"I don't know where we came from, I don't know where were going."

Last day in May, figured I should put something in and make it seem like I put SOME effort in during the month.

So, this past week, I did something fun. As mentioned in a previous post, I saw Beauty and the Beast LIVE on stage. Basically, it was a the Broadway show that tours around and puts the show on for people and such. Going into this show, I was uber excited. Like, I don't know if my expectations could have been higher. Did the show live up to them?? Well, yes. And no. A little bit of both. I'll explain.

The show itself, was fantastic. It was so much fun, and from the very first musical number I felt at home. That's how Beauty and the Beast makes me feel, like I am right where I want to be. So from a purely entertaining standpoint, the show blew the doors off the place. It was so good. The downside to it all though was the little begrudging fact that I had seen this show once before. Now, I realize that it was quite a long while ago, and I didn't remember it in full, but what I did remember happened to play against this particular production. For example, the fact that this was a traveling musical, they don't really have the resources to carry on the spectacular costumes and make-up that I remember from the original time I saw it. They were great for what they were, but I had to sit there watching the play, knowing what these characters and sets once looked like when they were on Broadway. So, experience really worked against me in that aspect.

One other thing that was hard for me to get past as well was the manipulation of the "Beast" character. In the original show, he was fantastic. They got him down to a tee. In this version, he was changed... a little too much for my liking. The character became a lot more comedic than he is in the movie or original stage production. Compared to the movie version, this character was like Nicolas Cage (y'know, funny Nicolas Cage) up there. I can only figure that this was done to please the younger audiences, which is still fine, but I still would have loved to have seen the brutish, somber Beast I have come to know and love. There were a few more negativities as well, including the seemingly rushed second act, and a couple of actors who didn't quite fit their roles (Mrs. Potts could not hold a steady English accent), but I'm pretty sure I would have been able to find quips like that in almost any version of this show.

But, looking past all of those "bad" qualities, the positives outweigh them all. The actress who was cast as Belle, was brilliant. We decided that she looked like the love child of Amy Poehler and Reese Witherspoon, and she had an absolutely beautiful Broadway fit voice. The actor who played the Beast, although he had the altered character to deal with, nailed "If I Can't Love Her", one of my favourite original songs from the musical, so that was lovely. I definitely mouthed along to that song for sure. Gaston eventually grew on me. The guy they had playing him didn't really have the correct build, or voice to play the character, but he did wind up molding himself into everyone's favourite arrogant prick. Gawd, I would love to play that role. That or Lumiére. Either would be fine.

Speaking of the debonair candelabra, the actor they had playing him worked his way into the role as well. So did Cogsworth actually. They didn't quite match the give and take of the original duo, but it was still great the way they interacted. A real standout aspect of the musical as far as casting went actually, were the three women playing the "Silly Girls". They were dead on with the comedy, and I genuinely anticipated everything they did when they came out on stage.

What really was the standout though (as you would probably be able to guess) were the song numbers. Oh. My. Gawd. The first half alone was absolutely worth the price of admission. From the opening moments of Belle, I was in it for the long haul. How they were able to build the entire open market scene from the opening of the movie on that less-than-standard-Broadway-sized stage was just a wonder to behold. Three sets of houses, being moved and jostled around the stage through choreographed extras all the while belting the magnificent opening tune was more than enough to slap a smile on my face and give me goosebumps. It was magical, and as good as I remember during my first trip to see the show a decade and a half ago. Combined with an opening act that then featured "Gaston", with the performers belting out a mind-numbingly awesome choreographed Stomp-esque routine with beer mugs, and then the endlessly fun "Be Our Guest" with lavish special effects and costumes, the opening half of the play was everything I came to see and more. The second half of the show lacked the same pizzazz inspiring numbers of the first half, thus wasn't AS amazing, but it still featured "Beauty and the Beast" (albeit, there was a definite longing for a better set piece for that song... again, they seemed to be restricted by the stage/venue) which is arguably my favourite Disney song of all-time. So, in the very least, it was still goose-bump inducing.

Basically, I loved the show. I mean, I wish I would still have had the opportunity to see it one more time at its home on the Broadway stage, but alas, it's been well over a year since it was cancelled, and I'll just have to take what I can get. And if this is what I have to take, then brother, that's fine with me.

"Cold, and driven to this sad conclusion..."

In two days time, I get to see Beauty and the Beast, the stage show. That's right. The massively popular Broadway hit which took it's final curtain in New York a little more than a year ago, is now on tour, and I get to see it for the first time since I was... oh God. 7 years old maybe?? Has to be. Anyway, it's difficult to express how excited I am for this, because it really just donned on me when "If I Can't Love Her" came on my iTunes just now. I am so stoked. It'll be my first stage show in quite some time. Spamalot may have been the last one that I saw, like, 3 or 4 years ago. So this will be phenomenal. I won't talk about it too much now, just to say that I am starting to count down the hours until I'm sitting in the theatre.

