« Rob Friedman Falls Off The Mountain | Main | Is It Cool? »

July 13, 2005

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

(nothing to write today)

Posted by poland at July 13, 2005 11:40 PM

Comments

Ennui has made more gamblers than avarice,
more drunkards than thirst, and perhaps as many suicides as despair.
~ Buddha

So you're gambling, drinking and looking for the Right Way to do it?

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 13, 2005 11:45 PM

The slow news season has arrived. Really, there is only so much one can say about The Island without thinking why?

Posted by: Angelus21 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2005 12:00 AM

Cool, I'll use this post for my joke re: the '
USA Today Looks At Summer Through Michael Jackson Glasses' headline.

wait for it...

Wacko Jacko?! There were 3 little GIRLS in that article.

Posted by: Brett at July 14, 2005 12:19 AM

Michael Jackson jokes just aren't funny. He has a family that loves and supports him and is innocent until proven guilty. He needs our continued support.

Posted by: Lefty at July 14, 2005 12:46 AM

All Michael Jackson needs is $300 million to pay off his debts.

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 14, 2005 02:53 AM

You're scaring me lefty. Michael Jackson is a freak and weirdo (what I never understand is why Jesse Jackson is always out there vocally supporting him, but that's another story).

I know how much Michael Jackson wants to be a movie star, so maybe he could star in a sequel to Powder? I'd believe him as Powder. Or, maybe he could star in a movie about the director of Powder (or would that be too close to home for Michael?)

I love his 80's music but, wow, what a trainwreck.

Posted by: sky_capitan [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2005 03:30 AM

I'd say something about "War of the Worlds," which I finally saw tonight, but I think that boat sailed a long time ago. In fact, so long ago it's already been decommissioned and mothballed.

Posted by: VGM at July 14, 2005 04:41 AM

The wife and baby are out of town for a few days, so I am catching up on my movies, this week. Last night, I got to see Mr. and Mrs. Smith - much better than I thought it would. Fun, sexy, and entertaining. I am a huge fan of Doug Liman, so I would still say it's his weakest film. But for me, that's like saying that Casino is Martin Scorcese's weakest film about the mafia. Pitt and Jolie have really never been better, with loads of chemistry. The film certainly felt like it was missing some scenes, but it moved briskly, regardless.

VGM, tonite, I saw War of the Worlds, as well. You don't live in the Chicago area, because maybe we saw it in the same theater? I think DP is right on about this one. It was well done and all, but what REALLY was the point? The tries to be horrifying in points, thrilling in others, melancholy in others, and it just doesn't gel together, at all.

SPOILER ALERT

I mean, the middle section potraying the brutality and desperation of the refugess if very effective, well done. But if you want to show the refugee experience and potray humanity at its weakest, then why the hell do you also need to have some heartening message by Morgan Freeman, in the end, about how humanity earned its place in the world? Come on, Steve, you can't have it both ways. Same thing with the imagery. You can't have 9/11-esque imagery followed 1 hour later with goofy alien action that you would have seen in Starship Troopers. I am really not sure what Spielberg was trying to do, with this film, but it is very obvious, now, that this was truly a rushed production, a locked in release date in search of a point. Very disappointed.

Posted by: Geoff at July 14, 2005 05:32 AM

Michael needs out love and support. He has a had a rough childhood and needs us to be there for him. As a person.

Posted by: Lefty at July 14, 2005 06:08 AM

Geoff--I did live in Chicago once, but that was many years ago. [SPOILERS FOLLOW: WARNING]

As to WOTW, I agree with you. It has some good moments and effective scenes--the burning train, the struggle over the van, the emergence of the first tripod. But overall it felt like scenes, not a coherent whole. It "tries to be horrifying in points, thrilling in others, melancholy in others, and it just doesn't gel together, at all." There's no buildup, no trajectory. The movie really is about Ray getting his two kids back to his ex. I give credit to Spielberg for making his three main characters unsympathetic, but that doesn't lead to anything. When the son says the only reason he's trying to find the boy's mother is because that's all Ray can think of, the audience knows he's right. But that's still how it is at the end. And the end. Oy. It just happens. One minute he's in Tim Robbins' basement, the next he's in Boston.

