Here is a curious vid:
I was somewhat unsure how to think about this promotion but came to realize it was not Chuck Norris' first action on behalf of Christendom:
and
The Catherine Tate Show is available now on DVD in the USA. Amazon has it. Netflix has it. You should have it if you aren't offended by BritWit.
Ms. Tate is about what you get when you cross Monty Python and Carol Burnett, just with less singing and perhaps more hilarity. Who else has managed to get a sitting Prime Minister into a cameo on their show?
The official BBCWorldWide channel on YouTube has a bunch of her stuff up. And the pirates have had a heyday as well.
Last night in a fit of TGIF me and and the boys went to see Beowulf Imax 3D. Short opinion: I predict Beowulf wins Best Picture 2007.
Cinematically it reaches within swiping distance of Return of the King. Though smaller in scale the motion capture allows for the kind of camera effects reality does not.
Scriptically Mr. Gaiman's license with the epic is more creative and thoughtful than anticipated. This isn't a bonehead thriller. I doubt his conclusions about Christianity or immortality are very good but they are very pagan and provocative. And it's complicated enough that I can't decide if it's redemptive without a re-watching. Add this as a reason it will win Best Pic.
Hero Quotient does go to 10. If you wonder how a man could fight beasts and demons you might start to believe after watching this film. Much better than 300 in that it is not perverse-fetishistic nor gratuitous. Though, plenty violent in a hero-mashes-monsters-who-mash-thanes kind of way.
And, yes, the film is titillating. In fact you see pretty much everything but Ms. Jolie's titillation (and plenty of other mead hall raunchiness). I don't know how B-wuf escaped the MPAA without an R. I won't endorse the sensuality. Don't take your anybody-unmarried to see it. It does however play to a more profound theme about the seduction of glory and does so effectively. But I reiterate that the sensuality is a deal-breaker for anyone sensitive the the ugliness of lust. Not sure I could have gone to see it had I known.
Magnificent film. Perhaps not redemptive. Beware the seduction.
(Technical Update: UTyoube is finicky about letting me embed the shark vid. Sorry for massive post/repost/riposte efforts)
I have, polumerws kai polutropos, tried to take Global Warming seriously. What I have retained from my vague occasional efforts is a persistent agnosticism and impression the issue is funny.
What other issue brings together Al Gore, the Toyota Prius, and Madonna?
But now it gets better. Apparently, SHARKS are the new Whales. Not only are we killing them off, they're much cuddlier than we've always presumed when we hear about them eating surfers. Apparently this video depicts a Great White Act of Love.
That's so CUTE! And it causes gnimraw labolg! According to this upcoming hug-a-shark-umentary.
And ignorant indigenous peoples who kill sharks to eat or sell don't love sharks or mother earth nearly enough. At least I think that's the implied message.
From the Cheerleader: "It's not my destiny to shoot you, the universe can't possibly be that lame."
Within a 12-hour window I finished watching Tim Kring’s Heroes and attended the ordination of a Son of the House.
Conclusion: Materialist Hero Constructs are inferior to any hero constructs that acknowledge the reality of metaphysics.
“Huh?”
I thought you’d say that. See my forthcoming Heroes review.
But congrats to the new Fr. H, a real hero.
Drop everything and go see Potter V. 4 hedons, which is as high as I go unless you rate with Kurosawa and Dreyer.
Best Potter film yet by at least 3 lengths: the juggernaut ensemble cast rules (maybe best ensemble ever?) including the kids who either have better direction than ever or have been taking a lot of acting lessons. Or both. This film is much more drama than action, slower but no less tense.
Only two omissions that I would have liked to see, no contra-text moments that I recall.
My prediction that the Dumble-mort duel would be inadequately cool was true but not so true as I feared. Effects-based gonzo was great but not over the top, martial elements not prevalent.
Best lines:
"You don't have to like him, but you do have to admit Dumbledore has style."
"You will never know love or friendship, and I pity you."
Apparently Billy Jack the character has been co-opted into a campaign against all things present-administration.
Which is too bad, because in general I'm a staunch proponent of campy martial arts (Billy Jack is the muse of crescent kicks!) but an opponent of co-opting entertainment to discredit political entities even if they are discreditable. Alas: http://www.billyjack.com/
As my friend Phil says, support the band Arctic Monkeys just their opinion: "There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?"
I don't even know who they are and I like them for admitting that musicians are excessive carbonators. Article here.
