This seemingly light, quirky indie flick is a heavy ride. However, it never falls into maudlin or melodrama. Amy Adams, who I've never seen as more than a romcom fluff puff, handles the dramatic lead with grace and skill. Alan Arkin is fabulous as always. Would I be happy spending theater prices to see the movie? No. Did I enjoy it enough to rent? Definitely.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Up
When Up was in the theaters, H and I wanted to see it and were in a particularly rough spot in our infertility struggle. Before we could go one of my co-workers warned me that the first ten minutes would not be healthy for us. So, we skipped it.
I'm glad we skipped it when we did. I'm also glad that we decided to watch it on Netflix the other night. It is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.
As one would expect with a Pixar movie, the animation is top notch. Even in 2D the images pop off the screen. The action is smooth and the back drops are lush.
What makes the movie so good is the story. Up is more than just a fluffy kids movie. It deals with some tough issues in an honest way. It accepts that kids can handle things without sugar coating. There is loss, death, failure, missing parents and some scary things, but still manages to be a fun movie that kids will enjoy.
The most impressive part of this impressive movie is it's first ten minutes. They are a masterpiece of story telling. They convey an entire life of loss and joy. They also perfectly set up the movie's main themes. When the main section of the movie starts, you feel like you know the main character. You understand his pain and know his inner strengths.
It is a testament to the quality of the film that the old man's character stays true throughout the movie. When he has his epiphany, it is consistent with his charter. His actions following the epiphany is also consistent with his basic nature.
I highly recommend Up.
I'm glad we skipped it when we did. I'm also glad that we decided to watch it on Netflix the other night. It is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.
As one would expect with a Pixar movie, the animation is top notch. Even in 2D the images pop off the screen. The action is smooth and the back drops are lush.
What makes the movie so good is the story. Up is more than just a fluffy kids movie. It deals with some tough issues in an honest way. It accepts that kids can handle things without sugar coating. There is loss, death, failure, missing parents and some scary things, but still manages to be a fun movie that kids will enjoy.
The most impressive part of this impressive movie is it's first ten minutes. They are a masterpiece of story telling. They convey an entire life of loss and joy. They also perfectly set up the movie's main themes. When the main section of the movie starts, you feel like you know the main character. You understand his pain and know his inner strengths.
It is a testament to the quality of the film that the old man's character stays true throughout the movie. When he has his epiphany, it is consistent with his charter. His actions following the epiphany is also consistent with his basic nature.
I highly recommend Up.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Snow Falling on Cedar
Last weekend H and I were looking for something to watch and resorted to Netflix to escape the dismal options on our thousands of cable stations. One of the new movies available for streaming was Snow Falling on Cedars. H remembered that she had liked the book and I remembered hearing good things about the book. We clicked watch.
I should have remembered the near universal rule that good books make lousy movies. (I know there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but the movie usually takes a lot of liberties with the book.) The movie was terrible. The cinematography was lush, but that was about the only redeeming thing the movie had to offer.
The main problems with the movie were lack of focus, over indulgence, and a bad central performance.
The movie tried to take all of the themes and sub plots from the book and give them all equal billing. In a novel, the author has the space to weave multiple plots and themes into a coherent whole. In a movie, the director is constrained by both the medium and time. Movies rely on show to tell the story and some things are very hard to show. Movies, generally, need to stay under 90 minutes before they become too long. To fit into the constraints a director needs to choose the one plot and theme that has primacy and force the rest into the background. In Snow Falling on Cedar the director tried to have it all and wound up with a mess.
A symptom of the director's lack of focus was an over indulgence when it came to screen time. A lot of time was given to montages and other lingering scenes. They were beautifully shot, but I wasn't looking for a visual spectacle. I wanted to see the plot move forward.
The director was not helped by his actors. Ethan Hawk's portrayal of the protagonist was terrible. I never found his emotional dilemma compelling. Should he be a man or a petulant child? I never got the sense that he had what it took to be a man in the first place. The rest of the cast was also flat. I never believed the racial tension that was the reason for the trial.
Given the major problems with the film, the plot hole driving the story is barely noticeable. I cannot believe that nobody thought to check the lighthouse records as a part of the murder investigation or the defense's inquiry. In a fishing community it seems unlikely that people were ignorant of the fact that the lighthouse listened to and kept records of the radio traffic in the area.
So the movie is crap. If you thought the book was good, don't bother. If you heard the book was good and wanted to see the movie instead of reading the book, don't.
I should have remembered the near universal rule that good books make lousy movies. (I know there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but the movie usually takes a lot of liberties with the book.) The movie was terrible. The cinematography was lush, but that was about the only redeeming thing the movie had to offer.
The main problems with the movie were lack of focus, over indulgence, and a bad central performance.
The movie tried to take all of the themes and sub plots from the book and give them all equal billing. In a novel, the author has the space to weave multiple plots and themes into a coherent whole. In a movie, the director is constrained by both the medium and time. Movies rely on show to tell the story and some things are very hard to show. Movies, generally, need to stay under 90 minutes before they become too long. To fit into the constraints a director needs to choose the one plot and theme that has primacy and force the rest into the background. In Snow Falling on Cedar the director tried to have it all and wound up with a mess.
A symptom of the director's lack of focus was an over indulgence when it came to screen time. A lot of time was given to montages and other lingering scenes. They were beautifully shot, but I wasn't looking for a visual spectacle. I wanted to see the plot move forward.
The director was not helped by his actors. Ethan Hawk's portrayal of the protagonist was terrible. I never found his emotional dilemma compelling. Should he be a man or a petulant child? I never got the sense that he had what it took to be a man in the first place. The rest of the cast was also flat. I never believed the racial tension that was the reason for the trial.
Given the major problems with the film, the plot hole driving the story is barely noticeable. I cannot believe that nobody thought to check the lighthouse records as a part of the murder investigation or the defense's inquiry. In a fishing community it seems unlikely that people were ignorant of the fact that the lighthouse listened to and kept records of the radio traffic in the area.
So the movie is crap. If you thought the book was good, don't bother. If you heard the book was good and wanted to see the movie instead of reading the book, don't.
Apple TV
H got me a new AppleTV v2 for my birthday. I was shocked at it diminutive stature even after having seen them in the store. Its tiny size, however, is only one of its charms.
Set up was a piece of cake. I hooked up the HDMI cables, turned on the TV, and pointed it at our wireless network. From opening the box to streaming You Tube videos took about five minutes.
The interface is what you would expect from Apple. A two year old could use it without trouble. Everything is shiny and smooth. It makes my cable box interface feel like traveling back to the days of arcane magic and chanting. The only downside is having to navigate the on steen keyboard with a remote, but that can be easily fixed....
We rented Time Bandits from iTunes and it was almost too easy. The first time I had to enter my iTunes ID and password and it appeared on the TV. we waited a few seconds and starting watching. After the first rental the box remembers your ID and only asks for your password.
Finding content is easy as well. There are search fields just about everywhere. The remote isn't the best typing tool, but it isn't the worst either. I was able to find Chandler Vader on You Tube without much trouble. Finding radio stations was oddly difficult because there you cannot search in the radio interface. Hopefully they will fix that omission.
Streaming content over our finicky G wireless connection provides astonishingly good results. Time Bandits didn't stutter at all. The radio stations we've listened to didn't skip either. Netflix does occasionally hiccup. During an episode of Firefly I had to pause three times to allow the buffer to fill and resume normal playback.
When you pair the Apple TV with an iOS device it really shines. The Remote app smooths out the trouble of typing with the remote because you an use the iOS keyboard. Air Play is also a great feature. While traveling I rented Donny Darko to watch on the plane ride home, but didn't get around to it. Instead of sitting in my living room staring at my iPad's tiny screen, I sent it to my big TV screen. Playback was smooth and trouble free. I did experience one network hiccup, but our network is a little dodgy at times.
