I wanted to chronicle this last semester because it was particularly poignant then but I had so much to do that I just never got around to it.
It might be because I've gone through the proper training for an education major or maybe just because I have a short fuse, but I've come to understand the shapes and sizes class participation comes in. There are various ways to cope with what is often 15% of your final grade so I've come up with some classifications that seem to work for people. Feel free to try any of these out, or simply use them to label yourself for your own convenience:
1. Artificial Intelligence - This is a great way to pad your self-image. If it's a matter of answering a question, manipulate the question so that you can add something you know that other people probably don't. If it's just jumping in on class discussion (and probably dominating it, if you fall into this category), it's important that you reference things you read beyond the requirements of the class simultaneously to demand that the class consider how much more intelligent you are and also to effectively shove the discussion into a standstill since no one is familiar with what you're referencing. Doing this gives everyone the opportunity to consider your lingering words as they feel foolish and resign themselves to never being as knowledgeable as you are.
2. Grand Inquisition - Quick: you didn't do the reading that was due for the day but you will not accept the fact that maybe you deserve a D for class participation. What do you do? There it is; ask questions. By three-quarters of the way through class you get a good enough feel for something to be able to raise your hand with confidence and ask a question for which you have no answer. Will the answer do you any good without a familiarity with the subject? Absolutely not. Might others believe you actually did what was assigned to you because you're speaking? Certainly. The more general the better, because then you don't run the risk of asking a question that was actually answered in the reading. For example, say everyone's talking specifically about the symbols in the Great Gatsby--giving details and supporting their claims with evidence. How about dropping this little general bomb?: "Do you think authors use symbols intentionally or are they just constructs by readers?" KA-BOOOOOOM! Check mark next to your name for speaking with none of the work. Extra points for asking questions that pull discussion further and further away from the assignment and into more and more general territory. Does it get any better than that?
3. Anecdotal Evidence - This is perfect for two demographics: our friends who did not do the reading and anyone who is incredibly self-involved. It's simple, really. All you have to do is use whatever the discussion is about, regardless of the degree of relevance, as a vehicle to proclaim something about you or someone you know. Sure, you can talk about World War II in terms of the personal accounts told in the book you were supposed to read, but instead try talking about some of the war artifacts your grandpa brought back from Vietnam. They were both wars, right? You may not be an expert on World War II, but you're certainly an expert on your grandpa. Why wouldn't people want to hear about your grandpa? He's a chill guy.
4. Oh shit, class is almost over! - You come to and realize you've spent 80 minutes texting, trying to see how many capitals of US states you can name while staring through the map your professor pulled down at the beginning of class, and polishing your sword--no, that isn't a euphemism; you were sprucing up the sword being held by the Trojan warrior you drew in your notebook under the page title "A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM". Shit. What did you talk about? Were there any assignments given? Did that kid that sits across from you use words that others couldn't find in a thesaurus let alone find a practical everyday use for? Here comes the worst part: it sounds as if the professor is getting ready to let you out early. Sure, everyone is making a move to get their stuff ready, but you need to take this opportunity: ensure that everyone stays for the entire class period by raising your hand and wedging in that class participation while you still can. Here you can combine any of the previous three classifications as long as you are covering your own ass at the expense of your classmates who actually made it to class on time and paid attention for the duration. Suckers.
Then there are those who have legitimate things to share, but we won't worry about them.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Getting on that missed bus
I saw a khaki VW Beetle today and I twittered (tweeted? twitted?) about it. How chill is that?
I think Dunkin Donuts was trying to get their B Team some experience this morning, because that bagel left much to be desired: primarily the butter I was hoping would be on it.
Soon I'm going to try to post something other than some media review to show how much more profound I can be than Ebert and the Siskel stand-in or whatever music reviewer whose name people might recognize.
Not now, though.
#4: Scary Movie
I'm not sure what I was doing in middle school when this movie came out. Maybe I was watching Christina Aguilera's Genie in a Bottle video a suspicious amount of times. Maybe I was cutting the elastic ankles off of my sweatpants because I'd finally attained self-awareness. Maybe I was shutting off the AIM notification noises because the charm had worn off and they officially annoyed the shit out of me. Again, I'm not sure. Somehow I missed this movie that everyone loved so much, though.
I survived, though. I made it through the halls of junior high without knowing a single quote the same way I made it without ever buying Pokemon. I decided to come back and amend my miss because a good friend of mine absolutely loves this movie and we needed something to do on a weekday night.
