TBA (This Blog is Awesome)

I'M MOVING! UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS / FEEDS!

2010-06-30T17:42:00.000-05:00

This blog was an awesome place for me to do what I did with it for a while. But now, I'm going to do all of my short-form, miscellaneous blogging, including pop culture reviews, at another site. It's called:

GIANT DANGEROUS SCIENCE!!

Go there to see my music, movie and book reviews, along with some critical writing on random subjects and a lot of other videos and stories of all types from around the internet. Go check it out! And thanks for reading!

"Kingdom Come," a Comic Book

2010-04-08T10:33:00.000-05:00

There is a lot to love about this title. The first thing is that Alex Ross's paintings and art are really beautiful. You may have seen some of his work on covers for Marvel and DC, but I think this is really some of the best art in a superhero comic book I have seen.

The next thing to love is how dense the mythology is in this book. And not just from a DC comics perspective, but from a bible perspective. The story draws really heavily from Revelations imagery and end-of-the-world doomieness to give the story weight. It's a really densely packed work.

I think what troubles me about a lot of DC graphic anthologies is that they don't have the kind of impact that the creators want them to as a result of their weird continuity problems. I guess it just bothers me that I've read dozens of stories for how Superman gave up on his superness to be just a man, and all of them are interesting and fun, but it doesn't have the same impact when I know it's just a sort of intellectual exercise.

Though actually, I know I like those intellectual exercises in a lot of other contexts. Maybe it has more to do with what I expect from superhero comics, specifically the superheros I already know well from the light-weight serials I'm used to. Maybe I expect something a little more ephemeral because of the tone and continuity of those serials, so I see even the apocalyptic, dark story here as grasping at a solidness or severity it can't manage. I'll probably have to try to read it again without getting bogged down in those expectations. I'll wait to make a real rating.

The Recent Remake of "The Crazies"

2010-04-08T10:08:00.000-05:00

"The Crazies" is originally a film by George Romero, and his prints are still all over this remake. But I guess I'll address that in a moment. Let me first say that this movie is NOT genius, and I am biased towards it for a variety of reasons.

For one, I really like zombie-like movies, meaning movies that pit humanity against a slowly advancing plague of horrificness, revealing the real grit underneath the veneer of civilization and the real nuts and bolts of people and society. This is in no way a great example of zombie film, but it is a movie that borrows a lot from that way of making films.

The faults of this movie, in fact, are mostly caused by the fact that it really isn't a zombie movie. The enemies in this film are somewhat sophisticated, making battles against them and flight from them feel more like a war movie than like a creeping horror movie.

And I guess that is no accident. This movie is maybe most accurately classed as a military horror story. That's not only because of the fact that the McGuffin in this movie is related to the military and their presumed power over the citizenry. It also has a lot to do with how the film structures its drama. The most high-tension points feel half cribbed from military films and half cribbed from zombie movies.

Which is cool, but it also leads to the whole venture feeling slightly disjointed and not as important or coherent as it could be. It still has some really great tense moments, some really beautiful desolation scenery (recalling "The Road" and "The Book of Eli"), and some really fantastic music. But it all ends up being only worth the time spent watching it, no more. (Come to think of it, a lot like those two other films.)

As far as Romero is concerned, the movie sticks to its Romero-esque guns by having an ending that isn't neatly wrapped up and reeks of the downfall of all of humanity. The movie sort of chickens out, though, which makes it feel a little less gut-wrenching than any of Romero's work, even his weakest efforts.

All told, it's a solid film, with a lot to offer a viewer, but not a lot to offer cinema or even the zombie-like-apocalypse genre. Fun, but not important, and obviously trying for, and falling short of, important in some respects. 5 stars? These middle-of-the-road, only-ok movies are hard to rate.

"Dollhouse," An Overview of my Feelings About the Show

2010-03-26T02:34:00.000-05:00

"Dollhouse" is one of those shows that sort of sneaks up on you. In a lot of ways, too. For instance, the show starts its first season with a few episodes that are fascinating in their concept and do a decent job as a sci-fi / action show of isolated episodes. But by the middle of the season, the show has hit you with some really surprising complexities of that premise and some more character development.

By the time the show reveals the major bad guy of the season, you're fully hooked, caring deeply about some of the characters and realizing the depth of the problem of shifting and changeable personalities in "willing" volunteers. Finally, the last episode of the season reveals a dark, disastrous future that shows the inevitable destructive power of the technology that has become the driving force of the show's premise.

The season ends, and all you can think is, this just got insanely more complicated and interesting. It's nothing like what you expected from those first few action episodes. A major surprise.

Then it starts all over with season two, which takes a few episodes before it starts producing action packed episode after action packed episode, each one deepening the psychological and identity issues so important to the show. With the apocalyptic future in the background, we know what each new episode is leading to, and that makes the whole experience get increasingly tense and chill-inducing.

When all is said and done, the show has deeply explored all of the issues it set out to explore and offered surprise after surprise. All that is left is the final episode, which plays less like a climactic finale and more like a glimpse into the perfect character resolutions for everyone we've come to care about.

It's a show that, from humble beginnings as an interesting action show, rose to become the most deeply disturbing and satisfying show about mind and identity yet made. Watching it makes us question what makes us ourselves, how important those question are to our humanity, and what happens when we stop thinking about those questions. Season one is a nine out of ten. Season two is a perfect ten.

(And look! I didn't even have to qualify any of this as "Joss Whedon's Best" or " incredibly sci-fi" or anything! It's an unqualified ten!)

Roman Polanski's New Movie, "The Ghost Writer"

2010-03-26T02:19:00.000-05:00

You know, I tried starting this review a few times, with some stuff about why I generally don't like political thrillers, and how this film rises above those problems and manages to still deliver. But that's really misleading. Because really, this movie doesn't deliver on the political thriller side of things. It manages to pack a pretty severe punch despite that, and I'll talk about that at the end. But first, I'll talk about the political thriller aspects that this film manages to do either wrong or boringly.

First of all, when filmmakers want to inject some realism into their story about politics, they try to bring in real people or archival footage or news networks that we all recognize. Not only does this film use almost zero archival footage, it uses only fake news networks with news segments that don't even look that real). Worse, we even see a Condoleezza Rice lookalike at one point. It's really dissapointing when a political movie that is supposed to feel either set in the real world or one that is believable in its difference fgrom the real world, this movie feels like it takes place in the universe of a bad episode of "24." Not quite real enough.

The next big mistake is kind of artless exposition. Granted, it's hard to make a web browsing / google searching sequence feel interesting. This movie makes a strong effort but still falls slightly short. Basically all of the inner workings of the political intrigue are revealed via web browser and voice over in one scene.

Another big mistake: the political message being pretty undefined or hard to follow. "The Informant" suffers from this one, and "Michael Clayton" gets it almost exactly right. This movie clearly has a message about how power corrupts or how governments use people to accomplish things, but it isn't clearly encapsulated.

So the film suffers from a lot of the usual flaws of political intrigue movies. But here's the thing: in terms of craft, this movie is almost perfect.

The camera work is fluid, interesting, and surprising. The pacing is masterful. The suspenseful scenes are REALLY suspenseful. Beautiful color, composition, settings, and music. And the performances by Olivia Williams (my new favorite actress and "Dollhouse" star!) and Ewan McGregor are really nuanced and interesting. And despite how unclear it is why we should care about the plot's resolution, we still care a huge amount about the characters at the center of this whole episode. Polanski has managed to make a film that feels important even while it feels like it hasn't said anything.

So I guess all I can say is if you are way into messages or important stories or political commentary, the movie is a failure. But if you are into the craft of film-making and how well stories are told, the movie is a huge success. I'm way into great filmcraft, so for me that makes it an 8 out of 10.

Note that I scored this one higher than "The Departed." Yeah, it's a lot like that movie, but really a lot more interestingly put together.

"The Simpsons," and Also Some Things About Criticizing

2010-03-22T20:31:00.000-05:00

I read recently at this blog, in this post, about how the criticism of things can get sort of bound up in the creators of those things. Specifically, the writer of that post was commenting on how, even before a book came out, the work was getting criticized from a weird position focused mostly on how people perceive the creator of that work.

It's an interesting thing to think about. The specific pathways our criticism of something follows depend a lot on how we perceive the origin of that thing. The posts I discussed above contain a lot more interesting stuff about what we look for in memoires and how the conversation between reader and author is structured. It's all good stuff, but the one I'd like to focus on is this idea that we expect a different kind of importance or revelation from things depending on how their context presents them to us.

This is a particularly interesting way to think about media criticism when watching "The Simpsons." I went back and watched all of season 8 this week (during some protracted periods of crippling lethargy and procrastination). Season 8, as an aside, is widely considered one of the last of the classic seasons of "The Simpsons" before its decline. And I was struck by how good some of the episodes are. But I was also struck by how manic it is. The show is often a jumble of jokes and different joke formats, rarely rising above just that.

And that's what people love about the show: it's ability to blend absurdity with social commentary with a grain of emotional truth to each episode's story. What's most unnerving about the re-watch experience, though, is that the episodes that I love the most of this show are the most un-"Simpsons"-like.

The best example is one of the all-time best episodes, "You Only Move Twice," where Homer is hired by a prototypical hands-on jeans-wearing computer-age boss who also happens to be a Bond villain. The whole episode hinges on us seeing a new place that is a parody in itself (and isn't Springfield), getting behind a gag that arcs over the whole show (instead of the usual diverse and scattered jokes the show uses), and even making the bulk of the laughs come from a character that isn't in our usual family or even portrayed by a normal "Simpsons" voice actor.

In short, it's essentially the anti-"Simpsons," made funny by how it treats the Simpson family. It's just not the kind of thing the show is famous for. The same can be said for "Homer's Enemy," an episode centered on a character, Frank Grimes, that is timeless and unforgettable for just how non-"Simpsons"-universe he is in that episode. "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie" is a giant meta-joke filled with sly commentary on how television is made, not the prototypical jumble of gags the show usually is.

So to turn back to the first part of this post, about what we expect from media and how that changes our perception of it. I also watched an episode or two of the most recent season of "The Simpsons" this week. And, even more so than the two classic episodes I mentioned above, these two episodes felt like really classically "Simpsons" style episodes. "The Simpsons" is a show that has 21 seasons worth of episodes that are mostly weird mishmashes of gags, with plot only serving as an anchor for those gags, and that's exactly what the show is consistently doing now.

So why do so many critics feel like it's lost so much since it's glory days? If anything, the show has returned to its roots, going back to being a gag-machine, filled with intelligent parody and hilarious sight gags. And puns! It's all we ever hoped "The Simpsons" would be, but we still consider it such a slide backwards. Why?

One answer is that the show isn't innovating the same way it used to, like in the episodes I mentioned above. That's probably part of it. But I don't know that innovation is what people want from the show. The problem seems to be more that we've all developed this sort of Utopian vision for what the "Simpsons" brand stands for. Any new episodes are not measured by how well they do what they set out to do. They are measured against the monolithic and basically definitionally unreachable past of the show.

And that's where this problem of perception and criticism has its impact. If we approach the show the same way we always have, as a show that gives a dream team of smart writers and great animators (the animation in the recent shows is downright beautiful, full of tiny background gags and really cool sets), it's still achieving at a pretty high level. But if we look at it as a show that we all quote on a daily basis, any new episode is NEVER going to contain timeless quotes on the first viewing. If we see "The Simpsons" as we saw it in the past (and not held up in comparison to the past), it would look like an actually really solidly entertaining show, still hilarious after many, many years.

This whole problem is compounded by the fact that most of us have seen the most often-quoted episodes in syndication many, many times. We've seen great "Simpsons" gags over and over, sometimes up to four times a day, and that's made the older episodes pretty ingrained in our minds in a way that new episodes can't hope to accomplish for years. Even worse, a new style of TV watching has cut network syndication out of our normal TV habits; we're all watching the internet instead.

