man, i feel like i was run over by a truck.. or a bus.. or some other large moving vehicle. remember how i was feeling crappy? well, it hit me like a ton of bricks and tuesday and wednesday i was laid up at home, barely able to move, much less go to work. i ask KP to get a gun and put me out of my misery at least twice but he refused. he's a good man. as is my usual style whilst sick, i sat on the couch all day and watched movies.

have you seen shall we dance? not that crap jennifer lopez remake but the original japanese one? so very cute. i actually lifted my boycott of subtitled movies (this boycott is in effect only because i can't knit and read subtitles at the same time.. well, i didn't think i could but now it seems possible) and popped this in on tuesday. there's just something about japanese men and women ballroom dancing that is so strange yet endearing that i couldn't help but laugh and cry at many points in the film. yes, i'm sick but that doesn't mean i'm overly emotional. i highly recommend it.

continue reading -»

because they hadn't updated their feeds in a long time and i was missing all of these entries for DAYS!!! it was really annoying. so i downloaded sage (thanks hammy!!) which is a firefox lightweight add-on for RSS feeds and figured, to hell with bloglines and all these online RSS services that can't be trusted, i'll do it on my own. and sage is pretty cool but having to manually synch up all of my reading between home and work is a bit of a pain as is checking RSS feeds from a computer that i don't own.. so sage is nice but, alas, not bloglines. then i received word from bloglines:

We are currently moving our machines to a new network facility that will enable us to update feeds as soon as the publisher tells us there is something new. For feeds that don't tell us when to check for new articles, we'll update every hour or less.

this is good news as now i no longer have to write about how bloglines sucks. i can save that rant for the future should they ever suck again (and i wouldn't put it past them.)

continue reading -»

so last night, after finishing all the deadwood season 2 episodes that HOD had to offer me, i decided to watch the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy which has been sitting at home for well over a month (thank you netflix for not charging me! you're the bestest.) i read the book a while back and thought it very cheeky and british. dry and very funny in the same way that absolutely fabulous is without all the drinking and drugs. i was a little skeptical that this movie could be pulled off since a lot of the narrative is told third-hand but they did a great job. i was quite pleased.

martin freeman, as arthur dent, was wholly believeable. he took every strange thing about the galaxy in stride only losing his marbles once or twice. i like zooey deschanel. she had great range and some very nice eyes. sam rockwell was hilarious as zaphod beeblebrox. mos def, great, and alan rickman as the voice of marvin the paranoid android suitably depressed.

what i really want to mention is this really great sequence in the middle of the movie when, aboard a spaceship that zaphod has stolen, this team of strange and alien explorers decides to kick in the infinite improbability drive in order to zoom across the galaxy. the principle of the infinite improbability drive is:

..that as its drive reaches infinite improbability, the ship passes simultaneously through every point in the universe. it is then possible to decide at which point you actually want to be at when improbability levels decrease. unfortunately human beings are badly accustomed to not traveling at normality (probability 1:1), and can be fairly distressed by events around them whilst the improbability drive is working: losing limbs, turning into penguins, planets spontaneously becoming fruitcakes, nuclear missiles metamorphosing into sperm whales and bowls of petunias, and so forth.

.. so they kick in the drive and the spaceship becomes a giant ball of yarn with needles sticking out of it! all of the inside of the ship, including the people, become knitted characters and arthur gets all naseous and throws up rainbow colored red heart yarn! it's the most fantastic thing i had ever seen! i laughed for a good ten minutes and replayed it over and over. you have to see it for yourself.

###

after sitting and thinking about serenity now for several days, i believe that it just may be the best film of 2005. better than star wars, for sure, which is one of the only movies i have seen in the theater this year due to the enormous amount of assholes present in NYC theaters. joss whedon, even though he killed off one of my favorite characters, wrote one of the most well-crafted stories i have ever seen. the PAX!! it just makes so much sense.. and if nothing i have said has made any sense to YOU yet, you simply must see serenity. you won't be sorry.

knitting content to come later this week. there's lots going on around here and posting will be sparse. bear with me.

###

it's what i've been waiting all summer for... serenity premieres tomorrow night! i think that sarah and her husband, KP and i will all be heading over to union square tomorrow night to see it. i may even forgo a real dinner and just snack on goodies at the point in order to see this film on opening night. i haven't done that since star wars and i'm sure i'll be a heck of a lot more satisfied with this one. go see it. you'll be glad you did.

###

ok, so, i have a slight "thing" for matt damon. he's done so much better than ben, in so many ways. he keeps his personal life personal and doesn't flaunt it. i like that. have you seen the bourne movies? fantastic stuff there. action, adventure, romance. it's what i dearly love to watch when i'm tired of watching bond, james bond flicks. i think that i've watched bourne identity and bourne supremacy at least 10 times since i bought them and added them to my collection. now, working towards my goal of having a fount of movies that i can choose from at home when i am desperately bored and just want to watch something while i knit, i purchased ocean's eleven and ocean's twelve because, incidentally, i also have a "thing" for george clooney, brad pitt, and don cheadle (and what woman in her right mind wouldn't.)

it's nice to have something else to put in the DVD player other than traffic (a great film but disturbing), out of sight, and zero effect... all films that i have practically worn to pieces. you're probably also noticing that these films (all but zero effect) are directed by steven soderbergh. that's because, despite solaris, soderbergh has to be one of my favorite directors. he's fun and flashy. everything that i'm looking for in mindless entertainment. two days after watching ocean's twelve and i'm still singing one of the major music pieces in my head. i'm still seeing beautiful amsterdam and rome, and still wanting to stalk george clooney's bedazzling lake como house in italy (it must be nice to have money.. lots of it.)

