Bills/Email
| ||||||||
RANDOM PIC 1More from this series(e32k4/showfloor) 
RANDOM PIC 2More from this series(e32k4/people) No One Can Stop!
Holy Shitballs! It's Mr. Domino!!!
I am Anotherfluke
Does anyone out there have a gamertag? Want to share? Because it had to be said!
Happy Birthday Tina! I LOVE YOU!!! I'd better get at least one!
Crush this person!
Get your own ThisCrush.com CrushTag!
*looking at justawave* Awesome. Just Awesome
Fog is gone! Me too!
Finally! For the first time this week, the fog has lifted! I have been working against a white sheet for the past day and a half. It's still very f... (no title)
So does this thing track people that have visited my LJ page? I should get at least two hits then :)
Create your own visitor map!
Lost Moments
Ok, so I know there's a lot of haters out there now, it being fashionable to not like Lost anymore and all. But if you have been paying attentio... Totally original post.
This wholly original and not copied from anywhere post was entirely thought up by me. I have retroactively granted Kim and Eric permission to co... More Snow and Sun
I love it! Two posts in one day OMG!
Thanks to my sweetie for this bit of wonderful news!
Smashing Pumpkinds MySpace
Smashing Pumpkins Awesome news
Here's hoping their new album sounds more ... Snow and Sun
I see rain and sun from time to time, but I think this is probably the first time I've seen snow and sun. I might have a picture for y'all shortly...... Oh Pacific Northwest! I thought you knew better.
So I heard this on the radio heading over to the Park'n'Ride this morning, and I felt sorry for the 100 or so people who had suffered from Carbon Mono... DUMP!
Embittered as I was from being denied the ability to take sunset photos, I felt the urge to get outside and take some pictures today. I should've gon... So yeah.
You know that crane that fell down in bellevue last night? It landed on one of our buildings. No calls yet, though.
RSS display by CaRP
| Silent Hill Review | Movies | 2006-04-21 03:59:01 | By: Anotherfluke | So I saw Silent Hill with Stephen, Nikki, John, Colin, and Parker last night. It was alright. So, there were no previews until the night before the show opened, which is usually a bad sign. As we settled in to watch the movie, Stephen got his Brain Age on, and we all talked about what we thought the movie was going to be like. The movie moved very quickly into the meat of the story, which is Rose taking her daughter Sharon (Sly little Grapes of Wrath reference there) to the town of Silent Hill, the place where Sharon was orphaned before being adopted by Rose and her husband Christopher. Rose hopes that going to Silent Hill will help solve whatever is plaguing Sharon's dreams. A short chase scene lands Rose and police officer Cybill in Silent Hill, and just as in the game, the town is deserted and gray. Here is where the movie gets a lot of things right. The town is taken almost directly from the game. It really has an excellent feel for the atmosphere of the game, and this ambiance translates very well onto the screen. I noticed that a LOT of camera angles and incidental scenes are taken straight from the game (particularly the streets, hospital, and hotel areas), and it is very cool to see those scenes so accurately recreated in the movie. Consequently, the cinematography for the scenes that are designed to create atmosphere are very well done and draw you in quite well. Certain puzzle elements are also taken from the game as the mysterious girl from the posters (who also incidentally looks just like Sharon) leads the protagonists along with clues and puzzles reminiscent of the game. As the movie's plot begins to unfold, we learn that ***Spoiler***The ashen Silent Hill inhabited by the Rose, Sharon, Cybill, and the townspeople (who show up later in the movie) is not exactly on the same plane as this world***Spoiler End***, and this gives the movie a little more lenience to use this style of storytelling. Even the soundtrack from the games is used, often to great effect (though sometimes it feels a little light), and little touches like the radio emitting static when the creatures are near add to the movie's atmosphere while staying true to the game. Speaking of the creatures, almost every creature that appears in the movie is appropriately grotesque, and the scenes where "the darkness" overcomes the town are chilling, and done extremely well. Pyramid head in particular is a great monster, but all of the scenes involving scary or violent images are entertaining and will satisfy all moviegoers who are in it for the gore and horror. Where the movie gets a lot of things wrong is the dialog and the scenes not taking place in Silent Hill. Several times throughout the preview the audience laughed at cheesy or obvious lines (One of the characters muses "Something Terrible has happened here" about three quarters of the way through the movie) that feel like the director is hand-holding the audience or trying to explain some plot element. These characters-stating-what-they're-feeling bits and inappropriately docile comments at emotionally charged moments really give the movie a late-night B-movie feel, and the often hammy acting doesn't help. ***Spoiler***The townspeople, in an otherworldly lynch-mob chic, act like they are on stage in a theatre production, often having exaggerated actions and fluid, billowy movements that look like they are trying to be scary.***Spoiler End***. Another issue is the subplot with Christopher, as he tries to discover the town's mysterious past. The movie occasionally switches to Christopher's house, the neighboring town, and his attempts to locate the town records as he runs afoul of the local law. There are little hints along the lines of a dark secret that is being covered up, and of the locals disliking "city folk", and of conspiracy. ***Spoiler***But none of it ever goes anywhere. You get the impression that Christopher is supposed to be a good husband and guy, but he comes of as disturbingly stoic and his role is ambivalent at best. The Police investigator he goes up against appears to be hiding Silent Hill's dark secret (which Christopher never learns), but he has absolutely no reason to hide anything, nor does anyone in the neighboring town.