Lincoln

When you have one of the most accomplished directors in cinema history directing arguably the greatest actor of our generation who is portraying the United States’ greatest President, you expect great things.  You can also expect an abundance of hardware over the next three months as well.

Lincoln doesn’t disappoint.  Daniel Day-Lewis is the greatest of character actors; he completely immerses himself in his roles.  This one is no different.  As an amateur historian, I have done more than my fair share of study on our sixteenth president and Day-Lewis is as an accurate portrayal as any I’ve seen, and there have been many good ones.  The mannerisms such as his gangly, slightly hunched, lurching gait to his slow, and back-woodsy story telling, in his high pitched voice, are believable in every sense.  This IS Abraham Lincoln.  Day-Lewis is entrancing in the role, so much so that as the modern day viewer, you get to be the proverbial fly on the wall.

Another great performance in Lincoln is Tommy Lee Jones as radical Republican leader Thaddeus Stevens.  For me, Jones has a career littered with as many poor, disinterested performances as great ones.  He was at his best in this film.  Stevens was a fierce abolitionist who had a reputation for supporting minorities and the downtrodden his whole career.  Historically, he is blamed for the strict Reconstruction enforced upon the South after the war.  The film briefly touches on the difference of opinion about Reconstruction between Stevens and Lincoln, who favored a much gentler, forgiving stance than did Stevens and the radicals.  Lincoln’s death took away Stevens’ biggest obstacle in his wish to punish the South.  John Wilkes Booth did as big a disservice to the South as any man in the Post-Civil War era.  Lincoln would have promoted a forgiving Reconstruction and instead, Stevens got his way and the rest is, well, history, and led to a century of hatred and misundersting between the two geographical factions.

A few more names need to be mentioned for their performances in this picture.  James Spader was delightful as W.N. Bilbo, who was what we might categorize as an early lobbyist of sorts.  Sally Field as the mentally unstable Mary Todd Lincoln and Lee Pace as Representative Fernando Wood also stood to me.

Historically, Lincoln was very accurate.  Spielberg encompassed as much of the President’s story as he could within the restraints of only one month’s time of his presidency.  Lincoln suffered from melancholy, which today we know is depression.  This was a life long malady for the President, made worse by the stress of the job, casualty figures (from both sides), and the death of his son Willie, which is dealt with in the film.  The President also had to constantly deal with what we call today a high maintenance wife.  Mary Todd Lincoln, while probably not outright insane, was a constant burden during his presidency.  There were battles between the First Lady and Congress, which are subtly alluded to in the film, that didn’t help Lincoln at times when dealing with his political opponents.   Lincoln also suffered from nightmares and premonitions.  He was a darker man than is widely known by the general public.  He put up a good front with his light, upbeat, unpolished mannerisms.  Lincoln does a great job of giving us a true sense of his personality.

Ultimately, Abraham Lincoln was a grand manipulator and a political genius.  That is why he is considered our greatest president.  Every politician in Washington, from his enemies to his cabinet, all thought they were smarter than Lincoln.  The President was a patient man who was willing to slowly lead people to his way of seeing things.  In the case this movie focuses on, the passing of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution, the President does not have time to be patient.  Everyone knows the war is coming to an end and if the amendment isn’t passed before the war is over, it would never pass.  Honest Abe was willing to bribe and cajole opponents into voting his way.  There is a line in the film that was perfect.  To greatly paraphrase, it went something like this – never has such a just cause been won by such corruption by such an honest of a man.  You get the picture.  Lincoln did what he had to insure the passing of the most important legislation to our country’s history since the Bill of Rights.  If Lincoln had not pulled this rabbit out of his stove top hat, how long would it have been before it would have passed?  No one knows but it would have probably been decades because the southern states would not have ratified it if it passed after they returned to the Union.

