University certainly graduates with Honors.
Monsters University  (Rated PG)
Gavin Grade: A-
 (0) Comments


Channing All Over Your Tatum

During Jimmy Kimmel's post-NBA final show last night, Kimmel debuted a music video for a song by Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum called "(I Wanna) Channing All Over Your Tatum." Check out the video here:

 (2) Comments


Much Ado About Nothing

How do you know you've made it in Hollywood?  You tell a major studio like Disney that you want a month off so you can make a movie you and your wife have dreamt of doing for over a decade.  That's exactly what Joss Whedon (The Avengers, Cabin in the Woods) did when he filmed his adaptation of Williams Shakespeare's play at his house with his friends in only 12 days.  Considering he's tackeled sci-fi, horror, superheros and now this (and done them ALL successfully), he has proven himself a true auteur.

Writing a review of a Shakespeare film feels like something that's above my pay grade but a job's a job.  I enjoy Shakespeare but I would never consider myself an expert, which is why I brought my new friend Hank along who actually is.  He schooled me on whether or not this really was a well done adaptation and according to him, it is.  My knowledge of Shakespeare is moderate at best and stops at the big ones; such as Hamlet, MacBeth, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet and this.  I've dabbled in ones like The Tempest, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Richard III, but I stick to what I know for the most part.  Regardless of your background or knowledge of Shakespeare, this version of Much Ado About Nothing is the most accessible and easy to enjoy by anyone with even an ounce-of-a-brain.

Compared to Shakespeare's comedies, I think this one is the funniest and Whedon doesn't miss a single beat allowing his impressive cast to shine and spread their comedic wings.  No one steals the spotlight more than Nathan Fillion (Firefly, Super) who proves he should be in pretty much everything Hollywood puts out.  Not only is he amazingly funny but he also performs the lines of Shakespeare like he's made a career on it.  Another shock in the cast was Fran Kranz (Cabin in the Woods, Training Day) who has done great comedy in the past but really shows his range here.  No one from the cast is dead weight which makes soggy performances like Clark Gregg (The Avengers, the Iron Man series) seem soggier than they actually are.

Be warned though that this is in the Shakespeare dialogue but Whedon has set it in modern times at a gorgeous mansion in the Hollywood Hills.  What he does to set it current isn't overly creative since it's something we've now seem done time and time again but it's his direction and crafting of the performances that makes this so wonderful.  He really captures all emotions that the play can offer, both in romance and comedy.  It's probably the hardest you'll laugh at any Shakespeare film and one of the funniest movies of the year.  His choice of shooting it in black and white seemed unneccessary and pretentious but that's the only misfire; and considering that aside from directing it, he also wrote, produced, editted it AND did all the music for it, it's a forgivable offense.

I remember the days when a teacher would offer you extra credit if you would go see something like this and bring in your ticket stub.  Most of the class would do it but either hate every second of it, make out in the back row or leave and go see something playing in another theater.  If you're patient and sit through the first 20 minutes, which are slow and a tad confusing, you'll be rewarded with a film you'd watch without the promise of extra credit and might even turn you on to explore other Shakespeare productions.
Much Ado About Nothing  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A
 (0) Comments


Man of Steel

Lots of people don't know, or probably more accurately care, that there are two major universes of comic book characters.  Marvel is the company repsonsible for 90% of the ones in pop culture; your Avengers gang, X-Men crew and Spiderman.  DC is the other and although they crafted some pretty dull and weird characters like Hawkman or Wonder Woman, they are the owners of two of the MOST famous of all time - Batman and Superman.  Writer/Producer/Director Christopher Nolan (the Dark Knight trilogy, Inception) has picked his team and done wonders with Batman.  He didn't select the back seat on Man of Steel but he's sitting shotgun and you can tell he's shouting directions the whole time.

I love more Marvel characters but I love Superman and Batman more.  Does that make sense?  I've always had a very soft spot in my heart for Superman because he appealed to my sensibility of doing right in the world as a young boy.  I didn't have parents that pushed The Bible on me too much so my sense of a self sacrificing beacon of good came from Superman.  The older I got the more the character symbolized more to me; it's no coincidence that his outfit is red, white and blue; he is American aspiration and the symbol of what we strive to be (unsuccessfully).  All that being said, every time a Superman film comes out I want it to be amazing.  Sadly, there hasn't been a good one since 1980 when Christopher Reeve took on General Zod in Superman II.  I hung all my hopes on Man of Steel and that Nolan and Director Zach Snyder (300, Dawn of the Dead) would alter that losing streak.  I was let down.

The red cape is donned by Henry Cavill (Immortals, HBO's The Tudors) and I think he does a fantastic job with the chop shop-of-a-script he had to work with.  He's joined by what appeared to be a very impressive cast that consisted of Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburn and Michael Shannon (Bug, Take Shelter) as General Zod.  All have done movies that are excellent and most have won or been nominated for Oscars.  With the exception of Shannon, who always gives 110% with every maniac performance he has, they all seem confused and lost in the movie.  

Decisions were made for Man of Steel that I don't quite understand.  We all know that UFO and sci-fi films don't typically do that well at the box office or with critics but for some reason that's the direction they took this.  Massive amounts of focus are showcased on the fact that Superman is an alien and this is sci-fi as you can get.  Perhaps that's the casulity of making General Zod the villain for the first relaunch of a series instead of the far more familiar and human character, Lex Luthor.  This was a turn off to not only casual filmgoers but lovers of  Superman like me who wanted to see the citizen of Earth fight to defend it instead of highlighting the fact that he's not really one of us.

It's also rather disjointed when it comes to the linear plot.  Rather than showing it chronologically, Snyder tells much of Superman's terrestrial upbringing through flashbacks that would have been so much more effective if they were given more time.  Also an excessive amount of time is dedicated to his origin on Krypton and its destruction.  They also take liberties with the story that I didn't care for, as a fan.

I know this makes me sound like I hated it; I assure you that I didn't.  Man of Steel is actually still entertaining.  Actually, the last half is very entertaining and the first half is kind of slow and frustrating.  It's a true rule in almost everything in life that it's not how you start but how you finish.  Man of Steel is 143 minutes and the final hour is non-stop action that is so big and epic it verges on parody at points.  Some will say that the climax between Zob and Supes is ridiculous but it played out as largely as it did in my boyhood imagination.  Is it perfect?  No, but it's good enough that I'll anxiously await the next installment and keep hoping it's a Superman film as inspired as the character who stands for truth, justice and the American way deserves.
Man of Steel  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
 (1) Comments


advertise with us
Recent Blog Posts