Book Review - Short stories from Neil Gaiman and Bill Veeck

How to Talk to Girls at Parties (with an excerpt from "The Ocean at the End of the Lane") by Neil Gaiman -  This is a short story by the acclaimed author with an excerpt of a novel.  In it two English lads in the 1970s go to a party and discover what most of us discovered back then.  Girls are different.  As the night goes on they discover that these girls are a lot more different than most.  Nominated for a Hugo for Best Story it also won a Locust award in 2007.

I haven't read a lot of Gaiman (an oversight that appalls my daughter, just appalls her) but I do know enough to look for his puckish sense of humor.  This is a quick fun read.

The excerpt from the novel is interesting in a completely different way.  Gaiman takes us to that fantasy world that exists just at the edge of what we all "know" to be reality.  It looks like someplace normal but it really isn't.  A man re-visits the places of his childhood and ends up wishing he hadn't.  There are memories that should have been left buried and he must rely on the strange girl Lettie Hempstock to find his way through.  Just another item in favor of digging in and exploring Gaiman's output in greater detail.

Rating - **** Recommended

Bill Veeck's Crosstown Classic by Bill Veeck - You can not claim to love this history of baseball if you do not know the name Bill Veeck.  Veeck is one of the great innovators, promotors, personalities and owners in the history of the American Game.  This book is part of a series of short works called "Chicago Shorts".  It covers the time when Veeck was buying the Chicago White Sox from the Comiskey family.  Now the Comiskeys were characters unto themselves so it's a clash of the titans.  It's a fascinating look into one of the most unique careers in American sports.  Sports fans of all kinds should read this.  It's even fun if you're not.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

Movie Review - Once Upon A Time In America

Once Upon A Time In America (1984) - This is one of those movies I'm pretty sure the cognoscenti think I should like.  Sergio Leone is one of those directors that a certain portion of the movie loving community fawns over.

I just can't muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for either.

I do kind of like Leone.  His style in his "spaghetti westerns" (cowboy movies made in Italy with largely Italian casts and crews that required massive overdubbing of dialogue) is quirky and kind of fun.  As long as I take it in small doses it can be fun.  At the same time you get the impression that every single idea that comes to him ends up in the movie.

And there we hit on what may be the biggest problem with "Once Upon A Time In America".  There is no sense of directorial restraint.  Leone just piles image and idea and character on top of the next.  Which explains why the original cut ran six hours.  Supposedly Leone's "ideal" cut would have been around four and a half hours.  It's just insane.

OUATIA (I'm not typing the title every time) is the story of a band of Jewish boys in New York City who begin a life of crime that will carry them into the big time with Prohibition.  The cast is stellar ( DeNiro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, Treat Williams and a band of top flight supporting actors), the subject matter is certainly epic and Leone has an astounding visual style.  The shot of the four boys walking through the streets with the Manhattan bridge in the background just might be one of the most stunning movie moments I have ever seen.  The soundtrack is OK but don't ask me why it was nominated for an Oscar because I can't.  The main theme is excellent but the rest is rather trite and strikes me as out of sync with the tone of the movie itself.  In the end the parts are far better than the sum total.

So why does this movie get such a rave up in some quarters?  Maybe they just are better at looking past the flaws.  For me a movie that expects its audience to invest this much time to watch it shouldn't also expect me to be constantly forgiving its sins along the way.  Some sympathy is earned because of the butchery visited on the America release which dropped it to 139 minutes.  (The people responsible should be banned from the industry.  I'm talking being treated like a Middle Ages leper, forced to wander from town to town with a bell and shouting "Unclean!".  Anyway...)  Some of the rest of it comes from the fact that this was Leone's last movie.  He turned down the chance to direct "The Godfather" (thanks be to God) and saw this as his chance to make the great gangster movie he had missed out on.

What we got instead was a ponderous, unfocused mess with some stunning, wonderful moments.  If you decide to take the plunge make sure you get the longest version you can find and set aside a whole afternoon.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

Stop Shouting, Smartphones Are Cool, Parental Disparity

 "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY.  It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM.  The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program.  Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice.  WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed.  You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com.  Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi.  All Rights Reserved.  You like what you see?  Drop me a line and we can talk.



Program scripts from week of June 2, 2013

(My apologies for the long silence.  Life has been...complicated)

My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside. 

