So, this lost me a Twitter follower the other day. Hold on, I'm not cryin' about that, in and of itself. I tweat to get ideas out there when I can, but I'm generally happy to be following people and not terribly concerned about who's following me (who am I kidding? LOVE. ME.)
What upsets me is the lack of principle on which I was un-followed. The person in question and I have been having this fight for awhile, their position being something akin to "people use political arguments simply to hate each other, and we shouldn't be negative to one another". Yes, and one day we'll all just ride ponies into paradise. Whatever. The argument in question this time applies to more than just my little squabble with a friend.
For those of you who don't know, Chuck Norris posted this last year on Townhall. It more or less calls for "sexual deviants", i.e., gays and lesbians, to be castrated. It's unspeakably vicious right-wing invective. This guy campaigned for Huckabee. If he had made those comments about any other minority group, he wouldn't be allowed within 500 yards of any political campaign. His career would be over. Ask Michael Richards how he's doing lately.
It's a dreary example of our generation's basic un-seriousness that we all know the tired internet meme based on Chuck Norris, but we don't know that he's actually a bigot. Here we have a cultural icon getting away with the most despicable and unacceptable homophobia, but I'm getting un-followed when I break the news to certain people, presumably because an internet fad that got tired in 2004 is more important than gay rights?
Sad. Besides, aside from all that, what exactly is it that Chuck Norris represents culturally? Of course, he manifests the classic American canard that violence solves problems.
To my mind, those jokes will only be funny to you now if after reading this you actively repress the things you've just found out.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Ultimate Franchise
By ultimate, I really wish I meant last.
Michael Bay, however, will not grant us that mercy, not with these numbers. Which means we'll get the same movie again in a couple of years. Actually, it's two movies in one. One movie involves the sub-human inanity of the human characters, their respective dog/robot-humpings, hyper-unrealistic relationships and inhuman experiences (perhaps the next film will feature a Graduate school where the professors are all hot thirty-something babes, inspiring the Beouf to just pluckspaz right out to even greater heights of performance art, completely and totally, until he implodes?)
The other movie on display here is a thoroughly appalling, unexpectedly racist, loud, and completely baffling army ad, featuring giant robots (which transform into vehicles made comical by their own recession-based obsolescence). For all Michael Bay's right-wing war-porn, this is a pretty lame recruitment tool. Just because the dragon fight at the volcano wasn't a successful marketing strategy doesn't mean that Transformers and better special effects will work.
The movie is so sloppy I'd be hard pressed to be offended that Obama has been whisked away to a secret bunker (I'm trying to imagine a Republican president being any more effective than Obama would be against a Decepticon attack. Eight years ago, whither Cheney?).
Still, let Red America have a Transformers flick rather than have the White House, I say.
There' s another movie mixed into that appalling war-ad, and it' s a full-throated Transformers movie, with special effects and battle-sequences that worked better this time around, and are sometimes even breathtaking in their audacity (if sometimes swallowed by their own complexity). There are actually moments of real artistry, with creature effects that really are among the best I've ever seen. I had to sit through a Michael Bay movie to see them, which I won't want to do again unless there's another Transformers movie.
The AV Club has a wonderful breakdown of everything that went wrong, and of course we all read poor Ebert's generous take-down.
The theme that emerges from these reviews is that Michael Bay is far too old to be making this kind of movie. That confuses me a little bit. I sometimes wonder if critics forget who's in charge in Hollywood. I know it's maddening the amount of money this is making, I know it's juvenile, etc. etc. But to expect Michael Bay to grow up? Come on. We need Michael Bay. It's Manichean, really, how much we need him to soldier on, creating Manichean conflicts from the tip of his id. I don't ever want him to grow up. Every couple of years we get dazzled and appalled in equal measure. Behold our bread and circuses! Can we ever out-excess this? The last movie I watched before this one was Through a Glass Darkly. I'll be fine. Besides, ROTF was roughly the same movie last time, minus the minstrel show, and I don't remember this volume of critical fulmination in '07.
Michael Bay, however, will not grant us that mercy, not with these numbers. Which means we'll get the same movie again in a couple of years. Actually, it's two movies in one. One movie involves the sub-human inanity of the human characters, their respective dog/robot-humpings, hyper-unrealistic relationships and inhuman experiences (perhaps the next film will feature a Graduate school where the professors are all hot thirty-something babes, inspiring the Beouf to just pluckspaz right out to even greater heights of performance art, completely and totally, until he implodes?)
The other movie on display here is a thoroughly appalling, unexpectedly racist, loud, and completely baffling army ad, featuring giant robots (which transform into vehicles made comical by their own recession-based obsolescence). For all Michael Bay's right-wing war-porn, this is a pretty lame recruitment tool. Just because the dragon fight at the volcano wasn't a successful marketing strategy doesn't mean that Transformers and better special effects will work.
The movie is so sloppy I'd be hard pressed to be offended that Obama has been whisked away to a secret bunker (I'm trying to imagine a Republican president being any more effective than Obama would be against a Decepticon attack. Eight years ago, whither Cheney?).
Still, let Red America have a Transformers flick rather than have the White House, I say.
There' s another movie mixed into that appalling war-ad, and it' s a full-throated Transformers movie, with special effects and battle-sequences that worked better this time around, and are sometimes even breathtaking in their audacity (if sometimes swallowed by their own complexity). There are actually moments of real artistry, with creature effects that really are among the best I've ever seen. I had to sit through a Michael Bay movie to see them, which I won't want to do again unless there's another Transformers movie.
The AV Club has a wonderful breakdown of everything that went wrong, and of course we all read poor Ebert's generous take-down.
The theme that emerges from these reviews is that Michael Bay is far too old to be making this kind of movie. That confuses me a little bit. I sometimes wonder if critics forget who's in charge in Hollywood. I know it's maddening the amount of money this is making, I know it's juvenile, etc. etc. But to expect Michael Bay to grow up? Come on. We need Michael Bay. It's Manichean, really, how much we need him to soldier on, creating Manichean conflicts from the tip of his id. I don't ever want him to grow up. Every couple of years we get dazzled and appalled in equal measure. Behold our bread and circuses! Can we ever out-excess this? The last movie I watched before this one was Through a Glass Darkly. I'll be fine. Besides, ROTF was roughly the same movie last time, minus the minstrel show, and I don't remember this volume of critical fulmination in '07.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Project! Project!
With the new decade approaching, my brain is conspiring with encroaching time to produce a twice-monthly feature here at the Tympani room, starting in August. I'll be revisiting two influential films from 2000-2009, each month, with an eye towards how the filmmakers have defined the decade, for better or worse. Some will be great films, some will not, but the point will be to separate, from films that accomplished something distinctive, all the chaff, and in some cases, evaluate the runners up.
Leading to that, I'll be covering some of the almost-successes and total disasters of the decade. Modus Operandi on the latter will be the three D's: Deracination, Devaluation, and Dudgeon.
In the meantime, expect a handful of DJ mixes at the Droid Rock Show, and various musical trainspottings here, as per usual.
Speaking of, Adam Freeland's band has a new album out. Here's a little tease:
Leading to that, I'll be covering some of the almost-successes and total disasters of the decade. Modus Operandi on the latter will be the three D's: Deracination, Devaluation, and Dudgeon.
In the meantime, expect a handful of DJ mixes at the Droid Rock Show, and various musical trainspottings here, as per usual.
Speaking of, Adam Freeland's band has a new album out. Here's a little tease:
Monday, June 15, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Gouranga!
Yes, I'm going to Bonnaroo. No, I don't care that there are hippies there. No, I'm not going to put reams of LSD into my mouth. If I can tolerate the company of the many very special people who frequent my bookstore on a weekly basis, I can tolerate some patchouli stank and a coupla hours of Phish (It'll be my first time hearing them in any format). Trust me, this is a vacation.
More pointedly, I get to see The Beastie Boys this week, along with Al Green, Animal Collective, The Decemberists, The Boss, etc.
Those for whom this post would fall under the category "rubbin' it in": wish you were accompanying us.
More pointedly, I get to see The Beastie Boys this week, along with Al Green, Animal Collective, The Decemberists, The Boss, etc.
Those for whom this post would fall under the category "rubbin' it in": wish you were accompanying us.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
OlBURNmann
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
(Just wait for the last bit)
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Nobody Would Be That Stupid
BURN.
When he's down is precisely the time to kick him. It's the one way to insure that we will very seldom be blighted with "Directed by McG".
When he's down is precisely the time to kick him. It's the one way to insure that we will very seldom be blighted with "Directed by McG".
Monday, June 01, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
3-Duh
This is an open-ended conversation about 3-D, its efficacy, and its future.
This is Ebert simultaneously praising one technique while reducing another to gimmick status.
He seems to think there is no difference between being distracted by the gimmick of 3-D and being distracted by watching a movie on a screen twelve times the size of a normal one. I have yet to see a feature film on a real IMAX screen, but I'm guessing I'll be aware of its scope just as I was aware very briefly that Coraline was in 3-D. Here's the thing, though: I quickly forgot that Coraline was in 3-D and found myself swiftly accepting the look and feel of the world. It's the most beautiful balance of 3-D and storytelling I've ever seen, to the point where when you do sit up and notice the 3-D again, it's actually kind of a heady thrill, not a cheap distraction. I look forward to seeing Up, tomorrow.
I'm compelled by Ebert's decade-long dissertation on the brilliance of MaxiVision vs. cheaper celluloid and the conversion to digital. I would love to witness this fabled process in action. I'm also with him on the need to run projectors at their brightest settings.
For all that, there's a part of me that thinks the "purity" of the image should not always be a sacrosanct concept. When I was twelve, my brother made dubbed copies of movies he'd taped off HBO and Showtime, including Aliens, Poltergeist, Flatliners, Hellraiser, The Lost Boys, etc. My copy of Ghostbusters and The Neverending Story that my sister made me was also dubbed. These copies were grainy and pan-and-scanned, and they wore out over the years. To this day, that imperfection, that graininess, toyed with my imagination. Of course, movies are artifice. We want a world made differently than the one we're in, sometimes.
It's ok if kids notice the effects in Coraline. Why shouldn't kids learn at some point to be aware of technique, just a little? I don't think every movie should be 3-D, but I do enjoy it when it's done well, just as I enjoy anything that's done well. Where Monsters vs. Aliens was gimmicky 3-D, Coraline was boundary-pushing 3-D, a fantastic utilization of a technique producing a model-box nightmare come-alive. If it seemed to be lit a little darker than a normal movie, that still served its purpose.
This is Ebert simultaneously praising one technique while reducing another to gimmick status.
He seems to think there is no difference between being distracted by the gimmick of 3-D and being distracted by watching a movie on a screen twelve times the size of a normal one. I have yet to see a feature film on a real IMAX screen, but I'm guessing I'll be aware of its scope just as I was aware very briefly that Coraline was in 3-D. Here's the thing, though: I quickly forgot that Coraline was in 3-D and found myself swiftly accepting the look and feel of the world. It's the most beautiful balance of 3-D and storytelling I've ever seen, to the point where when you do sit up and notice the 3-D again, it's actually kind of a heady thrill, not a cheap distraction. I look forward to seeing Up, tomorrow.
I'm compelled by Ebert's decade-long dissertation on the brilliance of MaxiVision vs. cheaper celluloid and the conversion to digital. I would love to witness this fabled process in action. I'm also with him on the need to run projectors at their brightest settings.
