The Vulturess?

"Mark, are you trying to get more blog traffic by including pictures of sexy actresses with your posts?"
"Yes."
"Okay, just checking."

I'm going to geek out for a bit and talk about the latest Spider-Man 4 casting news. On paper, the idea of Anne Hathaway in Spider-Man 4 is a terrific one, since really, who doesn't like Anne Hathaway? But seriously, the "Vulturess"? Huh? Even odder is the concept that Hathaway will be playing Felicia Hardy, but she'll just be a different super villainess than Black Cat. Again, huh?

First, the concept of the Vulture having a similarly-gimmicked female sidekick reminds me of the old Batman TV series, when the Joker or Penguin or whomever would have their team of henchmen named 'Giggles,' 'Chuckles,' 'Sparrow,' 'Condor.' or whatever the villain's theme entailed. (I always wondered, did the henchmen get to pick these names or did the villain assign them? I would guess it's the latter, since no self-respecting hard criminal would voluntarily call himself Sparrow. Then again, they were fighting a guy known as Robin, so who knows.) In addition to the thugs, the Batvillain also had a female cohort as part of the gang, whose entire role seemed to consist of either....

a) being the one somewhat good person in the gang that Batman could convince to see the error of her ways and help he and Robin

or...

b) being a generic 'bad girl' who would unsuccessfully try to seduce Batman and then end up eating a right cross from Batgirl

Of course, in the macro sense, these female sidekicks only existed to give the male-heavy show some eye candy, which I'd guess is also the logic behind the Vulturess. But I'm a bit confused --- if you're going to have a new character, then why let it be known that Hathaway is Felicia Hardy? That would be like Chris Nolan announcing that, say, Bob Hoskins will be playing Oswald Cobblepot in the next Batman movie, but then having Oswald have all of Clayface's powers and never make any reference to the Penguin.

Actually, the upcoming Batman installment might play a role in this odd casting decision. Since there are a number of rumours that Catwoman could be the villain in the Dark Knight sequel, there's a school of thought that argues that Sam Raimi doesn't want to feature Black Cat since, let's be honest, Black Cat is more than a bit of a conceptual rip-off. But okay, so if you don't want Black Cat, when just call Anne Hathaway's character 'Jane Smith' or something and forget the Felicia Hardy name altogether. And for the love of god, come up with a different name than 'Vulturess,' which sounds less like a villain and more like a sound your garbage disposal makes when it's backed up.

The other problem here is that Spider-Man has such a deep and varied roster of enemies that it seems pretty lame to invent a new one for the movie. Part of the problem could be, I suppose, that if Raimi wanted to freshen things up and give Spidey a woman to battle, there are surprisingly few female villains in Spider-Man's history. Black Cat is probably the most prominent, and she's been a hero for the better part of 20 years. I read a whooooole lot of Spidey comics as a kid, and literally the only notable female villains I could think of off the top of my head were Shriek, the short-lived female Doctor Octopus, Titania, Stunner and.....that's it. Seriously, five semi-major female enemies in almost 50 years of publication, and it's a stretch to even consider Stunner and female Octopus "semi-major" (plus, Titania is more of a She-Hulk villain).

If I were a filmmaker faced with the dilemma of wanting Anne Hathaway in my upcoming Spider-Man movie but not having any particular role for her, I'd ditch this whole Felicia Hardy/Vulturess nonsense and just have her play Mysterio. Now there's a character who could be considered a major Spidey villain, and yet the gender is really kind of a non-factor given that Mysterio's whole gimmick is that he uses illusion and deceit to commit crimes rather than brute force. The Mysterio character has been adopted by a few different villains over the years, so there wouldn't be such a continuity issue with someone other than Quentin Beck wearing the ol'fishbowl and purple cape. Besides, giving Spider-Man a female villain that he'd have to outwit rather than fight neatly sidesteps that always-awkward moment in superhero movies when the male hero is openly slugging a woman in the face. I mean sure, if a woman was trying to violently murder me, I'd have no qualms about cold-cocking her, but I'm not sure that's the message you want to translate in a PG-rated movie. (Disney always found a way around this --- Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty turned into a monstrous dragon before being killed, the Queen in Snow White was hit by lightning, etc. That Walt Disney might have been a dirtbag Nazi sympathizer, but he sure had a soft spot for domestic violence.)

Two positive notes to end on....

* John Malkovich is just about perfect casting as Vulture. No problems at all with that choice from Raimi. The only better possible option would've been Ben Kingsley, who apparently was interested in the role when Vulture showed up in an early draft of Spider-Man 3 as Sandman's cellmate and bad influence. Since this casting would've also meant that Venom wouldn't have been in SM3 and we probably would've gotten a better movie out of the deal....crap! (Note: I'm getting this information from Wikipedia, so of course it has to be true.)

* There actually is some comic-book precedent for a female Vulture character, as Spider-Girl (Peter Parker's alternate-universe daughter) has an enemy known as the Raptor, the Vulture's daughter. If this is the idea that Raimi is using for his movie, then I have to object to the casting. Why use Anne Hathaway when Andrea Bargnani is right there? He plays for the Raptors and he has a girl's name. Done and done. It might seem odd to have John Malkovich as the father of a seven-foot-tall Italian, but hey, it's a comic book movie. Some liberties need to be taken.