Who thought they would see a review--even an informal one--for Scary Movie well into the year 2009? I can't give any insight into this film both because it's already been said and because there isn't much insight to be given. For as childish as it was I actually thought it was a fairly good parody. It falls into that classic Wayans brothers trap of overexplaining jokes and utilizing some humor so obvious you're not quite sure who they were hoping to make laugh with it, but I was shocked to see some of the subtleties in the movie that were legitimately clever. Nuance is not a word that comes to mind when I think Wayans.
The key to the film prevailing as a lighthearted farce in the vein of Airplane! and Hot Shots and not getting stuck at adolescent shtick is a well-defined balance between parody and random humor. It was actually a clever critique of horror movies in that it followed the formula so strictly that the presentation of the film alone served as a punchline. But the irrelevant jokes that stepped out of the parody to remind the viewer that the movie doesn't see itself as some New Yorker style satire made it immature, but in a good way. One of the funniest moments in the movie to me was at the beginning when Shawn is at his locker and he takes a step back to ask his friend, "Does this shirt make me look gay?" Because I'm probably the only person who hadn't seen this movie until now I won't explain the rest, but for such a childish joke it was so perfectly out of place that it gets a laugh out of you.
I don't regret not spending a week's allowance to rush out and see this movie way back when, because there weren't enough laugh out loud moments for me to understand the hype even for an adolescent crowd. Seeing it for free in my living room with the Sno-Caps I bought for $1.69 instead of $4.50, however, is entirely acceptable.
I think Dunkin Donuts was trying to get their B Team some experience this morning, because that bagel left much to be desired: primarily the butter I was hoping would be on it.
Soon I'm going to try to post something other than some media review to show how much more profound I can be than Ebert and the Siskel stand-in or whatever music reviewer whose name people might recognize.
Not now, though.
#4: Scary Movie
I'm not sure what I was doing in middle school when this movie came out. Maybe I was watching Christina Aguilera's Genie in a Bottle video a suspicious amount of times. Maybe I was cutting the elastic ankles off of my sweatpants because I'd finally attained self-awareness. Maybe I was shutting off the AIM notification noises because the charm had worn off and they officially annoyed the shit out of me. Again, I'm not sure. Somehow I missed this movie that everyone loved so much, though.
I survived, though. I made it through the halls of junior high without knowing a single quote the same way I made it without ever buying Pokemon. I decided to come back and amend my miss because a good friend of mine absolutely loves this movie and we needed something to do on a weekday night.
Who thought they would see a review--even an informal one--for Scary Movie well into the year 2009? I can't give any insight into this film both because it's already been said and because there isn't much insight to be given. For as childish as it was I actually thought it was a fairly good parody. It falls into that classic Wayans brothers trap of overexplaining jokes and utilizing some humor so obvious you're not quite sure who they were hoping to make laugh with it, but I was shocked to see some of the subtleties in the movie that were legitimately clever. Nuance is not a word that comes to mind when I think Wayans.
The key to the film prevailing as a lighthearted farce in the vein of Airplane! and Hot Shots and not getting stuck at adolescent shtick is a well-defined balance between parody and random humor. It was actually a clever critique of horror movies in that it followed the formula so strictly that the presentation of the film alone served as a punchline. But the irrelevant jokes that stepped out of the parody to remind the viewer that the movie doesn't see itself as some New Yorker style satire made it immature, but in a good way. One of the funniest moments in the movie to me was at the beginning when Shawn is at his locker and he takes a step back to ask his friend, "Does this shirt make me look gay?" Because I'm probably the only person who hadn't seen this movie until now I won't explain the rest, but for such a childish joke it was so perfectly out of place that it gets a laugh out of you.
I don't regret not spending a week's allowance to rush out and see this movie way back when, because there weren't enough laugh out loud moments for me to understand the hype even for an adolescent crowd. Seeing it for free in my living room with the Sno-Caps I bought for $1.69 instead of $4.50, however, is entirely acceptable.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
This Twitter's Got Claws
Happy back to the grind after a premature ending to a long weekend, everyone. I'm right there with you; know that.
I just made a Twitter for the following reasons:
1. I need to practice brevity
2. If I have no one to text I now have someone to text
3. Celebrities like Justin Long and Ethan Suplee have one
4. I could use one more thing that keeps me from getting 7-8 hours of sleep
Feel free to glance half-heartedly to the right, between my blog entries and the scroll bar. You'll find my twitter gadget there (if I did it right).