***Spoiler End*** The whole subplot feels tacked on (which it was. Sean Bean's character was added because the studio felt the movie needed a male presence), and never affects the actual storyline. It doesn't help that the cinematography during the subplot is dull and uninspired. I've heard comments that the ending and general plot are confusing, but I never had any difficulty understanding what was going on. I've only played Silent Hill 2, which the movie adopts heavily from, but I've been told that elements from at least the first three games are used. I never beat SH2, and it never explained anything to me, and I was still able to easily understand what was going on, and what the ending meant (***Spoiler***The ending, by the way, is pretty good I thought. The final showdown is neat, but the movie thankfully doesn't go for the quick and happy resolution.***Spoiler End***) With a better script, and better acting, this movie could have been good or even great. As it is, Silent Hill is a faithful translation of a game: good story, great atmosphere, cheesy dialog, and poor acting. | View Comments | Post A Comment | King Kong | Movies | 2005-12-13 12:48:21 | By: Anotherfluke | Just got back from King Kong, and I really, really enjoyed it. The movie was 3 hours long, and Peter Jackson put most of the time to excellent use. The effects and action are the big draws in this movie. Unfortunately some of the characters lack charm, in particular Jack Black's character. As the filmmaker who seeks the mysterious Skull Island for his film, Black thankfully doesn't overpower the screen, but sadly just feels like an unfunny Jack Black. The other two main characters, Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts, both played their parts well, but the chemistry between the two never really appears. Not for lack of trying; Jackson spends a good 40 minutes setting the scene and giving the two plenty of material to work with, but aside from a few sidelong glances and some shared sentiments (that are never shared together), the two might as well have been just friends. It is a testament to Jackson's directing that you can feel from the camera work, score, and pacing the way each scene is supposed to feel, but the actors just don't seem to be on the same page. Conversely, some of the scenes (for example when the ship encounters fog) feel off, particularly whenever the camera's framerate drops to about half, and in these scenes, the actors pick up the slack. Some of the fat could have been trimmed from the early parts of the film not because it is unnecessary, but because it just doesn't work. However once the gang arrives on Skull Island, it doesn't really matter anymore. I'm fairly certain that everyone is familiar with the general plotline of King Kong, but I think it is fair to point out that I'm going to talk about some general plot points and other things that have already been mentioned in the commercials and press junket but might still be spoilers for those who haven't followed the new movie or seen the 1933 original. First of all, we all know that the film crew goes from New York to the mysterious Skull Island, and returns to the Big Apple with monkey in tow. Both SI and 1930's NY are recreated beautifully. Seeing deppression-era New York come to life is a visual treat, and the many arial shots of the city sans skyscrapers and modern architecture are as stunning as the mysterious Skull Island. The island is a character unto itself, and compares with Kong for the sheer amount of richness and individuality. You have probably heard that there are dinosaurs and other mysteries on the island, but the full extent of the wonders contained on the island are left for you to discover as you sit galvanized through the fulfilling second act. Action reigns while on the island, and from the moment it seeps out of the fog, the movie takes hold of your senses and doesn't let go. Like Watts, you are gripped and whirled around the island from one harrowing scene to the next until finally, when you can't take any more, the movie loosens its grip on you just long enough to think you can relax, then repeats the tumult until you resign yourself to the viscera and go along for the ride. Jackson has created an incredible action adventure. Near perfect digital work helps to carry much of the wonder of the movie, and when it falters, the quality of scenework and choreography carry it further still. Were it not for the occasionally stilted performance or direction in the beginning, King Kong would have been a perfect movie. As it stands, it is still an incredible ride, and a worthy successor to Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Free Serenity Movie Tickets! | Movies | 2005-09-23 10:56:42 | By: Anotherfluke | Remember Northwest Retro, and how I mentioned that you can get a free pass to see a sneak preview of Serenity on Monday? Well, I'm also running a contest at the website for two people to win prize packs. You know, T-shirts, hats, that sort of thing. www.nwretro.org Tell your friends. Seriously. I get like 3 visitors a day right now. Your chances of winning are very very good. ps- if you've been listening to my podcasts, you have a strong advantage! ~N | View Comments | Post A Comment | 40 Year Old Virgin Review | Movies | 2005-08-18 03:41:13 | By: Anotherfluke | For those of you too wussy to listen to the podcast review I posted last week. The 40 year old virgin is comedy