So the new "Simpsons," I would argue, is not actually very different at all from the old "Simpsons" we know and love. What stops new episodes from being classics isn't their quality, but the way we're biased against them and the way TV-watching has changed so much since those early days. I'd wager that, if something like "Adult Swim" exists in ten years, it's going to be running these new episodes right alongside the classic episodes, and the two eras will be equally well-appreciated (or entirely unappreciated, possibly, but equally so) by the new audience that watches them.

"The Departed"

2010-03-15T11:49:00.001-05:00

I'm not a gangster movie guy. I don't find myself drawn to the inner workings of crime syndicates. It's something that a movie has to present in a particularly interesting or surprising or engaging way to earn my attention or accolades. And "The Departed" manages that. But only barely.

The film seems destined for greatness. It's Scorsese returning to the world of organized crime, doing what he purportedly does best. And the cast is designed to win awards, featuring old timers like Jack Nicholson and fresh faces that the Academy wants to hand statues to in Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio. And as far as it's got the pedigree and the right weapons in its arsenal is as far as its genius goes.

And no farther. It's an engrossing, really enjoyable movie. And the performances are all brilliant. And its expertly directed, with every scene and every camera swoop looking like the steady-handed work of an expert of his craft. But that's it.

That's not to say that it isn't a masterwork of filmmaking. It really is. It's tight and interesting and really well-crafted. But it's also a little heavy-handed and needlessly twisty and thematically muddled. It's the kind of movie that is a sort of breathless joy to watch, but its deeper implications seem to dissipate like vapor pretty soon after the movie finishes. 7 out of 10.

(As a sidenote: after watching "The Wire," which I will write more about later, pretty much every other piece of art's handling of organized crime and law enforcement seems kind of cartoony and juvenile in comparison. This movie is no exception. That probably brought down this movie's appeal for me a bit.)

"Dear Zachary"

2010-03-15T11:36:00.000-05:00

I'll start by saying that I recommend this movie. To everyone. So if you want to stop reading here, that's acceptable.

But here's WHY I recommend this movie to everyone. It starts as a really touching, personal project about a man making a movie for a murdered friend's unborn son about his slain father. It develops from there into a complex crime drama, and it eventually becomes chill-inducing social commentary. And it manages this all while being a singularly emotional experience.

Because the emotional experience of this movie is what really sells it. This movie made me feel more during its duration than any other movie I have ever seen. So if you DO see it, be prepared to cry like a child for a good portion of its run.

And it's not exploitative emotion (mostly-- if the film has a flaw, it's that its emotional ups and downs feel slightly engineered a scarce few times). It's genuine emotion, motivated by the sheer absurd tragedy and soaring beauty of the film and the lives of the people it presents. It's an insanely unique and engrossing experience, one that you won't forget. 10. Out of 10.

Pavement - "Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain"

2010-03-02T19:23:00.000-06:00

It's kind of insane that I haven't listened to this record more recently. I think the last time I listened to really any Pavement was high school. Which, actually, might be because I was told that I should like Pavement back then, but didn't really. Since then, my tastes have changed a lot, and I genuinely loved listening to this record again.

I know it's probably not so interesting to say that this is a great record. I find myself going back to things that were popular and trendsetting and brilliant a long time ago way after I have seen or heard basically everything that is derived from the original things. And this record is a great example.

It's kinda like, I've listened to quite a lot of indie pop and indie rock and I often find myself thinking: this is really enjoyable, and I have no major problems with it, but it's missing something. And this record is sort of the example of what would happen if the hundreds of other indie records I have listened to were NOT missing something.

This record is a 10 out of 10. It is, as far as I can tell, perfect, with nothing missing or nothing wasted. It's not all "play on repeat" tracks, but the ones that are not entirely killer and entirely addicting are great interludes and breaks from the killer stuff. I just really enjoyed the whole thing.

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. self-titled

2010-03-02T19:16:00.000-06:00

This album was among the tops back in the year it came out. It made a bunch of lists as the top of the year and signaled the giant sea change that was embodied in blog coverage of the indie music scene. In a lot of ways, the success of this band was the thing that proved music blogs had an influence on the kinds of music that people liked.

That doesn't really say much about the record itself. I guess I should just say it's great. It does a lot of stuff with indie guitar music that hadn't really been done yet. Like, that sot of dance-skiffle that is relatively common nowadays started here. But I also recently listened to this Pavement record, and all I can really think is how all of these indie guitar rock bands are all basically doing slightly evolved versions of Pavement.

In this case, the somewhat melodic, somewhat strained, slightly faster version of basically all of guitar indie rock and indie pop works. It works fantastically well, in fact. It's not life-changing, but it's fun as hell, and I enjoyed it this time as much as I did the first time way back 5 years ago.

"An Education"

2010-03-02T19:07:00.000-06:00

Welp. Turns out my commitment not to see mediocre movies didn't last very long. There were a lot of things to love about this movie, of course. The lead performances were fantastic, even if Peter Sarsgaard's accent was kind of terrible. And there were a few moments that felt really great and importnat.

But overall, this was just a movie. A pretty basic romantic drama that thinks it's more important than it is. The movie wants you to believe it is about womanhood and maturity and realizing what is important in life. But the fact is, any film that paints a failed affair with (SPOILER ALERT) a somewhat troubled or dishonest man as a dire situation for a young girl in the prime of her life is just not going to do it for me.

What I mean is, the film makes it pretty clear that a few bad decisions on the part of our protagonist make her a pariah in her school and almost ruin her life. The stakes still never really fell that high, though, in a culture where crippling poverty, teen pregnancy, illness, and the collapse of families is the usual backdrop to these kinds of coming-of-age-in-difficult-situations films. It doesn't feel important. But it was enjoyable, I suppose. Let's say 6 out of 10.

Explosions in the Sky, "The Rescue"

2010-02-14T17:10:00.000-06:00

It's not a particularly revelatory album, and I suppose that its online release and mostly improvised songwriting make it somewhat of an afterthought in the Explosions in the Sky catalog. But to me, this is maybe the band's most immediate, most unambiguous release. The thing is a collection of 8 songs all written and recorded in a day each. The songs are the perfect soundtrack to those moments that are somewhat contemplative but still have the buzz of promise or ambition behind them. It's a great record for wandering around on the shores of a frozen lake and thinking big thoughts. It has lots of charm, very few dull moments, and it makes the band's often desolate and sprawling sound feel more intimate and propulsive.

I don't know if that review actually said anything. Anyways. 8.5 out of 10.

"The Wolfman"

2010-02-14T17:09:00.000-06:00

I think the only good things that this movie has going for it are tied to how it evokes sort of classic tropes and images of the werewolf story. The wolf howling at the full moon from a London rooftop as the Danny Elfman score's Gothic horror choir swells... it's almost perfect. But it's fleeting.

The film overall is not a particularly strong entry into the werewolf canon, and a version of this film that was just a ten-minute collection of the best moments would actually be a pretty brilliant high-budget Victorian horror short. But bloated to this length and padded with meaningless love stories, pointless plot elements, expositional scenes that seem overly dramatic and vague, and an only passably composed backbone story of familial betrayal, the thing is its own kind of monster. 3 out of 10.

"Crazy Heart"

2010-02-14T16:34:00.004-06:00

I'll start by saying this was better than I expected it to be. I kind of expected a bloated and mostly formulaically boring "life changing moment" film. And for the most part, that's what I got. But the movie had its saving graces, mostly in the form of Jeff Bridges and his believable, well-rounded and nuanced portrayal of Bad Blake.

That's not to say that his performance makes seeing this movie worth it. I don't want to give this movie a pass because it had a great performance in it; that'd be disingenuous. A movie like "The Wrestler," which is surprisingly similar to this one, the central performance is real, satisfying, and altogether shocking for its unexpected depth. But the movie around it used this performance perfectly, setting it in a sort of gritty, no-frills story with a realistic amount of change occurring in the protagonist. It was a believable, sparse tool to wrench the virtuoso performance out of Mickey Rourke.

That's not what happened here. "Crazy Heart" is a pretty fantastic performance and a pretty believable character lost in a somewhat muddled love story with predictable beats and with a somewhat more showy directorial hand. The result is what feels like a lackluster copy of another more satisfying movie.

I've been thinking about ratings recently. I'm going to re-introduce numbered ratings into my reviews, mainly because I want a way of checking for internal consistency in my opinions on movies. This one, to me, is a 5.5 out of 10, but at least 1 point of that is for Bridges alone. I'd call that a cold recommend, as in, see it if it's free, but don't go out of your way. Unless you love Jeff Bridges.

"A Single Man"

2010-02-09T15:28:00.000-06:00

I've decided that the solution to feeling like watching these movies is pointless is to be more critical of them. In that spirit, I would like to declare "A Single Man" a not good movie. I'd usually say it is good enough, but it squanders so many opportunities for anything even remotely more deep than what it actually does that not acknowledging these cavernous shortcomings is to misrepresent the film.

Part of the reason why its being good enough is such a flaw is that it's trying for more. It's a good looking movie with some interesting coloring tricks up its sleeve and pretty costuming, but it's so simplistic and over-broad in its writing that it is actually NOT worth seeing.

Phew. That was cathartic. I should try writing negative reviews of movies more often. Maybe then I'd be less bothered by how many mediocre films I watch on a regular basis.

Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes"

2010-02-09T15:19:00.001-06:00

If you like Guy Ritchie movies, you will like this. The list of things that I like: good action, stylish direction that isn't distracting, quick witted writing, great performances by the male leads. What I didn't like: not a great performance from Rachel McAdams, some overblown action sequences, some bad CGI, a lack of any real "point" (even though some really fascinating reason-vs.-fear stuff was tossed around and played with during the film).

That's it. It's not a divisive film. It's not terrible. It's not brilliant. It's not important.

Why do I do this? I mean, I had fun watching it, and I totally got into it while I was watching it, but afterward, I wondered why I keep watching these movies that are just good enough. To be fair, there was some really enjoyable stuff in this one, and it was a lot smarter than it needed to be, so it was better than most "good enough" movies. But it still suffered from the same pointlessnesses as many other movies of its ilk. My time wasn't wasted, but it certainly wasn't rewarded.

So WHY? I guess I like to be up to date on movies. I guess I like knowing what's going on and being a part of that "movie culture." But there are better movies, ones that are changing the art or changing people or changing the world, and they are all available. Watching this movie wasn't time wasted, but it certainly wasn't time well-spent.

In contrast, "Iron Man" was an equally well-plotted and great-actioned movie. And it's one that I watched a few times and wouldn't mind watching again. Its arc works better, its style is less excessive, and its character development is more interesting. It's not miles and miles different from "Sherlock Holmes," but it still feels miles and miles better.

I need to think more about that, I guess.

"Up In The Air"

2010-02-09T15:00:00.000-06:00

Another only good movie. The cast is pretty brilliant, and Clooney is totally good enough, maybe even very good (BUT NOT GREAT).

I'm going to use this review as a sort of framework to talk about what I want from movies and how that differs from what "critics" will call a great movie (or, more accurately, what a consensus of critics will love and what will therefore get Oscar attention).

Here's what I want from movies: I want them to impress me. That can happen from a story that is particularly interesting, from visuals that accomplish something beautiful or surprising, from a generally just super enjoyable film that doesn't leaver me wondering why the hell I watched it, etc. The common thread seems to be that I need to walk away thinking that the movie was WORTH IT.

And there are differing degrees of worth it. For instance, this movie was certainly worth it. It was well-made enough, and I laughed enough, and I liked the story enough. It was fine. A movie like "Julie and Julia" was maybe NOT worth it. About half of it was good enough, but the other half was lifeless and sort of pointless. That, in my mind, makes "Up In The Air" better than "Julie and Julia." "In the Loop," a movie that is almost perfect and accomplishes a lot of diverse, surprising, and actually interesting things, was MORE worth it than either of those films.

