At the Movies

I will spare you all my pithy reviews of recent movies. I've seen a bunch, including Benjamin Button, The Promotion, The Proposal, Drag Me To Hell, The Brave One, and (shudder) Semi-Pro. By the way, that was in order of my enjoyment.

But let's let talk upcoming movies. It's summer, and we're in full blockbuster craptacularness mode. Starting Wednesday is the altogether unwanted Transformers 2, which faces little in the way of competition this weekend. But nobody cares about Transformers 2, in large part because Transformers 1 was largely incomprehensible and the action sequences were so loud and confusing that it doesn't bear re-watching at all.

I've long said--to, ya know, people who ask me these things--that Transformers only succeeded because of the massive amount of nostalgic goodwill it invoked. I saw it in the theater, even though I was 98% convinced it was crap. But I got goosebumps, briefly, when Optimus Prime spoke with that same gravelly voice he used in the 80s cartoon. I loved Transformers back then, man.

But nostalgia only takes you so far. In the case of Transformers, it took me about halfway through the first film. I suspect the rapid drop-off will harm Transformers 2, which will undoubtedly win the weekend (it's only up against a Lifetime-esque movie about some little girl who is conceived to give her dying sister vital organs or something). But I bet you dollars-to-donuts that the drop-off next week is substantial. It faces Ice Age 2 (meh, but the same "meh" as Transformers) and Public Enemy, which so far sounds like a much, much better film. I mean, it's John Dillinger vs. Batman.

So there you have it, my random thoughts on your upcoming cinematic offerings. For those who want to plan further ahead, the big releases after July 4th weekend are Bruno (July 10) and the next Harry Potter (which will stomp the life out of every other film on July 15th). But also watch for 500 Days of Summer, which could be good because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an amazing actor, and District 9 which is produced by Peter Jackson.

I will not see G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra unless terrorists call and tell me that my family is strapped to a bomb that will go off if I don't provide a ticket stub from the movie.

And Then I Thought Better Of It.

I was mentally crafting a post in my head about feminism and the pain that seems to exist when a feminist tries to get married. There have been a couple of great articles on the subject online, and it got me thinking.

Then I remember that I know no fewer than 5 women who are getting married in the next 12 months, all of whom probably have strong opinions on various aspects of weddings and who may read my blog. And if I post something with my personal opinion (about things like wearing white, or churches, or married names) it might be taken as a slight against someone who doesn't hold my same opinion.

So ya'll get nothing!

Well, not nothing. I could rant about the Tigers and their inability to beat the lowly Angels (1-2 in the last series), or how they were screwed by having seriously piss-poor scheduling (3 games in a row at 10pm EST, and then they have to go to Kansas the very next day? I call bullshit, Angels. No reason to schedule those games so late.)

Or I could talk about the latest movies I've seen (Pineapple Express - bit of a letdown but funny; Choke - unimpressive but hey, boobs; Aqua Teen Hunger Force - as weird as you'd expect).

Or I could just mention that I have to work on Sunday, in a pathetic attempt to drum up sympathy.

I choose secret option D: Friday afternoon laziness!

72 Hrs.

It's been a busy week, or at least it feels that way. I've had to get up at 6:30 a.m. for 3 days straight (tomorrow will be 4) and it makes the days seem especially packed.

Other notable (and sometimes ignoble) occurrences from the past 72 hours include:

- Virginia Tech winning in the first round of the NIT in double overtime. Go Hokies! I know it's just the NIT, but I'm still proud of any sport Tech excels at that isn't football. I mean, I'm proud of football too but they're supposed to excel in that area.

- But Georgetown lost a pretty tight game, which is a damn shame. Next year, Hoyas.

- On the recommendation of my mother, I've been watching Showtime's The Tudors via Netflix. I'm 6 episodes in, and while it's a pretty entertaining series, it has one fatal flaw: I know what happens already. It's not really the show's fault; if they changed history, it'd be a much bigger problem. But I already know that Henry marries Anne Boleyn, and starts the Church of England, and all that. So I can't be all that effected during tense scenes with Catherine of Aragon. She's out, and she don't even know yet! Anyway, still pretty entertaining.

