This time it's another one from my private collection, Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal". It's the story of the love-hate relationship between a flock of vultures and a band of Gyuto monks.
Or not.
It's not a bad movie. It's a very superficial eye-candyish movie, but it's pretty good, especially if you don't mind that it's mostly battle scenes with giant bugs spaced out by watching Brian Froud doodles prance around. I'm actually OK with that, because I think Brian Froud doodles are cool to look at. But at the same time I have to acknowledge that while the movie is only about 90 minutes long, it only has about 40 minutes of story.
Or there might be two hours of story there, but most of it got cut to make room for Brian Froud doodles.
Also, if you ever simultaneously want a textbook example of the "Magical Negro" effect and proof that it can be applied to women as a group, just sit back and watch Kira. I mean, honestly. She talks to animals, she knows everything except the prophecy itself, and the wings... The wings put it right over the top. Seriously, watch it with this idea in mind, and tell me the wings don't just make you laugh when they're piled on top of everything else. Jen doesn't do anything except play his flute once to find the shard, annoy a Skeksis enough to earn an ass-whooping, shout Kira's name at a key point, and then finally put the shard back in the crystal -- and that's after he drops the shard like an idiot and Kira has to go and get it for him. Oh, and he whines a lot.
Really, it's downright ludicrous. Kira is this insane-level ubermunchkin who takes Jen everywhere and does everything, but somehow he's the hero of destiny and she's the supporting cast.
Oh, and I know this is wrong, but I cheered when the Skeksis tossed Fizzgig into the crystal pit. Blasphemous, I know, but I hate Fizzgig. OK, so you crossbreed a Pomeranian with a tribble and make sure it has absolutely no useful qualities whatsoever.
So, in other words, don't think about the movie too hard. Just get some popcorn, enjoy the fairy tale, enjoy the Brian Froud visuals, and as long as you don't expect anything deep, it's a fun, pretty, bubble-gummy 90 minutes.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Movie: Million Dollar Baby (Spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering in Million Dollar Baby, one of Clint Eastwood's recent creative endeavors. This one is from 2004, and uses a reluctant trainer and female boxer as the set-up.
I want to like this movie. I want to love this movie. It's 90% great. There's pathos and emotion and psychology and deep issues. Clint Eastwood is absolutely the master of unstated backstory. There's even a side of Morgan Freeman.
But, there are also some flaws in this movie, and one of them is an absolutely show stopper for me: Maggie's trailer trash, welfare-cheating family. Oh, and let's throw in "fat" as major character flaw. Seriously, the first time Maggie talks about her family's problems, the list is that her brother is in jail, her sister cheats welfare by claiming one of her kids isn't dead, and her mother is 312 lbs. You can see where these are on par.
I was OK until we actually met them, though, and then it really goes over the top. You've got a mother complaining that her daughter bought her a house because what'll it do to her welfare payments and medicare and why couldn't she have just given Mom the money directly where it would be easier to hide from the government. I won't deny that there are some people like that who do exist, but they are such an extreme minority of the actual poor and such an extreme majority of media portrayals of the poor. This to me is a bit like watching what would be a really great classic movie, except at key points there's a terribly offensive blackface minstral show character who cannot be ignored or written off.
Then, just to really put it into "people like this don't exist at all"* territory, Mom tells the world-famous daughter who is bringing in hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars that everyone is laughing at her and she needs to just find a man and live like normal people.
(* I put the little star there because I can't rule out that there are people that trailor trash who would rather see their daughter living in poverty with a miscellaneous man than being rich, famous [and generous to said people] via professional sports. But, I have no evidence that they exist.)
That, however, is my peeve. It may not bug others so much. Something you will have to suspend your disbelief for, though, is the over-protective boxing trainer. I would actually have no problem if he was only over-protective of the only female fighter he has ever trained who happens to be the age of his extremely estranged daughter. But no, he's overprotective of all of his fighters. Um, boxing trainer? Hello? "I'm going to teach you to beat people's brains out for sport, but I don't want anyone getting hurt." Does not work. It can be looked past, but it's not easy.
Finally, this is not so much a movie-killing flaw, as just a slight lament that wouldn't turn me off the movie at all on its own. The ending takes the easy way out. In doing so, it is feeding another unfortunate stereotype, one that was at least partially disproven by a well known public figure. (I'm trying to dance around the spoiler, here.)
And did anyone else groan when you realized that we have to go to Father Asshat for spiritual guidance?
So, here's what I think: between the climatic turning-point event and the ending, the movie is wonderful. (Except for the white trash family's appearance.) Takes much longer than really needed to get to the climatic turning event. So, we shorten the lead-up, put the climatic turning point event earlier, and that gives us time to do the hard ending instead of the easy one. It's going to be hard not to be smarmy with the hard ending, but there are real life people that can be used as a basis for realism. Oh, and we rework White Trash Family. I suggest Middle Class Asshats Whose Middle Child Can Never Do Right No Matter What She Does Right, myself, but I'm open to other suggestions. That would be a 10 on my movie scale.
So, what we actually got, would I recommend it? Yes, I absolutely would with the "White Trash Minstral Show" caveat. It's much easier to point out the few things that are wrong rather than the many many things that are right. Great psychological story, great subtext. It's got flaws, but it is a very good movie overall.
I want to like this movie. I want to love this movie. It's 90% great. There's pathos and emotion and psychology and deep issues. Clint Eastwood is absolutely the master of unstated backstory. There's even a side of Morgan Freeman.
But, there are also some flaws in this movie, and one of them is an absolutely show stopper for me: Maggie's trailer trash, welfare-cheating family. Oh, and let's throw in "fat" as major character flaw. Seriously, the first time Maggie talks about her family's problems, the list is that her brother is in jail, her sister cheats welfare by claiming one of her kids isn't dead, and her mother is 312 lbs. You can see where these are on par.
I was OK until we actually met them, though, and then it really goes over the top. You've got a mother complaining that her daughter bought her a house because what'll it do to her welfare payments and medicare and why couldn't she have just given Mom the money directly where it would be easier to hide from the government. I won't deny that there are some people like that who do exist, but they are such an extreme minority of the actual poor and such an extreme majority of media portrayals of the poor. This to me is a bit like watching what would be a really great classic movie, except at key points there's a terribly offensive blackface minstral show character who cannot be ignored or written off.
Then, just to really put it into "people like this don't exist at all"* territory, Mom tells the world-famous daughter who is bringing in hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars that everyone is laughing at her and she needs to just find a man and live like normal people.
(* I put the little star there because I can't rule out that there are people that trailor trash who would rather see their daughter living in poverty with a miscellaneous man than being rich, famous [and generous to said people] via professional sports. But, I have no evidence that they exist.)
That, however, is my peeve. It may not bug others so much. Something you will have to suspend your disbelief for, though, is the over-protective boxing trainer. I would actually have no problem if he was only over-protective of the only female fighter he has ever trained who happens to be the age of his extremely estranged daughter. But no, he's overprotective of all of his fighters. Um, boxing trainer? Hello? "I'm going to teach you to beat people's brains out for sport, but I don't want anyone getting hurt." Does not work. It can be looked past, but it's not easy.
Finally, this is not so much a movie-killing flaw, as just a slight lament that wouldn't turn me off the movie at all on its own. The ending takes the easy way out. In doing so, it is feeding another unfortunate stereotype, one that was at least partially disproven by a well known public figure. (I'm trying to dance around the spoiler, here.)
And did anyone else groan when you realized that we have to go to Father Asshat for spiritual guidance?
So, here's what I think: between the climatic turning-point event and the ending, the movie is wonderful. (Except for the white trash family's appearance.) Takes much longer than really needed to get to the climatic turning event. So, we shorten the lead-up, put the climatic turning point event earlier, and that gives us time to do the hard ending instead of the easy one. It's going to be hard not to be smarmy with the hard ending, but there are real life people that can be used as a basis for realism. Oh, and we rework White Trash Family. I suggest Middle Class Asshats Whose Middle Child Can Never Do Right No Matter What She Does Right, myself, but I'm open to other suggestions. That would be a 10 on my movie scale.
So, what we actually got, would I recommend it? Yes, I absolutely would with the "White Trash Minstral Show" caveat. It's much easier to point out the few things that are wrong rather than the many many things that are right. Great psychological story, great subtext. It's got flaws, but it is a very good movie overall.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Movie: Taxi Driver (Spoilers)
For those keeping score at home, yes, this means I went out to see a movie, came home, and watched another movie. This makes for a very good Saturday in my book.
So, the second was the 1976 movie "Taxi Driver", which caught my attention solely for having one of the most quoted and parodied lines from cinema: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? There's no one else here, so you must be talkin' to me." Which is not actually a word-for-word, but is how it's usually parodied.
So, the movie itself. It is two hours of watching the effects of sleep deprivation on a mentally unstable ex-Marine turned Taxi Driver. As one (positive) reviewer put it, mental illness is actually pretty boring most of the time. This is all leading up to the trippiest gun fight evah. Turns out you can put any number of large caliber bullet holes in someone and it won't really affect them. Blood's spurting everywhere, but other than the slight annoyance, they just don't notice. Gut shot, right through the neck, put a few in the face, it doesn't even matter. Blow three fingers off some guy's hand, it just pisses him off.
And the ending is such complete bullshit that I actually think that just about everything in the movie happened solely in the main character's head. You do not kill three people in cold blood and not go to jail. No, I personally think that this 12-year-old popped into his cab for 3 seconds one night, and everything else is just a warped little fantasy around it which he wrote in his diary, just like the letter to his parents claiming he's doing super secret work for the government.
Can't recommend this one.
So, the second was the 1976 movie "Taxi Driver", which caught my attention solely for having one of the most quoted and parodied lines from cinema: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? There's no one else here, so you must be talkin' to me." Which is not actually a word-for-word, but is how it's usually parodied.