Parental Disparity                                                                                                      

Well this is the week following Father’s Day which means I have listened to the entire inventory of Father’s Day and related advertising.  Once again this year I must note that I am not overly impressed.  Especially when you compare it to what goes on for Mother’s Day.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I am not trying to take a single thing away from the Moms of the world.  At the same time the 41% disparity between what gets spent for Mother’s Day over Father’s Day could probably bear a certain amount of examination.  I’m just sayin’.

No the real problem for me in the disparity between parental holiday practice is quite simple.  When Mother’s Day rolls around we are exhorted to buy Mom luxury items.  Flowers, expensive dinners, fabulous jewelry, days at the spa or salon.  Mom is to be pampered.  Now let us take a look at what we are supposed to buy for dear old Dad.

Two words.  Power tools.

I know lots of dads like power tools, heck I’m one of them, but seriously?  Mom gets spoiled.  Dad gets back to work.  The other traditional gift is a tie.  Ties are to Father’s Day what underwear is to Christmas morning.  As I was driving on Sunday I actually heard a place say that the perfect for Dad on Father’s day was flooring.  Flooring that he would have to install.

I mean, what did dads ever do to deserve this?

Think about this.  What if you reversed the roles?  What if on Mother’s day you presented Mom with a brand new shiny...vacuum cleaner?  Sure some Mom’s would like it but let’s face it you had better sleep with one eye open for the next year.  But somehow dad is supposed be head over heels, doing cartwheels around the living room because we got stuff so we can do more work.

Don’t even get me started on the whole category of stupid dad/idiot husband commercials.  I’m really tired of dear old dad the amiable buffoon.  Again, not something you’re ever likely to see a mom version of in advertising.

But hey, I probably should get back to work.

Stop Shouting                                                                                                             

Back in the dark ages, when I first got started in radio I had a habit.  I typed in all caps.  I’m not sure why I did that.  It’s not something that I was taught when I learned to type in high school.  I certainly never did it for my term papers in high school or college.  My best bet is that I started doing it when I started to study broadcasting at the then Edinboro State College.   There are two reasons I can think of for doing it.  First because when you’re trying to read quickly from your script on the TV set it was easier to see.  Plus a lot of the older teletype machines that brought you the news from the wire services didn’t have lowercase capability.  Everything was capital letters.

When I moved into professional radio and had to start writing commercial copy it was made very clear to me that this little habit was no longer acceptable.  And I have to admit that normal typing with both upper and lowercase is much easier to read generally.

I suppose I could try and blame this on my dad.  The problem is that I don’t ever remember him sending me something typed this way.  Now he might have and that’s what brings the subject to mind.  You see my dad was a Navy officer and the Navy has traditionally typed all official documents in all caps.  They had a perfectly good excuse.  In fact it’s one of the ones I’ve already mentioned.  The teletype printers used by the Navy going back to the 19th century only had caps so all official documents were printed that way.

Until August of this year that is.

The Navy is responding to changing technology and changing society.  If you spend any time on the Internet or with texts you know that typing in all caps is PERCEIVED AS SHOUTING.  The current generation of Naval officers and enlisted have grown up with that understanding.   Let’s face it, official orders can be hard enough to stomach without the feeling that they’re being shouted at you.  The Navy also notes that this will save the service a million and half dollars each year.

There are a couple other branches of the service that are also looking at the changeover.  By 20-15 or so the only things still shouted in the Armed Forces will the phrases “Are You Eye-ballin’ me?” and “Sir, yes sir”.

Smartphones Are Cool                                                                                                                                       

One of my younger friends told me the other day that he had seen a study that said something along the lines of - If a new technology came along before you turn 20 then it’s just a routine part of life for you.  If it comes along between 20 and 40 it’s life changing technology.  And if you’re over 40 the reaction tends to be “Do we really need this?”

Did I mention my friend is a young punk?

The first smartphone was introduced in 2001 by the folks at Palm and Kyocera.  It truly took off with the debut of the iPhone.  Both of which happened after I turned 40.

Of course I have owned a smartphone for some time now.  To be honest at one point it looked like I was going to have to give up my trusty old iPhone.  Tried it for a couple months.  Hated it.