Spielberg telegraphs the resolution early in that scene where Dakota Fanning gets a splinter. She says something about how her body will expel it in its own time. Once I saw that, I expected it to be revisited at the end. I was disappointed this was not so. One other thing I think Spielberg had trouble with is in deciding what to show and what not to show. Restraint is good, but sometimes you need to show, not just imply. Show, don't tell. But Spielberg doesn't really tell, either. I won't say anything about the absurd notion of the ships going undetected in the ground. It's been pointed out already. Dave said in his review that there's no tension, no real emotion. I couldn't agree more.

One last note: I couldn't get the video game "Half-Life 2" out of my head. The tripods as realized in the movie are a lot like something called Striders from the game. The difference being that on every level, the game is more compelling than this movie. For the rest, David Poland said it better than I could: "It didn't suck. But it wasn't very good either."

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/050628_tue.html

Posted by: VGM at July 14, 2005 06:32 AM

I saw Batman Begins last night. Very good. Veeery good.

Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 14, 2005 10:11 AM

K Camel: Agreed.

Posted by: VGM at July 14, 2005 03:28 PM

Thanks for being a month behind.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2005 03:49 PM

michael jackson jokes are funny.
Did you know he will be on the secuel to reservoir dogs once they decide if he should play Mr. white or Mr. black?
Also on the secuel of hide and seek which will be titled hide on my bed and seek for help (outside L.A.
And in the secuel to the woodsman....
...the plastics man.
They are stupid but I'm proud of my jokes.

Finding the way out of neverland will spook audiences next fall.

Posted by: MEX at July 15, 2005 04:57 PM

Oh and talking about batman, I think I am the only person who didn't like it.
But it's my problem.
And i do think there was emotion at war of the worlds, Tom cruise has never been as good and dakota is exelent. It was very entertaining and not at all manipulative as many of other steven films, like schindlers list for example.

Posted by: mex at July 15, 2005 05:10 PM

u preferred war to batman? what u smoking south of the border?

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2005 06:07 PM

War of the Worlds was a good summer movie. But I don't remember any of it and I just saw it. Batman is the type of film I'll buy on dvd too.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2005 07:03 PM

How did you think Schindler's was more manipulative than WOTW?

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 15, 2005 07:53 PM

Do you really want to open up that can of worms from this obvious anti-semite, Jeff?

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2005 08:05 PM

Who, Mex?

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 15, 2005 08:48 PM

Yes, Mex. I think I know where he's going with his thoughts and we all really don't need to listen to jew hate talk.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2005 08:52 PM

Very well.

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 15, 2005 08:54 PM

mex how was schindlers list manipulative? because a german saved jews from being exterminated and we were made to feel for them and him? sorry blu but i really want to hear this explanation.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2005 08:58 PM

"I think I know where he's going with his thoughts and we all really don't need to listen to jew hate talk." and calling him an anti-semite?

Blustealer you have no idea where Mex's "thoughts" are going because you didn't ask him, and please don't presume that you speak for us "all".

I liked Schindler's List alot but some aspects towards the ending (Neeson's 'breakdown') were manipulative and had nothing to do with Judaism. I actually think it was one of the least emotionally manipulative of Spielberg's movies overall, but that's my opinion. Overall it was a great movie.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2005 09:03 PM

Schindlers List is a classic. One of the ten best films of all time. There should not even be a discussion on this. Case closed.

Posted by: Bruce at July 15, 2005 09:03 PM

I can't wait to hear mex's theory of how the Holocaust never happend.

Posted by: Mark at July 15, 2005 10:10 PM

I think what everyone is wondering right now is, why didn't they get Good Charlotte to perform the theme song for the new Dukes Of Hazzard movie?
Or, if it was 5 years ago, Sugar Ray?

Posted by: sky_capitan [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 16, 2005 08:35 PM

I thought they were doing it? They do every movie aimed at 14 yr olds as it is.

Posted by: Angelus21 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 16, 2005 09:17 PM

I hate , I stress Hatred, that band.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 16, 2005 11:28 PM

er, Terrance, thanks for also being on top of things! You keep us informed!

Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 17, 2005 06:54 AM

ii loved everything about shindler's list except Liam neesoms crying at the end.
My opinion is that scene which was manipulative wasn't at all necesary, and it takes importance to whole movie.
I am not anti anybody except you maybe.

Posted by: mex at July 18, 2005 04:11 AM

Excuse the writing, something's wrong with my keybord.

Posted by: mex at July 18, 2005 04:14 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?