Back to work:
#3: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
I can't help but be drawn to any film that involves superheroes; that includes you, Mystery Men. For whatever reason I wasn't too psyched for this despite the fact that I loved the X-Men trilogy, I love Deadpool, and I love Ryan Reynolds. That should have tipped me off. When it came around in theaters I didn't do the usual hunt around for midnight showings and bob my leg in anticipation. I meandered to a theater two weeks after its release. Unfortunately, that was the appropriate response for what seems to have been an only mildly-interested effort by the creators.
I think I've already referenced the astute staff at The A/V Club for The Onion at least one or two times in the few blog entries I've composed so far, but one of the most intelligent comments I've heard about this movie is that the draw to Wolverine's character is that he's shrouded in mystery; delineating that mystery makes him a lot less interesting. Besides the fact that the inaccuracies in the story were glaring even to someone who has only a basic familiarity with the comics, a haphazard mess of half-answers to all of your Wolverine questions makes for what was clearly little more than a vehicle for unconvincing CGI and over-the-top cinematic action.
I'm sorry. That sounded harsh. I didn't hate this movie.
Hugh Jackman gave another fun performance as Wolverine. The integration of some of the series' lesser-known characters was intriguing. And the final crazy battle sequence--while somewhat unbelievable even for a movie about mutants--was very well-choreographed and filmed.
The problems (as usual with movies in this genre) lie in bad acting, unnecessary absurd action, and the complete refusal to stop at one. For anyone not named Ryan Reynolds or Hugh Jackman, the acting was either uninspired or excessive. And even Hugh was pushing it. The action was completely ridiculous. The scene you probably saw on television where Wolverine is basically flying towards a suspiciously dexterous helicopter is ten times longer and ten times worse than it was in the commercial. And just short of having Hugh Jackman in the film's final moment look intimidatingly at the screen and whisper "Can't wait for round two," they could not have made it any more clear that they expect to see you two summers from now when the sequel to this is out. You'll have to let me know how it is.
I don't regret seeing the film. It was hokey in the way that most other super hero movies are. But the formula is rapidly approaching hackneyed as producers and directors jockey for position in cinematic musical chairs: who will be the one to sufficiently kill the super hero movie fad. This one didn't, but it certainly didn't help.
I just made a Twitter for the following reasons:
1. I need to practice brevity
2. If I have no one to text I now have someone to text
3. Celebrities like Justin Long and Ethan Suplee have one
4. I could use one more thing that keeps me from getting 7-8 hours of sleep
Feel free to glance half-heartedly to the right, between my blog entries and the scroll bar. You'll find my twitter gadget there (if I did it right).
Back to work:
#3: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
I can't help but be drawn to any film that involves superheroes; that includes you, Mystery Men. For whatever reason I wasn't too psyched for this despite the fact that I loved the X-Men trilogy, I love Deadpool, and I love Ryan Reynolds. That should have tipped me off. When it came around in theaters I didn't do the usual hunt around for midnight showings and bob my leg in anticipation. I meandered to a theater two weeks after its release. Unfortunately, that was the appropriate response for what seems to have been an only mildly-interested effort by the creators.
I think I've already referenced the astute staff at The A/V Club for The Onion at least one or two times in the few blog entries I've composed so far, but one of the most intelligent comments I've heard about this movie is that the draw to Wolverine's character is that he's shrouded in mystery; delineating that mystery makes him a lot less interesting. Besides the fact that the inaccuracies in the story were glaring even to someone who has only a basic familiarity with the comics, a haphazard mess of half-answers to all of your Wolverine questions makes for what was clearly little more than a vehicle for unconvincing CGI and over-the-top cinematic action.
I'm sorry. That sounded harsh. I didn't hate this movie.
Hugh Jackman gave another fun performance as Wolverine. The integration of some of the series' lesser-known characters was intriguing. And the final crazy battle sequence--while somewhat unbelievable even for a movie about mutants--was very well-choreographed and filmed.
