Author: arnab

enjoyable crap

another catch-all thread–this time for disposable entertainment that goes down easy but doesn’t warrant much analysis. recently in this genre for me: the flight of the phoenix via hbo ondemand. apparently, this is a remake of some b-movie from the 60s. i don’t know if i would have been happy paying $8.50 for this but free it was worth every cent. a bunch of people crash-landed/stranded in the gobi desert (which looks suspiciously like the sahara) rebuild their plane and fly out (what? did the name of the film not already give this away?). dennis quaid as a bit of an arrogant jackass whose arrogance causes the crash (but no one seems too upset when they find out); giovanni ribisi having a very good time as a fop of uncertain origin (in the role originally played by hardy kruger!); and a lot of sandstorms. in many ways this was like a slimmed down version of “lost”: a bunch of people stranded in the middle of nowhere with no one coming for them, danger both from nature and from “others”, one passenger who reveals remarkable hidden abilities; but most importantly: no stupid backstories. unfortunately, also no evangeline lilly. but you can’t have everything.

as homer would say, “i didn’t learn a thing”–except maybe to not go out alone to pee in the dark in the middle of a sandstorm–and thank god for that.

catwoman

there was some discussion of this film in the “oscar bait” comments, but i believe it deserves a topic of its own. thanks to hbo ondemand i was able to watch this without having to endure the sneers of the terminally hip check-out kids at netflix (okay, vidiots, santa monica flashback). it is, as chris, commenter joshua, and every critic who reviewed it have noted, an extremely crappy movie. and from what i can tell, a very expensive piece of crap. so, is it worth talking about? perhaps if we’re bored we could try to tease out the bizarre narrative of female empowerment that runs through it–and which might be symptomatic of what has become of feminism in the american mainstream: through your crap shall we know ye.

anyone? chris?

the return of beavis and butthead

the “mike judge collection” looks good. 40 of his favorite episodes, with the narrative bits separated from the music-video bits (which makes sense to me). and apparently, we’re not being set up for a scam wherein we buy this collection and then get hit with the complete seasons one by one. judge has said that only non-overlapping collections of his favorite episodes will be released. if i hadn’t caught a lot of the comedy central marathon from last week i don’t know if i would have wanted to buy it, but having done so, i must (damn you, evil marketing geniuses!). plus “the great cornholio” is in this set. unfortunately, i don’t think the great i.n.s episode in which cornholio is deported is on here–i remember watching this at a super bowl party at ned’s (it was mtv’s half-time counter-programming); probably will be in a later collection. i hadn’t really paid a lot of attention to the show till i saw that episode (i think sean portnoy forced us to watch)–it was when i realized that i’d been missing something really, really smart.

i know michael’s a fan–anybody else?

the high wanking men of wome

did we have a discussion already of hbo’s “rome”? well, it’s crap anyway, and the fact that i’ve watched all the episodes to date speaks only to the utter tedium that is my life. and now i’m posting about it. somebody help me. it is badly written, the performances are overly serious, and it has the worst opening credits sequence of all time. so, why do i watch? i mentioned the utter tedium thing; plus it is on hbo ondemand and watching it helps justify the price i pay for digital cable; and i’m a sucker for finding out how stories end (and damn you, whoever it was that got me into watching stupid “lost” as well!). i wait for jeff to tell me why i should like this more. and for notlaughing schmucko and angryrabbit to mock me–ach, i remember the halcyon days of this blog when we had commenters with real names (like lesbian anime girl).

bad education

watched this last night. it was recommended by someone who reads the blog but doesn’t comment (and i’m hoping that perhaps she will now). i liked it very much but am not sure if i agree with the ny times et al that this is a perfect film and almodovar’s best. some of these reviews focus on almodovar’s take on genre, noir, in particular, and yes, this is a very cleverly done noir. or more accurately it is a blending of the noir with high melodrama (almodovar’s great preoccupation). of course these two genres do seem like mirror images–the cynicism of the noir being perhaps the flipside of melodrama’s immersion in pure emotion–but maybe this wouldn’t have occurred to me if i hadn’t seen this film. the film isn’t just a formal exercise in genre re-invention–it explores desire, narrative desire in particular (again the territory of noir and melodrama) and cinematic desire. at the centre of all this desiring is gael garcia bernal (who everybody desires). however, i felt that the film, which has this glossy sheen that all of almodovar’s recent films seem to have, ends up holding the audience out–i didn’t feel emotionally drawn into this narrative the way i was with all about my mother. others?

