Archive for the ‘Reviews’ Category
Cloverfield
Pirated video that shows clearly what the monster really is.
It's been a while since we've posted... I know.
To put it simply, Cloverfield is effin' scary. I would venture as far as to say that it was the most viscerally affecting movie I've seen since Children of Men. This isn't just a monster movie; it's a movie, that, like The Mist and I Am Legend before it, plays on our greatest unthought-of fear, that something so disastrous could happen that all manner of government protection would be rendered moot. Mass chaos with no way out, and nothing to keep you alive but your own strength of will in circumstances that you'd never imagine yourself in. Cloverfield is so effective at what it sets out to do, reminding us that our modern "civilized" society is one catastrophic event away from being reduced to nothing more than bickering people who've been taken over by primitive "fight or flight" survival instincts.
The way the reviewers have talked about it, I'm sure you've all heard complaints ad nauseum about the "lack of story", the "unlikeablility" of characters, the illogical choices made by certain people, and that it didn't make sense for someone to keep recording through the whole thing. Honestly, I didn't care about any of those things at all, and it's a testament to how involving the movie is that I only once stopped to think about the fact that a camera battery wouldn't last as long it does, and only one other time to think about how long it would take them to walk in a subway tunnel the distance that they said they did. Despite the rich, hipster vibe that the characters exuded, I didn't really find them all that grating, even though it was basically as if Godzilla interrupted an episode of Felicity (with good reason; both the executive producer and the director were co-creators of that show). If they indeed go ahead with a sequel to be shot in the same style, telling a different story from the same night, I would love to see people from the opposite end of the spectrum and how they managed, how different their priorities were, and just how they would differ in their actions in general.
More often than not though, I found myself sitting in my chair, with my mouth wide open, totally enraptured by what was going on. Would I too be able to climb across a roof of a forty-story building that was leaning at a sixty degree angle from the ground, only being held up by the building next to it? Would I have gone back to save someone from a giant killer spider-crab in a pitch black subway tunnel? Why was this monster movie the first one that ever made me question the lengths I would go to survive? As intense as it was, The Mist, never made me feel this way, despite the fact that the subject material was quite similar. In my opinion, it goes to media theorist Marshall McLuhan's statement from his book "Understanding Media:Extensions of Man", that "The Medium is the Message". To put a very long and convoluted series of the oftentimes contradictory thoughts by a raving Canadian lunatic into a simplistic summary, the method by which a message is sent from one person to another is oftentimes more important to the delivery than the message itself. The best example of this is the famed Nixon-Kennedy debate where the majority of radio listeners seemed to think that Nixon had won, while the television viewers, able to see Nixon's body language, sweating, and poor make-up job, were convinced that Kennedy won. On a side note, I always wondered if the people who did that study took into account the differences in politics between the people who listened and people who watched, and if that played into their answers to the question.
How this idea of medium applies to Cloverfield is that we've been programmed with the language of film over the past one-hundred years. Even if we aren't aware of it, we've come to expect a certain syntax. We don't notice it though, until a reverse angle of a shot doesn't match, or an edit isn't smooth. The Mist lives by these rules, and the whole time it tries to invoke this question of "what happens when the world goes to hell?", while also playing it like a 1950s B-horror movie creature feature. Issues with the unfocused nature of the plot set aside, it's the fact that the movie's presented in the language of Film that makes you step back and realize how preposterous the story really is.
Ironically, it's the movie inspired by the crude and incredibly repetitive Godzilla series that has effectively transcended this medium and broken out of the box, leaving genuine lasting emotion. The same way that we've been trained to understand that movies aren't real and that we shouldn't feel anguish when Jason Vorhees, "an unstoppable killing machine", hacks someone up with a machete, we've been trained to recognize video as infallible. Which affects you more: watching an alien pop out of someone's chest killing them in a movie, or watching a video of a skateboarder falling fifty feet to a hard wooden surface and seeing his shoes explode, but then being able to walk off, relatively unharmed? We haven't yet learned to apply the same reality filters to video that we currently do to film, and this is what Cloverfield exploits.
No matter how many times you try to tell yourself this movie isn't real, the medium that the message is delivered in contradicts your thoughts and plays to your instincts. What would happen if you took this movie over to undeveloped parts of Africa (as McLuhan puts it, a place where people have not been "immunized" to this medium) or if someone years down the line saw this without the context to put it in? It's very likely that they might think it actually happened, especially if they've seen the 2001 attack footage. Critics (used literally, not film critics) of the movie have been saying that it exploits September 11th imagery, but I would argue that it successfully uses those scenes we have committed to memory to scare us in a very real way, much more than any slasher flick or monster movie has done before. Maybe it's the fact that I've been spending a large amount of time in the area that was directly affected in the movie. It's more likely that I was less able to discern the difference between the two because when the twin towers fell I was watching it on a movie screen in a film auditorium. Watching Cloverfield, it was hard not to think back to this moment and relate the two, drawing all that emotion out.
One of the most harrowing scenes in the whole thing is the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, which I've walked over a few times. It may very well be the most frightening destruction of a major landmark ever to be created in a movie, far scarier than anything in the modern classic Independence Day or its red-headed step-brother The Day After Tomorrow, completely because of its realism and the point of view of the person delivering the message.
Here's where the debate rages though. Should a movie be judged on how effective it is at making you feel a certain way, or on the quality of story and characters? If it uses the story and characters as well as technically impressive work to achieve this emotional effect (such as in I Am Legend), then it's obvious that it's a good movie. What happens though, when the two aren't mutually exclusive, when character development and a tight story take second chair to exceptional method and incredibly well-realized scenes? Is it still a good movie? This isn't to say that Cloverfield offered no cohesive story or successful characterizations (the realism in the actors' portrayals " not so much film acting, but moreso being in the situation with a natural intensity that you would expect of someone living out this unthinkable scenario""certainly drives the moments and carries the film as much as the technique), but it's a chase movie in the most basic sense. Something's attacking, nobody knows what it is, but we're running from it. There's really nothing more to it than that, and I would be hard-pressed to say the movie had an effective story to tell, instead opting to give you a few character dynamics and letting them provide the motivation for an hour's worth of recorded events. I've heard completely mixed reviews from friends and film critics in regards to this movie, and it seems as though this question of how to judge is where the basic disagreement lies. For me, the movie was incredibly effective at what it set out to do, and was plenty enjoyable from start to finish (and I loved the epic "Cloverfield Theme" that scored the credits) and that's all I can ask for in a threatrical experience.
One last thing. If in my diatribe about the presentation of the movie I left out the success of The Blair Witch Project, which this movie couldn't have come about without, it was because that was not a successful movie. Where the difference between the two films lies is that while The Blair Witch created a very real found-footage aura, it was overly-long and for the most part, boring and whiny. Think about it. The bulk of the movie was about kids wandering around the woods and arguing with each other. It took on the found-footage medium and while it succeeded at creating a realistic portrayal of what one might look like (as in "normal people are generally boring and spend a lot of time fighting and talking about nothing at all"), it completely failed as entertainment for all but about 15 minutes. It had a few interesting story elements, but needed to pad out its runtime with lame characterizations and nothing really happening. It was also completely visually uninteresting, giving you nothing to fall back on when you got tired of all the complaining going on onscreen. Cloverfield takes a look at the mistakes of this film and basically imports action movie beats into the style in order to fix its problems, never stopping to let us take a breath or think about all the implausibilities. The people behind this movie have brilliantly created a hybrid "found-footage/blockbuster action movie" medium, and by doing this, it skews our perception of its events, leaving our common sense to duke it out with our basic media instincts, and that is why it truly succeeds.
Cloverfield is not only a genre-redefining movie, but a medium redefining movie that uses the language of video and film together to confuse our perception of events. You know it isn't real, but once it wraps you up in its swift pace, that notion leaves your mind, making the horror of the scenario all the more genuine. The entire group of people involved were committed to making you believe that this had really happened, and they succeeded admirably at doing it. Now next time, give us some better characters and a more plausible story arc for them.
While I'm at it....
The Mist
I really wanted to love it, but it completely tears itself in two directions, trying to be a giant killer insect horror movie, and a bold statement on how far our civility falls when we're presented with dire circumstances. Not only that but characters are either underused (Andre Braugher) or completely over-the-top crazy (Marcia Gay Harden), and though Tom Jane gives a strong performance (before he brings it on a little too strong at the end) he can't keep down all my hatred for the main antagonist, the crazy religious nut-job who wants everyone to repent or die. If it's supposed to be allegory, it takes a very ham-fisted approach that really turned me off. Subtlety isn't this movie's strong point. Visually, it's spectacular, but unfortunately a great premise is undermined by story issues, probably stemming from the source material. Much like most of the movie, the end sort of rips off of "Night of the Living Dead" in its painful irony, though it may have one of the best "downer" endings I've seen in a long time.
I Am Legend
Visually, the most realistically drastic transformation of any actual location that I've ever seen put to film, I Am Legend decides to "show" us, and not "tell" us about the collapse of humanity, unlike The Mist . By that I mean that while the previous movie spends its time preaching to you about how everyone will turn on one another to survive, this movie shows the result of that, in a devastatingly real fashion. You are left to create your own account of how it all went down, only giving us brief glimpses into society's fall in flashbacks that serve more to develop Will Smith's character's personal story. It was completely refreshing to see a movie that doesn't give you every detail and leaves some things open to the imagination. Will Smith's character and portrayal are perfectly subtle in the ways that his past, his loneliness, and his obsession with curing the sick have taken its toll on his sanity, but the critics are correct that unfortunately all of this strong set-up seems to devolve with about twenty-five minutes left into some more action-oriented, less suspenseful version of Signs, right down to the "oh, it all makes sense now, God has a plan for me" revelation. I Am Legend is a completely haunting vision of what life would be like if you were the last person on earth, Zombie storylines aside.
Throwing Your Vote Away
I don't really believe in voting. I know that's not the most original sentiment and even sounds like the type of overwhelmingly "look how anti-establishment I am - I'm sure that no one else is as serious about it as I am" phrases for which I could call someone out. But, my argument is the same as the usual (it's super-rare for one vote to matter) and the wonderfully apolitical "status quo" thing. Case in point: the big hubbabaloo about the balance of power shifting to the Democrats in Congress last November. A whole lot of nothing has come of that. Iraq is still going on and the president's rather liberal immigration make-over was deeee-nied. Status Quo!
It was kind of like this.