My favorite scenes are the ones that take place on the floor of the House of Representatives during the month long congressional debate over the 13^th Amendment.  It was a different time and the debates were much more entertaining back then.  The insults were not subtle and were made face to face, not through the media.  Congressional debates were loud, almost tavern brawling affairs (Senator Charles Sumner was beaten as his desk in the Senate Chamber by Preston Brooks for an insult during a debate).  The film does a great job giving us a flavor of the times through these accurately depicted scenes.

The movie wasn’t perfect.  The story did drag down when it was focused on Lincoln’s oldest son Robert, who wanted to join the army against his parents’ wishes.  While this was a real issue in Lincoln’s life, the film puttered along during these scenes.  Also, I wish Spielberg would have done a better job informing the audience of some of the historical, satellite characters.  If you don’t have a degree in History, there is a good chance you don’t know who Preston Blair was or his role in the government, yet he has a significant role in the film.  Lincoln’s cabinet, maybe the President’s biggest opponents in Washington, goes largely unidentified in the movie, even though they are in a couple of major scenes.  There are a couple of very minor inaccuracies in the film but they really have little to do with the momentous events which take place in the scope of the film and only the history dorks like myself will have noticed. 

I highly recommend this movie.  It is an incredibly important part of our nation’s history and there are lessons to be learned in the current political arena.  The film deals with the importance of bipartisan cooperation on points of great bearing.  Today’s politicians should take notes.  The movie is rated PG-13, mainly for a bit of swearing and two brief, yet gruesome battle related images.  Whether you love history, or well acted, well directed films, this is a must see and will certainly win its fair share of hardware in the coming months.  The film drew significant applause during the showing I attended at it was well deserved.

Get twitter updates for both of my blogs @jawsrecliner.  Thanks for reading.

Skyfall

In its amazing fifty year cinematic history, the James Bond franchise has followed a tried and true formula with incredible success.  Through 23 films (I count Never Say Never Again – a rogue production) and six Bonds, the suave and debonair 007 used gadgets, sexy Bond girls, and incredible action to find a favored spot in our movie going schedules.  Every film featured several signature actions scenes that were just too hard to believe but we just didn’t care.  Those unbelievable action sequences are part of the Bond legacy and we have come to expect them, and even look forward to them.

Skyfall deviates from that old formula.  Daniel Craig’s modern, 21^st century 007 is more physical and brooding than his more suave and debonair predecessors.  Skyfall is more story than action and we receive more of Bond’s personal background than in maybe all of the other films combined.  Craig’s Bond isn’t as witty or outgoing as previous incarnations but there is more effort put forth in this film.  Craig’s Bond is more serious and less interested in looking dapper.  Daniel Craig’s Bond, after three movies, is a truly unique Bond and the franchise seems willing to go along.

The formula is truly broken in Skyfall.  There is a Bond girl – sort of.  The femme fatale, Severine, makes a brief, yet memorable appearance and I guess she get the title of Bond girl henceforth.  Yet, she was hardly a blip on the old radar.  Those signature action scenes were fewer and much more believable.  Except for just a couple of small things, they were realistic even.  In following with Craig’s previous Bond flicks, this builds upon the theme of a more personal story line and is central in Skyfall.  Historically, the 007 franchise has kept its distance from the personal.

Finally, the villain.  Silva, portrayed with creepy brilliance by Javier Bardem, is a traditional Bond villain in appearance and personality.  You know what I mean, just a little weird and eccentric.  It is the plot, though, that goes off the beaten Bond trail.  Silva doesn’t seek anything as mundane as world domination.  He isn’t working for any grand organization who wants to sell arms or state secrets.  He is not trying to control the world’s oil supply, or news, or anything so grand.  Silva wants but a single, simple thing – revenge.  Skyfall is a story of simple, festering vengeance. 

I am torn a little by the new direction the Bond franchise seems to be heading.  On one hand, the story and the acting are much better than is traditionally the case.  Bardem is terrifically flamboyant.  Dame Judi Dench gives a performance that is worthy of a Supporting Actress nomination.  Daniel Craig’s mentally and physically battered, imperfect Bond is a much deeper, realistic 007.  The characters and the plot have much more flesh and depth to them than any previous entries.  All in all, Skyfall teeters on the brink of being a real movie of substance.

