Let me start out by saying this: I thought last year’s Emmy Awards was one of the best awards telecasts I had ever seen.  Neil Patrick Harris proved to be a phenomenal host, the event was laid out in a logical fashion, it was entertaining, there were no glaring technical errors, and it wrapped up on time.  The only problem?  The crop of winners was boring.  Kristen Chenoweth aside, practically everybody who won had won already or was so completely undeserving that it still stirs up a white-hot rage just thinking about it (I’m looking at you, Jon Cryer).

So what then of this year?  Well, I enjoyed it.  It wasn’t as entertaining as last year, but Jimmy Fallon turned out to be a better host than I was expecting.  The opening number was a heck of a lot of fun (even if it resulted in an awkwardly out-of-breath monologue afterwards), however a lot of the banter was the worst kind of uncomfortable.  But the biggest surprise of the night?  The Academy for once decided to switch things up and give the awards to some different people!  Amazing!

The most pleasant surprise was the award for Best Actor in a Comedy Series going to Jim Parsons.  Sheldon is easily the best thing about The Big Bang Theory and it was nice for him to get some recognition (although I just don’t know what Alec Baldwin will do without yet another Emmy).  It would have been nice for Steve Carell to win, given that he’s running out of time, but I was more than pleased with how this turned out.

I was also very happy to see Aaron Paul win Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series.  I’ve only seen the first season of Breaking Bad, but I can tell that the work he does on the show is impressive to say the least, and it’s awesome that the Academy recognized this.  I would like to see John Slattery win, but I get the feeling Mad Men will be on at least a little while longer.

On the flip side, Bryan Cranston won again.  Now don’t get me wrong, I love Bryan Cranston.  I thought the work he did on Malcolm In The Middle was brilliant, and I was thrilled the first time he won for Breaking Bad.  But this is now his third straight Emmy for the same role, and that’s boring.  I am of the belief that the Academy should impose a new rule to keep it fresh: If you win an Emmy, then for one year you are ineligible to win for playing the same character.  Hopefully that would open the door for Jon Hamm… or Michael C. Hall… or Hugh Laurie… jeez, that’s an impressive category.

In disappointing (for me), but still delightful news, Eric Stonestreet won Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series for his role on Modern Family.  The only reason this is disappointing is because Neil Patrick Harris still doesn’t have an Emmy for playing Barney Stinson, and that’s a crime against humanity.  But Eric Stonestreet is amazing on Modern Family and it was wonderful for him to get some recognition (and how cute was it that Jesse Tyler Ferguson was crying for him?).

Also great (and gay-friendly) was Jane Lynch’s win for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series for her portrayal of Sue Sylvester on Glee.  It is one of the best characters on television right now, and it is due largely to Jane Lynch’s sheer and utter brilliance and it was amazing to see her win.

In other news, Mad Men won again, which is dull but not surprising.  I should probably see Temple Grandin.  Al Pacino is terrible at speeches.  George Clooney made us feel bad.  Edie Falco isn’t funny.  Kyra Sedgewick can’t hold an award for 30 seconds.  Bucky Gunts!  One award presentation is apparently enough for a whole Reality segment.  The Daily Show won again denying us a delightfully passive-aggressive acceptance speech from Conan O’Brien.  And 30 Rock got snubbed, which is delightful.

Complete list of the winners:

Outstanding Comedy Series

WINNER

“Modern Family” (2009)

Outstanding Drama Series

WINNER

“Mad Men” (2007)

Outstanding Made for Television Movie

WINNER

Temple Grandin (2010) (TV)

Outstanding Miniseries

WINNER

“The Pacific” (2010)

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series

WINNER

Jim Parsons for “The Big Bang Theory” (2007)

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series

WINNER

Bryan Cranston for “Breaking Bad” (2008)

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie

WINNER

Al Pacino for You Don’t Know Jack (2010) (TV)

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series

WINNER

Edie Falco for “Nurse Jackie” (2009)

