I'll never forget my introduction to Monte Montgomery. I'd just purchased a copy of Edwin McCain's "The Austin Sessions" which contained a version of the Dire Straits tune, "Romeo & Juliet." I played this track for my father,
"Isn't that a good version?" I asked.
"Yeah, it is, but really you ain't heard nothin' yet."
With that, he popped in Monte Montgomery's version. My jaw dropped. Two words broke my nearly twelve minute stunned silence: "Holy shit!" From then on, I've been a certified "Montiac." I've seen Monte twice now, both times were at my favorite concert venue, The Aladdin Theater. The staff at the Aladdin is always incredibly accommodating to The Crippled Critic, making sure he has his favorite seat in the front row and a poster from the evening's performance. (This time Monte signed the poster.) Monte also delivered on "Juliet." It was his encore, and by the time it came I had the whole crowd chanting it. What a night!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Crippled Critic Concert Review: Jonny Lang @ The Roseland 7/14/09
Sometimes it pays to bring your own chair. In a standing-room only situation, the cripple is king. I was able to make a beeline for the front and position myself so that my footplates were touching the stage. It doesn't get any better than that. Or maybe it does, if you count the bonus of the mental chuckle I had watching the poor suckers around me having to stand for about 3 hours as I sat in a seat molded by computer to my back and butt.
I've wanted to see Jonny Lang for many years, but it never happened. I'd always talk myself out of it by remembering that the only Jonny Lang song I knew was "Breakin' Me."
In the intervening years, Jonny Lang released "Turn Around" which contained some wonderful songs. For some reason, he did not play the "hit" of the album, "Anything is Possible." This angered the critic from The Oregonian who gave this concert a lukewarm review. Although I too was eagerly awaiting "Anything is Possible", its conspicuous absence was far from a deal-breaker. He also didn't play "Breakin' Me" which was a shock, but still did little to dampen my enthusiasm for the show. Why? Because Jonny Lang's interaction with his band is amazing. If you can not appreciate "synchronicity" personified, than I pity you. (This was especially true in the largely instrumental encore.) Besides, watching Jonny Lang's face contort into expressions one would swear were only possible in animation is worth the price of admission all by itself...
I've wanted to see Jonny Lang for many years, but it never happened. I'd always talk myself out of it by remembering that the only Jonny Lang song I knew was "Breakin' Me."
In the intervening years, Jonny Lang released "Turn Around" which contained some wonderful songs. For some reason, he did not play the "hit" of the album, "Anything is Possible." This angered the critic from The Oregonian who gave this concert a lukewarm review. Although I too was eagerly awaiting "Anything is Possible", its conspicuous absence was far from a deal-breaker. He also didn't play "Breakin' Me" which was a shock, but still did little to dampen my enthusiasm for the show. Why? Because Jonny Lang's interaction with his band is amazing. If you can not appreciate "synchronicity" personified, than I pity you. (This was especially true in the largely instrumental encore.) Besides, watching Jonny Lang's face contort into expressions one would swear were only possible in animation is worth the price of admission all by itself...
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
"The Hurt Locker"
The cinematic treatment of the Iraq War has been a losing battle, even prompting jokes from Jon Stewart at the Oscars. The mildest of these was "Stop-Loss" which I thought let the government off the hook in the end. "The Valley of Elah" was well-made, but broached difficult territory perhaps best left until the real declaration of Mission Accomplished. Until "The Hurt Locker," my favorite of the Iraq War films was the unjustly maligned "Lions for Lambs" which made the simple but very true point that no matter which side you take in the argument about the war, brave soldiers are dying while the rest of us try to work it out.
"The Hurt Locker" decides not to burden itself with cumbersome, overt ideology. Instead, it opts to show the exhilaration of battle, and let the horror that accompanies that exhilaration speak for itself.
Call me prejudiced if you must, but I am dumbstruck that the most honest and brisk film about the Iraq War would come from the woman who brought us "Point Break." Yet, maybe that's precisely why it works so well. It's an action film, yes, but one that is unapologetically imbued with nightmarish realism. It is not hampered with the staginess of "Lions" nor the politicization of "Elah." The absence of these things allows "The Hurt Locker" to bring The War into a focus so sharp that it leaves a scar.
Note: As of this writing, "The Hurt Locker" is playing exclusively at Fox Tower 10 Cinemas. The wheelchair seats are wonderful in all auditoriums.
"The Hurt Locker" decides not to burden itself with cumbersome, overt ideology. Instead, it opts to show the exhilaration of battle, and let the horror that accompanies that exhilaration speak for itself.