Every November, this leaves me at a cross-roads - what's a better way to waste my vote? To not vote? To go to the booth with zero knowledge of anything going on? Yesterday I chose the latter.
First, let me say that the voting location, The Pennsylvania Institute of Technology, is probably the creepiest set of buildings I've ever seen/been inside. Architecture that screams "stay out," the type of church/chapel that you'd see in a movie where the devil comes back and has his big face-off with a holy warrior, big trees which make creaking sounds at night, and worst, a wholly inadequate access road for fire trucks.
Having manned up enough to get out of my car, I walked around rather aimlessly looking for an entrance to the fortress. No doors were labeled, but I managed to walk into what I learned was the completely wrong wing of a building that I'm sure you'll see on Ghost Hunters in a few years when the county condemns the place. Voting was simple - I signed my name, waited in line with one person in front of me, listened to one of the other voter's 3-year-old scream like a maniac, then was next in line.
I got into the booth which had electronic push buttons, then developed a strategy. I saw there were a lot of women in the races, so simply, for every random guy I voted for, I voted for two random women. I also made a point not to vote for the school board person who registered under both Democrat and Republican. How dare he make a mockery of our two party system! How dare he!
So, having done my part for women's lib., I pressed the green "vote" button to lock it all in, and I had just done my civic duty. Of course, if Delaware County effectively closes down for one week each month due to my voting patterns, maybe I did more harm than good. (I should really be a stand-up comedian.)
Throwing Your Vote Away gets four stars. It sticks it to the man (or maybe the woman, in this case) and gives me slight moral superiority over those that protest voting by completely not voting. Unfortunately, it kind of takes a long time getting there, finding the right entrance, then getting back (especially if the voter in question chose to man-it-out and not actually look to see where the place was, and instead, relied on the "fact" that he could, in his mind's eye, picture the street sign which said "Manchester" though he had no idea where that sign he was remembering actually was.) In terms of doing even more to throw a vote away I have a few options: vote on only one item - so when they talk about about how many people voted, the actual races will have fewer total votes than there were actual voters OR play battleship with the two columns of little lights which glow when you press the candidates' names. Ah, democracy.
It was kind of like this.
Every November, this leaves me at a cross-roads - what's a better way to waste my vote? To not vote? To go to the booth with zero knowledge of anything going on? Yesterday I chose the latter.
First, let me say that the voting location, The Pennsylvania Institute of Technology, is probably the creepiest set of buildings I've ever seen/been inside. Architecture that screams "stay out," the type of church/chapel that you'd see in a movie where the devil comes back and has his big face-off with a holy warrior, big trees which make creaking sounds at night, and worst, a wholly inadequate access road for fire trucks.
Having manned up enough to get out of my car, I walked around rather aimlessly looking for an entrance to the fortress. No doors were labeled, but I managed to walk into what I learned was the completely wrong wing of a building that I'm sure you'll see on Ghost Hunters in a few years when the county condemns the place. Voting was simple - I signed my name, waited in line with one person in front of me, listened to one of the other voter's 3-year-old scream like a maniac, then was next in line.
I got into the booth which had electronic push buttons, then developed a strategy. I saw there were a lot of women in the races, so simply, for every random guy I voted for, I voted for two random women. I also made a point not to vote for the school board person who registered under both Democrat and Republican. How dare he make a mockery of our two party system! How dare he!
So, having done my part for women's lib., I pressed the green "vote" button to lock it all in, and I had just done my civic duty. Of course, if Delaware County effectively closes down for one week each month due to my voting patterns, maybe I did more harm than good. (I should really be a stand-up comedian.)
Throwing Your Vote Away gets four stars. It sticks it to the man (or maybe the woman, in this case) and gives me slight moral superiority over those that protest voting by completely not voting. Unfortunately, it kind of takes a long time getting there, finding the right entrance, then getting back (especially if the voter in question chose to man-it-out and not actually look to see where the place was, and instead, relied on the "fact" that he could, in his mind's eye, picture the street sign which said "Manchester" though he had no idea where that sign he was remembering actually was.) In terms of doing even more to throw a vote away I have a few options: vote on only one item - so when they talk about about how many people voted, the actual races will have fewer total votes than there were actual voters OR play battleship with the two columns of little lights which glow when you press the candidates' names. Ah, democracy.
“Heroes” - Four Months Later
Every Tuesday, I'll be blogging about the show "Heroes", for the TV site Magnetic Media Fed. Here's my review of last week's season premiere.
Sometimes, I wish this was a show called "Her Es" about a girl and her magical adventures with her favorite letter of the alphabet.
For as weak and underwhelming as last year's finale was, this episode was everything a season premiere should be. It took nearly all of the incredibly good-looking characters from last year and put them into new and intriguing storylines, with mostly success, and it introduced a bunch of new faces into the mix as well. It effectively created plenty of new mysteries and raised lots of questions, but as we've learned in the past, how well they pay off is anyone's guess.
The main problem with this show (besides cramming an insane amount of story into one season) is that it relies too much on setup. Everything is plot setup for a future payoff. Think back to last season. You had about a thousand characters, with the unspoken promise that all these characters would come together in some sort of pre-determined climax, and a battle of immense proportions would ensue. Interestingly enough, the real climax of the season didn't come in the season finale, but in an episode three weeks before it, with events that technically aren't even going to actually happen since the present was changed to fix the future (GREAT SCOTT!). This is not to say that tremendous amounts of setup aren't worth it. Personally, I don't have a problem with being strung along, even if the end is weak, because I enjoy the ride, the guessing at where the plot is going to go, or what the answers all are. You look at LOST, and even though they didn't really start giving much payoff to any storylines until halfway through this past season, I enjoy being thrown all these curveballs, all these mysteries to ponder.
That being said, I do and have always thought that this show throws way too many at one time, and therefore has a hard time hitting a home run with any of them (how's that for a baseball metaphor?). This episode alone had eight storylines running "" nine if you count the Dr. Manhattan-like reformation of previously exploded Peter Petrelli "" and we still haven't even seen the Sanderses, Sylar, and newbies Veronica Mars and Dana Davis yet, not to mention this Bogeyman guy. That's possibly fourteen different ongoing plots running at the same time. In addition, there were also a ton of small mysteries and such that were briefly touched upon that are presumably going to become bigger as they go along. Is it safe to assume that all of these mysteries will get solved in a neat and orderly fashion? Now that all the Heroes, at least the ones from season one, have each other on speed-dial, is it safe to assume that they'll all congregate at the Hall of Justice and figure it all out? As Kensei would probably say, "Not bloody likely". Does it mean that a bit of a letdown at the payoff isn't worth the months of awesome exposition? We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
For now, I liked more about this episode than I disliked. To clarify, the only thing I didn't really care for at all was the Honduras duo, but I'll get to that later. Even with my criticisms, I think that overall, they've done a great job in moving the characters on from last season, and organically segued them into new storylines with some growth. The only one that didn't really feel natural was the Parkman divorce thing, because of where the two characters were at the end of last year, but I can see how his sense of duty to this girl might be more important. With that in mind, onto what I liked and didn't like.
I really enjoyed the Parkman/Molly stuff. The two are good together onscreen, and are given some of the best material from the episode to work with, especially their dinner scene. In a show as plot-driven as this is, it's good to see some character moments, and I could watch Greg Grunberg all day. His fellow Alias alum, and the second best part of that show, NPH-lookalike David Anders is going to be great in Hiro's "TMNT3"-meets-"The Last Samurai" storyline, even though it's very tough to tell why this story is even being told in the first place and why Hiro can use his powers in old Japan, but can't teleport out of there, or back to when he got in the middle of that fight. Maybe it was because of the eclipse, which lasted all of one minute and served no purpose besides looking cool. It's no big deal, though, because I think this dynamic between the characters/actors could work, and I'm willing to see where it goes, even if it's just some character growth for Hiro. The best "little thing" about the episode was when Hiro took his glasses off when Kensei asked if he was a scientist and then put them back on to make sure he wasn't seeing things when the mask came off. I think I might like the Mohinder storyline this year, as he's basically playing go-between for HRG and Stephen "Werner Brandis. My voice is my passport; verify me." Tobolowsky. It really is a perfect fit for where he should be, and a natural progression from what happened at the end of last season, not to mention that the two more interesting characters/actors will be driving the story. I liked the mystery of the deaths of the elder heroes, even though I question how George Takei knew who hoodie-guy was, even though we never saw who he was. Although, we never knew what Takei's superpower was anyway (seems like a waste), so maybe it was some sort of people identification power. It'll be interesting to see whether this plotline is a tie-in to the Bogeyman story, the Sylar story (probably not), or the "Company" story.
What didn't I like? Claire's re-introduction to high school/HRG's Office Depot job. I get that they're trying to start a new life and be boring and low-key, but could they do it with some more realistic characterizations? I understand that I'm saying this about a superhero show, but it always seems like the normal people who are always the side characters, are the most unrealistic, ironically. Take HRG's porn-star-mustachioed boss; I can't imagine a guy working at a place like that taking his job so seriously. Not only that, but the whole story was kinda a waste of time, really, other than to have something for HRG to do for the episode. There's no reason why it couldn't just be casually mentioned that he has a job somewhere, if that's even necessary. I didn't buy Claire at school either. Maybe it's just because I've always hated the completely unrealistic Hollywood portrayal of high school as this place where there's only 40 people, and the cheerleaders always wear their uniforms to school for some reason and have practice during their gym class that only has one guy in it. Actually, was there more than one guy at the school in total? The only one I saw was the ridiculously-named "West" whose superpowers seem to be showing up at exactly the most convenient time, plot-wise, and super-stalking. I liked the robot vs. alien convo the first time, but thought the call-back was unnecessary. Also, while I'm at it, my high school was on the state "empowerment" (read:worst of the worst, academically) list, and even we knew who Darwin was. The kids at this school must not have watched season one of Heroes, because that's all the narration ever talks about. Another issue about this show is that I can't remember one side character, who has been focused on, even minorly, and who doesn't have a power of some sort. It's getting incredibly easy to guess that someone is going to be superpowered, and that totally blows the reveal, in this case, when he flew at the end. Maybe the twist is that he actually is an alien, and those questions were totally literal. Lastly, that dinner scene was probably the most bizarre, out-of-place segment I've ever seen on the show. It was like someone hired Terry Gilliam to do it, what with the strange tension, weird close-ups, and the mom bringing the dog to the table and talking to it.
The Honduras story I found to be kinda boring and one-note, and considering I just saw that superpower on The 4400 last week, it didn't shock me as much as it was probably supposed to. This is another wait-and-see story.
