June 25, 2009
I Needed This
I had a bad day yesterday and things are shaping up to being pretty shitty for a while, so this song is really just what I needed this morning.
I loved the first Aqua album, but didn't even try the second one. If this song is representative of what's on their next album, I will have to run out and get it immediately. Don't get in my way because I will push you down.
I loved the first Aqua album, but didn't even try the second one. If this song is representative of what's on their next album, I will have to run out and get it immediately. Don't get in my way because I will push you down.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:21 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
June 09, 2009
Star Trek: A Counter Point
I made it to my first Objectivist meeting after my move, but unfortunately I was just about the only one. One other person made it, but as the third person departed, I got into a discussion about the latest Star Trek movie with our host.
His main complaints where the bufoonery -- particularly on the part of Kirk -- and the simple preposterousness of the story.
I can't help but agree. Kirk seemed like he was drunk through most of the movie and there was a QUITE a bit of slapstick throughout.
There were a few element that, even though I was in the midst of loving it, I though, "Whaaaat?"
So, this begs the question: What did I like about it?
I think Diana Hsieh will dislike it.
I liked the simplistic, concreteness of the action and story. I liked the cutsieness and general action orientation of the whole thing. Questions about why you have to drill a big hole while trying to destroy a planet with a black hole or the odds of TWO big monsters being on the same planet with Spock from the future simply do not bother me.
I liked the movie.
But I can't contest his complaints here. Kirk IS a bufoon. Spock is WAY cooler. Scotty is typically silly These things bothered him, but I didn't mind.
We agreed that Spock was the strongest character in the cast. I also liked Bones.
So anyway... I just wanted to give you a peek into the dissenting review.
His main complaints where the bufoonery -- particularly on the part of Kirk -- and the simple preposterousness of the story.
I can't help but agree. Kirk seemed like he was drunk through most of the movie and there was a QUITE a bit of slapstick throughout.
There were a few element that, even though I was in the midst of loving it, I though, "Whaaaat?"
So, this begs the question: What did I like about it?
I think Diana Hsieh will dislike it.
I liked the simplistic, concreteness of the action and story. I liked the cutsieness and general action orientation of the whole thing. Questions about why you have to drill a big hole while trying to destroy a planet with a black hole or the odds of TWO big monsters being on the same planet with Spock from the future simply do not bother me.
I liked the movie.
But I can't contest his complaints here. Kirk IS a bufoon. Spock is WAY cooler. Scotty is typically silly These things bothered him, but I didn't mind.
We agreed that Spock was the strongest character in the cast. I also liked Bones.
So anyway... I just wanted to give you a peek into the dissenting review.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:59 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 258 words, total size 1 kb.
May 10, 2009
Movie Review: Star Trek
I just got back from watching Star Trek and I think you should go see it, too.
The story is pretty simple: Eric Bana is pissed off so he comes from the future to make everyone else as unhappy as he is, failing, of course, to realize that it's not OUR fault he got those unsightly tattoos on his face, but such is the way of Romulans, which is what Eric Bana is.
This story is SUPER exciting! From the beginning to the end, it's like BOOM! PUNCH! ZAP! KISS! ZOOM! WOOSH! KICK!
Look at the trailer:
Yeah. It's like that.
So, here's the story:
Trekkies may foolishly complain about a few inconsistencies between this movie and the Star Trek universe, but I would like to point out that they do explain in the movie that we're actually watching a parallel universe. (I hope that doesn't count as a spoiler or anything.) Examples of inconsistency include:
Although, the Romulans aren't from a parallel universe, so I don't know why they look like that except for stylistic reasons and their look is very effective.
Could someone explain to me why bad guys in movies like this always have a phenomenally unsafe sense of ergonomics and environmental design? I mean, if you have two walkways above a zillion mile fall, why would you bridge them with a random plank? Also, assuming you do have a super-unsafe environment like this, and you get in a fight with your worst enemy, why don't you just throw him or her over the edge at the first opportunity?
But these things are just silly little things that I always think about in movies.
It's so fun to see the young versions of the classic Star Trek characters and how they meet and start their friendships.
The movie is loads of fun, a perfect summer blockbuster.
When my mom comes to visit in June, I hope it's still playing on the IMAX.
The story is pretty simple: Eric Bana is pissed off so he comes from the future to make everyone else as unhappy as he is, failing, of course, to realize that it's not OUR fault he got those unsightly tattoos on his face, but such is the way of Romulans, which is what Eric Bana is.
This story is SUPER exciting! From the beginning to the end, it's like BOOM! PUNCH! ZAP! KISS! ZOOM! WOOSH! KICK!
Look at the trailer:
Yeah. It's like that.
So, here's the story:
Trekkies may foolishly complain about a few inconsistencies between this movie and the Star Trek universe, but I would like to point out that they do explain in the movie that we're actually watching a parallel universe. (I hope that doesn't count as a spoiler or anything.) Examples of inconsistency include:
Although, the Romulans aren't from a parallel universe, so I don't know why they look like that except for stylistic reasons and their look is very effective.
Could someone explain to me why bad guys in movies like this always have a phenomenally unsafe sense of ergonomics and environmental design? I mean, if you have two walkways above a zillion mile fall, why would you bridge them with a random plank? Also, assuming you do have a super-unsafe environment like this, and you get in a fight with your worst enemy, why don't you just throw him or her over the edge at the first opportunity?
But these things are just silly little things that I always think about in movies.
It's so fun to see the young versions of the classic Star Trek characters and how they meet and start their friendships.
The movie is loads of fun, a perfect summer blockbuster.
When my mom comes to visit in June, I hope it's still playing on the IMAX.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
01:29 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 279 words, total size 4 kb.
May 09, 2009
Movie Review: Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Last night, I met with a few of the Objectivists to watch Zack and Miri Make a Porno.
I should state before writing this review that I am not a big fan of comedies. I like funny things, but I don't usually like comedy movies. I think the reason is because most of the comedy movies we have today are usually romantic movies or buddy movies with just extra absurdity layered on top. That's what leads me to complain that most comedies have "too much plot."
The underlying principle behind all humor is that it is unimportant. Absurdity and surprise are characteristics that enhance our response to this fact, but underlying it all is a fundamental disregard for whatever is being laughed at. I could go on at length about humor, but let's just leave it at this: if something is important and deeply valuable to you, then you don't laugh at it.
So, Zack and Miri are a couple of losers who grew up together and currently live with one another. Miri works at the mall and Zack works in a coffee shop. They don't make enough money to pay their bills and they spend what little money they do have on silly things like vibrators and masturbatory aids. And so their utilities get cut off.
They decide that the best way for them to make money -- a decision they make at a bar paying for drinks with money from an unknown source -- is to make a porno movie.
Enter a crazy cast of characters, aspiring porn stars. Numerous sex jokes and absurd sexual situations are shown for our amusement. Then Zack and Miri have sex with one another for the movie. It's bad for the movie, but it makes them realize they're in love.
I trust I didn't spoil anything by pointing that out since it is pretty clear from the trailer that it's going to happen.
Obviously, there is a LOT of filthy language and bawdy jokes throughout the movie. There's a little bit of full frontal nudity, both male and female. There are a few funny parts here and there. And the story is cute, I guess.
But I am not a big fan of Seth Rogan to start with. He doesn't annoy me just to look at him, but the way he speaks and ESPECIALLY the way he laughs are two things I can only take in small doses.
I'm also not a Kevin Smith fan. In fact, I've absolutely hated most all of his movies that I've seen. But I think Zack and Miri might be his best yet because it does avoid that obnoxious emotionalistic pseudointellectualism that burdened movies like Chasing Amy and Clerks. (I really hated those movies.)
After the movie was over, I was asked what I thought of it and one person suggested that I would rate this movie at about two and a half stars of five. I think that's about right. After sleeping on it, I'd give it two stars.
It was good for what it was, but what it was was not very good.
