The H.M.S. ABC Project: A

In the coming days, the two wittiest, most attractive, and most Hoosier bloggers on the web will be beginning an EPIC series of posts. The premise is this: each day we will list our favorite movie beginning with each letter of the alphabet in (you're not going to believe this) alphabetical order. Needless to say your mind will be blown, prepare yourself accordingly. Yours truly will be starting the series with A, followed by Colin with B, and we will alternate letters (I need to brush up on my Q and Y movies) all the way until Colin wraps it up with Z, which I'm sure will be a real shocker. Along the way we hope to stir controversy, but most importantly to introduce you to a few great movies you may not have seen.

The following rules should go without saying, but I'm going to say them:

1) Each entry must be a movie, no TV series are eligible.

2) Articles will be ignored during alphabetization ("a(n)" and "the" for those of us that failed grammar), so as much as you want A Very Brady Sequel to be featured today, you'll just have to wait until Colin does "V" to see if it makes the cut.

The rules are simple enough even for this guy, so let's get started with A.

Is it too early in the series to break rule #1 and pick Arrested Development? Argh, but since I set the rules I should probably obey them. This was a much more difficult decision than I originally thought it would be. The more I thought about it, the more great movies I found. Let's first list some great movies that just missed the cut but deserve some recognition:

Almost Famous

Amadeus

American History X

Animal House

Annie Hall

The Aviator

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Not too shabby, eh? (pun intended). But if you look closer (that's a hint), you'll notice that there is one glaring omission from that list, and it is your deserving winner...

American Beauty

A movie that's poster makes you believe it's about roses and belly buttons, but really isn't

As my fellow snob so eloquently put it, "the best-ever movie opening with Kevin Spacey masturbating in a shower." That really sums it up. But really, this is a phenomenal movie, despite the ever annoying Mena Suvari. Lester Burnham redefines midlife crisis in such a way that creates movie bliss. On the surface it's about an old man lusting for a teenager, but when you "look closer" as the poster suggests, you see it goes deeper and explores how society can shape people. Along the way it will change the way you look at plastic bags floating in the wind, as well as how you respond when someone asks you to pass the asparagus (just pass it, okay?), and make you wonder why you haven't seen more of Wes Bentley (drug addiction). You will laugh and be entertained, but also be challenged. It's a movie unlike any I've seen and I can only wish that I can see more like it in the future. If you haven't seen it, shame on you.

Unfortunately that's all from me today, you'll just have to wait until I "C" you again....I know, I'm hilarious. Once you recover from your side-splitting fit of laughter, please let me know what you think in the comments below. Nixy out.

(Colin's "A" pick: Almost Famous)

Which is Your Favorite?

Upset that the best movies I've seen in recent memory were both made by the French, I had to revisit some of my favorites to restore confidence in American filmmaking. This led me to watch a number of movies, two of which were Gangs of New York and the incredible There Will Be Blood. Neither of these should be titles you're unfamiliar with, assuming you're a respectable member of society. But it got me thinking....the one thing I think about when I hear either of these movies mentioned is Daniel Day-Lewis. Rightfully so, might I add, because the man is truly amazing.

I started to wonder, though, which of his two roles I enjoyed the most....and really struggled with an answer. I continue to go back and forth recounting my favorite scenes from each movie and it does nothing but make the decision more difficult. Let's review the two roles:

Daniel Plainview

He will consume your beverage if and when he chooses

By all accounts a despicable human being, Daniel Plainview will stop at nothing to get what he wants and further expand his oil empire. He absolutely carries the best movie in the last decade (if not longer), appearing in about every scene. If you humiliate him in public, there's a good chance he will seek revenge. It's a great performance in a great movie....how can it be beaten?

Bill the Butcher

He will paint the Five Points with your blood...two coats

Just when you think Daniel Plainview cannot be outdone, you remember Bill Cutting. In my humble opinion, there is no rival to DDL, he is on his own level. He is to acting as Tiger Woods (pre-infidelity) is to golf. And to me, these are his most defining characters and more memorable roles. What makes this such a challenge is that the Butcher can be as vial a human being as Mr. Plainview, but also shows a dash of perspective and higher moral code. The film does not rely as heavily on DDL (perhaps why it's not as good as TWBB), but when he is in the movie he COMMANDS the screen in the same way he does as Daniel Plainview.