So, the movie itself. It is two hours of watching the effects of sleep deprivation on a mentally unstable ex-Marine turned Taxi Driver. As one (positive) reviewer put it, mental illness is actually pretty boring most of the time. This is all leading up to the trippiest gun fight evah. Turns out you can put any number of large caliber bullet holes in someone and it won't really affect them. Blood's spurting everywhere, but other than the slight annoyance, they just don't notice. Gut shot, right through the neck, put a few in the face, it doesn't even matter. Blow three fingers off some guy's hand, it just pisses him off.
And the ending is such complete bullshit that I actually think that just about everything in the movie happened solely in the main character's head. You do not kill three people in cold blood and not go to jail. No, I personally think that this 12-year-old popped into his cab for 3 seconds one night, and everything else is just a warped little fantasy around it which he wrote in his diary, just like the letter to his parents claiming he's doing super secret work for the government.
Can't recommend this one.
Movie: Gran Torino
I treated myself to a cinema trip today. I wanted to see Milk, but unfortunately the only place in my painfully stick-up-the-arse city that's showing it is only doing late shows, later than I cared to go. I'll probably have to catch that one when it comes to DVD. However, several people have recommended Gran Torino, so I decided to give it a go instead.
I'll try to avoid spoilers, since it is still in theaters.
It's not bad. I could become a late Eastwood fan. He hasn't knocked my socks off yet, but it's been a good two hours when I go to see one of his flicks. Now, this one in particular, you've seen this movie. Even if you haven't seen Gran Torino, you've seen this movie. Crotchety old racist makes friends with teen of the race he hates. Let's not even pretend it's a new or innovative story.
That said, this is a pretty good rendition of it. I especially like the particular brand of badass that makes up the climax.
I gotta ask, though. Is that Clint Eastwood's real voice, or was he trying way too hard? Because Walt Kowalsky sounds like Jack Palance trying to do Christian Bale's "Batman" voice. And could he maybe not sing? Please? Because... just don't.
(I went to find a semi-recent Eastwood interview. No, that's not his real voice. He's trying way too hard. And I think he might have been wearing "old" makeup, too. Which just becomes funny. Clint, you don't have to pretend to be old. You're 79; you are old! Very well preserved, though; I will give you that.]
I also personally like that you know how this old guy's kids don't have anything to do with him unless they want something and his grandkids hardly talk to him unless they're asking for stuff when he dies and he's all alone and blah blah? Yeah, that's at least as much his fault as anyone else's. I think it does a good job of showing it realistically without vilifying either side excessively.
Summary: Good movie. Worth the price of admission. But not terribly innovative.
I'll try to avoid spoilers, since it is still in theaters.
It's not bad. I could become a late Eastwood fan. He hasn't knocked my socks off yet, but it's been a good two hours when I go to see one of his flicks. Now, this one in particular, you've seen this movie. Even if you haven't seen Gran Torino, you've seen this movie. Crotchety old racist makes friends with teen of the race he hates. Let's not even pretend it's a new or innovative story.
That said, this is a pretty good rendition of it. I especially like the particular brand of badass that makes up the climax.
I gotta ask, though. Is that Clint Eastwood's real voice, or was he trying way too hard? Because Walt Kowalsky sounds like Jack Palance trying to do Christian Bale's "Batman" voice. And could he maybe not sing? Please? Because... just don't.
(I went to find a semi-recent Eastwood interview. No, that's not his real voice. He's trying way too hard. And I think he might have been wearing "old" makeup, too. Which just becomes funny. Clint, you don't have to pretend to be old. You're 79; you are old! Very well preserved, though; I will give you that.]
I also personally like that you know how this old guy's kids don't have anything to do with him unless they want something and his grandkids hardly talk to him unless they're asking for stuff when he dies and he's all alone and blah blah? Yeah, that's at least as much his fault as anyone else's. I think it does a good job of showing it realistically without vilifying either side excessively.
Summary: Good movie. Worth the price of admission. But not terribly innovative.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Movie: Night of the Hunter (spoilers)
I am very behind of my movie reviews. I may backfill some in a little while.
For now, though, this weeks' Netflix offering was the 1955 "Night of the Hunter".
This is a movie that seriously deserves to be remade. Any movie that has Lillian Gish kick someone's ass is worth watching. Even more so if it practically starts with a crazy guy saying to God "I know You don't mind the killin', Lord. Your book's full of killin'." But it was very much showing the time during which it was made.
For one, it could stand to have the story-telling method updated a bit. For example, there are sequences of scene after scene after scene where each scene consists of 2 or 3 lines of dialog and then it goes to the next scene. Let's fix that.
And maybe we could take out the "idiot" points. If you're going to hide a murder victim in a body of water, may I suggest you not chose the clearest body of water in 3 states? The one where you can see 50 feet straight down as though it were right in front of your face?
And if you happen to look into the clearest body of water in 3 states and see a murder victim just sitting there, go to the police. Just go.
(And to really add insult to injury, neither of these dumbs was necessary to the movie. They cancel out. You can completely take them out and not affect the movie one little bit.)
Oh, and let's not even pretend that the money's hiding place is a surprise to anyone, so just be honest about it up front. Honestly, the attempt at hiding it just mucks up a plot point.
Finally, I'd love to see this done with some child actors who can actually act. You know, since they have 80% of the camera time and all.
Despite that:
The character of Harry Powell is wonderful. I would love to see him played by a good actor, rather than just pointing the camera at Robert Mitchum and letting the melodrama spill out. I'm thinking do him as a more realistic sociopath/classic abuser. Start very charming, then kind of ramp up the abuse headfucking. And maybe we could suck the misogyny out of the rest of the movie and pile it all on him, because it really fits well there.
And maybe we could show the Harper's marriage as being abuse as well. It'd make Willow falling into Powell's trap more believable, I think. She's already primed to be beat down by someone and think it's her fault.
And the "bad religious person" versus "good religious person" thing at the end? Great job. I would file some of the rough edges off Ms. Cooper. Not make her saccharine, mind; there just seems to be a disconnect where she's very harsh sometimes, and utterly loving sometimes. Just keep the character a bit more consistent, or flesh out the seeming contradictions more (because people do have internal contradictions and faces they put on).
The original book may do it better, having more time to flesh things out. I don't know, although I am tempted to find a copy.
So, final conclusion. Good movie. Worth a watch. But, could benefit from the some technical updating.
For now, though, this weeks' Netflix offering was the 1955 "Night of the Hunter".
This is a movie that seriously deserves to be remade. Any movie that has Lillian Gish kick someone's ass is worth watching. Even more so if it practically starts with a crazy guy saying to God "I know You don't mind the killin', Lord. Your book's full of killin'." But it was very much showing the time during which it was made.
For one, it could stand to have the story-telling method updated a bit. For example, there are sequences of scene after scene after scene where each scene consists of 2 or 3 lines of dialog and then it goes to the next scene. Let's fix that.
And maybe we could take out the "idiot" points. If you're going to hide a murder victim in a body of water, may I suggest you not chose the clearest body of water in 3 states? The one where you can see 50 feet straight down as though it were right in front of your face?
And if you happen to look into the clearest body of water in 3 states and see a murder victim just sitting there, go to the police. Just go.
(And to really add insult to injury, neither of these dumbs was necessary to the movie. They cancel out. You can completely take them out and not affect the movie one little bit.)
Oh, and let's not even pretend that the money's hiding place is a surprise to anyone, so just be honest about it up front. Honestly, the attempt at hiding it just mucks up a plot point.
Finally, I'd love to see this done with some child actors who can actually act. You know, since they have 80% of the camera time and all.
Despite that:
The character of Harry Powell is wonderful. I would love to see him played by a good actor, rather than just pointing the camera at Robert Mitchum and letting the melodrama spill out. I'm thinking do him as a more realistic sociopath/classic abuser. Start very charming, then kind of ramp up the abuse headfucking. And maybe we could suck the misogyny out of the rest of the movie and pile it all on him, because it really fits well there.
And maybe we could show the Harper's marriage as being abuse as well. It'd make Willow falling into Powell's trap more believable, I think. She's already primed to be beat down by someone and think it's her fault.
And the "bad religious person" versus "good religious person" thing at the end? Great job. I would file some of the rough edges off Ms. Cooper. Not make her saccharine, mind; there just seems to be a disconnect where she's very harsh sometimes, and utterly loving sometimes. Just keep the character a bit more consistent, or flesh out the seeming contradictions more (because people do have internal contradictions and faces they put on).
The original book may do it better, having more time to flesh things out. I don't know, although I am tempted to find a copy.
So, final conclusion. Good movie. Worth a watch. But, could benefit from the some technical updating.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Movie: The Man Who Knew Too Much (spoilers)
This was the original 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much with Leslie Banks, not the remake with Jimmy Stewart -- which just seems wrong. You know, Jimmy Stewart as Average Dad turned super spy. I just... can't.
But that's not the one I watched. I watched the one from 1934, when they had kinder, gentler spy movies. For instance, gun fights are terribly messy business, so let's fight with chairs instead. Lots and lots of breakaway chairs. And our master spy (an unusually adorable Peter Lorre), when leaving the hero-turned-hostage under the watch of an underling, ominously orders "If he tries anything, shoot him -- in the leg." Because, you know, they wouldn't want to kill the hero. And of course, when you want to make sure a woman doesn't leave, the bad guys brutally shorten her skirt.
Seriously, that one was just a wonderful little culture shock. This woman comes in with her skirt hem at her knees, Peter is laughing his ass off, and I'm sitting there going "What? What's going on? What am I missing? Oh, it's 1934!"
The other fun little historical bit is that back then, evil spies were always automatically German. Russia hadn't figured out this spy thing yet. Always German. This really threw Fritz Lang for a loop when he made his movie Spies, because he was German. There he was, needed evil German spies, but his heroes had to be German. He ended up making his master spy more of a crimelord. (And a banker, so he may have been implying Jewish. After all, it was Germany in 1928.)
OK, I don't really know why Fritz did that.
