« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 16, 2005
Upfronts
If you want to keep tabs on what's getting picked up this week for the fall schedule, here's your Google news list (by date) on the big TV-palooza.
Woo hoo!
Posted by bonnie at 06:31 PM | TrackBack
May 14, 2005
Escape to Witch Mountain (1975) / Primer (2004)
Watched two movies today that have little in common except they were both better than "What The BLEEP Do We Know".
This morning Kate and I watched the first of the Witch Mountain series about psychic twins Tia and Tony. This movie was a lot cooler when I was a kid but it holds up pretty well. The special effects are obvious and crude but for 1975 not too shabby.
Tia and Tony are orphans who get "adopted" by an evil millionaire when their psychic powers are discovered. They escape with the help of several friendly animals and Eddie Albert's camper and hit the road.
Since I am all smart and all from years of pop culture, I thought the plot could have been developed a bit more and Tony and Tia's background explained a little better but there is a sequel so maybe it will be explained then. I have no memory of the sequel other than I am pretty sure that I had a huge crush on Tia at some point in my childhood and I think I remember her being older.
Anyhoo. Later that day I watched "Primer" which had all the complexity of plot I needed with some to spare. The gist is that two guys accidently invent a machine capable of sending objects back in time. Although the movie is ostensibly about time travel, it is more about the trust these two men have in each other and how that changes as they use the machine to try and fix things that didn't turn out quite right.
It's not a wacky time travel adventure like Back to the Future and there is much more of a sense of danger and mystery to this method. I have read enough pseudo-science in my day to almost believe that if time travel were possible, it would be like this.
Primer was nominated for several Independent Film Awards and for an Oscar. Escape to Witch Mountain has a black cat name Winky.
Posted by chip at 06:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
May 13, 2005
What The BLEEP Do We Know
So, I am watching this movie with Kate about quantum physics, the nature of reality, and Marlee Matlin. I don't quite get its deal yet but it is vaguely interesting.
One thing I *hate* so far is that we are at least 20 - 25 minutes into it and there are lots of people who APPEAR to be scientists because they are telling us things and asking questions like "Why can we remember the past but not remember the future?" and "How can we affect the future but not the past?" The problem is they haven't told us who these people are. Are they legit? Are they more Scientific American or more Coast to Coast AM?
That is the question.
The subject matter is very cool and interesting but I would rather reas about it in a book than watch Marlee Matlin play basketball while the ability for particals existing in two places is explained to me.
I still have two hours left but this is my review of the first half hour.
I looked up the Wikipedia Entry to read while I watch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_bleep_do_we_know
Posted by chip at 09:15 PM | TrackBack
Everything Bad Is Good For You
Link to the Amazon
Link to Author's Blog
Y'all probably know the gist of this book by now. There has been debate on some websites and reviews all around the place.
Johnson basically posits that we as a culture are smarter due to the increased quality and complexity of popular media.
I don't have my copy here so I am going from memory here:
Video games do far more than the traditional belief of an increase in hand/eye coordination. Games such as Myst and even Grand Theft Auto teach us to explore their worlds, to complete much more complex tasks than older games such as Pitfall or Pac-Man.
Television is more complicated now. The multi-threaded plots and complex social networks in a show like 24 or the Sopranos (he never mentions the Wire, oddly) are supposdly "better for us" than Starsky and Hutch or Laverne and Shirley.
The Internet obviously has changed things. This is the area I actually agreed with him the most. The blogs, LiveJournals, discussion boards, etc. are making people write again. The internet is actually a pretty social place. Is it better for a teenage girl to come home and watch a soap opera or better for her to craft her online soap opera for her friends to read.
I'm not completely sold on the ideas in this book but my pop culture infused brain wants to believe them. I think there are more factors than a complicated Keifer Sutheland plot and Tetris to our culture's higher IQ. But, I do believe the arguments against critics who are claiming that our media is only geared towards the lowest common denominator.
That's all for now.
Posted by chip at 08:03 PM | TrackBack
May 12, 2005
Simple Men
This Hal Hartley movie was recommended to me by my cousin-in-law's husband, Rob. He's a huge Hal Hartley fan, and he said this is probably his most accessible film.
I really liked it. It's got the feel of a play, particularly overtones of Waiting for Godot, in that the characters have these magnificent monologue-like speeches about life, love, desire, truth. And yet it's amid a story of two oddball brothers--one an accomplished crook, the other a philosophy student--who go on a quest to find their father (again, similar to Godot, except the ending), a famous shortstop on the run from the law for a terrorist crime in the sixties. It has lots of unusual characters they meet along the way, almost Twin Peaksy, but not otherworldy, just odd.