So let’s take a look at the statistics.  91% of all adult Americans own a cell phone.  That’s right a mere 9% are cell phone free.  Of those of us who are cool the latest study says that 56% of us own smartphones.  That’s an all time high and I’m pretty sure that we can expect that number to continue to grow.  You see the percentage is much higher in the 20-30 age demographic and much, much lower in the 65+ demographic.

So what can we deduce from all this?  Well my friend might suggest that it just means that younger people are cooler than older folks but we’ll just ignore that.

For me at least the reality is that having quick access to routine information has moved from wonderful luxury to near necessity.  The world does move quickly.  I’m old enough to still actually make a fair number of actual phone calls but I also do a fair bit of texting.  But you can do that on any phone.  The ease of texting on a smartphone is a plus.  Then add in things like quick access to weather forecasts, the news, my email and things like that just makes me more efficient.  I’m not ever going to be a big fan of watching videos on most smartphone screens.  Tiny pictures and tiny little audio feeds just don’t meet my needs.

But then I’m an old person.

Call that the View From the Phlipside

Book Review - The Retribution by Val McDermid

The Retribution by Val McDermid -  I don't think I've read anything else by this Scottish author and that's clearly a mistake on my part.  While it's yet another forensic profiling meets crazed serial killer novel McDermid finds ways to bring a little freshness to the ideas.  The book is the latest in a series and I'm told it's not the best.  If this is the runt of the litter I can hardly wait to see McDermid at her best.  A case where her worst (and it's not a perfect novel) is better than a lot of people's best.  I do know of (but have never seen) the TV series "Wire in the Blood" which is based on one of the books in this series.

The story revolves around the two recurring characters profiler Dr. Tony Hill and Police Inspector Carol Jordan.  Beyond being professional partners these two have a very complicated and dysfunctional personal relationship as well.  Hill is the poster child for poor socialization while Jordan deals with her guilt and personal problems mostly through gin and anger.  The good doctor acknowledges that his skill in tracking down sociopaths is that he is very nearly one himself.  These are not warm and cuddly characters but they are interesting.  In this book they face an old nemesis, Jacko Vance, the national TV celebrity that they sent aware years before.  He's effected his escape and is seeking a little retribution from those he sees as having betrayed him.  Vance chooses his revenge carefully and comes at people from an angle rather than head on.  That gives the story a little freshness for me.  It's a serial killer novel so expect some blood and gore plus just the tiniest little bit of weird sex.

In the end the book stands out for me from the others of this genre I've read recently.  McDermid has a new book in this series with a 2013 publish date so I may take a look at it or go back and start from the beginning.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

Movie Review - Man of Steel

So I went to see the new Superman movie "Man of Steel".

Let me start off by saying there was a lot that I liked in this movie.

At the same time I came away a little disappointed.

Superman movies suffer from a variety of challenges.  There's the whole "expectations" thing.  Those of us who have been fans all our lives.  Fans of the comic books, fans of the TV shows, fans of the movies.  And that's where the problems begin.  There's the whole question of what's "canon".

This movie tends toward the ponderous, the dialogue is a little awkward and it's rather preachy.

Oh, wait.

That's canon.

I really like this cast.  Henry Cavill does a nice job with Clark/Superman.  Amy Adams is quite acceptable as Lois Lane.  Kevin Costner does a nice turn as Pa Kent and Russel Crowe is fine as Jor-el.  Diane Lane plays Clark's mom.  Let's just say that I would gladly pay to watch Diane Lane fold socks.  The way they interact, the overall look.  All very nice.  They handle the canon issues nicely.  There is a lot to like here.

So why am I disappointed?  Let's look at the issues one at a time:

• It lacks a sense of humor.  This really is a canon issue.  Superman is inherently ridiculous.  The comic, the show and the movies have all dealt with this by having a little bit of self deprecating humor.  Maybe they thought this would make the movie more "grown up".  It doesn't.  It just makes it humorless.
• The Jesus image stuff was a bit heavy handed.  This isn't new here.  This has been part of the whole Superman thing forever.  But it gets a bit over the top here.  Subtlety, please?
• It throws away a chance to do something interesting and deep for more CGI and explosions.  There is an essential moral question that stands at the center of the Superman story.  It's the question of how and if one should use ultimate power.  The question is raised in the early section in discussion with Pa Kent and it is finally faced at the end of the movie.  The problem is that it's never explored in between.  They have the perfect vehicle in the relationship between Lois and Superman.  But they never explore it.  That's really too bad.  Instead we get CGI action scene piled on top of CGI action scene.  They could cut 20 minutes of extraneous explosions and fight scenes and not hurt the movie one little bit.