Who Should I Root For During The World Cup?

Given how my family background is half-Ukrainian and half-Irish, the final stage of UEFA's World Cup qualifying matches were pretty dang frustrating for me. The Irish got hosed by the already-legendary non-call(s) from the officials and the Ukes lost to Greece. Greece! Are you serious? Is this Euro 2004? Who the hell loses to Greece? My Greek friend Joanne now has bragging rights for the next several years, which may force me to retaliate by going to Athens and stealing the Parthenon. That's right, stealing it. Like Carmen Sandiego.

So with both of my ancestral countries out of the running and Soccer Canada continuing to be a living joke, I find myself needing a dance partner for the 2010 World Cup. I really got an added kick out of supporting Ukraine back in 2006, when Andriy "Sheva" Shevchenko basically single-handedly carried Ukraine to the quarter-finals. The World Cup is great as it is, but it adds an extra layer of intrigue when you're actually invested in one of the participating nations. It also helped that 2006 was my first summer living in Toronto, where I watched the matches at my neighbourhood corner pub with a rotating cast of patrons from the various nations. The atmosphere was fantastic. I lived near Koreatown and was twice woken up by a multitude of horns honking to celebrate a South Korea goal.

The question is, then, of the 32 teams in this year's World Cup, which should earn my support? Keep in mind that actual soccer ability will have next to nothing to do with the choice. Let's break it down, first with the teams that didn't make the cut.


THE NO-CHANCERS
* North Korea
Well, duh. What a wonderful bit of karmic justice that these clowns were slotted into the Group of Death; facing Brazil, Portugal and Ivory Coast, Kim Jong-Il's crew are staring 0-3 and possibly an 0-10 goal differential right in the face. And by karmic justice, I mean 'the USA slipped FIFA a bit of cash under the table.' That also might explain Group C.

* Chile
Meh. I really have no opinion on the Chilean team one way of the other. You could say my attitude towards them is rather....frosty.

* Italy
Forget, they just won it last time. Spread the wealth, Italy.

* France
After that Ireland fiasco? Shyeah right. Fun fact: apparently in the staging rehearsal for the World Cup group selection last Friday, Charlize Theron jokingly yelled out 'Ireland!' when she drew France's name from the bowl. Oh, Charlize --- funny, talented, beautiful and willing to play a Mr. F on national television. *mimes 'call me' hand motion*

* Argentina
Rooting for Argentina would seem like I was endorsing Diego Maradona's hiring. Maradona has already taken a firm place somewhere between Wayne Gretzky and Isiah Thomas on the list of all-time great players who turned into all-time lousy coaches.

* Germany
As you might notice, I've included some of the soccer world's biggest winners on this list of teams I won't root for. You can't just naturally adopt one of these titans as your new favourite team. That would be bandwagon-jumping of the highest order. Ze Germans have three World Cups already, they don't need my support.

* Algeria
I had a whole paragraph written citing that old Cheers bit when Coach is trying to teach Sam geography by associating every country with a little song to the tune of 'When The Saints Go Marching In.' "Albania/Albania/You border on the Adriatic/Your land is mostly mountainous/And your chief export is chrome." Unfortunately, then I realized that Albania didn't quality for the World Cup --- Algeria did. Uh, yeah. I've got nothing.

* Greece
DAMMIT JOANNE.

* The United States
As a Canadian, I'm legally obligated to not cheer for the USA in anything. I'm pretty sure it's in NAFTA. I got all my USA-fandom out of my system when I was a ten-year-old rooting for Hulk Hogan to beat Iraqi sympathizer Sgt. Slaughter at Wrestlemania VII. Spoiler alert: Hogan won.

* Serbia
Fun fact: the Serbs have only five regulars on their 'most recently capped' roster whose names don't end in 'ic.' I see.

* Portugal
With Spain capturing Euro 2008, Portugal inherits the title of 'most distinguished European soccer nation whose constant failure is always hilarious.' Rooting for them would take away one of my most cherished memories of watching the 2006 Cup at the pub --- a bar-wide chant of 'DIVER DIVER' at Ronaldo. Plus, a buddy of mine hooked up with a Portuguese girl at a party once and was bothered by her for the next two years. How can I reward such a country?

* Slovenia
Meh. I feel like I would often confuse them with Slovakia.

* Slovakia
See Slovenia's entry, except for this hilarious addendum. I logged onto Slovaki's Wikipedia page to see if I could drum up any interesting facts about the team, and someone edited the opening line to read, "The Slovakia national football team are a truly awful sporting outfit." Clearly there are some bitter Poland/Northern Ireland/Czech fans amidst Wikipedia's editing crew.

* Uruguay
I guess you could include them in the group of past champions I won't root for, but though Uruguay has two World Cups to their name, they haven't been anything close to a world footballing power for about 40 years. Well, tough break, Uruguay. U r gone.



THE NOT REALLYS
* Brazil
This whole category is made up of the three teams who I can't really support due to my personal bandwagon-jumping rule, but who I can't help but respect. In other words, I'd easily support any of these three over any of the teams in the previous group, but I'd root against any of these three if they faced anyone in the upcoming group. In Brazil's case, they'd win every tournament if the World Cup was awarded on sheer talent and style. I'd want to watch an intra-squad game between the Brazilians moreso than any other nation. Also, according to this site, I'd be nicknamed 'Polishezo' if I were a Brazilian soccer player. That just sounds cool.