On the other hand though, do we want Bond to take himself so seriously?  One of the great attributes of the 007 franchise was its escapism.  The breathtaking, impossible stunts and action scenes were a pure joy.  What would they come up with this time?  There was always anticipation for that fantasy aspect of each and every Bond film.  Do we really want to lose that?  Do we really need another dark, brooding, moody hero?  This is the conundrum I have with James Bond right now.  Skyfall is truly a good movie with more depth and feeling but is that what we truly want from our 007?

Lastly, for some of the reoccurring characters in the Bonds movies, this edition is clearly a transitional movie.  Without going into it too much and giving too much information away, this franchise is going to grow and move forward with several of its supporting characters.  I know Daniel Craig is going to do one, probably two more, Bond films, but I doubt it will be more than that.  There is clearly a plan to continue the series indefinitely.  I have always loved Bond, no matter what Bond incarnation (even those two Timothy Dalton disasters).  I will go see each and every one, whether they are action fantasies or serious movies with action.  Regardless, it is still 007 and that is enough for me.

Flight

There can be little argument Denzel Washington is one of the top three or four American actors of this generation.  Over the past twenty past years, he has worked prolifically as a leading man, starring in nearly fifty pictures.  He has had more than his share of clunkers (The Bone Collector, The Mighty Quinn, to name a couple) to go along with his great performances.  In some of the films, it is as if he knows the script is crap and he seems disconnected with the role.  When he is into the role, he is very, very good.  Such is the case in Flight.

I don’t know how his role as beleaguered hero, Whip Whitaker, will stack up with is other great performances in films like Glory, Training Day, and Man on Fire, but Flight should easily land in Denzel’s top ten performances.  Washington always seems to be at his best when the role is multiple dimensional, when there is a definite dark side to his character.  He isn’t a comedy actor and he isn’t an action star, although he can do both.  He is a dramatic character actor and he shines when his characters are edgier.  This the key to his best roles.

Whip Whitaker certainly qualifies.  It is a tough role because Denzel is in nearly every scene in the movie except for a few briefs scenes early in the film that set up anther character on a parallel timeline.  The film focuses almost completely on Whip Whitaker, the brilliant pilot and the weak, often unlikable person.  Whitaker is filled with demons and flaws and he is very good at hiding them in general.  He is filled with a self loathing that reveals itself in a couple of intense scenes where he is by himself.

In the theater, the audience was entranced by Washington’s performance.  We wanted Whitaker to do the right thing time and time again and he let us down time and time again.  Several people even applauded at one point in the movie because they thought he finally was going to conquer an evil demon.  The audience has a stake in Whitaker’s personal battle.  We wanted him to exorcize those demons, despite his sometimes loathsome actions.  In the end, it was the whole focal point of the film.  After disappointing himself, and his friends, his family, and the audience so many times, would he in the end have the strength to do the right thing?  That will be for you to find out for yourselves.

There were some nice supporting performances, especially the ever terrific Don Cheadle, but this was Denzel’s spotlight.  He made us care for Whip despite all of his issues.  Director veteran Robert Zemeckis proved he hasn’t lost his touch over seeing a live action film.  There were some fine directorial moments in this film, namely the plane scene, but there were a lot of subtle moments as well.  Zemeckis did a great job giving us quiet scenes with just Denzel that showed Whitaker’s inner battle playing out on his face and in his soul.  Zemeckis also knows when you work with an actor like Denzel Washington, just get out of his road and let him do is thing.  It was certainly a successful combination here.