Can the Apple TV replace cable? No. Is it a nice addition to our media system? Yes. Is it worth the price? At $99 it isn't too hard to swallow.
Set up was a piece of cake. I hooked up the HDMI cables, turned on the TV, and pointed it at our wireless network. From opening the box to streaming You Tube videos took about five minutes.
The interface is what you would expect from Apple. A two year old could use it without trouble. Everything is shiny and smooth. It makes my cable box interface feel like traveling back to the days of arcane magic and chanting. The only downside is having to navigate the on steen keyboard with a remote, but that can be easily fixed....
We rented Time Bandits from iTunes and it was almost too easy. The first time I had to enter my iTunes ID and password and it appeared on the TV. we waited a few seconds and starting watching. After the first rental the box remembers your ID and only asks for your password.
Finding content is easy as well. There are search fields just about everywhere. The remote isn't the best typing tool, but it isn't the worst either. I was able to find Chandler Vader on You Tube without much trouble. Finding radio stations was oddly difficult because there you cannot search in the radio interface. Hopefully they will fix that omission.
Streaming content over our finicky G wireless connection provides astonishingly good results. Time Bandits didn't stutter at all. The radio stations we've listened to didn't skip either. Netflix does occasionally hiccup. During an episode of Firefly I had to pause three times to allow the buffer to fill and resume normal playback.
When you pair the Apple TV with an iOS device it really shines. The Remote app smooths out the trouble of typing with the remote because you an use the iOS keyboard. Air Play is also a great feature. While traveling I rented Donny Darko to watch on the plane ride home, but didn't get around to it. Instead of sitting in my living room staring at my iPad's tiny screen, I sent it to my big TV screen. Playback was smooth and trouble free. I did experience one network hiccup, but our network is a little dodgy at times.
Can the Apple TV replace cable? No. Is it a nice addition to our media system? Yes. Is it worth the price? At $99 it isn't too hard to swallow.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
This is the craziest movie I've seen in a long time. Yet it some how worked amazingly well. The animation popped and made the effects seem huge - even on my iPads screen. I wish I had seen it in IMAX! Mr. T's performance was perfect. I cannot think of a bad thing to say about this movie.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Thanks A Lot
They recently did a study showing that being grateful is good for your health and mental well being. The study also showed that while some people are naturally more grateful, ungrateful bastards like me can learn to be more grateful with practice. To be really effective, one needs to be specific.
I have a generally good life and have a lot to for which to be grateful. I am generally healthy, despite my penchant for McDonalds, lattes, and chocolate. I have good friends who accept me despite my foibles. I have been fortunate to have opportunities for interesting travel, learning experiences, and enriching hobbies. I have been blessed by having a solid upbringing by a loving mother. I was doubly blessed to meet a wonderful partner who loves me even when I'm a PTA and supports me when I need it.
This year I have a lot of extra things for which I'm grateful. During what is hopefully the worst economic conditions I will ever see, I have not only managed to stay employed, but was lucky enough to find a better job. I was given the opportunity to experience some of the best kayak instruction o the planet this summer. I was also lucky enough to be able to afford some of the most innovative and game changing products that have come out in decades.
The thing I am most grateful for is K-bug. She is a treasure. She makes the frustration of several years of infertility vanish. I am grateful to all of the people who helped us in the journey. I am grateful to her birth parents for giving us this chance and loving her enough to place her in our care. We could not have asked for a better adoption experience.
I have a generally good life and have a lot to for which to be grateful. I am generally healthy, despite my penchant for McDonalds, lattes, and chocolate. I have good friends who accept me despite my foibles. I have been fortunate to have opportunities for interesting travel, learning experiences, and enriching hobbies. I have been blessed by having a solid upbringing by a loving mother. I was doubly blessed to meet a wonderful partner who loves me even when I'm a PTA and supports me when I need it.
This year I have a lot of extra things for which I'm grateful. During what is hopefully the worst economic conditions I will ever see, I have not only managed to stay employed, but was lucky enough to find a better job. I was given the opportunity to experience some of the best kayak instruction o the planet this summer. I was also lucky enough to be able to afford some of the most innovative and game changing products that have come out in decades.
The thing I am most grateful for is K-bug. She is a treasure. She makes the frustration of several years of infertility vanish. I am grateful to all of the people who helped us in the journey. I am grateful to her birth parents for giving us this chance and loving her enough to place her in our care. We could not have asked for a better adoption experience.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Restoring Sanity
I have to laugh at the post event analysis of The Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear. Most of the commentary I read, which was mostly left-leaning, bemoaned the fact that it didn't have more to say or didn't advance the populist agenda or wasn't an answer to Glenn Beck's rally. Did these people actually expect that it would do any of those things? Did they expect a couple of comedians who nightly lambaste the right, left, and everyone else to push an agenda? Are they really that stupid?
Sure Stewart is a lefty and makes no bones about it. But he is a comedian, not a pundit or a political figure. Unlike Beck and his ilk, Stewart knows his place in the media landscape and makes sure his audience knows as well. He makes his living poking fun at people who take themselves too seriously and the venues that give the clowns a voice. He relentlessly drills home the fact that guys like Glenn Beck are buffoons dressed up as people with something serious to say. For Stewart to put on a rally that pushed an agenda would be out of character. It would needlessly tarnish his image as court jester.
That Stewart did offer a brief statement of value at the end was more than enough. He spoke truth to power and reminded the crowd that we need to shut out the loud voices from the media and the fringes. We, the people, must forge alliances despite differences and work together to make the world a better place.
That the media made a big deal out of what the rally wasn't, makes Stewart's refrain about the media for him. They are stupid and mostly just want ratings. Why think when sensationalism gets eyeballs?
Sure Stewart is a lefty and makes no bones about it. But he is a comedian, not a pundit or a political figure. Unlike Beck and his ilk, Stewart knows his place in the media landscape and makes sure his audience knows as well. He makes his living poking fun at people who take themselves too seriously and the venues that give the clowns a voice. He relentlessly drills home the fact that guys like Glenn Beck are buffoons dressed up as people with something serious to say. For Stewart to put on a rally that pushed an agenda would be out of character. It would needlessly tarnish his image as court jester.
That Stewart did offer a brief statement of value at the end was more than enough. He spoke truth to power and reminded the crowd that we need to shut out the loud voices from the media and the fringes. We, the people, must forge alliances despite differences and work together to make the world a better place.
That the media made a big deal out of what the rally wasn't, makes Stewart's refrain about the media for him. They are stupid and mostly just want ratings. Why think when sensationalism gets eyeballs?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Joy of Instapaper
Instapaper is a "read it later" web service. The idea is that in our daily Web surfing, RSS skimming, and Twiter trolling we come across interesting articles that are too long to read in the 5 minute window we have allotted for our hourly Web break from work. Using Instapaper you can save the article to read when you have the time and focus to read the article.
What separates Instapaper from a bookmarking service is that it is built around the idea that you will return to read interesting articles on a mobile device and not a full blown computer.
The saved articles are run through a robust "mobilizer" filter that strips out most of the adverts and other clutter that festoons typical Web sites. This makes it easier to read on a mobile device and makes it easier to focus on reading the actual content of the article.
Instapaper has mobile applications for iOS that allows you to sync your saved articles for reading offline. The applications run on iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. They have a number of helpful features including the ability to switch to a white on black theme for bed time reading and syncing your place in an article across your devices.
Instapaper also works with e-readers. You can download articles in e-pub format to sync with many e-readers. Kindle users can get their saved articles sent to their Kindles.