so, what's so great about these two films that i had to dedicate an entire entry to them? many many things, ladies and gentlemen. first of all, a great cast. a great cast of mainly hot men and, as KP refers to her, j.ro. george clooney: love him, he's the master of deadpan delivery, got a beautiful face that i could watch (and have) for hours. his character, daniel ocean, is assured, confident, and determined. he's a natural leader. brad pitt: i've grown to love him over the years. in the ocean's movies, he's almost never without food or drink or a silky suit that makes him look like a gigolo. he and george do deadpan together like best friends. they must crack each other up on set, i know it. matt damon: bumbling and insecure, he plays it like it's his own personality. confident when he's picking someone's pocket but backpedals when he has to stand up for himself in a team situation. each actor in these movies plays a role, not just of a character but also that character in an operation. they are all brilliant at it.

the films themselves are funny and witty. the editing is fast and brilliant. it keeps you in the story before you get bored. ocean's twelve, to me, is actually more interesting than ocean's eleven. it plays on the whole theif against theif against theif-in-denial storyline and, just to keep things interesting, throws in a fabergé egg heist which is decidedly corny and overdone in the world of heists but is a great tribute to that very idea (and technically, the heist is so full of holes it's BAD but you get the feeling it was meant to be that way.. a kind of jab in the ribs to all heist films.) they even have J.Ro play herself in what matt damon's character refers to as a "looky-lu with a bundle of joy" con (nevermind that they passed on the "hell in a handbasket" con because they can't train a cat that fast.. ??) not to mention, the film is set in europe and, quite frankly, who doesn't love a movie set in europe. (if i could, i would move there. heck of a lot less SUVs on the road since gas costs close to US$6.60 per gallon. i'm so tired of SUVs.)

earlier, i said "mindless entertainment" and i mean that in the nicest possible of ways. i don't always want to be challenged by a film. i sometimes just want to watch something fun and exciting. be warned though that if you're going to watch ocean's eleven, you should leave some brain power left for the ending. i watched it twice and still didn't understand how the actual heist went down! it's the equivalent to three red herrings.

how much more do i have to say? go and see them for yourself.

###

the new york times is trying to figure out why the movie business is in such a slump this year. well, i've got a newsflash for them. why would i pay $20 (sometimes more!) for me and the hubby to sit in a theater to watch commercials THEN a mediocre movie — with some guy next to me who insists on commenting on all the special effects and talking on his cellphone — when i can pop a DVD into my home system, sit comfortably, and save money? seems pretty obvious to me. theaters should hire more staff to police the audience while a movie is running. don't count on someone to get out of their chair and miss the movie to come and complain to the management. they have to nip that rude and obnoxious behavior in the bud.. oh, and i heard that you can buy cell phone jammers from some isreali company. that would be a good investment as well.

###

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/02/film.murderball.ap/index.html

why is nobody going to see murderball? maybe because the title gives NO HINT WHATSOEVER about what the film is about! if i didn't know it was about paraplegic rugby, i would think it was some stupid sequel to rollerball (as if that movie wasn't stupid enough.) here's a clue: if you want your movie to succeed, try PROMOTING it! or give it a subtitle like murderball: a documentary about the U.S. wheelchair rugby team. in this instance, less is not more.

who's running hollywood anyway?

###

the alternate title for this entry is why i don't go to the movies anymore. as all children of the 70s and 80s, i was just as excited as many other star wars fans to see the last installment in the series, star wars: revenge of the sith. i bought my tickets weeks in advance for the saturday 3:30PM showing at empire 25 on 42nd street. i figured that my hubby and i could wait a few days and let the crowds disperse before we get in there to see this thing for ourselves. like many i have spoken to, i was not happy with the first two prequels that george has inflicted upon the world. they had their interesting moments but, ugh, attack of the clones was annoyingly sappy and i couldn't stand jar jar either. but knowing the outcome of the story (star wars the original), i had a feeling that episode 3 would be the best of them all.

in essence, i was looking forward to saturday.

then i was reminded of why i don't go to the movies anymore. first, in new york city, the land of $12 martinis, it costs the same amount to see your everyday blockbuster in a stadium seat, digital surround sound theater (that's $12 for ONE PERSON to get in the theater, no snacks, no drinks.)

second, i'm a bit picky about seeing movies in that i actually like to SEE them and HEAR them at the SAME TIME. let me clarify.. this means that i SEE and HEAR the film, not the running commentary of the 350lb man sitting next to me, elbowing me everytime he goes for another handful of popcorn. yes, seeing and hearing the movie i feel is deeply important. this is not readily accomplished when one has to sit next mr. obvious who chooses to enlighten the audience with such comments as, "DAMN! he cut HIS LEGS OFF!" or "check it out, that's luke... and that's leia." not to metion the all-important background noise of teeth sucking, provided by yours truly, popcorn and a hamburger.

ugh, really, need i say more? why is it that i have to pay $24 for my husband and i to see a movie and still put up with this bullshit?! i have news for the MPAA, your ticket sales are down because america is full of people who can't behave themselves while in a theater! they use cell phones. they bring crying babies to R rated films. they talk like they're sitting in their living rooms at home! if you want to make more money, try handing out a good dose of manners. maybe that will bring everyone back to see your movies.

netflix, i love you.