I love dramatic character studies.  They may be my favorite type of movies.  Flight falls squarely into this category and I wasn’t disappointed.  The film was a little over two hours long but I was so entranced that it flew by.  I didn’t check my watch even once.  Denzel Washington was at his best and I will be shocked if he doesn’t earn another nomination for the gold statuette.  He is worthy but I have a funny feeling that it is going to be tough to beat out Daniel Day-Lewis.  Regardless, Denzel deserves whatever awards come his way.  Flight is rated R at it fully deserved that rating.  This film is not appropriate for younger audiences and I do not recommend it for pre- or young teens.  Don’t let that stop you from having a date night and going to see this great movie.

Check in with my sports blog, jawssportsandstuff.blogspot.com and follow on twitter @jawsrecliner

New Network Dramas

I think it is getting harder and harder for the networks to produce quality dramas for their prime-time schedules.  The cost is prohibitive and they are always competing with cable and premium cable, a skirmish in which the networks are at a distinct disadvantage.  There are four new network dramas this season that I think are pretty good.

VEGAS (Tuesdays, 9pm, CBS)

This CBS crime drama, set in Las Vegas in the 1960’s, offers up the best cast.  It’s hard not like Dennis Quaid as the crusty, curmudgeonly Sheriff Ralph Lamb, and rancher/lawman, working to keep his hometown clean.  His mobster counter part is Vincent Savino, played by a personal favorite Michael Chiklis.  Jason Mara and Carrie Ann Moss fill out this nice cast.  

The program has thus far ignored most of the glitz and glam of Vegas in the 1960’s.  We are seeing only a tiny bit of the Strip.  Such star power as the Rat Pack and Elvis may not have even existed if we didn’t already know they did.  The show treats Las Vegas as a barely more than provincial, backwater, two-bit town, with its sheriff who rules wearing his signature cowboy hat and boots.  The storylines have focused thus far on only one casino, Savino’s Savoy.  This approach is all right for now but the show needs to expand its focus in the coming weeks so it doesn’t become stale.  There was a lot going on in Las Vegas at this time and it would be nice to see that. 

It is mostly about the characters and their battle of good versus evil.  Not much is new but with two fine lead actors such as these, I am willing to give time to Vegas to improve.

NASHVILLE (Wednesdays, 9pm, ABC)

This program takes a look into the country music business while following the careers of two female singers.  Connie Britton plays Rayna James, a classic country star who has fallen behind in popularity with a new, younger generation of country fans.  Hayden Panettiere portrays the younger, less talented singer, Juliette Barnes, who is supplanting Rayna as the top Nashville star (Reva vs. Taylor???).  Britton is perfect as her industry’s reigning matron, who just can’t believe she is being seriously challenged by the youngster – and she is losing.  Panettiere has been terrific as the up and comer who can’t wait to knock the Queen of County from her pedestal.  Panettiere flashes between flirty vixen to hateful villain, seamlessly without effort.  She flashes a beautiful smile one minute and a fearsome frown the next. 

Both characters have skeletons in their closets and a myriad of family problems.  Rayna comes from a wealthy family but is struggling financially.  Juliette comes from nothing is always trying to put her past, and her drug addicted mother, behind her.

Solid acting and good writing gives Nashville a legitimate chance of success.  The back drop of country music gives this show a current feel and I am enjoying it thus far.

REVOLUTION (Mondays, 9pm NBC)

The premise behind this program is a bit apocryphal.  Something happens in the present that shut down all electricity all over the world and, of course, chaos reigns.  The program is set fifteen years in the future and we get the past through brief flashbacks.  The fall out is that during the chaos, militias arise and take over the county, by force in most cases.  The leaders of these militias become warlords and eventually whittle themselves down to one.  Of course, the one wants to rule everyone and everything with an iron hand. 

The underlying plot here, though, is that some electricity exists.  A small number of mysterious pendants seem to control a limited amount of electricity and our friendly local warlord, Sebastian Monroe (David Lyons) wants to find out where the electricity comes from and wants to control it.  He spends all his resources tracking down and cajoling a scientist Rachel Matheson (Elizabeth Mitchell) into showing him how it all works.  He kidnaps her son and kills her estranged husbands to get her to obey.  Billy Burke is Monroe’s former right hand, now gone rogue, and brother to Matheson’s dead husband, and is trying to rescue his nephew.