You can add in things like the blatant steal of an image from "Apocalypse Now" and in the end I just walked out feeling a little disappointed.

So much good.  It just had the chance to be something really earth shaking, a milestone among superhero movies.  Instead it was just a good standard one.

Rating - *** (and a half)  Definitely Worth A Look

Movie Review - The Station Agent

The Station Agent  (2003) - This is my favorite kind of movie.  The "little" movie.  The movie that no one ever saw unless it showed up on late night HBO or Cinemax.  The movie that is recommended to you by a friend with a "You have to see this one".

This is one of those movies.

Finbar McBride(Peter Dinklage) is a man who loves trains.  He was also born with a medical condition that made him a dwarf.  Finn works with his best friend Henry who owns the local model train store.  When Henry dies suddenly Finn discovers he has inherited a small train depot in central New Jersey.  As much as Finn wants to be alone some of the locals keep turning up in his life.  Joe (Bobby Canavale), who runs his father's food truck while his dad recovers from and illness and Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), an attractive woman trying to recover from the death of her son (Finn meets when she nearly runs him over, twice).  The three of them find the solution to their loneliness in one another.

I look at that description and I'm amazed at how slim it is.  Trust me when I tell you that this movie is so much more than a quick summary of the plot.  This is a story about character.  Curiously it is NOT a story about dwarfism.  At the same time it very subtly addresses the issue.  Written and directed by Thomas McCarthy this is an astounding piece of work.  Even more astounding that it's only 89 minutes long.  But the real gold in this movie is Peter Dinklage.  His performance is astounding and earned him a Golden Globe.  Fans of "Game of Thrones" will recognize him as Tyrion Lannister, a role for which he won an Emmy.  Dinklage is absolutely incredible.  He is an actor with a role, not a little person in a movie.  And that's absolutely wonderful.

As is the movie.

You've really got to see this one.

Rating - **** Recommended

Book Review - 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne  Somehow in all the years of science fiction reading I've done I have somehow managed to never read this classic by Verne.  It is a classic story of a man who turns his back on civilization after his family is presumably killed.  But rather than disappear into the wilderness of the land Captain Nemo chooses the ocean as his refuge.  He builds the greatest ship of the age, the Nautilus, and wanders the oceans free from the constraints of anyone's wish except his own.  The seafaring nations of the world believe the Nautilus to be some vicious animal of the deeps and attempt to kill it.  In once such attempt three men, Professor Aronnax, his servant Conseil and Canadian whaler Ned Land are rescued after their ship is severely damaged.  Nemo chooses to rescue them but his condition is severe.  They are never to leave the Nautilus again.

Verne does a stellar job of weaving the complicated character of Nemo and the individual personalities of the other three into an engaging story.  In film versions Nemo is often left as a one dimensional martinet which is a terrible disservice to Verne's creation.  The author isn't afraid to play with ambiguity either.  We're never really clear what happened to Verne's wife and daughter and you can draw your own conclusions about what happens to the Nautilus at the end.  For a book written over 140 years ago it's predictions on technology are pretty good.  The story telling is even better.

I read this as a Nook book and found the footnotes and additional information links to be much better laid out and useful than some.  It really added to my enjoyment of the book and made great use of the special "talents" of an e-book reader.

For science fiction fans this is a 5 star must own.  For everyone else it should be on your lifetime reading list somewhere.

Rating - **** Recommended 

Movie Review - Slap Shot

Slap Shot (1977) - If you talk to hockey players this is commonly listed as one of their favorite movies.  It's also a movie that generates conversation.  So let's get this out of the way right up front.

This is not a great movie.  At the same time it is a great movie.  In the same way that "Animal House" is not a great movie while still being a great movie.  They are vulgar, irreverent and anti-establishment.  And they are perfectly good with that.  There's no pretense that they're trying to create art.  Yet somehow they cross the line from common vulgar, irreverent crap to something that sticks with you.  Suddenly vulgar, irreverent crap becomes...a great movie.