I should state before writing this review that I am not a big fan of comedies. I like funny things, but I don't usually like comedy movies. I think the reason is because most of the comedy movies we have today are usually romantic movies or buddy movies with just extra absurdity layered on top. That's what leads me to complain that most comedies have "too much plot."
The underlying principle behind all humor is that it is unimportant. Absurdity and surprise are characteristics that enhance our response to this fact, but underlying it all is a fundamental disregard for whatever is being laughed at. I could go on at length about humor, but let's just leave it at this: if something is important and deeply valuable to you, then you don't laugh at it.
So, Zack and Miri are a couple of losers who grew up together and currently live with one another. Miri works at the mall and Zack works in a coffee shop. They don't make enough money to pay their bills and they spend what little money they do have on silly things like vibrators and masturbatory aids. And so their utilities get cut off.
They decide that the best way for them to make money -- a decision they make at a bar paying for drinks with money from an unknown source -- is to make a porno movie.
Enter a crazy cast of characters, aspiring porn stars. Numerous sex jokes and absurd sexual situations are shown for our amusement. Then Zack and Miri have sex with one another for the movie. It's bad for the movie, but it makes them realize they're in love.
I trust I didn't spoil anything by pointing that out since it is pretty clear from the trailer that it's going to happen.
Obviously, there is a LOT of filthy language and bawdy jokes throughout the movie. There's a little bit of full frontal nudity, both male and female. There are a few funny parts here and there. And the story is cute, I guess.
But I am not a big fan of Seth Rogan to start with. He doesn't annoy me just to look at him, but the way he speaks and ESPECIALLY the way he laughs are two things I can only take in small doses.
I'm also not a Kevin Smith fan. In fact, I've absolutely hated most all of his movies that I've seen. But I think Zack and Miri might be his best yet because it does avoid that obnoxious emotionalistic pseudointellectualism that burdened movies like Chasing Amy and Clerks. (I really hated those movies.)
After the movie was over, I was asked what I thought of it and one person suggested that I would rate this movie at about two and a half stars of five. I think that's about right. After sleeping on it, I'd give it two stars.
It was good for what it was, but what it was was not very good.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:26 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.
The Fashion Show: A Cheap Knockoff
I just watched the premiere episode of The Fashion Show, which is Bravo's replacement for Project Runway.
See, after a lot of legal hullabaloo, Bravo lost Project Runway to Lifetime and so now Bravo has tossed up this copycat, The Fashion Show. (PR will premier on Lifetime August 20th, by the way.)
The Fashion Show is hosted by Kelly Rowland of Destiny's Child fame and Isaac Mizrahi of fashion fame.
The format is the same. The prize is $125,000 and a chance to sell their fashion line in a retail market. (No one seems to know what that really means.)
At least the show has a cast of crazies that are amusing. There's this one guy whose real name is Merlin and he is incredibly flamboyant. There's a guy who designed stripper clothes to get through college. There's a girl with some pink hair and a lady who dresses like a bag lady.
But Isaac and Kelly simply aren't Heidi and Tim. There's no Michael Kors nor Nina Garcia.
Meh. It's kind of lame. I'll give it a few more episodes, but I don't think this show is going to be the hit that Project Runway is. And I'm not sure I'll remember to watch Lifetime in order to watch Project Runway.
I'm afraid the producers of Project Runway may have made a big mistake moving to Lifetime and I think Bravo is losing out big time with the move, too.
See, after a lot of legal hullabaloo, Bravo lost Project Runway to Lifetime and so now Bravo has tossed up this copycat, The Fashion Show. (PR will premier on Lifetime August 20th, by the way.)
The Fashion Show is hosted by Kelly Rowland of Destiny's Child fame and Isaac Mizrahi of fashion fame.
The format is the same. The prize is $125,000 and a chance to sell their fashion line in a retail market. (No one seems to know what that really means.)
At least the show has a cast of crazies that are amusing. There's this one guy whose real name is Merlin and he is incredibly flamboyant. There's a guy who designed stripper clothes to get through college. There's a girl with some pink hair and a lady who dresses like a bag lady.
But Isaac and Kelly simply aren't Heidi and Tim. There's no Michael Kors nor Nina Garcia.
Meh. It's kind of lame. I'll give it a few more episodes, but I don't think this show is going to be the hit that Project Runway is. And I'm not sure I'll remember to watch Lifetime in order to watch Project Runway.
I'm afraid the producers of Project Runway may have made a big mistake moving to Lifetime and I think Bravo is losing out big time with the move, too.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
Movie Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Last weekend, I took myself on a date with Mister Hugh Jackman. We had a lovely evening, but it wasn't because of the movie.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the first installation in what is sure to be a series of X-Men Origins prequels which focus in on a single character from the X-Men and tells us a formative story from their past.
Wolverine's story tells us how he became "Wolverine" and got his adamantium claws and skeleton and ultimately the loner with a mysterious past we met in the other X-Men movies.
There are two extra scenes in this movie, one just a few minutes into the credits and then one after all the credits are over. Neither of those two clips are really all that shocking or tittilating, so it was kind of annoying to have to sit through 20 minutes of credits just to get something that is super-duper predictable.
The action in the movie is really cool and there are lots of explosions and flips and things. It was also nice to see some of the other characters from the comic books like Deadpool, Emma Frost, and Gambit. And was that Speedball in that cage?
If you're someone who has followed the comics, then you may be disappointed because this movie is not true to the story you get there. I would argue, however, that many of the stories from the comics just don't fit well into movie form or simply aren't compelling to a broader audience.
For example, some comic book folks probably complained about X-Men 3 in which the Phoenix is described as a malevolent alter-ego inside of Jean Grey's mind. In the comic book, the Phoenix is a cosmic force that possesses Jean Grey. And then there's time travel, an intergalactic war, and some other things that really aren't well regarded by mainstream moviegoers.
So, I don't blame the moviemakers for making the Wolverine story a bit more pat.
But I think they can be held accountable for the fact that it's just a bit too pat and predictable.
The characters' motives are flat and overplayed. For instance, Sabretooth, is apparently motivated by basic sibling rivalry. Wolverine is motivated by rage over his lost love.
And nearly every turn in the plot is completely predictable.
I would also echo a complaint I've had about the X-Men movies: I think more time should have been spent developing the characters instead of including extra people just to excite the fanboys. Gambit is very cool and he's one of my favorite characters from the comics, but his role could have been written out of the movie completely.
So, the movie is mediocre. I didn't hate it, but I also had higher expectations.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the first installation in what is sure to be a series of X-Men Origins prequels which focus in on a single character from the X-Men and tells us a formative story from their past.
Wolverine's story tells us how he became "Wolverine" and got his adamantium claws and skeleton and ultimately the loner with a mysterious past we met in the other X-Men movies.
There are two extra scenes in this movie, one just a few minutes into the credits and then one after all the credits are over. Neither of those two clips are really all that shocking or tittilating, so it was kind of annoying to have to sit through 20 minutes of credits just to get something that is super-duper predictable.
The action in the movie is really cool and there are lots of explosions and flips and things. It was also nice to see some of the other characters from the comic books like Deadpool, Emma Frost, and Gambit. And was that Speedball in that cage?
If you're someone who has followed the comics, then you may be disappointed because this movie is not true to the story you get there. I would argue, however, that many of the stories from the comics just don't fit well into movie form or simply aren't compelling to a broader audience.
For example, some comic book folks probably complained about X-Men 3 in which the Phoenix is described as a malevolent alter-ego inside of Jean Grey's mind. In the comic book, the Phoenix is a cosmic force that possesses Jean Grey. And then there's time travel, an intergalactic war, and some other things that really aren't well regarded by mainstream moviegoers.
So, I don't blame the moviemakers for making the Wolverine story a bit more pat.
But I think they can be held accountable for the fact that it's just a bit too pat and predictable.