- NOT ENTERTAINING AT ALL, on the other hand, was Max Payne. Now, I didn't play the video game. And we all know that video game --> movie adaptations do poorly. But my god, this was a piece of crap. It made no sense, the acting was terrible (but hey, shout out to my man Marlo for a tiny role) and it was ridiculously boring for a movie about gunfights and hallucinogenic valkyries.

In fact maybe I'll just write a new movie using that same set-up. I guarantee it would be better. I give it the rarely-used 1 star.

- This weekend, I'm headed down to Big Sur! Although technically, I'm going on Monday, it's all part of my weekend. Mini-vacations are the BEST vacations.

Hey, How 'Bout Those Awards

I "watched" (left on in the background while I screwed around on the computer) the Academy Awards last night. Not the entire show; I missed the beginning and the first few awards, but generally saw the rest.

Milk Was Great
Sean Penn deserves that Oscar. Of course, I haven't seen any of the other nominees--I'm sure they were all great--but Sean Penn elevated an already outstanding movie. And I'm not just saying that because I live in the Bay Area.

Non-Shocking Ledger Win
I'm not against it, necessarily; Brolin didn't have quite enough to do in Milk to make his performance Oscar-worthy, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is going to get like, 15 more Oscars over the years, so it's valid. It is strange, to me, how many of the actors were nominated for playing well outside the "norm". Downey as an Australian as a black guy, Ledger as the Joker, Hoffman as a (apparently) pedophilic priest, and Brolin as that crazy bastard that shot Harvey Milk. I mean, maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but there is a distinction between great acting and great mimicking. Or, to be more specific, between great acting and a role that has such an obvious lightning rod element (Downey being in black face, for example) that you have to actually look HARDER to evaluate whether the actor actually acted well.

Not that Ledger, or Downey, or any of these guys did not act well. I'm just saying it can be difficult to look past the Joker make-up and crazy voice and say, "Was Heath Ledger the best supporting actor in 2008?"

Actors Describing Actors
The whole "former winners introduce current nominees" thing was interesting. At times, I thought it was really well conceived. Shirley McLaine's description of Anne Hathaway was particularly good; she spoke right to her and had that "grand dame of Hollywood" attitude that made it sound as if she really thought Hathaway was great and wasn't just reading prepared material. And watching DeNiro describe Sean Penn was pretty great too. Others were a bit leaden (it would appear that, unlike other Best Actresses, making Angelina Jolie misty-eyed is a more formidable task than mortal man can hope to achieve).

In Summation
WALL-E is the most underrated (by Academy nominations, anyhow) movie of the year.

Let's Go Crazy, Bullet-Point Style

Except, I'm not sure how to make bullet points in HTML. So you get a cheap facsimile.

* I have a big set of new cases at work. They have kept me on the phone listening to depositions for about 70% of my time the last 2 weeks. This is a marked increase from the 0% I had previously had going. I think I might actually like attending depositions better than being on the phone. Jury is still out on that one, though.

* It has now become all kinds of chilly here in the Bay Area. Perhaps Thanksgiving was some kind of marker, or the beginning of December, but last night I slept IN a fleece. With blankets. I wasn't actually cold, but I didn't overheat either, and that's saying something. This morning in the apartment, it was 57 degrees.

* When I sneeze while sitting at my desk, I have a tendency to shoot back in my rolling chair, ala some sort of cartoon character. Few coworkers have caught me doing this, but I am fearing the day when they do. It is perhaps 90% an unconscious reaction.

* No politics on here for ages! Chambliss won in Georgia, to the surprise of approximately nobody. I still find it hysterical that Republicans, the sole party governing our nation for 6 of the last 8 years, now argue the necessity of a more balanced Congress. Also that they seem to routinely fail at 8th grade civics by forgetting we have three branches of government, and the Supreme Court is still 5-4 conservative.

* I get to go home for more than a few days at Christmas, after all. I am stoked. Whirlwind trips are a pain in the ass for so many reasons, and this year it was possible that my 4 days trips would also include (beyond the flights) a 16 hour car ride to Florida. It still includes that, but now stretches 9 days. Hooray!

* Saw Blood Diamond finally. It was a decent movie, but pretty much screwed over any potential girlfriends I may have from here on out. Sorry ladies, but no diamonds for you. And not just because of the movie; I've done the independent research. I don't trust those diamond-shilling bastards. It's all burlap gifts from now on. Because everybody loves burlap!