This is the story of the Charlestown Chiefs, a minor league hockey team in a small, dying steel mill town in Pennsylvania.  To  be honest the team stinks.  It's has beens like player coach Reg Dunlop (Paul Newman) along with a whole lot never will bes.  On top of that the team is about to be sold.  The solution turns out to be three Hanson brothers picked up for next to nothing by the general manager (Strother Martin).  The Hansons aren't very bright but they do one thing well.  Fight.  Dunlop turns them loose, the team starts to win and suddenly the arena is filled with fans.  Along the way there are more decisions and trials to be overcome.

If you want a quick mental image of what this movie is like think "Major League" meets "Animal House".   The story is utterly predictable (as most sports movies are), most of the characters are one dimensional and to be honest the script is pretty pedestrian.  Yet somehow it takes that step into being a classic.  Written by Nancy Dowd she draws heavily on the experience of her brother who played in the minor leagues.  So it still reads true (witness the pro hockey players who are devoted to it).  Add in some great individual lines (virtually all of which can not be repeated here), classic characters (the Hansons are legendary in hockey circles), and some fine direction from George Roy Hill and somehow it works.  Newman says it was his favorite movie to work on.

And it looks like it was a lot of fun.  Add in the pain of looking at mid-70s fashions and the old school hockey.  If obscene language and a little nudity is a problem for you then you won't want to watch.  But if you love sports and off the wall movie humor then you'll want to catch it.

It's not a great movie.  But it's a great movie.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

Cheerios and Cowardice, Trailer Wars plus Sports and Media

 "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY.  It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM.  The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program.  Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice.  WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed.  You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com.  Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi.  All Rights Reserved.  You like what you see?  Drop me a line and we can talk.



Program scripts from week of June 2, 2013

(My apologies for the long silence.  Life has been...complicated)

My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside. 

Sports and Media                                                                                                       

Time for one of my rare forays into the world of sports and media.  And it all begins when a man loses his job.  In this case the man in question is National Hockey League coach John Tortorella.  Tortorella was, until recently, the man behind the bench for the New York Rangers.

Now on the surface it’s kind of hard to see why he lost his job.  The Rangers were 171-115 and 29 in his time, made the playoffs 4 of 5 seasons he coached and finished first in their division just a year ago.  Heck the Rangers signed him to a contract extension just a couple months ago.  So apparently he’s not a terrible coach.

At least on the ice.

If you’re a hockey fan or a regular viewer of ESPN you have seen what the coach was bad at however.  He gave awful media.  Arrogant, dismissive, uncooperative, Tortorella made it clear that he’d rather be having the most unpleasant medical procedure you can imagine rather than talk to reporters.

The relationship between sports and media has changed immensely over the years.  Once upon a time reporters considered covering up the personal shortcomings of the players just part of the job.  More recently with 24 hour coverage the relationship has been often more antagonistic.  The former Rangers coach isn’t the first sports coach to be, shall we say, less than forthcoming.  New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick has made something of an art form of it.  But Belichick manages to keep it at least civil.  It’s more a mandatory social engagement with someone you don’t much like.  

Here’s the reality.  The old days are gone.  Local coverage from print, radio and TV plus national coverage from the networks both broadcast and cable plus all the bloggers and vloggers are a part of the day to day life of athletes and coaches.  You either need to figure out how to deal with them like a professional or find another profession.

I’m sure John Tortorella had some shortcomings as a coach on the ice.  But my bet is that his shortcomings in the interview room are probably what cost him his job in the long run.

Trailer Wars                                                                                                                

Interesting when you get two completely different groups of people to suddenly start saying the same thing at the same time.  In my experience that’s when you need to start paying attention when they’re talking about you.  In this case it’s the movie studios who need to sit up and pay a little attention.  It’s not the movies themselves that are generating the conversation this time.

It’s the movie trailers.

Trailers are those movie previews that we watch before we get to what we actually paid to see.  They’ve been around for decades.  Like since 1913 when a short promo film for a musical called “The Pleasure Seekers” debuted in New York.  They’re called “trailers” because orginally they were shown AFTER the movie.  When they moved to their current postion shortly thereafter the name stuck.

