I had nothing new to watch last night, so I opened the two Blockbuster DVDs that Chris still had sent to our apartment after he moved out.
Either way, we'd have had to open them in order to return them to Blockbuster, so opening and watching seemed to make as much sense as not. It was rather like a grab bag, since I had no idea what would be in them. So what was there? Poseidon and Akeelah and the Bee.
Poseidon: Battling the elements once again, Wolfgang Petersen (The Perfect Storm) re-creates Ronald Neame's 1972 action classic with help from an ensemble cast that includes Kurt Russell, Richard Dreyfuss, Josh Lucas, Emmy Rossum and Stacy Ferguson (aka "Fergie" of The Black Eyed Peas). A tidal wave spells disaster for a boatload of New Year's Eve revelers when it capsizes the mammoth vessel, pitching the passengers into a desperate battle for survival.
Yeah, I was not impressed. The characters are pretty two-dimensional, and I wasn't drawn to feel anything for any of them--not even the cute little kid who nearly drowns. Mostly I just sat back thinking that "rogue waves" were the dumbest idea of any disaster movie ever. There are so many real elements of disaster to deal with--Why make one up? Message: If the common laws of Earth science go kaplooie, you're probably screwed--especially if you're an asshole who makes lame jokes, or you're in a racial minority. **
Akeelah and the Bee: With an aptitude for words, 11-year-old Akeelah Anderson (Keke Palmer) is determined to spell her way out of South Los Angeles, entering scores of local contests and eventually landing a chance to win the Scripps National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C. Despite discouragement from her mother (Angela Bassett), Akeelah gets support from her bookish tutor (Laurence Fishburne), her principal (Curtis Armstrong) and proud members of her community.
I enjoyed it, but then I always did enjoy movies about intelligent kids--Little Man Tate, Searching for Bobby Fischer, and so on. The plot is predictable, but the drama is good and the neighbors and family interaction make it interesting. Message: Laurence Fishburne is still Morpheus, even when he's not Morpheus. ****
Then, I spiced some mead, took a shower, and fell asleep watching Mononoke-hime.
08 September 2006
ganking DVDs
07 September 2006
a chocolate biscuit--covered in bees
Eddie Izzard update!
'Low Life', the drama series that Eddie has been working on for the last eighteen months was given the green light yesterday. FX channel have commissioned thirteen episodes which will air in the US late 2007. Eddie is absolutely thrilled.
"It's the part I have been waiting for all my life" says he.
Lots of love,
-- The BeeKeepers
I'm so happy for him ... and I know we don't have FX at our apartment, but if he gets 13 episodes, at least they'll eventually end up on DVD.
an ogre, a secret, and a game
Somehow England is soon ridding itself of Tony, but we still can't dethrone King George? Why not?
Last night, I watched: The Ogre, Mr Rice's Secret, and Nemesis Game. These are the bare-bones reviews.
The Ogre: The outbreak of World War II helps a French simpleton named Abel (John Malkovich) -- who was wrongfully accused of attacking a young girl -- avoid prison time. But when his army unit gets captured, he's imprisoned in a Nazi camp. The film unravels into a dark fairy tale in which Abel is groomed to train Hitler youth under the direction of der Führer's right-hand man, Hermann Goering (Volker Spengler).
It's sad, because, in the end, Abel wants to save the children in his charge (because their other teachers have gone off and died); but they're brainwashed little Nazi shit-heels who try to kill him for his effort. Message: Children suck. And destiny is not on your side. ***
Mr Rice's Secret: A terminally ill boy, Owen (Bill Switzer), discovers a sealed envelope addressed to him from Mr. Rice (David Bowie). Owen soon discovers that Mr. Rice has left him a medieval code ring, a treasure map and a series of clues -- clues that will lead him on a surreal treasure hunt and one step closer to his destiny ... which may save his life.
The premise is good, and David Bowie is surprisingly good in his relatively minor role, though I'm more often than not reminded of The Hunger and a little bit Labyrinth. However, it's low budget; and there's only so much you can do with the fantasy genre when you have no money. Message: Accept that you'll die one day, live in the now, and you'll be happy. And my parents are obviously incredibly lenient--kids in this movie are getting belted or threatened with being belted every ten minutes. Yes, terminally ill boy, you're weak and fragile, but you've misbehaved, so pull down your pants ... ? ***
Nemesis Game: Mystery-thriller about a shy college student, Sara (Carly Pope--from Popular), and her friend, Vern (Adrian Paul, doing his best to hide his accent), who spend their time solving mental games and riddles for fun. But when everyone around her starts dying one by one, Sara begins to wonder whether she's part of someone else's game. Could her life be in danger, too?
