Men Who Stare at Goats (movie)

I had some hopes for this movie and I was not disappointed. George Cloony is almost as entertaining as I have ever seem him (not quite as funny as "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?") in this rather bizzare movie. Ewan McGregor is likewise fun to watch. And a brilliant move to cast Obi Wan Kenobi in this movie as an 'inside joke' of sorts. Neither actor is at their best, when it comes to acting: they are very like most of their other characters I have seen them play. But this does not detract from the movie. They were fun to watch in a "fun and funny" little movie. Though it is, in the end, a little more than that.

It's also intelligent, if you watch closely enough. The wisdom always being covered up in a joke.

Most of the overt wisdom I noticed in the film came from the very same source they made the most fun of: the "hippie". Though they made fun of other groups, such as our military and our greedy corporations, "New Agers" was their primary target. And also their primary ally. I hope this is not lost on most viewers because they smothered it in jokes and impossibilities.

But it's not that important. The primary goal of this movie is as entertainment and the (not so overt) wisdom that can come from that. The fact that (spoiler alert!) only one man stares at a goat only once during the movie really illustrates the style of humor through this movie. It is irreverent, odd, and physical. If you like funny faces, then you will find them here (you will even if you don't like funny faces, assuming you watch the movie). From beginning to end, it was obvious that the writers and directors of this movie rather enjoyed putting it together. Juxtaposing military and hippie culture and creating a situation where the two attempted to co-exist. In the end, hippies aren't very good at being a clandestine military tool, however. Who'd a thunk.

I was very happy with the movie. Could hardly have been happier, really. I could watch this movie again. Which is saying a lot, coming from me. It is highly recommended.

Thank You for Smoking (movie)

I enjoyed this film far more than I expected to. I thought it'd be depressing. "Good", yes: I would begrudgingly have to admit that it was good. But I did not think I would enjoy the hour someodd I spent watching it. But I find that I did. I'm not sure how, but it was an entertaining film.

This movie is not an anti-smoking film, as one who is against smoking may think given the ironic title. Nor is this movie pro-smoking. Nor is this movie really pro or anti anything besides possibly lobbyists (bloody lobbyists!). Knowing that, I would have thought I'd like the movie even less. But the plot was engaging enough, and the dastardly characters charming enough, that I didn't get too mad. Maybe a little, but who wouldn't? It's written to excite you a little bit. Unless you really were part of the "Death Squad", you would find Nick Naylor (the main character) contemptible. But then you would just get mad at other parts of the movie.

Perhaps that is what "Thank You for Smoking" does. It manages to be balanced enough that the parts that depress me and make me angry are off-set by the funny and intelligent parts (read: parts I agree with). It stays true to its characters and its plot in such a way that it has sincerity. And though the lobbyist is a little... aggravating... he at least admits that he is aggravating; even downright evil.

All the while, the movie has expert humor. The best comedies are not written as comedies, I find, and though this doesn't actually fit that mould exactly, it's humor is reminiscent of it. A fine film for anyone to watch. Not preachy or overly-moralistic but still showing everyone just how awful lobbyists are.

The Goonies (1985 movie)

Despite the horror this may induce in many people, I have never seen the Goonies before now. This review is on my first viewing, despite the fact that I was born in the 80's. I've been told it was the quintessential 80's movie and that I had. to. see. it.

I did enjoy the movie, but I didn't find it any more 80's quintessential than "Honey I Shrunk the Kids", which I did grow up with. Not to say that means it isn't classic 80's movie-making. It is. It did have another weight-lifting, unpopular, guy who gets a girl in it (just like "The Lost Boys"!), it had the adventure and the fun, without realistic complications or Post Traumatic Stress. Simple, bumbling bad-guys (like Home Alone, although technically early 90's). Kinda like "National Treasure", which is about as close to "The Goonies" as a movie from the millennium gets.

So "The Goonies" is an "enjoyable", funny, classic movie. One of the reasons Steven Spielberg is so lauded, I suppose. I recommend it.

Up (movie)

The most impressive thing about Pixar is that they do not shy away from material which is difficult, unhappy, or adult (not like that!) but at the same time aren't offensive or crass or unsuitable for children. In this asect, Up does not disappoint. It has an impressive amount of depth to it, a simple enemy that is good for the younger audience and a more intangible enemy for the more thoughtful audience. It has dark and unhappy events, which are realistic, and happy events (which are less realistic, come to think of it...) and is consistently funny.