The bottom line: while it looks subjective, my system for evaluating the "worth-it-ness" of a movie is made out of a lot of definable standards. Like, did the comedic bits make me laugh? Did they fit with the rest of the story? Do the characters seem like real people? These are all things that, if a group gets together, they could hash out and arrive at a consensus. That consensus on the individual factors might give us a better idea of an actual consensus of quality of films.

Instead, what we get is a consensus made out of critics that are all basically fighting to be read. They want their opinions to be surprising or quotable or to reflect a sentiment their readers share. That's how you end up with something like "Up In The Air" being considered a masterpiece: the critics that review it all happen to agree that the movie was worth it (all of them to varying degrees), and they've picked up some talking points that they all share (George Clooney was amazing in it, the two supporting female actresses were super good, Jason Reitman is Oscar gold, etc), and an actually culturally relevant consensus gets muddled by these taste makers who hare having their taste made for them by their readership and by marketing directors of movie studios.

I know, that's a lot of assumptions and half-formed ideas, but at the very least, the average reader of my blog recognizes that the gap between "brilliant movies" and "critical darling / Oscar movies" is a big one. Even the gap between "most popular movies" and "critical darling / Oscar movies" is often pretty large. And my "taste" in movies is, I like to think, somewhat better correlated with what we might call "objectively good movies."

This post kind of got away from me. The bottom line is that my goal is to watch movies that are IMPORTANT to me (by being entertaining or affecting or beautiful or whatever), not just good enough. And "Up In The Air," like what seems like the vast majority of semi-Hollywood semi-indies, is just good enough.

"Avatar"

2010-02-09T14:51:00.000-06:00

Let's get this out of the way first: the film is serviceable. Opinions of the movie range from "it was very very good" to "it was pretty, but vacant." And both ends of that spectrum are defensible. Indefensible is the position that it's one of the best films of all time OR that it's one of the worst.

The fact is, if you strip away the crazy awesome technology behind it, the really beautiful world it portrays, and how its sort of overall insanely well-made, you're left with a James Cameron story. You're left with a Big Story told with character archetypes that flirts with social commentary and environmentalism (though "flirts with" is maybe less accurate than "almost clubs and drags back to it's cave"). In short, without the whole visual side, it's a squeaky clean machine of a movie, with no visible seams or giant flaws.

BUT then there's the visual side, which, I don't have to tell you, is beautiful and really impressive technologically.

SO the big question is, for you, as a viewer, does the visual bravado and prowess of the film outweigh the clean but boring structure? My answer is yes, enough so to make this a recommendable film, one that I will remember and want to see again in the future. But the other answer is also defensible, that movies are supposed to tell interesting stories, and this doesn't, so it's not great.

Certainly not a best picture, though.

"The Book of Eli"

2010-02-09T14:41:00.001-06:00

This movie was a lot better than I expected to be. I think the plan for this blog was a place to sort of encapsulate my thoughts on different pop culture experiences with short, critical missives. I'm going to try to refocus on that.

SO: the film. This movie is trying pretty hard to capture a sort of cultural zeitgeist. It's got a lot of the post-apocalyptic vision and dusty despair that we see a lot in movies nowadays, but it also has a sort of general uplifting conclusion that relies on the force of some fundamental humanity. It's a set-up that is pretty common in recent future-movies (I would argue since "Children of Men").

And "Eli" handles it well. It doesn't have any severe missteps, and it does have some really interesting stuff in it. It's got a twist ending that feels entirely useless and makes the whole thing seem even more superficial than it might have already been.

What I mean is this: "Children of Men" handles the "redemption of post-disaster society through common humanity" in a subtle, effective, affecting, emotionally resonant way. "Eli" wants to do this, but when all is said and done, it feels more like a tale of a bad-ass unlikely hero, the story using its premise as a crutch for this hero.

So on the whole, the thing is enjoyable, visually pretty striking (with moments better than even "The Road"), and not fundamentally flawed. But like so many movies, you can't help but feel like no matter how enjoyable the ride might have been, you've still sort of been tricked into taking a kind of pointless trip.

Mike Judge - "Extract"

2009-12-01T13:42:00.000-06:00

Seems positively lazy compared with "Office Space" and "Idiocracy." Both of those movies had very specific things to say about the tone of the modern world, one by creating a fictional office that was barely an exageration of a real office, and the other creating an exaggerated version of our future. But both were commentaries on the modern world.

This one seems to use little observations about the modern world to eek forward a story with very little weight or consequence. It could have been a send-up of the inner workings of a factory, or of modern marriage, or pretty much anything. Instead, it seems to use little stories about each of these things to tell what amounts to a somewhat inconsequential larger story.

It also had a lot less laugh-out-loud moments. And most of those were the result of Jason Bateman's really great performance, not a particularly well-written screenplay. I guess I'd call the rest of the movie about average.

Ruben Fleischer - "Zombieland"

2009-11-03T16:03:00.000-06:00

There are a list of things that I could ask you if you are a fan of, and I can use your answers to my inquiries to predict with a pretty high level of certainty whether or not you will like "Zombieland."

So. Did you like "Shaun of the Dead?" Did you like "Adventureland?" Do you like the awkward romantic comedies that Michel Cera and Jesse Eisenberg tend to star in? Do you like quirky comedies?

If yes to most or all of those, then you will like "Zombieland."

Now. Did you love "Shaun of the Dead?" Did you really love "Adventureland?" Are you not at all tired of the awkward romantic comedies that Michel Cera and Jesse Eisenberg tend to star in? Do you passionately adore quirky romantic comedies?

If yes to most or all of those, then you will love "Zombieland." If, however, like me, you didn't answer yes to most of those latter ones, then "Zombieland" will be fun and really enjoyable, but it will ultimately not rise to the level of genius you want it to.

It's no "Shaun of the Dead." But at least it's trying, and that's more than I can say for most of the quirky comedies released nowadays.

Nicholas Gurewitch - "The Perry Bible Fellowship Almanack"

2009-10-29T16:28:00.000-05:00

Most internet literate individuals have some experience with the Perry Bible Fellowship. It's an often surreal, very snappy, pretty dark comic that has tackled themes as diverse as death, sex, the bible, pirates, space travel, unicorns, and also more sex and death.

I think the fact that I had to mention sex and death twice is a big key to why this comic is so great. The creator has said he gets most of his inspiration from the things that he doesn't understand. His most dark and thematically complex strips are all about sex and death, and they anchor this strange book in something lasting and impactful.

But Gurewitch also has a knack for genre parodies, absurd humor, and very, very clever gags. He puns like a master, he constructs elaborate backgrounds and text, and he jumps effortlessly between genres. All while maintaining the dark undercurrent.

It's a formidably entertaining book, and it merits multiple re-reads. I just re-read the whole thing this weekend, and despite seeing the whole run online, some new details emerged to remind me why this webcomic is one of the best and most wildly inventive in the crew of often mediocre web content out there.

Spike Jonze - "Where the Wild Things Are"

2009-10-29T11:40:00.000-05:00

There are a lot of ways to jump into discussing this film. It's clearly a cinematographic beauty, doing everything it does in the most beautiful way possible. It's got a great emotional core story, crafted by Jonze and Dave Eggers. But let's start with perceptions of the movie's target audience.

Too much is being made of this movie's supposedly not-for-kids nature. I guess that could be a legitimate way of approaching an adaptation of an obviously for-children book, but it, to me, betrays a total misunderstanding of what "for children" means, and it also does the movie a pretty huge disservice.

The main reason why the movie doesn't feel like a kids' movie is that a kid is too involved in actually being a kid to get just how well this movie portrays being a kid. It essentially tricks a viewer that sees themselves as pretty sophisticated into having a gut, visceral reaction. And that gut reaction is, wow, this movie is deeply unsettling.

And not unsettling in a horror sense. This movie reminds us how uncomfortable childhood actually was. Everything was a danger, but we rushed headlong into it nonetheless. We didn't get the world around us, but the world around us kept treating us like we did, so we had no chance to shout "what the hell is going on? Why are people behaving like this? Is this normal?"

That's what I felt like yelling at this movie, but not in an angry or bewildered sense, but in an unendingly engaged sense. These questions permeate the movie and make its meditations on family and relationships seem not just an important aspect, but the only thing that saves us, the viewers (and us, the lost confused children) from losing all sense of direction within the movie (and the world). It's a bold film-making choice, and I think it pays off beautifully.

The movie isn't an unqualified success. It has some minor pacing issues and the ups and downs sometimes feel more rote than affecting. But it does try to do things film doesn't often strive to do. And being an utterly challenging movie done very well is better than being a simple movie done brilliantly. Or at least in this case that's true.

Community - The season so far

2009-10-29T11:29:00.000-05:00

"Community" is a new show that is airing in NBC's really solid Thursday night block as of now. It's focused on a group of community college students who sort of start a Spanish study group, but of course the show is more concerned with their antics than their study group.

Some highlights. I like Chevy Chase in this show. A ton. He plays Pierce, a middle-aged man who is essentially stuck in adolescence. His character's dialogue is riddled with subtle racism, juvenile jokes, and self-aggrandizing semi-truths. The character is, to me, an instant classic.

Also great is Joel McHale, of course. He made his name on "The Soup," cracking wise unrepentantly about the week's television. And if you imagine the kind of pompous, insecure man it would take to adopt that kind of posture, that's essentially who Jeff Winger, McHale's character, is on this show.

The cast is all great, but those two stand out. In fact, the characters are all really great, and they are getting more and more well-defined as the show goes on.

The minuses are few and far between, and they are mostly the fault of the show trying too hard to be funny and not the show's laziness. For instance, a running gag-type that the show loves is the self-aware commentary about how this television show is depicting people who don't realize they are on television but will often comment about how their lives are like a television show. It's a great type of gag, but it can get a little grating week after week.

Like I said, though, this is an example of the show leaning too hard on an actually difficult to pull off joke, not the show being too lazy. It's surprisingly ambitious for such a deceptively simple show.

The long and the short of it is that I want to get in writing how good this show is. It's often upstaging the formerly-brilliant "30 Rock," and that is a hard thing to do, despite the fact that "30 Rock" has been slightly slipping in quality for a while. I declare, here and now, that "Community" deserves to be this year's quirky critical darling, possibly award show underdog victor, and certainly best new show.

The Mountain Goats - "The Life of the World to Come"

2009-09-24T14:27:00.000-05:00

The Mountain Goats' latest album is coming out really soon. The tracks are all named for bible verses, and I've listened to the whole album probably twice thru. Next step is to see what the bible verses actually say, but I might just wait for WIkipedia to do that work for me.

Anyways, the album itself is actually pretty good. At first it seems only middling, maybe a slight weak effort for the band. But on thinking back to it and listening to it a second time, the emotional core of a lot of these songs started to come thru. The main problem is that the fact that the songs don't have actual names related to their content makes it hard to glance at a tracklist and write up a review. I can't recommend favorite songs, because I don't recall the names of any of them.

What I can say is that the next time thru for this record, I will take notes, and do a more full review. For now, I will just note that the first half seems a little splatty and unfocused, but the second half has a lot more meaty, interesting content. There's one song that's about animals going extinct and the feeling of knowing you are all alone, the last in a dying legacy. It's just achingly beautiful and sad. I'll get the name for you first chance I get.

SO yeah. Good record.

Steven Soderbergh! - "The Informant!"

2009-09-24T14:14:00.000-05:00

Up front, I want to establish: I really liked this movie.

With that out of the way, here's why it also was really disappointing. For all its comedy and intrigue, it really is just a story well told, plain and simple. A story well told is certainly something to aim for, but the film doesn't take any risks in how it tells its story. The plot is fascinating, and the main dude in the story is just such a weird, interesting character that the film could have been brilliantly good.

Instead, it seems to opt for very good. In a lot of ways, it fits in with all of the "Oscar Movies" from last year. It tells its story competently, but it's mostly just well written and well directed, not fantastically crafted. Also like those movies, it features a really totally brilliant performance at its center. Matt Damon handles this role so well it's just a joy to watch. His performance is better than the movie that surrounds it by a very long stretch.