The characters' motives are flat and overplayed. For instance, Sabretooth, is apparently motivated by basic sibling rivalry. Wolverine is motivated by rage over his lost love.
And nearly every turn in the plot is completely predictable.
I would also echo a complaint I've had about the X-Men movies: I think more time should have been spent developing the characters instead of including extra people just to excite the fanboys. Gambit is very cool and he's one of my favorite characters from the comics, but his role could have been written out of the movie completely.
So, the movie is mediocre. I didn't hate it, but I also had higher expectations.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:20 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 401 words, total size 5 kb.
May 02, 2009
Movie Review: Heckler
I pulled up the movie Heckler this evening on Showtime On Demand.
It's mostly about hecklers, people who holler out during live performances. The end of the movie lapses into a discussion about critics of all sorts. Primarily, they focus on comedian's experiences, but the discussion expands to those of all sorts of celebrities.
The parts about actual hecklers is just astonishing. People who yell out during live performances like that shock me. Everyone paid to go there and it's rude less to the person who is getting paid regardless of everyone's satisfaction than it's downright offensive to everyone whose dollars are definitely being devalued. And I'm just talking about the basic hecklers I've heard. These performers tell stories that are simply astonishing. I don't have any other words. Some hecklers have even assaulted the performer!
That part of the film and the discussion around those people is really interesting, but the film makers then expand the discussion to criticism in general. The conclusion seems to be that all opinions are equally unjustified.
People can believe absolutely anything and a goodly number of them will give voice to them in a great number of forums.
Getting the performers' view of hecklers is very interesting, but getting their view of critics at large involves far too much navel-gazing to be interesting.
I think Paul Rodriguez gives performers the best advice in the film when he talks about the title of a book somewhere, "What you think of me is none of your business." And it sort of seems like the performers in the movie kind of come to that conclusion, but given that it's voiced after 20 minutes of crying about critics, the stiff upper lip stuff at the end rings a little hollow.
Even so, this movie was a good choice for me this evening. Not too heavy, crazy, or anything.
It's mostly about hecklers, people who holler out during live performances. The end of the movie lapses into a discussion about critics of all sorts. Primarily, they focus on comedian's experiences, but the discussion expands to those of all sorts of celebrities.
The parts about actual hecklers is just astonishing. People who yell out during live performances like that shock me. Everyone paid to go there and it's rude less to the person who is getting paid regardless of everyone's satisfaction than it's downright offensive to everyone whose dollars are definitely being devalued. And I'm just talking about the basic hecklers I've heard. These performers tell stories that are simply astonishing. I don't have any other words. Some hecklers have even assaulted the performer!
That part of the film and the discussion around those people is really interesting, but the film makers then expand the discussion to criticism in general. The conclusion seems to be that all opinions are equally unjustified.
People can believe absolutely anything and a goodly number of them will give voice to them in a great number of forums.
Getting the performers' view of hecklers is very interesting, but getting their view of critics at large involves far too much navel-gazing to be interesting.
I think Paul Rodriguez gives performers the best advice in the film when he talks about the title of a book somewhere, "What you think of me is none of your business." And it sort of seems like the performers in the movie kind of come to that conclusion, but given that it's voiced after 20 minutes of crying about critics, the stiff upper lip stuff at the end rings a little hollow.
Even so, this movie was a good choice for me this evening. Not too heavy, crazy, or anything.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:56 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
April 20, 2009
Tiga "Far From Home"
Stumbled across this video today and thought it was nice, so I'm sharing it, too.
Tiga
"Far from home"
Tiga
"Far from home"
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
04:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
"The Rejection" by Dangerous Muse
I stumbled across this song on my Pandora station today and enjoyed it.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
April 17, 2009
Cool music video
John David shared this in Google Reader today and I thought it was really cool, so I shared it, too.
It's just a really cool music video.
The music itself is nice, although it's not my absolute favorite.
It's just a really cool music video.
The music itself is nice, although it's not my absolute favorite.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
03:31 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
April 04, 2009
Movie Review: All Over the Guy
I think I missed the first five or ten minutes of this movie and it's still playing right now. All Over the Guy is a gay romantic movie about two guys who, for various reasons of their own, are resolutely single.
One of them is a naive romantic who rushes into relationships too fast and the other one has an extreme fear of commitment. They're introduced to one another through their best friends, a straight couple whose carefree, nearly storybook romance serves as a foil to the dysfunctional courtship between the gays.
I really dislike main character, Eli Wyckoff. He's just too overtly insecure and emotional. He's wishy-washy and WAY too invested in self-pity.
The other guy, Tom, is played by Richard Ruccolo and is very handsome, although his haircut kind of bothered me at points. He's the slutty one with commitment issues and his being good-looking does not stop him from annoying me with his self-destructive behavior.
Their first date is absolutely terrible. They later run into one another at the flea market, which turns into a second date. And from there they launch into this tortured romance in which they break up and tell each other they hate each other about a thousand times. It's a train wreck.
I don't understand their problems because most of them could be solved by these guys just having some honest and frank conversations about some of the issues they have in their lives. Other problems could be solved if they would just take a deep breath before spouting off when the other one is being an ass about something.
More than that, I don't know why these two like each other. They don't seem to have much in common.
I also don't understand the resolution to this movie. Given that they have all of these problems and every time you think they're going to be a couple they break up, it is unclear to me why one kiss at the end resolves these conflicts for them.
I wouldn't say it's abysmal or anything, but it isn't very good. At least with a movie like 27 Dresses, there are some really funny, cute moments to enjoy.
One of them is a naive romantic who rushes into relationships too fast and the other one has an extreme fear of commitment. They're introduced to one another through their best friends, a straight couple whose carefree, nearly storybook romance serves as a foil to the dysfunctional courtship between the gays.
I really dislike main character, Eli Wyckoff. He's just too overtly insecure and emotional. He's wishy-washy and WAY too invested in self-pity.
The other guy, Tom, is played by Richard Ruccolo and is very handsome, although his haircut kind of bothered me at points. He's the slutty one with commitment issues and his being good-looking does not stop him from annoying me with his self-destructive behavior.
Their first date is absolutely terrible. They later run into one another at the flea market, which turns into a second date. And from there they launch into this tortured romance in which they break up and tell each other they hate each other about a thousand times. It's a train wreck.
I don't understand their problems because most of them could be solved by these guys just having some honest and frank conversations about some of the issues they have in their lives. Other problems could be solved if they would just take a deep breath before spouting off when the other one is being an ass about something.
More than that, I don't know why these two like each other. They don't seem to have much in common.
I also don't understand the resolution to this movie. Given that they have all of these problems and every time you think they're going to be a couple they break up, it is unclear to me why one kiss at the end resolves these conflicts for them.
I wouldn't say it's abysmal or anything, but it isn't very good. At least with a movie like 27 Dresses, there are some really funny, cute moments to enjoy.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
03:09 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.
March 27, 2009
Movie Review: A Haunting in Connecticut
You'd think after just talking about how I don't like horror movies that I wouldn't be so ready to see another one so soon, but this evening I went with some of my lovely coworkers to see A Haunting in Connecticut.
This was very enjoyable to me.
The movie is about this family who moves into a big old house in Connecticut in order to be closer to the hospital where the eldest son is involved in a special treatment program for cancer. They are financially strapped and making their way through life after fighting difficulties like alcoholism. (Not all of them are alcoholics. Just the dad.)
When they move in, weird things start happening immediately. Shadows flit. odd sounds echo down the halls. Strange reflections show up. And there are horrifying dreams and hallucinations. Things rapidly reach a fever pitch and the family discovers that their house was a former mortuary and a famous seance parlor. SPOOKY! Things do not progress in a positive direction after this information is brought to light.
Watching it, I was reminded of classic horror movies like The Omen, Amityville Horror, and even Poltergeist. Indeed this movie is set in the 80's and I believe the people who made this movie intended there to be strong parallels.