* It's foggy as all get out. I have "Desire" by U2 stuck in my head. And I'm tired of coming in early to work, even if my "early" is later than the rest of you people's normal start times.

Hulk vs. Hulk, and Other Random Points

I watched the new "Incredible Hulk" movie (with Ed Norton) last night. I actually meant to watch in Sunday but stupidly bought the previous Ang Lee/Eric Bana creation. I don't hate the old one, like many did; I thought it was far more nuanced than most superhero movies, and appreciated the subtext that Lee brought.

This new Hulk was definitely more straightforward, but not stupid. At least, not Fantastic Four-level stupid. I think they were truer to the Hulk's "powers" in the Ang Lee version, though. He gets stronger as he gets madder. He has, to some extent, unlimited power as long as people keep pissing him off. That's why he beats Superman, because at the end of the day he is stronger that ol' Supes.

The new Hulk, Nortonified, is not quite as big or strong. He is a better Hulk in other ways (he doesn't have to fight "Hulk dogs", for one thing) but I wish they had alluded to the deep ocean of rage that fuels his strength. Still, solid B effort. B+ for including Iron Man at the end there.

........

I lost, sort of, in court yesterday. It was disappointing but valuable because it is the first time I lost when, really, I shouldn't have. The judge was just not open to hearing my argument, and not open to an objective review of the dispute. It is not a remotely important issue, but it stings. I don't like losing when the facts and the law are on my side, but it happens, and I'm glad it happened on this instead of on, say, something dispositive.

I am also a bit under the weather with a very mild cold. I don't really get sick, hence it is mild, but it is a pain in the ass. It did not stop me from completely rearranging my apartment on Sunday, though it did wear me out a lot faster than moving a couch 10 feet should wear me out.

Alright Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads

Everybody loves Army of Darkness! Howzabout some bits:

• I watched Rambo this weekend, and started Season 3 of The Wire. I am particularly numb to people being shot as a result, because damn if it doesn't seem to happen all the time, especially if you live in Burma or Baltimore. Rambo was just barely watchable. Skip it.
  
  
• If you didn't vote for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, I think you should pretty much SFTU when it comes to intra-party Democratic debates. If you're not going to vote Democrat, why should anybody give two shits if you think Obama isn't as experienced as Clinton? Nobody asks me whether Romney should have taken the nomination, and for good reason: my answer would be self-serving and would not come from a desire to see the Republicans succeed. So shut it.
  
  
• Hey! I'm going to be back in Northern Virginia next week! It's been 8 months since I've been to the area (but not the east coast, if Tampa FL counts), so I expect you are all in flying cars and using food replicators and whatnot.
  
  
• The Olympics are over. I was more interested this year than possibly ever before. That is not saying much (previous interest level: zero) but kudos to Beijing for some impressive pageantry and dissident head-bashing. You know what would make the Olympics suck less? No time delay, and no NBC leaden-sob-story stupidity. Maybe London will fix some of those problems in 2012.
  
  
• One of the upsides of the Olympics is that I get to completely forget that football season--college and pro--is less than a few weeks away. I mean, I like football, but I am so very disappointed by my choice of teams (both college and pro) that I don't really need the aggravation. Still, the promise of a clean slate and a new season are hard to resist.
  
  
• But the Tigers are dead to me.

Tiny Dancer

There is an interesting little commentary on the AV Club today regarding the "Tiny Dancer" scene from Almost Famous. It's a pretty good movie, and that's a defining moment in the film. The comment basically uses the scene as an example of how powerful it can be when a song is linked to a (well-done) scene in a movie.

Of this I totally agree. Even when it's obvious; the scene in Say Anything is like the grand dame of this kind of movie moment.

But it's interesting to look in the comments to the article and see that, while popular opinion tends to skew about 70-30 in favor of Almost Famous (or that scene in particular), there are plenty who found it hackneyed, trite or falsely uplifting.

Which brings us to today's lesson! Movies that have "moments" or are geared towards pulling on certain emotional responses are routinely savaged by critics or various hipster idiots (like myself). Mostly this is because it is difficult to create genuine emotion in that way, without resorting to slimier tactics--and music with an obvious emotional element can be one such effective tactic.

