Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is partially based off of the following true story which is known as "The (Great American) StreetCar Conspiracy/Scandal" (or the General Motors StreetCar Conspiracy):
This story centers in LA, just as the movie does, where the "Red Car" and the "Yellow Car" were bought out, monopolized, and quickly dismantled. Leading the way towards private transportation for all city dwellers who used to use public transit.
General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone tires led the conspiracy to dismantle electric rail-driven StreetCars because they don't use much rubber or oil and aren't built by GM. With automobile sales stagnating and public opinion dramatically on the side of public transportation (because it's easy and not a dirty, disgusting bus), they felt they needed to something for their own bottom lines. So they funded a company called National City Lines (and Pacific City Lines and American City Lines) which "operated" the streetcars. Any by "operated" I mean they replaced them with dirty, disgusting buses. Most people don't like buses, they shun them and prefer to ride almost anything else. Go to a Greyhound station and see what I mean. Most people still don't like them much (I use 'em a lot, though). For a good, modern comparison of the comfort in riding a bus versus a trolly, use Greyhound on your next vacation, then return on the Amtrak.
Then remember that the old rail systems in cities ran often and everywhere, which is all Amtrak's missing.
For their crimes against life, the universe, and everything, the corporations (GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil, et cetera) were fined a measly $5,000. The individuals convicted were fined $1.
March onward, Global Warming.
It is interesting to me that few people make this connection and most of those who do reference the movie when talking about the scandal. For me, it is the best part of the movie! Who Framed Rodger Rabbit makes other subtle references to such things as Harvey, and very overt references to such things as every cartoon made before 1950. It very rightfully portrays the freeway as the bad guy.
At the same time, Roger Rabbit is a "Very Fun", entertaining, and pretty movie. Filled with, for many people, an ample helping of nostalgia.
Many may not know that Roger Rabbit originally a character in a book called "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" by Gary K. Wolf. The book and the movie have very little in common; I can already tell even though I have not read a word of it.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Biking Bismarck
Local Enthusiasts Organize Support for Bicycling
There are tremendous bicycling opportunities in Bismarck. Single track trails circle and sometimes infiltrate the city. Multiple routes cross the river between Bismarck and Mandan. Many thin streets with limited motor traffic are friendly to cyclists. There is ample topography for the enthusiast, but enough simple, winding trails for the weekend rider.
On Monday, April 26, a new cycling coalition for Bismarck-Mandan held an organizational meeting. The group will act as an umbrella organization for members to organize races and events and possibly even to coalesce lobbying power. The group will be for riders of all types, from the casual commuters all the way to serious road racers, and triathletes.
"It makes more sense for us to all be together than separate," said Brian Beady, a long-time Bismarck bike rider. "We have more in common than we have different."
Derrick Braaten, a local lawyer and bicycling enthusiast, said Bismarck’s friendliness towards bikes was one of the deciding factors for his decision to move here from Minneapolis.
For commuters, Bismarck is still small enough geographically that most destinations are an easy ten to fifteen minutes away. A bike can be “almost as fast or even faster than a car,” according Brian Beady, a long-time Bismarck rider.
Lance Larson, a self-proclaimed cycling addict, agreed.
“You can get almost every place in just about the same time as driving a car,” he said. “Say you’re going down 7th Street and everyone is stopped at lights.”
“You can roll right up to the front of the line,” Beady added. “There is some good stuff here.”
Safe Travels
It is only getting better. Dale Heinert works for Bismarck as a Design and Construction Engineer. He uses his bicycle as his primary transportation for most of the year. Heinert is working on a “Complete Streets” program that focuses on ideas and renovations to make environmentally-sound streets safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.
“It’s not just a chuck of pavement,” Heinert said.
Some people think bike paths on busy streets would be a good start.
“I think for the most part Bismarck drivers are pretty courteous,” Karen Van Fossan, a Prairie Independent columnist and another commuter who uses her bike more than her car, said. “It makes me feel good about my community. But there are busier streets where I don’t know if I should be on the road or the sidewalk and I’d love to see the city put in some bike paths.”
Van Fossan also noted her concern with the intersection of State and Divide.
“The walk signal is not long enough,” she said. “Especially walking a bike I can’t get across it in time. I would like to see the perspective of pedestrians and bikers taken into account in situations like that.”
“The city is almost divided, traffic-wise, for bicycles,” Beady said, citing south Bismarck as a more difficult place to ride.
“Bike lanes would be nice,” Larson said, but he disagreed with Van Fossan over how friendly Bismarck drivers can be.
“There are a lot of people who are not bike-friendly who are driving cars.”
“There’s a small number of people riding,” Beady said. “Motorists are not too used to cyclists.” But, he added, “sometimes we have cyclists who are not too good at sharing the road either.”
Doing a Good Turn
According to the group, incentives for bicycling can be significant.
People feel “refreshed and invigorated when they’ve ridden their bike to work,” Beady said.
Heinert agrees that bicycling can be therapeutic.
“When you’re on a bike, physically exerting yourself, it just sort of wears away from you,” he said. “A lot of people who don’t ride wouldn’t even think about that.” But for Heinert, the stress is gone “in the first four or five blocks. It’s too easy to drive.”
Beyond the physical and psychological benefits, Larson believes in the economic incentives to bicycling.
“Commuting [by bike] is going to save you a lot of money on gas. It’s just better... for everything.”
As far as their organization goes, Beady is optimistic about their ability to bring people together and promote biking in Bismarck and Mandan.
“It makes more sense for us to all be together than separate. We have more in common than we have different,” he said.
There are tremendous bicycling opportunities in Bismarck. Single track trails circle and sometimes infiltrate the city. Multiple routes cross the river between Bismarck and Mandan. Many thin streets with limited motor traffic are friendly to cyclists. There is ample topography for the enthusiast, but enough simple, winding trails for the weekend rider.