Call me prejudiced if you must, but I am dumbstruck that the most honest and brisk film about the Iraq War would come from the woman who brought us "Point Break." Yet, maybe that's precisely why it works so well. It's an action film, yes, but one that is unapologetically imbued with nightmarish realism. It is not hampered with the staginess of "Lions" nor the politicization of "Elah." The absence of these things allows "The Hurt Locker" to bring The War into a focus so sharp that it leaves a scar.
Note: As of this writing, "The Hurt Locker" is playing exclusively at Fox Tower 10 Cinemas. The wheelchair seats are wonderful in all auditoriums.
Friday, July 10, 2009
"Bruno"
Why does the Ratings Board have an NC-17 rating if they will not use it? If "Bruno" does not have enough depravity to merit it, than such a film does not exist. There are scenes in this film that can not be sufficiently described with phrases like "unbelievably disgusting" and "instantly nauseating." Such phrases are laughable understatements. It is impossible to warn you adequately about the things you will see in this film. I will not attempt to prepare you. I will certainly not delve into detail, doing so would require me to recall specifics, and I am trying with all my mental might to forget what I have just seen. Will you laugh? Uncontrollably. Is it worth it? Absolutely not!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
"Public Enemies"
The anticipation factor behind "Public Enemies" was sky-high. The trailer alone was almost worthy of applause. Was "Public Enemies" as advertised? Not quite. While your expectations need not be lowered, they may need calibration. When one mentally combines director Michael Mann and John Dillinger, what leaps to mind is "Heat" in the 1930's. Mann loves cat-and-mouse games and urban cityscapes, this project would seem tailor-made given his visual style and favorite themes. He specializes in making us like the bad-boys, and this isn't his first fact-based caper film. What is different here is that Mann is no longer satisfied with making us admire a criminal's cunning and skill. This time he wants us to study him and have deep sympathy for him. Mann moderately succeeds, the audience will gain a greater understanding of the man behind the legend, but it will come at a price. The mood and tempo of the film is rather downbeat. It recalls films like "Bonnie and Clyde." "Bonnie and Clyde" was a great film, but Mann isn't Arthur Penn. We expect more of a spark from him. As such, "Public Enemies" is sort of like a gorgeous ill-fitting suit.
Note: After staring dismayed at Tigard and Bridgeport's listings and finding that neither had it playing in a theater labeled as "Big Screen" I decided to make the trek to Lloyd Cinemas and its much-touted 67-foot screen. I hadn't been there since seeing a small film that was playing an exclusive engagement. I chalked up its inferior seating to the relatively small size of the theater. Surely, they would have modified the flagship auditorium?. Not so! In this HUGE, nearly-empty theater, the wheelchair seats are still in the very front and very back. I defiantly sat in the aisle. Lloyd Cinemas receives the dreaded Ramp of Shame!
Note: After staring dismayed at Tigard and Bridgeport's listings and finding that neither had it playing in a theater labeled as "Big Screen" I decided to make the trek to Lloyd Cinemas and its much-touted 67-foot screen. I hadn't been there since seeing a small film that was playing an exclusive engagement. I chalked up its inferior seating to the relatively small size of the theater. Surely, they would have modified the flagship auditorium?. Not so! In this HUGE, nearly-empty theater, the wheelchair seats are still in the very front and very back. I defiantly sat in the aisle. Lloyd Cinemas receives the dreaded Ramp of Shame!
Monday, June 22, 2009
B.S. Indeed
I watched the first season of “Penn & Teller: Bull**** on DVD and found it interesting. The quirky Vegas magicians turn an illusionist’s eye on those who endeavor to dupe people for profit. (TV psychics, for instance.) Easy targets, yes, but entertaining nonetheless.
Later, I found out that “Bull****” had done an episode on The Americans with Disabilities Act., entitled “Handicapped Parking”.
The first interview subject is Marianne Catrall, whose daughter is blind and has autism. She has taken it upon herself to photograph drivers who misuse disabled parking spaces. Penn argues that it is “way easy” to obtain a parking permit because all you have to do is get “some doctor” to sign it. To buttress this oh-so astute argument, Penn says that the ADA’s definition of disability is very broad, noting that the criteria includes those who have trouble keeping track of money and those who have trouble using the telephone. (Does he mean the mentally disabled, who just so happen to use that accounting assistance to maintain a level of independence?) Actually, there is a little bit of the titular substance in whom the ADA classifies as disabled: Substance-Abusers, a fact completely unaddressed by Penn and Teller.
Penn asks whether police officers “have better things to do” than enforcing “thoughtfulness.” Well, yes, that is precisely why the bulk of enforcement falls to deputized civilians. But, you can hardly argue the need for the space in the first place, can you?
Unfortunately, Penn does.