But the effectiveness of a movie's attempt to create a "magical moment" is two-fold: one part director's skill and one part audience interpretation. The audience's capacity for being moved is just as important as the director/actors ability to create the right moment.

That's why some movies, which suck, can still move some people to tears, even while I sit there wondering what time it is. Those folks, for whatever reason, are more open to such sentiment and won't mind how ham-handed the delivery happens to be. A good example of this is the movie Hope Floats, which while supremely boring, has one particular scene in which Sandra Bullock's daughter breaks down as her dad leaves. It's tough, and the scene is almost pulled off because the actress really gives it her all. It did not move me greatly, but some people were just weeping openly.

This is a long-winded way of saying that while a movie can be "bad" or "good", the effectiveness of any given scene is as dependent on what the viewer is bringing to the table as it is on the quality of the film. If there's some movie that everyone seems to love but you can't stand, consider that perhaps it's you, not the movie.

They Got That Right

I finally got to see The Dark Knight this week. And boy is that title apt. I'm still developing my thoughts but I have a feeling it was really, really good.

The strangest thing is how much publicity and promotion the movie had, in comparison to the tone and overall theme of the movie. I know the two (marketing and actual production) aren't inherently related, but it seems a tad incongruous. When Dominos has commercials where their delivery person is battling to get the Joker a pizza, and then you see the movie where the Joker is a goddamn psychopath, you have to wonder what they're thinking with that ad campaign.

I won't really say more, on the off chance that some of you folks haven't seen it yet, but it's a dark freakin' movie, kids. It is full of principle and moral ambiguity and the nature of evil, and I think may end up being one of the best movies of all time (though not as good as the idiocracy that populates IMDB seems to think). I'm sure by now there is plenty of anti-Dark Knight opinion, but being fairly new to the discussion I'm not seeing that. I'm just sort of amazed.

I will add this: there have been murmurings that the Joker is being too well-received by fans of the movie, that he is being propped up as an anti-hero of sorts. To that I say: don't be a moron. Batman is an "anti-hero". The Joker is just a goddamn nutjob. I can see where this movie might appeal to the pro-anarchy crowd, though, and I will confess that for the first time in my life, I thought as I was watching, "I hope some idiot kids don't take this too seriously."

Oh, and that whole "what's with Batman's voice" debate? Totally overrated. I thought it was fine and completely necessary. Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne has a fairly distinct voice, and it would be beyond stupid if he were talking to everybody without trying to disguise it. But hey, people need something to gripe about, right?

Does Hancock Suck?

Let's get this out of the way first - it was an entertaining movie, no doubt about that. But was it crappy entertaining, or something else?

It's tough to discuss because I don't want to ruin any of the movie for those who haven't seen it yet. I'm assuming that most of the 3 people who read my blog.

The first 40 minutes are standard hero stuff with a small twist which we all know from the trailers. He's a drunk asshole. But he can fly and whatnot! Entertaining but not mind-blowing.

There is a twist about halfway through, and it's quite possible it made it a much more interesting movie; or, it made it even stupider.

One theory is that it needed to be explained better. Superhero movies are all about the mythology--you don't just assume Spider-Man has his powers, you see or are given a detailed explanation of what they are, where they come from, and the like. Hancock screwed with that formula a bit, and I think thats annoying some of the standard summer-movie watchers.

But I present this alternative: in leaving some areas purposely unexplained, the movie may have opened the door to a much deeper and more interesting back story. It did it clumsily, if that was its purpose, because Hancock is still trying hard to be a popcorn summer blockbuster, but the potential is there.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm not sure. At least one critic agrees with me but most do not. As I've noted before*, critics are idiots when it comes to movies released between May and August, so their collective opinions are for shite.

*Maybe I haven't noted this before. In a nutshell, movie critics like their summer movies without much depth and with a lot of bang, because that's what they think summer movie audiences want. And while they're not wrong, they tend to skewer movies that don't fit that mold (see, e.g., the first Hulk, a film I will forever consider completely underrated) because they "dare" to present more than just comic book art brought to life. Release those same movies in "Oscar season" (the late fall) and the same critics would praise it for having the audacity to give depth to a superhero story.

I Drink It Up

It was a fairly quiet weekend, but I managed to knock out a couple of movies, and as is the custom and practice, I will now foist my unrequested opinions on you all.

