Someone is reading in the state of Denmark

I decided to start this blog a couple of months ago to share my views, my stories and my lists with friends, family and anyone else who was interested. I have been encouraged by the strong feedback as well as the high number of pageviews. There is only one thing that strikes me as odd and that is the number of international readers. Over the past month, my blog has had exactly 100 pageviews. As expected, majority of them came from the United States but 26 were from Denmark.

I have Danish heritage but had never mentioned it on the blog. In fact, when someone asks me about my specific ethnicity, I usually respond Danish first (followed by English and Cherokee Indian). When I watch the World Cup or the Olympics I usually root for the team or athlete from Denmark just behind the United States.

My Danish ancestors who came to the United States

One of the stories that has been passed down from my family was about my Viking ancestors from Denmark is The Red Hand of Österblad. I tried very hard to research the story online and there is a story known as the Red Hand of Ulster that appears to be a slight variation on the story passed down from my relatives. From the best of my recollection, the story involved my ancestor in a dispute over a piece of land that may or may not have been an entire island. It was decided that the ownership dispute would be settled by whomever would win a race to the land and the first man to touch the soil would win the race. As the story goes, it was a very close race but as my ancestor approached the shore he realized that he was going to lose so without hesitation he cut off his hand and then flung it onto the sand to best his competitor and claim the land for his family.

The video above is Danish singer Nanna Øland Fabricius whose group Oh Land recently played on The Late Show with David Letterman.


Jeg værdsætter mine læsere fra Danmark.


Farvel,
Nolan

An Open Letter to Jackie K. Cooper

Dear Jackie,

I've taken an interest in your reviews since your "Rotten" review of Fantastic Mr. Fox caught my eye.

After watching Fantastic Mr. Fox, I was so thoroughly entertained that I wanted to see what rating it received on RottenTomatoes.com. I noticed it had received a stunning 100% rating among "top critics" and an impressive 93% among all critics. You were one of the 7% who disliked the movie and your blurb "Another clunker from Clooney aided and abetted by Wes Anderson" grabbed my attention. The start to your actual written review (in which you give an incorrect title) seems like an attack on either Wes Anderson and George Clooney or their fans and perhaps all of the above. As a critic your job is to remain objective. Just because you might dislike most of the work from a particular actor or director does not mean their work should be dismissed entirely but that is exactly what this sounds like:

"Are there really fans out there waiting for the latest Wes Anderson film? And are there people clamoring for the mere sound of George Clooney’s voice? I don’t think so. So why do we have an animated film (stop/action animation) from Mr. Anderson that features the vocal work of Mr. Clooney? It is titled “The Talented Mr. Fox” and seems to be just another exercise in futility aimed at pleasing a very small and select group."

I was upset by your reviews when I thought you were just skewing the Tomatometer on RottenTomatoes.com and writing poorly written reviews for the random visitors of your website but when I saw your review posted on the Huffington Post website, I nearly fainted.

Today I went to see Rango and I personally loved it. This evening I stumbled upon your review of Rango and was shocked by not only your negative review but that in a review of just 430 words you could have multiple grammatical and factual errors. However, I would agree with your criticism that it is probably not a film for small children. I would go so far as to say that Rango is an animated film for adults that children might also enjoy and not the other way around.

Your review posted on your website has the headline "An Animated Lizard - So What!". Shouldn't that be a question mark instead of an exclamation point? Then your review that is linked to the Huffington Post website has the extremely clever headline "Rango: Depp Is Out of my Depth". You clearly have taken umbrage with Johnny Depp and I will clarify that not only am I not a Johnny Depp apologist but I think his recent movies have been poor.

There is a sentence in your review after detailing some of the major characters that states "There are various other characters but these are the main ones." as to explain that you did not list every single character. There is no reason to have that sentence in your review unless you are paid by the word. As a writer you should know that superfluous sentences or even words are detrimental to your work.

I might also recommend that you consult a Holt Handbook because there are several grammatical errors in your review. For example, your put the town name in quotes when there is no need and for some reason you put the rating G in quotes but not PG. You also wrote the following sentence "As the Mayor (Ned Beatty) of the town tells him..." when it should read "As the Mayor of the town (Ned Beatty) tells him..." and you actually don't have to capitalize mayor when there is no formal name or territory attached to it but since that is his character's name, you get a free pass.

As far as your factual errors; you wrote that there are no humans allowed in the town which is never stated or even implied. You also wrote that Rango declares himself the new sheriff when in reality it was the mayor who made him sheriff.

We obviously have some fundamental differences in our opinions on what makes a film good. You wrote on your website that 2007 was a bad year for movies and you listed There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men as two films that would have made your list for the worst movies of the year. Both time and respected film critics will back me up that those were two of the finest films released in the last decade. I respect your right to have an opinion (as wrong as it might be) because any art is subjective but I implore you to not go see the next film by George Clooney or Johnny Depp trying not to think of a clever headline to voice your displeasure but to watch the movie and judge it on the merits of that particular film.

P.S. For someone with your profile picture, you might not want to use the word "kiddies" multiple times in your review.

Sincerely,

Nolan

I'm Sick of Sequels: Part II

I watched the Academy Awards last weekend which I found predictable and disappointing for several reasons including James Franco, the wins by Tom Hooper & The King's Speech, and the losses for David Fincher and Roger Deakins. After the Academy Awards were over I began to look at the films set to be released this year and was deeply troubled by the number of sequels set to be released.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that The Godfather: Part II, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, and even Wayne's World 2 were all very entertaining sequels and in some cases even better than their predecessors. However, the list of disappointing sequels that includes The Godfather: Part III, Batman & Robin, The Phantom Menace, The Two Jakes, Caddyshack II and The Matrix Reloaded is much longer.

Katie Holmes (left) replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal

One of the inherit flaws with most sequels is that the story has already been told. Unless the writer set out to write a series of films the storyline always has to start with forced exposition that comes more naturally in the original film. My biggest frustration, and my only complaint about The Dark Knight, is when they make a sequel and swap out a member of the cast due to scheduling, a financial issue or death. As the comedian Matt Fulchiron said when his friend asked to him to watch Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, "I'm like 'No Swayze, no way-ze'". I don't care about the fact Katie Holmes is a terrible actress or that Terrence Howard is a money grubbing asshole, you make the sequel with the same actors or don't make it at all.

According to Box Office Mojo there will be a record 27 sequels released in 2011; which for you math majors comes out to one sequel every two weeks. This number does not include the remakes scheduled to be released this year and that appears to be in the double digits as well. This disturbing trend is likely to continue because the top five grossing films of last year where Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. There isn't a single original film among the movies that collectively grossed $1.65 billion last year. I, for one, plan to let my voice be heard with my wallet. Much like I boycotted the Dodgers ownership last year by not spending any money on tickets or merchandise, I refuse to spend a penny on any sequels, prequels or remakes this year.

I urge you to join me because film is supposed to be about escapism and original storytelling, not recycled garbage. Instead of going to see Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son, treat yourself to an original and charming comedy like Cedar Rapids. If this current trend continues the only movies on the marquee in five years will be Transformers 7: Giant Fucking Robots and Paul Blart IV: Revenge of the Mallcop.