Getting articles into Instapaper is easy and getting easier. On a desktop Web browser you can install a bookmarklet that saves a Wen page to Instapaper. A number of mobile apps and desktop applications use the Instapaper API to build Instapaper directly into their interfaces. For example the iOS Twitter app has a menu item to save articles to Instapaper.
One of the features a really like is the "Editors Pick" section. The editor's picks run the gamut. They are long form articles from all corners of the Web. Not all of them interest me, but having access to them helps expand my reading circle.
Instapaper is a mostly free service. You can get an account for free and use all of the features on the Web site. For free you also get a very functional iOS application. For a few dollars, you can get the Pro version of the Instapaper app that adds folder control, better control of syncing, and a few other features. The developer is also thinking about adding a subscription to the mix, but that idea has not been terribly fleshed out. He has, however, promised that most of the features will always be free.
For me paying the five bucks for the Pro app was a no brainer. I use the service all the time and could spare a latte to keep the developer in business. Try the service for free, and you will quickly agree.
What separates Instapaper from a bookmarking service is that it is built around the idea that you will return to read interesting articles on a mobile device and not a full blown computer.
The saved articles are run through a robust "mobilizer" filter that strips out most of the adverts and other clutter that festoons typical Web sites. This makes it easier to read on a mobile device and makes it easier to focus on reading the actual content of the article.
Instapaper has mobile applications for iOS that allows you to sync your saved articles for reading offline. The applications run on iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. They have a number of helpful features including the ability to switch to a white on black theme for bed time reading and syncing your place in an article across your devices.
Instapaper also works with e-readers. You can download articles in e-pub format to sync with many e-readers. Kindle users can get their saved articles sent to their Kindles.
Getting articles into Instapaper is easy and getting easier. On a desktop Web browser you can install a bookmarklet that saves a Wen page to Instapaper. A number of mobile apps and desktop applications use the Instapaper API to build Instapaper directly into their interfaces. For example the iOS Twitter app has a menu item to save articles to Instapaper.
One of the features a really like is the "Editors Pick" section. The editor's picks run the gamut. They are long form articles from all corners of the Web. Not all of them interest me, but having access to them helps expand my reading circle.
Instapaper is a mostly free service. You can get an account for free and use all of the features on the Web site. For free you also get a very functional iOS application. For a few dollars, you can get the Pro version of the Instapaper app that adds folder control, better control of syncing, and a few other features. The developer is also thinking about adding a subscription to the mix, but that idea has not been terribly fleshed out. He has, however, promised that most of the features will always be free.
For me paying the five bucks for the Pro app was a no brainer. I use the service all the time and could spare a latte to keep the developer in business. Try the service for free, and you will quickly agree.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The End of Life as We Knew It
H and I realized a life long dream over the summer. We added a child to our family. It was a long frustrating process getting the child. Having the child is an exhilarating exhausting experience.
Everyone says that having a child completely changes your life. H and I intellectually understood that our lives as we knew them were effectively over. No longer were we the center of our universe. Intellectually knowing something and being ready for it are different things.
We expected that we wouldn't go out as much. We knew that our outdoor adventures would be curtailed. We knew that sleep would become a precious resource. We knew that alone time would be scarce.
It has been the little things we didn't expect. We didn't expect that running to the store for a quick errand was a major excursion. It needs to planned so that you go between feedings and that the baby is not already napping. Then there all the supplies that need to be packed into the diaper bag. It takes longer getting ready to go to CVS than it does to drive there and back.
I didn't expect that the egg which has packed two sea kayaks, two bicycles, and enough camping gear for two weeks would be space constrained when taking a trip to the mall. The stroller, diaper bag, and related baby supplies consume the majority of my hatch. The baby seat effectively takes up the back seat because there needs to be a seat next to the baby incase she gets super fussy.
I certainly didn't expect that I would become hyper focused on another person's health. I notice changes in feeding patterns, changes in sleeping patterns, or her general attitude. I watch her breathing for signs of trouble. I notice slight changes all the time.
The biggest change is the amount of joy she brings into our lives. Her smile is enough to make up for a day of crap at work. The silly baby noises she makes are better than a good joke. It is truly indescribable.
Everyone says that having a child completely changes your life. H and I intellectually understood that our lives as we knew them were effectively over. No longer were we the center of our universe. Intellectually knowing something and being ready for it are different things.
We expected that we wouldn't go out as much. We knew that our outdoor adventures would be curtailed. We knew that sleep would become a precious resource. We knew that alone time would be scarce.
It has been the little things we didn't expect. We didn't expect that running to the store for a quick errand was a major excursion. It needs to planned so that you go between feedings and that the baby is not already napping. Then there all the supplies that need to be packed into the diaper bag. It takes longer getting ready to go to CVS than it does to drive there and back.
I didn't expect that the egg which has packed two sea kayaks, two bicycles, and enough camping gear for two weeks would be space constrained when taking a trip to the mall. The stroller, diaper bag, and related baby supplies consume the majority of my hatch. The baby seat effectively takes up the back seat because there needs to be a seat next to the baby incase she gets super fussy.
I certainly didn't expect that I would become hyper focused on another person's health. I notice changes in feeding patterns, changes in sleeping patterns, or her general attitude. I watch her breathing for signs of trouble. I notice slight changes all the time.
The biggest change is the amount of joy she brings into our lives. Her smile is enough to make up for a day of crap at work. The silly baby noises she makes are better than a good joke. It is truly indescribable.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
TV Box Interfaces
I just got done reading a description of the new Logitec Revue. It sounds impressive. It definitely out does the competition in terms of features and for triple the price it should.
The thing I'm intrigued by is the remote which includes a full on keyboard. The keyboard will make typing in searches easier than the onscreen keyboards used on most TV boxes now. But do I want to use a keyboard to interact with my TV? My gut says no.
What I really think would be interesting is a TV box that let me use my phone or tablet control things. I'm picturing a scenario where the search for content entirely on my remote while the big screen continues to show the real content. When I find the show I want to watch I can then switch the big screen. Browse on the tablet and watch on the TV.
The thing I'm intrigued by is the remote which includes a full on keyboard. The keyboard will make typing in searches easier than the onscreen keyboards used on most TV boxes now. But do I want to use a keyboard to interact with my TV? My gut says no.
What I really think would be interesting is a TV box that let me use my phone or tablet control things. I'm picturing a scenario where the search for content entirely on my remote while the big screen continues to show the real content. When I find the show I want to watch I can then switch the big screen. Browse on the tablet and watch on the TV.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Pete and Mika Rock
I was thinking that every TV show with a boy/girl pairing involves some sort of sexual tension. I'm thinking of Sam & Diane, Mulder & Scully, Booth &Bones, Castle & Becket, even Peter & Olivia. In most cases it works. (Mulder and Scully didn't need tension. It just distracted from the show.) One show that, so far, breaks the rule is Warehouse 13. Pete & Mika are like brother and sister, or just really great friends. They respect and care for each other, but there is no hint that either want more than that. It is great for two reasons: The plot doesn't have to deal with an ancillary detail and it is a great example. In real life men and women work together all the time without falling in love or just into bed.
Let's hope Warehouse 13 doesn't fall into the trap like the X-Files did.
Let's hope Warehouse 13 doesn't fall into the trap like the X-Files did.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
White Kids Cannot Serve
With all the recent blathering over repealing the 14th amendment to prevent anchor babies and forcing immigrants to produce papers on demand, I got to thinking about coffee.
I frequently stop at McDonalds for coffee in the morning and most often I am served by an immigrant. The server is always polite and efficient. Sure I have to occasionally repeat my order, but not too often.
Recently, I've been subjugated to the service of native born Caucasians. The difference is night and day. The natives are terrible. They are rude, slow, and stupid. I always have to repeat my order at least once and am still not guaranteed to get the right stuff. I usually need to double check my change to make sure it is correct.