When an interviewee compares fight for accessibility to the civil rights movement, Penn denounces that as B.S. making the argument that Jim Crow Laws prevented black people from getting on the bus, whereas disabled people cannot board due to the Laws of Physics. Now, I have read how other people have dismissed this as the nonsense as it is, but I think we can learn something from following it to its logical conclusion, (if we can stomach it.)
So, in Penn’s view, the wrongness of segregation did not lie in the discrimination against someone on the basis of the color of their skin, but rather that such behavior was sanctioned by The Big Bad Government. As such, if a business-owner chose to, he could post a Whites-Only sign in his window. Imagine the outcry if Showtime had aired an episode arguing that.
The above illustrates one of the biggest problems we face as disabled citizens: It is still OK to treat us as concepts-as problems to be solved- rather than human beings with needs. They used to solve the “problem” of disabled people by shoving us out of sight. We were warehoused in terrible institutions. It is because of the ADA and earlier legislation that we are granted access to our communities. Wasn’t access the crux of the civil rights movement? Black people wanted access to the segregated schools, access to lunch counters, access to voting booths. Now we are not hidden away, but we fight against apathy and indifference, and those things do not lend themselves to being held up for public scorn. We must use the power of law because we have seen that only under threat of litigation do the changes get made.
Penn believes that business owners would make accommodations on their own because it is good for business, but sadly this is not the case. Take as a small example that a movie theater I attend is wonderfully accessible on the inside, but ask them for a door-opener and all you get is a polite nod. Businesses will only do what is required of them and nothing more.
In the course of the episode Penn manages to argue against handicapped parking, building/street accessibility, and adaptive public transit, citing cost concerns. What’s left? Well, the episode begins with Penn in a wheelchair, navigating the obstacles around the set, and he remarks, “Man, if I had to do this everyday, I’d never leave my one-story house.” This sounds like Penn’s advice to those of us that do….
“Handicapped Parking” appears on the 5th season DVD of Bull****
Side-note: I recently went on a trip to Vegas and because of this episode I boycotted Penn and Teller and chose David Copperfield instead. While searching for a seating chart, I Googled the venue and “wheelchair” It turns out that the MGM Grand had settled with the government over a claim that it was not in compliance with the ADA, during Janet Reno’s tenure. I can tell you that the seating is now excellent and I can thank the ADA for improving my experience.
Later, I found out that “Bull****” had done an episode on The Americans with Disabilities Act., entitled “Handicapped Parking”.
The first interview subject is Marianne Catrall, whose daughter is blind and has autism. She has taken it upon herself to photograph drivers who misuse disabled parking spaces. Penn argues that it is “way easy” to obtain a parking permit because all you have to do is get “some doctor” to sign it. To buttress this oh-so astute argument, Penn says that the ADA’s definition of disability is very broad, noting that the criteria includes those who have trouble keeping track of money and those who have trouble using the telephone. (Does he mean the mentally disabled, who just so happen to use that accounting assistance to maintain a level of independence?) Actually, there is a little bit of the titular substance in whom the ADA classifies as disabled: Substance-Abusers, a fact completely unaddressed by Penn and Teller.
Penn asks whether police officers “have better things to do” than enforcing “thoughtfulness.” Well, yes, that is precisely why the bulk of enforcement falls to deputized civilians. But, you can hardly argue the need for the space in the first place, can you?
Unfortunately, Penn does.
When an interviewee compares fight for accessibility to the civil rights movement, Penn denounces that as B.S. making the argument that Jim Crow Laws prevented black people from getting on the bus, whereas disabled people cannot board due to the Laws of Physics. Now, I have read how other people have dismissed this as the nonsense as it is, but I think we can learn something from following it to its logical conclusion, (if we can stomach it.)
So, in Penn’s view, the wrongness of segregation did not lie in the discrimination against someone on the basis of the color of their skin, but rather that such behavior was sanctioned by The Big Bad Government. As such, if a business-owner chose to, he could post a Whites-Only sign in his window. Imagine the outcry if Showtime had aired an episode arguing that.
The above illustrates one of the biggest problems we face as disabled citizens: It is still OK to treat us as concepts-as problems to be solved- rather than human beings with needs. They used to solve the “problem” of disabled people by shoving us out of sight. We were warehoused in terrible institutions. It is because of the ADA and earlier legislation that we are granted access to our communities. Wasn’t access the crux of the civil rights movement? Black people wanted access to the segregated schools, access to lunch counters, access to voting booths. Now we are not hidden away, but we fight against apathy and indifference, and those things do not lend themselves to being held up for public scorn. We must use the power of law because we have seen that only under threat of litigation do the changes get made.