For all that, there's a part of me that thinks the "purity" of the image should not always be a sacrosanct concept. When I was twelve, my brother made dubbed copies of movies he'd taped off HBO and Showtime, including Aliens, Poltergeist, Flatliners, Hellraiser, The Lost Boys, etc. My copy of Ghostbusters and The Neverending Story that my sister made me was also dubbed. These copies were grainy and pan-and-scanned, and they wore out over the years. To this day, that imperfection, that graininess, toyed with my imagination. Of course, movies are artifice. We want a world made differently than the one we're in, sometimes.
It's ok if kids notice the effects in Coraline. Why shouldn't kids learn at some point to be aware of technique, just a little? I don't think every movie should be 3-D, but I do enjoy it when it's done well, just as I enjoy anything that's done well. Where Monsters vs. Aliens was gimmicky 3-D, Coraline was boundary-pushing 3-D, a fantastic utilization of a technique producing a model-box nightmare come-alive. If it seemed to be lit a little darker than a normal movie, that still served its purpose.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Human Condition No Longer Applies To Your Franchise
When McG signed on to direct Salvation, he knew that hardcore fans of the franchise would cry sacrilege. So he decided that he needed the Godfather's blessing. He went down to the set of James Cameron's Avatar, hoping to get a benediction (or at least some advice) from the man who created T1 and T2. But he walked away empty-handed. ''Cameron was very cordial, but he didn't give me his blessing,'' says McG. ''He did tell me, 'I know how you feel. When I directed Aliens, I was following Alien and the mighty Ridley Scott, and people thought, 'Who is this James Cameron? All he's made is Piranha 2!'''
A wide smile spreads across McG's face when he says this. He's not the subtlest guy in the world, and you can tell that he just wants to come right out and say it: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is his Piranha 2 and Terminator Salvation will be his Aliens.
-Entertainment Weekly.
That last bit seems to overlook that Cameron followed Piranha 2 with The Terminator, a film made with a small fraction of the Charlie's Angels franchise's budget, but never mind. It's fun to let McG speak for himself. More telling, really, is that the T4 screenplay is by the writers of Catwoman. There was clearly very little Jonathan Nolan could do to fix that, and the mind boggles at trying to pinpoint which scenes or themes he has inserted.
Paul Haggis, Nolan, and other screenwriters reportedly jumped in on a draft of Terminator Salvation (Skynet, apparently, has grammatically terminated the colon). The result is still a formless mass, bereft of dramatic action, free of incident, while being needlessly reflexive of James Cameron's films (T2 and Aliens) and also some boring thunderdome-less Beyond Thunderdome.
That's not to say this is really all that much of a letdown, since this series was dead by the end of T2, or, technically, by the end of the needless T3. The point after which your protagonists have at last failed to stop nuclear destruction is when it's hardest for me to care very much about the fate of John Connor (knowing full well that Kyle Reese will be fine until 1984).
In fact, I care very little about John Connor in general, though I suppose when I was a kid I viewed my T-800 guardian quite happily through the eyes of my on-screen Edward Furlong-surrogate. That was then, though, and it's a curious devolution of these films that they would so casually forget what made them appealing in the first place, their erstwhile protagonist, Sarah Connor. The Alien series remembered its female protagonist ass-kicker until the AvP films, deeming it necessary to clone her back from the dead (while giving her nothing much to do).
Sarah Connor dispatches the first Terminator (with some help from Kyle Reese). In T2, she's buff, deadly, and ruthless about her mission. James Cameron was really very good at creating female warriors. That's no small ingredient to the success of these franchises.
Absent that (and some perfunctory inclusion of a sassy female ass-kicker), the one moment of recognition between Connor and the young Kyle Reese (making the film both sequel and prequel), was effectively built into the premise by Cameron twenty-five years ago.
Either write these films, or don't make 'em. If you get to the point where you need Paul Haggis to save you from screenwriter barnacles latched upon your franchise, you've made the wrong fate for yourself.
A wide smile spreads across McG's face when he says this. He's not the subtlest guy in the world, and you can tell that he just wants to come right out and say it: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is his Piranha 2 and Terminator Salvation will be his Aliens.
-Entertainment Weekly.
That last bit seems to overlook that Cameron followed Piranha 2 with The Terminator, a film made with a small fraction of the Charlie's Angels franchise's budget, but never mind. It's fun to let McG speak for himself. More telling, really, is that the T4 screenplay is by the writers of Catwoman. There was clearly very little Jonathan Nolan could do to fix that, and the mind boggles at trying to pinpoint which scenes or themes he has inserted.
Paul Haggis, Nolan, and other screenwriters reportedly jumped in on a draft of Terminator Salvation (Skynet, apparently, has grammatically terminated the colon). The result is still a formless mass, bereft of dramatic action, free of incident, while being needlessly reflexive of James Cameron's films (T2 and Aliens) and also some boring thunderdome-less Beyond Thunderdome.
That's not to say this is really all that much of a letdown, since this series was dead by the end of T2, or, technically, by the end of the needless T3. The point after which your protagonists have at last failed to stop nuclear destruction is when it's hardest for me to care very much about the fate of John Connor (knowing full well that Kyle Reese will be fine until 1984).
In fact, I care very little about John Connor in general, though I suppose when I was a kid I viewed my T-800 guardian quite happily through the eyes of my on-screen Edward Furlong-surrogate. That was then, though, and it's a curious devolution of these films that they would so casually forget what made them appealing in the first place, their erstwhile protagonist, Sarah Connor. The Alien series remembered its female protagonist ass-kicker until the AvP films, deeming it necessary to clone her back from the dead (while giving her nothing much to do).
Sarah Connor dispatches the first Terminator (with some help from Kyle Reese). In T2, she's buff, deadly, and ruthless about her mission. James Cameron was really very good at creating female warriors. That's no small ingredient to the success of these franchises.
Absent that (and some perfunctory inclusion of a sassy female ass-kicker), the one moment of recognition between Connor and the young Kyle Reese (making the film both sequel and prequel), was effectively built into the premise by Cameron twenty-five years ago.
Either write these films, or don't make 'em. If you get to the point where you need Paul Haggis to save you from screenwriter barnacles latched upon your franchise, you've made the wrong fate for yourself.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Three Non-Stories
1) Obama at Notre Dame controversy: There were anti-war protests wherever George W. Bush went. You cannot, however, be truly pro-life and also support war-starting presidents. On the one hand, you have W., invading nations and overseeing the deaths of thousands, on the other, you have a president not personally responsible for a single abortion that has been carried out since Roe v. Wade. Abortion was legal under Bush, right? Either way, it's not a story. People are allowed to protest, and this has not served to "reignite" the debate. The debate's pretty well ignited.
2) Hate crimes legislation: I don't know what position to take on this, but I do know it's a non-story, in that it probably won't end up protecting a single homosexual. I'm more concerned with our basic human rights being covered by the law than I am with this getting passed. Good thing I didn't learn Arabic and decide to join the army. On the other hand, even though I don't believe in criminalizing our thoughts and motivations, I'm tempted to applaud a temporary edict against terrorizing your fellow Americans based on skin-deep differences. Still, carrying out this law will prove problematic, most likely requiring large cultural support. We're gaining ground. The real story is in the marriage and equality fights.
3)Swine-flu: Biggest non-story in years. To the lady at the bookstore who told me I should wash my hands after every single act: I sure hope your weakened immuno-response doesn't get your dumb-ass killed when you come down with regular flu.
Bonus: I'm not going to berate Republicans for being "the party of no". I'd prefer they be a reasonable and informed opposition, but that's a pipe-dream. Suffice it to say though, I'd have preferred it if the Democrats had been an actual opposition party of some kind over the past eight years. There's plenty to berate Republicans for. Berating them for being in opposition to us is intellectually dishonest.
2) Hate crimes legislation: I don't know what position to take on this, but I do know it's a non-story, in that it probably won't end up protecting a single homosexual. I'm more concerned with our basic human rights being covered by the law than I am with this getting passed. Good thing I didn't learn Arabic and decide to join the army. On the other hand, even though I don't believe in criminalizing our thoughts and motivations, I'm tempted to applaud a temporary edict against terrorizing your fellow Americans based on skin-deep differences. Still, carrying out this law will prove problematic, most likely requiring large cultural support. We're gaining ground. The real story is in the marriage and equality fights.
3)Swine-flu: Biggest non-story in years. To the lady at the bookstore who told me I should wash my hands after every single act: I sure hope your weakened immuno-response doesn't get your dumb-ass killed when you come down with regular flu.
Bonus: I'm not going to berate Republicans for being "the party of no". I'd prefer they be a reasonable and informed opposition, but that's a pipe-dream. Suffice it to say though, I'd have preferred it if the Democrats had been an actual opposition party of some kind over the past eight years. There's plenty to berate Republicans for. Berating them for being in opposition to us is intellectually dishonest.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
I'm Slightly Hungover and Cranky
and this makes me feel better:
Update:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Update:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
To Boldly Whoa
In case you haven't heard, Star Trek, Abramized for your viewing pleasure, is just flawlessly fun. It's the sleekest summer entertainment in years, and stands visor and insignia above the last handful of the franchise's installments.
If you haven't seen it (based on anti-geek prejudices) or somehow haven't heard the buzz, get ye into a proper seat, avoid false IMAXes, and get ready to smile. ('Course, by now you probably have seen it)
One thing I have to ardently disagree with is that the film "reboots" the series. Not true. Yes, it's a new take, but so was The Next Generation, and their film also included a crossover between two casts. This is a full-blooded Star Trek movie. We could have a whole new generation of Star Trek shows and fans, and the best part of it all is the high concentration of love for and recognition of the original series, in the new film.
Many shows of our era, certainly any that hinge upon a group of professionals, bonded in mutual respect and love for each other, owe much to Star Trek. Sorkin's work would've been unthinkable without it.
Weird to be saying this, but Abrams and his crew put this into context for me: Our era needs Star Trek, needs it done right, and needs it completely showing off its true, whole heart. Deep down, it's always been less about starships, pseudo-science and space battles, and more about friendship and discovery. Any Star Trek entry that sidestepped that has done so to its detriment.
We've got it now, though. And the next movie stands a chance of being truly, memorably great.
If you haven't seen it (based on anti-geek prejudices) or somehow haven't heard the buzz, get ye into a proper seat, avoid false IMAXes, and get ready to smile. ('Course, by now you probably have seen it)
One thing I have to ardently disagree with is that the film "reboots" the series. Not true. Yes, it's a new take, but so was The Next Generation, and their film also included a crossover between two casts. This is a full-blooded Star Trek movie. We could have a whole new generation of Star Trek shows and fans, and the best part of it all is the high concentration of love for and recognition of the original series, in the new film.
Many shows of our era, certainly any that hinge upon a group of professionals, bonded in mutual respect and love for each other, owe much to Star Trek. Sorkin's work would've been unthinkable without it.
Weird to be saying this, but Abrams and his crew put this into context for me: Our era needs Star Trek, needs it done right, and needs it completely showing off its true, whole heart. Deep down, it's always been less about starships, pseudo-science and space battles, and more about friendship and discovery. Any Star Trek entry that sidestepped that has done so to its detriment.