Beowulf - I had the "Director's Cut" from Netflix, but having not seen the original in the theater when it came out, I don't know what the difference is. It wasn't in 3D, obviously, but it's funny to see all the 3D cutesy crap the filmmakers threw in. Like big spears coming at you and whatnot--except, without 3D they just look really badly proportioned. It was entertaining, I will give it that. Also more violent than I expected, and the "animation" (for lack of a better word) was pretty interesting. I thought it was more entertaining and slightly more comprehensible than Beowulf & Grendel. Though B&G was probably more accurate per the times and whatnot. No dragons in that one, ya see.

There Will Be Blood - Holy christ is Daniel Day-Lewis a good actor. I mean, has he ever phoned in a performance? I haven't seen a bunch of his movies--they are very heavy and most keep getting bumped down my Netflix list for popcorn crap like Jumper--but I can't recall the last time I was this impressed by a performance. It makes sense that he only does a movie every couple of years, because it seems like he must disappear into these roles. Good god. I liked this better than No Country for Old Men, for what it's worth.

Wanted - (long, drawn-out sigh). Where to start. The good? Well, Ms. Jolie is of course, fairly smokin' if a bit skeletorish these days. McAvoy is a pretty capable actor. Some of the effects were pretty good... But damn, people. I didn't like the main character much, he went from complete wuss to complete ass with only a 3-second layover Decencyville. The plot didn't make a hell of a lot of sense, which maybe was intentional, and the "twist" was kind of stupid. Riddle me this: why would assassins who can bend bullets and hit targets that are miles away have trouble shooting from a moving car? Because they're in a stupid, if visually impressive, movie. I've seen the director's Russian films (Night Watch and Day Watch, anyway) and I will admit Wanted was slightly more understandable, but not as good. The Watches suffered more from a low budget, and Wanted suffers from its insidious counterpart, too-much-money-for-effects syndrome. This one is definitely made for DVD.

What It Do (Did)

Another grand Memorial Day is past us, and so I look back in reflection at all that I accomplished.

- Re-arranged the apartment. Now I need more furniture. I floated the idea of opening a small break-dancing studio using the extra space, but it was summarily voted down by interested parties.

- Saw Indiana Jones. The new one. The first 45 minutes were gangbusters, definitely Indy at his best. The second half was more tedious and lost some of the spark somehow. A mix of an A and a C- movie.

- Even did some work! Not a hell of a lot, but anything that keeps me paid is good.

- Play about 30 minutes of Call of Duty. I figured I had to, in honor of the holiday. I memorialized our fallen servicemen and women by shooting the hell out of some terrorists. Or someone, I lost track of the plot. But (virtual) bullets were fired.

That's about it, actually. Sunday was particularly productive, as two of the above items occurred then. Monday was sort of useless, but it should serve to speed the week up quite nicely.

More Fragments

or, "I Can't Be Expected to Formulate Entire Blog Posts!"

Plenty to discuss, but not time in which to do it! So let's hit up the highlights, shall we?

• I'm still unconvinced that Hillary is the best candidate. Much is being said about deep-seated sexism, or the fragility of feminism when it is forced up against the real prospect of a powerful woman in power. However, I don't really care about that--longtime readers may recall that I've never really been an HRC fan (see, e.g., this post). But my disagreement with her politics is hard to focus when so much of the discussion centers on gender.
  
  Bill is going a bit nuts these days too. If they're not careful, the Clintons are going to self-destruct themselves right out of this race. I'm still leaning towards Obama.
  
  
• I saw Cloverfield. I am aware that there are wildly varying opinions on this movie, so here is mine: I liked it. If you can get past the indestructible-camcorder gimmick, it's a pretty good take on the monster-movie genre. People are complaining about the aforementioned "shaky-cam" as just a gimmick, but it really is central to the plot. And I was happy to see that they didn't just use the camcorder aspect as an excuse to not show anything interesting (ala Blair Witch). People who compare the two movies are really missing the point--aside from the medium, they aren't alike at all.
  
  Another criticism is that good-looking hipsters who populate the cast are idiots. This is true, but it is also true that most good-looking hipsters (cinematic or real) are idiots. I found most of their actions quite reasonable. And I enjoyed the extended backstory (the first half-hour), because it made the rest of the movie far more believable. Even if they are borderline retarded in their decision-making.
  