On Monday, April 26, a new cycling coalition for Bismarck-Mandan held an organizational meeting. The group will act as an umbrella organization for members to organize races and events and possibly even to coalesce lobbying power. The group will be for riders of all types, from the casual commuters all the way to serious road racers, and triathletes.
"It makes more sense for us to all be together than separate," said Brian Beady, a long-time Bismarck bike rider. "We have more in common than we have different."
Derrick Braaten, a local lawyer and bicycling enthusiast, said Bismarck’s friendliness towards bikes was one of the deciding factors for his decision to move here from Minneapolis.
For commuters, Bismarck is still small enough geographically that most destinations are an easy ten to fifteen minutes away. A bike can be “almost as fast or even faster than a car,” according Brian Beady, a long-time Bismarck rider.
Lance Larson, a self-proclaimed cycling addict, agreed.
“You can get almost every place in just about the same time as driving a car,” he said. “Say you’re going down 7th Street and everyone is stopped at lights.”
“You can roll right up to the front of the line,” Beady added. “There is some good stuff here.”
Safe Travels
It is only getting better. Dale Heinert works for Bismarck as a Design and Construction Engineer. He uses his bicycle as his primary transportation for most of the year. Heinert is working on a “Complete Streets” program that focuses on ideas and renovations to make environmentally-sound streets safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.
“It’s not just a chuck of pavement,” Heinert said.
Some people think bike paths on busy streets would be a good start.
“I think for the most part Bismarck drivers are pretty courteous,” Karen Van Fossan, a Prairie Independent columnist and another commuter who uses her bike more than her car, said. “It makes me feel good about my community. But there are busier streets where I don’t know if I should be on the road or the sidewalk and I’d love to see the city put in some bike paths.”
Van Fossan also noted her concern with the intersection of State and Divide.
“The walk signal is not long enough,” she said. “Especially walking a bike I can’t get across it in time. I would like to see the perspective of pedestrians and bikers taken into account in situations like that.”
“The city is almost divided, traffic-wise, for bicycles,” Beady said, citing south Bismarck as a more difficult place to ride.
“Bike lanes would be nice,” Larson said, but he disagreed with Van Fossan over how friendly Bismarck drivers can be.
“There are a lot of people who are not bike-friendly who are driving cars.”
“There’s a small number of people riding,” Beady said. “Motorists are not too used to cyclists.” But, he added, “sometimes we have cyclists who are not too good at sharing the road either.”
Doing a Good Turn
According to the group, incentives for bicycling can be significant.
People feel “refreshed and invigorated when they’ve ridden their bike to work,” Beady said.
Heinert agrees that bicycling can be therapeutic.
“When you’re on a bike, physically exerting yourself, it just sort of wears away from you,” he said. “A lot of people who don’t ride wouldn’t even think about that.” But for Heinert, the stress is gone “in the first four or five blocks. It’s too easy to drive.”
Beyond the physical and psychological benefits, Larson believes in the economic incentives to bicycling.
“Commuting [by bike] is going to save you a lot of money on gas. It’s just better... for everything.”
As far as their organization goes, Beady is optimistic about their ability to bring people together and promote biking in Bismarck and Mandan.
“It makes more sense for us to all be together than separate. We have more in common than we have different,” he said.
Work Disasters Raise Concern
In Light of Deaths at Mines and Oil Rigs, North Dakotans Worry About Workplace Safety Close to Home
On April 5, 2010, the most devastating mining disaster in the last 40 years ensued in West Virgina. Twenty-nine miners lost their lives in an explosion in Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine.
Five workers were killed, two injured, in an explosion at a Tesoro refinery at Anacotes, Washington on April 2 and eleven are presumed dead after an explosion on an oil rig off of the Louisiana coast on April 21.
These incidents were not isolated. The Tesoro refinery chalked up 150 safety violations last year. Massey Energy has a history of unsafe behavior; the Upper Big Branch mine was not considered their most dangerous. Ten Massey mines with worse-than-average injury rates received 2,400 citations in 2009 and four of them had injury rates that doubled the national average. None of this impacts their productivity significantly as Massey Energy has a “lost-time incident rate” better than the national average.
These events are being highlighted by United Steelworkers who released a report this month accusing the oil refining industry of failing to learn from disasters such as the explosion in Texas City in 2007.
This is of particular interest to North Dakota’s booming oil industry. Keeping our workers safe will be difficult. In 2008, North Dakota was ranked 4th in state workplace fatality rates by the AFL-CIO. The only states with higher fatality rates were Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana. Last year, we had 12 recorded deaths in the workplace, which was an improvement.
“Government’s role is crucial.” is the opinion of Mark Froemke, president of the Northern Valley Labor Council in Grand Forks, “government is the only organization that can make sure, throughout this country, that safety regulation will be held in the highest regard. It is their job to see that people return home in the same condition they went to work in.”
“We need government to be involved to hold companies and corporations accountable.” agreed Ken Baker of Coalharbor North Dakota, who has worked as a heavy-equipment Operating Engineer for 35 years.
Ken went on to say, “I just came off of a job last year at one of the power plants, new construction, we had achieved just under 500,000 hours without a recordable injury. That’s awesome.” But he stressed the importance that it was a union job.
Wth a union contract, said Ken, “Workers have rights.” It’s the “typical difference” between a union and a nonunion job. If there is no union, it is “one man speaking alone against the management. That one person is easily gotten rid of.”
Not all companies need a union to maintain safety, “There are those that don’t and there are those that do.” said Tom Deutscher, Area Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “Traditionally this is a non-union state.” But he stressed that “we have employers out there who are not really Mother Theresas. We have found that people do not take their safety and health responsibly, seriously, unless there’s a carrot dangling in front of them. Sometimes it’s enforcement, sometimes it’s not.”
Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship doesn’t want a union if and when their mine reopens in West Virginia.
“This guy, making $30-some million in 2005, went inside the coal mine and sat down with every single worker and said, ‘If you vote for the union, you’re not going to have a job because I will close this mine down,” said United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts.
In light of these and other recent tragedies, President Obama proclaimed April 28th Workers Memorial Day. In a speech on April 15, he declared, “We need to make sure that miners themselves,” said the President on April 15th, “and not just the government or mine operators, are empowered to report any safety violations.”
On April 5, 2010, the most devastating mining disaster in the last 40 years ensued in West Virgina. Twenty-nine miners lost their lives in an explosion in Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine.
Five workers were killed, two injured, in an explosion at a Tesoro refinery at Anacotes, Washington on April 2 and eleven are presumed dead after an explosion on an oil rig off of the Louisiana coast on April 21.
These incidents were not isolated. The Tesoro refinery chalked up 150 safety violations last year. Massey Energy has a history of unsafe behavior; the Upper Big Branch mine was not considered their most dangerous. Ten Massey mines with worse-than-average injury rates received 2,400 citations in 2009 and four of them had injury rates that doubled the national average. None of this impacts their productivity significantly as Massey Energy has a “lost-time incident rate” better than the national average.
These events are being highlighted by United Steelworkers who released a report this month accusing the oil refining industry of failing to learn from disasters such as the explosion in Texas City in 2007.
This is of particular interest to North Dakota’s booming oil industry. Keeping our workers safe will be difficult. In 2008, North Dakota was ranked 4th in state workplace fatality rates by the AFL-CIO. The only states with higher fatality rates were Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana. Last year, we had 12 recorded deaths in the workplace, which was an improvement.
“Government’s role is crucial.” is the opinion of Mark Froemke, president of the Northern Valley Labor Council in Grand Forks, “government is the only organization that can make sure, throughout this country, that safety regulation will be held in the highest regard. It is their job to see that people return home in the same condition they went to work in.”
“We need government to be involved to hold companies and corporations accountable.” agreed Ken Baker of Coalharbor North Dakota, who has worked as a heavy-equipment Operating Engineer for 35 years.
Ken went on to say, “I just came off of a job last year at one of the power plants, new construction, we had achieved just under 500,000 hours without a recordable injury. That’s awesome.” But he stressed the importance that it was a union job.
Wth a union contract, said Ken, “Workers have rights.” It’s the “typical difference” between a union and a nonunion job. If there is no union, it is “one man speaking alone against the management. That one person is easily gotten rid of.”
Not all companies need a union to maintain safety, “There are those that don’t and there are those that do.” said Tom Deutscher, Area Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “Traditionally this is a non-union state.” But he stressed that “we have employers out there who are not really Mother Theresas. We have found that people do not take their safety and health responsibly, seriously, unless there’s a carrot dangling in front of them. Sometimes it’s enforcement, sometimes it’s not.”
Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship doesn’t want a union if and when their mine reopens in West Virginia.
“This guy, making $30-some million in 2005, went inside the coal mine and sat down with every single worker and said, ‘If you vote for the union, you’re not going to have a job because I will close this mine down,” said United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts.
In light of these and other recent tragedies, President Obama proclaimed April 28th Workers Memorial Day. In a speech on April 15, he declared, “We need to make sure that miners themselves,” said the President on April 15th, “and not just the government or mine operators, are empowered to report any safety violations.”
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Mars Attacks (1996 movie)
Mars Attacks! is the second movie I've seen recently with both Sarah Jessica Parker acting poorly and the song,"Indian Love Call" (or just "The Call") being made fun of. Mars Attacks! is a little more fun than Dudley Do-Right, and Parker's boring, useless, and frankly obnoxious character is more funny in this environment than she is in the kids movie.
Mars Attacks is full of star power, but I a lot of it (Jack Black and Natalie Portman) is before these actors became stars. It's a dark and cynical comedy, but it's light-hearted enough in its cynicism that it's still "Enjoyable". Even though there is a lot of death, it's lack of gore makes it palatable.
The movie meanders along a pretty improved plot. Anything can happen and a lot of it does. It is a great parody of 50's horror schlock.
Analysis (spoiler alert):
The most interesting thing about this alien movie is it takes the opposite stance that most alien invasion movies take. Especially more recent alien movies. In this film, it assumes people would be forgiving of an alien race rather than so threatened and imperialistic that we'd try to wipe kill them first. I actually think it's a little more likely that we would kill aliens than try to befriend them, especially after apparent acts of war, but perhaps that's just my jaded cyicism talking. I do try to keep that part of me quelled down.
Mars Attacks is full of star power, but I a lot of it (Jack Black and Natalie Portman) is before these actors became stars. It's a dark and cynical comedy, but it's light-hearted enough in its cynicism that it's still "Enjoyable". Even though there is a lot of death, it's lack of gore makes it palatable.
The movie meanders along a pretty improved plot. Anything can happen and a lot of it does. It is a great parody of 50's horror schlock.
Analysis (spoiler alert):
The most interesting thing about this alien movie is it takes the opposite stance that most alien invasion movies take. Especially more recent alien movies. In this film, it assumes people would be forgiving of an alien race rather than so threatened and imperialistic that we'd try to wipe kill them first. I actually think it's a little more likely that we would kill aliens than try to befriend them, especially after apparent acts of war, but perhaps that's just my jaded cyicism talking. I do try to keep that part of me quelled down.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Watchmen by Alan Moore (1986 graphic novel)
Watchmen is quite the novel. It is very "Impressive", but in the end, I don't think I actually like it that much.
The book interacts with reality in such a fascinating way that even now I am not sure how much of it is actually true. Which is nothing short of phenomenal considering the fantastical nature of its subject. It's about a world with superheroes; and teleportation; and Nixon as a third-term president.