* Spain
True, they just won Euro 2008, but their World Cup record is so comically choke-filled that they're somewhat of a sentimental favourite in my book. My friend Sarah had the pleasure of actually being in Spain during Euro 2008, and she said the country erupted into such a good-natured party after they won and a World Cup victory would only add onto the celebration. Then, with a Cup under their belts, they can basically become the new France and I can slot them into the No-Chancers group. Sorry, Spain.

* England
As a Maple Leafs fan, surely I have to have a soft spot for the international soccer version of the Leafs. Reveling in their last title back in the mid-60's, always inflating expectations, terrible at shootouts....the similarities are eerie. England even had their own John Ferguson Jr. in Steve McClaren, though at least FIFA rules prevented McClaren from trading Peter Crouch's international rights to the USA for, say, Alexei Lalas in 2007 and signing him to a no-cut cap contract.



THE CONTENDERS
With over half the field out, my quest to find a favorite team has reached the knockout stage. Here are my final fifteen options.....

* Ghana
You've got to have the underdog darlings of the 2006 World Cup in the mix. Someone who tells as many terrible jokes as I do (see: the Chile entry) would be a natural fan of a country with such a pun-friendly name. "They're Ghana do it!" "You're Ghana get beat!" "I support Ghana, Rhea Perlman!"

* South Korea
Like I said, I used to live on the outskirts of Toronto's Koreatown. In fact, depending on where I end up living next year, my location might play a huge factor in whatever team I end up supporting. If I'm in the midst of a cultural neighbourhood that has a team in the Cup, I might get swept up in the fever. Or, with my luck, I'll probably end up living in a neighbourhood with a crappy soccer connection, i.e. Toronto's little-known Faroe Islandstown. The only celebratory car-honking I'd have to worry about there would be if the Faroe Islands lost by fewer than ten goals.

* South Africa
Natural to support the host country, plus my folks went on a safari in South Africa last year and had a wonderful time. Question: suppose the scenario in 'District 9' actually happened. Would the Prawns be eligible to be capped for the South African squad? I would guess probably not, and maybe it's for the best, given that they didn't seem particularly physically fit. Too much cat food, I'd reckon.

* Paraguay
Uruguay has two World Cup titles, while its partner in Guay marriage has a sorry record at the World Cup. It's time for Paraguay to step up and claim equality amongst the Guays. I'll bet if both Uruguay and Paraguay pooled their resources, they could form a mighty team, but I'm not sure this type of Guay civil union would be allowed. When will people learn?

* Cote d'Ivoire
a.k.a. the Ivory Coast. However you say it, these guys were the darlings at World Cup 2006 and would've made it to the knockout stage if it hadn't been for their being drawn in the Group of Death. I love that this country has two names and they're both bad-ass as hell. If that wasn't enough, their team nickname is 'The Elephants.' I recently had a dream about alien elephants that landed on our planet, so perhaps this was a subconscious message to start rooting for Ivory Coast. That may be the oddest sentence ever written.

* Denmark
I like Hamlet. My name is right there in the country's name. That is all.

* Netherlands
Another team who often plays the World Cup with their hands wrapped around their collective neck. It's a shame that Holland never won a World Cup back in their revolutionary 'Total Football' days that took the soccer world by storm, since I'm not sure if they really have the firepower to compete with the big boys in terms of actually winning a championship. While it's fun to tease my Dutch friends when they suddenly jump hard on the Holland bandwagon during every Euro or World Cup tournament, I can't help but wonder if I should be silently rooting for the Oranje as well.

* Cameroon
They're known as the Indomitable Lions. Yes, that's right, INDOMITABLE. Also, supporting them would mean I could bust out Bugs Bunny's "whatta maroon" line roughly 75 times per match.

* Nigeria
Yeah, let's face it, I'm basically pulling for every African team. It would mean extra-much to these countries to turn in a great performance on the world stage. (Except for Algeria, who I'm omitted solely due to my confusion over Cheers trivia.) Could my admiration for Bono be affecting my World Cup picks? Possibly....after all, I am wearing sunglasses while writing this post and simultaneously coming up with increasingly obtuse rhymes for 'elevation.'

* Australia
Arguably my favourite country in the world that I haven't actually been to, Australia would be a great choice. They'd also be a popular underdog given that they got screwed out of the last World Cup thanks to a 'penalty' (coughcoughdivecoughcough) awarded to an Italian player in stoppage time.

* Switzerland
Arguably my second-favourite country in the world that I haven't actually been to, Switzerland would be a great choice. You know, if I were a more well-traveled man, I might have some actual emotional connections to these countries and might be able to make a more informed choice when picking a World Cup side. That cinches it --- if you all send me generous cash donations, I'll take a trip to the country that I end up supporting for this World Cup. I figure $500 a head should get me there comfortably and allow me a stay in a Westernized hotel that will keep me nice and sequestered from any actual local flavour. It will be like my family vacation to Jamaica when I was 11, and my closest brush with the local cuisine was Burger King.