###

after 77 years, the oscar producers have learned a lesson, i see. they finally figured out that it adds a good 20-30 minutes to the program if every single nominee has to go from the back of the theater to the stage! whoever came up with the idea to give awards out in the aisles was brilliant and deserves a medal. for all those people who were griping about "losing their moment", well, what really matters is that you got the academy award, no? so you didn't get to show off your ugly dress and slowly make your way to the stage, thanking every person along the way... big deal! especially if you're a film editor or a sound engineer! (not that you don't matter.. you obviously deserve the award just not the TV time.) the thing that matters most to all those "little people" who paid $12/person to go see these films—and are sitting at home suffering through commercials and horrible montages—are the stars receiving their awards on stage. so, in essence, i really LOVED the new format for the oscars.

lucky me, i have a time warner DVR, so i sauntered into the oscars around 10pm after i had buffered a good hour onto the hard drive. i managed to skip through all the boring speeches, commercials, and musical acts. i watched each presenter do their schtick, hand over the award, and then it was fast-forward-fast-forward until i saw chris rock (who was fabulous! please ask him back!) or another celebrity again. the only other oscar category that i care about besides the actor/actress/director/film awards are the screenwriter categories. i was a film major in college and spent many years writing trite screenplays that can only be described as drivel so i understand how hard it is to make something worthwhile. i was happy to see kaufman get an oscar (finally!) he's so creative and it irks me to no end that the academy took this long to acknowledge it. in the end, the tears i shed were for jamie foxx when he spoke of his grandmother. so sweet... it was worth every second. i really hope that they continue to use this new format in the future because, hey, 4 hours for an awards show is just ridiculous.

###

so i finally saw that movie that everyone was talking about last year.. the one movie that my friend julie saw three times in the movie theater.. you know, that one flick's soundtrack that has been stuck in my itunes for months: "garden state". well, i hate to say it but it was nothing like i thought it was going to be. it was actually worse. no character backstory. no plot development. "garden state" basically lacked all the points that i love in a film except for its brilliant imagery and key moments.

my guess is that i should not have bought the soundtrack before i saw the movie. everytime one of the songs came on i started to laugh which broke the narrative and my concentration (it began to feel very kitchy at some point.. like i was watching a music video instead of an actual movie.) KP reminded me that this was more like a john hughes film from the 80s, a great soundtrack that will be entirely dated within two years. the movie was also like a hughes film in that the music became a center point on how to display the characters as they amble through life instead of actually experiencing life through dialogue and plot development.

i did find several points of the film to be very poignant, though. watching andrew largeman (zack braff) go from stunned-on-meds to a real-breathing-human-being was amusing. his journey is worthwhile as it's a journey in which a young man finds himself. he returns home after failing at his life in LA and realizes that it's not as bad as he thought it was. he meets a girl, sam (natalie portman), whose run-of-the-mouth and good humored personality shows him that life isn't just one string of disappointments. but seriously folks, where's the meat of this movie? it's yet to be found. instead, what we're left with is a sappy mess: kissing in the rain; kissing in the airport; love after two days knowing each other. blech. this would have been a more satisfying movie if andrew had taken everything that he learned at home back to LA and made something of his life. instead the movie turned into a sachharine-laced i-love-you-and-can't-leave-you shmaltzfest. what a let-down. i give this movie 5 out of 10 for the great cinematography and soundtrack, but that's about it.

###

last weekend, i netflixed "the company" which i had been anxious to see ever since i saw the NYC ballet company in january. i really love dance and have infinite respect for those who devote their life to performing. it's a tough life. often dancers are not paid enough and risk their bodies on a daily basis doing lifts and jumps. "the company" is what my husband would term as a slice-of-life film—not plot driven. it's a look inside a ballet company and has a limited focus on one dancer, ryan (played by neve campbell), and her career and personal life. needless to say, i enjoy slice-of-life films. i don't feel that plot should always drive a film. sometimes it's enough for me to sit down and lose myself in someone else's world for a short time. this is what i loved so much about "lost in translation." it took this one week of the lives of two people stuck in tokyo and put it before you for you examination. "the company" is very similar.

the film takes place over a span of time when the company (the joffrey ballet of chicago) is rehearsing a new abstract ballet. the audience gets a chance to see what rehearsing and practicing are all about: the struggle, the competition to be featured in a lead role, the arrogant principals, the pain. it's all a bit disconnected but flows together with the help of footage from the company's routines. there are the lighter moments like when the women all get together for a bachelorette party or when ryan watches a video with her boyfriend, josh (james franco), of her performing as a kid. then there are the the moments where we see a dancer snap her achilles tendon—which she barely grimaces over—or seeing a dozen dancers all living in one apartment because they are too poor to afford their own.

the film is beautifully shot and it's nice to see that altman still has the magic touch. his ability to create empathy and channel that energy into the momentum of the film is quite unique. not many directors can do that. the real stars of this film, though, are not neve campbell and malcolm mcdowell (playing the company's founder and artistic director), they are the dancers themselves, who can make any silly and ludicrous choreographic routine into something extraordinarily beautiful. i was impressed by everything in this film: the dancing, acting, and direction. i give it 9 out of 10 and would definitely watch it again.

###

new and improved? whatever happened to original ideas? i'm so tired of all these "new" films that basically just hack an old film to pieces and repackage it for modern audiences. if you are going to remake a legendary film, then you might as well do it correctly. the new "zatoichi" does not.

i have been lucky enough to see all of the old zatoichi films (i think that there are 17 of them) through netflix. if you don't have a netflix membership, you really should get one. it's an absolutely awesome way to rent movies. anyway, the old films are wonderful; simply shot, beautiful scenery, and fabulous fight scenes where ichi-san slashes every one of his attackers then dispenses great wisdom. if you don't know the basic plot, zatoichi is a wandering blind masseur. in japan's old days, blind men were masseurs for the purpose of modesty and comfort, and zatoichi makes his living by going from town to town in search of work. while on the road he runs into many people who need his help and people who want to kill him... because he's not just a masseur. he's a master swordsman. the standard trick is to try and take advantage of his handicap, but in the end, they all fail for zatoichi is far superior with a sword.