It terrifies me that these natives get all the advantages without deserving them. I'd prefer interacting with anchor babies over the sample of natives that I see at the McDonalds. At least they are hard workers.
Maybe we should deport lazy natives. Perhaps we should change the 14th amendment so that criteria for citizenship is being native born it is not being a lazy dumb-ass.
I frequently stop at McDonalds for coffee in the morning and most often I am served by an immigrant. The server is always polite and efficient. Sure I have to occasionally repeat my order, but not too often.
Recently, I've been subjugated to the service of native born Caucasians. The difference is night and day. The natives are terrible. They are rude, slow, and stupid. I always have to repeat my order at least once and am still not guaranteed to get the right stuff. I usually need to double check my change to make sure it is correct.
It terrifies me that these natives get all the advantages without deserving them. I'd prefer interacting with anchor babies over the sample of natives that I see at the McDonalds. At least they are hard workers.
Maybe we should deport lazy natives. Perhaps we should change the 14th amendment so that criteria for citizenship is being native born it is not being a lazy dumb-ass.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Men Who Stare at Goats
H and I finally got around to PPVing this movie after passing it over several times. I'd like to say it was worth the wait. What it was instead was just mediocre Saturday afternoon cable fare. When we didn't get the chance to finish it, we weren't upset.
It is not a terrible movie, it is just not very good. It takes itself too seriously while being chuck full of tired cliches. I think it was meant to be funny by contrasting the seriousness of the story telling with the ridiculousness of the story. Sadly, it just doesn't work.
It is not a terrible movie, it is just not very good. It takes itself too seriously while being chuck full of tired cliches. I think it was meant to be funny by contrasting the seriousness of the story telling with the ridiculousness of the story. Sadly, it just doesn't work.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
We PPVed the new "Sherlock Holmes" over the weekend. I had high hopes for it since I'd heard good reviews and the cast was solid. Downey, Law, and McAdams usually do solid work. I also figured it would be pretty tough to botch Sherlock Holmes.
I was mostly satisfied. The cast does a decent job with a lame story. Holmes and Watson are like an old married couple. They constantly bicker, but you believe the genuine affection between them. Downey is well cast as the hard living, egocentric, difficult Holmes. Law's stoic and tight laced war hero Watson is a good counter to Holmes. McAdams is OK, but doesn't have the chops to equal Downey or Law.
The plot is the real weakness of the movie. The secret society conspiring to take over the world is tired. I also never believed that the bad guys had the gravitas to fool Holmes. The hinting at Holmes' real enemy lurking in the shadows felt like a set up for a sequel instead of a key plot point.
The retooling of Holmes as an action hero worked well for me. In fact, I felt that the retooled Holmes was better for the big screen than the more Victorian Holmes. The action Holmes made the movie more of an escapist flick.
Overall, "Sherlock Holmes" was well worth the six bucks it cost to PPV. It may well have been worth full price if I'd had a rough week at work.
I was mostly satisfied. The cast does a decent job with a lame story. Holmes and Watson are like an old married couple. They constantly bicker, but you believe the genuine affection between them. Downey is well cast as the hard living, egocentric, difficult Holmes. Law's stoic and tight laced war hero Watson is a good counter to Holmes. McAdams is OK, but doesn't have the chops to equal Downey or Law.
The plot is the real weakness of the movie. The secret society conspiring to take over the world is tired. I also never believed that the bad guys had the gravitas to fool Holmes. The hinting at Holmes' real enemy lurking in the shadows felt like a set up for a sequel instead of a key plot point.
The retooling of Holmes as an action hero worked well for me. In fact, I felt that the retooled Holmes was better for the big screen than the more Victorian Holmes. The action Holmes made the movie more of an escapist flick.
Overall, "Sherlock Holmes" was well worth the six bucks it cost to PPV. It may well have been worth full price if I'd had a rough week at work.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Invisible Shield Failure
Since my iPhone 4 is so pretty, I didn't want to hide it in a cover. I did, however, want some protection for it. The best rated product I could find was Zagg Invisible Shields. They are supposedly clear plastic covers that prevents scratches.
I found them to be a total waste of money. Installing them is a process that is hard to get right. It also involves water.... Needless to say I was totally paranoid for awhile after doing the install.
It made my phone look cheap. It is shiny and the ends didn't lie flat. The edges kept pealing up and I couldn't use a bumper.
The worst part was that it made the awesome screen of the iPhone look crappy.
I cannot recommend these.
I found them to be a total waste of money. Installing them is a process that is hard to get right. It also involves water.... Needless to say I was totally paranoid for awhile after doing the install.
It made my phone look cheap. It is shiny and the ends didn't lie flat. The edges kept pealing up and I couldn't use a bumper.
The worst part was that it made the awesome screen of the iPhone look crappy.
I cannot recommend these.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Daybreakers
Daybreakers starts from the now popular premise that vampirism is caused by a disease and spreads rapidly. It then asks the question "What happens when the food (humans) run out?"
In the movie the vampires have either turned too many humans or have fed on too many of them. Vampires that are not getting enough human blood regress into a subhuman form. The society relies on corporate run human farms that slowly drain the blood from living humans. The army's primary mission is to round up stray humans.
To stave off the coming starvation, scientists are desperately hunting for a suitable blood replacement. One scientist thinks that discovering a blood substitute will mean the end of hunting humans. The more pragmatic vampires know that humans will always be hunted. He thrill of the real thing is just too strong.
While the underlying ideas are interesting, the movie does not go too far in examining them. Instead it sticks pretty close to accepted norms. The bad guy is greedy, immoral, and cowardly. The good guys are noble, smart, and strong. The resolution of the problem is both miraculous and reaffirming of the basically good nature of humanity.
That does not mean that the movie is no good. If fact, I found it quite enjoyable. The acting is strong and the characters are well drawn. The cinematography maintains a nicely dark aura.
Daybreakers is well worth the six dollar PPV fee.
In the movie the vampires have either turned too many humans or have fed on too many of them. Vampires that are not getting enough human blood regress into a subhuman form. The society relies on corporate run human farms that slowly drain the blood from living humans. The army's primary mission is to round up stray humans.
To stave off the coming starvation, scientists are desperately hunting for a suitable blood replacement. One scientist thinks that discovering a blood substitute will mean the end of hunting humans. The more pragmatic vampires know that humans will always be hunted. He thrill of the real thing is just too strong.
While the underlying ideas are interesting, the movie does not go too far in examining them. Instead it sticks pretty close to accepted norms. The bad guy is greedy, immoral, and cowardly. The good guys are noble, smart, and strong. The resolution of the problem is both miraculous and reaffirming of the basically good nature of humanity.
That does not mean that the movie is no good. If fact, I found it quite enjoyable. The acting is strong and the characters are well drawn. The cinematography maintains a nicely dark aura.
Daybreakers is well worth the six dollar PPV fee.
Iron Man 2
H and I finally saw Iron Man 2. We had read the reviews, but hoped that they were just the typical stuffy reviewer tripe.
It wasn't. The movie is a mess. The creators attempted to cram way too many story lines and too many characters into a single movie. There are, if I counted right, five story lines vying for attention. There is an attempt to work them all together, but it never pans out. The net effect is that most of the story lines seem tossed in for no good reason except to further Marvel's need to push its other movie properties. The extra bits burry the bits that made Iron Man a good movie.
The whole Shield story line feels bolted on to pimp for Thor, Capt. America, and the Avengers. While Scarlet is nice to look at, her character serves no purpose worthy of the amount of screen time she gets. Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury is underwhelming. Pulling this fluff would free up needed time to make the rest of the movie better.
I never bought the Stark is dying story line either. It feels like a gimmick to explain the need for the new atom and the behavior that allows Rhodie to steel War Hammer.