Convoluted enough for you?  It’s really not that bad.  The program has its moments of intensity and action, and is seldom boring.  Two actors have been especially terrific.  Veteran actor Giancarlo Esposito and fresh face Tracy Spiridakos both just chew up the scenes they are in, easily out shining their co-actors in vastly different ways. 

Revolution has any number of plot lines it can explore over any number of seasons and I look forward to a long run for this program.

CHICAGO FIRE (Wednesdays, 9pm, CBS)

Fire and mayhem always make for good entertainment fodder.  Good looking actors in high drama, high intensity situations is always a fun way to spend an hour.  This program is no different.  Since this is a Dick Wolfe production, I am looking for controversial storylines with not always expected outcomes.  So far, that has not been the case.  While there are several likable characters and the action is been fine, the story lines have been canned, unimaginative, rehashed plots we have seen dozens of times.  Because of Wolfe’s history of on the edge programming (the Law & Order franchise), I am willing to give Chicago Fire sometime to find its artist legs.  The actors are, for the most part, little known or flat out no names but they are playing intriguing characters with some possibilities.  The fires and intense situations are enough to keep this show alive for a while.  I would like to see more meaty storylines though.

There you go.  Four network dramas that worth watching and all have a really nice upside.  All could be improved but I am willing to allow them some time for that improvement.  I think they could be worth it.

On another note completely, I would like too thank all of my loyal readers.  I have gone past the 5000 mark for page views for my two blogs – jawsrecliner.blogspot.com and jawssportsandstuff.blogspot.com.  I know not all of those hits are from people seeking to read my thoughts specifically but I do know many of you do read these blogs on a regular basis and I thank you for reading.  I have received a lot of support and positive feedback on my writing over the past year and a half and I want you all to know how much that means to me.  Thanks for reading.

Argo

When I first saw the trailer for Argo, I found the topic intriguing.  I also wondered what kind of audience it would draw.  I doubted this film would draw the audience that should go see it.  As I sat in the theater, I couldn’t help but notice that nearly every person at this particular screening was older than I am.  That was unfortunate because younger people are going to not only miss a taunt, explosive thriller but also a very important chapter in recent American history.

As I sat through the opening half an hour or so, my mind began to refresh itself on the events from over thirty years ago that made up the subject matter of this film.  In 1979, I was thirteen years old.  I was old enough to remember the events but not old enough to comprehend what led to them.   I remember the images of these events and the anguish that accompanied them.  I can easily recall the news reports and the yellow ribbons tied around trees, fence posts, and telephone poles.  As I have gotten older, I have learned more about the chain of events that led to the fall of the Shah of Iran and I believe it to be important and relevant to current world events.  Unfortunately, I doubt as many of our country’s youth will find this movie interesting enough to go see.

It is my opinion that Ben Affleck has become a much better director than he ever was an actor.  In Argo, he was adequate in the lead role but was brilliant as the director.  He did a great job capturing the mood and the images.  His attention to detail was incredible.  He was passable as an actor because this wasn’t role that required greatness.  It wasn’t about the individual characters but the events themselves.  Affleck kept the pace brisk and the drama constant.  He was patient in not only telling the story but educating the audience on the cause and the background.  He maintained the edge-of-your-seat intensity right up to the end, drawing out the drama and excitement with dragging it out too far.

I am all for going to the movies for entertainment purposes.  I am also thrilled when I can thoroughly enjoy and movie and also learn some things too.  It was great to see what really happened during a historical event from my lifetime and getting a peak at how they unfolded.  I look for Ben Affleck to get an Oscar nod for his direction of this film and it will be well deserved.  I am gaining more and more respect for him as a film maker and it appears he is building his niche in Hollywood. 