* Mexico
Hey, I've actually been to Mexico! Stop the presses! It might be odd rooting for one of Canada's CONCACAF rivals, but then again, Canada is so below Mexico's radar that it would be like Pluto feeling strange about cheering for Saturn in the galactic World Cup. Mexico's WC history seems to run in streaks. They made were knocked out in the group stage every year from 1950 to 1966, and are currently on a four-tournament streak of advancing to the second round before being eliminated. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Mexicans will go out in round two yet again to even up their streaks, thus dooming them to some type of LOST-esque time loop. Their only hope is if Jared Borgetti goes back to 1977 and detonates a nuclear bomb.

* Japan
The team is pretty mediocre, but I like Japan as a country. It remains to be seen if they'll take as a fan in the wake of that last joke about detonating a nuclear bomb. Too soon?

* New Zealand
NZ is another country I like, and given that my cousin currently lives there, I really have no excuse not to visit. Then again, she will obviously be rooting for the New Zealanders by proxy, and I don't want to sign my entire family's loyalty away to a country that I have no direct ties to. I mean, I like 'Flight Of The Conchords,' but not to the extent of patterning my life after them. I've seen Mel --- that's a road I'd rather not travel.

* Honduras
I actually have a small connection to Honduras, given that Toronto FC's Amado Guevara is the team captain and I've written a few stories about his quest to lead his country into the World Cup. Given that no other current TFC players are expected to be capped to a World Cup side, Guevara will be the only person in this year's tournament who can say that he knows me. And by knows me, I mean he could vaguely identify me as "that writer who always wears a toque at practice," but still, that counts.

So there they are, my fifteen options for temporary World Cup fandom. Feel free to leave a comment in favour of one team or another, since I'm willing to listen to any and all opinions about who I should be rooting for in June.

Stay tuned for next week's post, where I list 15 women I know and ask your opinion on which one I should date. It should be illuminating!

Barney The Snowman

Happy....wait for it....birthday!

Look Closer

Pretty much anything is good if you affix a 'ghost' suffix to it. Well, except for Bill Cosby's movie Ghost Dad. And the Ghost Rider movie. And probably many more things that I'm forgetting that totally invalidate my opening sentence. But BY AND LARGE, things with a 'ghost' suffix are awesome. Ghostbusters. The Ghostercoaster at Canada's Wonderland. The movie Ghost World, which I believe is now subtitled 'The Last Time Thora Birch Was Considered More Attractive Than Scarlett Johansson.'

Man, I'm getting off-topic. Anyway, now you can add the Ghost Man to this latter list. He's a conceptual artist who is half-chameleon, half-future victim of lead poisoning thanks to covering his entire body with paint on a semi-regular basis. This link contains all of his known photos, but I've also reprinted a few of his better ones below. I swear, I had to look at that construction site pic for a few minutes before I finally spotted him.

I did a Google search on the guy and, interestingly, 'Ghost Man' is apparently a racist term for Chinese people, so I hope that that's this guy's deliberately chosen name and not just the Hi-Fructose Magazine writer being a prejudiced douche. I don't want to get myself into a Stan Marsh-on-Wheel Of Fortune situation here.

Prince + Vikings = Der Komedy

Hey everyone, Prince was at the Vikings game yesterday! He's not weird! He likes football just like a regular person!



....or, he just hung around a private box looking like a vampire. Oh Prince, why must everything about you be so strange? I choose to believe he just stood in that position for the entire game.

The 10 Roughest MMA Knockouts (And UFC 107 Picks)

I haven't done one of these UFC pick posts in a while, so I'll make up for it by posting this link to a YouTube video of some of MMA's most vicious knockouts. For my money, Evans-Liddell should've been number one. Liddell looked like he was stone dead. Also, I'm kinda surprised the famous Rich Franklin/Nate Quarry 'timberrrrr' knockout didn't make the cut. Watch it quick before the UFC inevitable pulls the footage!



Onto the picks! And for god's sake, given the incredible rash of injuries befalling UFC fighters, let's hope everyone can stay healthy between now and Saturday.

* Jon Fitch vs. Mike Pierce. Fitch was originally supposed to fight Ricardo Almeida, who got injured. Then he was supposed to fight Thiago Alves, who got injured. So now in comes Mike 'Bronze Medal' Pierce, who has just one UFC fight under his belt and now must face the consensus #2 welterweight in the world. In short, I hope Pierce has a good dental plan. I had a high school teacher named Mike Pearse whose last name was pronounced the same as 'Pierce.' My pal Matt always inexplicably hated Mr. Pearse, so maybe Matt can get work out some of his issues by seeing Pierce get demolished on Saturday. Fitch, TKO, second round.


* Paul Buentello vs. Stefan Struve. Buentello will hold a special place in my heart for main-eventing the first UFC pay-per-view I ever watched. I tagged along with some friends to London's Oar House to watch UFC 55, headlined by the Buentello-Arlovski fight for the heavyweight title. My friends' hype and the UFC promo package had me all revved up for what was going to be a classic tilt....and then Arlovski knocked Buentello out in 15 seconds. Hmmm. That humiliating loss aside, Buentello is a pretty solid fighter and will be in tough against the gargantuan Stefan Struve, a near seven-footer whose only UFC loss is to Junior Dos Santos. In spite of his size, Struve is actually something of a submission specialist, which perhaps isn't so unusual given that this gangly motherfucker can put you into a triangle from basically any position on the ground. Since Buentello has a history of submission defeats, I'll actually pick Struve to pull the minor upset. Struve, submission, second round.