  I thought it was entertaining and (if you aren't prone to nausea) worth seeing.
  
  
• It's still raining here in Oakland/Bay Area/Northern California. What the hell, man? It's also bitingly cold. Good reason to stay in and work on my Call of Duty 4 skills, I suppose. The Playstation controller is still kicking my ass pretty handily.
  

He Be Legend

I don't want to spoil the movie for anybody, but if you've read the original "I Am Legend" and are considering the movie, you should know a few things.

First, they've changed the ending. I won't tell you what the old one, or the new one, actually was. But it's different now, and the movie is quite a bit more Hollywood. The worst part is that it makes the name of the movie nonsensical. Why is he legend? They try and craft a new reason, separate from the book's reason, but it's pretty weak.

But, second, it isn't actually as terrible as you might think. Despite some significant changes, the story of the main character is pretty well done. And Will Smith is quite good as well.

The problem lies in the fact that, with that part of the movie crafted so well, you really regret the changes they make to the ending, and to the "bad guys". The bad guys are just CGI special effects with no real purpose other than to scare us.

Anyway, the movie itself is probably a 6 or 7 out of 10; but when you take it in concert with the book, and realize what it could have been (with no changes to actors or the first hour/hour and a half), it gets a 4/10.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that crazy-insane with disease or not, you can't bash your skull against a plexiglass wall repeatedly without turning your brains into goo. That part was just plain silly.

Movie Remembering

Editor's Note: Saw this in my drafts; why didn't it get posted? Did it? Well, here ya go anyway...

...

With the count now more than halfway to 1100, I've still seen a lot of movies. I can remember almost every detail about some of my favorites--with maybe 2 viewings of Raising Arizona, for the little details, I bet I could recite the entire movie from beginning to end--and lots of the details about some of my most despised.*

*New entry from last night: Poseidon, which was on my Netflix list why?

But there's a category of movies that are simply... forgettable. This isn't a knock on the movie, necessarily; action and horror movies are probably best served by this trait, when they have it. It just means that once you leave, it only takes a few hours (or a good night's sleep) to wipe all but the most integral plot points from you mind. "Well, there were two people who were married and also spies for rival organizations... but I don't remember what happens in the middle."

Mr. & Mrs. Smith was definitely entertaining. I even own it on DVD (it was a bargain) but I'm still a little fuzzy on what happens in that movie. Same goes for the Bourne movies (3rd one unseen) -- the 2nd one was cool, but lord knows I can't recall how they shoehorned Julia Stiles back into the series.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing; nobody is saying these movies are Best Picture material, but they certainly serve their purpose.

On the other hand, some movies that maybe were made with Oscar in mind, also fall into this category. Those movies are in trouble, in my book. For instance, I had to be reminded today that Mystic River even existed. This was a Good Movie largely because the acting by some of the characters was superb. But acting is tough to remember, and the plot (dead daughter, right?) is completely vague in my head. Sure enough, it won best acting awards (Penn--I disagree--and Robbins) but didn't win any others.

It's possible that this is only the case because I'm getting old and have seen 1,054 1,066 movies. Maybe it's my brain that can't remember, and not the movies fault?

Nah. It's the movies. I have a mind like steel trap.

Underwhelmed

One of the benefits to dating a woman who has a 6-year-old daughter is that the odds that I will have seen the latest craptastic kid-movie is much higher than it would normally be. This is okay by me, not only because the two of us see a great many movies on our own as well, but because sometimes there are some movies that are actually halfway decent, or dare I say, good. Like Ratatouille.

This is not about Ratatouille.

Underdog does not have a special place in my heart. I do not remember the cartoon, I do not largely care about flying superhero dogs (this includes Krypto, by the way) because it seems like a waste to give superhuman powers to a creature that lacks opposable thumbs. I am however a fan of the Underdog theme song, so there's that.

Most of the youth-oriented movies I am "forced" to see aren't actually all that bad. I get to avoid the seriously deranged (Happy Feet) and the too-pathetic-even-for-a-kid (Bratz). But I did see Underdog last weekend, and I'm sad to say that it was not good. Even from a "dumb kids' movie" perspective.