gold. I went into this movie thinking that I would get phallic imagery jokes and one over-the-top nerd meeting another over-the-top nerd for goofy nerd-on-nerd awkwardness. What I got was a surprisingly touching and realistic comedy filled with rank humor and more fuck, shit, cunt, and pussy than other, feebler PG-13 comedies have lulled me into accepting. If there was one good thing about the Wedding Crashers, it's that Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson made it ok to have R-rated films again, and that is a good thing. Steve Carrell opens the movie as his character, Andy Stitzer, wakes up with all the morning wood you would expect from a 40 year old virgin. You begin to see all the trappings of a caricature: action figures in boxes, posed behind glass, the ultimate video game chair, and MST3K posters on the wall. As a former virgin and self proclaimed dork, I have a soft spot for nerds and was worried about whether this movie would pull most it's laughs from Carrell's hopeless-nerd lifestyle. I'm happy to say that 40 year old virgin pulls most of it's humor from the blatant absurdity that the pursuit of sex inherently holds. Carrell's 3 coworkers act out many of the different aspects and approaches to attracting the opposite sex, and impart their wisdom on their unwilling protege with eye opening and laugh-out-loud results. A lot of the movies best jokes come from the second act, including Carrell's tear-inducing chest wax (which he actually suffered through), and a speed-dating, um, revelation. The best line of the movie comes from the former scene (and is coincidentally ruined by the un-inspiring theatrical trailer. avoid the trailer if you can). What really made me enjoy this movie and not just find it funny, was Carrell's refusal to make his character a victim. Ever the lovable nice guy, Carrell gives Andy Stitzer an honest, unapologetic vibe that keeps him from becoming neither pathetic nor second-class, and allows the audience to identify with him rather than pity him. The 40 Year Old Virgin is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year, and it's R-rating and hilarious writing allows it's actors to give it a down-to-earth, screwball comedy feel that has been missing from most other gross-out comedies since the 80's. Go see it. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: The Village | Movies | 2004-07-29 22:19:06 | By: Anotherfluke | It is hard to discuss an M. Night Shyamalan film. His audience is quite polarized when it comes to whether or not people like his movies. It is an unfortuante argument because it really doesn't have much to do with Shyamalan as a director at all. I think it is fairly accepted that his directing style is superb. Whether or not you enjoy his films depends on whether you enjoy movies with a twist. Anyways, that aside, this film was really good. No part of the movie felt as though it dragged or overstayed its welcome. The dialogue was well writen and for the most part well acted (Sigourney Weaver had particular trouble with the lack of contractions in her dialogue). Those who enjoy a smart, poetically blocked and filmed movie will definitely not be disappointed. Regarding the storyline and the twists, I won't try to ruin anything for you, except to say that as opposed to Shyamalan's three previous films, The Village gives you an opportunity to confront the problem with the creatures early on, and it is a thankful departure, choosing to avoid questions of existence and belief, as previously heralded in Shyamalan's films. Really, the movie focuses on the characters, and this has always been Shyamalan's strong point. The Village holds up extremely well as a period piece, and as a movie that breaks a couple of molds for Shyamalan (ensemble cast, period piece, story pace), The Village succeeds on almost every front. Definitely one of the best summer movies this year. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: I, Robot | Movies | 2004-07-22 13:00:19 | By: Anotherfluke | Like pretty much every popcorn movie ever made, I, Robot tries to do too many things at once. For awhile they tried to introduce too many characters at once, then for awhile they tried going to too many different locations, then they tried appealing to too many different audiences, then they tried to add too many individual storylines. To some extent, I, Robot is guilty of all these sins. It tries too hard, it does too much, and it inevitably alienates many of the audiences it tries to lure in. Thankfully, I, Robot carries some heft with it, hidden between Will Smith's sarcastic commentary and the bells and whistles of a popcorn movie. Visually, I, Robot is very tastefully done. Set in 2035, the streets of Chicago still look like the streets of Chicago, except the cars look a little (ok a lot) sleeker, the signs are a little bit smoother, and robots litter the landscape performing all manner of unskilled labor. all aspects of this futuristic vision are rendered beautifully, with very little verisimilitude required. Throughout the movie dozens of aspects of everday life are enhanced logically and stylistically, creating a more believable world than that of Minority Report, or even AI. However, contrary to Minority Report, I, Robot takes a cue from Jerry Bruckheimer films and casts a demographic dragnet by inserting little throwaway gags, tidbits, and proven crowd pleasers (not the least of which is Will Smith) that tend to pull in a wider audience. Ultimately the movie suffers from this since too much screen time is devoted to characters or events that do little to advance the story or properly fill out the characters. Instead, subtle (and not so subtle) cues are left to tell the story. This is done rather carefully and is done well, but it may leave those looking for a meatier story unfulfilled. Another side effect of this