My favourite Disney movie of all-time, and I now get to experience the stage show again with an actual prospect of REMEMBERING IT ALL!! It's going to be great.

Top 100 Movies of All Time: #94 - #93

94. THE DEPARTED (2006, MARTIN SCORSESE)

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Vera Farmiga, Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin, Ray Winstone and Martin Sheen

This post represents my 151st blog post (I started this one before my 150th one, but didn't get it done in time). Rather than pumping out another "Things That Annoy Me On 'Friends'", I figured I would simply keep my Top 100 movie list flowing with a very special two-for-one entry. So, eyes at attention, and let's begin.

We begin with the first Scorsese entry on the list (trust me, there are at least a couple more of these babies). Now, I'm not one who normally likes to put movies from the last couple of years on my lists, but as I've recently realized, 2006 isn't really "a couple of years ago" any more. Thus, I give you the most recent entry in my Top 100 (so far).

The Departed is a very intriguing movie. It doesn't quite feel like a Scorsese movie, yet at the same time it fits right in with the best of his repertoire. There is this universality to the film, something that doesn't really come along with one of his pictures. Usually, there is a sense that only a select group of people who really understand what they are watching will get a film that Martin Scorsese directs. This movie though, that's not really the case. It breaks that barrier, and it becomes a general audience type of experience instead. And it completely works on that other level.

When this movie first came out, I saw it at theaters twice. If you know me, you know that it takes a very special movie to make me see it twice at theaters, so The Departed falls into that select group of films. I believe the original appeal of the movie for me was to see Jack Nicholson being directed by Scorsese. I mean, this was really the last great director that Happy Jack had to work with (he'd done Kubrick, Antonioni, Huston, Polanksi, Nichols, Kazan, Burton...) so having these two involved in the same project was something that I couldn't miss. Why weren't DiCaprio or Damon or Wahlberg a draw for me at this point?? Good question. To tell you the truth, I didn't start to have any such fondness for any of those actors until I saw this movie actually (Wahlberg has actually lost my fond feelings... I'm confident this movie was a fluke for how good he was). But yeah. Going into the movie, it was all about Nicholson taking on a role that was really DeNiro's (in a strange sense anyway).

So, after that first screening (with my brother actually) I was well aware that what I had just watched was something special. It was only the second Scorsese movie that I had ever had the pleasure of seeing in theaters, the way it was meant to be seen. The first time, was Gangs of New York and, yes, it was a definite treat to be able to see that movie at theaters, but it just was lacking a little bit of... something. Maybe it was pacing?? Well, whatever it was, there was no denying that The Departed had something that Gangs was lacking. And I knew it right from the gritty get go, in that silhouette shot of Nicholson that this was going to be something to behold.

I mentioned before that this was the first real time that I had taken notice of both Leo and Damon, and that's actually not a lie. I mean, I had lasted through movies like Titanic, The Basketball Diaries and DiCaprio's other Scorsese roles up until this point, while on the other side of the coin, Dogma, Good Will Hunting and Saving Private Ryan, but I had never seen anything by either actor that made me really sit up and take notice. The Departed acted as that trigger which made me start to see each guy as an actual adult talent. Leo, as Billy Costigan, shed the whole pretty boy thing and shrunk down to the little rodent that he needed to be. I still believe that, had he been nominated for The Departed instead of Blood Diamond (which is actually a pretty damn decent performance as well) he would have given Forest Whitaker a run for his money.

Vera Farmiga is really something to talk about as well. Not only was it a phenomenal "take-notice" performance, the entire idea behind her character is just fantastic. Having the connection between the two "rats" be their relationship with this woman is just fantastic, and a bloody challenge for ANYONE to play, let alone a relatively unknown actress. But she does it. And she somehow does it with dignity. She's sleeping with two guys, and yet we actually care for her as a person. Best. Psychiatrist. Ever (in this movie).

Of course, all of these points cower in the shadow of the best thing this movie has going for it, and that is "the elevator scene". So very rarely does a movie culminate and boil so well that the final, inevitable confrontation has played out so fantastically causing me jaw to literally drop from the shock factor. After this particular scene (y'all know what I'm talkin' 'bout!!) I was simply floored. I couldn't believe what I had just seen. And, still, the movie kept going. It wasn't as though this particular shock happened, and then BAM, ending. No, no. We get, BAM, shock and then... BAM, second shock. That final appearance by that certain someone is just... well, if it were a steak it would probably cost $300 (right Vlad??), let's just put it that way.

All in all, the movie is fantastic. I have actually made myself want to go and watch it right now, but I don't have my copy on me at this second. Shoot (right Mark Wahlberg??)