The problems (as usual with movies in this genre) lie in bad acting, unnecessary absurd action, and the complete refusal to stop at one. For anyone not named Ryan Reynolds or Hugh Jackman, the acting was either uninspired or excessive. And even Hugh was pushing it. The action was completely ridiculous. The scene you probably saw on television where Wolverine is basically flying towards a suspiciously dexterous helicopter is ten times longer and ten times worse than it was in the commercial. And just short of having Hugh Jackman in the film's final moment look intimidatingly at the screen and whisper "Can't wait for round two," they could not have made it any more clear that they expect to see you two summers from now when the sequel to this is out. You'll have to let me know how it is.
I don't regret seeing the film. It was hokey in the way that most other super hero movies are. But the formula is rapidly approaching hackneyed as producers and directors jockey for position in cinematic musical chairs: who will be the one to sufficiently kill the super hero movie fad. This one didn't, but it certainly didn't help.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Gut-busting Good
Two down, ninety-eight to go.
#2: Alien
Part of the impetus for the whole hundred movie endeavor is that I've realized for as many movies as I've seen there are a lot of classics I've missed. Maybe instead of seeing The Dark Knight seven times in theaters I should have tried my hand at expending my horizons.
I've always heard that Alien was a groundbreaking Sci-Fi film worthy of every bit of the hype it has received. I can see why people would say this. You would never know this movie was made in 1979. The set, the special effects, and the concept were prototypical. But even beyond it's success within its context, the movie is just beautifully done.
A lot of people are inclined to point to CGI as evidence for how far we've come cinematically. I don't know how others feel about this, but for as many CGI successes as there have been in recent films there have been as many abject failures. The recent Wolverine movie (which I will be writing about soon) is the perfect example. The CGI claws and whatever CGI was applied to Patrick Stewart's face were unbearably bad. For those of you unfortunate enough to see the sequel to The Ring, the infamous CGI deer scene had the audience in stitches. So its shortcomings are apparent.
Alien achieves impressive effects for its time through basic cinematic tricks: distance, lighting, duration of shots, etc. The actual alien, though crude by our standards, is pretty damn creepy looking for something made--count it--thirty years ago. I loved all of the props and set pieces.
The movie itself was equally impressive. Sigourney Weaver's performance was sincere. The last scene, especially, gives off a very real sense of suspence where movies now settle for shock scares. Of course I'd only rented this movie so the majority of that scene was pausing and then jumping forward a few seconds, but its essence was preserved. Tenseness during exchanges between shipmates as tempers mounted was tangible. This is the type of movie that gets me excited to have 98 more ahead of me.
Sci-fi movies currently have a stigma attached to them. Admittedly a lot of the Sci-Fi movies that come out now are a little alienating (get it?)--either so fast-paced and action packed and Vin Diesel starred that true Sci-Fi fans aren't interested, or so stereotypically daunting in terms of content that only true fans are willing to watch. Alien seems accessible, which is probably just one element that contributed to its success.
#2: Alien
Part of the impetus for the whole hundred movie endeavor is that I've realized for as many movies as I've seen there are a lot of classics I've missed. Maybe instead of seeing The Dark Knight seven times in theaters I should have tried my hand at expending my horizons.
I've always heard that Alien was a groundbreaking Sci-Fi film worthy of every bit of the hype it has received. I can see why people would say this. You would never know this movie was made in 1979. The set, the special effects, and the concept were prototypical. But even beyond it's success within its context, the movie is just beautifully done.
A lot of people are inclined to point to CGI as evidence for how far we've come cinematically. I don't know how others feel about this, but for as many CGI successes as there have been in recent films there have been as many abject failures. The recent Wolverine movie (which I will be writing about soon) is the perfect example. The CGI claws and whatever CGI was applied to Patrick Stewart's face were unbearably bad. For those of you unfortunate enough to see the sequel to The Ring, the infamous CGI deer scene had the audience in stitches. So its shortcomings are apparent.
Alien achieves impressive effects for its time through basic cinematic tricks: distance, lighting, duration of shots, etc. The actual alien, though crude by our standards, is pretty damn creepy looking for something made--count it--thirty years ago. I loved all of the props and set pieces.
The movie itself was equally impressive. Sigourney Weaver's performance was sincere. The last scene, especially, gives off a very real sense of suspence where movies now settle for shock scares. Of course I'd only rented this movie so the majority of that scene was pausing and then jumping forward a few seconds, but its essence was preserved. Tenseness during exchanges between shipmates as tempers mounted was tangible. This is the type of movie that gets me excited to have 98 more ahead of me.