another note: the film was rated nc17. however, there’s no sexual activity here that seems to merit this rating. i’m assuming that it is the mere fact that the activity in question is homosexual that drew the rating. but we don’t see genitalia any more than in a history of violence and that film’s sex scenes (especially the oral sex scene) are far more protracted and explicit. sexual organs are occasionally outlined against cloth, but far more innocently than in the average beer commercial.

when father was away on business

watched this in two sessions–not because the film is so long but because one of us has trouble staying awake to watch anything that isn’t a korean soap-opera. i am a big fan of the kusturica films i’ve seen (arizona dream, underground) and had been meaning to get around to seeing his early stuff for quite some time now. this is really very good. it helps to know something about yugoslavian history (which i took a crash course in between sessions) for without it the political allegory doesn’t quite come across, but as kusturica says in an interview included on the dvd, it is a poetic-political film and i think would be affecting even without much historical knowledge. but i would recommend doing some brief reading online at least before watching. i’ll note a few random things briefly:
Continue reading when father was away on business

seen any good previews lately?

i mean for films that seem interesting*? something i watched last week had a preview of linklater’s philip k. dick adaptation. it uses the same technology/style he used in “waking life”. it may fit well with the mood of dick (quite apart from the ways in which it presumably frees him up from the laws of physics). but i can’t think of anything else. oh yes, the “narnia” trailer makes me want to read those books–then again unlike you cynics i am a fan of tolkien.

i continue to wait for someone to pick up my idea of a screen in a multiplex that only shows previews. i tell you, people would be willing to pay for that. i’d be willing to watch a whole series of previews like this one.

*though i suppose we could talk about the preview as genre as well, if we’re really bored, as we probably are.

about the comment editing thing

i have found a plugin that i can install which allows people to edit their own comments for a fixed period of time after they make it. sounds good? the problem is this: it works by ip address, not by login cookie. for those of you who might make comments from a university lab or on some other shared network this means a possibility that someone else who logs on to the network after you log off and gets assigned the same ip could potentially edit your comment within that time window. does this make sense? and if so, does it matter to you lot? it is a somewhat unlikely scenario i suspect, and we could make it more unlikely by setting the window to something as short as 15 minutes. this might be a good idea anyway, since it would be enough time to catch typos but would probably prevent the temptation to substantially alter a comment after the fact (and mess up the flow of the conversation).

let me know if you want me to install. i’ll wait to hear from those who complain about this the most: mauer, john, jeff and mike and then delete this topic so as to not give our external readership of 3 any ideas.

alexander, director’s cut, even

watched this in two instalments at the end of the week. this is appallingly bad. so bad that it isn’t even fun to watch in order to make fun of its badness. whatever his faults as a filmmaker, you could always say of stone that he made compelling films. not anymore. or maybe this is what happens to compelling filmmakers when they get to make their pet projects (see also scorcese and the aviator). interesting and familiar political rhetoric: alexander is out to conquer the world because he wants to unify it, dissolve differences and make everyone free; unlike his generals and soldiers he alone has respect for the asian people (though curiously this does not get in the way of considering their practices and rulers barbaric). everybody deserves to be made free by force so that they can be more like us. the look of the film is equally tired. he seems to have taken many courses of orientalism 101–not the critique of it, but “how to”.

the actors are all staggeringly bad. rosario dawson got good reviews for her performance–i presume this is because she showed her breasts. not even a passing glimpse at his penis redeems farrell. jolie may be under the impression that she is chewing scenery in a fun way–she is not. the only one who is is val kilmer, and he may be the only one who emerges with his dignity intact. anthony hopkins plays anthony hopkins. someone should make a film with him and morgan freeman.

the battle between good and evil

i watched constantine last evening. anyone seen it? keanu reeves as an exorcist/occult ins officer trying to do his bit to maintain the balance between the forces of heaven and hell on earth. not a bad way to pass two hours. actually the first half of the movie is pretty good: you’re mostly kept in the dark about what’s happening, the film doesn’t seem to be going anywhere–just enjoying being atmospheric. it does get very silly towards the end but peter stormare as satan is a hoot, as is tilda swinton as mick hucknall, i mean gabriel. but i don’t really want to say much about the film. if like michael and me you watched all the “prophecy” movies you’ll probably like this one. if not, not. (why is gabriel so often an asshole in these movies?)

i am interested though in movies about this general theme of balance between good and evil/light and dark that don’t rely entirely on catholic mythology/iconography. i remember reading recently about a russian movie called “nightwatch” which seems like it might be one (it apparently outgrossed both “lord of the rings 3” and “spiderman 2” in russia–which may or may not be a big deal; i’m guessing many indian movies outgrossed both of these in india as well). these catholic movies are all so deeply religious they become a little boring. and the world of vampires and werewolves (underworld etc.) are mostly superhero movies masquerading as something else. okay, i’m rambling.