So I found the movie to be pretty "Good". However, it's not what I would consider the best movie, not even among the Pixar collection. Though perhaps the best in the last few years and proof that Pixar can create a quality product even if it has been acquired by Disney--after Wall-E created the fear that it may have been Disney-fied: good up until it had to have an acceptably cute and crappy ending. Up does get a little cheesy, the ending is predictable, but it is more acceptable in this piece than it was in Wall-E. The style of the story allowed for it.

It also allows for copious amounts of unrealism. One remembers that this is, in essence, a cartoon where everything is possible. Don't think about physics or time while watching this movie because it wont be considering them either. It is a cute film, meant to be entertaining and Aesopian, not real.

My biggest problem with the movie was trying to understand that crotchety old man. I do understand him much more now, but I had to think about it for a while. I was annoyed at the standard "bad guy", until I was convinced that it was necessary to make the film accessible to a wider audience, which has its merits. The style is getting... usual, so visually, I thought they could have done more with it, but I like the square-ness exhibited by the characters.

So Up is a good film: better than Wall-E, Ratatouille, and Cars, better than Finding Nemo. But is it "Liar Liar" good? ...No, not really.

Star Trek (movie, limited background knowledge)

I haven't seen much of the original Star Trek. Nor have I seen much of Next Generation or any other series, really. I've seen a few, but forgotten much. However, despite how much I don't know about Gene Roddenberry's universe, I don't remember quite so much fighting! Nor do I recall so many plot holes.

I was un-impressed. It seemed really "Fan-Servicey" to me. Full of battles, fighting and ship-to-ship combat, there's partial nudity and such... Better special effects than anyone could achieve in a poorly funded 1960's television show. Yay. But in the end, that is all it was. Special effects and spectacle. Very little, if any, true substance. The only good that came out of this Fan Service was the casting. Each of the characters is impressively reminiscent of the original cast and it was cool to see ol' Leonard Nimoy on screen. If I was more familiar with the original, I'm sure that would be even more impressive.

But there would still not be any substance outside of nostalgia. If you used to know Star Trek really well, then watch the movie and see what all the buzz is about. But without the old series to dream about, this movie is pretty unimpressive.

SAPA speaker in Gunnison

Western State
College's Sexual Assault Prevention Advocates (SAPA) group invited a speaker to
their last meeting on Tuesday. This speaker, who will be anonymously referred to
as Faye for the purposes of this article, came representing both Alamosa and
Mineral counties to speak about her work as a victims advocate. "Working with
victims is my passion", she said and talked about specific sexual assault cases
she has had to work on. Some of these involved very small children and some
involved wealthy perpetrators, respected by their community and difficult to
prosecute.

Faye went over a number of
statistics about sexual assault and left an ample supply of literature for the
SAPA program.

The group discussed how
mentally damaging it can be to have been sexually assaulted. Most of the sexual
assault victims Faye has worked with develop self-destructive behaviors such as
copious alcohol and drug use, dropping out of school, or becoming highly
promiscuous. Some develop clinical depression or post-traumatic stress
disorder.

Faye shared her own experiences
with Sexual Assault as well. Her and her brother had been attacked at nearly the
same time. She used drugs to try to run away from the problem until almost
killing herself in a car accident. He has been on
anti-depressants.

Faye also discussed what a SANE
(Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) evaluation is like. Describing it as "More
invasive than the actual rape ... I would not wish that on anybody." But if a
victim is to prosecute, the evidence from that evaluation is needed. According
to Faye, many people do not come forward with their story because of this, or
because it is taboo, or because they simply don't know if the assault was a
crime.

The main question of the night
was what could be done about sexual assault and how to prevent
it.

At Adams State College in
Alamosa, they have installed "blue phones" which are immediately connected to
911 when the receiver is picked up and blast light all around the phone. Adams
State is also trying to "silence the night" by lighting up every
corner.

However, the biggest thing we
can do, according to Faye, is to educate people. "The fact of the matter is, a
woman should be able to walk around naked without being assaulted."

Lars and the Real Girl (rewatched)

This is one of the most "Beautiful" movies I have ever seen. It is intricately woven and very carefully planned. From the very first scene, there are symbols and foreshadowing for what is going on throughout the movie. But it is subtle enough that you probably wont catch it (much of it you can't) until you are watching in for a second time. I was impressed with the acting; Ryan Gosling has a decent depth as an actor and Kelli Garner was good as well. Perhaps it is largely because I don't know any of the actors from any other project (besides Gosling), but I don't see any actor behind any of the characters.