The flaws do not get in the way of the movie being a fun romp. Downey and Paltrow are excellent together. In fact, the best parts of the movie involve Stark and Potts. Micky Rourke is fantastic as the baddie. The effects and action sequences rock - literally. The movie is very loud.
I left the movie feeling hopeful for the third movie. The lard piled on by Marvel couldn't destroy the strength of the franchise and by the time the third film comes out Marvel won't need to pimp other movies.
It wasn't. The movie is a mess. The creators attempted to cram way too many story lines and too many characters into a single movie. There are, if I counted right, five story lines vying for attention. There is an attempt to work them all together, but it never pans out. The net effect is that most of the story lines seem tossed in for no good reason except to further Marvel's need to push its other movie properties. The extra bits burry the bits that made Iron Man a good movie.
The whole Shield story line feels bolted on to pimp for Thor, Capt. America, and the Avengers. While Scarlet is nice to look at, her character serves no purpose worthy of the amount of screen time she gets. Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury is underwhelming. Pulling this fluff would free up needed time to make the rest of the movie better.
I never bought the Stark is dying story line either. It feels like a gimmick to explain the need for the new atom and the behavior that allows Rhodie to steel War Hammer.
The flaws do not get in the way of the movie being a fun romp. Downey and Paltrow are excellent together. In fact, the best parts of the movie involve Stark and Potts. Micky Rourke is fantastic as the baddie. The effects and action sequences rock - literally. The movie is very loud.
I left the movie feeling hopeful for the third movie. The lard piled on by Marvel couldn't destroy the strength of the franchise and by the time the third film comes out Marvel won't need to pimp other movies.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Splice
I'm a sucker for a smart science fiction movie that deals with ethical and moral issues, so Splice was high on my to see list. It is a tail in the mold of Frankenstein. Two scientists create life by splicing animal DNA together. Not satisfied with creating non-human blobs, they then add in some human DNA. From that point on, you can predict the direction events take.
Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are brilliant as the over ambitious scientists. Their characters are troubled, complex, and flawed in many ways. However, you root for them because they are essentially good people. Their relationship with each other and with their creation is as complicated as the plot is simple. In fact it is the characters and their relationships that propel the movie forward.
The plot is predictable and not overly original. You know from the beginning where this will all end. As the creature matures, things get predictably complicated and predictably bad. The creature develops more quickly than predicted; it becomes increasingly hard to manage; it becomes more intelligent and independent than predicted; it doesn't die as quickly as predicted. As the scientists try to control things they only get crazier.
Of course part of the the crazy has to do with basic flaws in the scientists themselves. Brody's character cannot say no. Polly's character has conflicted feelings about children and parenting. This makes the whole situation even more complicated.
I loved the movie. The issues it brings up are real and scary. Scientists will create a transgenic human simply because they can. That is how science moves forward. People pushing the envelope of what is possible and what is moral and what they can control. Add in the dash of complicated characters and you've got a smart, well crafted sci-fi movie.
Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are brilliant as the over ambitious scientists. Their characters are troubled, complex, and flawed in many ways. However, you root for them because they are essentially good people. Their relationship with each other and with their creation is as complicated as the plot is simple. In fact it is the characters and their relationships that propel the movie forward.
The plot is predictable and not overly original. You know from the beginning where this will all end. As the creature matures, things get predictably complicated and predictably bad. The creature develops more quickly than predicted; it becomes increasingly hard to manage; it becomes more intelligent and independent than predicted; it doesn't die as quickly as predicted. As the scientists try to control things they only get crazier.
Of course part of the the crazy has to do with basic flaws in the scientists themselves. Brody's character cannot say no. Polly's character has conflicted feelings about children and parenting. This makes the whole situation even more complicated.
I loved the movie. The issues it brings up are real and scary. Scientists will create a transgenic human simply because they can. That is how science moves forward. People pushing the envelope of what is possible and what is moral and what they can control. Add in the dash of complicated characters and you've got a smart, well crafted sci-fi movie.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Alice in 3D
H and I were looking for a good movie to see that was playing at a reasonable time. We found that there is a dearth of decent films out there that we both wanted to see. (I can always be convinced to see a crappy action/horror flick.) The choice came down to Iron Man or Alice in Wonderland.
I leaned toward Iron Man, but only because I knew the explosions and robots bashing each other would provide mind numbing escape if nothing else. In the end, the decision came down to showtimes. Alice in Wonderland was playing at a better time.
I went into the film with low expectations. I'd read very mixed reviews. Most of them felt that there was too much flash and antics and not enough story. The harshest reviews called it a Tim Burrton movie without a heart.
I was pleasantly surprised. It was visually chaotic and the characters were over the top, but it is Wonderland after all. Johnny Depp and Helena B. Carter were in full crazy mode. They took the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen to the edge of over the top, but managed to keep from toppling over. The rest of the cast played the parts just as well.
The story is what it is. It follows closely to the original except now Alice is on the brink of adulthood. She must reclaim her inner strength and learn to trust her imagination.
The visuals are lush and make any weakness in the story fade away. I'm not sure if the 3D enhanced the viewing experience, but it certainly didn't hurt it. I'm sure that the movie is just as immersive and lush on a flat screen. It may not be so good on a small screen however.
I leaned toward Iron Man, but only because I knew the explosions and robots bashing each other would provide mind numbing escape if nothing else. In the end, the decision came down to showtimes. Alice in Wonderland was playing at a better time.
I went into the film with low expectations. I'd read very mixed reviews. Most of them felt that there was too much flash and antics and not enough story. The harshest reviews called it a Tim Burrton movie without a heart.
I was pleasantly surprised. It was visually chaotic and the characters were over the top, but it is Wonderland after all. Johnny Depp and Helena B. Carter were in full crazy mode. They took the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen to the edge of over the top, but managed to keep from toppling over. The rest of the cast played the parts just as well.
The story is what it is. It follows closely to the original except now Alice is on the brink of adulthood. She must reclaim her inner strength and learn to trust her imagination.
The visuals are lush and make any weakness in the story fade away. I'm not sure if the 3D enhanced the viewing experience, but it certainly didn't hurt it. I'm sure that the movie is just as immersive and lush on a flat screen. It may not be so good on a small screen however.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Is the iPad all that?
The short answer is yes. It is the next generation of mobile computing.
Even before I got the iPad, my iPhone started eclipsing my MacBook Pro as the goto computer e-mail, Facebook, Web surfing, checking news, etc. H and I frequently joked that my MacBook Pro was an obscenely large phone charger.
The iPad has accelerated that process. Its larger screen makes Web surfing and e-mailing much better. Web pages are readable and typing e-mails a breeze. Facebook is even better since it is possible to use the Web interface. (The iPhone app makes Facebook usable on the small screen, but it cannot match the full Web interface.)
I have used my iPhone for blogging, but it was not something I'd choose to do. On the iPad blogging is a joy. The bigger keyboard makes typing easy. I also like the spell checking. The iPad not only points out spelling mistakes, it offers suggestions to correct the mistake. I use BlogPress which is a universal app.
Along the same lines, I've also used pages to write fairly lengthy documents. Again, I found the key board easy to use. It is best using in it landscape mode is much better than portrait, but that is a problem for Pages. In landscape mode all of Pages controls are hidden. This means that you have to flip back and forth to do any formatted text. Pages also falls down when it comes to transferring documents between the iPad and a computer. The process is convoluted and lossy.
For pure fun, the iPad rocks. The ABC app is magical. The shows are clear, smooth, and portable. There are commercials, but they are not as egregious as watching on cable. The games I've played are also kicking. My two favorites are Harbor Master HD and Parcel Panic. The graphics are amazing and the speedy processor handles the action without a hitch.