Whether you are old enough to remember these events or not, do yourself a favor and go see this film.  As I mentioned, it is relevant to current world events and it a terrific true story thriller.  Encourage any younger people you may know to see Argo.  No one will be disappointed.

Thank you for reading…

My All-Time Favorite TV Comedies

The first thing I need to admit to is that I love television and the second thing is that I watch way, way too much of it.  I decided a few weeks ago to do a short series on my favorite television programs of all time.  The more I thought about it, the more clear it became to me that I needed to split up the list a little and make multiple lists.  This first post is dedication to my all time favorite TV comedies.

To make the list, there were a couple of criteria.  First and foremost, I had to like the show and it had to make me laugh.  I know, I know, a no-brainer.  Secondly, and this one wasn’t a requirement, but it helped when I was divided.  I considered over twenty-five situation comedies for this list.  I had to put some thought into it.  I had to not only recall I much I enjoyed the programs originally and how well that comedy held up over time.  It was also hard for shows from the mid to late 1980s to make the list because at that time I was in college and didn’t watch very much television.  I just didn’t watch Cheers or The Cosby Show all that often.  I have watched them in syndication and while I enjoy them both, I just couldn’t put them on the list.  Some of the programs on the list are from the 1970s.  I am not old enough to remember much about their original runs but I have seen them in syndication or on DVD.  I just found them better than those I left off the list. 

One more note – I found ranking the top four was a very easy task.  Ranking the others was very difficult, even after I decided which programs were even going to make the list.

Here goes…

10) Barney Miller/The Jeffersons – I cheated by ranking these two shows predominantly from the 1970s together.  Both were not only hilarious but they were socially important.  Barney Miller was a cop show that featured a widely diverse ethnic cast interacting in a squad room.  Characters came from many backgrounds including African American, Polish, Asian American, Puerto Rican, Jewish, and Asian American.  The squad also included a woman and an elderly cop (who can forget “Fish”).   While some jokes played off their differences, the writers worked hard to avoid blatant, short sighted stereotyping.  In fact, Barney Miller often exploited stereotypes as a way to make fun of those who believed them.  The Jeffersons featured television’s first interracial couple and gave America an African American character that was born poor and raised himself and his family up to a life of comfort through hard work.  George Jefferson was a strutting loud mouth with a heart of gold, buried deep within his egotistical façade.  Both of these shows deserved to make this list, for both their quality and social importance.

9) Scrubs – This show was certainly not for everyone.  It was definitively out there at times.  People either loved it or hated.  Most who hated, just didn’t get it.  It was wacky, charming, zany, and most assuredly, an acquired taste.  Its delightful cast was led by the lovable Zach Braff and gruff veteran John C. McGinley.  The program enjoyed a long run on NBC but then switched to ABC for its final two seasons.  The last season in particular, without the stellar cast that that carried the show before, was a disaster.  Do not let this keep you from enjoying the first seven seasons filled with laughs, love, crazy antics, and sexual tensions aplenty.  This original Bill Lawrence creation was just crazy enough to keep me laughing for a long time.

8) The Big Bang Theory – What could be more lovable than a group of shy, socially awkward science geeks?  Well, not much.  This modern, instant classic has perfectly blended charming nerds dealing with work and women, with hilarious results.  The program has done a terrific job adding girls to the mix in a believable manner.  Jim Parsons as the socially inept super genius is especially brilliant and the Kaley Cuoco as the beautiful, intellectually average foil to her braniac neighbors are this CBS comedy’s strongest performers but there are no weak leaks in this fun, sweet offering.  There is no end sight as of yet and I am thrilled.

7) Everyone Loves Raymond – This is one of the best network adaptations of a stand up routine into a series.  Ray Romano headed this classic cast of comedic veterans with his trademark monotone and blandness.  This doesn’t sound as funny as it was, mainly because Romano learned to deliver with great timing and he surrounded himself with the likes of Doris Roberts and Peter Boyle as his meddling parents – that lived right across the street.  Patricia Heaton and Brad Garrett were perfect as the put upon wife and brother, never good enough for Ray’s mom.  These actors were brilliant at delivering their lines and actions with perfect timing, and the results kept me in stitches for years. 