When I first started watching it, I mistakenly thought the characters were on stage doing a play of a holdup. The acting feels like stage acting--sometimes poor stage acting--exaggerated physical movements, projections of voice, always facing stage front, and the dialogue emphasizes this--stock criminal and love story talk. Some people decry this as "bad" acting, but it's a consistent form of "bad" acting throughout the movie, and it's clearly an artistic choice. I haven't quite processed why the choice was made--perhaps an allusion to Shakespeare's poor players who strut and fret upon a stage and then are heard no more--I'd need to watch it again and think about it some to sort out the reason--but it works for me. It works very well.
This is one I'd enjoy watching again. Thumbs up. But probably not for someone who prefers straightforward blockbuster hits.
Posted by courtney at 01:56 PM | TrackBack
My Architect
This is an interesting documentary, a visual delight. The story is of a man trying to figure out who his father was via his father's architecture. His father was Louis Kahn, considered a huge influence and unique artist. His father had three separate families, two at a time, one legitimate and one secret. The filmmaker was from one of these secret families. He was just eleven when his father died, and he got to see him about once a week until then. So he sets out to get to know his father through interviews with collegues and by visiting his buildings. The buildings are quite interesting. Some are ugly "modern" square blocks, but they usually have some pleasant surprise. Others are quite gorgeous, particularly the capitol of Bangladesh. The photography is beautiful, capturing the architecture at lovely angles, using time-elapsed photography to show how the light moves through the buildings, very nice to see. Kahn built the Fort Worth art museum, so I think we'll check that out soon. It looks to me--on the outside--like a large dairy, or lots of modernistic chicken houses put together side-by-side. Inside it looks interesting, how light comes in, the large shapes and blocks. Neat.
Posted by courtney at 01:38 PM | TrackBack
May 09, 2005
The Office--UK vs US
After overhearing me talk about watching the U.S. version of The Office, my friend Rob loaned me his DVDs of the UK version, season 1, season 2, and the special. Great fun all around.
I started watching the U.S. version at Chip's, and I loved that there is no laugh track, the awkward/funny humor (such as the boss's efforts at being PC: "Is there a less-offensive term than 'Mexican'?"). I also fell in love with Jim and his practical joking and his unrequited love for Pam. Very funny, and I have it on Replay and usually watch each episode twice.
The first episode of the U.K. and U.S. version are almost identical, and the characters are quite similar in type, but after that they veer off on their own subjects, though I suspect major story lines will be the same. The only differences in the first episode are pop references--Camilla Parker Bowles becomes Hillary Clinton, and jelly is Jello.
I love the U.K. version. The boss is amusingly idiotic and clueless in his own special way, thinking himself a great comedian for having puppets propped on the coat rack.
Interesting differences in the shows reflect some interesting cultural differences. For instance, the Gareth/Dwight character is quite different. In the British version, Gareth is an uptight dweeb who doesn't get all the gay jokes at his expense whenever he answers questions about his minimal military service. Dwight is also the butt of jokes and uptight, but he gives off more of a neo-Nazi, militia feel over pure gweebiness. Also, I like the distinction between Tim and Jim. Tim, in the U.K. version, like Jim in the U.S. version, is witty and funny and in love with the pretty receptionist who is engaged interminably to a handsome but useless dolt, but Tim is a small little guy with a funny unflattering haircut. Jim also has an unusual hairdo, but he is tall and handsome. I think I like the unrequited love story in the U.K. version better, at least so far, because of that dynamic. Dawn/Pam are fairly similar in their roles, although there's a distinction in their fiances. Dawn's fiance is a basically decent guy but lazy and not appreciative of Dawn and her dreams and talents. Pam's fiance is the same, but also aggressive and jealous and scary.
I loved the U.K. version, but I might have loved it more had I been more Brit saavy and gotten some of the references and caught all the language. I got most of it, but I knew there were times there were jokes that zoomed over my head.
In short, both versions are fun. They have their similarities, but they are different enough that I enjoyed watching both.
Posted by courtney at 12:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
May 01, 2005
Sin City
I enjoyed Sin City more than I thought I would, given the semi-negative reviews I'd read, which mostly complained that the movie lacked a plot and was boring. I didn't find it boring at all, although Alex did find one storyline a little draggy. I think you just have to be prepared for a series of vignettes that are loosely tied together, rather than one cohesive plot.
As with Kill Bill, the violence in this movie didn't bother me because it was so unrealistic. Any time it got really bad it went to black and white silhouettes or the blood was bright yellow, or something equally cartoonish.
As for the acting, Mickey Rourke blew everyone away in his role as the ugly giant avenging the death of the only woman who showed him any kindness. I also liked Clive Owen a lot. Brittany Murphy wasn't nearly as annoying as usual, and Jessica Alba was, in Alex's words, one of the top five most beautiful women in a movie ever. The weakest performance by far was Alexis Bledel as a prostitute. It was like watching Rory Gilmore read off a teleprompter. She was very distracting.
If you like short stories, don't mind some violence (especially violence against women), and enjoy movies that stray off the beaten path, I'd check this one out.