Running iPhone games on the iPad is a mixed bag. They looked lost on the screen when played at regular size. When played at 2x they are pixelated. For some games, the pixelation is not too big a deal. For others, it is a deal breaker. One advantage is that all the games play much smoother than they do on my vintage iPhone.
The iPad also shines as an e-book reader. iBooks does a decent job displaying crisp text. It also does an excellent job displaying images. The built-in dictionary is a nice touch, as is the ability to look up words in Wikipedia. The bookstore software makes getting books easy. The UI eye candy is a nice touch even if it is useless.
Is the iPad perfect? Can it replace my laptop? No. It cannot do any photo editing. I haven't found a decent money management app. The storage capacity is tiny. There is no way to print from it. I cannot find replacements for some of the applications I use for work that will run on it. (Although there are a number of apps that will allow me to connect to my work computer to use them.)
Of course most of the problems can be solved by software. Eventually a developer will create apps that fill in the gaps.
When that happens, my MacBook Pro will truly be just a very large phone charger.
Even before I got the iPad, my iPhone started eclipsing my MacBook Pro as the goto computer e-mail, Facebook, Web surfing, checking news, etc. H and I frequently joked that my MacBook Pro was an obscenely large phone charger.
The iPad has accelerated that process. Its larger screen makes Web surfing and e-mailing much better. Web pages are readable and typing e-mails a breeze. Facebook is even better since it is possible to use the Web interface. (The iPhone app makes Facebook usable on the small screen, but it cannot match the full Web interface.)
I have used my iPhone for blogging, but it was not something I'd choose to do. On the iPad blogging is a joy. The bigger keyboard makes typing easy. I also like the spell checking. The iPad not only points out spelling mistakes, it offers suggestions to correct the mistake. I use BlogPress which is a universal app.
Along the same lines, I've also used pages to write fairly lengthy documents. Again, I found the key board easy to use. It is best using in it landscape mode is much better than portrait, but that is a problem for Pages. In landscape mode all of Pages controls are hidden. This means that you have to flip back and forth to do any formatted text. Pages also falls down when it comes to transferring documents between the iPad and a computer. The process is convoluted and lossy.
For pure fun, the iPad rocks. The ABC app is magical. The shows are clear, smooth, and portable. There are commercials, but they are not as egregious as watching on cable. The games I've played are also kicking. My two favorites are Harbor Master HD and Parcel Panic. The graphics are amazing and the speedy processor handles the action without a hitch.
Running iPhone games on the iPad is a mixed bag. They looked lost on the screen when played at regular size. When played at 2x they are pixelated. For some games, the pixelation is not too big a deal. For others, it is a deal breaker. One advantage is that all the games play much smoother than they do on my vintage iPhone.
The iPad also shines as an e-book reader. iBooks does a decent job displaying crisp text. It also does an excellent job displaying images. The built-in dictionary is a nice touch, as is the ability to look up words in Wikipedia. The bookstore software makes getting books easy. The UI eye candy is a nice touch even if it is useless.
Is the iPad perfect? Can it replace my laptop? No. It cannot do any photo editing. I haven't found a decent money management app. The storage capacity is tiny. There is no way to print from it. I cannot find replacements for some of the applications I use for work that will run on it. (Although there are a number of apps that will allow me to connect to my work computer to use them.)
Of course most of the problems can be solved by software. Eventually a developer will create apps that fill in the gaps.
When that happens, my MacBook Pro will truly be just a very large phone charger.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Mutant Chronicals
I'm not sure why I was attracted to this movie. I hadn't seen any reviews, hadn't seen any previews, and didn't know any of the actors. The title is bland.
What ever got me to tape it, I'm not u happy I did. "Mutant Chronicals" is not a great movie; it is not what many would consider a good movie. It is not bad and includes some interesting touches.
Most of the dystopia, end of man tropes are present. Humanity has nearly stripped of it's resources. Mega corporations have replaced governments. The corporations are engages in constant war. There is a secluded religious order protecting the secret that can save humanity. A doomed quest must be made by a ragtag band. There is a noble, but troubled hero in the band.
The plot holds few surprises. There is plenty of action and gore to keep things moving.
What I found most interesting was the films visual style. It was all sort of soft focus and steam punkish. I'm not sure why. I've seen other films that use a similar style, and found it irratating. It just worked for "Mutant Chronicals".
What ever got me to tape it, I'm not u happy I did. "Mutant Chronicals" is not a great movie; it is not what many would consider a good movie. It is not bad and includes some interesting touches.
Most of the dystopia, end of man tropes are present. Humanity has nearly stripped of it's resources. Mega corporations have replaced governments. The corporations are engages in constant war. There is a secluded religious order protecting the secret that can save humanity. A doomed quest must be made by a ragtag band. There is a noble, but troubled hero in the band.
The plot holds few surprises. There is plenty of action and gore to keep things moving.
What I found most interesting was the films visual style. It was all sort of soft focus and steam punkish. I'm not sure why. I've seen other films that use a similar style, and found it irratating. It just worked for "Mutant Chronicals".
Retrograde
When a movie stars Dolph Lundgrin and Joe Montana, you can bet it will be terrible. Sadly, I didn't check the credits before taping "Retrograde". I was intrigued by the description in the info box.
Once I saw the cast list I hoped it would either be laughably bad or action packed. It was neither. The movie takes itself seriously and Dolph is too old to offer up any more than tepid action.
"Retrograde" isn't even good for a rainy day.
Once I saw the cast list I hoped it would either be laughably bad or action packed. It was neither. The movie takes itself seriously and Dolph is too old to offer up any more than tepid action.
"Retrograde" isn't even good for a rainy day.
Lars and the Real Girl
It is a free Showtime weekend, so we caught up on some movie watching. H heard that "Lara and the Real Girl" was really good and it was on last night.
The movie was not what I expected. From what I remember from the trailors and the movie's description, I expected a slightly juvinile sex comedy. I watched a touching drama about family, loss, and love.
The plot is original in concept, but ultimately predictable. Despite the predictable ending, there are enough outliers that surprise. I actually liked the predictability of the plot.
The characters and performances make the movie. Despite the craziness of the situation all of the characters play it perfectly straight. You know people like these characters. They are regular folk.
"Lars and the Real Girl" is a small movie with a big heart.
The movie was not what I expected. From what I remember from the trailors and the movie's description, I expected a slightly juvinile sex comedy. I watched a touching drama about family, loss, and love.
The plot is original in concept, but ultimately predictable. Despite the predictable ending, there are enough outliers that surprise. I actually liked the predictability of the plot.
The characters and performances make the movie. Despite the craziness of the situation all of the characters play it perfectly straight. You know people like these characters. They are regular folk.
"Lars and the Real Girl" is a small movie with a big heart.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Crazy Burger
There is a little joint in Narragansett called Crazy Burger. As the name implies, they are known for the burgers. However, they have a full menu of interesting things. The entire menu is a little outside of the box. Nothing is quite mainstream. H had a potato skin dish that had avocado and refried beans for skin stuffing. We've been to Crazy Burger several times and always enjoyed the food.
In addition to dinner, Crazy Burger also serves breakfast. I've been once and had an omlette that was pretty good.
In addition to dinner, Crazy Burger also serves breakfast. I've been once and had an omlette that was pretty good.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Dinoshark
I have a fetish for knowingly terrible horror movies. Dinoshark, a Scyfy production, ranks near the top.
The special effects are obvious, the dialog is terrible, the plot is predictable, and the acting is criminal. It is chuck full of the archetyps: hot, but discredited, scientist, mysterious, and troubled, man of action, expendable sidekicks, skeptical authority figures, creature unleashed by man's relentless assault on nature.....