But the technical aspects of the movie are the least of what I like. The story is what captivates me. I love this movie because of its morality. Now, I agree with those 'literatureists' who insist that the best stories were not written for a specific purpose, but instead stay true to the characters. These stories have depth and mean something different to every viewer or reader. Much of the time, this is true. The problem with a movie like "Lars and the Real Girl" is that it will sound preachy to somebody, especially if they disagree. To me, it wasn't preachy at all. It just portrayed an example of how we should treat each other. And I like that message.

The tone of the movie is pretty melancholy. Though funny at times, the comedy is cynical and dry. It doesn't avoid humor, but doesn't ever really crack a joke. The color palate is largely brown, and the setting in the bleak north (where it is more likely for something like this to be possible). I know one person who hasn't been able to stay awake for the entire movie, and others who find it hard to achieve the level of disbelief suspension the movie requires. It is not that it needs a high level of suspension, like a fantasy, but that it doesn't need a lot. The movie is set in "our world", basically, and for the most part is realistic. But there is this small level of idealism which would be difficult if not impossible to find in our world as it stands now. However, that is the point, I feel. The movie is idealistic. It proposes an alternative from what we usually see.

What is Science

There are some crazy people who think "Intelligent Design" and Religion should be taught in public school. To which I say:

Okay. Good idea, actually. Because whether you are an Atheist, or a Deist (of whatever variety), or believe in Science! you must realize that religion is a fact of life. It exists in the minds of most people in one way or another. There are a million varieties of it. It is also very complicated and therefore it is a subject that can, and probably should, be discussed in school. However: like politics, religion can be a sticky thing to get into. You can't preach one side, nor one denomination. You can't overtly tell someone that one is right and one is wrong. But, like politics, we should be confident that an intelligent, well educated student can make an intelligent, well educated decision of their own which, if it is intelligent, should be a viable opinion.

Right?

However, that does not mean "Intelligent Design" should be taught in a science class. Because it isn't science. Philosophy? Sure. History? Definitely. Current Events? Yep. Science. No, not really. Nothing about it is "scientific".

Though I can see why some people believe that it is. "Scientists" have gotten into the habit of proposing all sorts of ideas of their own which aren't actually science either. They are just ideas. Philosophies. Supported by logic and reason, but not by any real evidence, besides (perhaps) a small kernel. But evidence is what is needed for a theory to be a "scientific theory". Eleven dimension unifying string theory is a good example of this. There is precious little physical evidence for eleven dimension unifying string theory. Especially from the perspective of a person who isn't a doctor in paranormal (quantum) physics. But, of course, that's because we can't see in eleven dimensions; we only see in three.

Uh huh.

This has led people to believe the "watchmaker argument" is scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design". If you find a watch, you assume it was made by someone; why not assume that the awesome complexity of life and the universe were made by someone as well. That's logical and it makes so much sense that people have used it (in one form or another) for thousands of years at least to point to the existence of God. But it isn't evidence. It's just logic, and it's just a metaphor. Metaphors are great at explaining things, but they are not evidence and they are never, Never Ever, a perfect explanation for anything.

That is why they are "metaphors". Like a parable, they are not literal.

The other thing about metaphors is, you can also punch a hole in them with another metaphor, or another line of logic. Unlike a watch, life can change and adapt, like water to fill a glass perfectly. The watch is like a block. If you find a block to fit a glass perfectly, then it makes sense to assume it was built to fit a glass; however, water always fits the glass and it wasn't tailored to fit the glass. Now, excusing the fact the above is more of a simile than a metaphor, it serves the same purpose of explanation. Also like the "watchmaker argument", it can have a hole punched through it just as easily.

But, as only a kernel of evidence, a case study, my disbelief in metaphors is not scientifically supported. It's only based in logic.

Inkheart (movie)

When I first looked at "Inkheart", I had two hypotheses. One: that the movie would be pretty good; a fantasy where one could pull a story into reality is one which I have a particular affinity for (I love my books). Two: it'd be some awful 'family movie' with a thin, nauseating plot.

I was happy that it leaned more toward the former. It was "enjoyable" fantasy. However, there were some... holes. It doesn't really suffer from 'Family Movie Syndrome', but it's continuity errors are mostly because it is trying to be happy in spite of rather dire tragedy.

The major problem with the movie is lack of explanation for the "silvertongue" power. From here, since the major problem is plot related, it's going to be hard to discuss this movie without a few small spoilers. I'll try to keep it small.