I mean, how bizarre can you get?
But there are elements. People are referenced who are real such as Joe Orlando, who's photograph is in the book and who drew a page for it. The Galle crater is used, but if you don't study Mars, it probably appears to be fake. They knew what they were doing.
The story is told very skillfully with numerous parallel allusions (most prominently the sub-story "Marooned"), an aspect I highly appreciate. It takes advantage of its chosen medium in a way that few works have ever done. It couldn't be told in any other medium. Not in the same way, not with the same level of artistry that it achieves as a graphic novel. The more literate book medium couldn't do it and the more graphical film medium couldn't do it, even with sound. It straddles that boundary with such impressive confidence, taking advantage of abilities neither other medium can do, that anyone who says it can't match classical works of literature are blinded by their conservative definition of "literature".
But I still didn't like it. I guess it just isn't my bag, man. I liked the recurring themes, they didn't get repetitive, they weren't redundant, but they wove it tightly together. But I didn't like reading the pirate story. I loved the philosophical nature, but found it too cynical for my tastes. I enjoyed taking superheroes and putting them in a realistic-ish world, exploring that world and how it evolved. It was also very appropriate how they treated the real "Super Hero" when he appears. The ending wouldn't have worked in reality, though. I suppose that's alright, considering.
I find that I'm not completely sure what it is advocating at any given time. Sometimes, the author seems to have as little bias as his fictional character Jon. I'm not sure if he leans left or right, libertarian or authoritative. And that's another thing I greatly appreciate and highly respect.
The most disappointing aspect of the novel is the paneling. I love a comic with creative paneling (see Calvin and Hobbes or The Meek or comics by Sarah Ellerton. Actually, there's a lot of internet comics using Photoshop and junk who do good paneling... A lot who don't.) Watchmen's paneling is pretty cut and dry, one to the next to the next. Blah.
I am looking forward to watching the movie. Going into it knowing that it has to be pretty different. That there's going to be a lot lost. But, if they do it well, that they could make a good product anyway.
The book interacts with reality in such a fascinating way that even now I am not sure how much of it is actually true. Which is nothing short of phenomenal considering the fantastical nature of its subject. It's about a world with superheroes; and teleportation; and Nixon as a third-term president.
I mean, how bizarre can you get?
But there are elements. People are referenced who are real such as Joe Orlando, who's photograph is in the book and who drew a page for it. The Galle crater is used, but if you don't study Mars, it probably appears to be fake. They knew what they were doing.
The story is told very skillfully with numerous parallel allusions (most prominently the sub-story "Marooned"), an aspect I highly appreciate. It takes advantage of its chosen medium in a way that few works have ever done. It couldn't be told in any other medium. Not in the same way, not with the same level of artistry that it achieves as a graphic novel. The more literate book medium couldn't do it and the more graphical film medium couldn't do it, even with sound. It straddles that boundary with such impressive confidence, taking advantage of abilities neither other medium can do, that anyone who says it can't match classical works of literature are blinded by their conservative definition of "literature".
But I still didn't like it. I guess it just isn't my bag, man. I liked the recurring themes, they didn't get repetitive, they weren't redundant, but they wove it tightly together. But I didn't like reading the pirate story. I loved the philosophical nature, but found it too cynical for my tastes. I enjoyed taking superheroes and putting them in a realistic-ish world, exploring that world and how it evolved. It was also very appropriate how they treated the real "Super Hero" when he appears. The ending wouldn't have worked in reality, though. I suppose that's alright, considering.
I find that I'm not completely sure what it is advocating at any given time. Sometimes, the author seems to have as little bias as his fictional character Jon. I'm not sure if he leans left or right, libertarian or authoritative. And that's another thing I greatly appreciate and highly respect.
The most disappointing aspect of the novel is the paneling. I love a comic with creative paneling (see Calvin and Hobbes or The Meek or comics by Sarah Ellerton. Actually, there's a lot of internet comics using Photoshop and junk who do good paneling... A lot who don't.) Watchmen's paneling is pretty cut and dry, one to the next to the next. Blah.
I am looking forward to watching the movie. Going into it knowing that it has to be pretty different. That there's going to be a lot lost. But, if they do it well, that they could make a good product anyway.
Dudley Do-Right (1999 movie, some background)
The beginning of Dudley Do-Right is a little.... lonely. It feels a bit like Myst without the intriguing landscape. The population of "Semi-Happy Valley" is about two: Dudley Do-Right and Snidely Whiplash. The other residents of the town show up a few times, but only as a mob or as transparently thin characters.This microscopic microcosm feel is perpetuated, actually, by Dudley's familiarity with Snidely. It feels like, even though he is the bad guy, nothing he could do could be that bad because he's just the small town prankster.
Dudley Do-Right deviates substantially from it's source material. About the only things it keeps are names, but even then it changes the name of the town. However, one must remember that most of it's source material was produced in the 1970's and comedic resonance diminishes with time. The movie abandons some of the gimmicks of the original, but it makes some of it's own. In the end, I think the movie is pretty "Alright", it has funny parts, Brendan Fraser is a funny guy, Sarah Jessica Parker is not. But oh well, can't win 'em all and you can ignore her easily, she's not that important.
Dudley Do-Right deviates substantially from it's source material. About the only things it keeps are names, but even then it changes the name of the town. However, one must remember that most of it's source material was produced in the 1970's and comedic resonance diminishes with time. The movie abandons some of the gimmicks of the original, but it makes some of it's own. In the end, I think the movie is pretty "Alright", it has funny parts, Brendan Fraser is a funny guy, Sarah Jessica Parker is not. But oh well, can't win 'em all and you can ignore her easily, she's not that important.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Precious (2009 movie, pre-read)
Precious is fucking "Brutal" movie. I feel safe droppin' an f-bomb here because you better be used to it before you watch this movie. This film is the opposite of a "fun flick". It is dark and sinister, not twisted, really, just depressing and downright gross in places.