Penn believes that business owners would make accommodations on their own because it is good for business, but sadly this is not the case. Take as a small example that a movie theater I attend is wonderfully accessible on the inside, but ask them for a door-opener and all you get is a polite nod. Businesses will only do what is required of them and nothing more.
In the course of the episode Penn manages to argue against handicapped parking, building/street accessibility, and adaptive public transit, citing cost concerns. What’s left? Well, the episode begins with Penn in a wheelchair, navigating the obstacles around the set, and he remarks, “Man, if I had to do this everyday, I’d never leave my one-story house.” This sounds like Penn’s advice to those of us that do….
“Handicapped Parking” appears on the 5th season DVD of Bull****
Side-note: I recently went on a trip to Vegas and because of this episode I boycotted Penn and Teller and chose David Copperfield instead. While searching for a seating chart, I Googled the venue and “wheelchair” It turns out that the MGM Grand had settled with the government over a claim that it was not in compliance with the ADA, during Janet Reno’s tenure. I can tell you that the seating is now excellent and I can thank the ADA for improving my experience.
Monday, June 15, 2009
"UP"
"Up" marks Pixar's return to otherworldly excellence. This next statement might send me to Animation Hell for blasphemy, but Pixar's last few efforts have lacked heart, the worst offender being "Wall-E" where the short at the beginning had more humor and whimsy in its brief length than the feature. "Up" brings Pixar back to the Gold Standard established by "The Incredibles" and I am beyond grateful.
Ed Asner is perfectly cast as Carl Fredricksen, an old man who needs to escape from authorities who want to remove him from his home. He rigs many balloons to his house and takes off to honor a promise he made to his late-wife. However, Carl doesn't know that Russell-- a Wilderness Explorer intent on earning his Assisting the Elderly Badge-- has been stranded on his front porch. It would be horribly unkind of me to say much more about the plot, so I will end my summary here. But, I must add that much of Pixar's enduring charm is due to perfect little moments in their films. One such moment is when we see Carl get out of bed and begin cracking his back. (oh, how I relate....) Also, I feel obligated to warn you that the opening scenes are very somber, so be prepared.....
Note: I saw this film in 3-D at Bridgeport, the experience is certainly worth the extra cost. (Plus, the wheelchair seats are excellent.)
Ed Asner is perfectly cast as Carl Fredricksen, an old man who needs to escape from authorities who want to remove him from his home. He rigs many balloons to his house and takes off to honor a promise he made to his late-wife. However, Carl doesn't know that Russell-- a Wilderness Explorer intent on earning his Assisting the Elderly Badge-- has been stranded on his front porch. It would be horribly unkind of me to say much more about the plot, so I will end my summary here. But, I must add that much of Pixar's enduring charm is due to perfect little moments in their films. One such moment is when we see Carl get out of bed and begin cracking his back. (oh, how I relate....) Also, I feel obligated to warn you that the opening scenes are very somber, so be prepared.....
Note: I saw this film in 3-D at Bridgeport, the experience is certainly worth the extra cost. (Plus, the wheelchair seats are excellent.)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
"The Taking of Pelham 123"
Denzel Washington reunites with director Tony Scott for the first time since "Deja vu" Both of the Scotts are brilliant film-makers, but I believe Tony is definitely more fun than his brother Ridley. Tony's style is one that bursts with frenetic energy and is well-suited for the "thinking-man's" action pictures he is known for.
"Pelham" is remake of a film starring Walter Matthau and the story revolves around the hijacking of a subway train, Pelham 123. The chief hostage-taker is John Travolta at his unhinged bad-ass best. Denzel Washington plays a dispatcher in his battered-everyman style. If you're looking for anything new here, you won't find it, but if you are looking for an adrenaline rush with visual verve, look no further......
Note: In keeping with the title of this blog, I must mention that I saw this film in auditorium 1 of Tigard 11 cinemas, (the complex's biggest screen) the wheelchair seats are excellent in this auditorium, and decent in the other medium-sized auditoriums. The smaller auditoriums still have seats in the back only.
"Pelham" is remake of a film starring Walter Matthau and the story revolves around the hijacking of a subway train, Pelham 123. The chief hostage-taker is John Travolta at his unhinged bad-ass best. Denzel Washington plays a dispatcher in his battered-everyman style. If you're looking for anything new here, you won't find it, but if you are looking for an adrenaline rush with visual verve, look no further......
Note: In keeping with the title of this blog, I must mention that I saw this film in auditorium 1 of Tigard 11 cinemas, (the complex's biggest screen) the wheelchair seats are excellent in this auditorium, and decent in the other medium-sized auditoriums. The smaller auditoriums still have seats in the back only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)