SO, back to my original sentiments: it's a really good movie, and I do recommend it. But if you want something that is convoluted and fascinating in its portrayal of the politics of a world that most people don't see but is still uproariously funny, this movie doesn't come anywhere close to touching this summer's "In The Loop." See that first, and maybe a second time, before you see this.

Quentin Tarantino - "Inglourious Basterds"

2009-09-24T13:56:00.000-05:00

I'll start with clearing the air and making my approach and preconceptions entirely transparent. I'm not exactly a Tarantino fan. He's made some movies that I have enjoyed a lot (the Kill Bill movies, for instance), and he's made some that I haven't seen (for instance, I've only seen "Pulp Fiction" in pieces). But I'm familiar with his reputation and repertoire, and I've seen at least pieces of the majority of his collection.

It's unfortunate that a review of this film has to start this way. But just as Miyazaki has his boatload of douche bag fans, so does Tarantino. They think he's a genius, a man of vision, uncompromising. And he isn't, really. He's just a guy that knows what he wants to watch and then makes a movie that he would want to watch. Any genius that he has is the result of this process, which will hopefully eventually lead to a fully realized, coherent, even philosophically interesting movie.

That's my Tarantino position. And with that in mind, I'm happy to report that this film is Tarantino's first fully realized, coherent, and even philosophically interesting movie. It's accessible, but it also plays with some really fascinating ideas. It tones back the stylized violence to make it so much more impactful when it actually happens. It moves briskly, and the long Tarantino-esque conversation sequences are so tense that they have more suspense in them than most gunfights or horror sequences.

If the film has a weakness, it's that Tarantino's mad genius might actually be an accident. The schizophrenic but ultimately cohesive story and ideas might actually just be schizophrenic filmmaking, luckily with enough of a vision underlying that it ends up feeling quite cohesive.

But Tarantino's intentions don't matter. He may not have intended to make a commentary on the role of cinema in our understanding of history and violence. He may not have meant to craft a subtle meditation on retribution and what it does to the psyche. He may not have meant to turn the whole of WWII filmmaking on its side and see what still holds after a violent shaking.

But he did. And the result is just brilliant.

Kanye West - "808s and Heartbreak" AGAIN

2009-09-17T13:10:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to write briefly to remind everyone that this album exists. We all know, and keep getting more proof, that Kanye West is an ass. He's just a cocky, self-important, tactless ass. But he's also usually right in his little rants. Beyonce's video, for instance, in this whole VMA-Taylor Swift fiasco, is certainly better. But he is still an ass.

The most interesting thing is that while all of this is happening, Kanye West is creating really brilliant music. I guess I just thought it was appropriate to think back to this record in particular, to realize that he did something absolutely insane and unprecedented on this record, and it actually works. Most rappers experiment with new producers and new beats and new themes in their raps, but this album did all of that stuff AND had NO RAPPING, and it still sold like crazy.

And it's also a really great record. On re-listening, I'm starting to realize that the weakest stuff on "808s" is still stronger than the weak stuff from any of his other albums. The songs are coherent and have actual reasons for existing. They aren't just celebrations of how awesome Kanye West is; they are explorations of interesting ideas and stories.

So yeah, this might be Kanye's best record.

Anders Nilsen - "Monologues for Calculating the Density of Black Holes"

2009-09-10T13:18:00.000-05:00

I don't really know how to talk about this book. From a sort of evolution of graphic storytelling standpoint, this is probably a more glossed up version of the post-modern, self-aware comix of the 90s. It's not as self-loathing or dirty as some of the heavier underground stuff, but it certainly has the sketchy, scribbled looseness of those wildly experimental works.

The book probably has a plot. From what I could get out of the book, it's about identity, and how that relates to family, memory, and maybe even a little bit of seeing this identity stuff through the long-life (possibly immortal) lens of god and satan and the everlasting soul.

But the story is a little too convoluted to matter to the structure of the book. It looks at first like it's going to be a series of disconnected vignettes on spiritual themes and identity meditations, but these vignettes start to bleed together, and we start to sort of see the author's meta-commentary in the book.

One particularly telling scene: the author and another guy (I haven't thought a ton about this, but they might each represent different pieces of the author, or one might be a sort of proxy for the author within the world of the story... I've only read it twice, and I'll need more time) are standing around chatting about the book. The author responds to some complaints about the work, and then his companion says something like "don't worry, this will all tie together in the end. It will make sense." And the author says "no, it won't. This is just incoherent nonsense."

It's a fun little scene, but it doesn't have the absurd tragic comedy that runs through some of the book. It feels a little tacked on, like the author decided he needed to justify his work in some way. As much as it absolved the book from having to hang together perfectly well and make sense, it also feels a little like a cop-out, like the author knows the story is maybe a little too obtuse, so he's making excuses.

But that doesn't matter when you reach the end. The more disconnected humorous gags and bits have fully given way to the main story about a man searching for himself, an embodied soul being released from its mortal prison, the trappings that make up the extra bits orbiting our real identities slowly burying us...

The whole thing really is a little too obtuse and disjointed to be called an unqualified masterpiece, but it certainly has some genius sequences and offers a lot to think about. I'd say it's one of the more engaging and interesting comix works I've had the pleasure to read.

Bryan Singer - "X2", Brett Ratner - "X-Men: The Last Stand"

2009-09-10T01:41:00.000-05:00

First things first. The X-Men movie series is actually pretty good. The second one is really good, and the third, while it has its weaknesses, is still pretty enjoyable. Overall, it took me some time to realize that the X-Men movie series might be one of the more reliable ones. Batman has its "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin," Superman has its share of crap, the Hulk has that Ang Lee crap-pile, there's "Spiderman 3," and of course you've got your "Catwoman," "Elektra," and even the forgettable "Dare Devil."

I will reiterate, these films are at their strongest when the Professor and Magneto get to play their ideological games with each other. Filming will likely begin on the Magneto origins movie pretty soon, and I know I can't wait for that. But if Iron Man 2 can live up to the first film, it's a competitor for "best superhero series." All I know is I enjoyed these movies.

Bryan Singer - "X-Men"

2009-09-02T23:21:00.000-05:00

Here's the thing. All of the stuff about Xavier and Magneto's differing philosophies on humanity, and how that ties to Magneto's experiences in Auschwitz and Xavier's past... all that stuff is so fascinating and interesting, but so glazed over in this film. I would pay, like, double what I paid to see this the first time to see a movie about that. In fact, the "Magneto Origins" movie was originally going to be what the producers calld a cross between "The Pianist" and an X-Men film. Which sounds smart, philosophically interesting, and possibly breathtakingly beautiful.

But I digress. This film isn't that. It feels like a part one, not a self-contained movie. It has some great action, and some unnecessary action (the kind that distracts from things that would make it a better, more coherent story).

I'm rewatching "Iron Man" right now, and that is a movie that gets nearly all of it right by trimming the fat of unnecessary emotional and story stuff, sticking to straight awesomeness. This movie could have benefited from not trying to straddle the canyon between those things.

(Interestingly, I think "Shaun of the Dead" is the only movie that actually successfully straddles the canyon between emotionally honest, brilliant storytelling and fun action and comedy. Good stuff.)

Hiyao Miyazaki - "Ponyo"

2009-09-02T23:10:00.001-05:00

Please please save us all the tedium and hold back from saying that you love this guy's films. There are three kinds of people: Miyazaki fans, people who haven't seen his work, and douchebags. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of Miyazaki fans who are also douchebags. Don't be one. Don't tell me that you are waiting to get the Japanese language version of this film on DVD. Don't tell me that "Nausicaa" is his best film. Please please don't tell me he's like your fav if you've only seen "Spirited Away."

Now. If you haven't seen "My Neighbor Totoro," go do that first. If you have, then go on to "Kiki's Delivery Service." Done? Ok. Now you are ready to read this review.

"Ponyo" is a kids' movie in the same vein as "Kiki" and "Totoro," and it's better looking than either of those, but it's not nearly as well-built and well-written as either of those, really. I'd say it's among Miyazaki's more childish work, it's probably in the top half quality wise, and it's certainly more fun and better looking than "Howl's Moving Castle." Feel free to love love love it, feel free to say it's your favorite, but also be prepared to be boring and not right.

Did all of that sound angry? I am really sorry. I didn't mean for that to be the case. It's just that everybody basically either gushes about this guy or slams him for being "too western / Disneyfied." Can't we all just have reasonable, thought-out opinions about things, and not just be stereotypes?

P.S. Miyazaki is a genius OMG love love love.

Nora Ephron - "Julie and Julia"

2009-08-25T13:28:00.000-05:00

It's another in a long list of harmless, heart-warming stories that don't do anything really impressive but have some great elements. "Julie and Julia" would be, if I did number scores, an average movie, maybe a 3 of 5 stars movie, fitting in with the bulk of films that don't make any huge mistakes but don't do anything brilliant.

In fact, that may be kind of an accurate description of those ever-present "Oscar movies" that get awards every year.

Anyway, the things that the movie does right include Meryl Streep's fantastic performance, Jane Lynch's almost-scene-stealing supporting role, and Amy Adams (though actually, her performance is less impressive than her performance in "Doubt" last year). It's an OK movie, one that is easy to enjoy, with no major flaws. A fun way to spend an evening, but possibly not a movie that makes a lasting impression.

Neill Blomkamp - "District 9"

2009-08-25T13:06:00.000-05:00

I will say up front, because it is important to acknowledge the subjective influences and biases in any attempt to objectively assess the quality of a movie, that I am a sucker for good science fiction. The movie "Equilibrium" is not a very good movie, but it is a decent imagining of a speculative future, and that's often good enough to keep me entertained.

So let's start with this: even if "District 9" has any major problems (which it may or may not have), it's still a really fascinating science fiction world. If you like those types of things, this is a good example of that, so go for it.

But for a movie that is as well-made as "District 9," it'd be unfair to stop there. A lot is being made of this film's apartheid themes, which is certainly a part of the film. But it's not its reason for existing. I'd think of the parallels between South African racism and the aliens' treatment to be overtones or atmosphere, not political statement or allegory. If the philosophy of the movie feels at all partially formed or incomplete, it's because either the audience or the film creates an expectation of high allegory that is unfair for the film.

In reality, the allegory is only one tool in a mixed bag of tools that Blomkamp uses to build his entirely believable world in a very short amount of time. When all is said and done, the story, action, and tropes of "District 9" all have their roots in very conventional filmmaking (some more than others). What makes the film so impressive is how artfully it throws you into a fully formed world.

For instance, the flashes of news footage and interviews with experts and people close to the story are a very clear infodump, but it isn't an awkward infodump. The aliens are strange looking (and slightly cgi'd looking), but we easily accept their world, partially because it isn't that different from the world we've been shown already exists in African slums. The story propels forward, and the details of the alien biology, alien technology, governmental structure, and human-alien interactions make the whole world bigger, more intricate, and a lot more real.

So the upshot of all of this is that, even when "Disctrict 9" feels slightly conventional, you have to recall that there is nothing conventional about the world in which the straightforward action sequences are happening. If you don't take the elaborate, carefully built setting of "District 9" for granted, it continues to impress throughout.

Sam Raimi - "The Evil Dead"

2009-07-27T03:11:00.000-05:00

The most impressive thing about this film is how cheaply it was made. It's filled with horror cliches, but it does them so well, it's astonishing. Some of the gore looks really dated, but most of the horror tension is drawn so fantastically that the movie stays really engrossing throughout. I really am impressed that such a cheap, slapped-together movie is so effective. And I guess the rest of the series is even better. I can see why Sam Raimi has a reputation for being a really impressive auteur, because this was his first film, a student film, and it's cohesive and engrossing.

There are, of course, flaws all over this film, but most of them can be attributed to the small budget. I was pretty impressed by this one, but I can't wait to see some more of Raimi's non-"Spiderman" work.

Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal - "The Hurt Locker"

2009-07-27T03:01:00.000-05:00

"The Hurt Locker" is a really effective movie with believably complex characters in interesting situations. It says some interesting things about the effects of war without being overly political or simplifying any issues. The characters are well-drawn. The screenplay, then, is pretty well done, with no giant, obvious flaws glaring out to undermine its effectiveness. What really shines in this movie is the direction. It's tense pretty much every moment. The film is basically one tense, nerve-wracking countdown after another, with each successive explosion having a larger magnitude and each successive countdown having more tension. The film is basically all ramping up until its conclusion. And the conclusion, despite the possibility of it feeling tacked on, feels pretty natural and organic with the development of the rest of the film.

So the flaws in the film are few, but like most movies I see, the major flaw is that it may not stick in my mind for very long. It's probably one of the most intelligently constructed action movies I have seen, and its action is consistently impressive. So it breaks from the pack of action movies, but I don't know if it breaks from that pack enough to be called brilliant or important. Idunno. It's certainly one of the better films I've seen this year.

Three first time filmmakers - "500 Days of Summer"

2009-07-27T00:37:00.000-05:00

It should be easy to review "500 Days of Summer." It's uncomplicated, unpretentious, and easy to like. A cursory review would hit on its similarities to "Garden State," or "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist," or any other simple romantic comedy with indie sensibilities. It's also worth mentioning its clever treatment of shifting time, its eye for color, its humor, and its well-acted leads (and supporting cast). You could even talk about its soundtrack, or its clever editing. In short, a review of this movie could begin and end with how easily, uncomplicatedly good it is.

But that's not how I roll. The movie got me thinking about what movies actually are supposed to aim for. Are movies just a way of distracting people? Of entertaining them? Are great movies the ones that make us think of something new, the ones that do something movies haven't done before?

The fact is, "500 Days of Summer" is good. No question. But it might also be useless.

Take the ideas that it's developing. It's got some good stuff in there about the nature of love, the ways people grow close to each other, and the weird workings of romance in the modern era. But it also bookends the whole story with some half-baked exposition that makes the movie feel like it's actually about the existence of fate. And that's pretty much not what the movie is about. That makes these bookends feel kind of disconnected and needless.

It also has some smaller flaws in cliched imagery, stupid jokes, and some very minor pacing hiccups. I also think the ending doesn't hold together as well as it should; the capper on the relationship between the two and how each has developed feels a little short-changed and under-developed. Plus, it has a narrator, who's job seems to be to yank the viewer out of the flow of the film every time he chimes in.

But even if you get past all of that, even if you just take the movie at face value, the things it's actually saying are not really new, and not really supremely well-said. The film does a lot of things that have already been done, about as well as the best of them.

So is that enough? Does the fact that it does what it does very well (most of the time) make it a good movie? I think so. But it doesn't make it an important or memorable film. It might become a stepping stone for more important films, but by itself, it's pretty forgettable.

So I guess where I land on this movie is that I would recommend it to anyone that likes watching movies and has ten bucks to spend. But if you like to be impressed by the movies you see (or even deeply moved), you should probably look elsewhere.

Sarah SIlverman - "Jesus is Magic"

2009-07-20T03:43:00.001-05:00

I couldn't get even halfway thru this. The opening sketch is clever, so I sat thru it, hoping it would improve from there. Then the musical number is clever but mostly not funny. And then the stage portion starts, and you realize that she only has one style of joke, and you can see the big subversion coming minutes before it happens. And when you can predict how something is going to be subversive, it doesn't feel subversive. It feels dull.

So it was dull. Then I turned it off. Sorry. Next time this happens I will try to commit, in the interest of giving a fully informed opinion. But if I'm gonna try harder, I need my movies to try harder.

Sacha Baron Cohen - "Bruno"

2009-07-20T03:33:00.000-05:00

I am surrounded by people that said this movie was not good. That it was terrible. And that makes no sense to me. It's very funny, the plot is simplistic but at least coherent, the acting is all decent, and it doesn't commit any major movie sins. What makes this so hard is that I know most of the people around me who say it was terrible are ONLY saying that because they were uncomfortable with the nudity and sex in the movie.

And some of them try to pretend that they have a more sophisticated reason for not liking the movie. They claim stuff like the sex distracted from the plot, it made it unbelievable, etcetera. But seriously, they can't back these claims up at all. What it actually boils down to is that they just have a problem with the sex and nudity.

And that is fine. You are allowed to dislike a movie for whatever reason you want to. Just don't expect to be taken seriously unless you can back it up. I guess "I'm a prude" is a good enough reason. But I guess the bottom line is, I can tell these people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, not just sexuality, but they will never admit it. I don't know how to respond to that.

The bottom line is, "Bruno" is a pretty good movie. It's funny, it stays funny the whole time, and I have no major complaints about most of it. It just wasn't as unified and interesting as "Borat." It's just fun. Not great, but fun. And that's a much worse crime than having "too much sex" in it.

Yeah, this one is going to come across as a rant. But seriously, the movie is sort of about peoples' unacknowledged homophobia, and that just makes it extra irksome when a friend tells me they didn't like it and I can tell it's because they are actually uncomfortable with homosexuality. GROW UP, SOCIETY.

Alexi Murdoch - "Towards the Sun"

2009-07-17T16:00:00.000-05:00

I do love Alexi Murdoch. His music is a more ornamented, more crisp Nick Drake, with some actually psychadelic influenced wall of sound stuff. This album, from the one listen I have given it so far, is much more folk than experimental. These songs have the sort of up and down of his previous work, but not that hypnotic drive. I don't know, though, I will listen again and see where it leaves me. It's still like only a demo, only half of the tracks that eventually will become an album. So yeah, I will keep you posted, readers.

Sam Mendes directing - "Away We Go"

2009-07-16T22:34:00.001-05:00

The pedigree for this film is really strong. Sam Mendes has won Oscars, since he was responsible for "Revolutionary Road," "Jarhead," "American Beauty," and other stuff. It was written by (let's just face it) brilliant author Dave Eggers and his wife Vendela Vida. I expected some really good things, but I was also pretty worried about the fact that this film looked very neatly crammed into an indie nook carved out by "Me and You and Everyone We Know" or "Juno." I worried it wouldn't have what it needed to carry the aesthetic through to something impressive.

The film easily succeeds. The hipster aesthetic isn't really present in the film's style at all. The music is all acoustic and melancholy, with driving insistence or wandering restlesness where appropriate. One of my favorite musicians, Nick Drake, is responsible for the without-exception-brilliant soundtrack.

But even moreso, Sam Mendes doesn't give in to the temptation to borrow from the Wes Anderson school of directing or set-making. His sets feel like real places, not elaborate, multicolored theater backdrops. His takes are not distractingly assembled, so they don't draw viewers out of the film (think a compromise between Anderson's self-aware long takes and pans and the current trend in hip-hop-video quick cuts). His direction is fantastic. The flaw might be pacing. He spends a tiny bit too much time in dumb joke scenes that would be at home in "Eastbound and Down." But that's a small drawback.

The movie opens with a very suggestive (maybe graphic? descriptive?) moment, but it's the most risky thing in the whole screenplay. The bulk of the writing is slightly wistful. Everyone our heroes run into seem to be archetypes or caricatures, but that is ok, because it gives the movie a lot of extra time to really draw us into the story we came for. The climax isn't the peak we might want it to be, but the ending is spot on perfect, so I think that can be forgiven.

The whole affair is just really efficient and fun, with no major errors or twists, nothing too surprising. It's not super groundbreaking, but it does do what it does very well. Recommended, is what I am saying.

Echo and the Bunnymen - "Ocean Rain"

2009-07-16T22:28:00.000-05:00

I don't recall whether my interest in this group started from Coldplay citing them as a favorite or from the track that was used in "Donnie Darko." It's likely it was the Coldplay thing, since I think I was into Coldplay before I was into "Donnie Darko."

Anyways. This album is brilliant. It's classic post-punk, but with some really interesting orchestral flourishing throughout. The songs are mostly obtuse and absurd, but they are catchy as hell. It's hard to say what some of them are about, but the record seems dismal and sunny by turns. The sonic ideas of the record are uniform, but the songs have a lot of range and defining moments in each.

It's just a great record. And it's more accessible, I think, than some of their earlier work, which was a lot more guitar-based and one-dimensional.

Brad Bird - "The Iron Giant"

2009-07-16T22:22:00.001-05:00

This movie is fantastic. There's no mistaking it. It's got so many interesting elements that all gel into an emotionally engaging whole.

The film pretty masterfully mocks cold war paranoia in such a way that we can't help but see a little of our own constant fear in the frantic way these characters are behaving. But on top of that, the movie is telling a story about a robot that seems destined only for destroying those around him but wants to aim for something bigger, more important. It's also the story of a kid finding a friend and learning a little about what it means to have responsibilities and commitments.

Anyways, overall, it's just a fantastically fun and emotionally rewarding experience. I had a friend complain that it lacked "plot" at times, that it was mostly quiet. It's true, it spends a lot of time being quiet. But it also has some great over-the-top kids movie style action. If I had to complain, it would be that it feels slightly loose during the more kiddie sequences, but it pays off big in the end, and it always leaves me in tears.

Also, it kind of goes without saying that this is a visually striking, carefully composed film. Here's a beautiful scene:

Jamie Uys - "The Gods Must Be Crazy"

2009-07-16T22:17:00.000-05:00

People love this movie. It's become somewhat of a cultural touchstone. I think that's strange. It's kind of a loose, Benny Hill style slapstick romp. There are a lot of sped-up, fast motion sections. In general, the film doesn't evoke reality nearly as well as it should to resonate as a satire of modernity.

The sections of the African villagers are really fun to watch and have some really insightful things to say. But really, the entire romantic subplot between the journalist-turned-teacher and the clumsy botanist feels like a distraction from what the movie does best. Or even what it intends to do. If the movie could stick to mocking the absurdity of modern life, it could be a masterpiece. As it stands, it's a goofy slapstick fest that doesn't hold together like it should.

Dream Theater - "Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence"

2009-06-30T23:03:00.000-05:00

This giant album was one of the first prog experiences I had. It's progressive music mixed with easy rock and pop, for something very accessible that still tries very hard to be intelligent and interesting. The first disc is a collection of unrelated songs (though still thematically tied together). The second disc is an exploration of mental illness as an alienating force. It's complicated but still offers itself pretty easily upon a few listens. I'd recommend it as a starting point for those that want to try out Dream Theater, want a taste of their modern stuff, and are scared by really out there prog or metal.

Grizzly Bear - "Veckatimest"

2009-06-30T22:55:00.000-05:00

So this is an album that I can't really get into detail about yet. But the whole thing is so carefully constructed. It's like a symphony that pulls from a lot of different modern musical motifs and sounds. It's a pop symphony. I want to get into more detail, but I need more time. All I know is that it's pretty brilliant.

Terry Gilliam - "12 Monkeys"

2009-06-30T22:10:00.000-05:00

It's interesting that it took me so long to see this. It's a touch point for a lot of modern sci fi viewers. The most interesting thing about it is the way it takes on the apocalyptic vision storyline so common in some sci fi stories, turning it into a meditation on destiny, symbols, mythology, allegory, and psychology.

The central psychological idea of the movie is that visions of the future with no ability to change them are a version of insanity. There are two characters insane in this same way. One is from the future, sent back to fix the mistakes of the past. The other is from the present, struggling against a future he knows is wrong for society. The story spins the two out of control, comparing and contrasting their visions of humanity.

It's so complicated. I could spend a lot of time talking about how carefully written this movie is, how hypnotically directed it is, how unnerving it can be at times. But I don't have a ton of time. I'll just say that basically every sci-fi film I've seen can be analyzed using the "12 Monkeys" model of apocalypse. It's pretty good stuff.

Michael Bay - "Transformers 2!!!"