my only problem in writing this review is that i love takeshi kitano. really, i do. his other films have been brilliant and fun but this one falls way short of the mark. first of all, the fight scenes while swift and sure are short and digitally enhanced (there is such a thing as fast-paced action that lasts longer than two minutes. see "house of flying daggers" for example.) they used cgi blood... in every fight scene! i could tell it was fake because it just didn't look right. they also digitally added the sword penetrations which, likewise, fell way short of real. it's better to cut away and then come back with a fake sword tip sticking out of the chest. geez, the choreography would get really good and then there would be all this cgi blood. whoever said "zatoichi" would rival "kill bill" didn't know what they were talking about. at least, tarantino had the guts to use gallons of fake liquid blood and not paint it all in afterwards.

zatoichi also contained some crazy singing and dancing on the level of stomp that i didn't care for. it looked way too modern, like something you would see in a demented broadway musical entitled "japan sings and dances!" the number took up a good 10 minutes at the end of the film when i was hoping for a end-all-be-all fight where ichi kills all the bad guys and walks off into the night in search of work in the next village. it screamed "blasphemy!!"

on the plus side, i felt that kitano played zatoichi quite well. there was just too little of him. he was generally quiet and stoic but with a soft side. a hearty nod to the original ichi (shintaro katsu). unfortunately, the film was all sub-plot with very little substance and only a sprinkling of zatoichi. to top things off, zatoichi allowed the main bad guy to think that he wasn't really blind at all! there's just this little moment at the end where he trips on a rock and you know he was bluffing, but it really destroyed the whole notion of zatoichi. in fact, a friend who had seen the movie said to KP, "ha! he really wasn't blind after all!" not knowing that it was all a ruse. damn, now all these people who have never seen the originals will think that zatoichi is a fake! what a shame.

i could go on but i think that i've said enough. the plain truth of the matter is that you should not watch this film until you have seen the others so that you can appreciate just what went wrong with this film. all in all, i give the new zatoichi only 5 out of 10 for good costumes, an ok sub-plot, and just plain ol' takeshi kitano.

###

ok, i have to preface this entry by telling you that "the butterfly effect" did not survive the 45 minute test so i have no comments on the way that it ended. within 30 minutes, there were more plot devices than i can count on two hands. note to screenwriters: prolific use of plot devices does not a movie make. the psychic, the blackouts, journal entries, childhood abuse, hypnosis, psychoanalysis, "crazy" father and grandfather, an "illness", etc etc all crammed into one story! if you cannot get the plot across to the viewer without using more than two or three gimmicks then it's not really worth telling the story at all. this was obviously an ashton kutcher vehicle put out to the public to somehow prove that he is an actor that can handle tough subjects. well, it all doesn't work if you can't actually get into how the character feels. his mood was sober and restrictive but gave no real indication as to the pain felt deep inside. the characters were complete stereotypes cookie-cuttered into existence by hollywood writers looking for a quick buck. save yourself the money. if you need to have some kutcher, rent "dude where's my car?" at least that movie doesn't try to be anything else but inanely funny.

###

well, speaking of movies, KP and i got this little flick "azumi" from a workmate over the weekend. if you are into japanese samurai swordplay action movies, then i think that you'll enjoy this one. here, ten children are raised from a young age by a warrior to be assassins and take out warlords who threaten the peace in feudal japan. it's based upon a manga title of the same name and the style in which the film is shot is reminiscent of great japanese anime. the swordplay is fun and swift, and often bloody but nothing so graphic as "kill bill" (or perhaps i've seen way too many of these kinds of films to believe that this wasn't as bloody as the others).

several things about the film made me laugh out-loud though in a bad way. there is a character called saru (monkey in japanese) that dresses, well, like a monkey and squeals like one when injured. at times, this was funny and then it was over-the-top. saru's skills were definitely top-notch but all the cool moves in the world can't negate the funny headress of curls he wore. all that was missing was a tail. then, there appeared an effeminate, white faced swordsmaster/mercenary with a passion for roses that made me groan. god, why must they do this? why does every psychopathic male have to be so icky in that feminine way? it's just stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself for including it in the script! almost as bad as a deus ex machina.

i did watch the whole movie, though, which is a feat for me. every movie gets the 45 minute test. if i'm not thoroughly engrossed within 45 minutes (or if i'm completely disgusted or bored) then i move on. azumi -- the title character played by aya ueto -- was strong and believable and very adept at handling a sword. she doesn't say much but her bursts of speech are moving and transfixing. her brother assassins were also good in that minimal way.. really, the only thing good acting in this movie is all the swordplay. all in all, i'd give it a 7 out of 10. great eye-candy and fun in that i-don't-have-to-think-for-140-minutes way.

###

peter o'toole. i love peter o'toole. this man liked playing people completely off their rockers. i loved him as lawrence in "lawrence of arabia". i've probably seen that movie a million times and each time it's more brilliant than the last (but i'm also a hopeless david lean fan... mmmm, i ♥ a good epic.) so when i finally got up off my arse to watch a movie that i rented from netflix, "the ruling class" said "watch me!" but i was gravely disappointed. in the end, i think that i gave it 4 out of 10 stars.

the cinematography was rather beautiful and the sweeping vistas of english countryside and manor are gorgeous. the gloriously wide shots do the scenery justice. the story is that an old bodger kicks the bucket and leaves his entire estate to his nutty son, played by mr. o'toole. it's witty and interesting especially after seeing said bodger hang himself in a tutu. now enter son of crazy man. yes, peter o'toole loves to play a good crazy man. he believes that he is jesus and, damn, it really suits him. i laughed out loud watching people kneel to him in his brown robe and long hair and beard. it's almost too bad to say that it went steadily downhill once the shock wore off.



after the first 1.5 hours, the plot grew unusually thin. the family tried to get o'toole's character to marry and then to cure him and then it just wasn't funny anymore. i realized (after looking it up on netflix) that i had rented the director's cut and was wondering what the edited version was like. i think that a good 45 minutes could have been cut from the 150 minutes that i did see and the film would have been entirely redeemable. not to give it away or anything but to think that this character went from believing he was jesus to believing he was jack the ripper was such a leap that i just couldn't follow it. around the 125 minute mark, i audibly said "how much more of this do i actually have to watch?" and went about working on my knitting. do yourself a favor and rent the movie to watch the first 70 minutes of brilliant acting by peter o'toole, turn it off, and then forget that there was ever another 80 minutes you didn't see.