Nathan's story wasn't really fleshed (HA! I KILL ME) out at all, but one presumes that his perpetual drunkenness, and playoff/get-over-my-breakup beard, along with the Man Without a Face vision will play into future episodes, so I don't really have any opinion on this.
Lastly, the little things that are going to be important in the future: I think they're overextending themselves with this symbology. That insignia is in every freaking shot now, it seems like. Even when Peter shows up at the end, he's wearing a necklace with it on for some reason. It's in Japan; it's on Molly's papers; it's on the pictures of the Elders. This is the sort of plot point (much like Hurley's numbers on LOST) which has never been given a specific meaning, and can just be thrown in in random places to make things seem mysterious, and in doing that, they run the risk never being able to answer it, leaving the audience completely unfulfilled. I already mentioned the Nathan's mirror/scarring shot. Obviously, they keep mentioning this Bogeyman, and it, along with Mohinder's taking down The Company, the Elders' murder mystery, and the Virus story seem to be what will comprise the main drive of the season, much like last year's was to stop someone setting us up the bomb. Hopefully, much like Teri Bauer, Peter's amnesia will go away after three hours time.
Despite all of these criticisms, the show is still easily one of the easiest to watch on TV, as it's generally well-shot, well-paced, well-acted, and has a host of diverse and mostly likeable characters. And thankfully, they gave time to the interesting ones this week and left Nikki and that "My Wife and Kids" kid off. We'll see how long they can walk the fourteen-plotline tightrope for.
Sometimes, I wish this was a show called "Her Es" about a girl and her magical adventures with her favorite letter of the alphabet.
For as weak and underwhelming as last year's finale was, this episode was everything a season premiere should be. It took nearly all of the incredibly good-looking characters from last year and put them into new and intriguing storylines, with mostly success, and it introduced a bunch of new faces into the mix as well. It effectively created plenty of new mysteries and raised lots of questions, but as we've learned in the past, how well they pay off is anyone's guess.
The main problem with this show (besides cramming an insane amount of story into one season) is that it relies too much on setup. Everything is plot setup for a future payoff. Think back to last season. You had about a thousand characters, with the unspoken promise that all these characters would come together in some sort of pre-determined climax, and a battle of immense proportions would ensue. Interestingly enough, the real climax of the season didn't come in the season finale, but in an episode three weeks before it, with events that technically aren't even going to actually happen since the present was changed to fix the future (GREAT SCOTT!). This is not to say that tremendous amounts of setup aren't worth it. Personally, I don't have a problem with being strung along, even if the end is weak, because I enjoy the ride, the guessing at where the plot is going to go, or what the answers all are. You look at LOST, and even though they didn't really start giving much payoff to any storylines until halfway through this past season, I enjoy being thrown all these curveballs, all these mysteries to ponder.
That being said, I do and have always thought that this show throws way too many at one time, and therefore has a hard time hitting a home run with any of them (how's that for a baseball metaphor?). This episode alone had eight storylines running "" nine if you count the Dr. Manhattan-like reformation of previously exploded Peter Petrelli "" and we still haven't even seen the Sanderses, Sylar, and newbies Veronica Mars and Dana Davis yet, not to mention this Bogeyman guy. That's possibly fourteen different ongoing plots running at the same time. In addition, there were also a ton of small mysteries and such that were briefly touched upon that are presumably going to become bigger as they go along. Is it safe to assume that all of these mysteries will get solved in a neat and orderly fashion? Now that all the Heroes, at least the ones from season one, have each other on speed-dial, is it safe to assume that they'll all congregate at the Hall of Justice and figure it all out? As Kensei would probably say, "Not bloody likely". Does it mean that a bit of a letdown at the payoff isn't worth the months of awesome exposition? We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
For now, I liked more about this episode than I disliked. To clarify, the only thing I didn't really care for at all was the Honduras duo, but I'll get to that later. Even with my criticisms, I think that overall, they've done a great job in moving the characters on from last season, and organically segued them into new storylines with some growth. The only one that didn't really feel natural was the Parkman divorce thing, because of where the two characters were at the end of last year, but I can see how his sense of duty to this girl might be more important. With that in mind, onto what I liked and didn't like.
I really enjoyed the Parkman/Molly stuff. The two are good together onscreen, and are given some of the best material from the episode to work with, especially their dinner scene. In a show as plot-driven as this is, it's good to see some character moments, and I could watch Greg Grunberg all day. His fellow Alias alum, and the second best part of that show, NPH-lookalike David Anders is going to be great in Hiro's "TMNT3"-meets-"The Last Samurai" storyline, even though it's very tough to tell why this story is even being told in the first place and why Hiro can use his powers in old Japan, but can't teleport out of there, or back to when he got in the middle of that fight. Maybe it was because of the eclipse, which lasted all of one minute and served no purpose besides looking cool. It's no big deal, though, because I think this dynamic between the characters/actors could work, and I'm willing to see where it goes, even if it's just some character growth for Hiro. The best "little thing" about the episode was when Hiro took his glasses off when Kensei asked if he was a scientist and then put them back on to make sure he wasn't seeing things when the mask came off. I think I might like the Mohinder storyline this year, as he's basically playing go-between for HRG and Stephen "Werner Brandis. My voice is my passport; verify me." Tobolowsky. It really is a perfect fit for where he should be, and a natural progression from what happened at the end of last season, not to mention that the two more interesting characters/actors will be driving the story. I liked the mystery of the deaths of the elder heroes, even though I question how George Takei knew who hoodie-guy was, even though we never saw who he was. Although, we never knew what Takei's superpower was anyway (seems like a waste), so maybe it was some sort of people identification power. It'll be interesting to see whether this plotline is a tie-in to the Bogeyman story, the Sylar story (probably not), or the "Company" story.
What didn't I like? Claire's re-introduction to high school/HRG's Office Depot job. I get that they're trying to start a new life and be boring and low-key, but could they do it with some more realistic characterizations? I understand that I'm saying this about a superhero show, but it always seems like the normal people who are always the side characters, are the most unrealistic, ironically. Take HRG's porn-star-mustachioed boss; I can't imagine a guy working at a place like that taking his job so seriously. Not only that, but the whole story was kinda a waste of time, really, other than to have something for HRG to do for the episode. There's no reason why it couldn't just be casually mentioned that he has a job somewhere, if that's even necessary. I didn't buy Claire at school either. Maybe it's just because I've always hated the completely unrealistic Hollywood portrayal of high school as this place where there's only 40 people, and the cheerleaders always wear their uniforms to school for some reason and have practice during their gym class that only has one guy in it. Actually, was there more than one guy at the school in total? The only one I saw was the ridiculously-named "West" whose superpowers seem to be showing up at exactly the most convenient time, plot-wise, and super-stalking. I liked the robot vs. alien convo the first time, but thought the call-back was unnecessary. Also, while I'm at it, my high school was on the state "empowerment" (read:worst of the worst, academically) list, and even we knew who Darwin was. The kids at this school must not have watched season one of Heroes, because that's all the narration ever talks about. Another issue about this show is that I can't remember one side character, who has been focused on, even minorly, and who doesn't have a power of some sort. It's getting incredibly easy to guess that someone is going to be superpowered, and that totally blows the reveal, in this case, when he flew at the end. Maybe the twist is that he actually is an alien, and those questions were totally literal. Lastly, that dinner scene was probably the most bizarre, out-of-place segment I've ever seen on the show. It was like someone hired Terry Gilliam to do it, what with the strange tension, weird close-ups, and the mom bringing the dog to the table and talking to it.
The Honduras story I found to be kinda boring and one-note, and considering I just saw that superpower on The 4400 last week, it didn't shock me as much as it was probably supposed to. This is another wait-and-see story.
Nathan's story wasn't really fleshed (HA! I KILL ME) out at all, but one presumes that his perpetual drunkenness, and playoff/get-over-my-breakup beard, along with the Man Without a Face vision will play into future episodes, so I don't really have any opinion on this.
Lastly, the little things that are going to be important in the future: I think they're overextending themselves with this symbology. That insignia is in every freaking shot now, it seems like. Even when Peter shows up at the end, he's wearing a necklace with it on for some reason. It's in Japan; it's on Molly's papers; it's on the pictures of the Elders. This is the sort of plot point (much like Hurley's numbers on LOST) which has never been given a specific meaning, and can just be thrown in in random places to make things seem mysterious, and in doing that, they run the risk never being able to answer it, leaving the audience completely unfulfilled. I already mentioned the Nathan's mirror/scarring shot. Obviously, they keep mentioning this Bogeyman, and it, along with Mohinder's taking down The Company, the Elders' murder mystery, and the Virus story seem to be what will comprise the main drive of the season, much like last year's was to stop someone setting us up the bomb. Hopefully, much like Teri Bauer, Peter's amnesia will go away after three hours time.
Despite all of these criticisms, the show is still easily one of the easiest to watch on TV, as it's generally well-shot, well-paced, well-acted, and has a host of diverse and mostly likeable characters. And thankfully, they gave time to the interesting ones this week and left Nikki and that "My Wife and Kids" kid off. We'll see how long they can walk the fourteen-plotline tightrope for.
The 2008 Phillies Alternate Uniforms
The Phillies have been one of the few teams to not have alternate uniforms in the last 15 years; the White Sox have their solid black jerseys, the Diamondbacks have their solid red and solid black, and on and on throughout the league. The Phillies have had an alternate hat the last few years, but it's only worn during the three weeks of interleague games.
For 2008, the Phillies will have a third uniform which will hopefully go over better than their 1979 "Saturday Night Specials" which were worn only once. Basically, the new uniform is the home uniform minus the pin-stripes (and the right arm number) plus a new hat inspired by the 1946 design (the modern "P" is slightly different). Well, in terms of being really picky, the vertical strip on each pant leg is blue-red-blue with the normal home uniforms missing the stripe (would look too busy with the pinstripes) and the current away uniforms having white-red-white stripes on the outside of each pant leg. Notice the blue stroke around all of the copy, the blue-red-blue at the edge of each sleeve and neck as well. These details are reminiscent of the late 90's Blue Jays uniforms.
The verdict? I like them - I've always been a fan of the ill-fated, solid blue alternate hats worn for about a month in 1994 because the 1993+ uniforms have always been very, very red, with no other colors except the blue stars dotting the "i's" and the blue button on top of the hat. Blue's seen in the batting practice jerseys and hats, but they're definitely not the image of the team. I would prefer the brim to be solid blue to match the rest of the hat instead of being red, but it is an obvious throwback to the hats of the late 40's. (I think a better choice would be solid blue with the stylized logo of the current alternate hats but with a white "P" and red star to create a disturbingly complete symmetry between the home and alternate hats, but oh well - that combination would probably be a bit much, if not unnecessary.)