So what’s the problem after all these years?  How about the darn things have gotten too long?  That’s the assessment of two different groups, the theater owners and the audience.  A British research company called YouGov did a survey of audience members and found 49% said the trailers were too long and gave away too much of the movie.  Meanwhile the theater owners think they’re just too long, period.  With an average length these days of two and a half minute it just keeps pushing the start of the movie back and back and back.  Which also annoys the audience.  And there is no profit for the theater owners in an annoyed audience.  Plus they’d like to limit the advance time for promotion to just four months.  Right now you may be looking at teasers and trailers for movies that aren’t scheduled to be released until the summer of 2014.

You can certainly include me in the crowd that thinks these trailers are just too long and give away too much.  At the same time I have to admit that the really bad movies are pretty obvious when you watch a long trailer.  There’s just a feel to a trailer that has handed you every single funny moment in a bad movie.  I kind of appreciate those I must admit.

At the same time I’m in the theater to see the movie I paid for, not something that’s coming in 10 months or to see a trailer that gives away any reason to pay for it when it does come out.

There’s a lot of conversation going on with people whose opinions count.  Let’s hope the studios are listening.

Cheerios and Cowardice                                                                                                                                         

I know the whole Cheerios TV ad has been analyzed to death.  I doubt I have anything particularly new or exciting to add to the discussion.  At the same time I think it’s one of those stories where every voice needs to be heard.  We need to be clear that certain kinds of behavior just aren’t acceptable.

In case you missed it Cheerios is running an ad that involves a family of Mom, Dad and little girl.  The little girl asks Mom about whether Cheerios are good for your heart like Daddy says.  Mom basically agrees and little girl wanders off with the box of cereal.  The last scene shows Dad with his chest covered in Cheerios.  Cute.  The source of the furor is that Mom is white and Dad is black.  The immediate reaction in the comments section of YouTube was angry, abusive and overtly racist.  While there was an outpouring of positive comments in reaction Cheerios wisely chose to turn off the comments and make them all go away.

Now let me be clear.  I think the whole race-mixing, miscegenation argument needs to be consigned to the scrap heap of history.  It’s the human race and it comes in different colors.  I have no use for any other point of view.  At the same time I defend our American belief in freedom of expression.  The French author Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  and I agree completely.  But he also said “We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.”  And that’s where we may have lost the thread.

Freedom of expression does not mean that we can say whatever we want without fear of peril, risk and hazard.  Our Founding Fathers knew it.  That’s why the last line of the Declaration of Independence reads that they “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor,”.  They accepted the risk in the words they said.  

The problem with the Internet is that anonymity is taken as a right as well.  Behind the cowardly mask of that anonymity things are said that dodge the risks and hazards.  Those who exercise their bigotry under the flag of freedom of expression without being willing to take on the burden of those comments betray the very foundation of our country.  As such they should be treated with the contempt that such behavior deserves.

Call that the View From the Phlipside

Movie Reviews - The Darjeeling Limited,

The Darjeeling Limited (2007) I'm pretty sure I've seen at least two other Wes Anderson movies that I liked - "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tennebaums".  Both of which are unique and stylistic movies.  What I remember working there doesn't seem to work here for me.

Anderson's directing becomes  a part of the story, almost a character.  It's an artificial, awkward, overly self conscious style  that seems to get in the way of the story and characters.  But then these are artificial, awkward and overly self conscious characters too.  The direction comes off as just a bit too cute for my taste.  It smacks of the director saying "See how clever I am".  Spare me from clever directors.

It's the story of three brothers who come to India to try and find their family bond.  They haven't seen one another for a year following the death of their father.  Oldest brother Francis (Owen Wilson) is recovering from some kind of accident, middle brother Peter (Adrian Brody) is fleeing his insecurities about marriage and fatherhood and baby Jack (Jason Schwartzman) is worrying about an intense but strange relationship he has with a girlfriend (Natalie Portman).  They eventually connect with their prodigal mother (Angelica Huston) who has joined a convent serving the poor of India.  Bill Murray has a walk on role as a business man who misses a train.

The DVD begins with a short film called "The Hotel Chevalier" which takes a short, weird look at the relationship between Jack and his girlfriend.  Don't ask me to make sense of it.  The two characters are peculiar and unsympathetic and I just don't care about them or their self inflicted problems.

But then that's pretty much how I feel about all the characters and this movie.  You're not going to learn much about them along the way and I doubt you're going to care too much about them either.

"There's so many things we don't know about each other".  At the end of the movie you'll feel the same way.

Rating - ** Not Impressed