First of all, what the hell are Underdog's powers? If you have a superhero movie, you have to explain this. Somehow. They explained where he got them (DNA splicing, and I'll ignore the fact that splicing in eagle DNA would not give a non-winged creature flight) but never what they really were. Strength, to be sure, and flight. And super-hearing and speed -- he flies around the world fast enough to catch a frisbee from the opposite direction. That's seriously fast.

But then, Underdog uses his skills in wildly incongruous ways. He seems to be invulnerable -- he can survive a fall from high-Earth orbit -- but 4 sticks of dynamite seem to scare him off. I am not a physicist, but I am pretty sure that if you can survive the extreme stresses of atmospheric reentry, a bundle of TNT isn't going to faze you. The writers routinely seemed to forget what their creation was capable of solely to make cheap (and incredibly lame) jokes.

This may seem like much ado about nothing. It IS a kid's movie, after all. But to me, the most serious violation of a science fiction or fantasy work is when said work violates its own rules. You have to play in the fake universe you create--failing to do so means not only have you made a poorly-scripted and plot-hole-ridden movie, but it's undeniably stupid to boot.

And what the hell happened to Jason Lee? I think I liked him better when he was just a Kevin Smith misanthrope.

Wow and Yikes

I saw Knocked Up last week, and I thought it was pretty good. Very funny (funnier than 40-Year-Old Virgin, in my opinion) and very fun to watch.

Since then, I've run across a number of articles bemoaning or extoling the lack of discussion regarding abortion in the movie. The articles seem to complain either that "abortion isn't considered seriously when this is the exact situation it would be. Boo!" or "abortion isn't chosen and that's a testament to morally upstandingness. Yay!"

(see this Slate article in reference to the former)

Now, I wasn't watching for abortion references or discussion when I first saw the movie. I hadn't even thought about the fact that they'd have to consider one at some point; but I hadn't really thought about Knocked Up at all before I saw it.

But I don't remember either of those positions being taken by the film's director and/or producers. Contrary to some reviews, abortion was discussed; but in keeping with the comedic tone (it IS a comedy) they did so briefly and, I thought, amusingly. They probably could have been funnier, but it's a touchy subject and frankly, not the province of a comedy like this.

What I thought they DID do was imply that the mom-to-be did serious thinking and soul-searching off camera. She consulted with her fairly witchy mother (pointed to by Slate and others as the "evil woman pushing the abortion") and got advice; the stoner's friends also offered their opinions. At the end of the day, though, it went exactly the way abortion should be handled: by the mom and, to a lesser extent, the dad.

I may not be remembering it all 100%. But I do remember a scene in which she tentatively called the dad to tell him she had decided to keep the baby. There is no indication in the movie as to how long it took her to come to this decision; what factors she looked at in deciding, or anything beyond the fact that she made it.

To me, this was perfect. I said it three paragraphs earlier, but this is where the point becomes even more important: the movies is a COMEDY. Even if it does a "disservice" to abortion-rights advocates (or to pro-life advocates), it's not supposed to provide guidance. Even if it were a drama, I doubt it would be able to navigate the complex and politically charged waters of abortion any better. The best a movie can do--and in this, Knocked Up succeeds tremendously--is ignite discussion outside of the theater.

I agree that Knocked Up fails miserably at providing a rational and thorough examination of the difficult decision that expectant mothers must make. But anybody who goes to the movies--any movie--expecting to see that should, well, have their head examined.

When Everything You Do is Totally Awesome

or, Why Spartans Are Better Than You At Everything

I'll come right out and say it: 300 was pretty fantastic. Not
fantastic in the same way that say, an actual quality piece of cinema
might be fantastic; but rather, it was a fantastic movie to watch that
I may not watch again for a long, long time.

I've read "300" by Frank Miller, and it's pretty good. It's not up to
his Sin City level as far as storytelling goes (perhaps because the
story isn't his alone) but it was entertaining enough. The movie, as
it turns out, is like a slower-paced version of the book -- complete
with more slo-mo shots than I have ever seen.