I'm doing my best to watch A&E's Pride and Prejudice (AEPP). I haven't seen it before, and frankly it's not off to a screaming start.
Right off, my bias is in favor of Joe Wright's 2005 feature (WPP), which I consider perhaps the best film of the 3rd millennium, and AEPP has a lot of bias to overcome. And so far it's not going the distance.
For AEPP, the performers are plainer, the characters more obtuse, the acting inferior, the plotting too direct, and the settings and costumes too vanilla period BBC. To be fair, were it not for WPP I'd probably like this film.
The apologia I consistently hear for AEPP run thusly:
a) Colin Firth is hot.
b) This film is a meticulous adaptation of Austen.
c) Besides, Colin Firth is really hot.
My response runs thusly:
a) Regarding the Hotness of Firth, I am utterly indifferent.
b) Nobody has me utterly convinced that source fealty is no indicator of the end product's quality. The genius of adaptation is taking a brilliant source and crossing mediums to produce a genius film. AEPP is not a genius film.
c) WPP is genius. There isn't a single character that is better developed or delivered in AEPP. WPP's plot, though truncated, is wondrous screenplay.
d) Keira Knightley and Rosamund Pike are Hotter than Firth. So there.
Here is a perfect parallel comparison: In 1990 Zeffirelli did celluloid Hamlet. Fanatics of a prominent ilk panned the movie as taking too much license with the plot and overreaching some Freudian ickiness. Both critiques are legitimate. In 2006 Kenny B adapted, directed, and starred in his own production that was meticulous and long, for which he won much accolation. I like the Zeffirelli much better; it was smart, it was punchy, and it was subtle interpretation of Shakespeare. Branagh was chiefly loud.
Lastly, Joe Wright's camera direction and steadicam shots are what dramas should be made of. And the party scenes are superb. And the sets and locations. It may be shorter but we lose out on nothing.
We shall see if I make it through AEPP. It does grow on me as it progresses.
This 2005 dark comedy/action/mystery film is funny. Val Kilmer's dry humour doesn't miss, Robert Downey Junior's not-so-quiet desperation convinces, Michelle Monaghan is winsome to convince 'em (to not lose any?) The plot's a real plot. The story and characters drive the show, which perhaps surprisingly didn't win much at the box office. Angelino nostalgia abounds.
The film is also dark. I laughed my way through it a few weeks ago but have been more reflective since. It's either an honest piece or one in which nothing is sacred, or perhaps both. The plot is catalyzed by the suicide of a molestation victim and driven by the three central reprobates to a conclusion that ties up the story but not the moral dilemmae.
At a key moment it is suggested that all the unhappy, exploited, loose women in Los Angeles were probably victims of sexual abuse. It's supposed to play as a funny line, but obviously funny because there's too much truth to it, and that's not funny.
Current statistics shared with me by a former officer of the law suggest that about half of all women will at some point in their lives experience some form of abuse. Effectively 100% of sex trade workers were sexually abused as children.
That's not funny. I've been pondering to what extent the Hollywood juggernaut is a systematic exploitation of its icons. To be sure they're well-paid and very talented. It's not so evident they're any happier than your average Roman gladiator.
Are we the consumers driving them to their misery?
Are we capitalizing on their willingness to be exploited, which is itself a consequence of evil men committing vile acts?
There are no simple answers and clearly my questions are over-simplified. I hear from people who know that good things are happening in Hollywood. I don't presume it's time for a wholesale boycott.
This is however I think a real issue, and I was surprised to see a real film even wink at it. We might find this encouraging, but it's probably evidence even less is sacred in H-wood than I previously thought.
I got a chance to see Children of Men on DVD. Before this blog was reincarnated there was much intrigue about the film.
My short impression: The genius of the film is its technical achievement and commitment to the long shot of which I am a zealous fan. Cuaron and his techie crews deserve a lot of recognition.
That, I think, it about where the genius of the film stops. I know the show got a lot of credit for a pro-life message and a "serious critique" of what makes life meaningless. I don't buy it. I read the book, which is much, much, much cleverer than the script of the movie. I don't think this is a case of necessary constriction of a book for the sake of adaptation. I think this is despoiling a good book of enough provocative ideas and then applying them towards some indiscernible yet angst-ridden end.
P.D. James' book has a golden tinge to the tragedy, Cuaron's film has a gray fog to the tragedy. Out of both do we see the redemption at the end; only out of the book is it especially reassuring.