We've got it now, though. And the next movie stands a chance of being truly, memorably great.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Ear Tasties
ANIMAL COLLECTIVE "MY GIRLS" HD from KNOWMORE on Vimeo.
More psychedelia:
2009 Borderline from George Salisbury on Vimeo.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Drinking To Forget
He is about 175 years old, he apparently stopped changing when he reached Hugh Jackman's age, and neither he, nor we, find out how he developed such an interesting mutation.
-Ebert
The rest of his review is about like that. Ebert completely rejects Wolverine as a character. More to the point, his heart and mind apparently can't comprehend the X-Men. Mutants are simply mutants. We don't concern ourselves with the how and why. Their powers are revealed to them through the course of puberty. Our curiosity was not that he had claws, but that they were made of adamantium.
In any case, Wolverine is best left alone. He winds up joining the X-Men in the midst of a multiple-year amnesia bender, unaware of how he got his shiny new bones. Why anyone ever wanted to spoil that wonderful premise with an explanation, I could never figure out. Thankfully, you won't remember much of Gavin Hood's sloppy follow-up to X3, since the final act works as its own adamantium bullet to your brain.
The various bits of angst levelled at Wolverine, in direct conflict with those 13 year-olds and 13 year-olds-at-heart who seemed to genuinely enjoy the flick, are not feelings I'm able to match. It's a better film than, oh, Fantastic Four 1 & 2, Ghostrider, X-3, Spider-Man 3, Daredevil, Elektra, etc. Spider-Man 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, Iron Man and The Hulk, were all, well, quite good movies. The badness of some of the other Marvel properties only underlines that.
Should Wolverine have been better? My God, yes. Still, I'm not angry, but I look forward to Holly's review. Her reaction snapped me out of a complacent stupor.
Because, folks, much of the movie is pretty bad. I got through it rolling my eyes here and there, but, not expecting much to begin with, had what fun I could.
The bad: There is dialogue and incident that resorts at every possible turn to cliche. There are many moments you will see coming from eight plot points away. For all of Ebert's fawning over Gavin Hood's previous flicks, Hood's other work is no less maudlin. Hood peppers this film with half-sketched themes of imperialism and social injustice. The script he's relying on doesn't really justify his exploration of those issues, but perhaps we can be thankful a Wolverine flick doesn't become Tsotsi with claws.
If you're expecting darkness akin to the new Batman series or the kind of humor we saw in previous X-Men or Spider-Man movies (pre third installments), get ready to be disappointed. Wolverine is portentous when it should be light and corny when it should be earnest. It wastes Gambit, and completely ruins our expectations for Deadpool. Perhaps there hasn't been enough distance between this and the previous X-Men film. A complete reboot was probably our only hope, and by that point Hugh Jackman would've aged more noticeably than Wolverine ever would.
There is good in the film, though: Will i Am has his moments. Dominic Monaghan has a nice, brief bit of screen time as an electricity manipulator. Ryan Reynolds is more enjoyable than I've ever seen him as the mutant who becomes Deadpool. Danny Huston is more reliable than the movie deserves. Some of the action scenes are fun, financial-cut-corners and cheap special effects notwithstanding.
Then there's Liev Schreiber, furious, fearsome and engaging, the whole way through. His Sabretooth is the one durable character in the film. I wanted more of him, par for the course with Schreiber characters. Jackman is fine, but he's given too much camp and too little gravitas to inhabit here. Too bad, but again, why did we even need this movie?
-Ebert
The rest of his review is about like that. Ebert completely rejects Wolverine as a character. More to the point, his heart and mind apparently can't comprehend the X-Men. Mutants are simply mutants. We don't concern ourselves with the how and why. Their powers are revealed to them through the course of puberty. Our curiosity was not that he had claws, but that they were made of adamantium.
In any case, Wolverine is best left alone. He winds up joining the X-Men in the midst of a multiple-year amnesia bender, unaware of how he got his shiny new bones. Why anyone ever wanted to spoil that wonderful premise with an explanation, I could never figure out. Thankfully, you won't remember much of Gavin Hood's sloppy follow-up to X3, since the final act works as its own adamantium bullet to your brain.
The various bits of angst levelled at Wolverine, in direct conflict with those 13 year-olds and 13 year-olds-at-heart who seemed to genuinely enjoy the flick, are not feelings I'm able to match. It's a better film than, oh, Fantastic Four 1 & 2, Ghostrider, X-3, Spider-Man 3, Daredevil, Elektra, etc. Spider-Man 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, Iron Man and The Hulk, were all, well, quite good movies. The badness of some of the other Marvel properties only underlines that.
Should Wolverine have been better? My God, yes. Still, I'm not angry, but I look forward to Holly's review. Her reaction snapped me out of a complacent stupor.
Because, folks, much of the movie is pretty bad. I got through it rolling my eyes here and there, but, not expecting much to begin with, had what fun I could.
The bad: There is dialogue and incident that resorts at every possible turn to cliche. There are many moments you will see coming from eight plot points away. For all of Ebert's fawning over Gavin Hood's previous flicks, Hood's other work is no less maudlin. Hood peppers this film with half-sketched themes of imperialism and social injustice. The script he's relying on doesn't really justify his exploration of those issues, but perhaps we can be thankful a Wolverine flick doesn't become Tsotsi with claws.
If you're expecting darkness akin to the new Batman series or the kind of humor we saw in previous X-Men or Spider-Man movies (pre third installments), get ready to be disappointed. Wolverine is portentous when it should be light and corny when it should be earnest. It wastes Gambit, and completely ruins our expectations for Deadpool. Perhaps there hasn't been enough distance between this and the previous X-Men film. A complete reboot was probably our only hope, and by that point Hugh Jackman would've aged more noticeably than Wolverine ever would.
There is good in the film, though: Will i Am has his moments. Dominic Monaghan has a nice, brief bit of screen time as an electricity manipulator. Ryan Reynolds is more enjoyable than I've ever seen him as the mutant who becomes Deadpool. Danny Huston is more reliable than the movie deserves. Some of the action scenes are fun, financial-cut-corners and cheap special effects notwithstanding.
Then there's Liev Schreiber, furious, fearsome and engaging, the whole way through. His Sabretooth is the one durable character in the film. I wanted more of him, par for the course with Schreiber characters. Jackman is fine, but he's given too much camp and too little gravitas to inhabit here. Too bad, but again, why did we even need this movie?
Monday, May 04, 2009
Irony? Lost on Conservatives?
I was about to voice my wariness of Olbermann shedding light on this development, until I remembered he's blocked in most conservative households.
Visit msnbc.com for Obama lOve, First Lady-Shaped Cakes, and Apple Butter
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Swagga
This one's Diplo and Switch, up there with their girl of the extended moment, Santogold, who I still refuse to dismiss as a fad. I don't know if I'm overpowered by this one or not, but it's good. It's a nice little tease for the upcoming collaboration.
In earlier Santogold related relays, I posted a quick link around the twitface-o-verse to this crossover between N.A.S.A., Kanye, Santi and Lykke Li, which exemplifies everything future music does well, bringing in the synth, the warbles, the bass and the space-travel.
N.A.S.A. - "Gifted" video from Anti Records on Vimeo.
I'm enjoying music videos that remind me of what it was like to bliss out over them way back when, and with that, to increase the amount of bandwidth needed to load this one single post, I leave you with Moby's new David Lynch directed video:
Shot In The Back Of The Head from Moby on Vimeo.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Let's All Go To the Range With Wayne LaPierre
Actually, let's not, because he's crazy.
The first amendment doesn't cover my right to post a bomb recipe on a bulletin board on campus (or in very many places at all), so why do I have the right to own the kind of firepower one could use to mow down a schoolyard in two seconds flat?
Either the NRA defends our right to own uranium or anthrax, or they're not serious about their position. Fortify their stance one way or the other, but NRA members will still be almost totally insane.
The first amendment doesn't cover my right to post a bomb recipe on a bulletin board on campus (or in very many places at all), so why do I have the right to own the kind of firepower one could use to mow down a schoolyard in two seconds flat?
Either the NRA defends our right to own uranium or anthrax, or they're not serious about their position. Fortify their stance one way or the other, but NRA members will still be almost totally insane.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
There Is No Greater Comedic Achievement...
....than Fox News.
And another, much more urgent message:
(We here at the Tympani Room hope you are enjoying Embedded Video Month)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Moment of Zen - Ignoramus | ||||
| ||||
And another, much more urgent message:
(We here at the Tympani Room hope you are enjoying Embedded Video Month)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
"Opposite Marriage"
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Things are really looking down for the anti-marriage movement, aren't they? Did a large majority see the gay "storm gathering" ads? Did anybody unencumbered by a seventh-grade emotional maturity level take the ads seriously?
Now we have this model who manages to make both marriage opponents and models live up to the stereotype. Let those apparently moved by her attitude cheer all they want, but from now on, I'm calling straight marriage "opposite marriage". With the divorce rates as high as they are in this country, it seems about right.
Incidentally, I don't refer to it as gay marriage. It's marriage, plain and simple, between two consenting adults. To oppose that is to do so on grounds that were covered nowhere in the New Testament, and you can spare me the one scintillating but ambiguous passage from Leviticus. That's a concern for the Jewish community, and I don't believe they hold a political preponderance in either major American party, as Christians do.
The line's getting overplayed, in this case because it's true: Replace the topic of "gay" marriage with that of De-segregation, and that woman would never walk on any stage anywhere, except maybe in Mississippi or Wasilla.
Back to unabashed gayness:
Dick Cheney going on Hannity to badmouth the Obama administration is the equivalent of walking onto the gay porn set with your butt-plug, ready and willing to go. These events both have their intended audiences.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Acoustic Resonance
I've had varying reactions to Jarmusch. Wildy differing responses to a handful of Jarmusch movies are perfectly understandable. Hell, it makes sense to have one's enjoyment shift from scene to scene in just one flick of his. We're lucky to still have him:
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
If It's Real Dumb, It Leads
This is all too funny. Teabagging. Republican party/talk radio infighting. Fundamentalist Christians running scared enough to remove Rachel Maddow segments from youtube, and on and on.
I fear, though, that focusing so much on the follies of a dying party might produce something other than their last gasp. Mightn't it likely galvanize the crazy? It's possibly better to just let them burn it out in their own corner. We should be scrutinizing the Obama administration anyway, since there's clearly not an honorable or even coherent opposition party, at the moment.
Meanwhile, that horrorshow is entitled to believe whatever sub-literate lunacy it chooses. There'll be something new next week, and the week after that. We're giving their tea-parties lavish attention this week because it's hilarious television, not to mention thoroughly reassuring to liberals.
I voted for Obama partly in the hope that these thundering know-nothings might gasp their last political gasp and yield a better Republican party, not just a better Democratic party. I think we all voted for him because we wanted the political tenor to change. Focusing on the right wing rabble drowns that out. I don't give a damn what Sarah Palin said last week. She lost, and I thought our reward for that was not having to hear her voice anymore.
We should, no doubt, keep vigilant watch against the insane. Let's not, however, aid and abet Glenn Beck's ratings by scrutinizing every whacko nugget that falls out of his mouth. I'm not sure we have that kind of time, and besides, Obama's message is much, much better for us all, be you pro or con.