2009-06-30T22:06:00.001-05:00

This thing was just the strangest thing. It was the best AND the worst. The action is great and nonstop. It has some really funny parts. But it also has the fakest, dumbest characterizations. It's hard to tell if this will become one of the action movies that sticks in my mind forever because of some of its better action sequences, or because of how disjointed and nonsensical it was on the whole.

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan - "The Day, The Night, The Dawn, The Dusk"

2009-06-08T16:39:00.000-05:00

It's a gem. It's engrossing, it's intoxicating. It's all you would expect from Ali Khan. He's considered the master of this form of music, but he's also a general master. His wild vocal improvisations are jarringly beautiful, the persistent tabla and harmonium are trance-inducing, and the rapid-fire Urdu poetry sang by him and his party is actually really catchy and fun. It's short, at only three tracks, but I would consider this the definitive, most impressive version of "Yeh Jo Halka Halka," especially if you take some time to hit the internetz and investigate some of the translations of the verses. The added depth of knowing that the escalating, speeding up repetitive sections near the end are bemoaning AND celebrating the singer's captured heart... it's pretty staggeringly beautiful and affecting.

Pixar's "Up"

2009-06-08T16:25:00.000-05:00

So at first I was afraid that "Up" would be another "Monsters Inc." I was afraid it would be just a normal, nothing-impressive buddy movie. Then a few things changed.

Most recently, I realized that calling "Up" the next "Monsters Inc." isn't dismissive, it's high praise. But see my review of the latter film elsewhere.

"Up" reaches beyond mere adventure and conjures up a deeply moving, sad and elating movie about living the life we want to live (and also how the life we want to live might not be exactly the same as the life we sought out to live). On top of that, it's clever, it's got some great jokes of both high- and low-brows, and it's a fantastic adventure. Plus, it's jaw-droppingly beautiful.

The film seems more glossed and rounded, animation-wise, than "Nemo" or "Wall-e" or "Ratatouille" were. It looks more like a cartoon. But that's not meant to be disparaging. It's a sublime, carefully constructed cartoon. It's got a sophisticated color palate and deliberate feel. It just has a bit more roundness than some of Pixar's more angular or gritty worlds.

It's, overall, in Tier 2 of Pixar movies, for me. Tier 1 is outright masterpieces ("Wall-e," "Finding Nemo," "Toy Story 2," and, depending on my mood, sometimes "Ratatouille" or "The Incredibles.") Tier 3 is the solid action adventures ("A Bug's Life," "Toy Story.") Tier 4 is "Cars," which was a pretty large dissapointment. But Tier 2 is films that are brilliantly constructed but have minor cracks and flaws.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and so on

2009-06-08T16:23:00.000-05:00

I reread the whole series recently. It holds up really well. Some parts still make me laugh out loud. The set ups and gags are still among the most clever ever committed to paper. It makes me miss Douglas Adams, actually, because everything he's been involved with (no exceptions) is good for at least a few go-rounds. None of it is disposable. It's all clever and inventive and fun. Welp. I don't think there is much to say, other than, you know, get on that.

Pixar's "Monster's Inc."

2009-06-08T16:15:00.001-05:00

For a while I have been using this film as an example of weaker Pixar. That was dumb. I had only seen it once, and that was years ago. This time through, I realized it actually is among the top of Pixar's stuff. It's subtle. It's actually a lot more about the kind of relationship that "Finding Nemo" is about. Sully's interactions with Boo are like a caring father. Pixar to this point had mostly done buddy comedies, of which "Monster's Inc." is a pretty good example, but a younger viewer will miss that extra dynamic of Sully as a father figure, as someone growing up.

In fact, Pixar's "Toy Story 2," the previous film, was also about kids growing up. It was about the toys committing to be cherished and loved by the kids that own them until they grew up. "Monsters Inc." has that element of realizing those that you care for and want to protect also will grow up and not need you. But it's also about recapturing that unadulterated joy of caring and being cared for.

You gotta watch this movie. The last scene is just KILLER.

Pixar's "A Bug's Life"

2009-06-08T16:08:00.000-05:00

I remember the first time I saw this I was pretty solidly blown away. But that was years and years ago. In retrospect, it's probably just a very good, very efficient movie, not a brilliant one. It definitely feels like a kids movie, which isn't necessarily the case with a lot of Pixar's work. I guess to fit it into the Pixar oeuvre, I would say it was a pretty major leap, story- and animation-wise. Both are far more sophisticated than "Toy Story." What's most impressive is that Pixar's first masterpiece, "Toy Story 2," was next, and that was leaps and bounds better than "A Bug's Life."

That's not to say that "A Bug's Life" isn't good. It is. It has a few very touching and very hilarious moments. But it doesn't have the sort of synergy and genius quality that is the hallmark of Pixar's later efforts. I'm making a point of rewatching their whole collection do get a better grasp of their trajectory as a studio. "A Bug's Life" is a solid entry that doesn't disappoint (but it only doesn't dissapoint because expectations weren't very high for the studio just yet.

"Buffy" season 6

2009-06-01T14:10:00.000-05:00

I think this is the darkest season of Buffy, but also it might have some of the show's more goofy premises in it. To me, the flaw of Buffy has been unbelievable or overly melodramatic romance. The show has a sense of fun and the free-wheeling canon-building that made, say, "Firefly" a nearly perfect show. But "Firefly," as an example, didn't ever get bogged down by its romance.

This might be because Buffy is so one-person focused that Whedon (or whoever) made a decision that no season could pass without the "main character" having an emotional romantic arc. It's not an uncommon thing, but it feels really 90's biased and conventional.

That said, Buffy's romantic arc in this season was so self-destructive that it didn't really feel conventional at all. It felt kind of new and fresh for this series. And the big bad was a giant twist, something that we knew Joss Whedon was capable of (he is notorious for extreme acts of brutality towards his supporting female cast), but it still comes from left field when it happens.

All that taken together, it might be fair to say that season 6 of Buffy is my favorite. I watched it in two shifts, one months ago and one recently, but the general feeling I get from this season is that it took Buffy to places it hasn't been before. Only one left, then maybe I will get ahold of the season 8 comic books.

Michel Gondry - "Be Kind Rewind"

2009-06-01T14:05:00.000-05:00

A criticism that seems to jump from every review I've read about this movie is that it's too whimsical. This is an odd criticism. I have used this one on movies that have dark themes or have gritty realistic intentions. It seems kind of stupid to criticize Michel Gondry for being whimsical. I think the aim of this movie, as well as his other work, is to take some interesting questions and explore them in the framework of an utterly entertaining story, backed of course by really unexpected visuals. That's exactly what this movie is.

The more legit complaint is that it doesn't hold together as miraculously as, say, "Eternal Sunshine" did. But to expect something as synergistically brilliant as that would be a little unfair. Overall, the movie is a fun, competently acted, 80's style wacky neighborhood comedy that is directed FLAWLESSLY. I don't think we could have expected much more than that.

LOST blogged

2009-05-21T01:31:00.001-05:00

Hi. If you follow this blog and also like LOST, you should check out:

Paik Industries

I am rewatching all of LOST and blogging about it. Each post has a section for those that are still not caught up to the current season, aimed at those that choose to "watch along" with me. The other section of each post provides an "overview" of the show, including all information the show has given us up to this moment in time, up to the end of season 5.

However you choose to read, you should read it. I'm having a good time doing it. It also means, as an aside, a lot fewer posts here. Sorry, but you really should get on board at Paik Industries!

Sleeping at Last - "Keep No Score"

2009-05-21T01:25:00.000-05:00

Along the same lines of using culturally ingrained and important mythology in creative ways, here is a rock / indie band that takes a lot of the language of judeo-christian mythology and remixes it into celebratory and somber anthemic pop. It's easy to dismiss the band as being "Christian rock" and therefore insipid and pointless, but that would be unfair. What makes the record so impressive is that it's found a working langauge to describe some of the joys of faith and of feeling godliness in the emotional details. The record does overstep sometimes and get too specific to have the wide appeal it deserves to be cultivating, but the majority of it is revelatory. Listen carefully and you will see that god IS love, and to think anything else is to short sell god. And love.

Yikes, this review sounded a little stupid. Let me try a different approach: Andrew W.K. makes records that I love because he harnesses hedonistic themes to sell his important message: live life fully, and wring every last bit of awesome out of it. This record harnesses the flowery language of, let's face it, modern Christian rock, but it eschews the more heavy handed and preachy aspects of it, all in the interest of reaching that same spark of a message: life is amazing, and we all deserve those amazing things.

Was that better? Or does it still sound stupid?

JJ Abrams - "Star Trek"

2009-05-21T01:22:00.000-05:00

Yeah. Yeah, it was basically nearly perfect. The action sequences really were all very crisp and easy to understand, the physics and science were internally consistent, and the emotional arcs were all well formulated. I'm a sucker for a new and creative interpretation of a culturally significant mythology (like "Wicked," for instance), and this was certainly a great example of that. The Kirk and Spock friendship angle that made "Wrath of Khan" so emotionally impactful is still one of the main undercurrents of this movie. I also want to stress that this was the least geekiest of any Star Trek movie I have seen. It's just a straight up well rounded action movie with some real pathos, though not so much as to feel heavy. RECOMMENDED, is what I am getting at.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-21T01:19:00.000-05:00

I was really OK with this movie. Like really, millitantly OK. It was pretty poorly constructed from an emotional standpoint, there were a lot of big plot holes, and some of the special effects looked really dumb. BUT, there were a lot of really amazing fight scenes and things. It's hard to get action right. A lot of action movies have their action sequences look way too busy and muddled. This is a flaw that "Wolverine" was subject to, but there were some really fun, really crisp action sequences as well. Will-i-am was terrible, also.

Like I said, it was fun, and I was really OK with it. Marvel movies are getting more and more like their comic books: an almost coherent emotional story, but with an emphasis on cool looking things and quantity over quality.

HOT FUZZ

2009-05-10T01:13:00.000-05:00

STILL AMAZING.

Seriously. No complaints. It's still basically perfect.

Tim Hill - "Muppets From Space"

2009-05-10T01:00:00.000-05:00

So if you look at my review of "Muppets Take Manhattan," you'll see that my biggest complaint was that the movie uses guest starts in the most heavy-handed, incongruous fashion. Turns out this film does an EVEN WORSE JOB. I'll get to that in a minute. I'll start by saying that this was a fun movie. I didn't hate it. It was enjoyable, and I laughed out loud a few times (Ray Liotta's cameo was perfect). The direction wasn't even that bad... if the movie had been better all-around, I would actually have found their use of old 70's funk and psychadelia really smart and interesting.

BUT it was weak plot-wise, pacing-wise, and GUEST STAR WISE. All other things taken as obvious (yeah, the flaws in pacing and plot WERE obvious, and you would see them, too if you watched it), the guest star problem was still present. It didn't happen as often as in "Manhattan," but there was one incident that pretty much killed the movie for me. Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson are standing around, and as if having the two non-titular main characters of "Dawson's Creek" standing around wasn't going to date the movie severely within years, the movie actually chose to have them say "BOY, I wish DAWSON was here!!"

Thank god director Tim Hill is still working!! (on "Max Keeble," "Garfield" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks." He's keeping busy!)

Sam Roberts - "We Were Born In A Flame"

2009-05-10T00:53:00.000-05:00

This is a really Canadian record. It refers to Canadian places and Canadian pastimes. "The Canadian Dream was as far away as it’s ever been... S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.M.is here to stay" or "Ride our bikes on into town / For some hockey cards and whatever trouble may be found" etc. I don't think it would be unfair to refer to Sam Roberts as a modern Canadian Springsteen, tackling emotional and social issues of growing up in small town um... Canada. Plus, the songs are super catchy. The album has pop sensibility, emotional resonance, and a really tight band. It's great great great.

Yes - "Fragile"

2009-05-10T00:48:00.000-05:00

God this is a perfect album. It sorta bridges the gap from Yes's earlier stuff into their truly outlandish prog-pretension period. But the album does take the opportunity to do some surprising, interesting things even while being totally approachable. It's a great prog record, but it also has some great pop and rock moments.