There isn't anything really surprising in this movie. You will undoubtedly figure out what the twists are before you actually get to them, but that didn't make it any less startling to me when scary monsters would jump out or suddenly appear.
I do think the movie could have stood to have a bit more suspense and desperation, but I was ultimately contented with the way the film progressed and ended. I was also happy that I wasn't subjected to lots of gore and flying blood.
I did think the lady who played the mother in this film was a bit much at times. And I still think they made some pretty stupid decisions in light of the evidence that the devil has taken over parts of their house, but that's what horror movies are about: us knowing better and not being able to stop that child from going up into the attic even though we're all yelling at her to not play up there.
As far as horror movies go, this one was actually a lot of fun. I don't think fans of horror will call this movie a revolution or anything, but if you want a movie to watch with your friends, a movie you can crack jokes to, a movie you can giggle about when everyone is startled by something scary, this is a good movie for that.
This was very enjoyable to me.
The movie is about this family who moves into a big old house in Connecticut in order to be closer to the hospital where the eldest son is involved in a special treatment program for cancer. They are financially strapped and making their way through life after fighting difficulties like alcoholism. (Not all of them are alcoholics. Just the dad.)
When they move in, weird things start happening immediately. Shadows flit. odd sounds echo down the halls. Strange reflections show up. And there are horrifying dreams and hallucinations. Things rapidly reach a fever pitch and the family discovers that their house was a former mortuary and a famous seance parlor. SPOOKY! Things do not progress in a positive direction after this information is brought to light.
Watching it, I was reminded of classic horror movies like The Omen, Amityville Horror, and even Poltergeist. Indeed this movie is set in the 80's and I believe the people who made this movie intended there to be strong parallels.
There isn't anything really surprising in this movie. You will undoubtedly figure out what the twists are before you actually get to them, but that didn't make it any less startling to me when scary monsters would jump out or suddenly appear.
I do think the movie could have stood to have a bit more suspense and desperation, but I was ultimately contented with the way the film progressed and ended. I was also happy that I wasn't subjected to lots of gore and flying blood.
I did think the lady who played the mother in this film was a bit much at times. And I still think they made some pretty stupid decisions in light of the evidence that the devil has taken over parts of their house, but that's what horror movies are about: us knowing better and not being able to stop that child from going up into the attic even though we're all yelling at her to not play up there.
As far as horror movies go, this one was actually a lot of fun. I don't think fans of horror will call this movie a revolution or anything, but if you want a movie to watch with your friends, a movie you can crack jokes to, a movie you can giggle about when everyone is startled by something scary, this is a good movie for that.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:36 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 451 words, total size 4 kb.
March 22, 2009
Movie Review: Knowing
John David and I went to see Nicholas Cage's new film Knowing last night and I find myself losing the conviction that Nicholas Cage knows what it's like to be a human being. John David is convinced that this movie would never have been made not too many years ago.
Nicholas Cage is some sort of MIT astronomy professor scientist peopleguy who lost his wife to a horrible hotel fire not long ago and is trying to raise their son on his own. Amid the ongoing depression, he and his son struggle with metaphysical questions about their role in the universe, life after death, and the question of whether or not events are random or determined. So, you can imagine the conflict for Nicholas Cage when a time capsul at his son's school contains a paper covered in numbers which provide the dates and death toll for "every major global disaster for the last 50 years."
I don't really understand what constitutes a major global disaster in this movie because the death tolls in some of these events are really pretty low and some of them are accidents and some of them are horrible attacks. And the list of events is short enough to occupy only two sides of a piece of construction paper. I just think a list of tragedies for the last 50 years would be longer even if you restricted the list of tragedies to "major" ones, but no one explained to me what constitutes a major versus a minor disaster.
Just in case you didn't read the spoiler above, this movie is really beyond ridiculous.
Nicholas Cage makes some really strange decisions as an actor. He often over plays his emotions and his character just behaves very strangely. What's even more strange is that his overacting seems to infect other actors in the film by the end and they begin freaking out in some really inappropriate ways.
I can't tell you why most of the major decisions are made by the characters in this film because I would make completely different decisions. For instance, if you get a list of all the major disasters, why not call the New York Post? They will publish pretty much anything and it would let more people know what's going on even if it does no good.
And we're fed this whole false dichotomy of random vs. determinism, which, by the way, are defined in a way that makes them sound very similar in my opinion, so by the end of the movie we're left believing that there is some sort of determinism at play, although whatever it is must be vicious.
Between the strange acting, bad writing, and just overall stupid plot, this movie is one to skip.
Nicholas Cage is some sort of MIT astronomy professor scientist peopleguy who lost his wife to a horrible hotel fire not long ago and is trying to raise their son on his own. Amid the ongoing depression, he and his son struggle with metaphysical questions about their role in the universe, life after death, and the question of whether or not events are random or determined. So, you can imagine the conflict for Nicholas Cage when a time capsul at his son's school contains a paper covered in numbers which provide the dates and death toll for "every major global disaster for the last 50 years."
I don't really understand what constitutes a major global disaster in this movie because the death tolls in some of these events are really pretty low and some of them are accidents and some of them are horrible attacks. And the list of events is short enough to occupy only two sides of a piece of construction paper. I just think a list of tragedies for the last 50 years would be longer even if you restricted the list of tragedies to "major" ones, but no one explained to me what constitutes a major versus a minor disaster.
Just in case you didn't read the spoiler above, this movie is really beyond ridiculous.
Nicholas Cage makes some really strange decisions as an actor. He often over plays his emotions and his character just behaves very strangely. What's even more strange is that his overacting seems to infect other actors in the film by the end and they begin freaking out in some really inappropriate ways.
I can't tell you why most of the major decisions are made by the characters in this film because I would make completely different decisions. For instance, if you get a list of all the major disasters, why not call the New York Post? They will publish pretty much anything and it would let more people know what's going on even if it does no good.
And we're fed this whole false dichotomy of random vs. determinism, which, by the way, are defined in a way that makes them sound very similar in my opinion, so by the end of the movie we're left believing that there is some sort of determinism at play, although whatever it is must be vicious.
Between the strange acting, bad writing, and just overall stupid plot, this movie is one to skip.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
03:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 177 words, total size 5 kb.
March 21, 2009
Movie Review: I Love You, Man
The Blogless Fourth Axiom and I went to see cutie-pie Paul Rudd in his new buddy film, I Love You, Man, this evening. It's a cute movie and exactly what you probably already expect if you've seen any of the trailers.
Paul Rudd plays this guy who is recently affianced whose wife-to-be and family all express some concern over the fact that he has no male friends who will participate in the wedding with him. And then he meets Jason Segel who isn't even close to being as cute as Paul Rudd and they become friends over fish tacos, Rush, and dog poop. This causes some conflict within Paul Rudd's relationship with that lady from The Office who dated Jim.
It's a funny movie with lots of cute parts and lots of fun parts.
Paul Rudd's character is tremendously awkward. Nearly every moment in which he is onscreen caused me to cringe. I mean, he's absolutely adorable, so clean, and pretty, but his character says the most awkward things and his body language is so juvenile and conflicted that one almost can't bear to watch.
It's a happy fun movie although there's little of substance in the film. There's lots of gross boy-talk and silliness and very little that is actually surprising.
One interesting part is the fact that the character played by Andy Samberg is gay and he prefers to sleep with "straight" men. It's an interesting spin and a rather pleasant change from the way movies usually portray gay men.
If you've been reading my posts on masculinity and femininity, you might also consider some of what the movie shows as interesting. Paul Rudd's character is extremely effeminate. It's no wonder that there is some confusion over his sexuality in the movie. There is some arc in his character, though, and there is a slight, albeit ambiguous reversal in this aspect of his character. Nevertheless, there is something to consider in terms of not only masculinity but also for heterosexual male friendships; how men relate to one another as men.