###

some friends and i decided to go and see "fahrenheit 9/11" on saturday night so that we could become part of the $21million the film would make on its first weekend. let me say that i was not disappointed but i was sick to my stomach which is completely understandable. i remember september 11th very clearly. it is something that i'm mostly likely never to forget.

i never really talk much about that day as we spent so much time talking about it after it happened. afterward, i tried to push away the images of the large cloud of smoke that lingered over brooklyn, the paper on the ground in midtown, the fliers posted all over the neighborhood looking for lost loved ones, the lines of people waiting to give blood.. how my apartment shook when the second plane hit the towers. it was all buried there underneath and i completely lost it all when i saw "fahrenheit 9/11". the screams and the explosions of that day echoed on the dark screen and you (as the audience) were left to remember what it looked like from your memory. i wish i had brought kleenex and i wasn't the only one.



michael moore's film is just absolutely brilliant. the editing is brilliant. the footage is astounding. the more that i watched, the more i hated bush and what he has done to our country. it made me sick to think that we went to war with iraq to protect our interests in oil and not to find the man who killed over 3,000 people on american soil. it was pointless to go to iraq. it was stupid of bush to think that he could pull the wool over our eyes and we would sit back and let him. i only have two things to say after seeing the movie. one, please please please go see the film for yourself. two, vote john kerry.

in other news, i've been reading a new blog that i've taken a huge liking to called defective yeti. his bad review revues are hilarious and not to be missed.

###

every week, i jump on over to the apple quicktime trailer section and have a look at the coming attractions. when i was in college, i used to work at a star theatre in michigan as my summer/holiday job. seriously, you could not ask for better work as a college student. i hated working at the concession counter unless i was popping corn because customers can be a real drag. would you believe that i was once accused of being a racist because i didn't jump high enough when a african-american customer told me to? it was awful. i hated the fact that if i didn't immediately kowtow to a customer they would scream bloody murder. anyway, i'm getting off-track. i used to love working there because as an usher you could go into the theatre before showtime and watch all the trailers. this was pre-internet and it was the only way to see what was coming out next.

so i was watching the trailers at apple the other day and saw "the terminal" (new steven speilberg film.) the plot sounded very familiar to me. it's about a man who gets stuck in an airport. his native country is in turmoil and he can't go back there. the U.S. won't let him in because of the turmoil (terrorist threat i suppose) so they let him live in the terminal. i remembered hearing about a man who was stuck in paris's de gaulle airport so i did a quick google search and came upon a straight dope article that told all. i love straight dope. i used to spend hours going through their archives until i had read everything. cecil adams it the foremost authority on everything. be sure to check out the article and the trailer.

###

ok, i've seen "lost in translation" many times already. the first time i saw it in the theatre i cried. yes, i cried. i think it is one of the most beautiful films that i have ever seen.. and i know that is completely subjective but.. something about sofia's style grabs me. i was a film major in college and i'm familiar with mise-en-scene and framing a shot. two of my favorite films that have great cinemaphotography and directing are.. well, scratch that.. anything by stanley kubrick.. his wide shots and extreme close-ups in "2001" and "a clockwork orange" make my heart pitter-patter.. and "orlando" which was so beautiful, saturated, and (get this) directed by a woman, sally potter.

i seem to be naturally attracted to women directors (hell, i really wanted to be one!), sofia being tops. i even took a class called "women directors" given by my mentor, bill vincent (michigan state university). jane campion's "the piano", claire denis's "chocolat", and "lost in translation" all speak to me in ways that other films have not. although i have seen many movies directed by men that left me awestruck, it's these few films by women where i say "i wouldn't have done it any different." i love the focus, the timing, the soft edges on everything in these films. it reminds me of seeing the world through eyes that are a little tired which is how we always are. the style speaks of truth.. that this is the way we really are.

by the way, if you get the DVD be sure to watch all the special features. the "behind-the-scenes" documentary is interesting but the funniest thing to watch is the full-length "matthew best hit tv show".

###

i had heard a couple of months ago that hollywood is making a film based on the collection of robot short stories that isaac asimov wrote titled "i, robot". i've read all of asimov's robot and foundation novels and found them astonishing, brilliant.. in short, works of art. a while back, i reviewed the book "robot visions" which is basically the same book as "i, robot" but it has one or two more short stories not included in "i, robot", and, importantly, it also contains a collection of asimov's essays on the subject of robots. now, what i found so brilliant about the books is that asimov paints a happy and complex picture of what robots would be like if they had essential laws that govern them and keep humans/humanity from harm.

the three laws of robotics are:

1. a robot may not cause harm or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm
2. a robot must obey orders from a human being unless those orders conflict with the first law [ex. i cannot order a robot to kill jane doe]
3. a robot must practice self-preservation unless it conflicts with the first and second laws

these laws are the structure by which asimov wrote all of his stories and they held true throughout all of them. even MIT has thought to adopt these laws when studying robotics! asimov's purpose for writing the novels, he states in his essays, was to produce stories where robots were not the bad guys. that they were/are trust-worthy and not harmful to humans.

so today, i went to apple.com to check out the new trailers and low-and-behold they have a new trailer up for the "i, robot" movie. let me tell you that i am completely disturbed with what i have seen in the trailer. i hope that it doesn't ring true when the movie comes out or heads are gonna roll, so to speak. the trailer goes against everything that asimov wrote!! from what i can tell, good ol' hollywood has made the robot the villian again [much like frankenstein.. hence asimov's mention of the "frankenstein complex" present in every robot tale before he wrote about them]. hopefully, this is just some wicked ploy to get me to go and see the movie and they will turn it around and do justice to what asimov wanted. if not, there will be hell to pay.

