Lt. Vincent Hanna

I feel as though I may have overstated my point the other day... I actually do like Al Pacino as an actor in a fair number of movies, and I hope you didn't mistake my playful ribbing of his method as outright aggression. As such, I want to allow Al to respond here in print - albeit in character, apparently. I believe he chose Lt. Vincent Hanna from the gritty crime drama Heat... Nice choice, right? Without further ado, here is an excerpt from my interview with Al Pacino (FYI, the rest was unintelligible):

Me: Thanks for joining us, Al. I guess I've always wondered-
Al: Don't waste MY MUTHERFU@&ing time!!

Me: Oh. Um... What would you say-
Al: Gimme ALL YOU GOT!! GIMME ALL YOU GOT!

Me: Heat is one of my favorite movies - what was your inspiration for the Vin-
Al: Well I am... over-fu@&in' whelmed. What d'you want for that, a junior g-man badge?

Me: Uh, no. I'm good. But your character, Vincent Hanna - there was a lot of... angst built into him. Where did it come from?
Al: I gotta hold on to my angst. I preserve it because I need it. It keeps me sharp, on the edge, where I gotta be.

Me: Um, definitely. Me too. Totally.       What about behind the scenes? Did Michael Mann, the director, arrange for any real-life homicide detectives to consult with you on the picture?
Al: Us. The L-A-P-D. Po-lice Department... We just got made.

Me: Made what?
Al: [silence]

Me: [contemplating] What about Val Kilmer? How was it working with him? Tom Cruise has been quoted saying Val was-
Al: Cause she's got a great ass... and you got your head all the way up it!

Me: She? Val Kilmer is a man. You know that right?
Al: Ferocious, aren't I? When I think of asses, a woman's ass, something comes out of me.

Me: Ok. But Val Kilmer is definitely a man. I know his name is gender-neutral, and his hair is kind of long in the movie, but still... Definitely a man.     Did something happen between you?
Al: [Singing] By the time I get to Phoenix, we'll be rising. She'll probably leave a note right on the door.

Me: What does that mean? Is Val Kilmer gay? Why are you singing?
Al: Albert, what's wrong with you? You drag me here, waste my time like this.

Me: Who's Albert? Why are you calling me Albert?
Al: Who? Who? What are you, a fu@&ing owl?

Me: That seems a little out of line. Why don't you-
Al: Empathy was yesterday. Today, you're wasting my motherfu@&ing time.

Me: I was just-
Al: This is my operation, I have tactical command that supercedes your rank...

Me: What rank?! I was just saying-
Al: I'm angry. I'm very angry, Ralph. You know, you can ball my wife if she wants you to. You can lounge around here on her sofa, in her ex-husband's dead-tech, post-modernistic bullshit house if you want to. But you do not get to watch my fu@&ing television set!

Me: [scared for life]
Al: You know, we are sitting here, you and I, like a couple of regular fellas. You do what you do, and I do what I gotta do. And now that we've been face to face, if I'm there and I gotta put you away, I won't like it. But I tell you, if it's between you and some poor bastard whose wife you're gonna turn into a widow, brother, you are going down.

Me: [meekly, still very scared] I'm sorry I implied you might be gay partners with Val Kilmer...
 
*****END*****

Blue People

Okay, that's better.

Down to bidness: Excellent movie. Visually amazing. I, for one, am generally not a fan of green screen usage for special effects, instead preferring the old Star Wars model ships and the like - to me, the lighting and depth is never right with the CGI (computer-generated imagery) stuff. Phantom Menace is a perfect example of this, as well as the issue of actors not perceiving their CGI counterparts at the right distance and angle. Even Transformers, which came out just a year and a half ago (July 2007), was fraught with all sorts of CGI issues, with voices not matching their onscreen sources and, quite frankly, too much damn shiny stuff. All told, I am generally skeptical verging on pessimistic with these types of movies.

[I will say that Sin City was a big milestone for me, in that it was the first time I have been lost in a CGI-driven movie and forgotten about the effects. I think striving to make everything, not just the CGI characters and landscape, look cartoonish/animated made all the difference. Although perhaps the technology is finally getting there...]

Blah Blah. Anyway, my point is that Avatar was amazing to watch. The lighting and shading and depth on the CGI characters was, to my eye, as good as it gets. Their interactions with their environment and their human counterparts was amazingly real. And the landscapes were believable. Beautiful and believable. Part of the secret to the success of the landscapes, I suspect, again lies in the effort to reach an unknown standard (i.e. a foreign planet) and not a known one (i.e. a talking yellow Mustang).

That said, apart from its visual appeal, there is actually an enjoyable movie underneath. The plot, albeit not a new concept, was not overtly trite either. All of the actors provided creditable performances apart from Sigourney Weaver, who was a little too cookie-cutter. I really enjoyed Sam Worthington in the lead role as well - not because he was amazing, but because he was a solid and understated and, most importantly, NOT Nick Cage... By that I mean, I am sick of the same faces and same crappy actors. Even great actors carry some of the baggage of their other roles with them: witness anything Al Pacino has done in the last ten years, try not yelling 'Whoo-Hah!' during his monologues, and you'll see what I mean. Every time you recognize an actor in a role, he/she loses a little bit of the believability that makes them great in a performance. This is what drives the great ones to immerse themselves physically in a role, not only to look the part, but to distance themselves from their previous roles (see Raging Bull, Monster, Courage Under Fire, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Last King of Scotland to name a few).

Tangent over. Bottom line: It was a solid, "workmanlike" film made better by an amazing visual display. And for someone like myself, who is as loathe to credit this CGI-explosion culture of Michael Bay and George Lucas as can be, this may be the greatest compliment I can give.

Floating Mountains

Okay, I didn't like these all that much, but it sounded more interesting than "Blue People..."

Actually, on second thought...

Future Leaders of America

If you haven't seen Jersey Shore yet, you are doing a disservice not only to yourself, but to your entire country, nay the future generations of the world. These people are the best and brightest of what can only be described as the Future Leaders of America. They are tan. They are well-coiffed. They are erudite without being pretentious. They sell t-shirts. They talk into a duck phone. They do walk-overs on crowded dance floors in dresses. They have Ravioli Night. They make fun of fat girls. They fist pump. They wear bedazzled shirts with eagles, angel wings or abstract designs. They hit the gym (GTL, baby!).

Okay, maybe they aren't erudite. But I like them. "They do, like, um... great things."

People Who Are Actually Funny

I enjoy funny stuff. And funny people. I'm not a big fan of people who are unfunny. People who are simple-minded and mean whilst being unfunny are REALLY not so great. Contrasted with funny people, these people are a downright pox on society. And funny people who generally seem humble and nice and interesting to be around? Fantastic! Unfunny people who are disingenuous and uninteresting and weak-minded and bullying/front-running with their jokes? SUCKO! BIGTIME CRAPTASTIC!!

As you can imagine, when faced with such a contrast, one feels decidedly more affection for the funny person. Unfortunately, the people of Earth are left with... craptastic. I can only hope the funny people of Earth land on their feet with a modeling gig or fancy hair salon to the stars.

[Brought to you by the Committee to Elect CoCo President]