Needless to say, the movie was not really written to explore these ideas. It's generally a shallow film. Fun, but lacking in any real substance.
Paul Rudd plays this guy who is recently affianced whose wife-to-be and family all express some concern over the fact that he has no male friends who will participate in the wedding with him. And then he meets Jason Segel who isn't even close to being as cute as Paul Rudd and they become friends over fish tacos, Rush, and dog poop. This causes some conflict within Paul Rudd's relationship with that lady from The Office who dated Jim.
It's a funny movie with lots of cute parts and lots of fun parts.
Paul Rudd's character is tremendously awkward. Nearly every moment in which he is onscreen caused me to cringe. I mean, he's absolutely adorable, so clean, and pretty, but his character says the most awkward things and his body language is so juvenile and conflicted that one almost can't bear to watch.
It's a happy fun movie although there's little of substance in the film. There's lots of gross boy-talk and silliness and very little that is actually surprising.
One interesting part is the fact that the character played by Andy Samberg is gay and he prefers to sleep with "straight" men. It's an interesting spin and a rather pleasant change from the way movies usually portray gay men.
If you've been reading my posts on masculinity and femininity, you might also consider some of what the movie shows as interesting. Paul Rudd's character is extremely effeminate. It's no wonder that there is some confusion over his sexuality in the movie. There is some arc in his character, though, and there is a slight, albeit ambiguous reversal in this aspect of his character. Nevertheless, there is something to consider in terms of not only masculinity but also for heterosexual male friendships; how men relate to one another as men.
Needless to say, the movie was not really written to explore these ideas. It's generally a shallow film. Fun, but lacking in any real substance.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
01:38 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.
March 08, 2009
Movie Review: Watchmen
I went with the Objectivists yesterday to see the Watchmen movie. There was a fairly wide range of taste in movies represented in our little group, but this movie was hated universally. (Diana, for reals. This one is horrid.)
The story picks up in an alternative reality from our own in which the US won the Vietnam War, Nixon had been re-elected for a zillion terms, and a former superhero called the Comedian is mysteriously murdered. One hero who refused to hang up his cape when vigilantism was outlawed, Rorschach, investigates the murder. Another hero, Dr. Manhattan, who is nearly omnipotent, blue, and naked most of the time, gets dumped by his girlfriend, Laurie Jupiter, and is then accused of giving people cancer leaves the planet to float around Mars in a giant glass thing. Then there is an apparent murder attempt on another hero, Ozymandias, and Rorschach becomes convinced that there is a plot to kill off all the former heroes, the Watchmen.
I was concerned about this movie because I recently read the graphic novel and I guessed -- rightly as it turns out -- that if the movie was anything like that, then it would be an awful movie. The movie is pretty faithful to the comic book. The dialogue matches word-for-word in many places throughout the movie.
The movie, like the comic, is really a nihilistic attack on heroes. We are repeatedly shown how not only do they have lots of problems, psychological woes, personal drama, and baggage, their status as heroes alienates them from regular human beings. In the case of Laurie Jupiter and Dan Dreiberg they cannot even relate to one another as human beings. It's only as caped crusaders that they connect to one another. If humans have problems to match their inner and outer conflicts and contradictions, then the people we call heroes are even worse because they lack humanity in proportion to their "heroic" status and power.
I've heard complaints about the acting in the movie, but I didn't find any of the performances particularly distracting.
What was distracting was Billy Crudup's large, blue, glowing wang. I knew Dr. Manhattan spent most of his time naked (symbolic of his distance from the rest of humanity) but I was still surprised by the amoung of time that penis spent on the screen.
The movie is very slow and boring. So was the comic book. I think if you haven't read the comic, then there will be elements of the movie that seem strange and disconnected from the story.
But it's a hideous movie. I can't possibly recommend that anyone go see it.
The story picks up in an alternative reality from our own in which the US won the Vietnam War, Nixon had been re-elected for a zillion terms, and a former superhero called the Comedian is mysteriously murdered. One hero who refused to hang up his cape when vigilantism was outlawed, Rorschach, investigates the murder. Another hero, Dr. Manhattan, who is nearly omnipotent, blue, and naked most of the time, gets dumped by his girlfriend, Laurie Jupiter, and is then accused of giving people cancer leaves the planet to float around Mars in a giant glass thing. Then there is an apparent murder attempt on another hero, Ozymandias, and Rorschach becomes convinced that there is a plot to kill off all the former heroes, the Watchmen.
I was concerned about this movie because I recently read the graphic novel and I guessed -- rightly as it turns out -- that if the movie was anything like that, then it would be an awful movie. The movie is pretty faithful to the comic book. The dialogue matches word-for-word in many places throughout the movie.
The movie, like the comic, is really a nihilistic attack on heroes. We are repeatedly shown how not only do they have lots of problems, psychological woes, personal drama, and baggage, their status as heroes alienates them from regular human beings. In the case of Laurie Jupiter and Dan Dreiberg they cannot even relate to one another as human beings. It's only as caped crusaders that they connect to one another. If humans have problems to match their inner and outer conflicts and contradictions, then the people we call heroes are even worse because they lack humanity in proportion to their "heroic" status and power.
I've heard complaints about the acting in the movie, but I didn't find any of the performances particularly distracting.
What was distracting was Billy Crudup's large, blue, glowing wang. I knew Dr. Manhattan spent most of his time naked (symbolic of his distance from the rest of humanity) but I was still surprised by the amoung of time that penis spent on the screen.
The movie is very slow and boring. So was the comic book. I think if you haven't read the comic, then there will be elements of the movie that seem strange and disconnected from the story.
But it's a hideous movie. I can't possibly recommend that anyone go see it.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
01:14 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 444 words, total size 4 kb.
March 06, 2009
Prediction: The Watchmen
I'm going to see The Watchmen with the Objectivists tomorrow. I recently read the graphic novel and I have a prediction to make about this movie: it's going to suck.
The graphic novel was boring and awful.
My highest hope is that the movie will be more visually appealing than the comic was.
The graphic novel was boring and awful.
My highest hope is that the movie will be more visually appealing than the comic was.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
01:27 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
March 02, 2009
On Horror Movies
Horror movies are awful. I am not a fan of them.
I like suspense and I occasionally like to watch movies which give me the heebie-jeebies, but of all the horror movies I've seen most of them bore and irritate me.
I have lots of "rules" concerning horror movies.
I don't like seeing lots of blood and guts flying around all the place. I'm not sickened by blood, I'm annoyed by the visual distraction. It actually makes me less sensitive to the horror of the event to see gallons of blood pouring all over or heads tumbling about.
I don't like hopeless situations. If the enemy in question is invincible and sure to kill every single person you see, then I feel no anxiety for their safety. I need them to have some clear, attainable chance at escaping whatever bothersome monster is after them.
I don't like incompetent characters in horror movies and I wish they were dead before they even get on screen. If horror movies are any indication, people do not deal well with monsters or killers. They always trip at the wrong time or waste time screaming when they should be backing their car up over the bigfoot/dragon/serial killer/killer fungus/demon and driving away.
But here's my biggest complaint about horror movies: They're ugly.
The basic, underlying premise behind a horror movie is that humans are unsuitable for living. No matter how idyllic the setting, death and destruction are just around the corner/door/tent/bush/space hatch/snow mobile.
It's possible to find a horror movie that is very well made in terms of establishing and affirming this general premise. Let the Right One In is an example of one. I would say The Descent is another (with the original ending, not the American one).
Horror movies are patently anti-life. That's what they're about.
So, it is hard for me to endorse a horror movie. I think they're rotten. This doesn't mean that I don't enjoy some aspects of them from time to time (and I can be convinced to see just about any movie at the theater no matter how bad, really) but they are all universally bad movies (as works of art) in my experience.
I like suspense and I occasionally like to watch movies which give me the heebie-jeebies, but of all the horror movies I've seen most of them bore and irritate me.