Everything a Spartan does, if this movie is historically (ha!)
accurate, was so damn cool that immortalizing it on film requires
super-slow motion and a get-pumped soundtrack. This includes the
obvious, such as stabbing people with spears, or leaping through the
air, as well as the less obvious -- such as crouching. I know that
when I crouch, I do not feel all that awesome, but then (as my
girlfriend pointed out**) I probably would have been tossed off that
very morbid cliff onto the pile of baby bones were I born a Spartan.

And a word on homoeroticism in film: after reading a few reviews, I
went into 300 expecting to chuckle at the blatantly tongue-in-cheek
gayness of the movie; after all, it's 300 sweaty mens with awesome abs
hanging out at the beach. I was actually surprised that there really
isn't much in that area to "make fun of". Xerxes was a bit effeminate,
but he was also 10 feet tall and had a voice like an idling mack
truck.

My point is, if you were uncomfortable with and/or amused by the movie
because of gay undertones, you need to examine your own head out
first, because the undertones were few and far between.

Not every movie has a great deal of meaning or symbolism behind it;
those that look for it in the films of Zack Snyder (previous credit --
yes there is really only one -- being Dawn of the Dead) are probably
plumbing the depths of their own imaginations more than those of the
movie.

** She assures me, with an unintentional nod to Bridget Jones, that she loves me just the way I am.

*** whoops, comments are good now. posting by email has some bugs.

1,000

I have seen one thousand movies.

Awhile ago, during the job hunt and at blogging "low tide", my movie list--you do know I have a list of every movie I've seen, don't you?--finally topped 1,000.

I am unsure as to what movie is exactly number 1,000; this is because I occasionally remember a movie from my past that somehow escaped inclusion on the list. For example, right as I was approaching the century mark, I realized "Silence of the Lambs" wasn't on the list. "WTF!" I said to myself.

So I am pretty sure that the milestone was reached with this movie; though it's quite possible it was actually this one.

I'm not really sure whether 1,000 movies is something to be proud of or something to be pitied. I definitely have to thank my parents, for giving us HBO when I was in middle school and socially leprous; Netflix, for making it oh-so-easy to fill out my list with movies I would otherwise be too ashamed to rent if I had to do it in person; and of course, the job market for keeping me only partially employed during the last 18 months.

Best Ends

Let's just pretend I've apologized profusely for the lack of updates, and then move on to an actual post, eh?

Best Movie Ending: This is a tough one for me, as I have seen a great many movies (984 at last count). But the first one that comes to mind was The Shawshank Redemption. Say what you will about the feasibility of two ex-cons living in a shack in Mexico, but from the moment Andy escapes, to the moment Redd begins his search, I was on the edge of my seat.

Best TV Ending: It seems to me that it's really, really hard to pull of ending a television show well. The format just doesn't lend itself to a non-episodic ending (problem, non-solution, failure of non-solution, realization of actual solution: all in 22 to 43 minutes) and many shows have met their end with decidedly mixed results. The best you can generally hope for is for a few kernels of excellence in an otherwise so-so finale.* The exception (you knew there had to be one) in my opinion is the series finale of The Office (UK version, of course). I won't give it away -- because it's absolutely amazing if you don't know what happens -- but it achieved exactly 100% of what I wanted from that series. Brilliant.

Best Game Ending: Another area that is rife with disappointment. Beyond the "YOU HAVE WON PLAY AGAIN?" of the NES days, even today's whiz-bang games still often lack a real punch at the ending. I'm not terribly well-rounded when it comes to games -- console titles like Resident Evil or Final Fantasy aren't my thing -- but from the many computer games I've played, the Starcraft and Diablo series stands out as pretty well-finished products. Perhaps that's only because the entirety of the storyline was good, and the endings just kept up the excellence.

Best Book Ending: Tough call. I am not as well-read as I'd like, so it's difficult for me to really say. In fact, I'm just going to leave this to the librarians and English majors, and plead ignorance.

Best Life Ending: Trick question. Life doesn't really end, does it? I guess if someone dies while saving 80 nuns and 120 children from certain doom while curing cancer and ending world hunger, that'd be a pretty good ending. Until I do that, however, the story is often better than how it ends, as far as life goes.

*Buffy ended this way; so did Angel. Seinfeld, in my opinion, didn't really even reach the so-so level. MASH probably holds the gold in this category, but since I didn't see it at the time, and thus did not have the emotional connection to the characters, I went with my own personal favorite.