I guess it comes down to whether these new alternate uniforms are more interesting than the 70's/80's maroon design. The Brewers wear their wildly popular 80's uniforms on Friday night home games, and I'm sure that lots of Phillies fans would like them to do the same, but let's leave those for turn-back-the-clock games instead of being a normal part of the rotation. The 2008 Phillies Alternate Uniforms get four stars: they're obviously not a risky choice, and I'm sure lots of people will buy a replica when they're available, so good work to the design team responsble for not copping out and settling on just a solid red jersey with white pants to match pretty much every other team in the league.
If you're at all interested in uniform-related stuff, be sure to check out http://uniwatchblog.com, a daily-updated blog on the topic.
For 2008, the Phillies will have a third uniform which will hopefully go over better than their 1979 "Saturday Night Specials" which were worn only once. Basically, the new uniform is the home uniform minus the pin-stripes (and the right arm number) plus a new hat inspired by the 1946 design (the modern "P" is slightly different). Well, in terms of being really picky, the vertical strip on each pant leg is blue-red-blue with the normal home uniforms missing the stripe (would look too busy with the pinstripes) and the current away uniforms having white-red-white stripes on the outside of each pant leg. Notice the blue stroke around all of the copy, the blue-red-blue at the edge of each sleeve and neck as well. These details are reminiscent of the late 90's Blue Jays uniforms.
The verdict? I like them - I've always been a fan of the ill-fated, solid blue alternate hats worn for about a month in 1994 because the 1993+ uniforms have always been very, very red, with no other colors except the blue stars dotting the "i's" and the blue button on top of the hat. Blue's seen in the batting practice jerseys and hats, but they're definitely not the image of the team. I would prefer the brim to be solid blue to match the rest of the hat instead of being red, but it is an obvious throwback to the hats of the late 40's. (I think a better choice would be solid blue with the stylized logo of the current alternate hats but with a white "P" and red star to create a disturbingly complete symmetry between the home and alternate hats, but oh well - that combination would probably be a bit much, if not unnecessary.)
I guess it comes down to whether these new alternate uniforms are more interesting than the 70's/80's maroon design. The Brewers wear their wildly popular 80's uniforms on Friday night home games, and I'm sure that lots of Phillies fans would like them to do the same, but let's leave those for turn-back-the-clock games instead of being a normal part of the rotation. The 2008 Phillies Alternate Uniforms get four stars: they're obviously not a risky choice, and I'm sure lots of people will buy a replica when they're available, so good work to the design team responsble for not copping out and settling on just a solid red jersey with white pants to match pretty much every other team in the league.
If you're at all interested in uniform-related stuff, be sure to check out http://uniwatchblog.com, a daily-updated blog on the topic.
Best Song Ever? The 1812 Overture (Tchaikovsky)
Maybe the most in-depth "best song ever?" review...ever
Only in the US could a song written by a gay Russian guy to celebrate a Russian military victory become a cornerstone of its patriotic celebrations. Sure, the whole "1812" in the title makes it sound like it could've been written in relation to the little discussed War of 1812 (USA! USA! USA!). Sure the whole name, Festival Overture "The Year 1812" has exactly no ring to it, and the French Ouverture solennelle 1812 is, well, French, but had it been named something like "Glorious Song Celebrating Russian Victory," maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be a staple of barbecues, Budweiser, and bottlerockets. In lieu of the anti-septic "yes, no, conclusion" form of previous "Best Song Ever?" reviews, I'm going to really tear this one up. Like most everything, Wikipedia has a detailed, thorough write-up of it, so here's a quick background: 1) commissioned to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Napoleon's defeat at Moscow in (wait for it) 1812 2) actually from the "Romantic" time period, what with the aggressive dynamic range and being written in a patriotic state of mind (see Finlandia, and the Moldau, both from about the same time period).
I'll assume that everyone knows the end of the 1812 Overture (du-duh-du-duh-duh-duh-duh-du-duh-duh-CANNON EXPLOSION!! du-duh ... [repeat]), so I'll be focusing more on the rest of the ~15-17 minutes of wretched Slavic excess.
First things first, there are a number of orchestral variations that exist: some have a choir at the beginning singing the opening hymn, others have it played by the strings, some even have the choir sing at the end as well, some versions have cannon, some versions don't. (I prefer sans cannon - the reverberations tend to lose the finer details of the conclusion, that being said, points are earned for incorporating firearms into music. I don't think Creedence ever had the guts to do that.) Also, there are a number of sonically inferior recordings of the 1812 Overture. The blaring trumpets of the "best part" (see below) will overwhelm low-quality mixes, leaving it painful to listen to, much less "appreciate." Likewise, in the interest of not clipping during recording, if the opening choir is included, they're frequently gained way, way down, creating one of those wonderful experiences where your speakers (and ears) are left in pieces when the cannon shots start. After both of these almost technical aspects are taken care of, we're left at the whims of the conductor - should the opening be minor key Christmas Carol slow or old lady playing the organ slow? (answer: minor key Christmas Carol slow) - should the high end of the orchestra bring it back a few notches when the low end completes the final run? (answer: absolutely) Should the ringing trumpets of "the good part" be included in the arrangement? (answer: yes, but Mr. Conductor had best keep them from blowing the notes out of tune).
My "definitive arrangement" is the Tchaikovsky Large Symphony Orchestra conducted by Vladimir Fedoseyev (1995).
From 0:00 - 01:08 we hear the opening hymn - sung in this version, frequently played by the string section in other recordings. The hymn is actually "God Save the Tsar," not a new creation of Tchaikovsky's. Let's call this the first good part.
01:08 - 03:12 Lots of building - starting small, getting large at 02:50. Look out for the tubas to rock your world, speakers, and sense of decency at 2:32. Maybe some "mystery" with the forgotten member of the strings, the double bass being played with a bow, creating "uncertainty and dread." Maybe.
03:12 - 03:40 Section played by the upper and middle brass (French horns, the upper range of the trombones). What with the whole "celebrating victory over the French" thing, this is actually a play on La Marseillaise, the French National Anthem. Finally, "musical allusions" I agree with. Remember this ditty for later.
03:41 - The strings rock out before the brass comes back in at 4:40 playing more variations on La Marseillaise as the strings add flourishes - notice that the flourishes aren't all by the violins and violas, the cellos and double basses add just as much. The melody is thrown all around the brass department: french horns and trombones, then trumpets, back to trombones, then trumpets again as at 05:03 - the violins flourish with an upwards run, the cellos and basses match it, but in reverse (for you music people out there, that's called "inversion" .... or "retrograde.") At 5:07 the string section's cat and mouse game ends as they're given the melody for a time as the section begins to wind down at 05:40.
05:57 - The section begins - woodwinds and strings are left alone to introduce this middle theme. At 6:40 the oboe and English horn get a slight countermelody which at 7:00 is picked up by the flutes who begin their take on the theme at 07:06. Notice the continual tambourine and the bassoon player's mom standing up during the concert and saying "THAT'S MY SON!!!" because he's the featured instrument from 7:21 until 7:26. Heck, it might be only 5 seconds, but to a bassoon player, that's like being TIME's person of the year. The French national anthem continues to be played with like a cat with a gimpy mouse until the brass add exclamation marks at 08:05, with the tubas even getting in on the French-bashing at 08:45. Uh-oh, I smell segue (08:50 - 09:02).
Same file as above, to avoid excess scrolling.
09:02 - 10:17 - I think this is the part where pretentious war movies start and they talk about the "beauty of combat, the man on man, the country vs. country." At 9:42 the double bass proves why it Le Stinks compared to the tuba, with it barely being able to be heard (9:48 specifically). 09:49 - French Horn Solo! Well, two measures at a time, at least. 10:05 building to what will be the second good part.
10:18 - 11:10 The second good part. Timpani is played in place of cannon (good move), the trumpets take guff from no man. I assume this is supposed to be the whole "cannonballs wrecking stuff" section as we get blaring, blaring, blaring, then it's the long, long (long, long) run down the orchestra starting with violins, viola, cello, then double-bass, then (to the chagrin of double-bass players everywhere), the tubas join in around 10:58 and totally drown them out. As it should be.
11:10 - 12:23 The third good part - also called, "the best part" I'll be honest, the conductor takes it a bit fast for more liking, but it's made up for in the fact that this version includes the chorus. This section's all top-quality; generally the structure is "choir and brass play the role of cannon" then the strings play the part of "stuff blown up and floating through the air after explosion." Remember the opening hymn, well, this is it all over again. Notice the "ringing" trumpets accenting the melody 1 and 2 octaves up, playing in unison but a 5th above the melody in the low brass. Wait a minute...isn't root-5th the same thing as a power chord? Indeed it is. Take that rock and roll. 11:42 rocks my world (and makes purple acceptable to wear), so turn your speakers up. Notice the tuba player almost duff the first note of his mini-feature at 11:49, then redeem himself until he takes a slightly too long breath at 11:53/11:54. The chorus and brass do their thing, as the strings begin to wrap up the section at 12:16. Oh yeah, and the bells that start at ~11:06 and don't stop until the whole song's over? Someone needs to tell them not to overdo it. Supposedly, the original score calls for "carillon," but most versions use tubular bells in place of the carillon. Notice the MP3 compression have a major coronary as it tries to compress this section with the bells, the brass, chorus, cymbals, and the strings all playing at FF. What's a carillon you may ask? Well, if you've been to Musikfest, this guy plays a carillon.
Same file as above, to avoid excess scrolling.