(So, during the Cold War, did the Russians have spy movies with evil American villains. They had to, didn't they? Know where I can find one subtitled? That'd be awesome to watch! I bet it'd be flippin' hilarious.)
Anyway, back to the movie. I can't really suggest it. Talkies were still having the bugs worked out, and Hitchcock was still figuring out that directing thing. It's also very much an Idiot Movie. I mean, even looking past the basic fact that these expert professional spies are getting their ass kicked by Average Dad and Helpless Mom, the villains can't see anything like hostages just walking out behind them, they can't hear anything like hostages breaking through doors, they aren't smart enough to go "cops are shooting at us through the window. Maybe we shouldn't stand next to it." It's... just not good. And just to add insult to injury, the quality of cut that Netflix has is simply awful. Not visible attempt at restoration or preservation at all.
Spies are very good babysitters, though. I heartily suggest calling a few spies next time you want to catch dinner and a movie without the kids in tow.
Personally, I'm just here for Peter Lorre. Young, chubby, moon-faced, fresh off the boat, doesn't even speak English yet, Peter Lorre. With a piebald streak, for no readily apparent reason. Seriously, this was Lorre's first English film and he learned his role phonetically because he didn't really know much English. And yet he still acted circles around Leslie Banks. He was a really good master spy. Totally stole the show, such as it was. It's almost worth watching it for Master Spy Peter Lorre. But not quite.
And I think that's just my thing.
In the end analysis, if you're not a Lorre fan and you're not a diehard Hitchcock fan, there's not a lot of point to seeing it.
But that's not the one I watched. I watched the one from 1934, when they had kinder, gentler spy movies. For instance, gun fights are terribly messy business, so let's fight with chairs instead. Lots and lots of breakaway chairs. And our master spy (an unusually adorable Peter Lorre), when leaving the hero-turned-hostage under the watch of an underling, ominously orders "If he tries anything, shoot him -- in the leg." Because, you know, they wouldn't want to kill the hero. And of course, when you want to make sure a woman doesn't leave, the bad guys brutally shorten her skirt.
Seriously, that one was just a wonderful little culture shock. This woman comes in with her skirt hem at her knees, Peter is laughing his ass off, and I'm sitting there going "What? What's going on? What am I missing? Oh, it's 1934!"
The other fun little historical bit is that back then, evil spies were always automatically German. Russia hadn't figured out this spy thing yet. Always German. This really threw Fritz Lang for a loop when he made his movie Spies, because he was German. There he was, needed evil German spies, but his heroes had to be German. He ended up making his master spy more of a crimelord. (And a banker, so he may have been implying Jewish. After all, it was Germany in 1928.)
OK, I don't really know why Fritz did that.
(So, during the Cold War, did the Russians have spy movies with evil American villains. They had to, didn't they? Know where I can find one subtitled? That'd be awesome to watch! I bet it'd be flippin' hilarious.)
Anyway, back to the movie. I can't really suggest it. Talkies were still having the bugs worked out, and Hitchcock was still figuring out that directing thing. It's also very much an Idiot Movie. I mean, even looking past the basic fact that these expert professional spies are getting their ass kicked by Average Dad and Helpless Mom, the villains can't see anything like hostages just walking out behind them, they can't hear anything like hostages breaking through doors, they aren't smart enough to go "cops are shooting at us through the window. Maybe we shouldn't stand next to it." It's... just not good. And just to add insult to injury, the quality of cut that Netflix has is simply awful. Not visible attempt at restoration or preservation at all.
Spies are very good babysitters, though. I heartily suggest calling a few spies next time you want to catch dinner and a movie without the kids in tow.
Personally, I'm just here for Peter Lorre. Young, chubby, moon-faced, fresh off the boat, doesn't even speak English yet, Peter Lorre. With a piebald streak, for no readily apparent reason. Seriously, this was Lorre's first English film and he learned his role phonetically because he didn't really know much English. And yet he still acted circles around Leslie Banks. He was a really good master spy. Totally stole the show, such as it was. It's almost worth watching it for Master Spy Peter Lorre. But not quite.
And I think that's just my thing.
In the end analysis, if you're not a Lorre fan and you're not a diehard Hitchcock fan, there's not a lot of point to seeing it.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Movie: Fargo
This time I watched Fargo. This one, I need to take in two chunks: the movie itself, and the false claims made for it.
The movie itself is pretty good. Proof that any situation, no matter how morbid, is funny if you're watching Minnesotans do it. Not surprisingly, a lot of Minnesotans don't much appreciate the movie and I can't blame them. If you don't find Minnesotans inherently funny, it would probably be pretty boring. But if you do, it is a good dark comedy.
And Margie is one of the best female protagonists ever.
Unfortunately, the Coen brothers engaged in what is my biggest movie pet peeve outside of offensive portrays of women or minority groups: they claimed the story was true, when it is not. Right when it opens, it splashes a screen saying the movie is a true story, only the names have been changed, and the events are exactly as it happened.
It isn't true. It isn't true at all. It isn't even based on anything. The Coen brothers completely made it up, and the reason they did so (according to the DVD documentary) was because they did not think the story was strong enough to stand on its own, but that people would buy it if they thought it was an actual event.
Ooooh. I HATE that. At best it's a sign of unconscionably lazy writing -- the authors don't want to make their story believable, or enjoyable enough that people won't care, so they just slap on this false "notice" so hide the inconsistencies. At worst, it's downright fraudulent. They're trying to get money from people who would pay for a nonfiction story, but not a fictional one.
Blair Witch Project did this to the point of turning their "making of" special into "documentary" on the "history" of the Blair Witch and selling the accompanying book as though it were a nonfiction case summary. Fans believing them did massive amounts of damage to the building and town where the movie was filmed and to the surrounding town.
The Hellraiser franchise has tried to add an element of historical basis to their merchandising, and as a result an acquaintance in the Poser community was nearly sued for copyright infringement when he used photos that were altered to look like and marked as old enough to be public domain but were actually modern merchandising material.
In Fargo's case, this fraud may have contributed to a fatality.
Now, there are those out there who basically argue that people should be cynical all the time, and find any form of "gullibility" to be an utterly unforgivable sin. I've actually seen people say that those gullible enough to buy some unimportant story should be killed for it -- ironically the "gullible suckers" story in that case was false, and it was the would-be executioners who were believing bullshit without evidence.
Anyway, as you can probably tell, I don't think very highly of that opinion. When someone has an extreme, irrationally intolerance for gullibility, especially when it gets to the point of believing that the "gullible" deserve to die, I always wonder why. Who have they cheated, what scam have they pulled that they need to justify it by believing the victim deserved it?
Suffice to say, I'm of the opinion that writers should make stories that stand on their own instead of making false claims. Unfortunately in Fargo's case, the opposite put a very bad taste in my mouth over a movie that would have been rather good otherwise. (If you don't share my pet peeve, though, it is worth a watch. Hell, you'll get so many more MST3K jokes. ^_~)
The movie itself is pretty good. Proof that any situation, no matter how morbid, is funny if you're watching Minnesotans do it. Not surprisingly, a lot of Minnesotans don't much appreciate the movie and I can't blame them. If you don't find Minnesotans inherently funny, it would probably be pretty boring. But if you do, it is a good dark comedy.
And Margie is one of the best female protagonists ever.
Unfortunately, the Coen brothers engaged in what is my biggest movie pet peeve outside of offensive portrays of women or minority groups: they claimed the story was true, when it is not. Right when it opens, it splashes a screen saying the movie is a true story, only the names have been changed, and the events are exactly as it happened.
It isn't true. It isn't true at all. It isn't even based on anything. The Coen brothers completely made it up, and the reason they did so (according to the DVD documentary) was because they did not think the story was strong enough to stand on its own, but that people would buy it if they thought it was an actual event.
Ooooh. I HATE that. At best it's a sign of unconscionably lazy writing -- the authors don't want to make their story believable, or enjoyable enough that people won't care, so they just slap on this false "notice" so hide the inconsistencies. At worst, it's downright fraudulent. They're trying to get money from people who would pay for a nonfiction story, but not a fictional one.
Blair Witch Project did this to the point of turning their "making of" special into "documentary" on the "history" of the Blair Witch and selling the accompanying book as though it were a nonfiction case summary. Fans believing them did massive amounts of damage to the building and town where the movie was filmed and to the surrounding town.
The Hellraiser franchise has tried to add an element of historical basis to their merchandising, and as a result an acquaintance in the Poser community was nearly sued for copyright infringement when he used photos that were altered to look like and marked as old enough to be public domain but were actually modern merchandising material.
In Fargo's case, this fraud may have contributed to a fatality.
Now, there are those out there who basically argue that people should be cynical all the time, and find any form of "gullibility" to be an utterly unforgivable sin. I've actually seen people say that those gullible enough to buy some unimportant story should be killed for it -- ironically the "gullible suckers" story in that case was false, and it was the would-be executioners who were believing bullshit without evidence.
Anyway, as you can probably tell, I don't think very highly of that opinion. When someone has an extreme, irrationally intolerance for gullibility, especially when it gets to the point of believing that the "gullible" deserve to die, I always wonder why. Who have they cheated, what scam have they pulled that they need to justify it by believing the victim deserved it?
Suffice to say, I'm of the opinion that writers should make stories that stand on their own instead of making false claims. Unfortunately in Fargo's case, the opposite put a very bad taste in my mouth over a movie that would have been rather good otherwise. (If you don't share my pet peeve, though, it is worth a watch. Hell, you'll get so many more MST3K jokes. ^_~)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Movie: Sweeney Todd (Spoilers)
I was warned before borrowing this one that it was a musical. I must respectfully disagree. To me, a musical is a movie with a few song and dance numbers. Your typical Muppet movie is a musical. Oliver is a musical. This, this is an opera with a fear of commitment, down to the unbelievably tragic ending that tries to squash all hope and light in the world. Gee willikers. I am honestly surprised that one more character didn't die. I really really expected her to.
So, was it a good movie despite that? Um.... Not really. Having seen sincerely, eye-peeling horrible movies, I can't in good conscience call it a bad movie, but I can't really call it a good one, either.
