Sunday, February 7, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: Final Thoughts
Saturday, February 6, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: Lake Mungo
Friday, February 5, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: The Final
Actually, this also isn't necessarily a bad thing, since the outcasts do some pretty horrible things. Acids, cattle guns, gun guns, traps, etc. If you really felt deeply for anyone, it would be an awful experience. As a morality play acted out by symbols, it's much more bearable.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: The Reeds
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: Dread
After Dark Horror Fest 4: Hidden (Skjult)
After Dark Horror Fest 4: Zombies Of Mass Destruction
Monday, February 1, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: The Graves
This Is The Title Of A Post Attempting To Start A Blog War
This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.
This sentence points out that the trite and obvious statement is trite and obvious, and typical of (my narrow summation) of the the post author's point-of-view.
This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence.
This sentence invites readers to respond freely and without constraint as long as those responses fall within certain parameters. This sentence consists of an Internet in-joke that doesn’t quite fit the topic.
Last Night I Dreamed
Sunday, January 31, 2010
After Dark Horror Fest 4: Kill Theory
Saturday, January 30, 2010
After Dark 4: First Thoughts
White Ribbon: A German Children's Story
So, What About That iPad?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A Single (Gay) Man
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Today Is Not That Day, Part 8: Weird Science
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Sherlock Holmes and the EXXXTREME Mysteryish Thing!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Cashing In
Sunday, January 10, 2010
So, How Radical Are You?
As a sidebar, the progressive version is such an easily repeated lie, it reminds me of—well, of every other progressive lie I've been swamped with in my life. "Single-payer is the only way to get universal coverage." As if the government's first move isn't going to be to make that coverage a lot less universal to save costs. As if "medical treatment" had no metric of quality, just so long as everyone gets some.
Anyway, the lefty guy didn't have anything in the way of substance—not his fault, there really isn't a good case to be made, especially in light of the universal failures of the schemes at home and abroad—and so he accused the two of them of being Grover Norquist acolytes.
I, and both Stossel and Whole Foods guy John Mackey (and I hope most people) regarded this ad hominem with bemusement. The progressive wanted to equate their distaste for a state-run health system to a desire to destroy Social Security, Medicare, roads, apple pie and motherhood.
I don't really know who Norquist is. He seems to want to cut government in half, which is something I'm cool with. He then wants to cut it in half again. I'm pretty sure I'll be cool with that, too. He's anti-FDA, NEA and IRS. These strike me as good things to be against.
Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that Ruth Anne commented in the Cargo Cult thread:
In short: Yes. I'd phrase it differently. I'd like to see a whole class of laws simply go away. The same power that allows the government to regulate drugs also allows it to threaten vitamins and other supplements.
Could you clarify this? My husbands thinks it means you want to legalize drugs. I don't disagree about the bad effects of the 'War on Poverty' and the probable bad effects of the 'War on Health'...
I used to believe that the Democrats were the party of civil liberties. After listening throughout the '80s to the damage done to civil liberties by the War on Drugs, I could not help but notice the hypocrisy of not repealing it in the '90s. In fact, as soon as a Democrat was in charge, it was like the gross expansion of government powers was a feature, not a bug.
Needless to say, I wasn't any more surprised that the Democrats didn't curb the Patriot Act in 2009 than I was that the Republicans didn't curb spending.
What am I getting at? Well, the scourge of drugs is a problem; probably one of the worst we face today. (I'm so anti-drug, I extend this to a great many prescription drugs. See the latest reports on how anti-depressants are largely less effective than placebos.) It's right up there with—well, with a massive, intrusive, all-consuming government.
Let me tell you, if I had to choose between our current monstrous government or a country without drug abuse, I would probably take the latter. (Maybe partly because I think the stupidity of drug abuse feeds into the stupidity of big government. But still.) But that's not the choice.
Our monstrous government is particularly inept at social engineering. There have been successful wars on drugs in the past. They were won by rounding up all the suspected drug dealers and killing them. That's not something we can do, even if we wanted to.
So, if I want the government out of drugs—and sex, and health, and safety—does that mean I want a country full of drugs (and diseased helmet-free whores)?
Shockingly, no.
And this is sort of a problem. We used to have a church and society that enforced relatively homogeneous ideas of normalcy, decency, morality and other things that do the actual work of holding society together.
Movie Review: Invictus
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Up, Up In the Air (san beautiful balloons)
So, while waiting for the lights to go down on his latest, Up In The Air, I had to wonder: Would it be comic? Would it be dark? What would the ratio of comic to dark be?
As it turns out, way more on the dark, not so much on the comic.
The story is about ruthlessly shallow Ryan Bingham, whose job it is to fly around the country firing people. The company he works for acts as a (very) short-term Human Resources department which has as its sole function the removal of employees in as painless and low-key manner possible. Bingham is glib, and so thoroughly disconnected from humanity that he actually prefers being in the air 320 days out of the year, and loathes the few days he has at home.
Played aptly by George Cloony and oh, my God! what did he do to his face? I wish I were kidding when I say that. I spent about 30% of the movie trying to figure out whether he'd been botoxed or lifted or what. And that's a shame since this is the kind of role he was made for.
Anyway, Bingham is flying around the country firing people when he gets called home by his boss (Bit Maelstrom favorite Jason Bateman). Seems that the latest addition to the firm, firm young Natalie Keener (Twilight's Anna Kendrick) has successfully promoted the idea of firing-by-webcam.
Cue existential crisis as Bingham must contemplate the notion of not flying all around the country. This plays out as Bingham flies Keener around the country to get some real hands-on experience firing people.
So. Yeah. Seeing people get fired for a good half-hour may not be exactly what the doctor called for in this economic climate. (Seriously, anyone looking for a veteran computer programmer/movie geek?) There's a buttload of acting, though, and we actually do gain a little respect for Bingham; there is some technique to what he does.