I have lots of "rules" concerning horror movies.
I don't like seeing lots of blood and guts flying around all the place. I'm not sickened by blood, I'm annoyed by the visual distraction. It actually makes me less sensitive to the horror of the event to see gallons of blood pouring all over or heads tumbling about.
I don't like hopeless situations. If the enemy in question is invincible and sure to kill every single person you see, then I feel no anxiety for their safety. I need them to have some clear, attainable chance at escaping whatever bothersome monster is after them.
I don't like incompetent characters in horror movies and I wish they were dead before they even get on screen. If horror movies are any indication, people do not deal well with monsters or killers. They always trip at the wrong time or waste time screaming when they should be backing their car up over the bigfoot/dragon/serial killer/killer fungus/demon and driving away.
But here's my biggest complaint about horror movies: They're ugly.
The basic, underlying premise behind a horror movie is that humans are unsuitable for living. No matter how idyllic the setting, death and destruction are just around the corner/door/tent/bush/space hatch/snow mobile.
It's possible to find a horror movie that is very well made in terms of establishing and affirming this general premise. Let the Right One In is an example of one. I would say The Descent is another (with the original ending, not the American one).
Horror movies are patently anti-life. That's what they're about.
So, it is hard for me to endorse a horror movie. I think they're rotten. This doesn't mean that I don't enjoy some aspects of them from time to time (and I can be convinced to see just about any movie at the theater no matter how bad, really) but they are all universally bad movies (as works of art) in my experience.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:36 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 368 words, total size 3 kb.
February 22, 2009
Movie Review: Let the Right One In
For my final movie of the weekend, I went with John David down to the Angelika theater to check out the Swedish vampire flick, Let the Right One In or, as they say in Stockholm, Låt den rätte komma in.
This movie follows the bullied and shy, 12 year-old Oskar who dreams of revenge against the kids at school who pick on him. One day, a man and a young girl move in next door and while she is befriending him, a series of gruesome murders strike the town.
I would go into greater detail about how this story unfolds, but it is told in that crazy, indie-European style with slow pacing, odd lighting, strange focal points and bizarre framing that you would swear the movie is 16 hours long. Here's the short version:
I don't think the creepy parts are really worth sitting through this movie. Some of the camera work is neat, but not worth the $12.50 it cost me to watch it.
And this movie isn't really a horror movie. There's very little suspense. I suppose there's a horror in the gore that exists in the film, but I never felt anxious for any of the characters.
And also you have to read subtitles while listening to people speak Swedish.
So, don't worry about seeing this one, either.
This movie follows the bullied and shy, 12 year-old Oskar who dreams of revenge against the kids at school who pick on him. One day, a man and a young girl move in next door and while she is befriending him, a series of gruesome murders strike the town.
I would go into greater detail about how this story unfolds, but it is told in that crazy, indie-European style with slow pacing, odd lighting, strange focal points and bizarre framing that you would swear the movie is 16 hours long. Here's the short version:
- Oskar is picked on by bullies at school.
- Oskar's mom is mean.
- Oskar's dad (his parents are divorced) is an alcoholic.
- Oskar meets Eli.
- Eli is a weird girl and, actually, a vampire.
- Eli's gentleman companion goes around killing people and draining their blood to feed Eli.
- Eli's gentleman friend is probably another boy she befriended decades ago who is all grown up.
- Eli protects Oskar from bullies.
- Oskar and Eli run away together.
I don't think the creepy parts are really worth sitting through this movie. Some of the camera work is neat, but not worth the $12.50 it cost me to watch it.
And this movie isn't really a horror movie. There's very little suspense. I suppose there's a horror in the gore that exists in the film, but I never felt anxious for any of the characters.
And also you have to read subtitles while listening to people speak Swedish.
So, don't worry about seeing this one, either.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:00 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.
Movie Review: Taken
I'm on a movie binge this weekend and yesterday I went with Running Matt to see Taken. I was very excited to see this movie because as the trailers told us it's a sort of Count of Monte Cristo plot.
Liam Neeson plays retired CIA agent, Brian Mills. He's still good at his work, but he retired to be closer to his daughter who lives with her mother and step-father. When his daughter goes to Europe with a friend, his CIA training makes him nervous for her safety and his worst fears come true as she is kidnapped by Albanian gangsters on her very first day in Paris. We follow him as he tries to find his daughter within 96 hours, the time it will take for her trail to go completely cold. Of course, Mills rains hell down on these gangsters and does find his daughter before she is made part of some sheik's harem and violated.
The basic idea here is very exciting to me, but the overall execution in this film is disappointing.
First of all, Liam Neeson reads as a bit too old for the role. Yes, he's supposed to be older, but he's also supposed to still be strong and capable and there are several points when Neeson just looks haggard. Maggie Grace's portrayal of the daughter, Kim, is also too young. The daughter is supposed to be 17, but her style of dress and body language comes off as several years less. Although there's some advantage to this -- it makes those who try to force her into prostitution seem all the more heinous -- but it mostly just looks goofy and preposterous given the circumstances set up in the film. She just should have been more "cool."
Characterization apart from acting in the film is shallow and limited. The part of the movie where we meet the characters gets things off to a good start. Brian and his ex-wife, Lenore, have an unresolved conflict because even though he left a career he loves to be close to their daughter, she still resents all the time he was gone when they were married. She has remarried a super rich guy who uses his money to replace Liam as a generous, present father in the girl's life and Kim's affections toward the two father-figures is fickel -- something the audience accepts from a young girl, but her temper tantrums and extreme outpouring of gratitude when she gets what she wants reinforce the sense that she is juvenile and extremely immature.
But once the action of the movie starts, this characterization ends. We learn nothing else about the main characters and their characters do not change, with one exception: Lenore does seem to recognize that he is truly dedicated to his daughter's happiness and safety.
The story is predictable and it's unclear why because there were opportunities to make it more intricate. For instance, the rich, new husband makes a remark about having resources of his own, and yet his only contribution to Kim's recovery seems to be lending one of his private jets to get Mills to Paris. In another case, Mills also tells us at one point that the rich guy has had a hand in some business deals that could have earned him some enemies, but this fact ultimately comes to naught in the story. Mills is shown to be extremely detail oriented, creating perfect creases in wrapping paper for a gift, and his friends remark that he is detail oriented, but it never really comes out how this characteristic is important to his success. These things have the effect of being Chekhov's unused gun.
There is one shocking moment where Brian Mills shoots a woman in the arm who has played no part in his daughter's kidnapping. She's basically an innocent bystander that he uses to convince a bad guy to help him. In our theater, the audience actually laughed at this ridiculous moment. Early in the movie, Mills says that he is a "preventer" in that he "prevents bad things from happening" and this is a slap in the face of this seeming concern for freedom, justice, and the safety of people at large from criminals. So, instead of providing us with evidence of how gravely serious he is about getting his daughter back, we're shown that he is willing to be as bad as the bad guys when it suits him.
Another complaint I have about Brian Mills' status as a hero in this film is the very deus ex machina way in which he gets leads to pick up his daugher's trail. If ever the audience can't see how he will connect the dots, some character swoops in to point him in the right direction. In a stakeout, he has to wait but 30 seconds before he has all the information he needs to get to the next step. Apparently, there is only one construction site in the whole of Paris, and he knows exactly where it is. He breaks up a brothel and coincidentally finds his daughter's jacket on another girl. Even some of the obstacles put in his way are dumb and improbable, like when he tracks down the guy who targeted the girls the guy walks into traffic and gets hit by a truck. The more exciting and more impressive way to address these problems is to have the "hero" show some real dedication, cleverness, or ingenuity in tracking down his enemies.