* Frank Mir vs. Cheick Kongo. This is MMA's version of a zero-sum game. Either Mir will instantly take down Kongo and submit him (since Kongo's ground game is non-existent), or Kongo will pound Mir's face into hamburger (since Mir's striking abilities are non-existent against anyone who isn't suffered from a severe staph infection). After four years, could Kongo possibly have learned some damn takedown defense? After knocking out a weakened Minotauro Nogueira, does Mir actually think he possesses stand-up skills? If Mir even thinks for a moment he can compete with Kongo standing, then this fight will turn into a remake of 'Titanic, with Mir playing the boat and Kongo's fists playing the iceberg. Dana White can play Billy Zane's role. Jon Fitch can play Victor Garber's architect character. This analogy is falling apart. Anyway, yes, in fact I do think Mir is dumb enough to stand and trade long enough for Kongo to bash him. Kongo, knockout, first round.


* Kenny Florian vs. Clay Guida. This one has fight of the night written all over it. You've got arguably the second-best lightweight in the UFC (Florian) coming off of a decisive loss in a title match, and he's facing perhaps the highest-energy fighter. I think Florian don't do what Diego Sanchez did and just pound away at Guida to test his toughness. Instead, Florian might even let Guida take him down since Guida (for all of his energy and hard work) rarely does a lot of actual damage to opponents when he's controlling them. Basically, Guida is the most exciting lay-and-pray fighter imaginable. I can see Florian using this to his advantage and trying to lock Guida up in a submission when they're on the ground. The fight might unfold quite a bit like the Guida-Roger Huerta fight, which was only one of the best matches of 2007. I expect nothing less from this matchup. Florian, submission, third round.


* BJ Penn vs. Diego Sanchez. Gray Maynard, Frank Edgar and maybe Tyson Griffin are next in line for whomever the lightweight champion is after Saturday, but honestly, Sanchez might be the last guy left in the division who can give BJ a real challenge. If Penn beats Diego, then we might see the re-emergence of Bored BJ Penn, who makes noise about moving back up to welterweight given the lack of challenge in his natural division. I'd like to see Penn actually do it and fully clean out the LWs, but he might have a point. The only thing in his way is Sanchez, who it should be noted is far from just a stepping stone. Diego's only losses came to Fitch (in a split decision at welterweight) and a decision loss to Josh Koscheck when he was dealing with a staph infection and a Hepatitis C scare. Penn will have to figure out a way to do what no other fighter has done (finish Sanchez), since if this one goes into the fourth or fifth round, Penn will be at a decided cardio disadvantage. Diego's cardio is second to none, whereas BJ still hasn't definitively answered the question of if he trains hard enough to go five rounds. He did make it into the fourth round to beat Florian in his last fight, but that came just a few months after quitting rather than go into a fifth round against Georges St. Pierre. Then again, GSP was giving him the beating of a lifetime, so I can see why he wanted to give it up. Anyway, Diego seems to have the tools to outlast, if not actually finish, Penn, but until another lightweight proves that he can do it, I just can't pick against the undisputed #1 LW in the world. Penn, TKO, third round.


Undercard....
* Matt Wiman over Shane Nelson, decision.
* Ricardo Funch over Johny Hendricks, TKO, first round.
* TJ Grant over Kevin Burns, submission, third round.
* Rousimar Palhares over Lucio Linhares, submission, first round.
* Edgar Garcia over DaMarques Johnson, TKO, second round.
* Wilson Gouveia over Alan Belcher, decision.

The Nine Most Disappointing Movies Of 2009

We're nearing the end of the decade, which means that media outlets everywhere will soon be inundating us with 'best of the 2000s' lists for literally everything, including movies. The Telegraph has already gotten in on the act, as has the Times, in spite of the fact that the decade is technically still going. (I guess they have low hopes for 'Avatar'...more on this later.) Of these two, the Times wins the prize for going the furthest down the list before including a truly horrible movie. The Times tempts fate by including some middling stuff like Casino Royale, Last King of Scotland and The Queen in their top ten, but none of those are truly capital-H Horrible like the Telegraph's #9 selection, "The Passion Of The Christ." The Toronto Star copped out by just listing their ten most 'important' movies of the decade, hiding behind that debatable term in spite of the fact that you can't really judge what a decade's most important movies were until years down the line. Also, I'm pretty sure that future generations won't be getting all hot and bothered over Passion Of The Christ or Donnie Darko.

So, with these lists in mind, I'm sure you're all expecting me to chime in with my own best-of-the-Aughts list. Nuh uh. Not yet. It will take time, preparation and gallons of caffeinated beverages. But in the meantime, here are nine pieces of crap that certainly won't make the cut.

A word on terminology...this is not a list of the worst films of the year, aside from a couple of instances. These are merely the most disappointing, a.k.a. the movies I went into expecting to enjoy, but walked out bitterly unentertained. Something like "Transformers 2" may have stunk, but since I fully expected it to stink, it doesn't make this list. Somewhere, Michael Bay wipes sweat from his brow, relieved that his lowered-expectations ploy has worked yet again.

Onto the list!