So, is it worth seeing? Um... Not really. If you've read the back of the box, you've seen the movie. It's basically two hours of Johnny Depp cutting throats while singing... and he can't really sing so good. So, I guess if you really really like watching fake blood spray out of people's throats... get help, and while you're waiting for them to show, you can watch this.
OK, 'nother thing, and maybe some of you know if such a thing exists: I would really like for there to be a list or a database or something were you can look up a movie and see if there's a rape in it. Because I'm getting frickin' sick of this. Enough of rape as convenient plot widget already. I'm sick of watching them. It's like hack writers have a wheel they spin for "tragic backstory that drives hero to vengeance", and the slots read:
I would just like to know so I could take all those movies off my list.
So, was it a good movie despite that? Um.... Not really. Having seen sincerely, eye-peeling horrible movies, I can't in good conscience call it a bad movie, but I can't really call it a good one, either.
So, is it worth seeing? Um... Not really. If you've read the back of the box, you've seen the movie. It's basically two hours of Johnny Depp cutting throats while singing... and he can't really sing so good. So, I guess if you really really like watching fake blood spray out of people's throats... get help, and while you're waiting for them to show, you can watch this.
OK, 'nother thing, and maybe some of you know if such a thing exists: I would really like for there to be a list or a database or something were you can look up a movie and see if there's a rape in it. Because I'm getting frickin' sick of this. Enough of rape as convenient plot widget already. I'm sick of watching them. It's like hack writers have a wheel they spin for "tragic backstory that drives hero to vengeance", and the slots read:
- Raped
- Orphaned at young age
- Wife raped
- Falsely imprisoned
- Sister raped
- Physically abused
- Mother raped
I would just like to know so I could take all those movies off my list.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Movie: Kagemusha
This week's Netflix offering was Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha. I was planning to ship it back tomorrow and have another movie for this weekend, but I'm thinking about watching it again with commentary track.
So, what did I think of it? OMG, the guy who plays Nobunaga is devastatingly sexy. Every time he came on camera, I just about swooned. Even when he broke into song and dance. And on top of that, his helmet had a dragonfly on it. No one looks good in a helmet, but still... *fans self* I am going to have to borrow more movies with Daisuke Ryu, just so I can look at him. Wowzanoma. *more fanning*
Were there other people in this movie? I'm not sure I noticed. I was waiting for more Nobunaga scenes.
Oh yeah, I guess it starred Tatsuya Nakadai and also had Takeshi Shimura. So, was Shimura-san just born really old? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the guy. He is one of my favorite actors. Everything from Seven Samurai to Ikiru to, um, Godzilla. (Actually, the original Japanese Gojira was a much better and more serious movie than that hack job they spliced Raymond Burr into.) But I swear Shimura-san doesn't look any older in this movie made in 1980, than he did in the 1952 Ikiru!
So, movie overall. Well, I have to admit. In my opinion, from the ones I've seen, Kurosawa made his best movies between 1950-ish and 1965. The color movies especially don't seem to work as well. In part I think it's because, as I understand, Kurosawa was a very controlling director and a lot of his setups were very artificial. Black and white filmstock hides that much better than color does. The color film shows more of the artists' hand, and I don't care so much for the results.
That said, this is one isn't bad. It doesn't have the really strident,eye-searing saturated colors of, say, Ran or Dreams. Although he did do some very bad things to poor Nakadai's make-up at the end there. Nakadai put up with so much.
It is rather slow, though. Kurosawa takes his time telling a story, and sometimes it works very well, and sometimes not so much. Seven Samurai is half an hour longer than this, and yet it seems shorter because Seven Samurai keeps moving, even if sometimes it saunters. Kagemusha sometimes stops just so you can see how that rifle was loaded.
So, I'd say it's worth seeing one if you're a Kurosawa fan, but I wouldn't suggest it to someone who isn't. Unless you're willing to wait for scenes with Daisuke Ryu. Did I mention OMG? *more fanning*
So, what did I think of it? OMG, the guy who plays Nobunaga is devastatingly sexy. Every time he came on camera, I just about swooned. Even when he broke into song and dance. And on top of that, his helmet had a dragonfly on it. No one looks good in a helmet, but still... *fans self* I am going to have to borrow more movies with Daisuke Ryu, just so I can look at him. Wowzanoma. *more fanning*
Were there other people in this movie? I'm not sure I noticed. I was waiting for more Nobunaga scenes.
Oh yeah, I guess it starred Tatsuya Nakadai and also had Takeshi Shimura. So, was Shimura-san just born really old? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the guy. He is one of my favorite actors. Everything from Seven Samurai to Ikiru to, um, Godzilla. (Actually, the original Japanese Gojira was a much better and more serious movie than that hack job they spliced Raymond Burr into.) But I swear Shimura-san doesn't look any older in this movie made in 1980, than he did in the 1952 Ikiru!
So, movie overall. Well, I have to admit. In my opinion, from the ones I've seen, Kurosawa made his best movies between 1950-ish and 1965. The color movies especially don't seem to work as well. In part I think it's because, as I understand, Kurosawa was a very controlling director and a lot of his setups were very artificial. Black and white filmstock hides that much better than color does. The color film shows more of the artists' hand, and I don't care so much for the results.
That said, this is one isn't bad. It doesn't have the really strident,
It is rather slow, though. Kurosawa takes his time telling a story, and sometimes it works very well, and sometimes not so much. Seven Samurai is half an hour longer than this, and yet it seems shorter because Seven Samurai keeps moving, even if sometimes it saunters. Kagemusha sometimes stops just so you can see how that rifle was loaded.
So, I'd say it's worth seeing one if you're a Kurosawa fan, but I wouldn't suggest it to someone who isn't. Unless you're willing to wait for scenes with Daisuke Ryu. Did I mention OMG? *more fanning*
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Whoa!
Who ordered the snow? Anyone? Order of snow?
It's supposed to slow down this afternoon. I think there's enough accumulation that I'll have to go out and shovel. And it was so nice yesterday! So much for cleaning the leaves out of the corner of my driveway. :P
Anyway, Nanowrimo stuff. I won late Friday night, and called it done at 50,000 words plus some change. And the end result of the month is one volume each for both of my Fushigi Yuugi long fanfic series, and a decent seed for the Superhero High story later.
Piers Anthony's "pep" talk arrived today, and since I don't have any Nano spirit to crush now, I figured I'd read it and laugh my ass off. It's about what I expected from him.
The first four paragraphs are insult. Tongue in cheek insult (I hope), but still. One paragraph of tongue-in-cheek insult can be used to good effect; four is serious overkill.
The fifth one is backhanded complement -- i.e. actual insult. "You've got a 99% chance of complete worthlessness even if you succeed, but good for you for trying anyway."
Paragraph six is bragging on himself. "Why, I do this rate all the time, and I'm an old fart." Uh, Piers? You write full time. It's not really that comforting to be told that someone who has up to 16 hours a day writes at about the rate we need to achieve in 1-3 hours. Honestly, it's a little insulting.
The next two paragraphs are really pat writing advice that's been given in better forms by other people.
And the final paragraph... Um, did the Nano guys tell him that this contest starts at the first of the month, and his talk would be coming out at the end? Because he's writing like he thinks this went out OCTOBER 30th.
If someone told me that they had purposely planned for his pep talk to go out the last day so it wouldn't discourage very many participants, I'd believe it.
Now, I need to do a little complaining about how the Nanowrimo organization is run.
First, a little respect for what the organization does. It is not easy to run a site with over 100,000 members, especially one with a ton of traffic in November and then nothing for the rest of the year. It's quite a challenge they've taken on.
That said, they haven't met that challenge very well.
1) The site always goes down the first few days of the month. Always. That doesn't have to happen in this day and age. There are service providers that can temporarily expand the capabilities for one site to keep it up under unexpected high loads, while keeping it low otherwise. Besides, maybe I misunderstood, but last year didn't Chris say if they met their fundraising goals there would be shiny new servers to make sure that never happened again? Because they exceeded that goal by a fair margin, and things are actually worse this year. For example, they never did reenable the forum search. It was disabled to decrease bandwidth draw, and bandwidth use never got low enough to reenable it.
2) They can't keep shirts in stock in the store. I can understand running out at the end of the month, not wanting to be stuck with extra stock. But the first weekend I went to buy one, and they were out of just about every size, most especially my own. I went to the forum to see what the deal was, as saw a notice that they had run out on Tuesday, and got more in on Friday. Since I was ordering on Saturday or Sunday, that shows pretty well how quickly they sold out. Furthermore, I was checking periodically throughout the month, and I never did catch my size in stock. I eventually ended up going one size down and planning to not put it in the dryer until I lose a little more weight in case it shrinks. But if I weren't losing weight, I just wouldn't have bought one, and how many people just don't come back when they find their shirt not available?
This just shouldn't happen at this point. The contest has been running for 10 years. They ought to know from past participation how many participants order shirts and in what sizes. Even with the bad economy, you can make a decent guess. Order half the previous amount and they wouldn't run out so quickly.
Or, if they don't have the capital for that, 1) shame on them for poor planning. 2) Do pre-orders. Put up a notice that this is how it's working, take orders for all sizes everything in stock, and as you get enough to fill an order from the supplier, trigger it and send them out. They could do this until the 15th (or, if previous years give them an indication of a better date, use it), and then sell only the physical stock on hand so they don't end up with extra stock or having to order 2,000 shirts to fulfill one order.
3) Why, now, the press on not just making 50,000 words, but actually finishing a story, even if it means you rush through parts? That's fine for some people, but not everyone. I really hope this vanishes, but if I can't have that, I hope it remains an informal thing and doesn't become another winning requirement in the next few years
4) And finally, my obligatory complaints about the Young Writers Program. As many of you know, the Young Writers Program horrifies me. I see 20,000 kids who are having the joy of writing crushed out of them by well-meaning but hopelessly misguided teachers. One of the Daily Q&A interviews was with a teacher from a school where the entire school has to participate. And then they start editing on December 1 to 'publish' the thing, and the teachers read over it. Oh my God! Did someone look into my own personal adolescent hell and make it manifest?