I fear, though, that focusing so much on the follies of a dying party might produce something other than their last gasp. Mightn't it likely galvanize the crazy? It's possibly better to just let them burn it out in their own corner. We should be scrutinizing the Obama administration anyway, since there's clearly not an honorable or even coherent opposition party, at the moment.
Meanwhile, that horrorshow is entitled to believe whatever sub-literate lunacy it chooses. There'll be something new next week, and the week after that. We're giving their tea-parties lavish attention this week because it's hilarious television, not to mention thoroughly reassuring to liberals.
I voted for Obama partly in the hope that these thundering know-nothings might gasp their last political gasp and yield a better Republican party, not just a better Democratic party. I think we all voted for him because we wanted the political tenor to change. Focusing on the right wing rabble drowns that out. I don't give a damn what Sarah Palin said last week. She lost, and I thought our reward for that was not having to hear her voice anymore.
We should, no doubt, keep vigilant watch against the insane. Let's not, however, aid and abet Glenn Beck's ratings by scrutinizing every whacko nugget that falls out of his mouth. I'm not sure we have that kind of time, and besides, Obama's message is much, much better for us all, be you pro or con.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
FTFabulousW!
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Pwning the Right...
...ain't that tough a job.
Nope, not really.
Seriously, even members of the conservative citizenry are getting in on the action.
Addendum: Yep.
Nope, not really.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
Seriously, even members of the conservative citizenry are getting in on the action.
Addendum: Yep.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Who's Bitching the Watchmen?
In lieu of a legit review, here's Ten Criticisms of Watchmen that annoy me:
It's too long (You knew the running time before you walked in. What exactly was so precious about the time you lost?)
It's not enough like the book!
It's too faithful to the book!
The Cold War Nuclear Scare is outdated.
It's ultraviolent fanboy trash!
It's cynical!
Oh God, Hallelujah again? (I mean, overplayed, yes, but not the Leonard Cohen version so much, certainly not the passages of the song we got, and anyway, get over it)
Bob Dylan? Is that all you could think of?
Boring! (Seriously, what does it take, America? Do you not like movies that much? I invite you to a screening of Tarkovsky's Stalker)
I shouldn't have to read the book to understand the movie (Why not? The movie makes perfect sense, it's not in un-subtitled Farsi).
Some criticisms I agree with:
Malin Akerman could've been a lot better (Though Matthew Goode in and of himself was fine. The filmmakers made character choices that run counter to the book in some ways, and Goode is for some reason being blamed. I thought his insouciance was fun).
The Comedian rape scene was a bit much.
The film could be baffling to the uninitiated. (but bear with it. It comes together, and plays even more lucidly a second time.)
The old person makeup seems right out of this Genesis video.
I don't believe a movie has to be some kind of exact transcription of its source material, but having said that, I agree with the notion that this movie actually deepens our understanding and connection to the book. For a patient, loving, and fan-based breakdown of book vs. movie, look no further than this piece.
It's far from a perfect movie. It is at times close to being a grand folly. Still, it comes together. It brings us images we've never really seen, even if we have read the book. The Dr. Manhattan origin story is flawlessly accomplished, spine tingling and utterly breathtaking. Jackie Earl Haley deserves every acting award there is for his Rorschach.
What do we look for in the movies? This film offers an American god, a right-wing vigilante kicking ass in a prison, a startling, provocative re-imagining of American political and social history, and an ambitious meditation on the path America has taken. It rivals The Dark Knight and JFK, if that's possible.
Also, what is going on with critics everywhere complaining about the film's Cold War era nuclear paranoia? Umm. This wasn't that long ago. We were most of us here during this one. We have nukes. Iran will have nukes soon, and North Korea and Pakistan do to this day, so to me this is still a VERY pertinent issue. If it's not a possibility that we might be teaching kids to hide under their desks again in the near future, why was Iran such a big deal during last year's campaign? (and less dramatically, what the hell is wrong with doing a period piece?)
For those who attempt to deflate the movie by saying it is needlessly violent and presents us with characters who believe that violence is the only answer, I ask you, do you read the news on a daily basis? I don't necessarily agree with these characters, but embracing their attitudes can put us in a reflective mode. I really do like dramas that give us clashing worldviews. These characters' plights inspire pity and terror. Which is what ancient dramas used to do.
It's too long (You knew the running time before you walked in. What exactly was so precious about the time you lost?)
It's not enough like the book!
It's too faithful to the book!
The Cold War Nuclear Scare is outdated.
It's ultraviolent fanboy trash!
It's cynical!
Oh God, Hallelujah again? (I mean, overplayed, yes, but not the Leonard Cohen version so much, certainly not the passages of the song we got, and anyway, get over it)
Bob Dylan? Is that all you could think of?
Boring! (Seriously, what does it take, America? Do you not like movies that much? I invite you to a screening of Tarkovsky's Stalker)
I shouldn't have to read the book to understand the movie (Why not? The movie makes perfect sense, it's not in un-subtitled Farsi).
Some criticisms I agree with:
Malin Akerman could've been a lot better (Though Matthew Goode in and of himself was fine. The filmmakers made character choices that run counter to the book in some ways, and Goode is for some reason being blamed. I thought his insouciance was fun).
The Comedian rape scene was a bit much.
The film could be baffling to the uninitiated. (but bear with it. It comes together, and plays even more lucidly a second time.)
The old person makeup seems right out of this Genesis video.
I don't believe a movie has to be some kind of exact transcription of its source material, but having said that, I agree with the notion that this movie actually deepens our understanding and connection to the book. For a patient, loving, and fan-based breakdown of book vs. movie, look no further than this piece.
It's far from a perfect movie. It is at times close to being a grand folly. Still, it comes together. It brings us images we've never really seen, even if we have read the book. The Dr. Manhattan origin story is flawlessly accomplished, spine tingling and utterly breathtaking. Jackie Earl Haley deserves every acting award there is for his Rorschach.
What do we look for in the movies? This film offers an American god, a right-wing vigilante kicking ass in a prison, a startling, provocative re-imagining of American political and social history, and an ambitious meditation on the path America has taken. It rivals The Dark Knight and JFK, if that's possible.
Also, what is going on with critics everywhere complaining about the film's Cold War era nuclear paranoia? Umm. This wasn't that long ago. We were most of us here during this one. We have nukes. Iran will have nukes soon, and North Korea and Pakistan do to this day, so to me this is still a VERY pertinent issue. If it's not a possibility that we might be teaching kids to hide under their desks again in the near future, why was Iran such a big deal during last year's campaign? (and less dramatically, what the hell is wrong with doing a period piece?)
For those who attempt to deflate the movie by saying it is needlessly violent and presents us with characters who believe that violence is the only answer, I ask you, do you read the news on a daily basis? I don't necessarily agree with these characters, but embracing their attitudes can put us in a reflective mode. I really do like dramas that give us clashing worldviews. These characters' plights inspire pity and terror. Which is what ancient dramas used to do.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Where the Wild Things Beat Your Ass Down
Bullshit. None of us has seen the movie. The song in the trailer was one thing, but it was not merely a music video we were all responding to. I saw some stills from this one several months ago, and I got chills from that alone.
Spike Jonze directed Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and the Sabotage video. You hold your cynical, unimaginative tongues until the movie comes out, you yapping, group-thinking hollywood scrooges.
Spike Jonze directed Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and the Sabotage video. You hold your cynical, unimaginative tongues until the movie comes out, you yapping, group-thinking hollywood scrooges.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
FUCKING WOW
Yeah yeah, I don't care if you've seen this five or six times in five or six different places, you're going to see it at my house too.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Sui Generis
Nathan Rabin over at the AVClub just did a Case Flop on Dirty Work, reminding me of my theory that Americans should love Norm MacDonald.
Here's some evidence to support that theory:
...and here's absolute proof:
Here's some evidence to support that theory:
...and here's absolute proof:
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bouillabaisse
Digested enough music lately? I didn't think so.
The weekend gave us a comprehensive and relentless Essential Mix from Fake Blood, a producer I've been slowly gaining a dependence on. This mix is well worth the two hours.
If you're looking for something gnarlier, Crookers is here to help with a decidedly unusual approach to a set list. Get it here.
Open up yer iTunes and click on this rightcheere
That's the Marine Parade podcast, and last week Alex Metric's March mix came out, with a relatively new track from Zombie Nation, a remix by Metric of Ladyhawke's Paris is Burning, and a sneak of his new Head Straight EP. One track from the EP is the midpoint of the set, and it's called What Now? AND IT WILL OWN YOU.
Other than that, here's some freebies:
Alex Metric remix of Freeland's new track.
Evil Nine's giving away their own remix of Icicles if you just sign up.
Finally, because I can't resist, here's a coupla these here embedded pickins, though you shoulda heard Metronomy's Heartbreaker by now (or there's no decency in radio), and A-Trak's latest remix is just quite sex.
Happy Snake Whackin' Day.
The weekend gave us a comprehensive and relentless Essential Mix from Fake Blood, a producer I've been slowly gaining a dependence on. This mix is well worth the two hours.
If you're looking for something gnarlier, Crookers is here to help with a decidedly unusual approach to a set list. Get it here.
Open up yer iTunes and click on this rightcheere
That's the Marine Parade podcast, and last week Alex Metric's March mix came out, with a relatively new track from Zombie Nation, a remix by Metric of Ladyhawke's Paris is Burning, and a sneak of his new Head Straight EP. One track from the EP is the midpoint of the set, and it's called What Now? AND IT WILL OWN YOU.
Other than that, here's some freebies:
Alex Metric remix of Freeland's new track.
Evil Nine's giving away their own remix of Icicles if you just sign up.
Finally, because I can't resist, here's a coupla these here embedded pickins, though you shoulda heard Metronomy's Heartbreaker by now (or there's no decency in radio), and A-Trak's latest remix is just quite sex.
Happy Snake Whackin' Day.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Watch Dis
Patton Oswalt, ever wise, ever true.
I'll write more about Watchmen later, but suffice it to say, and contrary to most film critics in this country, it's a breathtaking movie.
Wading through all the rustling complaints, nitpicks and misinterpretations attempting to deflate Snyder's accomplishment, I'm tempted to wonder if so called fans of movies and comic books really love the respective mediums at all.
All those completely inured of the capacity for awe really should avoid the flickering arts.
I'll write more about Watchmen later, but suffice it to say, and contrary to most film critics in this country, it's a breathtaking movie.
Wading through all the rustling complaints, nitpicks and misinterpretations attempting to deflate Snyder's accomplishment, I'm tempted to wonder if so called fans of movies and comic books really love the respective mediums at all.
All those completely inured of the capacity for awe really should avoid the flickering arts.
Friday, March 06, 2009
If Dis Don't Make Yer Booty Move
You've probably all seen this, but I must save it and watch it again and again.
BOOMBOX from Ely Kim on Vimeo.