12:23 - END - You know it, you may love it, you may hate it, but no matter what you think of it, to most people, this is the 1812 Overture. It's the fourth good part if only by popular vote. It's actually kind of ho-hum when you listen to it: the drums go bum-bum over and over again, the cymbal player is phoning it in, the cannoneers are waiting for their cue, the violin players are developing carpal tunnel, Clarinet 2 is wondering to himself, "I spent how much money on a music degree, and all I'm doing is playing second Clarinet in this commercial waste of time?!," but its one saving grace is that the brass is about to get back in and bring it home. This version even includes the closing chorus, so if you ever see it performed live or even on TV (almost never with the chorus), remember this, so you realize what you're missing. 12:32 The tubas double the chorus, the trumpets assist the violins and woodwinds, the cannon do their thing, and the double-bass and bassoon are apparently in absentia (as it should be). On your second listen-through, notice the trumpet players triple-tonguing the opening of each phrase (listen at 12:36, that's not one note, that's 3 super-quick ones, in a row). 12:49 This is a tricky section for most recordings. Frequently, the chromatic run of triplets, which begins at the top of the orchestra's range with the flutes and violins, gets lost in the soundfield when it gets handed to the low brass (at 12:52) but not in this version. In this one, the notes are even accented on the way down and the tempo is slowed ever so slightly drawing it out. Making this version even more definitive is the (pay attention) is that normally, when the chorus sits this section out, as the low brass is doing their triplet run, the higher instruments ascend the major scale on each downbeat two octaves above the low brass. In this version, the men's chorus is singing one octave above the brass, drawing more tension between the simultaneous ascending and descending lines compared to having two whole octaves between each.
After that, it's just bombast - nothing extraordinary, though there's something to be said for throwing the final melody down each member of the brass section, the high trumpets at 13:04, the lower trumpets at 13:05, the french horns and baritone at 13:06 (listen for the sour note during their turn around 13:07), then finally the trombones and tuba bring up the rear. All that's left now is to wait for the darn thing to end for the next 18 seconds. It's kind of like watching a dog after it's let out to go to the bathroom. It runs around the whole yard waiting for a nice spot to take care of its business. It takes a while, but it does eventually end.
An alternate version (USSR State Symphony Orchestra - Evgeny Svetlanov - 1974):
No choir (beginning, middle, or end)
The strings are played in place of the chorus - eh, it's okay, but he takes them a bit too slowly. At this tempo, they come off more as "emotive" than "expressive." I'm not sure what that means, but feel free to quote me. It does sound like the instruments are about to cry. Also, I think you can hear the musician's breath between musical phrases. I'd assume this was someone's artsy-fartsy idea to "make the instruments sound more like people."
Listen (opening only - turn it up a bit):
More notably, this version includes an alternate ending. Apparently the change has to do with Soviet Russia not liking things praising the Tsar (for some reason). More here.
Listen:
At 0:12 - right when you expect the brass entrance, you get...whuh?! Actually, it's another hymn, but at least you get back in time (0:35) for the epic final run (which is drawn out and even accented by the tubas).
Here's the whole thing - it's pretty much the typical performance. The sound quality is a bit lacking, but it's certainly passable:
Listen:
Another Sample
Not sure the pedigree of this one, but it shows why that final run (0:04) needs to be recorded and mixed carefully. The bottom half gets completely lost in the explosions and strings.
Listen:
One Last Example
Finally, this is what happens when the end is played too fast. Not only are the trumpets out of sync, they're blowing the notes out of tune. Also, one of the trumpet players seems to left the building from 0:23-0:27.
Listen:
I have a few more renditions if anyone's interested, but I covered the good ones and the notable differences between variations....and, I'm sure most of you stopped reading after the title.
The 1812 Overture gets four-and-half stars for longevity, effect, and who-cares-if-it's-"popular" awesomeness. It makes fun of the French, incorporates military equipment, and has been co-opted by the US; really, what else is there? Half-a-star is deducted for that middle section. It's good, but unfortunately doesn't compare. It is not the best song ever, but it's definitely breathing rarefied air.
Only in the US could a song written by a gay Russian guy to celebrate a Russian military victory become a cornerstone of its patriotic celebrations. Sure, the whole "1812" in the title makes it sound like it could've been written in relation to the little discussed War of 1812 (USA! USA! USA!). Sure the whole name, Festival Overture "The Year 1812" has exactly no ring to it, and the French Ouverture solennelle 1812 is, well, French, but had it been named something like "Glorious Song Celebrating Russian Victory," maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be a staple of barbecues, Budweiser, and bottlerockets. In lieu of the anti-septic "yes, no, conclusion" form of previous "Best Song Ever?" reviews, I'm going to really tear this one up. Like most everything, Wikipedia has a detailed, thorough write-up of it, so here's a quick background: 1) commissioned to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Napoleon's defeat at Moscow in (wait for it) 1812 2) actually from the "Romantic" time period, what with the aggressive dynamic range and being written in a patriotic state of mind (see Finlandia, and the Moldau, both from about the same time period).
I'll assume that everyone knows the end of the 1812 Overture (du-duh-du-duh-duh-duh-duh-du-duh-duh-CANNON EXPLOSION!! du-duh ... [repeat]), so I'll be focusing more on the rest of the ~15-17 minutes of wretched Slavic excess.
First things first, there are a number of orchestral variations that exist: some have a choir at the beginning singing the opening hymn, others have it played by the strings, some even have the choir sing at the end as well, some versions have cannon, some versions don't. (I prefer sans cannon - the reverberations tend to lose the finer details of the conclusion, that being said, points are earned for incorporating firearms into music. I don't think Creedence ever had the guts to do that.) Also, there are a number of sonically inferior recordings of the 1812 Overture. The blaring trumpets of the "best part" (see below) will overwhelm low-quality mixes, leaving it painful to listen to, much less "appreciate." Likewise, in the interest of not clipping during recording, if the opening choir is included, they're frequently gained way, way down, creating one of those wonderful experiences where your speakers (and ears) are left in pieces when the cannon shots start. After both of these almost technical aspects are taken care of, we're left at the whims of the conductor - should the opening be minor key Christmas Carol slow or old lady playing the organ slow? (answer: minor key Christmas Carol slow) - should the high end of the orchestra bring it back a few notches when the low end completes the final run? (answer: absolutely) Should the ringing trumpets of "the good part" be included in the arrangement? (answer: yes, but Mr. Conductor had best keep them from blowing the notes out of tune).
My "definitive arrangement" is the Tchaikovsky Large Symphony Orchestra conducted by Vladimir Fedoseyev (1995).
From 0:00 - 01:08 we hear the opening hymn - sung in this version, frequently played by the string section in other recordings. The hymn is actually "God Save the Tsar," not a new creation of Tchaikovsky's. Let's call this the first good part.
01:08 - 03:12 Lots of building - starting small, getting large at 02:50. Look out for the tubas to rock your world, speakers, and sense of decency at 2:32. Maybe some "mystery" with the forgotten member of the strings, the double bass being played with a bow, creating "uncertainty and dread." Maybe.
03:12 - 03:40 Section played by the upper and middle brass (French horns, the upper range of the trombones). What with the whole "celebrating victory over the French" thing, this is actually a play on La Marseillaise, the French National Anthem. Finally, "musical allusions" I agree with. Remember this ditty for later.
03:41 - The strings rock out before the brass comes back in at 4:40 playing more variations on La Marseillaise as the strings add flourishes - notice that the flourishes aren't all by the violins and violas, the cellos and double basses add just as much. The melody is thrown all around the brass department: french horns and trombones, then trumpets, back to trombones, then trumpets again as at 05:03 - the violins flourish with an upwards run, the cellos and basses match it, but in reverse (for you music people out there, that's called "inversion" .... or "retrograde.") At 5:07 the string section's cat and mouse game ends as they're given the melody for a time as the section begins to wind down at 05:40.
05:57 - The section begins - woodwinds and strings are left alone to introduce this middle theme. At 6:40 the oboe and English horn get a slight countermelody which at 7:00 is picked up by the flutes who begin their take on the theme at 07:06. Notice the continual tambourine and the bassoon player's mom standing up during the concert and saying "THAT'S MY SON!!!" because he's the featured instrument from 7:21 until 7:26. Heck, it might be only 5 seconds, but to a bassoon player, that's like being TIME's person of the year. The French national anthem continues to be played with like a cat with a gimpy mouse until the brass add exclamation marks at 08:05, with the tubas even getting in on the French-bashing at 08:45. Uh-oh, I smell segue (08:50 - 09:02).
Same file as above, to avoid excess scrolling.
09:02 - 10:17 - I think this is the part where pretentious war movies start and they talk about the "beauty of combat, the man on man, the country vs. country." At 9:42 the double bass proves why it Le Stinks compared to the tuba, with it barely being able to be heard (9:48 specifically). 09:49 - French Horn Solo! Well, two measures at a time, at least. 10:05 building to what will be the second good part.
10:18 - 11:10 The second good part. Timpani is played in place of cannon (good move), the trumpets take guff from no man. I assume this is supposed to be the whole "cannonballs wrecking stuff" section as we get blaring, blaring, blaring, then it's the long, long (long, long) run down the orchestra starting with violins, viola, cello, then double-bass, then (to the chagrin of double-bass players everywhere), the tubas join in around 10:58 and totally drown them out. As it should be.
11:10 - 12:23 The third good part - also called, "the best part" I'll be honest, the conductor takes it a bit fast for more liking, but it's made up for in the fact that this version includes the chorus. This section's all top-quality; generally the structure is "choir and brass play the role of cannon" then the strings play the part of "stuff blown up and floating through the air after explosion." Remember the opening hymn, well, this is it all over again. Notice the "ringing" trumpets accenting the melody 1 and 2 octaves up, playing in unison but a 5th above the melody in the low brass. Wait a minute...isn't root-5th the same thing as a power chord? Indeed it is. Take that rock and roll. 11:42 rocks my world (and makes purple acceptable to wear), so turn your speakers up. Notice the tuba player almost duff the first note of his mini-feature at 11:49, then redeem himself until he takes a slightly too long breath at 11:53/11:54. The chorus and brass do their thing, as the strings begin to wrap up the section at 12:16. Oh yeah, and the bells that start at ~11:06 and don't stop until the whole song's over? Someone needs to tell them not to overdo it. Supposedly, the original score calls for "carillon," but most versions use tubular bells in place of the carillon. Notice the MP3 compression have a major coronary as it tries to compress this section with the bells, the brass, chorus, cymbals, and the strings all playing at FF. What's a carillon you may ask? Well, if you've been to Musikfest, this guy plays a carillon.
Same file as above, to avoid excess scrolling.