(Wait, so the first part of this post had nothing to do with the second part? What poor planning. Feel free to nominate this for your "Most Disappointing Posts Of The Year" list.)

9. Avatar. Ok, so TECHNICALLY it isn't actually out yet. But given the hype and secrecy surrounding the project, and given the incredibly uninteresting trailer, I can already predict that I won't enjoy it. For all of the talk about Jim Cameron deploying cutting-edge new technology for the movie, it looks like the same blah stop-motion CGI/human hybrid stuff that has ruined Robert Zemeckis' career. The plot (human soldier gets involved in a war between Earth and an alien planet, begins to take the aliens' side) sounds generic as humanly possible. Though, technically, since my expectations are already so low going into it, should 'Avatar' be on this list at all? I was taking a wait-and-see attitude from the get-go anyway, so can I really consider this to be a proper entry on a 'disappointing films' list given that I sorta expected a disappointment? Ah, screw it, I just wanted a forum to bitch about this lame movie.


8. Terminator: Salvation. Another kind of borderline entry, given that nobody can really expect much from a movie directed by friggin' McG. But this was just a meandering, dull and overall listless film that basically kills the Terminator franchise dead in its tracks. It's not a good sign when the best (or, only) audience reaction comes from the CGI Arnold that pops up late in the movie to confront Christian "Phonin' It In" Bale.


7. 9. Not to be confused with 'Nine,' the Daniel Day-Lewis/Penelope Cruz/Every actress in Hollywood musical that's coming out in December. Or, not to be confused with 'Nein!,' the wacky German comedy starring Rutger Hauer as the headmaster of a school for naughty frauleins. Or "Nye'n," the movie about Marlee Matlin trying to pronounce the last name of Bill Nye the Science Guy. No, "9" was the allegedly visually-incredible animated movie about weird puppet robots trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. While I said that Avatar looks like it has the most generic possible plot, "9" might actually hold that current title. There is not an ounce of wit or originality in the entire script. The story is basically a poor man's version of Lord of the Rings, except lacking the homoerotic subtext between Frodo and Sam.


6. Cold Souls. It had a funny Charlie Kaufman-esque concept to it: Paul Giamatti (playing himself) discovers a clinic in New York that can temporarily remove your soul and replace it with someone else's. He tries the process to improve his acting and ends up involved with the Russian mob. While I generally enjoy films that plunk you down in strange realities and deal with everything with a straight face, this one is just way too slow-moving and dry even for me. The whole thing was a little 'cold.' BWA HA HA HA, je suis hilarious.


5. Funny People. Ok, another technical borderline entry I only enjoy about one out of every eight Adam Sandler movies. But hey, Judd Apatow, it's got to be good, right? Right? The basic problem with the film is that it asks you to buy into the inherent belief that Adam Sandler is a) funny and b) has a strong enough personality to inspire what is slightly-modified version of his own life. As it turns out, he's not and he doesn't. The movie is a good 30 minutes too long, relies on Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman for comic relief --- never a good idea --- and the entire romantic subplot with Leslie Mann was a complete waste of time. It's like Apatow wrote the movie and then suddenly realized he didn't give his wife a part. It's just an poor piece of work all around, easily Apatow's worst movie. It also ruined Eric Bana's big comeback year. For years, Bana held the title of 'Actor I Like The Most Whose Movies I Enjoy The Least.' After breaking it big in North America with Black Hawk Down, Bana was in nothing but garbage until this year, when he appeared in Star Trek and Time Traveler's Wife. 'Funny People' kept Bana from winning the triple crown and completing his comeback, but on the bright side, at least he got to play a walking stereotype that disgraced his Aussie heritage. Good times!


3.(tie) Year One
(tie) Couples Retreat. The two movies suffer from opposite problems that end up with the same result. 'Year One' throws non-stop jokes at the wall in the hope that some will stick, and an astonishingly tiny number of them actually do, 'Couples Retreat,' on the other hand, is the rare comedy that doesn't have any actual jokes. Remember when you watched the ads and didn't actually see anything funny? That wasn't a case of marketing withholding the best jokes for the film --- that was the best they had to work with. A yoga guy squatting in Jason Bateman's face is about as sophisticated as it gets here, folks. Big red flags went up for both films when numerous cast members appeared on Conan and talked about everything but the movie itself. That's never a good sign. Conan didn't even throw them a token, "So, I saw the movie at a screening the other night and enjoyed it." Methinks Conan felt it was prudent to just not say anything at all rather than note that he and Andy Richter spent the whole screening giving the flick the MST3000 treatment.

Just take a look at these cast lists of these two movies --- Jack Black, Michael Cera, Vince Vaughn, Jon Favreau, Kristen Bell, Malin Akerman, Kristin Davis, Bateman, Faizon Love, Jean Reno, David Cross, McLovin, Oliver Platt, Hank Azaria, Olivia Wilde, plus usually hilarious supporting staples like John Michael Higgins and Ken Jeong. With scripts by two 'Office' writers and Vaughn/Favreau, respectively, and direction from Harold Ramis and the kid who played Ralphie in 'A Christmas Story,' respectively. I like to love everyone (In Kristen Bell's case, literally) involved in both projects, and yet both movies ended up being terrible. Couples Retreat even stuck the whole female cast in bikinis and I still hated the movie, so if that's not a bad recommendation, I don't know what is. In a way, there's nothing worse than a disappointing comedy since you into them predisposed to laugh, and when that doesn't happen, it's double the letdown. It's like going to a Tony Jaa film and not seeing anyone's limbs broken.