But, I suppose that's real for some people. Precious is based off of a book called Push by Sapphire. It has a lot to say. Probably about nine hours worth of story to say and it tries to do it in two. Thus there are a lot of rather jarring transitions, softened a little by the way the soundtrack interacts with the video. The music also acts as a sort of comic relief from the wretchedness of the movie.
But it is "good". Not fun or enjoyable, but good. I have doubts weather it will spur anyone into starting any activist groups, but it might promote tolerance in individuals who watch it. It humanized people who are preyed on by society, gives them a story which is understandable. It is very sympathetic.
But then, in honesty, it is hard to say it isn't when such awful things are happening. How do you critisize without coming off as the bad guy? without being a bigot or prejudice or just an ass hole? Perhaps this is why it seemed to me that killing the main character in the end of a movie was the best step one could take to secure an Oscar.
It reminded me of The Blind Side a little by subject matter, but not in style at all. In any way shape or form. Truth be told, I prefer The Blind Side.
It's a pity I forgot to do the review on that one.
Other stuff (a spoiler to follows):
Her baby really doesn't cry a lot. For being 3 days old, it didn't bother it at all to be passed from woman to woman without its mother present.
More about Sapphire here.
But, I suppose that's real for some people. Precious is based off of a book called Push by Sapphire. It has a lot to say. Probably about nine hours worth of story to say and it tries to do it in two. Thus there are a lot of rather jarring transitions, softened a little by the way the soundtrack interacts with the video. The music also acts as a sort of comic relief from the wretchedness of the movie.
But it is "good". Not fun or enjoyable, but good. I have doubts weather it will spur anyone into starting any activist groups, but it might promote tolerance in individuals who watch it. It humanized people who are preyed on by society, gives them a story which is understandable. It is very sympathetic.
But then, in honesty, it is hard to say it isn't when such awful things are happening. How do you critisize without coming off as the bad guy? without being a bigot or prejudice or just an ass hole? Perhaps this is why it seemed to me that killing the main character in the end of a movie was the best step one could take to secure an Oscar.
It reminded me of The Blind Side a little by subject matter, but not in style at all. In any way shape or form. Truth be told, I prefer The Blind Side.
It's a pity I forgot to do the review on that one.
Other stuff (a spoiler to follows):
Her baby really doesn't cry a lot. For being 3 days old, it didn't bother it at all to be passed from woman to woman without its mother present.
More about Sapphire here.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Stardust (2007 movie, pre-read)
Fantasy is one of my most favorite genres. While it can often lead people into idealism and romantic notions of what knighthood would be, and while it quite commonly depicts good and evil as simple black and white dichotomies, and while it is usually just escapism, it can also express limitless philosophy. And it is entertaining the entire time it is doing it. It is a very open-ended genre.
And there isn't much fantasy for the movie-going public. Even less for video-gamers. For good fantasy, one almost always has to turn to books.
And Stardust doesn't do a whole lot about this. Because Stardust isn't really a "fantasy" in the common way. It is a Fairy Tale. Which is a type of fantasy but one that will never compete with the Lord of the Rings.
It's better than that; it competes with The Hobbit.
It shouldn't be too surprising for most people what happens in the overall plot. What is interesting and enjoyably about Stardust is the turns it makes on this adventure. They are always entertaining, usually amusing, sometimes preposterous, but never dull or boring. There are a few scenes that are a little flimsy and unthoughtful, but they are quickly overshadowed by the overall enjoyability of this very "Fine Fairy Tale". I'd love to give this movie the rating of a "Fine Faery Tale", in the Tolkienian sense, but it doesn't quite have that charm to me. Gaiman's land of "Fairy" is not quite the same as Tolkien's "Faery". Besides, Gaiman chose the word Fairy himself.
For those who have read the book, Stardust the movie doesn't even try to remain true. Or so I hear. I haven't read it yet. For many this will be a very big problem. However, the movie stands on its own. It isn't a companion to the books, a la the Harry Potter movies, or some inexpert abridgment, a la Watership Down. The problems with the movie are less distracting than they are in Inkheart.
And, of course, good music makes a good movie.
I was very impressed with this movie. Even more so than I expected to be. If you like fantasy, go see it; if you like a good fairy tale, go see it; if you loved the book and didn't want to see any changes, you probably shouldn't.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
Why did the prince just have to stay at the fake in? More importantly, why in the hell did the witch Lamia get up and admit them? Why?
It's the biggest detraction from this otherwise great movie.
And there isn't much fantasy for the movie-going public. Even less for video-gamers. For good fantasy, one almost always has to turn to books.
And Stardust doesn't do a whole lot about this. Because Stardust isn't really a "fantasy" in the common way. It is a Fairy Tale. Which is a type of fantasy but one that will never compete with the Lord of the Rings.
It's better than that; it competes with The Hobbit.
It shouldn't be too surprising for most people what happens in the overall plot. What is interesting and enjoyably about Stardust is the turns it makes on this adventure. They are always entertaining, usually amusing, sometimes preposterous, but never dull or boring. There are a few scenes that are a little flimsy and unthoughtful, but they are quickly overshadowed by the overall enjoyability of this very "Fine Fairy Tale". I'd love to give this movie the rating of a "Fine Faery Tale", in the Tolkienian sense, but it doesn't quite have that charm to me. Gaiman's land of "Fairy" is not quite the same as Tolkien's "Faery". Besides, Gaiman chose the word Fairy himself.