Short answer: Yes. Rena Owen and Ian McShane also star in this. Owen is a crazy woman who's seen "the great design" and become a murderess and McShane is Pope's policeman father. Everyone is conveniently tangled into the Toronto-set plot.
I suspected the ending would be a cop-out, and it sort of is. But it couldn't be otherwise; because if it weren't a cop-out, then it would've been a really good movie (not direct-to-video schtick). But between the believable craziness of Owen and my predisposition to enjoy watching Paul do anything, it was an enjoyable distraction. Message: You're better off not knowing the grand design of the universe; knowing will make you kill people for reasons known only to you. ***
06 September 2006
life on an easel
I morph a topic from Shelly into an allegory involving art.
I was thinking about Frankenstein on my walk to work this morning. I got to the point where I took the whole as the obvious allegory of the Big Guy and man between Frankenstein and his monster. Frank (Big Guy) creates something terrible, thinking it'll be great, and not recognizing its horrible characteristics until it's animated and too late (people). Monster is abandoned and behaves terribly (lack of divine influence and free will). Frank's surprised and horrified when monster is no better than its origins would suggest it should be, and decides he needs to get rid of it (the Flood?). It goes about trying to destroy Frank and all his ties (nihilism, atheism).
Why do I think of overreaching metaphors when I'm walking to work? Boredom mainly.
But it made me think of the monster as a piece of art, a failed piece of art--something you'd want to scrap. And perhaps human beings are pieces of art--of a kind. If you're a crap piece of art, you get thrown in a bonfire. And if you're a brilliant piece of art, they'd stick you in a museum with other brilliant pieces of art [of your type]. If you're something in between they might stick you in the basement of the museum for repairs and touch-ups. But the cases of the bonfire versus the museum is obviously after-life. Until then, you're still the misshapen ball of clay or the unfinished work on the easel.
This is okay--but what does the artist want from his art (if anything)? What can a painting possibly give the painter? A painter doesn't require the adoration of its painting. It's there to be pretty, to be amusing. Failing that, it's no good. So if a painting is harmless, but boring, isn't it a failure? Won't it go on the bonfire? Similarly, if I have an amazing painting portraying something that many people find distasteful (CBT, BDSM, snuff, etc.), isn't that worth more than the poster of a "Who me?" kitten? Isn't it more interesting? And isn't it more successful as a piece of art? Won't it end up in the museum in spite of its graphic nature and questionable content? It might not sit next to a Rembrandt, but it'll certainly have a room for it and its ilk.
Put the relative success of artwork aside.
Leave the museum and all the individual pieces of art that may or may not deserve to end up in a shredder. And ask if the painter needs to keep any of them. This is not a symbiotic relationship, and he doesn't need anything in that museum.
--------------------
I say upsetting things. I'm sorry if I'm offensive. I only ask these things with half the impertinence my mother would probably imagine is in them. The other half of me is deadly serious, really wants a good explanation for the sham that I see in religion.
Why would anything omnipotent need us to like it? Worship it? Recognize that it exists? WHY? And, returning to Frankenstein, why create something that is inherently flawed and then punish or destroy it for being flawed? Why create it at all?
I remember saying "Jesus Christ" in an exclamation when I was in middle school or so. My mother slapped me across the face for it. And now I think, if it were as bad as all that, then surely a slap isn't nearly enough punishment. And if I'm right, and it doesn't actually matter to anyone or anything, then she shouldn't have slapped me at all. Right?
17 January 2006
Work House Rock
You must have tea and cake with the vicar or--you die!
This is apparently what we need in order to teach people how to write, now that they're out of college and in the real world.
There were plenty of fun songs from Schoolhouse Rock, most of which you've probably forgotten (and feel you are no less for forgetting).
But today, I have a grammatical lesson to share--prompted by a coworker's frustration and a friend's ignorance.
My coworker could not quite understand why Outlook was giving her a "fragment" error for one of her sentences in an e-mail; and I had not intended to say anything, but she started to get antsy about it, so I decided to explain.
To "follow up" something requires no hyphenation; however a "follow-up" of something does. The difference here is verb usage versus noun usage, respectively. I'm sure it will make sense if you think about it long enough ... (though a few short seconds should be plenty for most, and some will understand immediately).