Sci-fi movies currently have a stigma attached to them. Admittedly a lot of the Sci-Fi movies that come out now are a little alienating (get it?)--either so fast-paced and action packed and Vin Diesel starred that true Sci-Fi fans aren't interested, or so stereotypically daunting in terms of content that only true fans are willing to watch. Alien seems accessible, which is probably just one element that contributed to its success.
What's in a Name?
So in addition to my periodic updates on how my movie-watching endeavor is going (which, speaking of, I will probably throw on another entry or two about the others I've watched so far this summer) I'm going to try to chronicle the many albums I will inevitably be listening to over break. I have a grand total of at least two hours of transit time every weekday this summer so I'll be burning through CDs from May through August. I'm hoping there will be more good than bad, because if I'm reviewing the CD that means I've spent the money on it already.
iLiKETRAiNS - Progress/Reform
You're going to have to make a leap for me: disregard that name. Pretend it doesn't exist. Call the band whatever it is you want to differentiate it from other artists in your head, but one look at that name and it'll send you packing. The name in and of itself is bad enough, but the lowercase i's? It's just a mess. But once you disregard that name you'll be able to enjoy a truly gorgeous sound.
If Explosions in the Sky asked Dave Gahan of Depeche Mode to lay down some vocals for them (and for him to sound like Morissey periodically) you'd have iLiKETRAiNS. The instrumentals are so lush you can't help but try to imagine a few of the songs without the vocals. From the very outset of the album there's an intense foreboding sound that does not relent for the duration. It's a dark sound, but not an alienating one. As soon as the disc was in the player I was captivated.
The vocals are where I take a little issue. On the one hand I'm glad the band did not decide to play as another prog rock band with remarkable musicianship but no way to distinguish it from the slew of talented post-rock bands. On the other hand, though, the lyrics are largely disappointing. Some of them are downright distracting--hearing "We'll build this rook house here for Bobby" over and over when you're stuck in morning rush traffic, for example, can put you a little on edge. The vocal quality also creates some dissonance with the gorgeous instrumentals. Partly I think this is a conscious decision, but when the instrumentals are as gorgeous as they are the vocals can, at times, seem like the little kid begging you to play catch while you're watching your favorite TV show. During some songs the vocals serve their purpose of contributing to the dark tone. During others, the effect isn't as positive.
Overall, however, this is an absolutely gorgeous CD that seems to be ubiquitously cheap; I bought mine for $5.99. If you see it around I strongly suggest picking it up--unless, of course, the aesthetics of a name are insurmountable for you.
Standout Tracks: Terra Nova, No Military Parade, Citizen, Stainless Steel
Music: 8/10
Vocals: 5/10
Longevity: 6.5/10
Overall: 7/10
iLiKETRAiNS - Progress/Reform
You're going to have to make a leap for me: disregard that name. Pretend it doesn't exist. Call the band whatever it is you want to differentiate it from other artists in your head, but one look at that name and it'll send you packing. The name in and of itself is bad enough, but the lowercase i's? It's just a mess. But once you disregard that name you'll be able to enjoy a truly gorgeous sound.
If Explosions in the Sky asked Dave Gahan of Depeche Mode to lay down some vocals for them (and for him to sound like Morissey periodically) you'd have iLiKETRAiNS. The instrumentals are so lush you can't help but try to imagine a few of the songs without the vocals. From the very outset of the album there's an intense foreboding sound that does not relent for the duration. It's a dark sound, but not an alienating one. As soon as the disc was in the player I was captivated.
The vocals are where I take a little issue. On the one hand I'm glad the band did not decide to play as another prog rock band with remarkable musicianship but no way to distinguish it from the slew of talented post-rock bands. On the other hand, though, the lyrics are largely disappointing. Some of them are downright distracting--hearing "We'll build this rook house here for Bobby" over and over when you're stuck in morning rush traffic, for example, can put you a little on edge. The vocal quality also creates some dissonance with the gorgeous instrumentals. Partly I think this is a conscious decision, but when the instrumentals are as gorgeous as they are the vocals can, at times, seem like the little kid begging you to play catch while you're watching your favorite TV show. During some songs the vocals serve their purpose of contributing to the dark tone. During others, the effect isn't as positive.
Overall, however, this is an absolutely gorgeous CD that seems to be ubiquitously cheap; I bought mine for $5.99. If you see it around I strongly suggest picking it up--unless, of course, the aesthetics of a name are insurmountable for you.