For those who have read the book, Stardust the movie doesn't even try to remain true. Or so I hear. I haven't read it yet. For many this will be a very big problem. However, the movie stands on its own. It isn't a companion to the books, a la the Harry Potter movies, or some inexpert abridgment, a la Watership Down. The problems with the movie are less distracting than they are in Inkheart.
And, of course, good music makes a good movie.
I was very impressed with this movie. Even more so than I expected to be. If you like fantasy, go see it; if you like a good fairy tale, go see it; if you loved the book and didn't want to see any changes, you probably shouldn't.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
Why did the prince just have to stay at the fake in? More importantly, why in the hell did the witch Lamia get up and admit them? Why?
It's the biggest detraction from this otherwise great movie.
The Legend of Zorro (2005 movie, rewatched)
The Legend of Zorro is a "Live Action Loony Toon". Full of stunts and glamour and unrealistic, super-heroic, action entertainment. The plot is kinda fun, but it is much more fun to make fun of the movie.
Friday, May 14, 2010
(500) Days of Summer (2009 movie)
(500) Days of Summer is one of the most unique "Romantic Comedies" I have ever seen. It's like The Break-Up, in that it's not a "gettin'-together" movie, per se; but then, it's not really a 'break-up" movie either. It's more like an "entire-relationship-encapsulated" movie. And it does it with surprising agility.
The devise it uses to do this is the most interesting part of the movie. It prefaces most scenes with a number representing which day in their 500 day relationship the following will take place. This could have been very clunky and obnoxious (and at times it was. If you miss a day, you can become lost. It would have worked better in a book where you can flip backwards and forwards with ease.) but overall it was done well.
The humor in the movie is at times subtle and always deliberate. The depressing guy wasn't nearly as depressing as he could have been and I am grateful. I think the disclaimer in the beginning says it best: "Any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental ... Especially you, Jenny Beckman ... Bitch."
It is a "Unique-ish" romantic comedy. If that's your bag, grab this one. If you would prefer the formula, don't.
The devise it uses to do this is the most interesting part of the movie. It prefaces most scenes with a number representing which day in their 500 day relationship the following will take place. This could have been very clunky and obnoxious (and at times it was. If you miss a day, you can become lost. It would have worked better in a book where you can flip backwards and forwards with ease.) but overall it was done well.
The humor in the movie is at times subtle and always deliberate. The depressing guy wasn't nearly as depressing as he could have been and I am grateful. I think the disclaimer in the beginning says it best: "Any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental ... Especially you, Jenny Beckman ... Bitch."
It is a "Unique-ish" romantic comedy. If that's your bag, grab this one. If you would prefer the formula, don't.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Barking Water (2009 movie)
Barking Water is a very cryptic movie. That's the first think I thought. There are a lot of scenes in the beginning that are not fully explained. Mostly it is on purpose, the first scenes are very well done, but there were times I thought it would have been useful to know a little more; that it was annoying to see only four to five seconds of a scene before it was left. Supposedly I'm ADD, but that was too short for me to get into.
The second think I thought about Barking Water was that it reminded me of Walk Two Moons (by Sharon Creech) but without a little girl. It still reminds me of Walk Two Moons without a little girl which is a very good thing. That is a bloody brilliant book and I highly recommend it.
This movie is not so bloody brilliant; but no movie could be, really. Barking Water remains a very honest and very real movie. Which, according to it's author, Sterlin Harjo, is the goal. I enjoyed the acting (Casey Camp-Horinek slipped a little) because it wasn't the standard Hollywood fare. It has less ego. It's less arrogant and loud. Barking Water is more "Intimate". It is funny and compassionate and made at least one member of the audience cry.
The most disappointing part of the movie was the talk back with Harjo because he couldn't explain why he did what he did in his movie.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
Barking Water is a "Last Journey" movie. In the first arc, Irine and Franky are escaping from the hospital so that he can see friends and family before he dies; and so he doesn't die in a hospital bed. I appreciated the escape scene because it wasn't so forced on the viewer as to be patently obvious they were breaking the rules. Unless you pay attention to the music.
Look forward to the restaurant scene: it's really funny.
The second think I thought about Barking Water was that it reminded me of Walk Two Moons (by Sharon Creech) but without a little girl. It still reminds me of Walk Two Moons without a little girl which is a very good thing. That is a bloody brilliant book and I highly recommend it.
This movie is not so bloody brilliant; but no movie could be, really. Barking Water remains a very honest and very real movie. Which, according to it's author, Sterlin Harjo, is the goal. I enjoyed the acting (Casey Camp-Horinek slipped a little) because it wasn't the standard Hollywood fare. It has less ego. It's less arrogant and loud. Barking Water is more "Intimate". It is funny and compassionate and made at least one member of the audience cry.
The most disappointing part of the movie was the talk back with Harjo because he couldn't explain why he did what he did in his movie.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
Barking Water is a "Last Journey" movie. In the first arc, Irine and Franky are escaping from the hospital so that he can see friends and family before he dies; and so he doesn't die in a hospital bed. I appreciated the escape scene because it wasn't so forced on the viewer as to be patently obvious they were breaking the rules. Unless you pay attention to the music.
Look forward to the restaurant scene: it's really funny.
White Teeth by Zadie Smith (2000)
The writing in Zadie Smith's debut novel White Teeth is very densely and very richly textured. The book begs multiple readings just to get the full myriad of meanings out of every paragraph and catch every joke. But it is not for those who don't know the word "bibliolatry".
The question is: is this a good thing? For book lovers, it is very fun to read but it's not really something that could keep me up at night. It requires too much focus. There are times when the reading gets easy and fast, but most of it is far to specifically crafted for that. Zadie's word choice is beautiful and funny, like the best part of Dane Cook. They have a little different style in their word choice, but the main difference between the two wordsmiths is that Zadie realizes her power with words and Dane often doesn't.