And can I complain about a couple of silly things that both Running Matt and I noticed? Mills gets to Paris and he immediately goes to the apartment from which his daughter was kidnapped. To get into the apartment, he goes up to the fifth floor, walks past the front door and goes to a nearby window. He climbs out of the window and onto the ledge, scales along the wall until he gets to one of the windows in the apartment which he breaks in order to gain entry. Brian Mills. CIA secret agent. Can hotwire a car in two seconds. Has a wiretapping kit on his bookshelf at home. Knows all kinds of secret agent things. Can NOT pick a lock.
Also, there are times when he creates massive, public crime scenes but sees no consequences of these actions. At Charles De Gaul International Airport, he manages to get one guy killed, viciously slams another one's face into a car, causes a huge traffic jam, all in front of hundreds of witnesses including security officers, but he appears to just walk away. Apart from one close call, he never really has to deal with the authorities. In fact, that one close call actually appears to be because of a corrupt official in the French government and not because they're actually interested in arresting criminals.
There are plenty of action sequences in this movie and it's not painful to watch. There's very little suspense over all. It's really just very disappointing. And vapid. And shallow. And... just disappointing. Fortunately, it's short at only 93 minutes.
Even though Gran Torino bugged the hell out of me, I would recommend that film over this one if only because Gran Torino gives you more to think and talk about.
Liam Neeson plays retired CIA agent, Brian Mills. He's still good at his work, but he retired to be closer to his daughter who lives with her mother and step-father. When his daughter goes to Europe with a friend, his CIA training makes him nervous for her safety and his worst fears come true as she is kidnapped by Albanian gangsters on her very first day in Paris. We follow him as he tries to find his daughter within 96 hours, the time it will take for her trail to go completely cold. Of course, Mills rains hell down on these gangsters and does find his daughter before she is made part of some sheik's harem and violated.
The basic idea here is very exciting to me, but the overall execution in this film is disappointing.
First of all, Liam Neeson reads as a bit too old for the role. Yes, he's supposed to be older, but he's also supposed to still be strong and capable and there are several points when Neeson just looks haggard. Maggie Grace's portrayal of the daughter, Kim, is also too young. The daughter is supposed to be 17, but her style of dress and body language comes off as several years less. Although there's some advantage to this -- it makes those who try to force her into prostitution seem all the more heinous -- but it mostly just looks goofy and preposterous given the circumstances set up in the film. She just should have been more "cool."
Characterization apart from acting in the film is shallow and limited. The part of the movie where we meet the characters gets things off to a good start. Brian and his ex-wife, Lenore, have an unresolved conflict because even though he left a career he loves to be close to their daughter, she still resents all the time he was gone when they were married. She has remarried a super rich guy who uses his money to replace Liam as a generous, present father in the girl's life and Kim's affections toward the two father-figures is fickel -- something the audience accepts from a young girl, but her temper tantrums and extreme outpouring of gratitude when she gets what she wants reinforce the sense that she is juvenile and extremely immature.
But once the action of the movie starts, this characterization ends. We learn nothing else about the main characters and their characters do not change, with one exception: Lenore does seem to recognize that he is truly dedicated to his daughter's happiness and safety.
The story is predictable and it's unclear why because there were opportunities to make it more intricate. For instance, the rich, new husband makes a remark about having resources of his own, and yet his only contribution to Kim's recovery seems to be lending one of his private jets to get Mills to Paris. In another case, Mills also tells us at one point that the rich guy has had a hand in some business deals that could have earned him some enemies, but this fact ultimately comes to naught in the story. Mills is shown to be extremely detail oriented, creating perfect creases in wrapping paper for a gift, and his friends remark that he is detail oriented, but it never really comes out how this characteristic is important to his success. These things have the effect of being Chekhov's unused gun.
There is one shocking moment where Brian Mills shoots a woman in the arm who has played no part in his daughter's kidnapping. She's basically an innocent bystander that he uses to convince a bad guy to help him. In our theater, the audience actually laughed at this ridiculous moment. Early in the movie, Mills says that he is a "preventer" in that he "prevents bad things from happening" and this is a slap in the face of this seeming concern for freedom, justice, and the safety of people at large from criminals. So, instead of providing us with evidence of how gravely serious he is about getting his daughter back, we're shown that he is willing to be as bad as the bad guys when it suits him.
Another complaint I have about Brian Mills' status as a hero in this film is the very deus ex machina way in which he gets leads to pick up his daugher's trail. If ever the audience can't see how he will connect the dots, some character swoops in to point him in the right direction. In a stakeout, he has to wait but 30 seconds before he has all the information he needs to get to the next step. Apparently, there is only one construction site in the whole of Paris, and he knows exactly where it is. He breaks up a brothel and coincidentally finds his daughter's jacket on another girl. Even some of the obstacles put in his way are dumb and improbable, like when he tracks down the guy who targeted the girls the guy walks into traffic and gets hit by a truck. The more exciting and more impressive way to address these problems is to have the "hero" show some real dedication, cleverness, or ingenuity in tracking down his enemies.
And can I complain about a couple of silly things that both Running Matt and I noticed? Mills gets to Paris and he immediately goes to the apartment from which his daughter was kidnapped. To get into the apartment, he goes up to the fifth floor, walks past the front door and goes to a nearby window. He climbs out of the window and onto the ledge, scales along the wall until he gets to one of the windows in the apartment which he breaks in order to gain entry. Brian Mills. CIA secret agent. Can hotwire a car in two seconds. Has a wiretapping kit on his bookshelf at home. Knows all kinds of secret agent things. Can NOT pick a lock.
Also, there are times when he creates massive, public crime scenes but sees no consequences of these actions. At Charles De Gaul International Airport, he manages to get one guy killed, viciously slams another one's face into a car, causes a huge traffic jam, all in front of hundreds of witnesses including security officers, but he appears to just walk away. Apart from one close call, he never really has to deal with the authorities. In fact, that one close call actually appears to be because of a corrupt official in the French government and not because they're actually interested in arresting criminals.
There are plenty of action sequences in this movie and it's not painful to watch. There's very little suspense over all. It's really just very disappointing. And vapid. And shallow. And... just disappointing. Fortunately, it's short at only 93 minutes.
Even though Gran Torino bugged the hell out of me, I would recommend that film over this one if only because Gran Torino gives you more to think and talk about.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:35 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 1216 words, total size 7 kb.
February 21, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire: Get up. Get out. Go see it. NOW.
I just got back from the movies. I just saw Slumdog Millionaire. I LOVED IT.
If you haven't seen it already, you should go see it right now. RIGHT NOW.
It is such a triumph. I grinned walking all the way to the subway stop and not just because I've read The Three Musketeers.
It's so awesome.
Jamal has to overcome some of the worst, most horrifying challenges and he finds his one chance, his one incredibly, ridiculously distant chance, to find his love and he takes it and he wins.
It's beautiful. I have little to no complaints about the film and will buy it just as soon as I can get it on Blue Ray DVD.
If you haven't seen it already, you should go see it right now. RIGHT NOW.
It is such a triumph. I grinned walking all the way to the subway stop and not just because I've read The Three Musketeers.
It's so awesome.
Jamal has to overcome some of the worst, most horrifying challenges and he finds his one chance, his one incredibly, ridiculously distant chance, to find his love and he takes it and he wins.
It's beautiful. I have little to no complaints about the film and will buy it just as soon as I can get it on Blue Ray DVD.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
12:36 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 129 words, total size 3 kb.
February 13, 2009
'Til the End
This is a cute video apropos to Valentine's Day. I found it at Joe.My.God. and figured I'd repost it for you.
" 'Til the End"
Tom Goss
P.S. The word "until" is shortened to " 'til", not "till." "Till" is a completely different word.
" 'Til the End"
Tom Goss
P.S. The word "until" is shortened to " 'til", not "till." "Till" is a completely different word.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:56 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
January 25, 2009
Sheryl Crow's "Motivation"
Sheryl Crow's last album Detours is pretty much all garbage lyrically speaking. Musically, it's alright. I haven't really liked anything she's made since that live album Central Park Live in which she realized she could make truckloads of money by being the communist friend whose gas can't be afforded that she sang about without irony in "Soak up the Sun."