I find the decision very difficult. It boils down to choosing either: the equivalent of watching a volcano erupt for 150 minutes (Plainview) or watch a character with less screen time and more depth carry a movie with far less screen time (the Butcher). I can't decide, which is your favorite role?

Why Ridley Scott is NOT Among Today's Top Directors

Ridley Scott's next film, Robin Hood, opens this weekend, so I thought we could take a closer look at the man behind the film. Ridley is widely considered one of the top directors in the business today. Studios love him thanks to his ability to attract top acting stars and open movies to box office success. But is Ridley really as great a director as he's given credit for? Does he really deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Scorsese, Eastwood, or Spielberg? It seems like a no brainer, but let's take a closer look at Scott's history before rushing to judgment.

First let me say this: I thoroughly enjoy many of Ridley Scott's movies. Gladiator is among my all time favorites. Blade Runner and Alien are influential classics within their genre. American Gangster is good (not great, a near AJ Ratliff), Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, and Hannibal are all enjoyable enough to take a few hours of my valuable time. Why then, Mr. Nix, would you not consider him among the top directors working? The answer lies in what all of the movies listed above share: they're rip-offs. Not one movie of Ridley Scott's that you can name right now is original. That being said, I understand that few movies these days are truly a breath of fresh air, and that you can basically argue that every movie these days is very similar to another movie. But when the majority of your movies follow the same blueprint as another successful movie in the few years preceding your film's release, you're a rip-off. Below I have listed all of Sir Ridley's films that meet this criteria.

Alien (1979):

Details:

His first commercial success and one of his most popular movies to date. By any measure this is the film that got Ridley Scott into the mainstream. It was a Science Fiction game-changer and one of the more celebrated films in its genre.

The Rip-Off:

This is very clearly a slight tweak on the movie that created the blockbuster: Jaws. Jaws was released just four years prior to Alien and was tremendously successful. Ridley himself pitched the idea to studios as "Jaws in space." Hell, even the posters are similar. At this point in his career, we can't blame him because he's just getting his foot in the door.

Blade Runner (1982):

Details:

His next film and another classic. Blade Runner is also admired by nerds-I mean sci-fi fans. A movie set in the future with all kinds of advanced technology.

The Rip-Off:

Star Wars. George Lucas had released the first two of his original trilogy to much commercial and critical praise. Scott, not to be outdone, presents his own epic sci-fi and even went as far as to cast Harrison Ford as well. He followed the blueprint and enjoyed the spoils of Lucas's idea.

Thelma and Louise (1991):
Details:
Fast forward nine years and we get to Scott's next successful film. Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis are outlaws on the road after they murder a rapist (not to be confused with an analrapist).

The Rip-Off:

Admittedly, this is the biggest stretch on the list, but the similarities are there. The most obvious comparison would be to Bonnie and Clyde, but that was made long before Thelma and Louise to qualify for my list. However, even though it reminds me a lot of B&C, it has a fair amount of Rain Man to it as well, which was released just three years prior to massive sums of money and awards. The signature Ridley Scott tweak here would be the female heroes and the reason that the two hit the road that separate Thelma from Rain Man.

Gladiator (2000):

Details:

If you really need to read about this movie's details, shame on you. Go watch the movie now, even though you've surely seen this scene, which is but one of a number of badass scenes in the movie.

The Rip-Off:

This is among the more obvious comparisons. Braveheart was released a few years prior, and despite Mel Gibson's efforts was a huge success. Scott tweaked Gibson's blueprint and developed it into a masterpiece, winning the Best Picture and earning Scott his second Best Director nomination.

Hannibal (2001):

Details:

The second adaptation of the series of books revolving around Dr. Hannibal Lecter, who, among other hobbies, enjoys fava beans and a nice Chianti. Not nearly as good as its predecessor, The Silence of the Lambs, but still enjoyable.

The Rip-Off:

Well, duh. Once Hollywood decided it was time to revisit Dr. Lecter you knew you could rely on Sir Ridley coming through to revisit the successful franchise. You cannot necessarily blame Scott for how inferior this was to the original, because the story is just not nearly as compelling. Regardless, another carbon copy to put on the resume.

Black Hawk Down (2001):

Details:

A lot of US Troops head into an intense war atmosphere to save some select US Lieutenants.

The Rip-Off:

Sounds a lot like Saving Private Ryan, which redefined both the war movie and the realism with which they are portrayed....all while raking in obscene amounts of cash. Ridley, not yet satisfied with stealing just one of Spielberg's successful formulas, decides to take his crack at it, this time in modern day Somalia.