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series

WINNER

Kyra Sedgwick for “The Closer” (2005)

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie

WINNER

Claire Danes for Temple Grandin (2010) (TV)

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series

WINNER

Eric Stonestreet for “Modern Family” (2009)

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

WINNER

Aaron Paul for “Breaking Bad” (2008)

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or Movie

WINNER

David Strathairn for Temple Grandin (2010) (TV)

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series

WINNER

Jane Lynch for “Glee” (2009)

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

WINNER

Archie Panjabi for “The Good Wife” (2009)

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or Movie

WINNER

Julia Ormond for Temple Grandin (2010) (TV)

Outstanding Variety, Music Or Comedy Series

WINNER

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” (1996)

Outstanding Reality Competition Program

WINNER

“Top Chef” (2006)

Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series

WINNER

“Glee” (2009): Ryan Murphy(“Pilot – Director’s Cut”)

Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series

WINNER

“Dexter” (2006): Steve Shill(“The Getaway”)

Outstanding Directing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special

WINNER

Temple Grandin (2010) (TV): Mick Jackson

Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series

WINNER

“Modern Family” (2009): Steven Levitan, Christopher Lloyd(“Pilot”)

Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series

WINNER

“Mad Men” (2007): Matthew Weiner, Erin Levy(“Shut The Door. Have A Seat.”)

Outstanding Writing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special

WINNER

You Don’t Know Jack (2010) (TV): Adam Mazer

Outstanding Host For A Reality Or Reality – Competition Program (Previously Announced)

WINNER

Jeff Probst for “Survivor” (2000)

Outstanding Reality Program (Previously Announced)

WINNER

“Food Revolution” (2010)

Posted under Kyle's Adventures in Pop Culture

Yes, I saw two movies this weekend, which means that twice I risked experiencing the soul-crush that is the pre-movie going experience these days.  Commercials, a dozen trailers I’ve seen already, and the unintentionally hilarious graphic that boldly demands that you buy a Sprint phone (and then subtly suggests you turn it off).  Fortunately I was late to The Expendables so I only had to run the gauntlet once.

This was a hugely anticipated weekend for me.  I’ve been waiting in fevered anticipation for Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World for several months, and thank God, it didn’t disappoint.  Right out of the box I knew the movie would be a success, with its 8-bit Universal logo it affirmed that the tone set forth in the trailer would indeed carry through to the film itself.

The dialogue crackles, the jokes come fast and frequently, and the beautiful visuals (aided by Edgar Wright’s masterful editing) make this a wholly unique movie-going experience.  Yes, at times the film can feel a wee bit caffeinated and anyone over, say 35, might find it tiresome, but I, being firmly entrenched in the target audience, left the theatre feeling that the film had been crafted just for me.

On the more accessible side, I also saw The Expendables this weekend.  Fighting, gunplay, and ‘splosions run rampant in the latter half of the movie, and it is suitably, epically awesome.  However, the first half of the film finds itself bogged down by exposition, shoddy performances and stilted dialogue.  I understand that this is not a movie you watch for its expertly-crafted screenplay, but wow, was it bad.  I can’t necessarily tell if the script just needed a re-write or two, or if Stallone was relying too much on the improvisational abilities of actors not readily known for their ability to improvise.  I suspect it was a mixture of both.

However, once they finally shut up and start blowing stuff up, the film becomes exactly what you want it to be.  And I will certainly give credit where credit’s due.  The action scenes are phenomenal, the fight choreography is deliciously over the top (I doubt pile-drivers are as common in the real world as the movie would have you believe) and the editing is superb.  Despite numerous quick cuts, the action remains easy to follow.

In the end though it’s a frustrating experience.  The action is epic, and if there were more of it I wouldn’t be complaining about a bad script.  But unfortunately, there is a large chunk in the middle of the film that is nothing but talking and/or brooding.  And as previously mentioned, it is absolutely atrocious.  Even the would-be classic scene bringing Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger together was hampered by too much publicity, so all that remains is awkward line readings (and one admittedly killer bit about Ahnold’s political career).