###

in an attempt to catch up on old films that i never got a chance to see before, i entered a large amount of classics into my netflix queue. last night, my SO and i watched "charade" with cary grant and audrey hepburn (whom i love and think is the epitome of class). god, what a fun film. seriously, you can't go wrong putting two of the most beautiful and engaging people in one film together. the story is catchy and fun, if not a bit unbelievable... and if you blink your eyes in the first twenty or thirty seconds of the film you will be lost so be sure to pay attention!

audrey hepburn, "regina lampert", plays the new wife of a man who is killed early in the film. this man, mr. lampert, supposedly stole $250,000 (a lot of money in '63.. and still now for that matter.. but you know, all these films nowadays are about millions of dollars) when he was in the war with four of his buddies. they want the money.. they think that she has it.. she knows she doesn't.. and it's a race to find it. cary grant stumbles onto the scene playing.. well, i won't spoil it but let's just say that he becomes an integral player. it all takes place in beautiful paris (which i have yet to visit) and highlights many of the things that make paris what it is.. smoking, attitude, beautiful architecture, rich foods, etc.

now yes, the film can be quite cheesy but then so were many films in the 60s. some of the cinematography is daring for the time and the score by henry mancini is upbeat. but what i loved the most were the opening credits. i love good opening credits. "north by northwest", classic. "seven", groundbreaking. the opening credits here displayed the fun, wily sense of style that the 60s embodied. bold colors and lines.. much like a good blue note record jazz album cover. see it, if only for the first five minutes or so.

###

i do love film noir... i really do... but what is it about french films where the women are always being smacked around? i watched "shoot the piano player" the other night and found it funny and witty... i also found it repulsive and overly-dramatic. how can these two viewpoints live within the same film?

well, first let's look at "funny and witty". there were plenty of great scenes where the film makes fun of itself. for example, charlie (our "hero") comes home one night and his hooker neighbor comes over for a quick romp in the hay (he has credit.. no doubt he has never paid her a cent for her services). she disrobes and gets into bed with her breasts exposed. charlie remarks that if they were in a film this situation would never happen... he reaches over and pulls the sheet over her chest to cover her up. they both pause and then giggle at their silliness. it is rather witty to be making fun of film while in a film.

let's also explain "repulsive and overly-dramatic". god, the french and french film.. be sure to smack around the women and tell them they are useless, use them for sex, and then send them home. there's a scene in this film where everyone is at the bar, laughing and dancing to the music played by our hero. a young woman is teasing a young man.. she dances away from him and gestures him towards her then when he leaps from his seat to follow, she pushes him back down. this happens at least a dozen times. the young man is thinking with his pants and doesn't want to play hard to get... i say, "don't get up.. let her tease you!" but instead he becomes frustrated and smacks her.

it reminds me of "contempt" (jean-luc godard) where jack palance's character makes a stupid blunder that his wife wrongly interprets.. their relationship takes a turn for the worse.. he throws around a phone, hits her, yells at her.. sooooooo dramatic.

in "shoot the piano player", we flashback over charlie's earlier career as a happily married concert pianist, but the storyline soon takes a turn for the worse and unfolds to show us that his marriage was a tragic affair. his wife cheated on him and in a moment of "i'm so dirty.. i'm scum.. i don't deserve to be with you.. you are too nice" self-loathing, she throws herself off a balcony. drama. if you like drama, this is it.

this is not to say that i don't like french film noir. i loved "band of outsiders". the mise en scene was gorgeous. it was fun and playful at the same time as being mysterious, and the chemistry between the three principles was dynamic. i just wish i could find more like that.

###

i was in a shopping mood recently and went crazy at amazon. fine print: i love amazon, by the way, and most links on this site will go to amazon especially when i speak of books or films i like. in no way do i get props from amazon because i link to them. it's my perogative to link, so i do. i bought the miyazaki three-pack because i really wanted to get "spirited away" and more anime for my collection. "spirited away" is amazing but it's not what i'm here to talk about. i decided to watch "kiki's delivery service" and "castle in the sky" last night while the snow and rain was falling.

first of all, hayao miyazaki is an absolutely amazing director. his characters are so full of life and so likeable, and the stories he chooses to portray are warm and fulfilling. i loved "kiki's delivery service". it's about a young witch who, at the tender age of 13, leaves her parents to start her training in another city. she learns that to become a successful witch she must choose a talent that she is good at and capitalize on it. her best skill is flying, so she makes friends with a woman who owns a bakery and starts a delivery service. over time she begins to believe in herself and her abilities (with some help from her friends and adorable cat, jiji). it's a wonderful coming-of-age story and the animation is just spectacular. it's also perfect for all age groups. no sex. no swearing. a real treat.