Tracklist, for the posterity of your posterior:
001. Heart of Glass / Blondie
002. Jimmy / M.I.A.
003. Deceptacon / Le Tigre
004. Im on Fire / 5000 Volts
005. Je Veux Te Voir / YELLE
006. The Way I Are / Timbaland
007. Too Young / Phoenix
008. Over And Over / Hot Chip
009. Stick It To The Pimp / Peaches
010. Say My Name / Destiny's Child
011. Pin / Yeah Yeah Yeahs
012. Geremia / Bonde Do Role
013. Let Me Clear My Throat / DJ Kool
014. Point Of No Return / Expose
015. Bubble Sex / The Seebach Band
016. Pump Up the Jam / Technotronic
017. Let's Make Love And Listen To Death From Above / CSS
018. Hella Nervous / Gravy Train
019. Me Plus One / Annie
020. Don't Go / Yaz
021. Bootylicious / Destiny's Child
022. Electric Feel / MGMT
023. Boys Don't Cry / The Cure
024. Lose Control / Missy Elliott
025. Ride The Lightning / Evans And Eagles
026. Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough / Michael Jackson
027. Hearts On Fire / Cut Copy
028. Tainted Love / Soft Cell
029. Between Us & Them / Moving Units
030. It Feels Good / Tony Toni Tone
031. Polaris (Club Mix) / Cyber People
032. You Never Can Tell / Chuck Berry
033. Huddle Formation / The Go! Team
034. Pump That / FannyPack
035. My Love / Justin Timberlake
036. Hung Up / Madonna
037. Justice - D.A.N.C.E (MSTRKRFT Remix) / Justice
038. Cybernetic Love / Casco
039. Creep / TLC
040. When I Hear Music / Debbie Deb
041. B.O.B. / Outkast
042. Bubble Pop Electric / Gwen Stefani
043. Miss You Much / Janet Jackson
044. You Spin Me Round / Dead Or Alive
045. Slide In / Goldfrapp
046. Kelly / Van She
047. Mine Fore Life / The Sounds
048. Disco Heat / Calvin Harris
049. Nighttiming / Coconut Records
050. Club Action / Yo Majesty
051. Pogo / Digitalism
052. Lip Gloss / Lil Mama
053. Heartbeats / The Knife
054. Enola Gay / OMD
055. Goodbye Girls / Broadcast
056. Kids In America / Kim Wilde
057. Kiss / Prince
058. Tenderness / General Public
059. Push It / Salt N Pepa
060. Circle, Square, Triangle / Test Icicles
061. Day 'N' Nite (Crookers Remix) / Kid Cudi
062. Shadows / Midnight Juggernauts
063. Paris (Aeroplane Remix) / Friendly Fires
064. Out At The Pictures / Hot Chip
065. Me Myself and I / De La Soul
066. AudioTrack 10 / Diplo
067. Girls & Boys / Blur
068. Heater / Samim
069. I Wanna Dance With Somebody / Whitney Houston
070. Hands In The Air / Girl Talk
071. Limited Edition OJ Slammer / Cadence Weapon
072. Meeting In The Ladys Room / Mary Jane Girls
073. NY Lipps / Soulwax
074. Lex / Ratatat
075. Gravity's Rainbow (Soulwax Remix) / Steve Aoki
076. Once In A Lifetime / Talking Heads
077. Leave It Alone / Operator Please
078. Half Mast / Empire Of The Sun
079. Hardcore Girls / Count and Sinden feat. Rye Rye
080. Dance, Dance, Dance / Lykke Li
081. Never Gonna Get It / En Vogue
082. Blue Monday / New Order
083. Crazy In Love (Featuring Jay-Z) / Beyoncé
084. 10 Dollar / M.I.A.
085. Love To Love You Baby / Donna Summer
086. Steppin' Out / Lo-Fi-Fnk
087. Karle Pyar Karle / Asha Bhosle
088. Love Will Tear Us Apart / Joy Division
089. Straight Up / Paula Abdul
090. My Drive Thru / Santogold, Casablancas, NERD
091. Like A Prayer / Madonna
092. Freedom 90 / George Michael
093. Black & Gold / Sam Sparro
094. B-O-O-T-A-Y / Spank Rock and Benny Blanco
095. Great Dj / The Ting Tings
096. In A Dream / Rockell
097. Don't Stop the Music / Rihanna
098. Hong Kong Garden / Siouxsie & The Banshees
099. It's Tricky / D.M.C.
100. Bizarre Love Triangle / New Order
BOOMBOX from Ely Kim on Vimeo.
Tracklist, for the posterity of your posterior:
001. Heart of Glass / Blondie
002. Jimmy / M.I.A.
003. Deceptacon / Le Tigre
004. Im on Fire / 5000 Volts
005. Je Veux Te Voir / YELLE
006. The Way I Are / Timbaland
007. Too Young / Phoenix
008. Over And Over / Hot Chip
009. Stick It To The Pimp / Peaches
010. Say My Name / Destiny's Child
011. Pin / Yeah Yeah Yeahs
012. Geremia / Bonde Do Role
013. Let Me Clear My Throat / DJ Kool
014. Point Of No Return / Expose
015. Bubble Sex / The Seebach Band
016. Pump Up the Jam / Technotronic
017. Let's Make Love And Listen To Death From Above / CSS
018. Hella Nervous / Gravy Train
019. Me Plus One / Annie
020. Don't Go / Yaz
021. Bootylicious / Destiny's Child
022. Electric Feel / MGMT
023. Boys Don't Cry / The Cure
024. Lose Control / Missy Elliott
025. Ride The Lightning / Evans And Eagles
026. Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough / Michael Jackson
027. Hearts On Fire / Cut Copy
028. Tainted Love / Soft Cell
029. Between Us & Them / Moving Units
030. It Feels Good / Tony Toni Tone
031. Polaris (Club Mix) / Cyber People
032. You Never Can Tell / Chuck Berry
033. Huddle Formation / The Go! Team
034. Pump That / FannyPack
035. My Love / Justin Timberlake
036. Hung Up / Madonna
037. Justice - D.A.N.C.E (MSTRKRFT Remix) / Justice
038. Cybernetic Love / Casco
039. Creep / TLC
040. When I Hear Music / Debbie Deb
041. B.O.B. / Outkast
042. Bubble Pop Electric / Gwen Stefani
043. Miss You Much / Janet Jackson
044. You Spin Me Round / Dead Or Alive
045. Slide In / Goldfrapp
046. Kelly / Van She
047. Mine Fore Life / The Sounds
048. Disco Heat / Calvin Harris
049. Nighttiming / Coconut Records
050. Club Action / Yo Majesty
051. Pogo / Digitalism
052. Lip Gloss / Lil Mama
053. Heartbeats / The Knife
054. Enola Gay / OMD
055. Goodbye Girls / Broadcast
056. Kids In America / Kim Wilde
057. Kiss / Prince
058. Tenderness / General Public
059. Push It / Salt N Pepa
060. Circle, Square, Triangle / Test Icicles
061. Day 'N' Nite (Crookers Remix) / Kid Cudi
062. Shadows / Midnight Juggernauts
063. Paris (Aeroplane Remix) / Friendly Fires
064. Out At The Pictures / Hot Chip
065. Me Myself and I / De La Soul
066. AudioTrack 10 / Diplo
067. Girls & Boys / Blur
068. Heater / Samim
069. I Wanna Dance With Somebody / Whitney Houston
070. Hands In The Air / Girl Talk
071. Limited Edition OJ Slammer / Cadence Weapon
072. Meeting In The Ladys Room / Mary Jane Girls
073. NY Lipps / Soulwax
074. Lex / Ratatat
075. Gravity's Rainbow (Soulwax Remix) / Steve Aoki
076. Once In A Lifetime / Talking Heads
077. Leave It Alone / Operator Please
078. Half Mast / Empire Of The Sun
079. Hardcore Girls / Count and Sinden feat. Rye Rye
080. Dance, Dance, Dance / Lykke Li
081. Never Gonna Get It / En Vogue
082. Blue Monday / New Order
083. Crazy In Love (Featuring Jay-Z) / Beyoncé
084. 10 Dollar / M.I.A.
085. Love To Love You Baby / Donna Summer
086. Steppin' Out / Lo-Fi-Fnk
087. Karle Pyar Karle / Asha Bhosle
088. Love Will Tear Us Apart / Joy Division
089. Straight Up / Paula Abdul
090. My Drive Thru / Santogold, Casablancas, NERD
091. Like A Prayer / Madonna
092. Freedom 90 / George Michael
093. Black & Gold / Sam Sparro
094. B-O-O-T-A-Y / Spank Rock and Benny Blanco
095. Great Dj / The Ting Tings
096. In A Dream / Rockell
097. Don't Stop the Music / Rihanna
098. Hong Kong Garden / Siouxsie & The Banshees
099. It's Tricky / D.M.C.
100. Bizarre Love Triangle / New Order
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Kindlen'
Just watched Kindle guy defend Kindle 2 to Jon Stewart. I'm by no means a Luddite. I own or am caretaker to a private arsenal of technology. I'm typing this on a Mac and I was one of many thousands Twittering (but not over-Twittering) last night's Oscarcast.
Therein lies my main resistance to turning my library "green", though. Do I really want one more device, when one of the pleasures of reading is an escape from what the industrial revolution hath wrought? Does the act of reading a book have a different physiological and psychological effect than reading text on a screen? I believe so, and I don't believe I'm imagining it. I feel much more at ease when I've spent a healthy part of a given week deep in reading, thankfully apart from anything that attaches itself to the pace of the outside world.
Beyond that, for all the time I spend online, it's primarily consumptive, not reflective. I have to stand back from the deluge of information I receive before the wheels start rolling and I turn it into work, or more accurately, begin to pose greater questions or attempt to interpret. Another electronic device might stir up an already ingrained consumptive predilection on my part. Which is fine, but I'm not sure I'm consumptive when I read a book. I think that act is supposed to ignite different impulses, which my body has reserved for the reading of a physical book, not a screen.
When I read a book or any non-electronic text, I find myself freed up. Isaac Asimov once described a book as a non-electrical video cassette that required no screen and started merely upon looking at it. It would pause when you looked away and required no more than your attention to unpause it.
I suppose that leaves me with having to defend myself from the self-righteous position of the Kindle partisan, assuring me but really castigating me that it's the way to "go green", as a reader. Sure, because no electronic device leaves a carbon footprint, certainly not one hooked up to a 3G network downloading information on a daily basis, my no, that doesn't require energy consumption at all. I'm pretty sure my owning a physical library is not on par with driving a four-by-four or spraying aerosol cans into the air, thanks. Plus, you probably own a car and a Kindle, whereas I own neither.
Still, having said all that, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to where our economic and sociopolitical repletion will eventually encapsulate us. We'll all be in our own cubicles eventually, and I guess I can just hope it gets to that after I'm gone or don't care anymore.
In any case, I wouldn't rule out the notion of owning one. It has significant scholarly possibilities to say the least, and would be great to travel with.
But I'm not about to make a trade.
Therein lies my main resistance to turning my library "green", though. Do I really want one more device, when one of the pleasures of reading is an escape from what the industrial revolution hath wrought? Does the act of reading a book have a different physiological and psychological effect than reading text on a screen? I believe so, and I don't believe I'm imagining it. I feel much more at ease when I've spent a healthy part of a given week deep in reading, thankfully apart from anything that attaches itself to the pace of the outside world.
Beyond that, for all the time I spend online, it's primarily consumptive, not reflective. I have to stand back from the deluge of information I receive before the wheels start rolling and I turn it into work, or more accurately, begin to pose greater questions or attempt to interpret. Another electronic device might stir up an already ingrained consumptive predilection on my part. Which is fine, but I'm not sure I'm consumptive when I read a book. I think that act is supposed to ignite different impulses, which my body has reserved for the reading of a physical book, not a screen.