Matchstick Men (2003):

Details:

Nicolas Cages and Sam Rockwell are con artists preparing for a lucrative heist.

The Rip-Off:

Ocean's 11, where Brad Pitt and George Clooney are con artists preparing a lucrative heist. Now, admittedly I have chosen my words wisely here and these movies are not as similar as some of my comparisons. That being said, Ocean's 11 scored big time for heist movies within two years of this film's release, and given Scott's track record I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005):

Details:

Orlando Bloom and company are assigned the task of defending their 12th century city from an attacking army.

The Rip-Off:

Released one year earlier, Troy is remarkably similar to Kingdom of Heaven. Put a Hollywood hunk and throw them into epic battle in ancient Europe. I think he even used the same font for the poster.

American Gangster (2007):

Details:

I'm sure we've all seen it, so we don't need to get too in depth here. Russell Crowe and Denzel star in a film revolving around a big city's main crime boss.

The Rip-Off:
The vastly superior The Departed. Scott's first knock off of a Scorsese flick, and quite frankly one of his more lackluster efforts. I had to choose between this and Public Enemies for the AJ Ratliff last week, ultimately giving Public Enemies the nod. The logic is the same though: a lot of really great scenes, but the sum of its parts simply should have been a lot better than it was.

Body of Lies (2008):

Details:

Leonardo DiCaprio is an international spy and badass trying to take down terrorists, all the while uncovering corruption at every step.

The Rip-Off:

The Bourne movies. Ridley Scott was having none of Paul Greengrass's success with international spy thrillers and had to steal his thunder. Unfortunately for Scott, Body of Lies sucked, the Bourne movies didn't.

So, if you take all of the above films out of the discussion, you're left with the following list of movies that had no successful inspiration in the years preceding its release (or at least nothing that I can remember):

Legend (1985)

Someone to Watch Over Me (1987)

1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)

White Squall (1996)

GI Jane (1997)

A Good Year (2006)

Not exactly a filmography worthy of much acclaim. In fact, Scott's only original movies are borderline failures, receiving some of his worst reviews and performing poorly at the box office.

Again, this is not to say that his movies aren't good, or that they are any less impressive as a result. In many cases, his copies were as good as or better than the film he decided to emulate. Top directors do this frequently. But Ridley Scott's career is defined by the films he has borrowed ideas for. To Scott's credit, even despite this he is in the discussion of top directors working.

The reason that I cannot place him in that echelon is because I enjoy Scott's movie with a reservation. As much as I try not to, I always tend to compare him to a true no talent ass clown - Michael Bay. Unfair? Maybe. But how is he any different than Michael Bay? They are both incredibly successful. They both have a formula and follow it to a T. It's just that Bay's formula consists of objectifying women and loud noises, not crafting movies based off of a successful business model in recent memory.

So that we are abundantly clear, I don't want to bash Sir Ridley. I will see Robin Hood when it comes out and I hold some of Ridley's movies among my all time favorites. However, when it comes to today's top auteurs, does he really belong?

(Update from Colin: Ridley Scott has traded Russell Crowe to Tim Burton for Johnny Depp.  Click here for the exclusive story.)

Amidst a terrorist scare, I saw a movie in Times Square

As I mentioned in my last post, I went to visit a friend in the biggest city of these United States last weekend. Despite suffering an embarrassingly bloody tooth brushing accident (sadly not kidding) within 45 minutes of our arrival, I had an amazing time. We rode the Staten Island ferry, ate one slice each of the largest pizza known to man (see below), enjoyed the...scenery in Central Park (85 degrees and sunny = bikinis), and hung out 70 floors up on the roof of Rockefeller Plaza (by far the coolest part of the trip).

And while I caught up with an old friend I hadn't seen in a few years, the guys went to a 3:30am techno show in Brooklyn and danced their asses off. My only complaint for the trip is that we didn't run into Jay-Z or Andy Samberg...maybe next time.  Also, we shot the following music video.



Odds are pretty good you've already been told about this video 8-10 times on Facebook in the last few days, so I'm sorry if this is overkill. But hell, music videos are mini movies, right? Totally belongs on the blog. Plus, I finally figured out how to embed videos onto the page instead of just linking to everything. So...hooray me! 