The Expendables probably would have benefitted from a more satirical stance, but instead it plays the whole thing almost completely straight and it really drags the non-action scenes down.  Fortunately the action comes on big and stays that way until the end, making for a movie that is a lot of fun, just not a classic.

Posted under Kyle's Adventures in Pop Culture

Apologies for the absolute lack of a blog post last week to whomever actually reads this (Hi Mom!).  It’s just that most of the movies I’ve been watching aren’t exactly current and I couldn’t think of a way to present them in a way to make them seem at all relevant.  For instance, I watched The Battle of Algiers for the first time a week ago, and while there are definite lines to be drawn from that movie to our current situation in the Middle East, that would have only taken up a paragraph and the rest of that post would have simply been me discussing a forty-year-old movie.

Maybe that would have been okay, it is my blog and I make up the rules, but I’m still writing for an audience that probably isn’t as nerdy as I am (i.e. you people) and I don’t think they would necessarily care that The Battle of Algiers is an incredibly powerful film (for the record, it is).  Or that there is a brief moment in the film that is so intense that it felt like I had been hit in the chest.

The moment I’m talking about happens about midway through the film.  It comes towards the end of an exceptional sequence that involves three Muslim women planting bombs in three separate public places.  The sequence is incredible because it perfectly captures the tension and the abject horror of the task.  But the moment that knocked me out comes after the first two bombs go off.  By this point we have been subjected to tragic looks at the victims just before the detonations, but the third bomb blows off screen.  The scene is, the second bomb has gone off and some rescue workers have changed course to the new location.  As they are rushing into the building, we hear the third explosion… and everybody just stops dead.

The reality of what is occurring is so far beyond anybody’s comprehension that they all just stop dead in their tracks for about a second and a half before continuing along with their duties.  It’s such a small moment but it perfectly captures what everybody was feeling on 9/11 and I just had to bring it up somewhere.  I can’t think of a time when I’ve had such a strong visceral reaction to such a fleeting moment like I had here.

In lighter fare, I did go see Dinner for Schmucks over the weekend, but quite honestly, it didn’t inspire much passion in me (good or bad) so I didn’t feel like devoting an entire post to it.  It’s agreeable enough, you’ve likely seen much worse movies, and there were times that I did indeed laugh out loud, the only problem is, I can’t remember what specifically inspired such raucous lol-ing, and that strikes me as a clue that this is not a movie that will stand the test of time.

It actually never gets more intelligent than its opening sequence, which consists of an extended montage of manipulating dead mice (Steve Carell’s character is a taxidermist who specializes in recreating famous scenes and artworks using dead mice) into an elaborate view of a wonderful day at the park.  It’s remarkably cheap humor, which becomes hilarious when you realize that the song playing during this sequence is “Fool on the Hill” by The (notoriously expensive) Beatles.  This wonderful juxtaposition makes for a brilliant combination of high and low brow humor that unfortunately does not extend to the rest of the film.

I also watched a lotta buncha (it will catch on) early Hitchcock films a few weeks ago.  Do you care?  Nah, probably not.  Some of them were quite good, Blackmail is a great early thriller, Sabotage (based on the book The Secret Agent, not to be confused with the film The Secret Agent, also directed by Alfred Hitchcock) is tremendously dark in ways that Hitch would avoid later in his career.  Most of the silent films of his that I watched weren’t great (a widely held belief), however The Lodger is at least notable for being his first thriller (and for being kind of awesome), and despite being a straight drama, which was not his strongsuit, The Ring is actually a remarkable movie.

I watched various other films, most of which were of similar relevancy.  Whether or not I’ll come up with something more current for next week remains to be seen.  I may go see The Kids Are Alright, but I may not.  Tune in to find out!

Posted under Kyle's Adventures in Pop Culture