It is "Instantly Artistic" in its style but in a very entertaining way. The first chapter is tied up better than most writers do their entire book. She leaves out key points of data to keep everything slightly vague, but it all comes out clearly in the end.
...Of that chapter. And eventually the book ties up quite impressively as well, but half way though, I realized that there wasn't actually going to be a plot. It is too heavily driven by character; plot is not the focus. There are a lot of people who do not like this, to them I say avoid White Teeth. For those who love character driven books, this could easily become your favorite book. To me, it slowed down and lost a lot of it's charm in the last chapters.
The primary theme in White Teeth is life in London for an immigrant. The novel paints, very painstakingly, a vivid realist portrait of what that means. She appears an expert and I suppose I'll just have to take her word for it as I am neither British nor an Immigrant. Maybe some day. Without that experience, I can still see the wisdom of the book. Zadie Smith is an obviously intelligent individual.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
One of the reasons I say that the beginning of White Teeth is the high point is that she abandoned some of the characters I found the most interesting. Specifically, Clara. She has one chapter. After that, she disappears. The book becomes more about Alsana and the Iqbal's than Clara or Archie or their daughter. But Samad's a prick and Alsana's tiring and their children are obnoxious. Irie's a bit obnoxious as well, but she seems to have more reason, more of an excuse.
The "White Teeth" metaphor is not overplayed, which stands the book in stark contrast to Invisible Monsters. For that I was extremely grateful.
I actually didn't find anything overtly unrealistic with the plot (or lack thereof). True, Samad sends one of this sons to Bangladesh, but what was Alsana really supposed to do. Others criticized this, but I still don't see it, really. The more unrealistic part is the connection between the two boys she described. Twins are similar, but just because one is safe (or breaks his nose), that doesn't mean the other'll stay safe. It was misplaced in this otherwise earthly book and doesn't achieve the same level of mythology that Neil Gaiman achieved in one story in American Gods.
The question is: is this a good thing? For book lovers, it is very fun to read but it's not really something that could keep me up at night. It requires too much focus. There are times when the reading gets easy and fast, but most of it is far to specifically crafted for that. Zadie's word choice is beautiful and funny, like the best part of Dane Cook. They have a little different style in their word choice, but the main difference between the two wordsmiths is that Zadie realizes her power with words and Dane often doesn't.
It is "Instantly Artistic" in its style but in a very entertaining way. The first chapter is tied up better than most writers do their entire book. She leaves out key points of data to keep everything slightly vague, but it all comes out clearly in the end.
...Of that chapter. And eventually the book ties up quite impressively as well, but half way though, I realized that there wasn't actually going to be a plot. It is too heavily driven by character; plot is not the focus. There are a lot of people who do not like this, to them I say avoid White Teeth. For those who love character driven books, this could easily become your favorite book. To me, it slowed down and lost a lot of it's charm in the last chapters.
The primary theme in White Teeth is life in London for an immigrant. The novel paints, very painstakingly, a vivid realist portrait of what that means. She appears an expert and I suppose I'll just have to take her word for it as I am neither British nor an Immigrant. Maybe some day. Without that experience, I can still see the wisdom of the book. Zadie Smith is an obviously intelligent individual.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
One of the reasons I say that the beginning of White Teeth is the high point is that she abandoned some of the characters I found the most interesting. Specifically, Clara. She has one chapter. After that, she disappears. The book becomes more about Alsana and the Iqbal's than Clara or Archie or their daughter. But Samad's a prick and Alsana's tiring and their children are obnoxious. Irie's a bit obnoxious as well, but she seems to have more reason, more of an excuse.
The "White Teeth" metaphor is not overplayed, which stands the book in stark contrast to Invisible Monsters. For that I was extremely grateful.
I actually didn't find anything overtly unrealistic with the plot (or lack thereof). True, Samad sends one of this sons to Bangladesh, but what was Alsana really supposed to do. Others criticized this, but I still don't see it, really. The more unrealistic part is the connection between the two boys she described. Twins are similar, but just because one is safe (or breaks his nose), that doesn't mean the other'll stay safe. It was misplaced in this otherwise earthly book and doesn't achieve the same level of mythology that Neil Gaiman achieved in one story in American Gods.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Boat That Rocked (Pirate Radio, 2009 movie)
"What a Witty Movie". Pirate Radio (as it's called in the US) is almost a sketch comedy movie if it weren't for how well every (highly caricatureized) character was done. They remind me of a description I once heard of Charles Dickens' characters: they might be two-dimensional, but they vibrate enough to seem three-dimensional. The relationships between the characters are dynamic to a very impressive degree, considering. I would say that the movie was too short; that I would have liked to see the relationships further explored; that the development was too choppy because of that. I would say that, if I didn't think it actually fit with the style of the movie very well.
Pirate Radio reminds me of the television show Glee, of which I've seen more episodes than I have of any other TV show (ie 3 episodes) in a long time. Neither show has a high degree of commitment to the previous scene. With Pirate Radio, it gives the impression that the movie takes place many months, which it does. If the movie were more fully explained, and therefore a lot longer, it would lose the economic balance that it achieves. And it retains a British sketch comedy feel and I like that. The other similarity is a love and respect of music. Both of these shows have bloody brilliant soundtracks.
The real difficulty with this movie is the dramatic over-abundance of characters. The major characters are focused on enough for it not to be a problem, but once in a while they mention another character and you are left wondering, "who was that?" We asked this multiple times though the movie.
Analysis (spoilers to follow)
Pirate Radio, for those who don't know, is semi-historical. During the 60's, pirate radio stations were created in England because the BBC had a monopoly over the airwaves. Not all pirate radio stations were at sea, but all of them were illegal. Not necessarily because of their content, but because they were unlicensed. But really, it's all semantical; it wasn't really possible to become a legitimate station and the government-run BBC had the monopoly. In effect, Rock and Roll radio was illegal. What was an entrepreneur to do.