Anyways...as the title of this newest post suggests, The Bo'z caught a midnight showing of Kick-Ass in Times Square Saturday night. You may not have heard, but there was an SUV filled with all kinds of things that blow up a few blocks away from us. The news would have you believe that this was a huge deal. But to us visitors who were in Times Square pretty literally the whole time this event was taking place, it was just annoying that we had to walk around the giant police barricades a few times. (The following picture was taken in the part we WERE allowed to be in..still pretty awesome) So...long story made a little bit longer, we weren't really worried about going KABOOM while watching our flick.

About that flick...Kick-Ass pretty well lives up to its name. There's a few pretty egregious plot problems, but a couple great fight scenes and Nicholas Cage's hilarious acting (yeah, I said it) more than make up for them. Definitely worth your $9 and my $12.50. (Speaking of the price: 1) I was honestly expecting it to be like $15 in New York, and 2) we sat in by far the most legit, non IMAX theater I've ever seen. Huge digital screen, awesome sound, and it probably sat 2,000. Awesome. Worth it.)

Until the next four paragraph intro to a half assed one paragraph review,

Colin

P.S. Here's a small taste of the best scene of the movie. Yes, that's Nick Cage, and no, he's not batman.

The AJ Ratliffs: Movies that Should Have Been Better than They Are

I'm not going to touch on the title. Perhaps it is a low blow, but sometimes the truth hurts. Here we will discuss movies that were disappointing. Not disappointing in the Michael Bay sense, and not disappointing in the cancellation of the greatest show on television way either. You see, these are movies that had one or more elements of greatness. They may have even ended as good movies, but something left me wanting more. They were a tease. They trick you. At one point or another, each of the following movies had me convinced they were going to be better than they were. They are the AJ Ratliffs:

I Am Legend:

This will certainly be a controversial choice, but this movie pissed me off. Look, I love the fresh prince himself. The two snobs themselves, in the flesh, karaoked Wild Wild West to a lucky crowd at Duty's one fateful night last November. It was legendary, although Orange County's own singing Meredith Brooks was far more memorable.

Why was it so upsetting? I got dragged to see this movie. I had little to no interest in seeing this, but decided to donate my street cred to a group of friends and grace them with my presence. Much to my surprise, I was loving the movie. I was certain that this was going to be your average Sci Fi movie. Alas the first two thirds were brilliant. The movie was refreshing, not retreating to the conventions of the genre. Big Willy was brilliant and the movie seemed to be taking the 28 Days Later route and redefining zombies. Throughout the first part of the movie, we are given suggestions that the monsters are intelligent creatures. They even nearly beat Will at his own game and trap him.

But then all of this build up leads to...nothing. All of a sudden, Will goes ballistic on the docks and gets miraculously saved by two people that heard his radio calls. From there on the film is rubbish. Worst of all, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE. Had they stuck with the book's ending everything would have been fine. But they have to give something that will please the masses and they sacrifice the tone of the movie and completely flip the film's effect. ARGH.

300:

The trailer was phenomenal. The creative team responsible for Sin City was in tact. Everything seemed to be falling in place. This had to be as good as Sin City, there was no way for it to fail. Alas, it was a disappointment. Entertaining? Sure. It is what it is, a one-dimensional blood bath that made me think it could have been more.

Public Enemies:

It had so many great elements to it. Michael Mann, Johnny Depp, Marion Cotillard, Christian Bale, bank heists, a rural Indiana (aka the land of milk and honey) setting....how could it go wrong? This one I just can't put my finger on. It had great scenes that showed you it's potential. Ultimately, the sum of its parts was good not great. I guess I was expecting Heat set in the early 1900s and that wasn't fair.

Zoolander:

This is going to get me in trouble, but so be it. I would love to provide reasons why this movie upsets me so much, but I can't finish it. To this day I have not been able to make it more than 30 minutes into the movie before deciding to turn it off and do something more enjoyable like wipe my butt with sandpaper. (Too much?)

Million Dollar Baby:

I must have missed something here. There is nothing in the movie worthy of an Oscar. I'm going to revisit this film in the near future and I hope to see something I missed because I HATE this movie so much. The X-Factor for me was Hilary Swank. She annoyed the hell out of me and I wasn't the least bit upset with her character's fate. I hope I prove myself wrong and enjoy it, because this movie alone is preventing me from putting Eastwood alongside the Scorsese's and PTA's of the world as top directors.

That's all from me folks. Surely there are other movies that have left me wanting more, but I want to hear what you think. Do you disagree with my choices? Do you have your own list of movies that piss you off? Please let me know below. Until we meet again, Nixy out.