12:23 - END - You know it, you may love it, you may hate it, but no matter what you think of it, to most people, this is the 1812 Overture. It's the fourth good part if only by popular vote. It's actually kind of ho-hum when you listen to it: the drums go bum-bum over and over again, the cymbal player is phoning it in, the cannoneers are waiting for their cue, the violin players are developing carpal tunnel, Clarinet 2 is wondering to himself, "I spent how much money on a music degree, and all I'm doing is playing second Clarinet in this commercial waste of time?!," but its one saving grace is that the brass is about to get back in and bring it home. This version even includes the closing chorus, so if you ever see it performed live or even on TV (almost never with the chorus), remember this, so you realize what you're missing. 12:32 The tubas double the chorus, the trumpets assist the violins and woodwinds, the cannon do their thing, and the double-bass and bassoon are apparently in absentia (as it should be). On your second listen-through, notice the trumpet players triple-tonguing the opening of each phrase (listen at 12:36, that's not one note, that's 3 super-quick ones, in a row). 12:49 This is a tricky section for most recordings. Frequently, the chromatic run of triplets, which begins at the top of the orchestra's range with the flutes and violins, gets lost in the soundfield when it gets handed to the low brass (at 12:52) but not in this version. In this one, the notes are even accented on the way down and the tempo is slowed ever so slightly drawing it out. Making this version even more definitive is the (pay attention) is that normally, when the chorus sits this section out, as the low brass is doing their triplet run, the higher instruments ascend the major scale on each downbeat two octaves above the low brass. In this version, the men's chorus is singing one octave above the brass, drawing more tension between the simultaneous ascending and descending lines compared to having two whole octaves between each.
After that, it's just bombast - nothing extraordinary, though there's something to be said for throwing the final melody down each member of the brass section, the high trumpets at 13:04, the lower trumpets at 13:05, the french horns and baritone at 13:06 (listen for the sour note during their turn around 13:07), then finally the trombones and tuba bring up the rear. All that's left now is to wait for the darn thing to end for the next 18 seconds. It's kind of like watching a dog after it's let out to go to the bathroom. It runs around the whole yard waiting for a nice spot to take care of its business. It takes a while, but it does eventually end.
An alternate version (USSR State Symphony Orchestra - Evgeny Svetlanov - 1974):
No choir (beginning, middle, or end)
The strings are played in place of the chorus - eh, it's okay, but he takes them a bit too slowly. At this tempo, they come off more as "emotive" than "expressive." I'm not sure what that means, but feel free to quote me. It does sound like the instruments are about to cry. Also, I think you can hear the musician's breath between musical phrases. I'd assume this was someone's artsy-fartsy idea to "make the instruments sound more like people."
Listen (opening only - turn it up a bit):
More notably, this version includes an alternate ending. Apparently the change has to do with Soviet Russia not liking things praising the Tsar (for some reason). More here.
Listen:
At 0:12 - right when you expect the brass entrance, you get...whuh?! Actually, it's another hymn, but at least you get back in time (0:35) for the epic final run (which is drawn out and even accented by the tubas).
Here's the whole thing - it's pretty much the typical performance. The sound quality is a bit lacking, but it's certainly passable:
Listen:
Another Sample
Not sure the pedigree of this one, but it shows why that final run (0:04) needs to be recorded and mixed carefully. The bottom half gets completely lost in the explosions and strings.
Listen:
One Last Example
Finally, this is what happens when the end is played too fast. Not only are the trumpets out of sync, they're blowing the notes out of tune. Also, one of the trumpet players seems to left the building from 0:23-0:27.
Listen:
I have a few more renditions if anyone's interested, but I covered the good ones and the notable differences between variations....and, I'm sure most of you stopped reading after the title.
The 1812 Overture gets four-and-half stars for longevity, effect, and who-cares-if-it's-"popular" awesomeness. It makes fun of the French, incorporates military equipment, and has been co-opted by the US; really, what else is there? Half-a-star is deducted for that middle section. It's good, but unfortunately doesn't compare. It is not the best song ever, but it's definitely breathing rarefied air.
The Harold Lloyd Comedy Collection, Volume 1, Disc 1
Funny, just a few minutes ago, the streets were jam-packed with people staring up in disbelief.
One of the great features of NetFlix is the ability to look at a list of Academy Award-Winners, or AFI lists, or even Razzie award-winners, and then with one click add them to your list. The biggest problem with Netflix is that when you have a ton of movies in your queue, it's gonna take months to get it, and what you might want to watch one day isn't necessarily what you want to watch some other time. Months and months ago, I'd made an effort to add all the movies from AFI's 100 comedies list that I hadn't seen... even the black and white movies that Dan generally dispises. Surprisingly, "Bringing Up Baby" was pretty awesome farce, if you can get past the fact that Katherine Hepburn is way too obnoxious in this movie for anyone today to even consider this character a plausible love interest. "Some Like it Hot" is pretty fantastic, despite the fact that the more sympathetic of the two guys doesn't get the girl in the end. "It Happened One Night" and "The Apartment" kinda dragged a bit, even though "The Apartment" was shot really well.
In any case, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the funniest of these that I ended up with were actually some silent movies from the 20s. Remembering the AFI special showing this silent movie with a guy, Harold LLoyd, hanging from a clock on a building, and them saying he was actually hanging from such and such heights, I was pretty interested in finding what this title was. Unfortunately, I think that Netflix has the wrong disc on it, or "The Freshman" somehow was on the AFI list instead, and I ended up with one that had some of his other stuff on it, which was actually very interesting, especially with the Leonard Maltin commentaries on. I didn't end up getting the disc with the film I'd been looking for, "Safety Last", until this weekend, and I got through two features and one short yesterday.
The short, "An Eastern Westerner", was perfectly serviceable, with some great gags but not too much of a story. Somehow a big-city guy ends up in a corrupt western town, and they don't take too kindly to him. It ends with a decent-length chase scene in which Harold outwits the entire village (the people are all dressed in robes resembling the KKK), but really isn't anything more than a few minutes distraction.
The feature length (about an hour and twenty minutes I think), "Girl Shy" is exceptional. Harold plays a small-town taylor who's writing a pretty terrible book about dozens of love affairs he's supposedly had, even though he's incredibly inept around women. On a train to take the book to the publisher, he meets and falls in love with a rich city-girl. Their love story develops after the train ride, but when he doesn't get the book deal, he rejects her, knowing that she couldn't very well marry a poor taylor. She ends up engaged, and when some details come out about the guy she's marrying, Harold races to the city by any means necessary, in (considering when this was shot), one of the greatest chase scenes ever filmed. "By any means possible" probably describes it better; He unsuccessfully tries to hitchhike three times, then steals a car belonging to bootleggers, another car, a horse, a motorcycle, a cable car, and a horse-drawn carriage. The choreography and detail of this extended chase is remarkable, and what makes you invest in it all the more is the time given to explain the motivations for the actions, and to the akward-yet-sweet love story.
Not as remarkable from a story standpoint (but close) is "Safety Last", usually considered Lloyd's masterpiece. "Safety Last" concerns a poor department store worker trying to woo a girl and make ends meet. When his boss offers $1000 (in 1923 money) to anyone who can bring a large amount of people to the store, he decides that he'll have his friend, an expert building climber, scale the building in a much publicized event. What he's not counting on, is a police officer with a vendetta against the friend, who's come out in search of the human fly. When the cop spots the friend, the plans changes so that Harold will climb up one floor and meet the friend inside. The friend will put on Harolds clothes and finish the climb. Unfortunately the real climber is unable to ditch the cop on his tail, and Harold is forced to go the whole way himself. What follows is a harrowing and hilarious series of perils and obstacles, many shot more than 15 stories up, without proper safety equipment.
I watched it with the Leonard Maltin/"Some guy from Lloyd's estate" commentary track on, as there's not much to lose by not hearing a silent movie, and it was insightful and interesting. Having watched some of these movies without commentary, I would think it safe to say that you miss a lot without them. There are so many small, throwaway gags that completely fly under the radar without people saying "I love this little thing coming up here", and I think it has to do with just not being used to watching silent movies. Plus you would never know that he was actually missing his thumb and half of his index finger on his right hand, and wore some sort of prosthetic glove, or that they shot the building he was climbing on a few 18 foot tall facades they built next to the edge of a real building to get the vista shots, and that they only had some mattresses on the roof, in case he fell.
But there are a lot of little bits that you would miss, and I think it has to do with the nature of the medium today. You can put something on in the background and listen and do something else and half pay attention. These silent films were meant to be watched in a dark theatre and have the audience hang on every action. There's something alienating about watching silent movies, usually because you're sitting around silently watching something with just music, and you have to actively participate in the viewing, but for some reason, after the first twenty minutes of "Girl Shy" I found myself reeled into the characters, even if the action was sparse. Once that chase scene started, though, I was glued to the set.
The Harold Lloyd Comedy Collection, Volume 1, Disc 1 (or what I've seen of it at least) gets 4.5 stars for the amount of content (Two features, Three 20 minute or so shorts, for about four hours of movies), the quality of the content itself (both the great video quality, and the actual quality of the movies themselves), and the very insightful commentary on "Safety Last"
Guest Review: Madden 2008 (XBox 360)
Guest Review! Kyle from notthegame.com weighs in on Madden 2008.
Madden 2008 is a bit of an enigma. In the last few years, on the new systems, Madden has been a sub par football game. This is typical for sports games on a new system as it takes game developers a few years to revamp the game engine, as well as improve graphics and features. The third year is typically the year when progress starts to be made. Take the PS2 versions, for example, in 2002 and 2003 the game redefined the way football games look but they didn't play that well, in 2004 the game took on a life of its own, and by year four in 2005, Madden reached its pinnacle. That lines the 360 version up for 2009 as the pinnacle of its success on the new systems.
Madden 2008, however, is a serious step in the right direction. This year, Madden has perfected the game play, improved already stellar animations, and added the features and options we have come to expect from the Madden franchise. If by next year, EA Sports can improve the presentation, get rid of the god awful radio announcer, and add some innovation to franchise mode, the game will reach a level never before seen.
That being said, here is a break down of this years game.
Graphics:
Madden has never really been known for its graphics and animation, but this year that is starting to change. Animations are now much more natural, as players will reach for balls and drag their feet on the sideline. EA Sports uses what it calls a "branching" system. Essentially, this allows the movements to transfer from one to another seamlessly. In 60 frames per second, the game runs beautifully, but since everything is so smooth, the occasional jump in animation between say, standing and falling, seems very out of place. All in all the graphics are very good, next year EA Sports needs to add some more presentation elements.
Sound:
The radio announcer sucks. It sounded like a good idea, but really he is just annoying and makes the game feel outdated (think Joe Montana Sports Talk Football), there is no reason why the biggest selling sports game of all time shouldn't have real announcers. The hits and the players yelling make the on field experience great, but the crowd is just "ok".
Gameplay:
Extremely fun and fast. The game plays with a ferocity that Madden hasn't seen in years. The hits, running, and catches are truly fun to accomplish, and the realism is outstanding. It is one of the few games where neither the defense or the offense dominates. Some games are commanded by defense, while others are controlled by electric offensive players.