To me, however, the sheer scope of the terribleness is the beauty of a movie like Dinoshark. Nobody involved in making the movie thought it would be anything more than a B-movie. It has all the references, it has all the required tropes, and it has the low budget feel. It even managed to have a few jumptastic moments.
How can you not like a movie that combines Godzilla and Jaws into one perfect cheese ball? It is a great way to waste a rainy Sunday afternoon.
The special effects are obvious, the dialog is terrible, the plot is predictable, and the acting is criminal. It is chuck full of the archetyps: hot, but discredited, scientist, mysterious, and troubled, man of action, expendable sidekicks, skeptical authority figures, creature unleashed by man's relentless assault on nature.....
To me, however, the sheer scope of the terribleness is the beauty of a movie like Dinoshark. Nobody involved in making the movie thought it would be anything more than a B-movie. It has all the references, it has all the required tropes, and it has the low budget feel. It even managed to have a few jumptastic moments.
How can you not like a movie that combines Godzilla and Jaws into one perfect cheese ball? It is a great way to waste a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Extract
Extract is a small flick that made the indie rounds last summer. The trailer was funny enough to hook me. It had just enough quark to catch my eye, but not enough to be a turn off. (The right quark balance is tricky to find.) I hoped to see it in the theaters, but sadly it was gone before its time.
When it showed up on Verizon VOD, I jumped. After a few minor technical glitches, we were treated to a funny, dark rom-comish glimpse at lives gone slightly off track. Jason Bateman is perfect as the uptight, slightly lost, mildly depressed main character. Ben Affleck is surprisingly good as his high school buddy, confidant, and spiritual guide. Mila Kunis rocks as the smoking hot catalyst.
Some of the plot is just plain goofy, but that is the fun of it all. At times it is even a little ridiculous. That, for me, was part of the fun. Its distance to reality made it cathartic.
I recommend renting it for date night.
When it showed up on Verizon VOD, I jumped. After a few minor technical glitches, we were treated to a funny, dark rom-comish glimpse at lives gone slightly off track. Jason Bateman is perfect as the uptight, slightly lost, mildly depressed main character. Ben Affleck is surprisingly good as his high school buddy, confidant, and spiritual guide. Mila Kunis rocks as the smoking hot catalyst.
Some of the plot is just plain goofy, but that is the fun of it all. At times it is even a little ridiculous. That, for me, was part of the fun. Its distance to reality made it cathartic.
I recommend renting it for date night.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Pandorum
Pandorum joins the ranks of in space no one can hear you scream sci-fi horror flicks. It has many of the standard elements: man ruins earth, man attempts to escape doom by fleeing to deep space, a horrible accident, mutated humanoids on a killing spree, a plucky hero, a misfit band of side kicks, ect. Because of the familiar feel of the story and the high production quality, Pandorum holds it own. It is not great like Space Odyssey, Moon, Silent Running, or Alien. Nor is it as terrible as Predator 2 or the AVP movies. It is somewhere between Event Horizon and Sunshine. Not as scary as Event Horizon and not as smart as Sunshine.
Many of the themes underpinning the stories are the same. How does the human mind hold up in deep space? Can mankind rise above its inherent flaws? Is there hope for a better tomorrow? Will the hero win and will he get the girl?
The plot is serviceable. (Miles better than Avatar) It moves along at a good pace and maintains the tension. I was never terrified, but was never entirely sure what was going to happen. The final reveal is good. The ending is predictable.
Pandorum is a solid movie. I'm glad I didn't pay $10 for it, but would not have felt ripped off if I had.
Many of the themes underpinning the stories are the same. How does the human mind hold up in deep space? Can mankind rise above its inherent flaws? Is there hope for a better tomorrow? Will the hero win and will he get the girl?
The plot is serviceable. (Miles better than Avatar) It moves along at a good pace and maintains the tension. I was never terrified, but was never entirely sure what was going to happen. The final reveal is good. The ending is predictable.
Pandorum is a solid movie. I'm glad I didn't pay $10 for it, but would not have felt ripped off if I had.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sodastream Love
For Christmas H and I invested (OK we used X-mas money from my Mom) in a new Sodastream machine. It is a counter top soda water maker. I drink a ton of flavored seltzer water; enough to keep a tribe of desert nomads hydrated for years. I also love new toys!!
Initially the marketing hype had me hooked: save money, save the environment, limitless flavors, convenient, healthier, etc. The other thing that had me hooked was the absence of negative reviews on the Web. It seemed like everyone who has ever used one of these things liked it, or at least didn't dislike it enough to type in a Web based hate screed.
After using it steadily for three months, I know why there is a dearth of negative reviews for Sodastream machines. The thing is one of the few gadgets that lives up to the hype.
We purchased the starter kit that came with the machine, a carbonator, 2 one liter bottles, and an assortment of flavors. We also ponied up for 2 extra bottles, a diet cola mix, a diet grapefruit mix, and a spare carbonator. In total, the cost was around $180.
The machine is a snap to set up. You simply pop the back off of the unit, screw the carbonator in, and reattach the back cover.
Making seltzer water is even easier. You fill up one of the bottles with water, screw it into the machine, and push the button a few times. After a few pumps the machine makes a loud farting noise. That means the water is fizzed. The directions say 3 farts make the water averagely fizzy and I would concur. You can tailor the fizzy to your own tastes.
To add flavors you simply pour the flavoring into the fizzed water. Adding the flavor before the fizzy is a messy proposition.
All of the flavors we tried (diet cola, diet grapefruit, berry essence, and lime essence) were good. The diet cola is more like RC cola than Coke or Pepsi. The grapefruit is like pink Fresca. The essences are just like any generic flavored seltzer you'd buy in the store. I can be pretty finicky and I haven't missed the brand name flavors (OK I do miss the Polar Vanilla occasionally).
In the three months that we've had the machine, H had purchased one liter of seltzer (it was on sale and a flavor I'm fond of). She doesn't miss lugging the bottles from the store or trudging the empties back to recycle. We always have seltzer in the house and often have soda as well.
We've used one of the carbonators (refills are $15), the diet grapefruit, and one of the essences. In total, I'm guessing we've gotten more than 100 liters of seltzer and soda out of the Sodastream. So the total cost per-liter is about $1.80 or less. Sure it is more than what seltzer costs at the store, but I'm guessing that before we burn through all of the starter kit supplies we'll have made 200 liters of seltzer which brings it under $1.00 a liter. Overtime the price per liter will keep going down. Add the convenience of not having to lug seltzer water home from the store, and knowing that the water used is filtered, and the cost is even better.
Our Sodastream is one of the few kitchen gadgets I've seen that are really useful!
Initially the marketing hype had me hooked: save money, save the environment, limitless flavors, convenient, healthier, etc. The other thing that had me hooked was the absence of negative reviews on the Web. It seemed like everyone who has ever used one of these things liked it, or at least didn't dislike it enough to type in a Web based hate screed.
After using it steadily for three months, I know why there is a dearth of negative reviews for Sodastream machines. The thing is one of the few gadgets that lives up to the hype.
We purchased the starter kit that came with the machine, a carbonator, 2 one liter bottles, and an assortment of flavors. We also ponied up for 2 extra bottles, a diet cola mix, a diet grapefruit mix, and a spare carbonator. In total, the cost was around $180.
The machine is a snap to set up. You simply pop the back off of the unit, screw the carbonator in, and reattach the back cover.
Making seltzer water is even easier. You fill up one of the bottles with water, screw it into the machine, and push the button a few times. After a few pumps the machine makes a loud farting noise. That means the water is fizzed. The directions say 3 farts make the water averagely fizzy and I would concur. You can tailor the fizzy to your own tastes.
To add flavors you simply pour the flavoring into the fizzed water. Adding the flavor before the fizzy is a messy proposition.