Standout Tracks: Terra Nova, No Military Parade, Citizen, Stainless Steel
Music: 8/10
Vocals: 5/10
Longevity: 6.5/10
Overall: 7/10
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Reeling
And now for the most seemingly unambitious summer resolution you've ever heard: I'm going to watch 100 movies this summer. I know. No, calm down. Please. I know. I'll be okay, don't worry about me.
Summer technically began for me on May 8th so I have between then and sometime in early September to watch 100 films--aaaaalmost a movie a day. Very little leeway here. This could be the feel good story of the season. Do NOT be surprised if it comes up on your daily news ticker. It's a human interest story, and people can dig that, right?
Admittedly I'm cheating a little to get myself off the ground. I saw a movie about a week before school ended so I'm counting that as first on my list. Since then I've watched two more so I'm up to three.
I want to dedicate a lot of my blog to the movies, music, and books I come across to (hopefully) generate some conversation because I love talking about media, both good and bad. That, of course, explains the name I chose here which, interestingly enough, is the element that snagged me about a month ago the first time I tried to start a blog to escape responsibility--I couldn't think of anything interesting to title it. Today I said to myself, "Forget it. Just get on with it."
So, without further adieu, this, although technically my second entry, is effectively my first:
#1: Observe and Report
Had I devised my summer cinema goal prior to seeing this movie I might never have decided upon the endeavor at all. I briefly lost my taste for film after this.
I consider myself pretty accepting when it comes to movies and I try to find something redeeming in everything. I won't say there was nothing redeeming about this. The end alone (I won't give it away) was enough to at least intrigue me.
I think Seth Rogen is a likable guy. There are some comedic actors (Dane Cook comes to mind) who give off the sense that they are actually struggling to hold back laughing at their own cleverness. That sort of self-satisfied, the world is crazy but I'm not comedy is really hard to attach yourself to. I never got that from Seth Rogen. He seems like a genuine guy with a strong sense of what he finds funny. I don't really enjoy his humor, but I appreciate what he does.
Having said that, Van Helsing remains the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. This challenged that distinction. It's not that the film was bad per se, but it was a bad mix of dark comedy and slapstick comedy: the depressing tone of a dark comedy with the over-the-top delivery of slapstick. The two naturally oppose each other. Dark comedy has to be deadpan to work. Wes Anderson fans can appreciate this. If you've ever seen The Life Aquatic (my personal favorite movie) you hardly need to hear the line Billy Murray is delivering to realize it's funny; his character delivers everything he says with such intense certitude that you know nothing could be that serious. Every character in that movie took him or herself too seriously, and that's what made it so hilarious.
The problem here is you have the darkness of a delusional mall cop posited against a silly drunken mother. You have an asshole police officer fighting for control over the tone of the film with a caricature of a minority character whose ridiculous accent was clearly supposed to be a punchline in and of itself. Fans of dark comedy won't find the humor sardonic enough, but fans of slapstick will get dragged down by the depression in the film. And there's no character to sympathize with, so viewers have no personal stake in the film.
I think it was the guys at www.theonion.com writing for A/V club who mentioned that this movie seems to be Seth Rogen's Cable Guy--a stretch from the comfort zone after a series of very successful films. I haven't heard much about the critical reception of the movie, but I know that so many of the jokes fell flat. I wanted to laugh, but I realized three quarters of the way through in the theater that I had not laughed once because I was searching for the point of the movie. Whatever the reason may have been, no one else in the theater could be heard laughing, either. I know dark comedies aren't always looking for that big old LOL, I'm just not convinced this is a dark comedy. I hope for Mr. Rogen's sake that his next film seeks to capture the charming immaturity that is his forte.
Summer technically began for me on May 8th so I have between then and sometime in early September to watch 100 films--aaaaalmost a movie a day. Very little leeway here. This could be the feel good story of the season. Do NOT be surprised if it comes up on your daily news ticker. It's a human interest story, and people can dig that, right?
Admittedly I'm cheating a little to get myself off the ground. I saw a movie about a week before school ended so I'm counting that as first on my list. Since then I've watched two more so I'm up to three.
I want to dedicate a lot of my blog to the movies, music, and books I come across to (hopefully) generate some conversation because I love talking about media, both good and bad. That, of course, explains the name I chose here which, interestingly enough, is the element that snagged me about a month ago the first time I tried to start a blog to escape responsibility--I couldn't think of anything interesting to title it. Today I said to myself, "Forget it. Just get on with it."