93. BRING IT ON (2000, PEYTON REED)

Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku, Jesse Bradford and Gabrielle Union

Umm, so, this one is kind of a cheat. You see, it was actually on TV today, and I never really miss a chance to watch it, and I really just love it so very much, and was going to write about it anyway... so screw it, I'm adding it to me list. Deal with it.

Some may classify this entry under the "guilty pleasure" category of movie watching, yet, I continually find myself seeing the actual, amazing cinematic value of the cheerleading teen dream that is Bring It On. But actually, it's such a good screenplay. It takes the best elements of the teen sub-genre (the best of Heathers, the best of Better Off Dead, etc.) and flips it to meet the standards of the correct era. I actually believe that it is a fantastic movie because of this.

Now, technically, I wasn't a teen when the movie was released. But I was in that group of tweens that always love to love those teen movies that all the older kids love. Make sense?? Well, it SHOULD!! But I remember seeing this movie at theaters, and I remember knowing that it was in fact considered a "girly" movie, and yet I left feeling like I didn't care. I knew it was a good movie then, and I have been increasingly convinced of this fact ever since.

Besides such amazing witticisms as "She puts the 'itch' in 'bitch'" and "Missy's the poo, so take a big wiff" the movie also boasts an actually solid storyline. Yeah, it might be viewed as little bit cliché, but all in all, the "high-class valley dolls" vs. the "straight outta Compton anti-Barbies" works. And it works well. In fact, in the end, when the Rancho Carney Toros come in second place and the East Compton Clovers wind up winning Nationals (a decision that was totally bogus by the way... watch the final routines. The Toros got ripped off) it justifies the entire "cliché" that's had to be endured during the first hour and a half anyway. Come on!! How many movies can actually get away with awarding the final trophy to the competition and still have you be okay with it?? Not many. Not many at all. Especially as far as sports movies go. So they pull off an almost impossible film feat, and that cannot be overlooked.

Another factor that we have in Jessica Bendinger's amazing script is a series of character names that I can't help but applaud and love every time I watch this movie. I'm a person who loves a good character name. I get kind of annoyed when we're subject to a series of "Marks" and "Jacks" and "Jennifers" and "Marys". I think that if you can make an uncommon name work, use it when you can!! In this movie alone, we have Torrance, Missy, Cliff, Isis, Courtney, Whitney, Darcy, Carver, Casey, Les and Jan (the last two are, of course, dudes). So major kudos is due to Ms. Bendinger for taking a chance on naming her characters and actually having them work in the favour of a making the movie better. They sound natural, and they add a level of sophistication to the whole storyline. That's my feeling anyway.

What else this movie accomplishes though, is that it

actually makes Kirsten Dunst seem like a legitimate actress. As difficult as that task is, she is completely capable as head Toros cheerleader Torrance Shipman (again, GREAT name). Then of course you have my childhood mega-crush, Ms. Eliza Dushku. Missy Pantone was, for me, the epitome of babe-liscious. Because of this, I still find her to be really gorgeous, but I will always know that my love of her began with this movie. "I transfered from Los Angeles. Your school has no gymnastics team. This is a last resort..." (my favourite cheer of all-time... well, that one, or one of the ones from the cheerleader tryouts in The Replacements. It's close though).

I think that the undisputed best part of this movie though falls onto the shoulders of one man though. That man of course, is the cheer choreographer, Sparky Polastri. "Cheerleaders are dancers, that have gone retarded." I don't think I need to say anything more than that.

Basically, I think I will always have a huge soft-spot for Bring It On. It gets a bad rap amongst a lot of people because of its association with being a chick flick and the four (how there are FOUR sequels, I will never know) . But, I assure you, it is worth the price of admission. Or the price of a rental. Or more likely than both of those, it is worth the price of the time you will need to spend to watch it. Trust me. It is a lovely gateway to one of the only other decent teen movie of the naughts, and that is Mean Girls. It doesn't have the cult appeal, but you watch it, and tell me there isn't the same intelligence involved in both of these movies. (Although, I think I'll still throw the edge to Tina Fey).

"Hello. It's me."

I think that I've finally figured it out. No, I think that I have. "What" you ask?? Me. I think I've finally figured myself out. 

Now this being my 150th post, I figured it would be as good a time as any to explore this new discovery. 

Specifically, I believe that I have finally figured out what continually holds me back in life. Or rather, the thing that I most fear. Yeah, let's call it that. I have finally understood what it is I most fear in this world, and, despite popular opinion, it is not spiders. No. What I feel is the thing I am most scared of, is being a stereotype. And let me explain...

Throughout my entire life, I have always attempted to hold myself up to other people and be able to say, in at least some small capacity, that I am more of my own person than they are. Well, maybe not "MORE my own person" but the word DIFFERENT would at least have to appear in there anyway. And in this self-comparison with other people, I have noticed that I have continually held back for things that I otherwise may have actually liked. Take an example, shall we??

