Tonight I was at Chipotle, which is kind of like a Subway with Mexican food. So the line was about ten-fifteen people long, and there was this cop, in uniform, about halfway back.
Then out of nowhere, he pushes his way (no 'excuse me's or anything) to the front of the line, and cuts everyone, thinking that just because he's in uniform he gets special privileges. I'm all about the po-po, but this guy was a complete asshole about it. I can understand if you have to go patrol or whatever, but he got his burrito, then went and sat down with his other buddies and took his sweet time. If you have the time to sit down and eat, you should have the time to wait in line like everyone else.
What an asshole.
11.28.2006
11.27.2006
I'm not one for reality TV. Tonight was the season finale of The Bachelor: Rome, in which one decent looking 'Prince' had to pick between two blonde dunces. I was stuck watching the show with four female friends; two of which were hardcore rooting for Sadie, and two of which liked Sadie more than Jennifer, but didn't really care. I, of course, picked Jennifer, for a number of reasons.
Now, I made this decision about 30 minutes into the 2 hour episode. The girls were positive that Sadie would win, and that she was the better of the two, but I held my ground, because Jennifer was the obvious choice.
There was lots of build-up, but when Lorenzo (the Bachelor) met with Sadie, and told her she wasn't the one, while the girls, both on-screen and off, were like 'wtf?' I was enjoying my moment of brilliance. So what can we learn from this post?
A) Jon is amazing at picking the winner on these shows (I also predicted the winner for Average Joe 2 correctly).
B) If you use logic and reasoning, it's not hard to see who will win.
C) Don't get thrown off by the red herrings, which are aplenty.
Oh, and here's the reasons why it was obvious he would pick Jennifer (debate if you want, but think of it this way: if you were right, I wouldn't be making this blog post right now):
1) While when they were both coated in makeup Sadie looked a bit better, it's obvious Jennifer was much more naturally attractive.
2) Lorenzo freaked the fuck out when Sadie made him that memory book thing. Seriously, he just wants to have some fun, and Sadie seemed way too serious.
3) Sadie, in her last dress, while she has "awesome breasts," seemed to be trying too hard to show them, which was an act of desperation.
4) Jennifer is from Florida, and Florida owns California.
So in conclusion, I won five dollars and am the master of the universe.
11.25.2006
The Fountain (IMDb), the new film from Darren Aronofsky ('Requiem for a Dream'), is a complete waste of time and energy, and about halfway through the film I felt like I'd been in the theater for the literal amount of time between the on-screen lifetime of Wolverine. (pretend that was worded better and made sense)
The film appears to revolve around Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in the 16th century, the modern day, and some random time when apparently living in gigantic bubbles floating through space is the in thing to do. I'm going to try to do chart to help myself out a bit:
16th Century: Conquistador 'Tom' (Wolverine) is sent on a quest by his queen (Weisz) to find the fount-- wait, the movie isn't about a fountain, it's about a tree. . . to find a tree that promises eternal life. Throughout the film, we see Hugh Jackman get hit about thirty times by a flaming sword, and be interrupted while doing some work, and eat bark with pubic hair, and for some reason Rachel Weisz can stare straight into the sun and not go blind.
Modern day: Wolverine is busy trying to cure cancer on some monkey, and Rachel Weisz dies.
Future: Wolverine has a completely shaved head and beard (and looks really fucking scary), and does yoga in a gravity-less environment. Occasionally he eats bark from the most sexually active tree in existance. Also, he hallucinates about his dead wife/queen.
It's bad when part of the method of the film is to show repeat scenes over for effect, and even after seeing each part at least four times, the thing still doesn't make any goddam sense. I have this theory that if you took out all duplicate shots, the movie would barely break 45 minutes. Then there's some random scene of Rachel Weisz in a red outfit with long hair (she has short hair in 'present day'), and it has no relevance to any of the three plotlines whatsoever. Actually, none of the plotlines have any relevance to any sort of 'Fountain' whatsoever.
The climax of the film finally comes when Hugh Jackman slits flaming sword man's throat and makes it to the Tree of Life, which appears to be in a moldy Olympic pool on top of some pyramid in the middle of the jungle. After using the tree's white sap to heal a wound (I don't think it was the tree, I think it was his mutant power, but that's just me), he impales the hairy (yes) tree with a holy dagger (like that pun?), and then begins to guzzle mouthfuls of the tree's semen. Definitely the single best scene of the movie, providing much needed comic relief.