The new superstar abilities is well implemented and really gives stars individuality on the field. If you try to tackle Lindell White high, forget about it. For big backs, you need to hit them low utilizing the new Hit-Stick 2.0. It is these little idiosyncrasies that really make the game shine. The gameplay is tight, but it does feel a little tired, as the plays have been the same for years now.
Features:
Franchise mode has some added options, most specifically the ability to relocate your team. Superstar mode has playable camera angles, but during the season there is not much to do other than play games, practice, and bitch to your agent. Its fun, but its not a fulfilling experience as you only get to play the plays with your player, so you don't development an emotional connection to your team.
Overall:
Madden plays great, looks good, and sounds horrible. In all, it is a good game, but there are times where I feel like I'm left wanting more. This years game is shaping up to be the penultimate game, with a little tweaking, next years will reign supreme.
8 K's out of 10. A Brett Myers.
KKKKKKKK
Dan: Uh, 8 "K's" out of 10? A "Brett Myers?" These aren't star ratings! How are we supposed to make sense of this? Let me do some math...
Madden 2008 is a bit of an enigma. In the last few years, on the new systems, Madden has been a sub par football game. This is typical for sports games on a new system as it takes game developers a few years to revamp the game engine, as well as improve graphics and features. The third year is typically the year when progress starts to be made. Take the PS2 versions, for example, in 2002 and 2003 the game redefined the way football games look but they didn't play that well, in 2004 the game took on a life of its own, and by year four in 2005, Madden reached its pinnacle. That lines the 360 version up for 2009 as the pinnacle of its success on the new systems.
Madden 2008, however, is a serious step in the right direction. This year, Madden has perfected the game play, improved already stellar animations, and added the features and options we have come to expect from the Madden franchise. If by next year, EA Sports can improve the presentation, get rid of the god awful radio announcer, and add some innovation to franchise mode, the game will reach a level never before seen.
That being said, here is a break down of this years game.
Graphics:
Madden has never really been known for its graphics and animation, but this year that is starting to change. Animations are now much more natural, as players will reach for balls and drag their feet on the sideline. EA Sports uses what it calls a "branching" system. Essentially, this allows the movements to transfer from one to another seamlessly. In 60 frames per second, the game runs beautifully, but since everything is so smooth, the occasional jump in animation between say, standing and falling, seems very out of place. All in all the graphics are very good, next year EA Sports needs to add some more presentation elements.
Sound:
The radio announcer sucks. It sounded like a good idea, but really he is just annoying and makes the game feel outdated (think Joe Montana Sports Talk Football), there is no reason why the biggest selling sports game of all time shouldn't have real announcers. The hits and the players yelling make the on field experience great, but the crowd is just "ok".
Gameplay:
Extremely fun and fast. The game plays with a ferocity that Madden hasn't seen in years. The hits, running, and catches are truly fun to accomplish, and the realism is outstanding. It is one of the few games where neither the defense or the offense dominates. Some games are commanded by defense, while others are controlled by electric offensive players.
The new superstar abilities is well implemented and really gives stars individuality on the field. If you try to tackle Lindell White high, forget about it. For big backs, you need to hit them low utilizing the new Hit-Stick 2.0. It is these little idiosyncrasies that really make the game shine. The gameplay is tight, but it does feel a little tired, as the plays have been the same for years now.
Features:
Franchise mode has some added options, most specifically the ability to relocate your team. Superstar mode has playable camera angles, but during the season there is not much to do other than play games, practice, and bitch to your agent. Its fun, but its not a fulfilling experience as you only get to play the plays with your player, so you don't development an emotional connection to your team.
Overall:
Madden plays great, looks good, and sounds horrible. In all, it is a good game, but there are times where I feel like I'm left wanting more. This years game is shaping up to be the penultimate game, with a little tweaking, next years will reign supreme.
8 K's out of 10. A Brett Myers.
KKKKKKKK
Dan: Uh, 8 "K's" out of 10? A "Brett Myers?" These aren't star ratings! How are we supposed to make sense of this? Let me do some math...
Best Song Ever?: Everyone Gets a Star (Albert Hammond, Jr.)
Note for those using feedreaders: the song is embedded on this review's entry so there's a point-of-reference in the review; you might want to view this entry from the webpage instead of the feed.
Background
About six years ago during the throes of the boy-band era and Creed's establishing themselves as the benchmark for "rock" for the next few years (face it, it's true, unfortunate or not), "rock journalists" began hyping a new, unsigned band from New York who would supposedly save rock (and/or roll). Well, it's been six years later, and The Strokes are still more-or-less "the who's?." Notably, they were pretty much the first of the "the" bands (the Hives, the Vines, the White Stripes) to get significant mainstream exposure. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that The Strokes didn't really end up changing the world, but they do have three perfectly solid albums to their name (some publications weren't too fond of First Impressions of Earth, but I digress). Long story short, Albert Hammond, Jr. is the lead guitar player in The Strokes, and his first solo CD, Yours to Keep, came out in late 2006. With one listen, his membership in The Strokes is obvious, but the music manages to be a bit less "garagey" sounding than a typical Strokes track, with slightly higher-gloss production and even some vocal harmonies throughout. Consider the album highly recommended.
For
Against
Unfortunately, it's not the best song ever. It had a darn good thing going, then all of a sudden.... well, it didn't. Considering this is his first solo CD and I'll say this one song is stronger than anything on Is This It? (except maybe "Someday."), it doesn't need to be the best song ever.
Background
About six years ago during the throes of the boy-band era and Creed's establishing themselves as the benchmark for "rock" for the next few years (face it, it's true, unfortunate or not), "rock journalists" began hyping a new, unsigned band from New York who would supposedly save rock (and/or roll). Well, it's been six years later, and The Strokes are still more-or-less "the who's?." Notably, they were pretty much the first of the "the" bands (the Hives, the Vines, the White Stripes) to get significant mainstream exposure. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that The Strokes didn't really end up changing the world, but they do have three perfectly solid albums to their name (some publications weren't too fond of First Impressions of Earth, but I digress). Long story short, Albert Hammond, Jr. is the lead guitar player in The Strokes, and his first solo CD, Yours to Keep, came out in late 2006. With one listen, his membership in The Strokes is obvious, but the music manages to be a bit less "garagey" sounding than a typical Strokes track, with slightly higher-gloss production and even some vocal harmonies throughout. Consider the album highly recommended.
For
- The bass part is actually played by a guitar for most of the song. The rhythm part during the opening (up to 0:21) is being played on a guitar. Once the bass comes in at that point, the guitar stays with a bass-type part instead of playing chords (around 0:43 the second rhythm guitar comes in, with the rhythm guitar continuing its "bass line.")
- Deceptively complicated for such a simple-sounding song. At 2:04 listen to four separate rhythm parts (rhythm guitar 1, rhythm guitar 2, bass, drums), all of which are unique. (the parts aren't doubling each other, in other words).
- Incredibly catchy - I guess that's that whole "intangible" of a "good song."
Against
- Relentlessly dull lyrics:
These guys have all got problems. / These guys have all got their problems.
He's rhyming the word "problems" with.... "problems."
When will you stop and see me through / There's something else I'd rather do
"Do" is the first entry in any rhyming dictionary for "through."
Today, you've come now go away.
Points for the internal rhyme, but points off for the faux-deep jumble of words. - The "breakdown" at 2:24 (in other words, when the unique aspects of the song get thrown out) should be a true bridge, not "well, I don't have any more lyrics, and I don't want to end the song by repeating the chorus over and over again, so I'll have it 'rock out!' here.
Unfortunately, it's not the best song ever. It had a darn good thing going, then all of a sudden.... well, it didn't. Considering this is his first solo CD and I'll say this one song is stronger than anything on Is This It? (except maybe "Someday."), it doesn't need to be the best song ever.
Rubbie’s Southside Bar and Grill (Louisville, KY)
[consider this line the token "and we'll start to write more frequently...I promise"]
According to whatever research I had done, Kentucky is famous for barbecue. Judging from the competitive grilling shows that I've seen (not a joke), my memory tells me that Kentucky barbecue is all about the sauce and St. Louis barbecue is all about the spice rub. I'm a sauce guy, having frequently talked people's ears off and began awkward conversations about one's favorite barbecue sauces until my sauce enthusiasm overtook the underwhelmed victim's interest and desire to continue the conversation. And people wonder why I'm awkward around girls. (well, that and the fact that I have/run a website)
My class knows no bounds. Neither does my belt size.
With a GPS unit with a "barbecue" category in the "food" menu. (You tell it what kind of food you want, it tells you how to get there. Kind of like a reverse drive-thru, I guess.) We randomly picked the fourth item, "Rubbie's." In two hours later hindsight, I'm not sure why I, as a sauce guy, would agree to a place called "Rubbie's," but I guess I thought it was "Ruby's" but spelled incorrectly.
My traveling companion gave the typical "if it looks awful, we're going somewhere else." I'm not familiar with Louisville at all (nor should I be, thank the FSM), so it was just a point on a map of uncertainty as far as I was concerned. Pulling up, indeed, it didn't look too special. Rather divey, but in a quaint, people playing beanbags and poker outside of the place sort of way. I'm not picky, so it worked for me. I don't get much out of the whole "rustic" charm thing (people who do should replace their toilets with outhouses, to make sure they're getting the full effect of what they claim to love), but more than anything else, I didn't want to pick yet another arbitrary place in the list of restaurants of unknown quality.
I don't review ambiance, but in short, there wasn't much. A food critic would include an overly colorful sentence about how "in the evening, the characterless walls and booths achieve a sense of ghostly familiarity as the drinks and conversations ebb and flow." The menu was small, with the barbecue section tucked in a corner of the menu. There were the typical barbecue offerings: pulled pork, brisket, wings, and ribs. I picked the full rack of ribs (a whopping $12.50, which is the absolute lowest I've ever seen for a full rack of ribs), and my traveling partner chose the small pulled pork sandwich ($4.50). Sides selected were steak fries and onion rings, though considering my future held large quantities of meat, I laid off the fried things.
At my advanced age, I'm not prone to hyperbole, especially related to food, but (say it with me) it was truly nothing short of incredible. The meat wasn't "fall off the bone tender," but I have four pointy teeth for a reason. In full caveman mode, I pretty much destroyed both of the racks, using the two supplied sauces liberally. Well, actually I pretty much focused on the "normal" sauce; the "hot" was so intense that had I used of it, I would've had to go to a hospital and a church, and probably not in that order. The "normal" sauce was like none I've had before: much more molasses than I was used to, but not overwhelmingly tangy. It had bite, but no kick. They left the kicking for the bottle of "hot."