From as early as high school, I have known myself to make conscious decisions to try and not dress like everyone else around me. I have always been aware of attire being associated with specific image/cultural definitions and have always felt that one should dress in what he/she wants to without having been influenced by any outside sources. So, in this time of my life when fashion has been as important as anything else going on around us, I have always dressed the way I wanted to, being very careful not to emerge looking similar to any one "social clique" that existed around me. And I still do this. I refuse to develop into a scenester, or hipster, or whatever you will. 

It is not just fashion though. I refuse to give up my music tastes to the greater good. I maintain that I love my country music, and my soft alt-rock and so on. When I am recommended a new "Arcade Fire" record or something by "Vampire Weekend" (which, by the way, is one of my most hated band names of all-time), I just can't bring myself to give it a decent chance because that's not really representational of my own, unique personality. That doesn't mean that this particular brand of music is bad, or anything like that, it's just that I am able to make a strictly conscious decision to make sure that I'm not associated with the common stereotype who does in fact like this type of music, and these particular bands. 

I have never been able to understand this desire to conform to a specific taste that a massive group holds. I see all of these people around me in university and in shopping malls and pretty much everywhere else, wearing their big, lens-free "Buddy Holly"-esque glasses, with their secondhand "vintage" clothing discussing who is the greater visionary, Wes Anderson or Tim Burton, or the bleach-blondes in their tiny white tank tops with sweat pants, flip-flops and giant bug sunglasses followed closely by their jacked, Aviator, polo'd boyfriends who look as though they should be a villain in an 80's high school movie, or choose whichever group you wish, there are plenty, and I can't help but question their own choices. I can't fathom their thought process when they look around them and see eight other people dressed almost identical to them, listening to the same band, making fun of the people who, in turn, are making fun of them. I have just never understood this. I don't get it. Why would you ever want to conform to these standards, when you have the opportunity to be something unique. It just doesn't register with me. 

And this is what has finally struck a cord with me. My goal in life is to avoid being a stereotype. And I constantly worry that I am falling smack dab into the middle of some larger mass group of people, which I need to get out of as fast as possible. That is why I am friends with the people that I am friends with. Because no one else I know can interact with the polar opposite people that I do. No one else can be friends with the jock of the year and the head of the drama club. No one keeps completely separate company from a minimum of half a dozen "groups" and/or "cliques". 

I don't want to be like everyone else. I want to have my own voice. And I think this is why I am the way I am. I am a very mediocre student because I don't want to end up in that "arrogant A-student" who thinks they are better than everyone else. I am a recreational sport guy only because I couldn't stand to end up like the "professional" athletes, who take it all too seriously. I am an art student, because at my school, you could hold the visual/creative art talent in one regular sized classroom. And I am a drama/film student because I like the idea of being able to fulfill these particular stereotypes without actually having to BE any of them at the same time. 

So does that make sense?? I really think that my goal in life is to be my own person amongst everyone else. It's a simple idea really, but I've only just stumbled upon this realization as of late. I can't really tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether or not it is holding me back or not, but I guess now that I recognize this fact, the answers will all come into fruition sooner or later. Well, here's hoping anyway.

I can't really help but feel though, that wanting to "be an individual" puts me right in the middle of a far greater stereotype... Shoot.

"Never Let You Go"

I've been home for most of the past two weeks, and thus haven't really been able to blog. That's what's been holding me back. When I'm here, I don't really have the computer access I do at school. I mean, yes, I have my laptop but it's kind of old now, and I just don't have the patience to spend the time I give to my desktop at school. It's not convenient here at home.

Anyway, what's been new?? Well, I am currently sitting here watching one of ESPN's "30/30" films called Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs. The Knicks. Freely admitting my constant boredom of basketball, it might be odd to find me watching a documentary like this. But this one is different. It's the story of a rivalry as opposed to the sport itself. That's what makes "sport" so entertaining. The rivalries of two teams or more specifically, two opponents. 

The legend of Reggie Miller has always interested me in some way actually. Ever since I started showing a slight interest in basketball, Reggie Miller seemed like one of those guys that I could most definitely side with. He seemed intelligent and like he knew what he was doing at all times. So when I came into contact with the story of "Reggie Miller: The Knick Killer" I had to look further. And I don't know if I have ever come across another tale of pure entertainment revolving around one player dominating the entirety of one other, specific team. The legend of Reggie Miller is just too good not to pass up.

So here I sit, watching TSN, catching this documentary. Having just watched the Bruins blow the knock out of the Flyers and then followed that up by flicking between Everybody's Fine and Four Christmases (both do not seem great, by the way), I figured I needed a little bit of a change from mediocre movies and live sporting events. In other words, I am watching something that is of no value after taking a break from watching other things of no value. Fun stuff!!