Therefore, if you would like a follow-up [noun], then that's fine; but if you would like to follow up [verb], that's something else.
Here is another example of verb usage, courtesy of my flat-mate: I will follow up with your professor about your project.
Thanks.
My coworker said that she never understood grammar lessons in elementary school. I told her that this was hardly irregular. The only way anyone ever really understands grammar is through constant use (writing and/or reading), so if you're not much of a writer or a reader, it's not going to come easy. Basics might come to you, yes; anything beyond that, not likely. Learning a foreign language also makes you more aware of parts of speech, but I didn't go into that.
And this point of view could be argued against, I understand; but I still feel that those who read and write more than the average are more likely to understand these things (including the inherent importance of proper spelling and correct grammar). If you want to be understood in the world, you had better learn to communicate.
Yes, this is one of my pet peeves towards a majority of science-minded individuals who try to bash me for having an English B.A. Of course, this resentment is not directed at scientists who can write, but those who think they don't need to know how.
Match Point, etc.
Fittingly (or not, I don't know), I went out to the movies on the night of the Golden Globes ... to see Match Point.
Happily, this is not a tennis movie. All the plot summaries I found online set it up to seem like tennis was a big part of the film. And, metaphorically, I suppose it is; but it's primarily a backdrop and a motif for other things that are happening, rather than a major part of the film (it's not Wimbledon is what I'm trying to say--and while that is a good movie, it's not what I was looking for this time).
It's a fairly grim plot with some absolutely brilliant dialog, and for my limited experience with Woody Allen (The Front, remember?), this did not surprise me. For others more acquainted with his comedy (I am not one of those), it might go over badly. But I loved it. It's grim and gritty and beautiful.
And yes, it helps that Jonathan Rhys Meyers is in every scene. Some reviews I've read have described his character as being less emotional than he should be. I think he's just right; he's sick, torn, brutal, guilty, and falling apart. And it's just fantastic.
And for reasons that would be more evident if you've seen the film, this got my mind going on the issue of legitimacy--especially in regards to Shakespearean villain, Edmund. I think it would be wonderful to write and/or read an adaptation of the Edgar/Edmund/Gloucester relationship in a modern or alternate universe context and see what could be done with it. With or without the connection to Lear, I don't care; but I think Edmund is interesting enough without pulling in the main plot of King Lear.
... I know, I know. One project at a time, right?
Yesterday I also went to CVS (for pre-show goodies, which are cheaper than in-house goodies), and they had a BOGO on any Coke product with Diet Black Cherry Vanilla Coke as the free-b. The flavour reminded me of a rum-n-coke, to be honest; and I'm still debating whether that's good or bad ...
Other reflections I keep having: I don't often wear my contacts, once or twice a week, which is not nearly as often as I should. Every time I do wear them, however, I find myself staring at things. And I think this is what gaining "vampiric sight" would feel like (if such a thing actually existed, mind you)--suddenly seeing things that you never see otherwise. A little squirrel running across a power-line; sitting on the T, watching people sitting inside their apartments through un-curtained windows; every twig and branch of a tree on Beacon St. in sharp relief against the sky; or tiny separate pin-points of Christmas lights that usually seem like a continuous bright white blur. And it makes me think I ought to wear my contacts more often--except for this awful habit of staring at everything with near-foolish wonderment when I do.
07 January 2006
New Zealand "kidult" programming
So there's a new show out of New Zealand called Maddigan's Quest (formerly Maddigan's Fantasia), which I heard about in my IMDb.com travels because Michael Hurst is involved (he's Maska, the scary machine-man pictured right with the scarred-forever-and-ever baby).
I appreciate the fact that there is a definitive beginning and end for this show. It's 13 half-hour episodes, and that's it. So it's really a very long mini-series, rather than something aimless that could quit at any time; and I like a show that has a specific destination in mind (we know how many aimless shows exist).
There's no US carrier for it yet, but I could see it going to either Sci-Fi (as one of those early morning things that nobody watches) or a late afternoon Fox/WB/UPN slot for kids coming home from school or something. The trailer for it is great, though. I hope SOMEBODY picks it up (though, the fact that it's not a continuing franchise is probably not in its favor since most networks seek something that might have a run of a few seasons).
Oh, and there's an official website for the trailer and show info: www.maddigansquest.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