Nevertheless, I'm listening to Detours now and as I finished up that last post her song "Motivation" came on and I realized that it is an indictment of the sort of lackadaisical thinking I was just describing. Of course, her analysis is far more shallow and includes an implied frustration with the "consumer culture" from which she makes her living.
I'll stop now. Here are the lyrics:
If you REALLY want to have a strong desire to slap her in the face, check out the lyrics to "Gasoline" from the same album.
Nevertheless, I'm listening to Detours now and as I finished up that last post her song "Motivation" came on and I realized that it is an indictment of the sort of lackadaisical thinking I was just describing. Of course, her analysis is far more shallow and includes an implied frustration with the "consumer culture" from which she makes her living.
I'll stop now. Here are the lyrics:
Little white girl in a shiny black carOK. It's a really loose comparison, but hopefully you can see what I mean and aren't too irritated with the lyrics.
Hanging out with her friends and doing black tar
Daddy pays for the wedding with a fist full of dollars
Cost as much as the state of Guatemala
Oh, why even try?
Well I got a big car and a flat screen TV
All my loser friends and my boyfriend's family
Bring bags of food and watch reality freakshows
Everybody's faking it but nobody thinks so
Oh, why even try?
Got no grease on my hands
Got no serious plans
Whole world's waiting for me
'Cause all I gotta do is get it for free
Chorus:
Got no reason to bitch
Ain't no parties I've missed
Got to have it that way
'Cause baby I got Motivation
Skinny young dude in a hundred dollar Tee shirt
In King James kicks and a brand new manicure
Hotties doing pilates with the snotties and the pleasers
Sneaking in the back door at Coconut Teasers
Why even try?
Well, I dropped out of school when I was seventeen
'Cause I didn't have time to study my magazines
'Cause there's a lot to learn from the privileged few
Like how to build a brand wearing high heeled shoes
If you REALLY want to have a strong desire to slap her in the face, check out the lyrics to "Gasoline" from the same album.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:45 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
January 24, 2009
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
As mentioned, I went to the movies this evening with my roommate and a couple of his friends. We saw Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.
This third installation of the Underworld movies is a prequel to the previous two and it describes the origins of the Lycans seen in the first two movies.
As we already knew, Lycans and Vampires both originated from the blood line of some horrible person whose name escapes me. This movie picks up 20 years after that event and Vampires have established themselves as overlords in their medieval land extorting money from and enslaving humans in return for protection from the utterly animalistic Lycans. Lycans (AKA werewolves) originally were just animals. They didn't change back into people at all. They were just scary, loud, mindless, savage animals feeding indiscriminately on Vampires and humans alike. And then Lucien is born to a Lycan in captivity and he has the form of a human but can change into his wolf form at will.
Then Victor, the current leader of the Vampires, decides not to kill Lucien but to raise him as a servant to the Vampires and have him create a breed of Lycans who can take the human form so they can protect the Vampires while they sleep during the day.
This plan doesn't make any sense to me, but it was a long time before I was born so they couldn't ask me what I thought of it. Fortunately, there were a couple of Vampires who tell Victor that it's kind of stupid to treat the people who protect them during the day like garbage. But Victor doesn't listen and so Lucien and everyone else is generally unhappy with his decision making abilities, especially Victor's daught Sasha who is in love with Lucien.
I will skip the obvious jokes about doggy-style sex and move on to what you can easily predict will happen. Basically, Lucien and the other Lycans decide they don't like being slaves, so they fight a lot and in the end they are free to set up their own army and society.
This movie is better than the second Underworld movie, which was really just dumb. And I wouldn't say that it is as good as the first movie, but it was still generally enjoyable.
My biggest complaint -- apart from the usual items regarding consistency of mythology, physics, and basic strategic decision making -- is that the lead actress overinflated her lips before taking on the role and looks, frankly, ridiculous in the more serious scenes.
The plot is exactly as predictable as you would expect, but walking into a movie like this and expecting a particularly clever story is setting yourself up for disappointment. Nonetheless, it's exciting and there's lots of action and I think it did a good job of segueing into the original movie.
It's a fun film and it wasn't a disappointing way for me to spend my $11.50.
This third installation of the Underworld movies is a prequel to the previous two and it describes the origins of the Lycans seen in the first two movies.
As we already knew, Lycans and Vampires both originated from the blood line of some horrible person whose name escapes me. This movie picks up 20 years after that event and Vampires have established themselves as overlords in their medieval land extorting money from and enslaving humans in return for protection from the utterly animalistic Lycans. Lycans (AKA werewolves) originally were just animals. They didn't change back into people at all. They were just scary, loud, mindless, savage animals feeding indiscriminately on Vampires and humans alike. And then Lucien is born to a Lycan in captivity and he has the form of a human but can change into his wolf form at will.
Then Victor, the current leader of the Vampires, decides not to kill Lucien but to raise him as a servant to the Vampires and have him create a breed of Lycans who can take the human form so they can protect the Vampires while they sleep during the day.
This plan doesn't make any sense to me, but it was a long time before I was born so they couldn't ask me what I thought of it. Fortunately, there were a couple of Vampires who tell Victor that it's kind of stupid to treat the people who protect them during the day like garbage. But Victor doesn't listen and so Lucien and everyone else is generally unhappy with his decision making abilities, especially Victor's daught Sasha who is in love with Lucien.
I will skip the obvious jokes about doggy-style sex and move on to what you can easily predict will happen. Basically, Lucien and the other Lycans decide they don't like being slaves, so they fight a lot and in the end they are free to set up their own army and society.
This movie is better than the second Underworld movie, which was really just dumb. And I wouldn't say that it is as good as the first movie, but it was still generally enjoyable.
My biggest complaint -- apart from the usual items regarding consistency of mythology, physics, and basic strategic decision making -- is that the lead actress overinflated her lips before taking on the role and looks, frankly, ridiculous in the more serious scenes.
The plot is exactly as predictable as you would expect, but walking into a movie like this and expecting a particularly clever story is setting yourself up for disappointment. Nonetheless, it's exciting and there's lots of action and I think it did a good job of segueing into the original movie.
It's a fun film and it wasn't a disappointing way for me to spend my $11.50.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.
January 19, 2009
Girl's Generation Gee: Hot Pants in All Colors!
WOOHOO!!!
Hat Tip: Four Four
Hat Tip: Four Four
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
09:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
January 10, 2009
Movies I Like
Diana has me thinking about movies that I've really enjoyed because we've discovered we have almost the exact opposite taste. So, here's a quick list of movies I've enjoyed:
Reflecting on these, it's hard for me to identify any overarching similarities or particularly strong qualities shared by all.
Diana, I'm curious to know which ones you do and don't like, though!
And the same for the rest of my readers. Are there any movies I haven't listed that are your favorites that I should either watch or reconsider?
Update: I forgot to list Shawshank Redemption and To Catch a Thief.
- Grosse Point Blank
- Moulin Rouge
- Dangerous Beauty
- Silence of the Lambs
- The Saint
- The Incredibles
- Strictly Ballroom
- Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
- Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
- French Kiss
- Chicago
- Gattaca
- Clueless
- Legally Blonde
- Casino Royale
- Mission Impossible
- The Godfather
- T2
- Serenity
- True Lies
- Casablanca
Reflecting on these, it's hard for me to identify any overarching similarities or particularly strong qualities shared by all.
Diana, I'm curious to know which ones you do and don't like, though!
And the same for the rest of my readers. Are there any movies I haven't listed that are your favorites that I should either watch or reconsider?
Update: I forgot to list Shawshank Redemption and To Catch a Thief.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:44 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.
<< Page 1 of 8 >>
183kb generated in 0.2077 seconds; 88 queries returned 298 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