There are multiple characters with this power, this is known from the beginning. One of them isn't very good at it and brings damaged things out of books. Another is considered better, however, they always transfer: when something is brought from the book, something else goes in. The last doesn't appear to have any limitations whatsoever. That's the most annoying part.

There are parts in the ending which don't make sense. Most of it can be explained, but you have to explain it yourself. The film makers don't help you. But there is also one glaring error which doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to add a little unnecessary drama to the end with Dustfinger. And I can't explain it in any other way.

So it's good, but the ending will annoy a thoughtful viewer.

Gears of War 2 (XBox 360)

All I played of this game was an online "hoard" match with three people. I didn't play the story and I didn't play very long. I never got used to the controls, really, though I did get to the point where I could survive for a little while. I don't have a very deep knowledge of this game, but I will still give a review of what I did experience:

This game is really, really "Slow". Your character is a hulking creature with an automatic weapon. You spend all your time crouching behind something and then shooting out from behind it. Then hiding again. Then shooting again. Then something gets close to you and dismembers you. Yay. Then you do it again. You can punch things really hard, and you can sorta stand up against an enemy for a little while... But for the most part, you're shooting from behind cover. And then run your massive bulk to a new piece of cover. With all the turning radius of a rocket ship.

The people I played with thought the game was great. They had the first one as well. They had played a lot and were pretty good at it, so there must be something for FPS fans (even though it's not really First Person...), but it wasn't my cup of tea.

The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (musical movie)

"The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" was better than I thought it would be. I was fearing that it would be one of those movies where I always want to look off or beyond what the camera is showing. "Look over there! Gaa!" But It wasn't.

The movie advertises itself as funny, but I didn't find such, per se.... I didn't laugh too often. Once in a while, but not often. However, it wasn't highly dramatic, either. Most of the time... I did choke up at the end a bit. Good music helps that.

The music was really enjoyable. Better than the music in most musicals, I feel. It didn't always have that "This is the song that goes like this!" (-Spamalot) feel to it which many musicals follow. The infusion of some of Dolly Parton's own songs was fairly seemless and added some depth to the soundtrack.

The movie is "Entertaining", foremost, but also has some depth to it as well. There's a lot of opinion and philosophy which the film discusses such as honesty, television, morality... that last one is the biggest. Is it good or bad to have a whorehouse in your town? It's really a cultural judgment. However, I never felt like the characters in the movie behaved like people who made regular use of a whorehouse. They had sexual values which I would believe are more consistent with our culture's, which villainizes them. If partial nudity throws you into a tizzy, then be warned that there is some, along with some drug usage, but no real violence besides a punch to the face.

Which is worst?

The Triplets of Belleville (animatied silent film, 2003)

This is a very unique movie. If you are a dialog driven individual, you should be warned that there ain't much in here. The movie is entirely crafted from visual style, sounds, and music. It becomes quite the "artistic" film. Like the ballet, but I can understand animation more than dance: I'm more familiar with it. Or like the beginning of Wall-E, but not quite so magnificent (however, Triplets sustains better than Wall-E, which I only found so magnificent for the first part).

The advantage of this style is that it creates a film that can really be understood by any language group because "language" isn't important. There is no need for subtitles. But it does require an attention of a different sort than usual and it is a different culture (by a little) than what the average American knows. If you aren't ready for that, then this may not be the movie for you. It is undeniable that the film is "good". But it is very particular and probably could not be enjoyed (at all) by many people. But for those who are adventurous and looking for something new and different, it is a good lead. The movie is very, very well polished, that much is clear.

I kinda like the visual style. It is reminiscent of cartoons such as old Popeye in how they moved, but there was much more detail and the same level of exaggeration in what everyone looked like. Its like one of those old "find things" books in how much is going on in the background (and the foreground) and I doubt anyone sees it all the first four times they watch the movie. I've only seen it once, so I feel like I've barely seen the surface.

The tone of the movie is pretty melancholy, even if it is filled with visual jokes. The movie makes me feel sad so that, when the jokes come, I'm not really in the mood to laugh. But if your sense of humor is really cynical and dry, the movie is probably better to you.

It was an interesting adventure, and I recommend it to those who are ready for that.

Update:

I watched Triplets of Belleville again, and found it to be very re-watchable. I also watched it with a cycling fanatic who was amazed at the brilliant level of detail. Whoever made this movie knows as much about biking as they do about animating.

This is a very detailed and finely tuned film. I still find it to be "Artistic" but in a very entertaining way. If you can get past the lack of dialog, it is a very good movie.

However,

The ending is almost too laughable. Too unreal for a movie with so much background detail.