Go into international waters and broadcast anyway, that's what.
Pirate Radio stations still exist. The British Government still fines those illegally broadcasting because it is annoyed by the potential security threats. Which, as the movie suggests, is the firm ground the government used to attack illegal stations during the 60's.
Pirate Radio, the movie, is not based on any specific station (though it leans on similarities to Radio Caroline), and doesn't really use history for anything other than inspiration and, perhaps, moral. The moral I take is that ol' tired Braveheart one: "what would you do without FREEDOM!?"
Well, um, maybe just about the same thing as with freedom... But that's a different topic.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic.
What I really wanted to talk about was some of the plot-based problems with the movie, but it really seems trite and unnecessary. So what if in the end the Count survives the sinking of the ship by exploding out into the ocean when the physics of a ship sinking would have dragged everyone still in the water with the ship. It was a bloody comedy! There was no reason to kill the Count. It did make me sigh a bit though. It would have been nicer, for me, if they figured out a more realistic ending.
Pirate Radio reminds me of the television show Glee, of which I've seen more episodes than I have of any other TV show (ie 3 episodes) in a long time. Neither show has a high degree of commitment to the previous scene. With Pirate Radio, it gives the impression that the movie takes place many months, which it does. If the movie were more fully explained, and therefore a lot longer, it would lose the economic balance that it achieves. And it retains a British sketch comedy feel and I like that. The other similarity is a love and respect of music. Both of these shows have bloody brilliant soundtracks.
The real difficulty with this movie is the dramatic over-abundance of characters. The major characters are focused on enough for it not to be a problem, but once in a while they mention another character and you are left wondering, "who was that?" We asked this multiple times though the movie.
Analysis (spoilers to follow)
Pirate Radio, for those who don't know, is semi-historical. During the 60's, pirate radio stations were created in England because the BBC had a monopoly over the airwaves. Not all pirate radio stations were at sea, but all of them were illegal. Not necessarily because of their content, but because they were unlicensed. But really, it's all semantical; it wasn't really possible to become a legitimate station and the government-run BBC had the monopoly. In effect, Rock and Roll radio was illegal. What was an entrepreneur to do.
Go into international waters and broadcast anyway, that's what.
Pirate Radio stations still exist. The British Government still fines those illegally broadcasting because it is annoyed by the potential security threats. Which, as the movie suggests, is the firm ground the government used to attack illegal stations during the 60's.
Pirate Radio, the movie, is not based on any specific station (though it leans on similarities to Radio Caroline), and doesn't really use history for anything other than inspiration and, perhaps, moral. The moral I take is that ol' tired Braveheart one: "what would you do without FREEDOM!?"
Well, um, maybe just about the same thing as with freedom... But that's a different topic.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic.
What I really wanted to talk about was some of the plot-based problems with the movie, but it really seems trite and unnecessary. So what if in the end the Count survives the sinking of the ship by exploding out into the ocean when the physics of a ship sinking would have dragged everyone still in the water with the ship. It was a bloody comedy! There was no reason to kill the Count. It did make me sigh a bit though. It would have been nicer, for me, if they figured out a more realistic ending.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
How To Train Your Dragon (2010 movie)
How to Train Your Dragon was "Delightfully Funny". It's a cute little kids movie with cute little kid characters and a cute style of animation and 3D-glasses effects, and a brilliant sense of humor. It may not be for everyone, maybe, but it was just my kind of humor; I loved the delivery style. I see movies more than once, but usually because someone else chose the film. This movie would make the very short list of movies I would ask to see again.
It establishes mood pretty well, and has a lot of interesting ideas to keep the viewer interested. The overall plot is pretty unrealistic, if that is what your are looking for, but it is mythological instead. My only major criticism is with the ending which comes on a bit quick and doesn't quite fit with the flavor of the rest of the movie. It also gets a bit mushy, but that's good for it, too. I am really interested in reading the children's books that this movie was based off of.
I haven't seen Lilo and Stitch, but the visual style reminded me of that film. It turns out that both of the writer/directors of How to Train Your Dragon, Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders worked on that project and the latter worked in the animation department.
The 3D experience was... alright. I still stand by the conclusion I arrived at after having watched Avatar in 3D that it is it should be used sparingly. How to Train Your Dragon had better 3D, overall, than Avatar, mostly because the animation style worked so well with it but also because there were less clear things. Quick movement and clear objects look blurry and off in 3D. However, after watching this movie in 3D, my eyes hurt a little bit (just a little bit) and they did not after Avatar. And there was nothing quite as awesome looking as the Pandorian forests (though the ocean water came closest - not because of 3D)
It establishes mood pretty well, and has a lot of interesting ideas to keep the viewer interested. The overall plot is pretty unrealistic, if that is what your are looking for, but it is mythological instead. My only major criticism is with the ending which comes on a bit quick and doesn't quite fit with the flavor of the rest of the movie. It also gets a bit mushy, but that's good for it, too. I am really interested in reading the children's books that this movie was based off of.
I haven't seen Lilo and Stitch, but the visual style reminded me of that film. It turns out that both of the writer/directors of How to Train Your Dragon, Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders worked on that project and the latter worked in the animation department.
The 3D experience was... alright. I still stand by the conclusion I arrived at after having watched Avatar in 3D that it is it should be used sparingly. How to Train Your Dragon had better 3D, overall, than Avatar, mostly because the animation style worked so well with it but also because there were less clear things. Quick movement and clear objects look blurry and off in 3D. However, after watching this movie in 3D, my eyes hurt a little bit (just a little bit) and they did not after Avatar. And there was nothing quite as awesome looking as the Pandorian forests (though the ocean water came closest - not because of 3D)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)