All of the flavors we tried (diet cola, diet grapefruit, berry essence, and lime essence) were good. The diet cola is more like RC cola than Coke or Pepsi. The grapefruit is like pink Fresca. The essences are just like any generic flavored seltzer you'd buy in the store. I can be pretty finicky and I haven't missed the brand name flavors (OK I do miss the Polar Vanilla occasionally).
In the three months that we've had the machine, H had purchased one liter of seltzer (it was on sale and a flavor I'm fond of). She doesn't miss lugging the bottles from the store or trudging the empties back to recycle. We always have seltzer in the house and often have soda as well.
We've used one of the carbonators (refills are $15), the diet grapefruit, and one of the essences. In total, I'm guessing we've gotten more than 100 liters of seltzer and soda out of the Sodastream. So the total cost per-liter is about $1.80 or less. Sure it is more than what seltzer costs at the store, but I'm guessing that before we burn through all of the starter kit supplies we'll have made 200 liters of seltzer which brings it under $1.00 a liter. Overtime the price per liter will keep going down. Add the convenience of not having to lug seltzer water home from the store, and knowing that the water used is filtered, and the cost is even better.
Our Sodastream is one of the few kitchen gadgets I've seen that are really useful!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Crazy Heart
"Crazy Heart" is generating a lot of buzz in the indie movie sceene. Both Jeff Bridges and Maggy Gylenhall are nomitated for awards. So when H asked me if I wanted to see it (at a community run theater) I said sure. At the worst it would be few hours in the dark with my wife.
After seeing the movie, I understand the buzz. "Crazy Heart" is a solid character study. I liked the way it kept many elements of the traditional star biopic, but didn't feel compelled to stick to the traditional ending. Bridges is impressive as the crotchety star past his prime. Gylenhall is does a fine job as the too trusting plucky reporter. Even Collin Ferrel is pretty good as the young stud. Bridges' voice is well suited to the songs.
Is it a great movie? No it is just well done. However, when put against the dross that Hollywood is putting out lately, it shines like polished brass.
After seeing the movie, I understand the buzz. "Crazy Heart" is a solid character study. I liked the way it kept many elements of the traditional star biopic, but didn't feel compelled to stick to the traditional ending. Bridges is impressive as the crotchety star past his prime. Gylenhall is does a fine job as the too trusting plucky reporter. Even Collin Ferrel is pretty good as the young stud. Bridges' voice is well suited to the songs.
Is it a great movie? No it is just well done. However, when put against the dross that Hollywood is putting out lately, it shines like polished brass.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Up in the Air
Up on the Air is being hailed as one of the best movies of the year, but I was afriad that, like most movies, it would devolve into a "people need love" flick. H was leary of the film because she heard it was a downer (which secretly gave me hope for it). So we had no strong desire to see it, but given the dirth of quality movies out there "Up in the Air" was the only choice.
If "Up in the Air" is one of the best movies of the year it will be a mediocre year for movies. "Up in the Air" is on the right side of average, but doesn't quite reach greatness.
The acting is solid, but I expect nothing less from Cloney. I always like Justin Bateman. They play the nhilistic business men perfectly. Cloney's character's ability to fake empathy is chilling.
The story starts taking a nose dive when the main character starts to feel the need to fall in love. Why must every film end up as propaganda for love and human companionship? I'm not saying that I think a life devoid of human conections is for me, but it is an understandable life choice.
I do give the movie credit for sticking, mostly, to it's nihilism.
If "Up in the Air" is one of the best movies of the year it will be a mediocre year for movies. "Up in the Air" is on the right side of average, but doesn't quite reach greatness.
The acting is solid, but I expect nothing less from Cloney. I always like Justin Bateman. They play the nhilistic business men perfectly. Cloney's character's ability to fake empathy is chilling.
The story starts taking a nose dive when the main character starts to feel the need to fall in love. Why must every film end up as propaganda for love and human companionship? I'm not saying that I think a life devoid of human conections is for me, but it is an understandable life choice.
I do give the movie credit for sticking, mostly, to it's nihilism.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Brothers Bloom
H and I decided that watching an on-demand movie while sipping intoxicating beverages would be a nice way to spend New Years Eve. After looking through the very long list of (mostly) questionable movies offered on Fios, we settled on "The Brothers Bloom".
I had seen the trailer a while back and made a note to be sure and catch it. Sadly, I don't think it ever got a wide enough release for me to see it in the theater. The trailer presents the film as a funny con/heist film with a heart. The cast of Adrian Brody and Rachel Weisz added to the attraction.
The brothers Bloom are two brothers, raised in foster homes, who blossom into world renown con artists (or gentlemen thieves as they like to be called). As it turns out, the younger of the two brothers, Bloom, is a sensitive soul who is tired of living the roles created for him by his brother. They decide to pull off one last con with a rich, but reclusive, Penelope as their mark.
The basic plot is predictable: Bloom and Penelope fall in love, he pushes her away to protect her from the life of a con, Bloom grows a pair, Penelope returns to Bloom, and they ride off into the sunset. Everyone gets what they want.
Despite the predictable plot and the mostly stock characters, the movie has surprises and does keep you guessing a bit. It is very hard to tell the full extent of the elder Bloom's con. Is it simply to get Penelope's money or is it to also help Bloom get the girl? Is Penelope what she is presented at or is she a knowing participant in the con? What is the deal with Bang Bang?
The female characters really make the movie special. Penelope is quirky and inspiring. Bang Bang is a fun mystery. Brody and Ruffalo are sharp as the title characters, but their characters are nothing special.
The central question of the movie is if it is possible to live an unscripted life. Bloom's life has always been "scripted" because all he does is play the roles created for him by his brother. Penelope, on the other hand, has never had a role written for her, but reveals that she too has lived a scripted life. The difference is that she writes the script. She chooses to make the shut-in life she led before the movie into a good story instead of a tragedy. Is life just a series of stories we tell? Is the thing that makes a life worth living the way we interpret events?
I like the way the movie answers the questions. I also just plain liked the movie. It was good fun.
I had seen the trailer a while back and made a note to be sure and catch it. Sadly, I don't think it ever got a wide enough release for me to see it in the theater. The trailer presents the film as a funny con/heist film with a heart. The cast of Adrian Brody and Rachel Weisz added to the attraction.
The brothers Bloom are two brothers, raised in foster homes, who blossom into world renown con artists (or gentlemen thieves as they like to be called). As it turns out, the younger of the two brothers, Bloom, is a sensitive soul who is tired of living the roles created for him by his brother. They decide to pull off one last con with a rich, but reclusive, Penelope as their mark.
The basic plot is predictable: Bloom and Penelope fall in love, he pushes her away to protect her from the life of a con, Bloom grows a pair, Penelope returns to Bloom, and they ride off into the sunset. Everyone gets what they want.
Despite the predictable plot and the mostly stock characters, the movie has surprises and does keep you guessing a bit. It is very hard to tell the full extent of the elder Bloom's con. Is it simply to get Penelope's money or is it to also help Bloom get the girl? Is Penelope what she is presented at or is she a knowing participant in the con? What is the deal with Bang Bang?
The female characters really make the movie special. Penelope is quirky and inspiring. Bang Bang is a fun mystery. Brody and Ruffalo are sharp as the title characters, but their characters are nothing special.
The central question of the movie is if it is possible to live an unscripted life. Bloom's life has always been "scripted" because all he does is play the roles created for him by his brother. Penelope, on the other hand, has never had a role written for her, but reveals that she too has lived a scripted life. The difference is that she writes the script. She chooses to make the shut-in life she led before the movie into a good story instead of a tragedy. Is life just a series of stories we tell? Is the thing that makes a life worth living the way we interpret events?
I like the way the movie answers the questions. I also just plain liked the movie. It was good fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)