The pulled pork was equally good (though in all honesty, I'm not a big pulled-pork fan). Perfectly tender and not at all chewy. There was some sort of smoke-aging present in both meats, but I can't tell Mesquite from whatever else would be used for it, so I'll just leave it at "the smoky flavor added a lot to the natural taste of the pork."
Cheapskate or not, this is probably the most amazing part:
The total for two people was $20.13. And that includes tax. There wasn't any alcohol on the tab (which screws up any cost comparisons), but that's border-line ridiculous for both the amount of and quality of food presented.
And finally, the weakness of my Constitution is known all the way from here to Hong Kong, and it looks like I've finally found a barbecue place which doesn't much any/much garlic in their sauce. This means that right now, my body isn't trying to destroy itself to punish me for my foolhardiness, and that's a first for getting barbecue at any restaurant.
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill gets five BIG stars. Great food, better prices, and bean bags if necessary.
Their address:
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill
6905 Southside Drive
Louisville, KY 40214
502-367-0007
Also, I drove by what might be the worst house location I've ever seen: they've got amusement park screamers not far from their backyard, an airport across the street, and the "street" is an interstate. Too bad a railroad crossing isn't in their backyard and the hog rendering plant a few blocks upwind closed last summer...
According to whatever research I had done, Kentucky is famous for barbecue. Judging from the competitive grilling shows that I've seen (not a joke), my memory tells me that Kentucky barbecue is all about the sauce and St. Louis barbecue is all about the spice rub. I'm a sauce guy, having frequently talked people's ears off and began awkward conversations about one's favorite barbecue sauces until my sauce enthusiasm overtook the underwhelmed victim's interest and desire to continue the conversation. And people wonder why I'm awkward around girls. (well, that and the fact that I have/run a website)
My class knows no bounds. Neither does my belt size.
With a GPS unit with a "barbecue" category in the "food" menu. (You tell it what kind of food you want, it tells you how to get there. Kind of like a reverse drive-thru, I guess.) We randomly picked the fourth item, "Rubbie's." In two hours later hindsight, I'm not sure why I, as a sauce guy, would agree to a place called "Rubbie's," but I guess I thought it was "Ruby's" but spelled incorrectly.
My traveling companion gave the typical "if it looks awful, we're going somewhere else." I'm not familiar with Louisville at all (nor should I be, thank the FSM), so it was just a point on a map of uncertainty as far as I was concerned. Pulling up, indeed, it didn't look too special. Rather divey, but in a quaint, people playing beanbags and poker outside of the place sort of way. I'm not picky, so it worked for me. I don't get much out of the whole "rustic" charm thing (people who do should replace their toilets with outhouses, to make sure they're getting the full effect of what they claim to love), but more than anything else, I didn't want to pick yet another arbitrary place in the list of restaurants of unknown quality.
I don't review ambiance, but in short, there wasn't much. A food critic would include an overly colorful sentence about how "in the evening, the characterless walls and booths achieve a sense of ghostly familiarity as the drinks and conversations ebb and flow." The menu was small, with the barbecue section tucked in a corner of the menu. There were the typical barbecue offerings: pulled pork, brisket, wings, and ribs. I picked the full rack of ribs (a whopping $12.50, which is the absolute lowest I've ever seen for a full rack of ribs), and my traveling partner chose the small pulled pork sandwich ($4.50). Sides selected were steak fries and onion rings, though considering my future held large quantities of meat, I laid off the fried things.
At my advanced age, I'm not prone to hyperbole, especially related to food, but (say it with me) it was truly nothing short of incredible. The meat wasn't "fall off the bone tender," but I have four pointy teeth for a reason. In full caveman mode, I pretty much destroyed both of the racks, using the two supplied sauces liberally. Well, actually I pretty much focused on the "normal" sauce; the "hot" was so intense that had I used of it, I would've had to go to a hospital and a church, and probably not in that order. The "normal" sauce was like none I've had before: much more molasses than I was used to, but not overwhelmingly tangy. It had bite, but no kick. They left the kicking for the bottle of "hot."
The pulled pork was equally good (though in all honesty, I'm not a big pulled-pork fan). Perfectly tender and not at all chewy. There was some sort of smoke-aging present in both meats, but I can't tell Mesquite from whatever else would be used for it, so I'll just leave it at "the smoky flavor added a lot to the natural taste of the pork."
Cheapskate or not, this is probably the most amazing part:
The total for two people was $20.13. And that includes tax. There wasn't any alcohol on the tab (which screws up any cost comparisons), but that's border-line ridiculous for both the amount of and quality of food presented.
And finally, the weakness of my Constitution is known all the way from here to Hong Kong, and it looks like I've finally found a barbecue place which doesn't much any/much garlic in their sauce. This means that right now, my body isn't trying to destroy itself to punish me for my foolhardiness, and that's a first for getting barbecue at any restaurant.
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill gets five BIG stars. Great food, better prices, and bean bags if necessary.
Their address:
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill
6905 Southside Drive
Louisville, KY 40214
502-367-0007
Also, I drove by what might be the worst house location I've ever seen: they've got amusement park screamers not far from their backyard, an airport across the street, and the "street" is an interstate. Too bad a railroad crossing isn't in their backyard and the hog rendering plant a few blocks upwind closed last summer...
People Who Say “Cheers” Instead of “Goodbye”
Special note on the title: I figured that there must be an opposite of the word "greeting," and it turns out it's "valediction." Instead of using a houty-touty word such as that, I've grouped everything into the serves-all "goodbye." You're welcome.
I saw some of the MTV Movie Awards tonight, and Johnny Depp, accepting Best Performance for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Piratey-Boogaloo), did the normal awards-show spiel after receiving a lengthy standing ovation from the audience. Nothing out of the ordinary... except, instead of ending his speech with "thanks," "bye," or even the 'look at me, I'm World traveller' and I want you to know it, "Ciao," he dropped this gem: "Cheers." What is this world coming to. And that's not a question. Given the wide variety of ways to say "goodbye" (even some that serve to combine it with a "thanks" aspect), he has to give the trendy, pretentious "cheers."
Cheers, hippy
Let Johnny Depp serve as an example for the problems with the phrase, but his usage was no more egregious than any others'. I take exception with this expression for three reasons:
1) "Cheers" is a drinking-related saying. That's fine, but this what at an awards show, not a restaurant. It wasn't even the Golden Globes which (obviously) serves alcohol. This is the biggest issue - it makes no sense.
2) It reeks (REEKS!) of Eurotrash and, even worse, Americans who wish they were Eurotrash. You know these people - they refer to manual transmissions as "standard" and call elevators "lifts" just so you can make a weird face at them to which they respond by saying these exact words (every time): "I was in London, and that's what the call them in London."
3) I'd like to take credit for being part of the cusp of the expression "not so much." In fact, my earliest documented utterance of the phrase was way back in July of 2004. I challenge anyone to beat that. I'm not claiming to be first, but I'd like to think I beat any of you seven reading this to the punch. How is this related to "cheers?" Well, tangentially at best. I guess I'm just a little bitter, and my lexicographic warning radar is going of like crazy about the soon-to-be "cheers" phenomenon. Consider this my warning to people who want to keep European lingo where it belongs.
People Who Say "Cheers" Instead of "Goodbye" get ZERO stars. The English language has hundreds of thousands of words, and provides myriad tools for making up words (such as "spamera" - n. a digital camera used to take pictures which will later be e-mailed to everyone the camera owner knows, but no one will look at. Usage: "Yeah, my mom is unfortunately bringing her spamera to my nephew's pre-school graduation next weekend, so I'm definitely going to spend time familiarizing myself with the delete button in my e-mail program.") Hmm. That's actually a pretty good made-up word. Anyway. Lots of words, easy to make-up new ones. Does the bowel of the English language that is the British dialect really need to be given a colonic every time someone decides that he's too cool for "bye" or "thanks?"
I saw some of the MTV Movie Awards tonight, and Johnny Depp, accepting Best Performance for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Piratey-Boogaloo), did the normal awards-show spiel after receiving a lengthy standing ovation from the audience. Nothing out of the ordinary... except, instead of ending his speech with "thanks," "bye," or even the 'look at me, I'm World traveller' and I want you to know it, "Ciao," he dropped this gem: "Cheers." What is this world coming to. And that's not a question. Given the wide variety of ways to say "goodbye" (even some that serve to combine it with a "thanks" aspect), he has to give the trendy, pretentious "cheers."
Cheers, hippy
Let Johnny Depp serve as an example for the problems with the phrase, but his usage was no more egregious than any others'. I take exception with this expression for three reasons:
1) "Cheers" is a drinking-related saying. That's fine, but this what at an awards show, not a restaurant. It wasn't even the Golden Globes which (obviously) serves alcohol. This is the biggest issue - it makes no sense.
2) It reeks (REEKS!) of Eurotrash and, even worse, Americans who wish they were Eurotrash. You know these people - they refer to manual transmissions as "standard" and call elevators "lifts" just so you can make a weird face at them to which they respond by saying these exact words (every time): "I was in London, and that's what the call them in London."
3) I'd like to take credit for being part of the cusp of the expression "not so much." In fact, my earliest documented utterance of the phrase was way back in July of 2004. I challenge anyone to beat that. I'm not claiming to be first, but I'd like to think I beat any of you seven reading this to the punch. How is this related to "cheers?" Well, tangentially at best. I guess I'm just a little bitter, and my lexicographic warning radar is going of like crazy about the soon-to-be "cheers" phenomenon. Consider this my warning to people who want to keep European lingo where it belongs.
People Who Say "Cheers" Instead of "Goodbye" get ZERO stars. The English language has hundreds of thousands of words, and provides myriad tools for making up words (such as "spamera" - n. a digital camera used to take pictures which will later be e-mailed to everyone the camera owner knows, but no one will look at. Usage: "Yeah, my mom is unfortunately bringing her spamera to my nephew's pre-school graduation next weekend, so I'm definitely going to spend time familiarizing myself with the delete button in my e-mail program.") Hmm. That's actually a pretty good made-up word. Anyway. Lots of words, easy to make-up new ones. Does the bowel of the English language that is the British dialect really need to be given a colonic every time someone decides that he's too cool for "bye" or "thanks?"