I cannot in good conscience support a program that I know would have destroyed my own very passionate love of writing as a teenager, which is why I cannot give a straight-up donation to Nanowrimo.
But beyond that, let's go back in time to before the Young Writers Program. Now, I could be wrong with this, so feel free to correct me. But before that, Nano was partnered with a program that built libraries in disadvantaged countries. IIRC, any money Nano had left over after paying their expenses went to this program. I would be completely behind that. Nano would have some of my money if that was the case.
But a year or two ago, Nano decided that instead they wanted to focus on their own effort, the Young Writers Program. And at that point, from my perspective, things really went to hell in a handbasket. Now there's constant struggles for funds to support both programs, and I don't think they're going to make it this year. I can only imagine the legal stuff and extra monitoring they must go through to run an underage forum -- one that allows adults as well so teachers can participate. And what ever happened to the laptop lending library? Did that die before, or did the Young Writers Program kill that, too?
In my opinion, not only is the Young Writers Program antithetical to its stated purpose (i.e. it destroys enjoyment of writing in the very children in whom it's trying to culviate it), but it's threatening the original adult contest as well.
It's supposed to slow down this afternoon. I think there's enough accumulation that I'll have to go out and shovel. And it was so nice yesterday! So much for cleaning the leaves out of the corner of my driveway. :P
Anyway, Nanowrimo stuff. I won late Friday night, and called it done at 50,000 words plus some change. And the end result of the month is one volume each for both of my Fushigi Yuugi long fanfic series, and a decent seed for the Superhero High story later.
Piers Anthony's "pep" talk arrived today, and since I don't have any Nano spirit to crush now, I figured I'd read it and laugh my ass off. It's about what I expected from him.
The first four paragraphs are insult. Tongue in cheek insult (I hope), but still. One paragraph of tongue-in-cheek insult can be used to good effect; four is serious overkill.
The fifth one is backhanded complement -- i.e. actual insult. "You've got a 99% chance of complete worthlessness even if you succeed, but good for you for trying anyway."
Paragraph six is bragging on himself. "Why, I do this rate all the time, and I'm an old fart." Uh, Piers? You write full time. It's not really that comforting to be told that someone who has up to 16 hours a day writes at about the rate we need to achieve in 1-3 hours. Honestly, it's a little insulting.
The next two paragraphs are really pat writing advice that's been given in better forms by other people.
And the final paragraph... Um, did the Nano guys tell him that this contest starts at the first of the month, and his talk would be coming out at the end? Because he's writing like he thinks this went out OCTOBER 30th.
If someone told me that they had purposely planned for his pep talk to go out the last day so it wouldn't discourage very many participants, I'd believe it.
Now, I need to do a little complaining about how the Nanowrimo organization is run.
First, a little respect for what the organization does. It is not easy to run a site with over 100,000 members, especially one with a ton of traffic in November and then nothing for the rest of the year. It's quite a challenge they've taken on.
That said, they haven't met that challenge very well.
1) The site always goes down the first few days of the month. Always. That doesn't have to happen in this day and age. There are service providers that can temporarily expand the capabilities for one site to keep it up under unexpected high loads, while keeping it low otherwise. Besides, maybe I misunderstood, but last year didn't Chris say if they met their fundraising goals there would be shiny new servers to make sure that never happened again? Because they exceeded that goal by a fair margin, and things are actually worse this year. For example, they never did reenable the forum search. It was disabled to decrease bandwidth draw, and bandwidth use never got low enough to reenable it.
2) They can't keep shirts in stock in the store. I can understand running out at the end of the month, not wanting to be stuck with extra stock. But the first weekend I went to buy one, and they were out of just about every size, most especially my own. I went to the forum to see what the deal was, as saw a notice that they had run out on Tuesday, and got more in on Friday. Since I was ordering on Saturday or Sunday, that shows pretty well how quickly they sold out. Furthermore, I was checking periodically throughout the month, and I never did catch my size in stock. I eventually ended up going one size down and planning to not put it in the dryer until I lose a little more weight in case it shrinks. But if I weren't losing weight, I just wouldn't have bought one, and how many people just don't come back when they find their shirt not available?
This just shouldn't happen at this point. The contest has been running for 10 years. They ought to know from past participation how many participants order shirts and in what sizes. Even with the bad economy, you can make a decent guess. Order half the previous amount and they wouldn't run out so quickly.
Or, if they don't have the capital for that, 1) shame on them for poor planning. 2) Do pre-orders. Put up a notice that this is how it's working, take orders for all sizes everything in stock, and as you get enough to fill an order from the supplier, trigger it and send them out. They could do this until the 15th (or, if previous years give them an indication of a better date, use it), and then sell only the physical stock on hand so they don't end up with extra stock or having to order 2,000 shirts to fulfill one order.
3) Why, now, the press on not just making 50,000 words, but actually finishing a story, even if it means you rush through parts? That's fine for some people, but not everyone. I really hope this vanishes, but if I can't have that, I hope it remains an informal thing and doesn't become another winning requirement in the next few years
4) And finally, my obligatory complaints about the Young Writers Program. As many of you know, the Young Writers Program horrifies me. I see 20,000 kids who are having the joy of writing crushed out of them by well-meaning but hopelessly misguided teachers. One of the Daily Q&A interviews was with a teacher from a school where the entire school has to participate. And then they start editing on December 1 to 'publish' the thing, and the teachers read over it. Oh my God! Did someone look into my own personal adolescent hell and make it manifest?
I cannot in good conscience support a program that I know would have destroyed my own very passionate love of writing as a teenager, which is why I cannot give a straight-up donation to Nanowrimo.
But beyond that, let's go back in time to before the Young Writers Program. Now, I could be wrong with this, so feel free to correct me. But before that, Nano was partnered with a program that built libraries in disadvantaged countries. IIRC, any money Nano had left over after paying their expenses went to this program. I would be completely behind that. Nano would have some of my money if that was the case.
But a year or two ago, Nano decided that instead they wanted to focus on their own effort, the Young Writers Program. And at that point, from my perspective, things really went to hell in a handbasket. Now there's constant struggles for funds to support both programs, and I don't think they're going to make it this year. I can only imagine the legal stuff and extra monitoring they must go through to run an underage forum -- one that allows adults as well so teachers can participate. And what ever happened to the laptop lending library? Did that die before, or did the Young Writers Program kill that, too?
In my opinion, not only is the Young Writers Program antithetical to its stated purpose (i.e. it destroys enjoyment of writing in the very children in whom it's trying to culviate it), but it's threatening the original adult contest as well.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
When Engineers Watch Cartoons
I've got a box set of Batman: The Animated Series DVDs, and I need to get another because I'm almost done. The series has survived the test of time well; it's still a pretty fun watch most of the time.
However, as an engineer, the episode "The Clock King" had me laughing my ass off, so I am going to make a terribly geeky entry about it. (With spoilers, of course.)
First scenario, the Clock King locks Batman in a bank vault with a high speed pump that is pumping the oxygen out out of the room. Ooh, this is impressive, isn't it? Especially since the pump isn't connected to anything. It's just sitting there in a box. We even move the box, just to prove it. As near as I can tell, it's diabolically pumping air out of the bank vault and into... the bank vault. Huh.
But it gets better. Batman can't just disable the pump, because the housing is rigged with a vibration-triggered bomb!
Let me say that again. There is a vibration triggered bomb, on a pump. Pumps don't shake at all, do they? Especially not when they're pumping something compressible like air, right?
Clock King, dude, forget the revenge scheme. You need to go patent that vibration-free, connection-free pump thing!
But we're not done. The next one is common to lots of cartoons, though. So, we're in a huge gear works, and we jam up one of the gear meshes.
Now of course when you do this, you never just jam thing up, and yet you also never just destroy the obstacle, strip a gear of all of its teeth, or twist a shaft in half. There are absolutely no weak links in cartoon gear works. No, instead the entire gearworks, every little bitty piece, always rips itself apart in an incredibly catastrophic and often explosive manner.
And yet, it's still fun to watch. I love being a nerd.
However, as an engineer, the episode "The Clock King" had me laughing my ass off, so I am going to make a terribly geeky entry about it. (With spoilers, of course.)
First scenario, the Clock King locks Batman in a bank vault with a high speed pump that is pumping the oxygen out out of the room. Ooh, this is impressive, isn't it? Especially since the pump isn't connected to anything. It's just sitting there in a box. We even move the box, just to prove it. As near as I can tell, it's diabolically pumping air out of the bank vault and into... the bank vault. Huh.
But it gets better. Batman can't just disable the pump, because the housing is rigged with a vibration-triggered bomb!
Let me say that again. There is a vibration triggered bomb, on a pump. Pumps don't shake at all, do they? Especially not when they're pumping something compressible like air, right?
Clock King, dude, forget the revenge scheme. You need to go patent that vibration-free, connection-free pump thing!
But we're not done. The next one is common to lots of cartoons, though. So, we're in a huge gear works, and we jam up one of the gear meshes.
Now of course when you do this, you never just jam thing up, and yet you also never just destroy the obstacle, strip a gear of all of its teeth, or twist a shaft in half. There are absolutely no weak links in cartoon gear works. No, instead the entire gearworks, every little bitty piece, always rips itself apart in an incredibly catastrophic and often explosive manner.
And yet, it's still fun to watch. I love being a nerd.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Geeky Stuff
First, anyone out there who has been waiting for Ravelry to put those awesome hoodies up in the store, I've gone and ensured it'll happen today. I went and bought myself some T-shirts without waiting for it because I really wanted one of those "Bob in a pile of yarn" shirts and they were going fast. I hope I got an OK size. I ordered by bust without even thinking about waist measurement or shrinkage. *^_^*
Second, could the Nanowrimo people maybe get a few guest pep talkers who DON'T try to grind me into the dirt and make me stop? First Phillip Pullman tells me I'll never write anything worth reading because I just don't read enough fiction*, then Meg Cabot yells at me for having fun and demands I go back to the story that is doomed to failure. Yeesh.