"castle in the sky" is a bit more adult.. still no sex but plenty of cartoon violence, although i noticed that you actually don't see anyone get offed, and, in the end, everyone manages to stay alive. this storyline is also a bit more existential. the term "castle in the sky" refers to a mythical floating city that everyone (the army, a band of pirates, and a young boy and girl) is trying to find. according to legend, the city contains riches beyond imagination so, of course, everyone wants a piece of it. the animation, not the story, is the centerpiece of this film. there are these GIANT floating, monolithic ships and tiny, fast-speed vessels. the pirates are likable characters and the army is just evil enough to for you to hate them.

i really enjoyed immersing myself in these worlds although i felt that the japanese translations were a bit lacking. i never watch anime in english the first couple of times around. i feel like it loses something when you can't watch it in the original language. after watching "princess mononoke" in japanese several times i decided to watch it in english and i felt that the characters lacked their original depth. now that i know more japanese it's easy for me to see and hear what i'm missing. the three-pack was well-worth the money spent because i'm sure i will rewatch these as many times as i have watched "princess mononoke". animation is not just for kids after all.

###

i can't believe that i have never seen this film. it is right up my alley. first of, i love hitchcock. with a subtlety of lighting or an eerie score, he can twist your emotions around and encapture you. the moment when mr. de winter (laurence olivier) confesses that he sunk rebecca in the harbor i felt sorry for him. i could tell that he had been manipulated and was actually the victim. i realized that he couldn't have killed her the moment he said it. i saw the anguish and empathized. amazing, that at that moment i had no idea that it was a planned killing and he was no more a murderer than the average joe.. in every respect, the audience should feel hatred towards a man who killed off his first wife, but i felt nothing of that. hitchcock turned my emotions around.. he's quite brilliant.

the acting is very 40s. lots of the second mrs. de winter (joan fontaine.. beautifully playing a nameless character) looking starry eyed and being subserviant, but it's worth a watch if you've never seen it. i won't spoil the end. let's just say that i didn't have to wonder when the film would be over (i hate those films that never seem to end) but instead, everything was nicely wrapped up and the credits were up before i knew it.

###

yesterday, at the gym, i turned on and watched the first ten minutes of "real women have curves". when my session on the elliptical trainer was done, i did not want to get off! the movie was still going and i really wanted to finish it.. so as soon as i got home i HBOondemand'ed it. the title of this film belies the real subject matter. yes, real women do have curves and fat and self-esteem problems, but the real story here is the relationship between ana and her mother. ana, played beautifully by america ferrera, is an exceptionally smart recent high school graduate who longs to go away to college, but her mexican-immigrant family is stuck in outer los angeles. to her mother, the most important thing for ana to do is to lose weight, get married, have babies, and work for the rest of her life. ana, though, sees her future at columbia university. her mother nags at her constantly.. "you're so fat" "why don't you lose some weight" "you should be ashamed of yourself" are just some of the guilt-ridden phrases that come out of her mouth. ana stays strong and shows her mom that women come in all shapes and sizes, and her mom should look in a mirror and see that she's not exactly thin either.

i was rooting for ana the entire movie! shouts of "you tell 'er girl" and "don't take that shit from your mother" eminated from my lips. i usually try not to talk to the television but i was compelled to.. drawn into the story as i was. there's an underlying current of catholic/religious guilt.. guilt the child into staying.. guilt her into losing weight.. guilt her into staying a virgin.. and i was happy to see her leave in the end and go to school. her mother didn't understand that giving your children new opportunities and educating them so that they might grow, start a career, and offer their talents to the world is more important than working in a sweatshop and "keeping the family together". the family will live on and she will return to visit from college.. but if she had never gone in the first place, it would have been a tragedy.

###

the matrix:reloaded was released on DVD this week! i had my s.o. run down to the video store and pick it up so we could watch it again before buying it. really the DVD kicks major ass! the transfer was so well done. everything is crisp, clear, sharp as a whistle. i'm about to go on and talk about my matrix theories so if you aren't interested, you should stop reading right now.

i believe that neo, trinity, morpheus, all of zion never left the matrix. yes, they never left! they are all still plugged in. there are several reasons why i believe this to be true.

1\ zion. where the heck did zion come from? there's a scene where neo can't sleep so he walks out of his apartment in zion and comes across the chancellor. the chancellor convinces him to take a walk on the machine level. they have a rather frank and deep discussion about what the difference is between the machines that help keep zion working and the machines that are coming to kill them. there is no difference because they are one and the same. those zion machines have been there for centuries and hardly anyone knows what they do or how they work. the citizens of zion just trust that they will continue to work.. that was my first clue that something about zion was just not right.

2\ the oracle. she tells neo that she is but a subprogram just like all the other programs that handle the trees, the wind, the pattern of birds flying. she tells him that the difference between him and everyone else is choice.. that he has already made his choice and now he must figure out why he made that choice. conversely, this means that no one else has choice. only neo. she tells him that his purpose is to travel to the "source" (being the source code of the matrix) in order to save zion but he will need the keymaker in order to get there. at this point, i believe that the oracle is no longer a benign force. although neo believes that she is there to save him.. to save humanity.. she is but another program that is forcing neo to his ultimate end. as the architect implies later in the film, the oracle is the mother of the matrix. it's her job to make sure that the humans remain happy in the matrix. in this, she pushes neo to the source in order to "reboot" the matrix for an upgrade.. this upgrade will -- for the machines -- hopefully solve the problem of zion.. more on this to come..