At this point I was beginning to put some obscure meanings together (somehow), but the last ten minutes of the film completely demolished any concept of intelligence the movie might have been hoping to achieve. The finale contradicts everything it tried to set up, and ultimately becomes the most laughably bad movie since 'The Hulk.' Aronofsky must've given the producers a different script to gain approval, because this seems to be the biggest joke of the last decade.
Rating: 1/10 (only because Rachel Weisz is hot)
11.19.2006
Am I the only one who finds this quite the coincidence?
Casablanca (1942)
The Good German (2006)
Maybe I'm missing something, but was that intentional? Either way, every time I see the poster for 'The Good German' I can't help thinking of 'Casablanca.'
In other news, tonight I got into a class I needed, called 'Modern British Literature.'
The good news: It's with a teacher I had before, and he's awesome. Plus, this proves that good things can come from staying in on a Saturday. I was so bored I checked to see if any classes opened up, and BAM, there it was.
The bad news: Since it's Modern British Literature, that means most of the stuff probably won't be on Sparknotes, so I'll have to actually read for the class (ba da, crash). But then again, maybe all we'll go over are the Harry Potter books. Yeah, that'd be pretty funny.
11.18.2006
Casino Royale - Great, spectacular, extremely entertaining. First off, the opening credits were innovative and fresh, and I enjoyed them more than any other credit scene in any movie. Also, the first chase scene is straight-up action and badass-ness, so after the first twenty minutes I knew this movie would be a winner.
What a great 'beginning' to the James Bond story. Since I'm a guy, we'll first look at the 'Bond Girls.' Caterina Murino was kinda hot until she opened her mouth, for two reason. A) Her accent sucks and is annoying, and B) she has really messed up teeth. Thankfully, Eva Green, who plays Bond's first (ever) and last (ever) romance, is gorgeous, in a very unique way (which is sure to be pointed out in the movie itself). Despite her being physically beautiful, she's also mysterious and strangely charismatic; however, that doesn't change the one flaw of the movie - buying the romance between her and Bond is hard to do. It seems forced at some points, and towards the end, the small interlude is definitely the weak point of the film.
Daniel Craig fits into the James Bond persona perfectly, and based solely on this movie, I'd put him as my third favorite (after Connery and Roger Moore, respectively). He plays a flawed Bond, a novice, arrogant, self-absorbed character whose cocky attitude gets him into a lot of trouble. Nothing is ever more interesting to watch than a flawed character overcome his weaknesses and become stronger in the end, and this movie puts things into place very well for the rest of the franchise (even explaining how and why he drinks his martinis the way he does).
Being a James Bond movie, it's not too hard to see the plot twists coming, because you know they're going to come, and can usually predict when, it's just a matter of what twist is going to happen. Given that everyone and their mother is suspecting everyone and their mother to be a 'bad guy,' the story still manages to keep at least a few scenes ahead of the audience. Plus, what's the point of going to a movie just to try to figure stuff out ahead of time? Doing so just makes you look like a jackass, and ruins the movie for you anyway. There's a difference between crappy writing, where you can't help knowing what happens next, and good writing where you think more about trying to be ahead of the game than enjoying the excessive action right in front of you.
Sorry, random digression.
This movie was just as good as I expected it to be. Lots of actions, a good plot, some pretty girls, and some long-term explanations. I miss John Cleese, but oh well, we can't have everything. Very enjoyable.
Rating: 8.5/10
11.16.2006
So right now I'm reading Catch-22 for the first time, and I'm about ten chapters in. It's pretty phenominal so far, but anyway... I went online to look up some quotes from parts I already went through, because there's some great shit. I went to some random site that Google showed, and the quotes were haphazardly ordered, instead of listed by chapter. Of course, I didn't notice this until I came across the last line in the book quoted.
God damnit. Oh well, I just skimmed it, and I don't think it'll matter too much. The book's like 500 pages, so by the time I get to the last chapter everything should be jake. (I've been waiting for two weeks to use that word. Yeah, I'm bringing it back.)
PS. 'The Deer Hunter' was pretty awesome. Christopher Walken is The Man. In other news, 'Girl, Interrupted' was pretty shitty. A poor man's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.' Obviously.