I'm starting to think I should just opt out of the 'pep' talks. Especially when I see Piers Anthony on the incoming list. It's his misogyny; do I really have to have him delivered to my home? :P
*I like reading, and I do read books fairly regularly. But I do not meet Pullman's voracious reader of a fiction. With the limited time in my typical workday, I'm more likely to spend it making something than reading, and for every fiction book I read, I probably read 3 to 6 non-fiction. Nonetheless, I don't think my few and far between finished stories are that terrible. :P
Second, could the Nanowrimo people maybe get a few guest pep talkers who DON'T try to grind me into the dirt and make me stop? First Phillip Pullman tells me I'll never write anything worth reading because I just don't read enough fiction*, then Meg Cabot yells at me for having fun and demands I go back to the story that is doomed to failure. Yeesh.
I'm starting to think I should just opt out of the 'pep' talks. Especially when I see Piers Anthony on the incoming list. It's his misogyny; do I really have to have him delivered to my home? :P
*I like reading, and I do read books fairly regularly. But I do not meet Pullman's voracious reader of a fiction. With the limited time in my typical workday, I'm more likely to spend it making something than reading, and for every fiction book I read, I probably read 3 to 6 non-fiction. Nonetheless, I don't think my few and far between finished stories are that terrible. :P
Friday, November 7, 2008
Movie: 1408 (spoilers)
This was bad. This was very bad. This was so bad that I can say exactly one good thing about this movie: the protagonist reaches freak-out point and tries to throw in the towel at about the time a real person (well, me) would.
That's it. That's the only good thing I can say about it.
Special effects, sucked. Maybe the movie would work on a huge screen in a pitch-black theater with a bagillion decibel sound system and nearby stupid easily-freaked teenagers. But it can't stand on its own -- and don't try to tell me that's an unreasonable expectation because I've seen many horror movies that can meet it.
I actually had to pause the movie to have sufficient time to rant during the set-up. So, you're a writer who doesn't really give a shit about anything. The owner of a fairly swank hotel says "I really don't want you to rent this room. If you will stay in a different room, I will give you thousands of dollars worth of freebies, upgrade you to a penthouse suite, AND give you a file that practically writes half of the book you're under contract for with information no one else has." Do you take him up on this offer, or do you insist on spending a night in a room where you "know" nothing is going to happen? OF COURSE you accept the freebies, turn in the book that was half written for you already, and enjoy the sales-heightening effect of being able to write that this room is sooooo scary you were not allowed to stay in it despite threats of lawsuit.
That was where I paused it, but there was plenty both big and small besides that. From as small as, is there actually any library out there that has not updated its microfiche to digital; to the hotel is not going to just say the room is unavailable, because there have probably been other thrill-seekers, they are going to close the room due to a potentially lethal (but unspecified) problem with it. Or it will be perpetually in the state of being remodeled. On the other end, the main guy decides that he'd rather go out the window and try to climb to another room than stay in 1408, when all 1408 has actually done to him is... close a window on his hand, and give some freaky audio-visual effects.
Of course, main guy also keeps drinking the alcohol he's sure was drugged with hallucinogens. Yeah. I'm going to assume the lack of continuity on that bottle is an intentional freakiness of the room and not a collection of 5 million errors.
It's also very obvious that parts that were necessary to the story were edited out. Main guy calls the front desk in a panic, seems to get an amazingly clueless but otherwise fairly innocent (female *snarl*) clerk on the end, and gets disconnected while being connected to the manager. Immediately afterward he finds he is locked in the room. He does not try the phone again. I'm sure there was a shot or scene where he discovers the phone is actually useless and possessed.
And I hope there was originally something else that made the main guy think going out the window was an acceptable solution.
What I really really hate, though, is when they cut something that was in the trailer. They cut something that was in the trailer. So now there's just this zombie scampering around the ductwork without so much as a set-up shot, much less any hint at which dead guy this is supposed to be.
That's the frivolous stuff. There's also some serious problems.
Serious problem 1) Portrayal of atheism. I apologize to my atheist friends, even though I know this is nothing new. I'm afraid the message of this movie seems to be "serves ya right, ya stinkin' atheist". But of course, if you rediscover your faith in God, we'll let you destroy the evil and even get your ass saved. Although somehow serious burns will leave no visible scars but inexplicably jack up your leg something fierce.
Serious Problem 2) Lily, the main guy's wife.
SOB: "Honey, my life is in danger. I need you to call the police now."
WIFE: (whines) "But I want to talk about our relationship."
So, your husband literally walks out on you during the hardest time in your entire life. He vanishes without so much as a word. You can't even divorce him because you can't FIND the S.O.B., all while trying to deal with the trauma of losing your daughter to a tragic long-term illness. He shows up again a year later without so much as a howdeedo. Do you go:
a) "great, sign these papers. I'm keeping everything, you bastard. And I'm getting a chunk of your book royalties."
b) "oh you poor baby, let me take care of you and nurture you and completely put my life on hold to put all of your needs both physical and emotional first."
I'd do a. And maybe punch him in the nose, too.
Mikael Håfström and the (all male) writing staff expect b.
Don't waste your time. There's better horror out there.
That's it. That's the only good thing I can say about it.
Special effects, sucked. Maybe the movie would work on a huge screen in a pitch-black theater with a bagillion decibel sound system and nearby stupid easily-freaked teenagers. But it can't stand on its own -- and don't try to tell me that's an unreasonable expectation because I've seen many horror movies that can meet it.
I actually had to pause the movie to have sufficient time to rant during the set-up. So, you're a writer who doesn't really give a shit about anything. The owner of a fairly swank hotel says "I really don't want you to rent this room. If you will stay in a different room, I will give you thousands of dollars worth of freebies, upgrade you to a penthouse suite, AND give you a file that practically writes half of the book you're under contract for with information no one else has." Do you take him up on this offer, or do you insist on spending a night in a room where you "know" nothing is going to happen? OF COURSE you accept the freebies, turn in the book that was half written for you already, and enjoy the sales-heightening effect of being able to write that this room is sooooo scary you were not allowed to stay in it despite threats of lawsuit.
That was where I paused it, but there was plenty both big and small besides that. From as small as, is there actually any library out there that has not updated its microfiche to digital; to the hotel is not going to just say the room is unavailable, because there have probably been other thrill-seekers, they are going to close the room due to a potentially lethal (but unspecified) problem with it. Or it will be perpetually in the state of being remodeled. On the other end, the main guy decides that he'd rather go out the window and try to climb to another room than stay in 1408, when all 1408 has actually done to him is... close a window on his hand, and give some freaky audio-visual effects.
Of course, main guy also keeps drinking the alcohol he's sure was drugged with hallucinogens. Yeah. I'm going to assume the lack of continuity on that bottle is an intentional freakiness of the room and not a collection of 5 million errors.
It's also very obvious that parts that were necessary to the story were edited out. Main guy calls the front desk in a panic, seems to get an amazingly clueless but otherwise fairly innocent (female *snarl*) clerk on the end, and gets disconnected while being connected to the manager. Immediately afterward he finds he is locked in the room. He does not try the phone again. I'm sure there was a shot or scene where he discovers the phone is actually useless and possessed.
And I hope there was originally something else that made the main guy think going out the window was an acceptable solution.
What I really really hate, though, is when they cut something that was in the trailer. They cut something that was in the trailer. So now there's just this zombie scampering around the ductwork without so much as a set-up shot, much less any hint at which dead guy this is supposed to be.
That's the frivolous stuff. There's also some serious problems.
Serious problem 1) Portrayal of atheism. I apologize to my atheist friends, even though I know this is nothing new. I'm afraid the message of this movie seems to be "serves ya right, ya stinkin' atheist". But of course, if you rediscover your faith in God, we'll let you destroy the evil and even get your ass saved. Although somehow serious burns will leave no visible scars but inexplicably jack up your leg something fierce.
Serious Problem 2) Lily, the main guy's wife.
SOB: "Honey, my life is in danger. I need you to call the police now."
WIFE: (whines) "But I want to talk about our relationship."
So, your husband literally walks out on you during the hardest time in your entire life. He vanishes without so much as a word. You can't even divorce him because you can't FIND the S.O.B., all while trying to deal with the trauma of losing your daughter to a tragic long-term illness. He shows up again a year later without so much as a howdeedo. Do you go:
a) "great, sign these papers. I'm keeping everything, you bastard. And I'm getting a chunk of your book royalties."
b) "oh you poor baby, let me take care of you and nurture you and completely put my life on hold to put all of your needs both physical and emotional first."
I'd do a. And maybe punch him in the nose, too.
Mikael Håfström and the (all male) writing staff expect b.
Don't waste your time. There's better horror out there.
It was good enough for Scheharazade.
I am about to pull the cheapest Nanowrimo stunt I have yet to pull in 2 and a half years of competing. The Instant Ninjas have NOTHING on this. (Actually, I really liked last year's Instant Ninjas. I am going to keep the Instant Ninjas in the final draft of Complications of Lycanthropy if it is at all possible.)
First, little backstory. Going into this, I had four story possibilities. The next volume of my Fushigi Yuugi AU, a light steampunk thing, a 'fantasy hidden in real world' deal with Immortals, or this light superheroic thing.
I made the wrong call. Stories are kind of like fruit; they're best if you get them when they're ripe. You can pick them too early; you can let them ripen too long. I picked this one too early.
As a result, I am not having a whole lot of fun. My excitement fizzled after scene two, and it has been a major slog every day. This is not how Nano should go. Nano is supposed to: week one I'm bouncing on the walls thrilled, week two I'm still excited but starting to get angst puppies, week 3 I'm whining like a spoiled toddler, and week 4 I'm doing a happy dance across the finish line.