3\ the architect. after saving the keymaker from certain death at the hands of agents, he takes the team to the building where the source can be found. there, neo is to go to the source in order to save zion. in the source, he meets the architect of the system. he learns that he has two choices: one, that he can choose to save zion by starting over again, but all must be left behind including his love, trinity.. or two, he can go back to the matrix, save and be with trinity, and zion will be destroyed. the architect mentions that destroying zion is no big deal as they have done it six times already! six times huh? did neo come through to the source six times already? but you see, zion gets destroyed no matter which direction he chooses. the architect tells him that should he choose the first path, that he will be given a certain amount of people to rebuild zion.. he has done this six times already because the matrix has been rebooted at least that many times. the architect says that in the beginning, the matrix was too perfect and everyone fought it.. hence revision #1. each subsequent revision makes the matrix better, and keeps the humans in line.

my guess is that each time the matrix needs to be revised, the "one" (meaning the "one" with the choice) must come back to the source, reboot the system, and everyone in zion goes back into the main matrix for the next revision. the meaning behind this term "the one" is fairly simple. if you are a computer programmer, you might even understand this better than others. when dealing with large numbers (billions of people) statistical anomolies occur. think of it as division... 13 divided by 2 equals 6 with a remainder of 1. the machines have gotten pretty good at getting rid of these anomalies but leaving the remainder of "one" with choice leaves them a backdoor. the difference between the past 6 times that neo has come through and rebooted the matrix is the fact that love for trinity is causing his decision to change. he chooses not to reboot but to go back to the matrix, save her, and wait for the true destruction of zion.

but here's the rub.. they never left the matrix! the matrix is the world that most of the billions of people live in and it is also the world of zion. zion is the subprogram that people go to when their minds kick them out of the matrix. it's necessary to have zion so that people have a place to go to if their minds can't take the matrix. zion is basically a place of safe-keeping where people are stored who couldn't handle the current revision. my guess is that the machines will keep zion around as long as minds can't take the matrix but they eventually hope to do away with it all..

keeping them all in the matrix is in the machines best interest because they need them for survival. it's the machines' job to get everyone back in the main matrix by revising it and rebooting it each time. the one scene that proves this to be true is when, after neo returns from the source and saves trinity by re-programming her to live, the crew of the nebuchadnezzar jumps ship into the outside in order to flee the machines who are going to destroy it. neo pauses and says that something's not right, that he can "feel" the machines.. he then fights them off with his bare hands! that's because they are all still in the matrix and neo is still "the one".. the one with the power to control the matrix.

wow, i could go on and on about my theories for days.. there's still the problem of smith and the other rogue programs like merovingian and his wife, persephone.. my guess is that they also don't want to be re-booted for fear of destruction and being written out of the new matrix. but that's better left for another entry later!

###

after a rocking engagement party on saturday night, the Significant Other (hereby dubbed s.o.) and i spent most of the day on sunday cataloging our new gifts, breaking down boxes, and getting over our hangovers. during dinner, we couldn't decide what to watch on TV.. and since we had already seen the Iron Chef (chen vs. a japanese chef in an epic sardine battle) i sent s.o. down to the video store to get something to watch. i believe i said "be sure to pick something film noire-ish, but nothing too relationship-dramatic.. no couple's yelling at each other.. no french "i'm so distraught over your infidelity" type films. he came back with "the rope" directed by our friend, alfred hitchcock..

this was one of the few hitchcock movies i haven't seen (i haven't seen "the birds" yet, for the obvious reason that i don't want to be afraid of the pigeons i see everyday in new york). when i was in college, my favorite professor, bill vincent, regularly taught a speciality film class on hitchcock that i was never able to take due to scheduling problems. i'm sure that he would have plenty to say about "the rope".. just as i'm about to say plenty..

this movie continually cracked me up. s.o. and i had a couple of moments where we actually had to pause the movie we were laughing so hard. first of all, it's a beautifully shot film. lots of long, long, long takes that must have took hours to set up.. takes where the camera would flow from one conversation to the next and everyone was right on cue. really quite ingenius. but in order to execute these long shots, hitchcock had his cast members stand very close to each other and he framed them very tightly in order to direct the other cast members to enter the scene at the right moments. this leads to the actors standing within inches of each other having conversations which looks pretty silly.. it gives the illusion of sexual tension where there is no sexual tension. there were several times where the s.o. and i were inserting our own raunchy dialogue to make up for all that tension we were witnessing.. and since this a film from the late 40s, the scenes felt very out-of-whack..

but it's worth watching.. i would never say that anything hitchcock has ever made isn't worth watching. he was a brilliant director and a master at building suspense.. in fact, there was an amazing scene in "the rope" that should go down in the annals of suspense-building theatrics.. the dead body is being housed in a large trunk, originally used for old books.. but the sedistic killer has decided to serve dinner off the trunk to all his guests not but an hour after he has murdered the guest of honor. after the dinner is over and everyone is standing off frame-right, the large trunk is placed within the frame to the left. the maid decides to clean up, going back and forth to the kitchen... pick up large plate of chicken, walk all the way to the kitchen (still in frame, mind you), place the chicken on the counter, walk all the way back, pick up the candlesticks, blow out the flames, walk back to the dining room and place candlesticks on the table, walk back to the trunk, take care of tablecloth, walk back to the kitchen, etc etc.. the maid does this for 3 or 4 minutes while hitchcock keeps the trunk in frame, the guests to frame-right all talking about the missing guest (who is dead in the trunk), and all the time we (the audience) are wondering how many more times this maid is going to walk back to the kitchen before she finally tries to open the trunk and put away the old books. of course, she is surreptiously intercepted at the moment that she is about to open the trunk.. it was an amusing couple of minutes where you are on the edge of your seat.. "will she open it?" "naw, what good would that do the story."

another thing that i love about hitchcock is that his films are never too short or too long. he knows when to end the story and not tack on 30 minutes of gratuitous footage for no reason what-so-ever. all-in-all, "the rope" fit his formula well. a worthy watch.

###