2. Public Enemies. Now we get into the territory of 'movies that I didn't exactly dislike, but are still big disappointments given my sky-high expectations going into them.' Is it the film's fault for not living up to my possibly-inflated personal beliefs? Yes. Yes it is. Especially when said film is a Michael Mann picture about John Dillinger starring Johnny Depp. There is zero reason why this film shouldn't have been a five-star, knock-the-doors-off classic. PE gets a long way on style and it's wonderfully shot (don't worry Mann, I'm one of the few people that enjoys digital cinematography, you're not alone), but the story is pretty rote, none of the characters are well developed and you leave the theatre not really knowing or caring any more about John Dillinger than you did when you entered. I didn't mind Depp's performance, since I think his underplaying the role was deliberate given that the real Dillinger was something of a monosyllabic thug whose charisma stemmed from urban myth more than anything. But aside from Depp, the very talented cast is given nothing to do. Marion Cotillard is stuck with a limited girlfriend role, and Christian Bale (billed as the second lead and Dillinger's nemesis) is on-screen for maybe 20 minutes. Hell, I would've preferred to have seen Bale's role cut from the movie and had Billy Crudup's J. Edgar Hoover re-imagined as Dillinger's primary adversary. (Geez, between this film, Terminator, yelling at cinematographers and having everyone mock his Batman voice, this has been a rough year for Bale.) One bright side: the scene where Dillinger strolls through an FBI office and nobody recognizes him. That was a genuinely great scene that blew away everything in every other movie on this list combined. If the entire film had been made with that kind of flair, we would've had something. Basically, I went in expecting the next Bonnie & Clyde, and all I got was a second-rate White Heat.


1. Where The Wild Things Are. Like with the previous entry, I didn't hate WTWTA. If pressed, I'd even give it a borderline recommendation. The amount of imagination and creativity that went into bringing the children's book to life is admirable, and I'm glad to got to see Spike Jonze's take on the material rather than having the studio make a generic kiddie movie with some hack director like Chris Columbus. But there's no way to sugarcoat things --- big chunks of the film are dull with a capital D. WTWTA was a tough project from the get-go, since like many children's books, their brilliance lies in how the reader imagines the fantastical worlds described in the text. Even in an illustrated book like the original Maurice Sendak story, the illustrations are detailed but in a sparse way that lets little kids think up their own versions of how things will unfold. Actually putting a definitive version of these images on the big screen (and letting them be voiced by Tony Soprano and Bam Bam Funkhouser) unwittingly puts a cap on the imagination. Frankly, the Wild Things' dreary, weirdly post-apocalyptic landscape of a home is more than a bit of a downer. The kid who plays Max gives a very good performance and comes off as a very real 10-year-old, but even that's kind of a catch-22. Jonze cast a kid because he can realistically portray what 10-year-olds are like, but with the caveat that kids are never less interesting than when they're ten years old. Children are charming in their developing years and potentially fascinating when they're entering adolescence....in that gap from about 9 to 11, however, they're just kinda there.

Frankly, I blame the Arcade Fire for my disappointment with this film. The trailer looked great and was set to the tune of 'Wake Up,' which would make any trailer look five times better than it actually is. You stick that song on the 'Avatar' trailer and I'm probably singing that movie's praises. It should be noted that the actual WTWTA soundtrack, written by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, is fantastic and a great idea for a Christmas gift. For me. As a thank-you for posts like these that warn you away from bad movies.

The 500th Post

So, about a month ago, I noticed that I was coming up on 500 posts on this blog. My plan was to write a massive On Notice-style post that would try to incorporate every one of my tag labels into those eight topics. Ergo, the 500th post would serve as an example/summation of everything I've ever talked about on this blog.

Great idea, right? Except for one problem. As I took a closer look at my archives, I noticed that I had a few entries saved as drafts --- rough copies of posts that were different from the ones I originally published. So I deleted a few, then a few more, and suddenly I realized that Blogger was counting those rough copies as actual posts. So my overall total was now suddenly down into the 485 range and my On Notice anniversary post's worth of material would now all be outdated.

I decided to just break it up into smaller, individual items and you've seen some of those results over the last few weeks. But now, here we are again at the 500-point, and suddenly I have no plans for a big celebration. It's unfortunate. For the 400th post, I saved up the immortal story of how my friends and I spent nine months punching each other in the groin for the 400th post, but now we're at an even bigger anniversary and I've got nothing. NOTHING!

So, when in doubt, I'll do what I've so often done on this blog: fall back on other people's work. Enjoy some links! Happy anniversary, Polivision!




If you had to sit down and decide upon the coolest countries in the world, New Zealand would be a strong dark horse contender. Aside from the scenery, Flight Of The Conchords and the fact that my cousin's boyfriend is a Zealander, there's also the fact that they bust out quality commercials like this for their country's friggin' book council. Just amazing. What would the Canadian equivalent of this be? Some D-level Canadian celeb like Gordon Pinsent or the chick from the Hills Aftershow sitting in a library with a small circle of kids sitting around them, all saying 'Yayyy!' on cue with a generic "Reading Is Fun!" tagline? Man, New Zealand pwned us.