That's not going to happen with this story. At best I'm going to have a miserable month, at worst the angst puppies are going to maul it to death.
On top of that, this morning I picked up volume one of my FY AU and read a bit, and you know what? That's good stuff. That looks like fun. I shoulda done that one.
So you know what I'm going to do? Mercy, my female Superhero High lead, is going to go home and find that her mother has bought her the latest few tankobon of her favorite manga series. So she is going to sit down for a lazy Saturday of reading Fushigi Yuugi: Ruby Veil and Fushigi Yuugi: Sapphire Veil, and I am going to start writing FY stuff.
I get to keep my 10,000 hard won words, and I get to write something that actually excites me and sounds fun. And if I later decide that FY isn't working after all or this stunt is just TOO cheap, Mercy puts down the tankobon, meets with a friend, and we flash back to chapter 2 and retell the story from her point of view, because I honestly think it'll work better that way. It was originally told from the POV of my male lead, Reno, with the intent of dropping an Everyman into this weird environment and having him learn how to deal with it and eventually find his inner hero. Yeah, that fell flat on its face. Everymen are BORING. Now I really think it would work better to start from the POV of the 16-year-old deep undercover international law enforcement agent *cough* yes it works in story I swear *cough* finding out a new potential cover blower is coming to her school and being right in the thick of all the intrigue right from the start.
Nano participants reading this are saying "sounds normal to me. Go for it."
First, little backstory. Going into this, I had four story possibilities. The next volume of my Fushigi Yuugi AU, a light steampunk thing, a 'fantasy hidden in real world' deal with Immortals, or this light superheroic thing.
I made the wrong call. Stories are kind of like fruit; they're best if you get them when they're ripe. You can pick them too early; you can let them ripen too long. I picked this one too early.
As a result, I am not having a whole lot of fun. My excitement fizzled after scene two, and it has been a major slog every day. This is not how Nano should go. Nano is supposed to: week one I'm bouncing on the walls thrilled, week two I'm still excited but starting to get angst puppies, week 3 I'm whining like a spoiled toddler, and week 4 I'm doing a happy dance across the finish line.
That's not going to happen with this story. At best I'm going to have a miserable month, at worst the angst puppies are going to maul it to death.
On top of that, this morning I picked up volume one of my FY AU and read a bit, and you know what? That's good stuff. That looks like fun. I shoulda done that one.
So you know what I'm going to do? Mercy, my female Superhero High lead, is going to go home and find that her mother has bought her the latest few tankobon of her favorite manga series. So she is going to sit down for a lazy Saturday of reading Fushigi Yuugi: Ruby Veil and Fushigi Yuugi: Sapphire Veil, and I am going to start writing FY stuff.
I get to keep my 10,000 hard won words, and I get to write something that actually excites me and sounds fun. And if I later decide that FY isn't working after all or this stunt is just TOO cheap, Mercy puts down the tankobon, meets with a friend, and we flash back to chapter 2 and retell the story from her point of view, because I honestly think it'll work better that way. It was originally told from the POV of my male lead, Reno, with the intent of dropping an Everyman into this weird environment and having him learn how to deal with it and eventually find his inner hero. Yeah, that fell flat on its face. Everymen are BORING. Now I really think it would work better to start from the POV of the 16-year-old deep undercover international law enforcement agent *cough* yes it works in story I swear *cough* finding out a new potential cover blower is coming to her school and being right in the thick of all the intrigue right from the start.
Nano participants reading this are saying "sounds normal to me. Go for it."
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Well, that set in earlier than usual
Waaah! My Nano sucks, and it's always gonna suck and it's never gonna be any good! Waah!
It is, however, going to be 50,000 words, and that's all that freakin' counts. So nyah! ;P
3672 words and counting.
It is, however, going to be 50,000 words, and that's all that freakin' counts. So nyah! ;P
3672 words and counting.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Movie: Black Sheep (spoilers)
Happy Halloween!
Of course, I wanted some form of horror for this week's Netflix, so I went through my queue to see what I had. I'm not really a big horror person, so it took a lot of scrolling, when my eyes fell upon "Black Sheep" and I knew I had to go for it. I knew it was killer carnivorous sheep. The fact that sheep don't even have upper incisors doesn't stop them. And on top of that, I knew it included zombie were-sheep. Two hours of cheesy goodness, I figured I could point and laugh and have fun with it.
I was pleasantly surprised. It's not Night of the Lepus with a budget; it's actually an absolutely brilliant parody. In fact, it's one of the more skillful parodies I've seen in any genre, and hands down the best monster movie parody I've ever seen. Most monster movie parodies either take it so far over the top that they pass right by funny and land squarely in stupid, or take themselves too seriously and end up as just bad monster movies. This hits just about the perfect middle ground, where it's played straight but you can't take it seriously.
There are two flaws that make me say "just about" instead of just "perfect". First, Experience is a bit over the top at the start. If there were three of her, the movie would have been dead on arrival, but as is she's just kind of annoying until she gets into the nitty-gritty of the story. The second is that the ending depends on juvenile humor that I'm just not into. Up until that, I was thinking about buying myself a copy; the parody is that good otherwise.
Even with that, though, great fun. You should see it. You probably don't want to do see with me, though, because I squee in the middle of Scary Flock scenes and go "OMG, they're so CUTE!"
And when we reveal the Oldfield sheep, my reaction is "Oh wow, what a beautiful Corriedale." Actually, I don't know that it was a Corriedale. The commentary talks about how they just found the tallest, nicest-looking local sheep they could, so in New Zealand odds are that it's just another Merino that's been trimmed.
Oh, and in my opinion, the effects have the perfect balance of good and cheesy. The were-sheep get-up is actually really good. Incredibly good. And yet rampaging sheep are obviously sheep puppets, and the "carnage" scene has something Monty Python-esque. But it works, because... it's a flock of rampaging carnivorous sheep, for God's sake. It is Monty Python-esque.
And I also loved a shot where they basically admit that yeah, sheep don't have upper incisors. (It's actually even funnier with the commentary, because it seems the actor didn't know that until the director points it out, so the actor goes "so, they really can't hurt you at all, can they?" "Well, the lower teeth are really tough so they can rip up hardy shrubs...")
So, great parody movie.
On the DVD promos, "1408" looked really good. The other two horror movies just looked like "victimization of women theater", though; no thanks.
As mentioned, I'm not so much a horror person, but when I do watch I generally prefer ghost stories to monster stories. Monster stories just aren't scary to me, because not only is it never going to happen, there aren't even "true dangerous monster stories" like there are "true ghost stories" (with the exception of the chupracabra, I suppose). But on the other hand I don't generally care for serial-killer horror either, because it's either victimization of women, which I don't care to watch, or it's unrealistic because statistically speaking most serial killers' victims are women. [Yes, I do realize the seeming Catch-22 there. It is possible to make one I'll like (M, you're an awesome movie. I love you, Pete Lorre) but it's hard.]
A good ghost story I can get down with, though.
Speaking of promos, I stumbled across "Changeling" on the front of IMDB. That looks really good. This weekend isn't so great for me, but I may head to the theater next weekend.
Of course, I wanted some form of horror for this week's Netflix, so I went through my queue to see what I had. I'm not really a big horror person, so it took a lot of scrolling, when my eyes fell upon "Black Sheep" and I knew I had to go for it. I knew it was killer carnivorous sheep. The fact that sheep don't even have upper incisors doesn't stop them. And on top of that, I knew it included zombie were-sheep. Two hours of cheesy goodness, I figured I could point and laugh and have fun with it.
I was pleasantly surprised. It's not Night of the Lepus with a budget; it's actually an absolutely brilliant parody. In fact, it's one of the more skillful parodies I've seen in any genre, and hands down the best monster movie parody I've ever seen. Most monster movie parodies either take it so far over the top that they pass right by funny and land squarely in stupid, or take themselves too seriously and end up as just bad monster movies. This hits just about the perfect middle ground, where it's played straight but you can't take it seriously.
There are two flaws that make me say "just about" instead of just "perfect". First, Experience is a bit over the top at the start. If there were three of her, the movie would have been dead on arrival, but as is she's just kind of annoying until she gets into the nitty-gritty of the story. The second is that the ending depends on juvenile humor that I'm just not into. Up until that, I was thinking about buying myself a copy; the parody is that good otherwise.
Even with that, though, great fun. You should see it. You probably don't want to do see with me, though, because I squee in the middle of Scary Flock scenes and go "OMG, they're so CUTE!"
And when we reveal the Oldfield sheep, my reaction is "Oh wow, what a beautiful Corriedale." Actually, I don't know that it was a Corriedale. The commentary talks about how they just found the tallest, nicest-looking local sheep they could, so in New Zealand odds are that it's just another Merino that's been trimmed.
Oh, and in my opinion, the effects have the perfect balance of good and cheesy. The were-sheep get-up is actually really good. Incredibly good. And yet rampaging sheep are obviously sheep puppets, and the "carnage" scene has something Monty Python-esque. But it works, because... it's a flock of rampaging carnivorous sheep, for God's sake. It is Monty Python-esque.
And I also loved a shot where they basically admit that yeah, sheep don't have upper incisors. (It's actually even funnier with the commentary, because it seems the actor didn't know that until the director points it out, so the actor goes "so, they really can't hurt you at all, can they?" "Well, the lower teeth are really tough so they can rip up hardy shrubs...")
So, great parody movie.
On the DVD promos, "1408" looked really good. The other two horror movies just looked like "victimization of women theater", though; no thanks.
As mentioned, I'm not so much a horror person, but when I do watch I generally prefer ghost stories to monster stories. Monster stories just aren't scary to me, because not only is it never going to happen, there aren't even "true dangerous monster stories" like there are "true ghost stories" (with the exception of the chupracabra, I suppose). But on the other hand I don't generally care for serial-killer horror either, because it's either victimization of women, which I don't care to watch, or it's unrealistic because statistically speaking most serial killers' victims are women. [Yes, I do realize the seeming Catch-22 there. It is possible to make one I'll like (M, you're an awesome movie. I love you, Pete Lorre) but it's hard.]