The other tension in the story comes from love interest Alex, played by the sexy Vera Farmiga (of this year’s Orphan and last year's Oscar bait Boy In The Striped Pajamas). Alex shares Bingham's love of the perks of travel, including the niceties that ultra-frequent travelers enjoy. As Bingham's work situation comes to a head, he also finds himself reconnecting with his sisters (about whom we know nothing till late in the film).
Can Bingham use this old connection to hel phim find happiness with a chick he picked up in an airport bar?
It's a well-made movie, with strong characters and believable settings, yet I wouldn't recommend it broadly. It's hard to explain why without some spoilers so let me just say that beyond the firings, while the movie's not exactly bleak, it's not exactly a pick-me-up either. (More dark than comic, like I said.)
Great little performances from J.K. Simmons, Bateman (of course), and Sam Elliott (who I swear is reprising his role as "The Stranger" from The Big Lebowski).
The Boy thought it was okay, but he expected more humor. This is the umpteenth movie we've seen this year that was made out to be funny in the commercials, but turned out to have a much more dramatic edge in the theater. (Adventureland, Duplicity, Observe and Report, Sunshine Cleaning, Management, just to name a few off the top of my head, all were advertised as being wackier comedies when they all had a fairly serious dramatic edge.)
A little more truth in advertising would be nice.
Cross-posted at Ace of Spades HQ.
Phrases That Should Never Begin Movie Synopses, Part VII: Piling It On!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
The Blind Side
When you see as many movies as I do, you learn to avoid entire categories, either because you don't like them or because you're just flat out tired of 'em. For example, I skipped last year's "The Class" and "The History Boys", just because I'm tired of the whole Blackboard Jungle thing.
Even when I like a movie, if I'm acutely aware of the formula, it can be hard to really get into it. (I liked "The Last Samurai" but I couldn't keep from thinking "Oh, look, a white guy's gonna show the Japanese how to be better Japanese.")
Rarely, however, you end up missing something that approaches a well-worn storyline in a refreshing way, as I almost did with the new Great Expectations-ish The Blind Side.
In this movie, Michael Oher, a ginormous black orphan who has lucked into a place in a fancy Christian private school, ends up being adopted by Leigh Ann Tuohy (a MILFed-up Sandra Bullock). Over the next two hours, they change each others' lives.
You can understand my dread. "Based on a true story!" even.
In what constitutes a Thanksgiving miracle—yeah, it's been out for a while—this actually works. Why?
Continue reading
Well, first of all, the characters are well-defined and interesting, the story is lively with lots of barriers impeding the characters' desires, the dialogue is funny and touching, and the resolution is satisfying. It all sounds so easy when you put it that way. But really, there are a ton of pitfalls t this kind of movie, and the movie avoids almost all of them neatly.
For example, there's a tendency (to put it mildly) in a movie like this to wallow in racism. There is racism in this film, but it goes both ways and mostly comes across as one of many forms of xenophobia. There's no temptation to make it the central point of the film.
This can lead to the related pitfall of viewing the world as a unrelentingly cruel place where selfishness is the sole motivator, and the righteous protagonists are the only beacon of hope, sacrificing all in the process. Now, the Tuohys are definitely good folk, but there's no real hardship for them. It's not about them "sacrificing"; the movie shows a convincing case that (as said in the movie's most wince-worthy moment) Michael is changing their lives.
Their "sacrifices" are shown in contrast to what their charge has endured, but rather through their understanding of those things, instead of through graphic flashbacks. Really, the only serious discussion about whether they should be doing what they're doing revolves around their kids. And even then, it's not like there's a question that they should help.
It's kind of refreshing. And it feels true, too, in the characters' reactions to what is, essentially, Leigh Ann's rather powerful sense of responsibility.
The tertiary characters are a rich assortment. There's a lot of naked self-interest. There's some altruism. There's a veneer of altruism masking healthy doses of self-interest. At the same time, the movie doesn't try to portray self-interest as evil. It comes across as natural: There is an "I"; there is also an "us" (as in our team or family). In other words, it seems very realistic.
This movie avoids The biggest pitfall of all—mawkishness. This is charmingly reflected in Leigh Ann's tendency to leave the room rather than have anyone see her get emotional. But the whole film does that: It shows us the projects, the poverty, the bureaucracy, the politics, the opulence, the desperation, the kindness, the bravery—all without the high melodrama or glib politics these sorts of movies are prey to. It allows you to feel what you'll feel from the circumstances, not from having characters overact.
I can't say I viewed it entirely apolitically. The Tuohys are Republican. So Republican, apparently, they don't know any Democrats. But this is more of a cute point, only significant because I can't recall any film ever where the main characters are both kind, generous and explicitly Republican. The real (political) thought that occurred to me, as I was watching this poor kid wander around The Projects was, "Gosh, everyone wants to go to public school and live in public housing! Why wouldn't they be crazy about public health care?"
So, yeah, I brought my own snark. The movie doesn't address the issue at all. (Which is fitting, I think.)
Anyway, the Boy (my 14-year-old movie companion) enjoyed it quite a bit. I attribute that to the lack of gross sentimentality and the general liveliness of the whole movie.
Anyway, if you're like me and you've been waffling on seeing it, give it a shot: There's a reason it's still playing. And stay for the closing credits to see pictures of the real Tuohys with Michael Oher.
(Previously posted at Ace of Spades HQ.)
Conversations From The Living Room, Part 26: Why I Hate "Go Diego Go"
Me & The Barb: "Ee-Eye-Ee-Eye-Oh!"
Me: "And on this farm he had a ..."
The Barb: "..."
Me: "..."
The Barb: "Leatherback Sea Turtle."