Baseball fans already know that Baseball-Reference.com is one of the greatest websites of all time, but I didn't realize that one could actually sponsor the individual player or team pages. Like any internet advertisement, my eyes just automatically glaze over them, which is why the ad business may slowly crumble over the next 15 years. Anyway, for just $10, you can put your own personal message on the page of any available player or team, which has led to some hilarious abuses over the years. My pal Dave sent me this list of the ten funniest Baseball-Reference.com sponsorships and it's pretty mint stuff. The one that killed me was the Len Koenecke entry at #8...that's hard to beat. If you want to make a joke sponsorship of your own, former Blue Jay Howie Clark's entry is still open, so you can immortalize him forever with " 'Haah! I've got it!' --- Alex Rodriguez" A-Rod's own page is already spoken for, sadly, so we'll have to put a stay on the centaur-related jokes....except for this artist's rendition.







Kinda wish I had found this in time for the Sesame Street tribute post I wrote a few weeks ago. My entry for Q was kind of week, whereas 'Q Is For Queen' would've been perfect.

Royal York Roadblocks

Is everyone familiar with Royal York Road in London, Ontario? Good. A disquieting change has taken place on the quiet suburban street just north of Oxford. Two large, grand-piano shaped portions of grassy curb have been extended into the road itself, one at the corner of Royal York and Hunt Club in front of the park, and the other at the intersection of Royal York and Manchester. These curbs jut out like Bill Cowher's jaw and literally take up the entire lane, forcing traffic to narrow into one lane for a span of about seven feet. I noticed these obstructions as I was driving home from the movies late last night, so there was no opposite traffic to have to negotiate, but man, that just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. As I recall from my days as a professional wheelman (a.k.a. a pizza delivery boy), that street can get rather busy given its position as a connector to a large suburban neighbourhood. I'd imagine it's quite the annoyance to have to deal with during rush hour or something, when everyone is coming home and has to maneuver their cars past a seven-foot-long grassy blob that seems to be there for no obvious reason. Not to mention if a school bus is driving past.

The only possible logic I can apply to these obstructions is that they were put in by the community in an attempt to quiet traffic that might go speeding down the street late at night. If that's the case, then bollocks to that. If anything, the roadblocks will cause more of a hazard --- they're not exactly visible at night, and a careless driver might easily just plow his car right into one. At least those irritating speedbumps* you sometimes see in the suburbs are just bumps, not outright dangers to one's bumper.

Royal York Road, you've made a critical mistake. Only a fool would cut off lanes so abruptly and create such a needless hazard. This will be the keystone issue of my 2010 campaign for London Traffic Layer-Outer (or, whatever the hell the appropriate position is called). I can see my first campaign ad now.....it will be footage of cars being held up at the Royal York obstructions, while 'Frolic' by Michelini plays in the background. A big bold font will flash up on your screen: ARE UNNECESSARY TRAFFIC-DAMPENERS 'CURBING' YOUR ENTHUSIASM FOR DRIVING? Then cut to a scene of me setting fire to the grass on these curbs while a crowd of seniors, children and Bob "Marty Funkhouser/Super Dave Osborne" Einstein cheer wildly. Of course, I might end up being arrested for these fires and thus will be forced to conduct my campaign from jail, but I presume my inevitable election will help get me freed. Or, failing that, I'll just marry the mayor. That seems to be a 'get out of jail free' card in this town anyways. The mayor and I would make a great couple. We have a lot in common, since I'm also not in the slightest bit able to competently run a major city.

* = When the Westmount neighbourhood installed these speedbumps, my friend Matt protested by honking his horn every time he drove over one. Even late at night, when we were leaving my pal Andrew's at 1:30 AM or something. Keeping peace and quiet my ass. Matt, in other news, was the inspiration for Bowie's "Rebel Rebel."

Ebert vs. Twilight

When I think about it, Roger Ebert has to be among my top influences as a writer. Those who just know him as a TV thumb guy are missing out on his fantastic career as a reviewer and film essayist for the Chicago Sun-Times. It's a sign of Ebert's quality that he can really bring a movie to life with his words because you can tell just how much this guy loves the cinema....and, as such, when this love is tarnished by a particularly crappy film, he pulls no punches.

Case in point, his review of the new Twilight movie. Ebert has been known to cut some genre movies some slack under the logic that he isn't their target audience, and thus he just judges them if they accomplish their goal of satisfying that audience. It's almost like a teacher who gives a student a D rather than a fail because he can at least see that the kid is trying hard. In this instance, however, it's clear that 'New Moon' is just too shitty to be given a pass. With 630 words, Ebert manages to point out everything that's wrong with both the movie and basically the entire 'Twilight' franchise itself. It's fantastic.

If you ever see that Ebert has given a movie one star or less, track down that review post-haste and get ready to laugh. The only thing better are his responses to fanboys/fangirls who send him angry e-mails bashing his taste when he dares to write a review saying that (gasp!) the movies starring their favourite characters are shite. His exchanges with Transformers fans upset at his pan of 'Transformers 2' is so amusing that it would even make a sullen teen vampire crack a smile.