A good ghost story I can get down with, though.
Speaking of promos, I stumbled across "Changeling" on the front of IMDB. That looks really good. This weekend isn't so great for me, but I may head to the theater next weekend.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
We are officially live.
The Nitpickers' Guide to Highlander now officially has a new home at its own subdomain: http:\\www.highlander.jinnayah.com . The old page has been removed except for a link to the new.
Part and parcel with that is a new episode riffing: Something Wicked.
And for those keeping score, my new general page is at www.jinnayah.com . Right now it has basically the same stuff, except less of it. Better organized, though. :)
Part and parcel with that is a new episode riffing: Something Wicked.
And for those keeping score, my new general page is at www.jinnayah.com . Right now it has basically the same stuff, except less of it. Better organized, though. :)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Movie: There Will Be Blood (spoilers)
Hmm... Where do I start with this one? Oh, I know. I've got a question.
What idiot wrote this thing? My. Gosh. I haven't seen a more pointless or more boring movie in a very long time. No one warned me this thing was going to be told in real time. By all means, please show me every excruciatingly dull second of Mr. Plainview's day. Wait, did he brush his teeth? You can't leave out details like that! *head desk*
Also, there is no reason for an 8-year-old struck deaf in an accident to also become mute. He won't have any volume control, but he will be able to talk -- and in fact probably will more than usual due to frustration at not being able to have two-way communication. Learning sign language so he can understand others makes sense; not being able to talk, doesn't. :P
And WTF was up with the goat's milk? Hey, why don't we spend another 15 minutes or so watching the kid drink that? It's not like the movie's too long or anything.
I don't mind long movies, as long as there's, you know, movie going on. I do, however, mind spending 3 minute takes watching a kid drink his flippin' milk. You know, when it took a full 15 minutes (I checked) before there was a speaking line, I really should have shut the DVD off then and gone and done my dishes or something. There are brief scenes of action, and then long LONG expanses of nothing. It's like they only had half an hour of story, so they wrapped it in bubblewrap and and put it in a huge box with a bunch of foam peanuts.
This was all an excuse to beat a delusion faith healer to death. I'm OK with that, and heaven knows that it's enough to get ya two Oscars, but we could have done that in the first hour.
And yet despite that, for a movie titled "There Will Be Blood", there was shockingly little blood. There was, like, no blood. Because blood implies action, and that's just not in the budget for this one.
Ugh. So, in summary: there's two and a half hours of my life I'm never getting back.
What idiot wrote this thing? My. Gosh. I haven't seen a more pointless or more boring movie in a very long time. No one warned me this thing was going to be told in real time. By all means, please show me every excruciatingly dull second of Mr. Plainview's day. Wait, did he brush his teeth? You can't leave out details like that! *head desk*
Also, there is no reason for an 8-year-old struck deaf in an accident to also become mute. He won't have any volume control, but he will be able to talk -- and in fact probably will more than usual due to frustration at not being able to have two-way communication. Learning sign language so he can understand others makes sense; not being able to talk, doesn't. :P
And WTF was up with the goat's milk? Hey, why don't we spend another 15 minutes or so watching the kid drink that? It's not like the movie's too long or anything.
I don't mind long movies, as long as there's, you know, movie going on. I do, however, mind spending 3 minute takes watching a kid drink his flippin' milk. You know, when it took a full 15 minutes (I checked) before there was a speaking line, I really should have shut the DVD off then and gone and done my dishes or something. There are brief scenes of action, and then long LONG expanses of nothing. It's like they only had half an hour of story, so they wrapped it in bubblewrap and and put it in a huge box with a bunch of foam peanuts.
This was all an excuse to beat a delusion faith healer to death. I'm OK with that, and heaven knows that it's enough to get ya two Oscars, but we could have done that in the first hour.
And yet despite that, for a movie titled "There Will Be Blood", there was shockingly little blood. There was, like, no blood. Because blood implies action, and that's just not in the budget for this one.
Ugh. So, in summary: there's two and a half hours of my life I'm never getting back.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
No, Netflix, I'm REALLY not interested in "Patch Adams".
I dunno, maybe Robin Williams does a great job and it's a wonderful movie. But the problem is, I've met the real Patch Adams, and he's a major dick.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Movie: Batman
(Just to warn you, there's a little spoiler for Dark Knight in here too. Because I just can't help bringing that movie up a skosh in comparison.)
This week's Netflix offering is the 1989 Batman, the one with Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Ah, man, remember when that was just the coolest movie ever?
It's not the coolest movie ever any more. Actually, it's... terrible. There's a reason it's out of print. Which is actually kind of a shame, because it would be excellent Rifftrax fodder.
It's bad. It's so bad, I'm not even sure where to start. Yes I do. Jack Palance. Jack Palance is in it. 'Nuff said. I can't even see the name "Jack Palance" without immediately think of the MST of "Outlaw of Gor" (interestingly enough, made the same year as Batman here) and all the goofy hats he wore. But even without goofy hats, he's still here in this movie doing the Jack Palance voice. You know, where he's trying to sound really intimidating but actually sounds chronically asthmatic and constantly gasping for breath.
Maybe you don't know. Good for you. Suffice to say, Jack Palance = bad.
Let's see, what else do we got bad? Oh, I can't do that, I'll type out the whole movie. Hey, how about "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? Oh, I just like the sound of it. It's just something I say to all my prey. ... Even though we're an hour and 24 minutes in and this is the first time I've said it. And I'll only say it one other time and that'll be in flashback.... OK, look, so maybe I don't say it very often at all." Or the first gangster boss guy who gets electrocuted with the joy buzzer and it's just... No. Just no. Or Batman walking around in the cape and raising his arms like Dracula so you just expect him to go "blah".
Oh, it hurts. It really hurts. My brain is already heading back with a shovel going "there was no reason to take this out of the 1990s."
Oh, and it really saddens me that it's gotten to this point, but... Well, is it just me, or do all of Danny Elfman's soundtracks sound more or less alike?
Well, was there anything good about the Batman movie, or were we all just high on hair spray fumes in 1989? (You know what I'm talking about. Don't deny it; I've got yearbook photos.)
OK, yes, there were a few good things:
1) Best Alfred ever.
2) The 1990s Batmobile had style in ways the new one can only wish for. Sorry, I just don't care for the wheeled tank -- at least not the one that looks like a wheeled tank.
Also, I regret that sequels never fulfilled the implied promise of Lando Calrissian as Two-Face. :(
Sadly, I think "Batman" had a major effect on most of the comic book movies to follow, and not necessarily a good one. There's the need for a backstory where one was not needed and in Joker's case, did not previously exist. (Well, in Joker's case it was one of many, but anyway.) There's the irrational need to kill the villain at the end. Why? Why did "Batman" do it, even? It's the Joker. You catch him, you send him to Arkham, he escapes in 6 months and goes on a rampage, lather, rinse, repeat. It's practically part of the schtick.
And that leads me to my final thought. Ever notice how in all the modern Batman movies, Batman never kills... except when he does? I can't think of a single one where Batman isn't directly responsible for someone's death. Hell, the "no killing rule" was a major plot point in Dark Knight and it gets broken.
This week's Netflix offering is the 1989 Batman, the one with Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Ah, man, remember when that was just the coolest movie ever?
It's not the coolest movie ever any more. Actually, it's... terrible. There's a reason it's out of print. Which is actually kind of a shame, because it would be excellent Rifftrax fodder.
It's bad. It's so bad, I'm not even sure where to start. Yes I do. Jack Palance. Jack Palance is in it. 'Nuff said. I can't even see the name "Jack Palance" without immediately think of the MST of "Outlaw of Gor" (interestingly enough, made the same year as Batman here) and all the goofy hats he wore. But even without goofy hats, he's still here in this movie doing the Jack Palance voice. You know, where he's trying to sound really intimidating but actually sounds chronically asthmatic and constantly gasping for breath.
Maybe you don't know. Good for you. Suffice to say, Jack Palance = bad.
Let's see, what else do we got bad? Oh, I can't do that, I'll type out the whole movie. Hey, how about "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? Oh, I just like the sound of it. It's just something I say to all my prey. ... Even though we're an hour and 24 minutes in and this is the first time I've said it. And I'll only say it one other time and that'll be in flashback.... OK, look, so maybe I don't say it very often at all." Or the first gangster boss guy who gets electrocuted with the joy buzzer and it's just... No. Just no. Or Batman walking around in the cape and raising his arms like Dracula so you just expect him to go "blah".
Oh, it hurts. It really hurts. My brain is already heading back with a shovel going "there was no reason to take this out of the 1990s."
Oh, and it really saddens me that it's gotten to this point, but... Well, is it just me, or do all of Danny Elfman's soundtracks sound more or less alike?
Well, was there anything good about the Batman movie, or were we all just high on hair spray fumes in 1989? (You know what I'm talking about. Don't deny it; I've got yearbook photos.)
OK, yes, there were a few good things:
1) Best Alfred ever.
2) The 1990s Batmobile had style in ways the new one can only wish for. Sorry, I just don't care for the wheeled tank -- at least not the one that looks like a wheeled tank.
Also, I regret that sequels never fulfilled the implied promise of Lando Calrissian as Two-Face. :(
Sadly, I think "Batman" had a major effect on most of the comic book movies to follow, and not necessarily a good one. There's the need for a backstory where one was not needed and in Joker's case, did not previously exist. (Well, in Joker's case it was one of many, but anyway.) There's the irrational need to kill the villain at the end. Why? Why did "Batman" do it, even? It's the Joker. You catch him, you send him to Arkham, he escapes in 6 months and goes on a rampage, lather, rinse, repeat. It's practically part of the schtick.
And that leads me to my final thought. Ever notice how in all the modern Batman movies, Batman never kills... except when he does? I can't think of a single one where Batman isn't directly responsible for someone's death. Hell, the "no killing rule" was a major plot point in Dark Knight and it gets broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