11.14.2006
The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006) - IMDb - It's rare when a movie sequel comes along that makes the original look like child's play. This is one of those times, with the second installment of this widley popular series coming straight-to-DVD earlier this year. Don't let the trailer fool you - with the first 30 seconds being clips from the first movie - this movie is an emotionally charged, epic rollercoaster. From John R. Leonetti, the acclaimed director of 'Mortal Kombat: Annihilation,' we see his triumphant return to the world of glamour and prestige, the world of movies. This is also another trophy in writer Michael D. Weiss' collection, following other gems such as 'Octopus,' 'Octopus 2: River of Fear,' 'Disaster,' and 'Death Train.' His body of work is so spectacular that I like to imagine all his titles put into one screenplay, and I come up with 'Octopus, Crocodile, U.S. Seals, and the Disastrous Death Train Effect Over the River of Fear 2.' That screenplay has 'Oscar' written all over it. Even without all the Crocodiles and Seals', 'Butterfly Effect 2' is a stand-alone work of genius and I don't see how it could go unnoticed by the Academy this coming Oscar season. Beg, borrow, steal - someway, somehow, see this movie.
Rating: 10/10
This post dedicated to Russell Miller.
11.12.2006
(I know I've been making lots of YouTube posts lately. Oh well.)
In regards to this post, there's been some surprisingly good reviews. 8.4 on IMDB with almost 2,000 votes, and a perfect percentage on rottentomatoes (as much as I hate that site).
Anyway, here's a more thorough trailer:
You can view the much more pretty QuickTime version here.
The other day on the radio there was an advertisement for something, and it started like this, "Hi, I'm Hall of Famer _____ ______," which is a fine way to sell a product. It's a common marketing technique. But then, halfway through the commercial, the same guy made some comment that began with, "People like you and me," . . . I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I'm not like a Hall of Fame player, and I don't know many people who are. In fact, other than male genetalia, I probably don't have anything in common with that guy. If you're going to try being cheesy in your sales, at least be consistent, damn.
And because I'm so excited, watch this and share in the experience.
11.11.2006
11.10.2006
Stranger Than Fiction - This movie is just what you expect it to be, and then more. There's humor like in the previews, but the plot also trails into love and romance (not the cheesy, 'A Walk to Remember' kind). Will Ferrell proves that he can also take on serious roles, Emma Thompson is always great, and the same goes for Dustin Hoffman. Queen Latifah sucks, but she only had a small role. I'm also going to marry Maggie Gyllenhaal, in case anyone asks. In the end, it's hard not to feel attached to Will Ferrell's character. There wasn't a single moment during the film where I was thinking, "Ugh, next scene please," which is pretty rare. Should be a minimum of at least an Oscar nod for the screenplay.
Rating: 8.5/10
11.09.2006
The Queen - Lots of subtle humor. Lots of emotional attachment. I'm only twenty years old, so back when Princess Diana died I wasn't really affected (but I do remember it). Seeing some archive footage of her, and the thousands of flowers left outside Buckingham Palace, and how much people were attached to her, was all so overwhelming. Movies try to have emotional appeal fairly often by using real events or old news clips from television (Hi, Sept. 11), but this was the first time I ever felt a connection to the events without actually being there. That's a goal almost all movies want to achieve, but few manage to accomplish. Then, of course, Helen Mirren's performance. Spectacular. Hell, Michael Sheen was even good as Tony Blair. So many great scenes and so much lasting effect. Limited releases are lame, but if you get the chance, see this movie for sure. Rating: 9/10
Running With Scissors - Another movie released in 'Limited,' but don't go rushing out to see this one. Most of the funny moments are in the previews. There's only a few laughs not in the trailer, and it's quite disappointing. I understand it's based on memoirs, but Ryan Murphy was trying to do too much in this one movie. Rating: 6/10
My teacher said this is the shortest story to ever be published (I don't know if that's true - it's just what she said). It's pretty genius, though I almost hate to admit it. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Characters, a climax, a resolution. Wish I would've thought of it first.
"The Scarlatti Tilt," by Richard Brautigan
"It's very hard to live in a studio apartment in San Jose with a man who's learning to play the violin." That's what she told the police when she handed them the empty revolver.
Yeah, that's all it is. Read the fresh post below this one for movie news.
Recent movie viewings:
The Queen (2006) - Oh wait, the power at the theatre died while I was there. Lame. Trying again tomorrow.
The Sting (1973) - The chapter 'The Hook' has to be some of the best directing I've ever seen. The splicing of some amazing card playing by Paul Newman (well, his character) with auditions for parts in 'the wire' is amazing. So much tension. I love 'Butch Cassidy...' but I think this movie's a bit better. Robert Redford is the shit (in this movie, and as the Sundance Kid). 9.5/10
Bonnie and Clyde (1967) - The opening scene for this movie was pretty amazing. Overall quite good, but if you just watched the first seven minutes you might be fulfilled. 26 year-old Faye Dunaway is pretty hot. 8/10
Edit 9/4/2008: Bonnie and Clyde is a definite 10/10.