Something to listen for: the riff in the middle section of "Roundabout" is a great rock riff. Yes isn't really known for their rock riffs (more for their long suites and flashy instrumentation), but it would be fun to hear Yes do a straight-up rock record. Does that exist? I'd like to hear it.

John Lasseter (and a bunch of other people) - "Toy Story 2"

2009-05-10T00:40:00.000-05:00

It's fair to call this Pixar's first unqualified masterpiece. There are so few flaws in this movie that I can't really pinpoint any. There are those nitpicky details, like you could complain that the prospector's role isn't clearly defined or Woody's motivations turn too quickly to be perfectly believable in the second act. But those are dumb complaints for a movie that is best billed as an all-ages adventure movie with heart. The first "Toy Story" surprised people with a very well-animated CG movie, and "A Bug's Life" proved that Pixar could innovate and continue to draw family audiences. But "Toy Story 2" was so carefully made that it appealed to everyone, of every age.

I may sound like I'm somewhat overpraising the movie, but really, anyone can enjoy this and love this. It really is Pixar's first masterpiece.

Frank Oz - "Muppets Take Manhattan"

2009-05-04T16:32:00.000-05:00

The only complaint I have about this film is that it winks a little too hard about its guest stars. You can tell that young Brooke Shields's moment in the diner is supposed to elicit laughter of recognition and not of humor or enjoyment, because she totally phones in the role. If this had just been just any actress, the scene would have felt tacked on and useless. Fact is, nowadays Brooke Shields basically IS just any actress. The passage of time and gentle withering of these guest "stars'" fame has made these scenes go from deservedly-winked-about cameos to veritable albatrosses dragging down the film. Joan Rivers is the exception: her plasticky, manic beautician role is exactly the right role for Rivers, not just an excuse for her to be there.

And there it is: the movie is otherwise nearly perfect. It's a little simplistic, but the simplicity is what keeps it from being an overwrought disaster like, say, "Muppet Treasure Island." It's got heart, the jokes about animals interacting with people are sharp (never just the easy ones), and seeing our iconic characters doing just life things is really rewarding and fun. I LOVED IT.

The Producers of the British "Office" - "The IT Crowd," the first season

2009-04-28T01:43:00.000-05:00

A British sitcom with less heart than the office and a laugh track. So it's off to a bad start. BUT it's really well-written, with some stellar gags and some great unexpected surreality. So just imagine a show about the abused, condescending, nerdy IT department in a giant company, but written by Brits, and you've about got it. It's entertaining, time-filling, and altogether good enough. I probably won't watch it ever again.

Dreamworks - "Kung Fu Panda"

2009-04-28T01:39:00.000-05:00

Brilliant. A great, mythology-heavy kung fu movie with fast-paced, well-choreographed action sequences. A kid-friendly message movie. A comedy with Jack Black in the lead role. It's a lot of very good things. I have no complaints. I would want my children to watch and love this.

Steve Pink - "Accepted"

2009-04-28T01:32:00.000-05:00

I love this film. The critics thought, it seems, that it reached for social critique but didn't actually get to it, therefore making it nothing more than a brainless sex comedy. But what kind of sex comedy has no nudity? Since when is critiquing society not completely enough the mark of a bad comedy? Isn't it the mark of a comedy that falls slightly short, not one that is a waste of time?

I happen to think that the social commentary reaches just as far as it means to in this movie. It doesn't want to attack the whole higher education system, it wants to challenge what we think education itself (at any point) is supposed to be. I'm a huge advocate for learning all of the time from everything and everyone, even though we live in a society that says you aren't learning unless you end up with a certificate or a degree, a society that tunes you out when you read something on Wikipedia but refuses to check what you said in whatever they would consider a reputable source.

Anyways, I think "Accepted" is a neat little message presented in a funny way with easily likeable characters and an easily digestible form. It's not a challenging film, but it is the only one of its kind: a film that harnesses comedy conventions to question education conventions. Its questions aren't even especially deep-rooted or difficult ones, but they are nagging and important ones.

So. Upshot. Is this a guilty pleasure? Or just a pleasure? Am I deluding myself, or are my points valid ones? Also, does anyone care?

Greg Mottola - "Adventureland"

2009-04-28T01:22:00.001-05:00

One of the best movies I have seen this year. BUT still disappointing. A few cracks in the foundation of the movie revealed themselves while I was watching it, but the emotional arc of our protagonist pays off when all is said and done. It's not anything innovative (MILD SPOILERS), in that our dude learns the value of just going for his dreams, maybe? He learns that life isn't thinking hard to get people to appreciate his genius, but just enjoying life? It's not really entirely nailed down.

What is nailed down is our love interest's arc. Which is odd, because if you look at the structure of the film, the bulk of the movie is centered on the guy, but some (to me dramatic) shifts in focus to the girl's point of view turn her into sort of a secondary main character. The effect is a slightly disorienting one, in that our B-story character's emotional journey is more well-developed and realistic than our A-story character.

SO I guess I just have to think a little more about the male protagonist's development and on the themes his story is trying to represent. BUT that sucks, because Mottola's "Superbad" was more carefully crafted than this movie, and while repeated viewings do reveal new things about the relationship that film describes, they aren't necessary to figure out what ideas the film is trying to focus on (the tension between childhood and adolescence, how gross and giant bodies feel to teenagers, the people that we are forced to leave behind in our lives, the confidence we must develop that these left-behind friends still care, how this transitionary period in teenage bodies and teenage social interactions represents so many tiny little shifts that amount to what feels like a whole new world, etc...). "Superbad" was a readily accessible, easily appreciated, carefully made film. "Adventureland" is clearly very good, but its seams are visible throughout.

Joss Whedon - "Serenity"

2009-04-28T01:17:00.001-05:00

"Firefly" was a really great series that felt like it was destined for really amazing things. I don't really mind that it was only one season, since it was a rip-roaring, almost perfect season. But there was definitely more of a story to be told. So here comes "Serenity," a film that is as nearly-devoid of flaws as the television show. It's fast paced, clever, has some real themes, and develops them carefully and fully.

Flaws: I'm not sure. I'm a fanboy to a certain extent, so it's hard for me to see them. The character arcs relied really heavily on knowing the backstories from the show, so Shepard Book, for example, doesn't feel like a full, fulfilling arc. But as, say, a season finale movie or something, the movie IS perfect. Does that mean that its flaw is being too TV-like? Not sure. I guess I would say that if you look at "Serenity" as the big series finale of "Firefly," then it really is nearly flawless.

Woody Allen's "Sleeper"

2009-04-28T01:11:00.000-05:00

I am kind of surprised that it took me this long to watch this movie. I am a big sci-fi fan and a big Woody Allen fan. So this was kind of set up to be one of my favs. It kind of is, but only kind of. The gags are strong, the physical comedy is really funny, and the nervous Allen character is as hilarious as usual. BUT the movie stops there, not revealing anything deep or probing about it's characters or society. It's at its best when it's channeling Chaplin-esque silent film-like antics, and at its weakest when it gets talky and dwells in semi-dated gag territory.

So overall, it's one of the stronger sci-fi comedies I have seen, and it's even one of the top Woody Allen films I've seen. But it's more in the category of "Bananas" or "Scoop" than in the category of "Manhattan." It's too loopy to be genius, but it gets really close.

The Format - "Dog Problems"

2009-04-28T01:07:00.000-05:00

I was pretttty much floored by this record. I haven't listened to it in so so long, but today I turned it on and couldn't turn it off. While the last album I wrote about (Mars Volta) was all about breaking apart song structure and playing with the very idea of "songs," the Format are doing the same thing in a quieter, more subtle way. The album mostly is "songs," but each of the songs is more like a collection of songlets pulled together to form a more interesting, more involving song. Think of it as a direct follow-up to Brian Wilson's similar experiments in pop songs. But in addition to being an experiment in pop song structure, it's also an amazing collection of brilliantly written, catchy, nuanced, crisply produced pop masterpieces. I LOVE IT, is what I am getting at.

Mars Volta - "Amputechture"

2009-04-28T01:02:00.000-05:00

This is a crazy album, but that isn't too surprising, considering it's the Mars Volta. I hadn't listened to this much before last week, and then I listened to it twice. I'll say this: the Mars Volta is one of the only bands progressing not only through the musicianship and song construction that they use, but in the structure of their albums. It's barely accurate to claim that the album is made up of "songs." The suites are actually pretty well-paced and diverse.

It's nice to be able to talk about the pacing of a record. Most records are entirely unconcerned with "pacing," since they follow pretty closely the old convention of making albums as a collection of little "songs." If there are "pop" moments on the record, and I think there are, then they are not artificial or constructed, but the result of the meandering and driving song structure the band has chosen for themselves. It's innovative while still being realllllly enjoyable.

The Mountain Goats and John Vanderslice - "Moon Colony Bloodbath"

2009-04-22T02:09:00.001-05:00

I have no idea what this is about. It has all the best elements sonically from both artists. It has the brilliant lyrics of the Mountain Goats and the pop sensibility of John Vanderslice. But also, it's a concept album. I think it's about organ harvesting and the moon? It's definitely science fiction, but a few more listens will be necessary before I can entirely get my brain around it.

Iron and Wine - "Our Endless Numbered Days"

2009-04-22T02:02:00.000-05:00

I love this album. This is a five-star acoustic Americana record. It's a perfect example of the variety of forms a good acoustic guitar led song can take and still be engaging at every turn. Bluesy and folky. Light and dark in turns. I don't want to oversell it, since I think this is one of the finest records of the past 10 years. You should just try it.

If I had to cite one shortcoming, it'd be the lack of unity or arc. But that's such a minor complaint. The record has themes, but to be an actual perfect record, it'd need a little more focus. Otherwise, it's an almost perfect collection of songs.

More Thoughts on "How I Met Your Mother"

2009-04-22T01:58:00.000-05:00

- The laugh track is bearable. It's dumb, but it's bearable. This is one of those shows where you're laughing enough with it that you don't notice the laugh track after a while.

- Each episode is cleverly constructed, and the editing is getting more and more confident and effective as the show goes on.

- So as great as the show is, it needs to start doing some mythology development. It's called "How I Met Your Mother," and we're gonna need some "Mother" story soon! Where is that yellow umbrella?

Jody Hill - "Observe and Report"

2009-04-22T01:54:00.000-05:00

This is getting all sorts of praise as like the comedic remake of "Taxi Driver" or as a really really dark comedy. It's dark, sure, but mostly because of what it's willing to show, not because of its themes and ideas. It's a farce. As things go on in this movie, it becomes less of a nuanced portrait of a crazy, delusional security guard, and more of a ridiculous affair with no grounding by the end. SPOILER ALERT. Our hero was fired from his job for being crazy and violent, but he is given his job back when he, get this, shoots a streaker in the back with a gun he probably isn't supposed to have. The movie is loose and disconnected from reality, which makes its conceits of darkness and complexity intolerable. It's good for a few great laughs, but no more than that. THE END.

Against Me! - "New Wave"

2009-04-07T02:54:00.000-05:00

I think of punk deteriorating in two different directions: one is in the direction of "punk attitude" and the other is in the direction of "punk sound," with "punk sound" then diverging into like lo-fi guitar rock or pop-punk stuff. So... Against Me! is definitely a "punk attitude" channel group, but also their sound comes via the pop-punk avenue, with more of a lean towards pop. So it's like pop-punk style post-punk. Whatever it is, it's catchy and absorbing. Get into it.

Stephen Schwartz - "Wicked"

2009-04-07T02:41:00.000-05:00

Some great music. A fascinating story. I have never actually seen the musical, but this is probably a decent indicator of how interesting the musical would be. One complaint, I was looking for a track that is missing from the soundtrack but present in the show, and the only version I could find was a live recording. People are laughing at dumb things in that recording. It's not a particularly funny show. Also, there are frequent references to the original "Wizard of Oz" movie, and each time this happens, the audience laughs. So I imagine I would start getting frustrated pretty quickly at a live Wicked performance. Whatevs. It's a good record.