When I read a book or any non-electronic text, I find myself freed up. Isaac Asimov once described a book as a non-electrical video cassette that required no screen and started merely upon looking at it. It would pause when you looked away and required no more than your attention to unpause it.
I suppose that leaves me with having to defend myself from the self-righteous position of the Kindle partisan, assuring me but really castigating me that it's the way to "go green", as a reader. Sure, because no electronic device leaves a carbon footprint, certainly not one hooked up to a 3G network downloading information on a daily basis, my no, that doesn't require energy consumption at all. I'm pretty sure my owning a physical library is not on par with driving a four-by-four or spraying aerosol cans into the air, thanks. Plus, you probably own a car and a Kindle, whereas I own neither.
Still, having said all that, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to where our economic and sociopolitical repletion will eventually encapsulate us. We'll all be in our own cubicles eventually, and I guess I can just hope it gets to that after I'm gone or don't care anymore.
In any case, I wouldn't rule out the notion of owning one. It has significant scholarly possibilities to say the least, and would be great to travel with.
But I'm not about to make a trade.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Curiouser and Curiouser
I was not in fact trying to sound like Andrew Sarris while tweeting this last night.
I am in fact, not pissy at all this year that Departures beat Waltz With Bashir and The Class, as I've seen none of these movies so far.
However, when The Lives of Others beat Pan's Labyrinth, in Best Foreign Filim back in '07, I was down on it, because the Academy had snubbed the Pan, a deserved Best Pic nom.
I got over it when I saw The Lives of Others. It's a tremendous, brilliant film.
This is one of the few categories in which I'm very tempted to completely trust the voters' judgment (all categories, except for Best Picture, I believe, are limited to a specialized, narrow group of voters). I think they know people are going to see Waltz and The Class, just like they knew people were already embracing Pan's Labyrinth.
Nope, not being pedantic here, either.
I am in fact, not pissy at all this year that Departures beat Waltz With Bashir and The Class, as I've seen none of these movies so far.
However, when The Lives of Others beat Pan's Labyrinth, in Best Foreign Filim back in '07, I was down on it, because the Academy had snubbed the Pan, a deserved Best Pic nom.
I got over it when I saw The Lives of Others. It's a tremendous, brilliant film.
This is one of the few categories in which I'm very tempted to completely trust the voters' judgment (all categories, except for Best Picture, I believe, are limited to a specialized, narrow group of voters). I think they know people are going to see Waltz and The Class, just like they knew people were already embracing Pan's Labyrinth.
Nope, not being pedantic here, either.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Read 'em and Weep
Liveblogging the pics I got right (and wrong), startin' here in a few. Just keep on refreshin'.
8:43
Actress in a Supporting Role
My Prediction: Taraji P. Henson
Winner: Penelope Cruz
Well, I loved her, and Nate Silver was right that he'd be wrong.
8:55
Best Original Screenplay
My Prediction: Dustin Lance Black
Winner: Dustin Lance Black
9:00
Adapted Screenplay
My Prediction: Simon Beaufoy
Winner: Simon Beaufoy
9:07
Animated Film
Mine: Wall-E
Theirs: Wall-E
9:19
Art Direction
Prediction: Benjamin Button
Winner: Benjamin Button
9:21
Costumes
Prediction: The Duchess
Winner: The Duchess
9:24
Makeup
Prediction: Benjamin Button
Winner: Benjamin Button
9:34
Cinematography
Prediction: Wally Pfister
Winner: Anthony Dod Mantle
10:07
Best Supporting Actor
Mine (Yours): Heath Ledger
Theirs: Heath Ledger
10:15
Documentary
Prediction: Man On Wire
Winner: Man On Wire
10:28
Visual Effects
Prediction: Benjamin Button
Winner: Benjamin Button
10:29
Sound Editing
Prediction: Wall-E
Winner: The Dark Knight
10:32
Sound Mixing
Prediction: Wall-E
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
10:35
Editing
Prediction: Chris Dickens (Slumdog)
Winner: Chris Dickens (Millionaire)
10:54
Original Score
Prediction: A.R. Rahman
Winner: A.R. Rahman
11:01
Best Original Song
Prediction: Jai Ho - A.R. Rahman, lyrics by Gulzar
Winner: Jai Ho - A.R. Rahman, lyrics by Gulzar
11:20
Direction
Prediction: Danny Boyle
Winner: Danny Boyle
11:32
Best Actress
Prediction: Kate Winslet
Winner: Kate Winslet
11:43
Best Actor
Prediction: Mickey Rourke
Winner: Sean Penn
11:53
Enchilada
Prediction: Slumdog Millionaire
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
8:43
Actress in a Supporting Role
My Prediction: Taraji P. Henson
Winner: Penelope Cruz
Well, I loved her, and Nate Silver was right that he'd be wrong.
8:55
Best Original Screenplay
My Prediction: Dustin Lance Black
Winner: Dustin Lance Black
9:00
Adapted Screenplay
My Prediction: Simon Beaufoy
Winner: Simon Beaufoy
9:07
Animated Film
Mine: Wall-E
Theirs: Wall-E
9:19
Art Direction
Prediction: Benjamin Button
Winner: Benjamin Button
9:21
Costumes
Prediction: The Duchess
Winner: The Duchess
9:24
Makeup
Prediction: Benjamin Button
Winner: Benjamin Button
9:34
Cinematography
Prediction: Wally Pfister
Winner: Anthony Dod Mantle
10:07
Best Supporting Actor
Mine (Yours): Heath Ledger
Theirs: Heath Ledger
10:15
Documentary
Prediction: Man On Wire
Winner: Man On Wire
10:28
Visual Effects
Prediction: Benjamin Button
Winner: Benjamin Button
10:29
Sound Editing
Prediction: Wall-E
Winner: The Dark Knight
10:32
Sound Mixing
Prediction: Wall-E
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
10:35
Editing
Prediction: Chris Dickens (Slumdog)
Winner: Chris Dickens (Millionaire)
10:54
Original Score
Prediction: A.R. Rahman
Winner: A.R. Rahman
11:01
Best Original Song
Prediction: Jai Ho - A.R. Rahman, lyrics by Gulzar
Winner: Jai Ho - A.R. Rahman, lyrics by Gulzar
11:20
Direction
Prediction: Danny Boyle
Winner: Danny Boyle
11:32
Best Actress
Prediction: Kate Winslet
Winner: Kate Winslet
11:43
Best Actor
Prediction: Mickey Rourke
Winner: Sean Penn
11:53
Enchilada
Prediction: Slumdog Millionaire
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
Friday, February 20, 2009
Bit of a Reach?
Bullpuckey.
If you're lost enough to be a Holocaust denier, you were there before The Reader reared its head.
(Spoilers Follow)
I don't believe the movie whips up tremendous sympathy for Winslet's character. She was Fiennes's boyhood love. He can barely touch her hand when he meets her in prison thirty years later. He pulls away. He never stops being disgusted with her contamination of his life. Yet, he knew her, and knew her before any other woman. He sends her books. She learns to read. Monsters are human, too.
The trial scenes are really scenes of an angry, subconsciously guilty mob. I fail to see how the movie explicitly or implicitly defends or excuses German citizens calling for her punishment. I don't for a second believe that David Hare and Stephen Daldry hold the viewpoint that German citizens were not responsible for what happened.
Vonnegut once said that if he had been a citizen in Nazi Germany, he'd have been a Nazi. What choice would he have had? It's a difficult subject, and I certainly don't expect Jews to be comfortable with films showing Germany dealing with the ramifications of the Holocaust, after the fact. I'm not, however, sure that ramming the Holocaust and its horrors down our throats is all that beneficial.
I agree that the Academy is probably being blind and vain and self-serving by nominating the movie, but Rosenbaum et al jumping on it in this way is itself an act of ignoring several key incidents:
The scenes where David Kross's law professor expresses concern about Kross coming forward with information he has and doing the right thing, or else "we have learned nothing".
The scene of Germans watching Winslet's trial, snarling and gasping in shock, as if they were not themselves culpable. "Hypocrite!" is an inescapable thought during these scenes.
The law student ranting against his fellow students about German Society's culpability
Winslet's character chooses to take full responsibility for her actions and those of all the other guards, ostensibly to protect the secret of her illiteracy. Is that the only reason?
I don't think it's a great film, but I also don't think it's worth Rosenbaum's level of vitriol. It's clear that Holocaust denial is a much worse problem in Europe than it is here, as recent Papal events indicate. Still, does Rosenbaum actually believe that Holocaust deniers are going to sit through five minutes of Shoah in the first place?
Ebert argues that the film is less about the Holocaust and more about speaking up when you know you should. Watch the film with that comment in mind, and see how the trial scenes play for you.
If you're lost enough to be a Holocaust denier, you were there before The Reader reared its head.
(Spoilers Follow)
I don't believe the movie whips up tremendous sympathy for Winslet's character. She was Fiennes's boyhood love. He can barely touch her hand when he meets her in prison thirty years later. He pulls away. He never stops being disgusted with her contamination of his life. Yet, he knew her, and knew her before any other woman. He sends her books. She learns to read. Monsters are human, too.
The trial scenes are really scenes of an angry, subconsciously guilty mob. I fail to see how the movie explicitly or implicitly defends or excuses German citizens calling for her punishment. I don't for a second believe that David Hare and Stephen Daldry hold the viewpoint that German citizens were not responsible for what happened.
Vonnegut once said that if he had been a citizen in Nazi Germany, he'd have been a Nazi. What choice would he have had? It's a difficult subject, and I certainly don't expect Jews to be comfortable with films showing Germany dealing with the ramifications of the Holocaust, after the fact. I'm not, however, sure that ramming the Holocaust and its horrors down our throats is all that beneficial.
I agree that the Academy is probably being blind and vain and self-serving by nominating the movie, but Rosenbaum et al jumping on it in this way is itself an act of ignoring several key incidents:
The scenes where David Kross's law professor expresses concern about Kross coming forward with information he has and doing the right thing, or else "we have learned nothing".
The scene of Germans watching Winslet's trial, snarling and gasping in shock, as if they were not themselves culpable. "Hypocrite!" is an inescapable thought during these scenes.
The law student ranting against his fellow students about German Society's culpability
Winslet's character chooses to take full responsibility for her actions and those of all the other guards, ostensibly to protect the secret of her illiteracy. Is that the only reason?
I don't think it's a great film, but I also don't think it's worth Rosenbaum's level of vitriol. It's clear that Holocaust denial is a much worse problem in Europe than it is here, as recent Papal events indicate. Still, does Rosenbaum actually believe that Holocaust deniers are going to sit through five minutes of Shoah in the first place?
Ebert argues that the film is less about the Holocaust and more about speaking up when you know you should. Watch the film with that comment in mind, and see how the trial scenes play for you.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Impeach the Backwards Aging Nazi Pederasts
The viewing public is understandably nonplussed by ultra-serious Oscar fare at the moment, as the numbers suggest. It's been a wonky year, to be sure. A small number of big budget pictures were more distinctive in their own way than what ended up being cheered by the Academy. With the exception of Slumdog Millionaire and Milk, I'm sure, as I've stated previously, that the Best Picture nominees are not well-deserved. Pity the voters. One year it's overwhelmingly indie, the next, it's The Dark Knight and Synecdoche, NY. Maybe Hollywood needs to start going to the movies.