The Pianist (2002) - Finally saw it. Quite great. That's all. 8/10
Oldboy (2003) - A fairly popular Korean movie that is both heartbreaking and brutally violent. There's also a mix of some magical realism that is quite touching, and I would actually highly recommend this film. 9/10
(Holy shit, I haven't done one of these in a long time. Let's see... these aren't very recent, but 'recent' since my last update in September. Netflix owns.)
I've been watching lots of Scrubs lately and just finished season five. 10/10
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) - 9/10
As Good As It Gets (1997) - 7.5/10 (I don't really like James L. Brooks' stuff much, though Jack Nicholson of course is the master of everything ever.)
Mystic River (2003) - 8/10
It Happened One Night (1934) - Frank Capra, Clarke Gable, some random probably famous starlet... 9.5/10
Barry Lyndon (1975) - Some really moving moments, some really good looking art direction and costumes, but still a bit too long and not my personal type of movie. 7.5/10
Amelie (2001) - Love love love. 10/10
Ok, that should do.
11.04.2006
Tonight I caught a showing of the not very much anticipated 'Saw 3.'
I will admit that, despite it's terrible acting, the first 'Saw' movie succeeded because of its writing. The second movie also had terrible acting, but they had a budget and managed to somehow pull off a decent flick. I enjoyed them both.
Though part three is was once again written by Leigh Whannell, the Australian who played one of the main characters in the first movie, it seems he was scrounging for ideas and came up shorthanded in the end, resulting in lazy writing and still terrible directing and acting.
After the first two movies I left the theatre with a sense of "whoa" that is hard to achieve, because I'm usually good at spotting endings and tie-ups just before you're supposed to be able to. I hate to get picky on details, but as a writer, I just have to. There's a huge difference between weaving hints and backstory throughout a plot while dropping subtle hints (that make sense - coming later in explanation) - which works well - and relying on gimmicky diction choices to provide a loophole for a real plot, and even then only use them as bookends. Yes, that was a long sentence, but I don't feel like redoing it.
FOR EXAMPLE, the whole "I am responsible for your child," with child replacing "boy," is a cheap trick. Also, the whole discussion about the divorce in the beginning tries to lead us to believe that the couple there are married, but it never says that, and it means a divorce from her husband (because she's having an affair). These serve as bookend plot devices, which are never good. There were a couple things, like the missing photograph piece, but that made it a tiny bit too obvious. Come on now.
Also, the thrill of the original 'Saw' movie was it's method to the madness, whereas the third installment is just straight 'method.' Ok, so we have four rooms, and we're going to progress through them, one by one, and have one challenge for each room. Between each room we will show a scene involving 'Jigsaw' and 'Amanda' and 'Other Bitch Who No One Cares About.' It felt like I was playing a game of Candy Land, working towards a predictable finish.
I couldn't buy the whole attachment of Shawnee Smith's character (Amanda) to Jigsaw. It seemed forced through flashbacks that were only mildly interesting and delivered in chunks, which goes back to weaving plot throughout a story. The story was: Past (scene from end of Saw 2), Present, Present, Present, Present....... BAM! FLASHBACK! SHE WAS IN ON IT THE WHOLE TIME! GET IT?! Present, Present..... Yawn.
Not all was bad though. There was still a couple scenes that made me uneasy, mainly the first one with the chains, and the puzzles seemed to get progressively less original as the movie went on, though I liked the rib-ripping device. The bullet-shooting necklace thing was cool looking, but we didn't even see it in action. Weak.
Also, from the first minute of the movie I could tell who would die because the style of writing has become somewhat predictable, almost a caricature of itself. Anyone remotely attached to the 'game,' other than one main character dies. The main character of course lives, because we need another cliffhanger for another sequel.
As my friend David said, this is how he felt afterwards: "Meh." I will ditto that. Dear Leigh Whannell - please don't make a part four.
Rating: 4.5/10
11.02.2006
Today I finally finished reading Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut. I must say, Vonnegut is the definite master of 'weaving' or 'threading,' aka making every single tiny event in the story relate to every single other tiny event in some way or another, and all have a common theme. It's amazing how so many of his characters are recurring throughout his books as well, and the way he makes himself a character is always genius. I can't get enough of the character Kilgore Trout. In my opinion this wasn't as good as Slaughterhouse-Five, but still a very good read. Many funny moments, and an ending that is actually quite sad.
Rating: 9.25/10
(SH5 = 10/10, highly recommended)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