6) That 70’s Show – Who knew?  A cast of mostly inexperienced, unknown teenagers set in the late 1970s, with all that unique culture had to be a hard sell.  At the time, I think only Fox would have considered this premise but it lead to a great eight year run.  Those unknown teenagers grew to be superstars and all have had continued success post-70s.  Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis in particular have enjoyed terrific careers.  This program mixed teenage antics with hilarious parents.  There was love and hilarity throughout the series and maintained strong episodes late in their run, even with a few cast defections.  There wasn’t a single regular that didn’t pull their comic weight and the cast grew together with terrific classic comedic timing.  This original deserves it place on my list and while many may consider this and Scrubs as doubtful entries, they were both among my all time favorites and therefore on my list.

5) Modern Family – Did this program make this list at such a high position because it is on every week and fresh on my mind.  Maybe but Modern Family makes me laugh out loud each and every week.  The extremely large ensemble cast is truly funny from the youngest “Lilly” to the oldest “Jay”.  Each actor has found their niche within the comedic family and they all show their talent.  As with such classics in their own time, like The Cosby Show and Roseanne, this program displays modern family values in its own unique manner.  It is aptly titled and if you are not watching it, you should be. 

4) All in the Family – Does any actor in sit-com history deserve more credit than Carroll O’Connor for his work as the bigoted Archie Bunker?  I doubt it.  O’Connor played Bunker with surprising heart.  Bunker was a horrible racist who knew, deep down, that his old time views of the world, of people themselves, was wrong but he just wasn’t equipped to change.  This program took place during the tumultuous early 1970s, when America had yet to adjust to the social changes that had occurred in the previous decade.  I firmly believe Archie Bunker had a hand in pushing the thought process of many Americans away from prejudice and discrimination by showing how incredibly wrong and ignorant those out dated attitudes were.  Jean Stapleton and Rob Reiner were absolutely terrific in their roles and All in the Family deserves this ranking.  This show also produced several quality spin-offs, including The Jeffersons.  If you get a chance to catch this gem on DVD, please do so.

3) The Simpsons – Homer, Bart, and the gang just keep going.  If this were a live action program, Bart would be in his thirties, little Maggie would be out of college, and Homer would probably have passed on.  And it would have been cancelled long ago.  Luckily for us, The Simpsons can stay young forever.  The satirical masterpiece is the longest running prime time, non news show in the history of television.  It continues to be strong, and more importantly, funny.  They continue to take tongue-in-cheek shots at everything from pop culture, the entertainment stars, to society in general.  Their antics continue to amuse and, in its silly little way, teach us a little about ourselves and the world around us.  Many people would not include a cartoon on this list but The Simpsons have always made me laugh and their history speaks for itself.  This show is without a doubt, one of the greatest TV comedies of all time.

2) Friends – This program enjoyed probably the greatest cast chemistry of all time.  Six very good actors worked together to produce six of the greatest and most beloved characters on television.  Each and every character was funny and unique in their own way.  The episodes when all six are together for most of the scenes were always the best because they were so great together.  These people became our friends.  We cared what became of them.  We didn’t want them to go away.  It has been more than eight years since the last episode aired but fortunately for us, they live on in syndication and DVD.  There are very few programs that I would like to see a reunion movie but I would love to see for Friends, done correctly, of course.  I want to see how their lives turned out.  Are they still close or have they floated apart as so often happens in real life as people move around and their families grow.  Food for thought…

Some programs that were considered but not included were Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men, Cheers, The Cosby Show, Roseanne, Home Improvement, Happy Days, The Dick Van Dyke Show, WKRP in Cincinnati, South Park, and The Office. 