Harping on the choice of nominees would be its own way of suggesting the perverse canard that such was ever different. As usual, I approach the Oscars as a springboard from which unrecognized work can widen its exposure. Last year was some kind of reveling nihilist apotheosis. It'll be awhile before we see that again.
The Reader
Stephen Daldry has at least accomplished, along with his resident screenwriter David Hare, a movie that this time around didn't assault me with its own self-pity. The Hours was absurd. Julianne Moore was its saving grace. The Reader does not deserve, however, the various assaults against it. I fail to see how it's fodder for Holocaust deniers, except in perhaps the most determined and circuitous ways. You'd have to want that conclusion, because, by my count, Winslet's character suffers greatly, paying for her crime and the crimes of several others.
We get a story of a person who went to work for the Nazis because she could find no other work, is turned into a scapegoat by a ravenous German mob eager to purge itself of its own sins of inaction (or terrible action, one assumes), suffers, loses her freedom, and regains her humanity for a few brief years. Surely the notion of people swept into a tyrannical system is also subject for meditation? I failed to see at any point how the film shirked the horror of the Holocaust, and am in fact relieved I didn't have to see yet another Oscar-Baiting film consumed with the subject. There's room for Shoah and The Reader, but besides, this film is slight. It is exactly what Oscar likes: Stately, slightly scandalous, and tailored for a conclusion we all see coming. It's a statue in search of a statue.
Frost/Nixon
It's hard to say why anybody thought this would be a big draw. In terms of marketing, the studios were nuts from the start. Getting Ron Howard to direct a story that doesn't require the pacing of Apollo 13 is a strange choice, artistically, and deserved failure commercially. The whole story strikes me as, well, a possible other side of the coin to All The President's Men. So, why not get a filmmaker, say, Stephen Frears, who knows how a Peter Morgan scripts works inside and out? Still, it's not as if the choices here don't work in some way, and I can't fault the movie too much, it being certainly entertaining.
I only wonder if we needed the extra fireworks for an event we can all see on DVD from thirty years ago. Langella and Sheen are wonderful to watch and listen to, and I surely walked away enjoying Nixon's company. Strange thing to imagine, isn't it? Still, this movie is minor league compared to Altman's Secret Honor, with Philip Baker Hall as Tricky Dick, drunk off his ass, all by his lonesome. Nixon is a figure we can attach a number of qualities and depredations to, depending on our mood. I hasten to add that Morgan's script is great. To my mind, for all its skill, the movie never completely justifies itself.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defensive title, yes? Curiouser and curiouser. Here's another flick that may not have justified itself (or its running time). The difference is that Button spends its entire length trying very hard to bring that premise to a close. It can't, but I'm getting the premonition I've seen something that will be embraced for many years. It's a fascinating conceit to witness, even if you're in agreement with Ebert, creeped out at something fundamentally wrong.
For all the lambasting of Eric Roth for Gumping his Button script, you can't fault him for working in some of the same ideas. The two movies do stand alone, YouTube be damned, and I only thought of Gump when it was most glaring. Eric Roth does wish-fulfillment. The Academy has an outside chance of giving this one Best Picture because (and this is not so limited to the famous) everybody wants to get younger. I was not bored, not for a moment. I don't know what the hell it's supposed to mean, but it is quite an absorbing movie.
Slumdog Millionaire
Stop now. I don't want to hear it. It all occurred to me while watching it, and I just don't care. This is an exhilarating, rich and kick-ass moviegoing experience. It's a cheer your ass off crowd-pleaser. I know it's all sorted out from the start, and clearly driven by artifice (I say it COULD HAPPEN), and that Charles Dickens lives in Bollywood and you don't like that. But I won't hear it. We are all Slumdogs now. Just accept it. This movie seriously bypassed whatever cynicism I could possibly have about storytelling, coincidence, and if-it-were-in-a-movie-I-wouldn't-believe-it-isms. For once, I say that's a testament to how well it's made. If only the Academy were nominating Loveleen Tandan, Danny Boyle's Co-Director for India (which I assume means the lion's share of the movie, right?), I'd have no cynicism directed toward it at all. WHAT? I don't CARE if you think it romanticizes Bombay's terrible poverty JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO
Milk
Sean Penn is magic, and I defy the Onion for saying it would've been more artful if it had been more like Van Sant's Last Days or Elephant. Those movies examine inexorable paths towards death. As we see, Harvey Milk knew he was on that path at a certain point, but Milk is a celebration of total life. It's a great American film.
Harping on the choice of nominees would be its own way of suggesting the perverse canard that such was ever different. As usual, I approach the Oscars as a springboard from which unrecognized work can widen its exposure. Last year was some kind of reveling nihilist apotheosis. It'll be awhile before we see that again.
The Reader
Stephen Daldry has at least accomplished, along with his resident screenwriter David Hare, a movie that this time around didn't assault me with its own self-pity. The Hours was absurd. Julianne Moore was its saving grace. The Reader does not deserve, however, the various assaults against it. I fail to see how it's fodder for Holocaust deniers, except in perhaps the most determined and circuitous ways. You'd have to want that conclusion, because, by my count, Winslet's character suffers greatly, paying for her crime and the crimes of several others.
We get a story of a person who went to work for the Nazis because she could find no other work, is turned into a scapegoat by a ravenous German mob eager to purge itself of its own sins of inaction (or terrible action, one assumes), suffers, loses her freedom, and regains her humanity for a few brief years. Surely the notion of people swept into a tyrannical system is also subject for meditation? I failed to see at any point how the film shirked the horror of the Holocaust, and am in fact relieved I didn't have to see yet another Oscar-Baiting film consumed with the subject. There's room for Shoah and The Reader, but besides, this film is slight. It is exactly what Oscar likes: Stately, slightly scandalous, and tailored for a conclusion we all see coming. It's a statue in search of a statue.
Frost/Nixon
It's hard to say why anybody thought this would be a big draw. In terms of marketing, the studios were nuts from the start. Getting Ron Howard to direct a story that doesn't require the pacing of Apollo 13 is a strange choice, artistically, and deserved failure commercially. The whole story strikes me as, well, a possible other side of the coin to All The President's Men. So, why not get a filmmaker, say, Stephen Frears, who knows how a Peter Morgan scripts works inside and out? Still, it's not as if the choices here don't work in some way, and I can't fault the movie too much, it being certainly entertaining.
I only wonder if we needed the extra fireworks for an event we can all see on DVD from thirty years ago. Langella and Sheen are wonderful to watch and listen to, and I surely walked away enjoying Nixon's company. Strange thing to imagine, isn't it? Still, this movie is minor league compared to Altman's Secret Honor, with Philip Baker Hall as Tricky Dick, drunk off his ass, all by his lonesome. Nixon is a figure we can attach a number of qualities and depredations to, depending on our mood. I hasten to add that Morgan's script is great. To my mind, for all its skill, the movie never completely justifies itself.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defensive title, yes? Curiouser and curiouser. Here's another flick that may not have justified itself (or its running time). The difference is that Button spends its entire length trying very hard to bring that premise to a close. It can't, but I'm getting the premonition I've seen something that will be embraced for many years. It's a fascinating conceit to witness, even if you're in agreement with Ebert, creeped out at something fundamentally wrong.
For all the lambasting of Eric Roth for Gumping his Button script, you can't fault him for working in some of the same ideas. The two movies do stand alone, YouTube be damned, and I only thought of Gump when it was most glaring. Eric Roth does wish-fulfillment. The Academy has an outside chance of giving this one Best Picture because (and this is not so limited to the famous) everybody wants to get younger. I was not bored, not for a moment. I don't know what the hell it's supposed to mean, but it is quite an absorbing movie.
Slumdog Millionaire
Stop now. I don't want to hear it. It all occurred to me while watching it, and I just don't care. This is an exhilarating, rich and kick-ass moviegoing experience. It's a cheer your ass off crowd-pleaser. I know it's all sorted out from the start, and clearly driven by artifice (I say it COULD HAPPEN), and that Charles Dickens lives in Bollywood and you don't like that. But I won't hear it. We are all Slumdogs now. Just accept it. This movie seriously bypassed whatever cynicism I could possibly have about storytelling, coincidence, and if-it-were-in-a-movie-I-wouldn't-believe-it-isms. For once, I say that's a testament to how well it's made. If only the Academy were nominating Loveleen Tandan, Danny Boyle's Co-Director for India (which I assume means the lion's share of the movie, right?), I'd have no cynicism directed toward it at all. WHAT? I don't CARE if you think it romanticizes Bombay's terrible poverty JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO JAI HO
Milk
Sean Penn is magic, and I defy the Onion for saying it would've been more artful if it had been more like Van Sant's Last Days or Elephant. Those movies examine inexorable paths towards death. As we see, Harvey Milk knew he was on that path at a certain point, but Milk is a celebration of total life. It's a great American film.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
FUCK IT, IT'S A POLITICAL BLOG
It's moments like the last bit on this clip where I really dig Olbermann.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Monday, February 16, 2009
Some Revision
The Oscar reviews are coming soon. Until then, here's how the directing category should look, because this really really matters:
Jonathan Demme - Rachel Getting Married
Gus Van Sant - Milk
Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan - Slumdog Millionaire
Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight
Charlie Kaufman - Synecdoche, NY
I like Ron Howard just fine. He's made a couple of great movies. Frost/Nixon is not an astonishing directorial accomplishment. It's a wonderful acting and writing accomplishment. I'm skeptical that Ron Howard's insertion of "intensity" here and "suspense" there was really needed at all by actors of this caliber, much less by the proceedings of the script.
David Fincher is one of the best living American directors working, as last year's ridiculously unrecognized Zodiac further proved. Why did Jason Reitman get a nod over Fincher's glorious puzzle piece? Fincher deserved it for that, not the aging paradox epic.
Stephen Daldry does not deserve the nomination. There is nothing special in his directing strategy. He does good work, but the work hasn't much of an original voice.
I don't think directing should get in the way of the story, but if we're going to give awards for best coordinated artifice, let's do that. Otherwise, hand out an award for individuals. In their work, I can see all five of the people I listed up front, and I'm not distracted by their presence one whit. I'm enlarged for a brief period by knowing another person. If the award ain't about that, it's not worth giving out.
Jonathan Demme - Rachel Getting Married
Gus Van Sant - Milk
Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan - Slumdog Millionaire
Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight
Charlie Kaufman - Synecdoche, NY
I like Ron Howard just fine. He's made a couple of great movies. Frost/Nixon is not an astonishing directorial accomplishment. It's a wonderful acting and writing accomplishment. I'm skeptical that Ron Howard's insertion of "intensity" here and "suspense" there was really needed at all by actors of this caliber, much less by the proceedings of the script.
David Fincher is one of the best living American directors working, as last year's ridiculously unrecognized Zodiac further proved. Why did Jason Reitman get a nod over Fincher's glorious puzzle piece? Fincher deserved it for that, not the aging paradox epic.
Stephen Daldry does not deserve the nomination. There is nothing special in his directing strategy. He does good work, but the work hasn't much of an original voice.
I don't think directing should get in the way of the story, but if we're going to give awards for best coordinated artifice, let's do that. Otherwise, hand out an award for individuals. In their work, I can see all five of the people I listed up front, and I'm not distracted by their presence one whit. I'm enlarged for a brief period by knowing another person. If the award ain't about that, it's not worth giving out.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Lest We Forget....