So, without further adieu, this, although technically my second entry, is effectively my first:
#1: Observe and Report
Had I devised my summer cinema goal prior to seeing this movie I might never have decided upon the endeavor at all. I briefly lost my taste for film after this.
I consider myself pretty accepting when it comes to movies and I try to find something redeeming in everything. I won't say there was nothing redeeming about this. The end alone (I won't give it away) was enough to at least intrigue me.
I think Seth Rogen is a likable guy. There are some comedic actors (Dane Cook comes to mind) who give off the sense that they are actually struggling to hold back laughing at their own cleverness. That sort of self-satisfied, the world is crazy but I'm not comedy is really hard to attach yourself to. I never got that from Seth Rogen. He seems like a genuine guy with a strong sense of what he finds funny. I don't really enjoy his humor, but I appreciate what he does.
Having said that, Van Helsing remains the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. This challenged that distinction. It's not that the film was bad per se, but it was a bad mix of dark comedy and slapstick comedy: the depressing tone of a dark comedy with the over-the-top delivery of slapstick. The two naturally oppose each other. Dark comedy has to be deadpan to work. Wes Anderson fans can appreciate this. If you've ever seen The Life Aquatic (my personal favorite movie) you hardly need to hear the line Billy Murray is delivering to realize it's funny; his character delivers everything he says with such intense certitude that you know nothing could be that serious. Every character in that movie took him or herself too seriously, and that's what made it so hilarious.
The problem here is you have the darkness of a delusional mall cop posited against a silly drunken mother. You have an asshole police officer fighting for control over the tone of the film with a caricature of a minority character whose ridiculous accent was clearly supposed to be a punchline in and of itself. Fans of dark comedy won't find the humor sardonic enough, but fans of slapstick will get dragged down by the depression in the film. And there's no character to sympathize with, so viewers have no personal stake in the film.
I think it was the guys at www.theonion.com writing for A/V club who mentioned that this movie seems to be Seth Rogen's Cable Guy--a stretch from the comfort zone after a series of very successful films. I haven't heard much about the critical reception of the movie, but I know that so many of the jokes fell flat. I wanted to laugh, but I realized three quarters of the way through in the theater that I had not laughed once because I was searching for the point of the movie. Whatever the reason may have been, no one else in the theater could be heard laughing, either. I know dark comedies aren't always looking for that big old LOL, I'm just not convinced this is a dark comedy. I hope for Mr. Rogen's sake that his next film seeks to capture the charming immaturity that is his forte.
Harbinger of Senselessness
This is a a sign of things to come. Get out while you still can.
I think the idea of blogging is incredible; I did it periodically on Myspace back when people actually used it and didn't reserve it for promoting a band that has yet to write a song or advertising a dating website. The difference between Myspace blogging and straight blogging, though, is that Myspace isn't a literary community by any stretch of the phrase, so blogs would get viewed but not read. And what's the point of that?
I'm not vain enough to expect readers so this blog was made for my own use with the hope that others tag along for the ride on occasion. It won't be a thrill but hopefully the view is tolerable.
I love to document things. I love making lists and having hard copies of assignments and writing down on sticky notes good words and phrases I hear or read. Things leave too quickly without proper documentation.
So I'm making this my portal for musings on music, movies, literature, and life. I consider myself pretty well-versed in the first three. The fourth is just speculation. This blog will be my documented summer as I'll be working at a job that requires little attention but a great deal of diversion. And I've got itchy keyboard fingers.
I think the idea of blogging is incredible; I did it periodically on Myspace back when people actually used it and didn't reserve it for promoting a band that has yet to write a song or advertising a dating website. The difference between Myspace blogging and straight blogging, though, is that Myspace isn't a literary community by any stretch of the phrase, so blogs would get viewed but not read. And what's the point of that?
I'm not vain enough to expect readers so this blog was made for my own use with the hope that others tag along for the ride on occasion. It won't be a thrill but hopefully the view is tolerable.
I love to document things. I love making lists and having hard copies of assignments and writing down on sticky notes good words and phrases I hear or read. Things leave too quickly without proper documentation.
So I'm making this my portal for musings on music, movies, literature, and life. I consider myself pretty well-versed in the first three. The fourth is just speculation. This blog will be my documented summer as I'll be working at a job that requires little attention but a great deal of diversion. And I've got itchy keyboard fingers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