1) M*A*S*H – The show was developed from a slap stick movie by the same name.  It started its run in the early 1970s and it also started out as a slap stick anti-war program set during the Korean War.  After about fifteen episodes though, the creators and writers realized they could do so much more.  M*A*S*H endured terrible first season rankings to become one of the most watched programs, in percentage of television sets, in history.  The last episode in 1983 is still one of the most watched non sporting events all time.  This show produced one of the greatest single TV characters of all time in Alan Alda’s Hawkeye Pierce.  Alda’s many layered Hawkeye was funny, smart, good looking, good hearted, and deeply troubled.  Usually his true soul, tortured by the blood and death round him, was hidden by his brilliant sense of humor.  Hawkeye always stood up for the downtrodden and protected those who struggled to protect themselves and was a television hero in every sense.  An absolutely brilliant, talented ensemble cast surrounded Alda, often changing season to season.  The writers were brilliant in making sure the replacement characters were nothing like the departed characters, keeping the comedy and situations fresh year to year.  Watch this show on DVD, with the laugh track turned off (a terrific feature on these DVDs, by the way), and enjoy the joy and experience the horror endured by these doctors and nurses in a military hospital in a combat zone.  Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

I hope you enjoyed this list.  I had a blast compiling writing it.  Until next time…thanks for reading.

The Amazing Spider-Man

I can’t deny I liked Tobey Maguire as Spiderman.  I enjoyed the previous three films, especially the first two.  Much like the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale Batman pictures, you mustn’t spend much time comparing The Amazing Spider-Man with the previously released efforts with other actors and directors.  This film stands just fine on its own merits.

Still, it is inevitable not to make some comparisons, especially when it comes to the lead characters.  Maguire was nerdier than Andrew Garfield and really wore his angst on his sleeve.  Maguire was the right choice at the time of the first film ten years ago.  Andrew Garfield is a better hero for these times.  He has the hair and the look.  He oozes sensitivity and intellect.  I enjoyed Maguire a decade ago but Garfield is a modern upgrade and is immensely likable and easily gains our sympathy. 

Marc Webb put his own spin on the spidey story, mainly by switching our hero’s love interest from Mary Jane to Gwen Stacy.  While I had no issues with Kirsten Dunst, Emma Stone is a much better fit with lead Garfield.  Stone is comfortable and accessible as an actress and infuses a joy in her work.  She loves what she does and it shows.  Stone and Garfield displayed little chemistry early on but it improved as the movie progressed.  At the end, you wanted them together. 

As for the story itself, little new ground was broken.  As with some other Spiderman villains, there is a degree of sympathy for the motives of the villain.  Dr. Conner’s’ behavior derives from a desire to do good and then of course, things goes horribly awry.  The film’s villainous Lizard wasn’t the best CGI effort ever put on the big screen and some of the special effects were a little rough.  The action scenes, though few, were well choreographed.  This movie is actually more character driven than action driven but there is plenty of both aspects for everyone.  In this version, we catch more glimpses of Peter Parker’s family situation and history than other in previous installments and it gives Garfield a little more material to flesh out.  We still have some shadowy questions left unanswered about Parker’s father and the mentioned but unseen (in this movie) founder of OsCorp, Norman Osborn.

Hollywood veterans Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Denis Leary, and Rhys Ifans add valuable talent to the cast.  As expected, these four excelled in their support roles and only added positives to the film. 

And of course, there is a nice set up for another movie.  I don’t have a problem with that.  Summer blockbusters are part of our culture and superhero films are a major ingredient in our movie going experience.  These movies are fun and entertaining and should be savored as such.  The violence is not violent and only but the youngest of children can go see this film.  There are a couple of deaths scenes that could cause trauma for more sensitive children and it may be to slow and intellectual for younger, squirmy kids.  Otherwise, The Amazing Spider-Man is a fun theater experience for the whole family.

For thoughts on sports, check out jawssportsandstuff.com and  get twitter updates @jawsrecliner.com