The Mountain Goats - A Bunch of Stuff

2009-04-05T22:44:00.001-05:00

I keep listening to this band. Their music doesn't stop being fascinating and emotionally affecting even after, like, 20 listens to the same album over and over. If you do not listen to the Mountain Goats, you are not experiencing the potential of brilliant songwriting. Probably. I can't think of any other artists that creates songs as fully formed, carefully crafted, and personal as these. Any suggestions?

Thomas McCarthy - "The Station Agent"

2009-04-05T22:37:00.000-05:00

This movie is actually really great. It looks at first like it could be a simple, boring indie comedy. Olivia, the movie's love interest to a certain extent, looks at first like the manic pixie dream girl we all dread by now. But it soon becomes apparent that she only looks this way at first because she has no idea how to behave in front of people. She isn't interesting, she's a little embarrassing. She isn't confident in her oddness. She isn't odd as a defense mechanism for her brokenness. She's odd because she doesn't know how to deal with her brokenness.

Anyways, it's a movie filled with real, interesting, fractured people. It's well written and well acted, with a slight touch of stylized, arty direction to keep it interesting to look at. Highly recommended.

The Mountain Goats live in Chicago

2009-04-02T00:49:00.000-05:00

John Vanderslice opened, and this gave me a chance to hear his songs up close for the first time. I really liked seeing him perform, and I have a feeling I'm gonna be getting more into him pretty soon.

The Mountain Goats (just one guy, remember) was amazing. He's pretty intense live, and his strumming was harsh and cathartic. The audience was treating him like a rock star, pushing up to the stage, jumping, and singing along. It was weird to hear such emotionally deep, personally meaningful songs become mere sing-alongs. It is nice to find a community of people that all appreciate the same things as you, but it's disconcerting when it's something so personal as this music is to me.

Overall, a really odd, but really amazing, concert experience.

"How I Met Your Mother" season 1 again

2009-04-01T00:14:00.001-05:00

HIMYM is one of those shows that is actually best in its first season. I feel like the show has sorta lost its focus on being about finding out who Ted marries in the later seasons. It's called "How I Met Your Mother," but we haven't really gotten any closer to the solution to the show's title in probably a season and a half. It's a great show, certainly the best laugh-tracked network sitcom on television right now. But I'm getting antsy. I WANT ANSWERS.

Alexi Murdoch - "Time Without Consequence"

2009-03-31T23:58:00.001-05:00

I mistook Alexi Murdoch for Nick Drake in a coffee shop one time. The two sound really similar. But Alexi Murdoch has a knack for much more interesting song structure and exploration of sonic spaces. So, if Nick Drake is an expert folk ballad writer and classic British folk guitarist, then Alexi Murdoch is the next generation, a pop deconstruction of British folk. Does that make sense?

Larry Levin and John Hamburg - "I Love You, Man"

2009-03-31T23:54:00.000-05:00

The pedigree of this movie isn't really impressive at all. I mean, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are fantastic actors. The cast overall, in fact, is really amazing. But the most interesting thing that either writer has worked on before now was "Zoolander." Plus an episode of Seinfeld or two. The film, though, works, despite an underwhelming creative staff. Either the clever premise (romantic comedy, but with two guy friends instead of romantic lovers) OR the great cast (Andy Samberg, Juno's dad, etcetera) save this decent movie. It's not the script, since most of the best stuff is probably improvised, possibly just only ok until a genius actor delivers them. The total impression is of a great movie that misfires a few times and falls short on emotional impact in the end. It's destined to be an "Anchorman" style classic, but not a "Knocked Up" style classic.

Zack Snyder - "Watchmen"

2009-03-17T15:25:00.002-05:00

Cool like the book, but not satisfying like the book. Emotionless. Paced all wrong. Uncomfortable sex scene. Too-long prison break scene. But overall, kind of good. If you think of it as the movie version of the book, it's great. But as a standalone movie, it's not actually that good.

Sufjan Stevens - "Michigan"

2009-03-17T15:25:00.001-05:00

Tobias famously described this album as more evenly high-quality than "Illinoise," while the latter had more highlights / moments. That is absolutely true, even if Tobias's comment isn't accurately described as "famous." The album is solid, accomplished, and has some truly breathtaking stuff on it, even if it doesn't have the pop swagger or peak and trough pathos of "Illinoise."

The Mountain Goats - "Heretic Pride", again! That's like 5 times in 2 weeks

2009-03-17T15:24:00.000-05:00

This is one of The Mountain Goats' near-perfect albums. My very very minor complaint is about the lack of themes and unity throughout the record, but if you let the diversity of sounds and emotions the album covers act as a theme or unifying factor, then the album gains the meaning it's missing. Anyways, I can't stop listening to this record. I love it. And I see this guy in concert tomorrow. That's right. Awesome.

"30 Rock" all over again

2009-03-17T15:23:00.001-05:00

The best show since "Arrested Development." I don't think there is much else I can add to what I have already said. Except that "30 Rock" is one of those season-1-is-better-than-2 shows, as opposed to, say, "Scrubs" or maybe "The Office," which got better as they went on. "30 Rock" has kind of remained excellent the whole time, but it hasn't really gone up in quality.

William Shakespeare - "Hamlet"

2009-03-17T15:01:00.000-05:00

People tell you to love Shakespeare, that he's timeless and genius and you are supposed to appreciate that. It's not always easy; he writes in a style that is hard to just delve in to, and that puts a distance between his work and his readers. Granted, that distance is entirely traversable with some study and repeated reading, but what is most impressive about "Hamlet" is that it still hammers down that distance, despite how dated and opaque Shakespeare's work sometimes appears. It's touching, thoroughly relevant to modern times, and always promises new insights and new pleasures with each reading.

Richard Thompson - "Mock Tudor"

2009-03-12T14:10:00.001-05:00

Dude. It's a Richard Thompson record. SO, you know. It's great. It's a little jauntier and more fun than some of his darker stuff. It's a pop folk record, I guess. It probably was the first time I listened to it in full, even though I owned it for a really long time. It's rich and has a lot going on, but I definitely was mostly listening to it in the background. :( Not my usual thing.

The Coen Brothers - "Burn After Reading"

2009-03-12T14:09:00.001-05:00

It's hard to feel strongly about this one, despite the fact that it's a Coen Brothers movie. I should be all "these guys should only be making amazing movies" or "this is terrible compared to 'Fargo'" or whatever. But honestly, look at the Coen brothers' record, and you might see a pattern: a few brilliant movies, and a bunch of underwhelming, uneven stuff. This was as economical and had as much propulsion as any Coen brothers movie. It had some of the hallmarks of greatness in some of the slower character-development scenes.

I don't know... in retrospect, this should have been brilliant. Parallelling the terror and information games and weird identities of the spy community with those of romantic pursuits is a pretty awesome idea, but something is lost in the execution in this case. Don't get me wrong, it's more cohesive than some of the Coens' crappier efforts, but as usual, the concept doesn't feel fully executed.

The South Park Guys - "Team America: World Police"

2009-03-10T23:14:00.000-05:00

I think I was a lot more uncomfortable with the vulgarity of this film when I first saw it. But this time, I actually laughed like crazy during the infamous puppet sex scene. It becomes a parody of sex scenes in most movies by just not holding back from showing what two individuals might choose to do in the part of most films where we "cut away;" people like weird things, and it shouldn't surprise us when our action heroes like weird things.

The whole thing is basically pitch perfect, and it's probably the finest thing these South Park guys have done.

Matisyahu - "Youth"

2009-03-10T23:13:00.000-05:00

This album was much better before I started listening to it on repeat occasions. There are some weak tracks on this thing, specifically in the second half. You can sorta tell that whoever chose the track list could tell that the second half is a little flat, so the big single is the very last track. There is a lot of cool Jewish symbolism, and the parallel between the Jewish stuff and the Rastafarian stuff is pretty interesting as a premise. The whole project is very cool, but unless Matisyahu starts branching out and taking more risks, his next album will be just a reggae also-ran, despite the promise of his style, writing, and flow.

"Battlestar Galactica"... only 3 hours left!

2009-03-09T00:59:00.000-05:00

The word on the street is that the ending of this show is going to leave audiences talking and puzzled. Is that just a euphemism for "unsatisfying" or "nonsensical"? Are we going to be really dissapointed when all is said and done on this show? I think so. The writers are running the show like they have it all planned, but they certainly do not. They've admitted it in interviews that the series ended up taking some really strange turns as a result of their total lack of a plan.

That's not to say that the show doesn't have a vision or some central ideas. The thing is, they haven't once made reference to the kinds of things that the "Lost" producers talk about all the time... they say they've got a producer on staff that just keeps track of all the character arcs and what information they've given out in every episode. He's got a giant binder that they check every new episode against. The "cylon bible" that the producers refer to is, it turns out, not background about the cylons' creation or their backstory or anything like that; it's a compendium of mannerisms and commonalities to the cylons we will se on screen. In other words, it describes the mechanics of depicted cylons, where the "Lost" bible is a canonical compendium.

Anyways, I have worries. The show is soo soo good that even if it ends badly we'll have a boatload of fantastic episodes to keep revisiting. BUT it will mean that it's a different kind of brilliant than, for instance, "Lost," but it's still brilliant.

Right? Is that true? Maybe I will feel differently after I see it.

Nina Paley - "Sita Sings the Blues"

2009-03-08T23:28:00.001-05:00

Just um... just read this other blog that I wrote.

Hugh Hudson - "Chariots of Fire"

2009-03-08T23:27:00.001-05:00

This one is a fixed star in the pantheon of sports movies. But I hate sports movies in general. I understand them, but I don't usually get emotionally involved. The thing is that this movie is really a character piece about two rivals in the world of running. The tension between the will to win and the desire for a life that is fulfilling and meaningful. At one point, one of the two leads is somber after a large victory, and his friends says something like winning is often harder than losing. That feeling after achieving something huge that you've been working towards for so long can be pretty sobering: it's all over, but was it worth the journey? Does it enrich your life? Does it have meaning, or is it just a thing that you did?

In any event, it was actually the best sports film I have seen, and one of the best films I have seen.

The Mountain Goats - "Heretic Pride", but twice in a row

2009-03-08T23:26:00.002-05:00

The real thing that hurts the Mountain Goats is that the guy hasn't made a bad album since the turn of the century. The guy has put out something like 7 records since 2002, and every one of them is at least really really good. That makes a really fantastic record like "Heretic Pride," even while it's so fantastic, seem like more of the same. I reviewed "Tallahassee" not long ago, and I talked about how it was held together by its concept. This record doesn't have that going for it, but it does have some of the Mountain Goats's best sounding, most interesting songs on it. It's a non-highlight, but stellar entry, in a career full of stellar entries. How do you praise that?

Damien Rice - "O"

2009-03-08T23:26:00.001-05:00

I've listened to this so many times. It's crazy. This album tilts between like giant cathartic orchestra moments and small, lilting guitar folk moments. The lyrics are all good and tell interesting stories without becoming boring and treading the same ground over and over again. The production is clean but nuanced. I like this record a lot, and I wish there was more I could say. I probably could say more if I were thinking about what to say while listening to the record, but it's one of those records that pretty much draws you in and leaves you without a chance to step back and think until it's over. Just the way it swoops from these very quiet little confessions into rasping cries and highs within moments... it's amazing.

Goldfrapp - "Felt Mountain"

2009-03-05T22:13:00.002-06:00

This is an eerie, creepy record. A review of the literature indicates that people like how this record veers from style to style but stays interesting and doesn't veer so far afield to render it unfocused or even excessive. All that is nice, but really, after a few listens, what makes this record one of the finest electronic / vocal hybrid records I've heard is that it grabs from all of these really interesting styles without ever doing any of them fully. So basically, it distills what makes all of these various styles interesting, then filters them through her vocals and her producer's layered electronic creepiness to make something larger and more interesting. It's a great record.