....we're in for a rough four to eight. Just in case you missed it on Maddow, it's worth pointing out that all our attempts at bipartisanship will be met against these sections of a constituency (though not the whole) that's bound to hate our breathin' guts. This is not a political blog, yadda yadda, but bear with it.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Makin' Up a Post About Coraline
Last year A.O. Scott dared to speak some common sense to parents: Sometimes your children are ready for more than just the talking panda or the ninja kid. My ventures into Tarantinoland or my exposure to Preacher may have come too early for all I know, but I would've been more than ready for Coraline back then.
If you're ready to explain the movie to your kids, by all means take them to the Jungian wonderland, and make sure it says "3D" on the marquee. Go out of your way for that experience, rightly ignoring dear intransigent Ebert, who seems to think that mean or self-centered characters are unusual in children's stories, and probably would've lavished at least one half star more on the movie were it not for 3D lenses darkening his vision and thereby obstructing the view of his notepad.
Staring into Henry Selick's model-box-come-alive is an event rife with many pleasures scary and beautiful and subtle. The 3D part of it is not a novelty insofar as it's 3D. If it's a novelty at all it's because there will scarcely be another like it, unless Selick and his team can top this. I don't want to get into specifics. Go. Your eyes haven't opened wide enough lately.
(If you have already seen it, here's its Making Of Channel)
If you're ready to explain the movie to your kids, by all means take them to the Jungian wonderland, and make sure it says "3D" on the marquee. Go out of your way for that experience, rightly ignoring dear intransigent Ebert, who seems to think that mean or self-centered characters are unusual in children's stories, and probably would've lavished at least one half star more on the movie were it not for 3D lenses darkening his vision and thereby obstructing the view of his notepad.
Staring into Henry Selick's model-box-come-alive is an event rife with many pleasures scary and beautiful and subtle. The 3D part of it is not a novelty insofar as it's 3D. If it's a novelty at all it's because there will scarcely be another like it, unless Selick and his team can top this. I don't want to get into specifics. Go. Your eyes haven't opened wide enough lately.
(If you have already seen it, here's its Making Of Channel)
Monday, February 09, 2009
Dancey Fist Jab
It's nice to know my favorite remix in a hot minute won a Grammy.
This is, to say the least, a damn lot better than wasting it on Oakenfold's latest tits-up FAIL of a cocaine jingle.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Ain't No Lie
I make no apologies for being inspired by Roger Ebert. I've been a reader of his for over a decade. When people tell me they have this or that problem with him (or with critics in general), I don't get defensive anymore, because what they're saying is usually over-determined either by reading his review of Cop and a Half and bitching that he gave it three stars, or by a willful ignoring of the fact that what he's doing is the difficult act of interpretation, not mere recommendation.
If you think you've got Synecdoche, NY or Children of Men or Babel all figured out by your pretty self, then why are you talking to me about Roger Ebert? What's it to you?
Earlier today:
However, there are certain areas in which I consider myself an authority, like the movies. I have devoted years to learning about the Theory of Evolution. I think Creationism is superstitious poppycock. I believe the problem with the literal interpretation of the Bible is that anyone can easily discover its support for the opinions they already hold. I believe Conservatism has proven itself disastrous every time it has been implemented in this country. I believe George W. Bush was not only the worst president we have ever had, but the first, as far as I know, guilty of being an accessory to murder and suborning the Constitution.
Ebert's currently also writing the best blog in the world. Check it.
If you think you've got Synecdoche, NY or Children of Men or Babel all figured out by your pretty self, then why are you talking to me about Roger Ebert? What's it to you?
Earlier today:
However, there are certain areas in which I consider myself an authority, like the movies. I have devoted years to learning about the Theory of Evolution. I think Creationism is superstitious poppycock. I believe the problem with the literal interpretation of the Bible is that anyone can easily discover its support for the opinions they already hold. I believe Conservatism has proven itself disastrous every time it has been implemented in this country. I believe George W. Bush was not only the worst president we have ever had, but the first, as far as I know, guilty of being an accessory to murder and suborning the Constitution.
Ebert's currently also writing the best blog in the world. Check it.
How Do We Live?
The new year brought with it a renewal of the need to write, and write and write. I need a beat to cover, and had been knocked into an emotional molasses-uphill battle last year, leaving little energy left in me to follow much but the political outrages of '08. That's not my territory. I don't have a lifetime of emotional or intellectual understanding of politics, save what's sieved through the celluloid colander.
I know I'm a film critic the way a wrestler knows he's a wrestler. Which leads me to my new year's resolution with Holly. I'm sticking to it, and we've both taken a pass with one movie. That's it, so I'll start my first column along those lines, dealing with two films that won't clean up at Oscar season, and covering mostly Oscar Nominees until near the end of the month.
American Duty
Sam Mendes may miss Conrad L. Hall more even than the rest of us. Every shot Roger Deakins composes in Revolutionary Road seems to invoke our memory of that great filmmaker. The desolation of fifties American life isn't buried underneath, it's overexposed. This is a cold, uninviting movie. Mendes, Deakins and crew want it that way, perhaps driven by a script that rages its id out front and center just as its characters seem to.
I haven't read the novel, but I have no trouble believing an author could be this self-aware, this unhappy, this alone. What I have trouble imagining is that people in 1950s America would be this aware of the real spiritual predicament they're in. If we're to take DiCaprio and Winslet's couple as representative of a normal couple, we're swallowing a hard enough pill. The total destruction of their dreams and their love for one another is the set-up for the movie, not the end. This makes what proceeds all the more unreal and unpleasant, which is not to leave out ruthless, and for that it has my respect.
Revolutionary Road is a curious, drawn out chick-tract with no God in sight. There's no mention of church, no crosses in any rooms, no symbols of devotion. In a depiction of 1950s America, this is a deliberate choice of omission. Its didacticism is still, however, thoroughly secular. Which brings us to Michael Shannon, most certainly an Oscar winner if not for Heath Ledger's nomination, playing this godless world's angel of death.
He flies in under the guise of Kathy Bates's character's "mentally-unwell" son, and proceeds to methodically dismantle every single move the film's central couple makes to save themselves. He sees their desperation, in fact sees in desperation, and drives them completely into the ground, using words and words alone. He frees them from the need to try and be free. Shannon's performance is the stand-alone reason to see the movie; it's terrifying in his deconstruction of their hopes. He's an actor to watch, but wear a helmet while doing so.
Bielski Justice
Films this year have noticeably fallen into a more positive mode, looking to uplift us with stories of characters' search for meaning and dignity. Defiance falls into a category with Revolutionary Road precisely because both are about struggles for survival against long odds. Those questions of survival are intertwined with meditative examinations of a corollary question, namely, "how do we live?"
I'm puzzled, a little, by critics' responses to this film. No, it's not groundbreaking, yes, it's a conventional narrative (you have seen other Edward Zwick films, yes?), and yes, the pacing is off at a few points.
Still, I think the story of the Bielski Trio is amazing enough to transcend those petty quibbles. The movie isn't bad. It tells their story, if not exploring it beyond the surface, and gives us a compelling character in Liev Schrieber's Zus Bielski. Schrieber keeps getting better, and I think his work here is being ignored. Daniel Craig's character (as well as Jamie Bell's) is a little less compelling, but it's a structural bearing and it props the rest of it up. It's a good movie, folks.
I know I'm a film critic the way a wrestler knows he's a wrestler. Which leads me to my new year's resolution with Holly. I'm sticking to it, and we've both taken a pass with one movie. That's it, so I'll start my first column along those lines, dealing with two films that won't clean up at Oscar season, and covering mostly Oscar Nominees until near the end of the month.
American Duty
Sam Mendes may miss Conrad L. Hall more even than the rest of us. Every shot Roger Deakins composes in Revolutionary Road seems to invoke our memory of that great filmmaker. The desolation of fifties American life isn't buried underneath, it's overexposed. This is a cold, uninviting movie. Mendes, Deakins and crew want it that way, perhaps driven by a script that rages its id out front and center just as its characters seem to.
I haven't read the novel, but I have no trouble believing an author could be this self-aware, this unhappy, this alone. What I have trouble imagining is that people in 1950s America would be this aware of the real spiritual predicament they're in. If we're to take DiCaprio and Winslet's couple as representative of a normal couple, we're swallowing a hard enough pill. The total destruction of their dreams and their love for one another is the set-up for the movie, not the end. This makes what proceeds all the more unreal and unpleasant, which is not to leave out ruthless, and for that it has my respect.
Revolutionary Road is a curious, drawn out chick-tract with no God in sight. There's no mention of church, no crosses in any rooms, no symbols of devotion. In a depiction of 1950s America, this is a deliberate choice of omission. Its didacticism is still, however, thoroughly secular. Which brings us to Michael Shannon, most certainly an Oscar winner if not for Heath Ledger's nomination, playing this godless world's angel of death.
He flies in under the guise of Kathy Bates's character's "mentally-unwell" son, and proceeds to methodically dismantle every single move the film's central couple makes to save themselves. He sees their desperation, in fact sees in desperation, and drives them completely into the ground, using words and words alone. He frees them from the need to try and be free. Shannon's performance is the stand-alone reason to see the movie; it's terrifying in his deconstruction of their hopes. He's an actor to watch, but wear a helmet while doing so.
Bielski Justice
Films this year have noticeably fallen into a more positive mode, looking to uplift us with stories of characters' search for meaning and dignity. Defiance falls into a category with Revolutionary Road precisely because both are about struggles for survival against long odds. Those questions of survival are intertwined with meditative examinations of a corollary question, namely, "how do we live?"
I'm puzzled, a little, by critics' responses to this film. No, it's not groundbreaking, yes, it's a conventional narrative (you have seen other Edward Zwick films, yes?), and yes, the pacing is off at a few points.
Still, I think the story of the Bielski Trio is amazing enough to transcend those petty quibbles. The movie isn't bad. It tells their story, if not exploring it beyond the surface, and gives us a compelling character in Liev Schrieber's Zus Bielski. Schrieber keeps getting better, and I think his work here is being ignored. Daniel Craig's character (as well as Jamie Bell's) is a little less compelling, but it's a structural bearing and it props the rest of it up. It's a good movie, folks.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Let the Right One (Edit)
I really want to see this:
I'm pumped by Diplo's review, fresh off of having seen it while touring in Europe.
I'm pumped by Diplo's review, fresh off of having seen it while touring in Europe.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
This Ain't a Politics Blog
For now, it's perfectly fine for Republicans to scream and yell about tax cuts being the answer (even when credit is a thing of the past?). It really doesn't bother me. You lost, people. We'll try your ideas next time, maybe. Another team won. They get to make the law for awhile (unless they bend over backwards to give concessions to a rancid, powerless, leaderless party).
Last political post for awhile, because I'd like this blog to take a direction and not simply be an angry dumping ground. Every time I see the looks of seething anger in my house, accompanied by the transcription of rancid words belched into golden microphones and sent out over the waves to corrode and constrain the functions of otherwise generous hearts, I come here to put it somewhere else.
That has fueled my anger in my own time of crisis more so even than the rancidity of the ideas. Republicans have treated their party as royalty, with subjects divided into attitude duchies presided over by feudal lords Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly. I hope not to fall victim to that here on this side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)