diminished screen time is that the real heft of the story, that of the robots, is not explored as deeply as I would have liked. The real shame is that the movie hints at profound ideas and fascinating concepts, only to abandon them because of its need to progress the story. A powerful notion is used as a simple expositionary statement, and a chilling truth is tossed aside for a wink. Despite these disappointing aspects, the skill with which these ideas are subtly portrayed and the quality of the cinematography and general directing of I, Robot makes it a worthwhile popcorn movie, probably one of the few summer blockbusters worth seeing this year. | View Comments | Post A Comment | On The Separation of Popcorn Movies and Meaning | Movies | 2004-07-18 02:03:07 | By: Anotherfluke | Summer blockbuster movies are almost immediately known as bad films. I refer to them as popcorn movies, because you can still enjoy them, mainly by buying some junk food, plopping in the best spot (for dolby digital effects) in the theatre with the biggest screen and the comfiest chairs (preferebly one with the armrests that lift up), then turning your brain off for awhile and letting the film do it's job; that is to say, manipulating your emotions, showing you lots of fascinating images, and generally filling your senses with various visceral or emotive triggers. Sex. Humor. Joy. Sadness. Anticipation or dread. Letting yourself be manipulated can be fun because you can quickly be pushed to extremes of human emotion. However, because of the need to avoid cognitive discretion, I think that popcorn movies should necessarily avoid including a message or meaning, and they should do so for several good reasons. First, it contradicts the purpose of a popcorn movie. Second, it unduly confuses the audience. Third, it dilutes the message or meaning. The purpose of a popcorn movie is to be manipulated; to let the director show you who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, and what they are fighting for. If you are supposed to suspect someone, ominous music will play when they enter the room. These basic precepts allow the director to move ahead to the eye candy. When a character feels too weak, one-dimensional, or forgetful, they are beefed up with visceral emotive cues. Their daughter was killed by the bad guy; they promised their grandmother that they'd be honest; They're good looking but messy. Directors cast a dragnet accross the audience, pulling in demographic after demographic until everyone likes the good guy and everyone hates the bad guy. People are (sometimes) willing to be manipulated in the interest of expidition because less time spent on developing Billy's sister means more time spent on Billy's vengeful car chase through the center of the earth. But nobody likes to be told a message or be forced into accepting meaning. It comes off as preachy or campy, or worse, cheap. If the purpose of a popcorn movie is to manipulat the viewer, the purpose of meaning is to give the viewer pause. Because of this fundamental contradiction between the popcorn movie and the message, attempting to do both confuses the viewer. On the one hand, you have meaningless properties given to you for your immediate acceptance. On the other hand you have direct or indirect messages that dilute or contradict the very things you willingly accepted. On top of this, the conflict has little to with the end result of a popcorn movie. Meaningful messages should not be confused with plot points. A meaningful message will not directly influence the flow of a movie in a judgmentally good or bad way, whereas a plot point will have a good/bad character making a conscious decision based on a value judgment, having results that portray the message's meaning as right/wrong (usually this decision will be punctuated by a very emotional speech telling the character that their decision was right/wrong). Therefore a meaningful message inserted into a popcorn movie will only detract from the flow of a movie because it distracts the viewer with unanswered conflict. It also takes control away from the director and gives it back to the audience. Subsequently the audience begins to question the rest of the film, inevitably becoming confused or frustrated by looking for meaning where there is none. Ultimately, this conflict impacts the purpose and power of a popcorn movie. But more importantly, if affects the purpose and power of the message. At first, the viewer will see a message, and perhaps somewhere within the first notice of meaning, the viewer will find evidence to support their hypothesis. As the movie progresses, the viewer will begin to look for support in all aspects of the film. However, you will recall that popcorn movies rely on a cultural dragnet to draw in as many of the audience as possible. The task of encompassing such necessary demographic tools within the larger banner of the message is nearly impossible. And even if it were possible, to continue to adhere to meaning even while constantly enhancing and further pushing emotions to their extremes further nullifies any possibility of coherent principle. Finally, the viewer will give up, and will usually leave with a tainted, unfounded valuation of the intended meaning (and usally of the movie itself). In case you're wondering, this is all a prelude to my review of I, Robot. I will continue when it is not late and I do not have two meetings to attend in the AM. ~N | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Some Kind of Monster | Movies | 2004-07-08 18:44:56 | By: Anotherfluke | I like documentaries. I think Errol Morris has done some wonderful films, and movies like Riding Giants and Fahrenheit 911 really tickle my fancy. So when I heard about Some Kind of Monster, a documentary about Metallica made during the band's troubled work on their album St. Anger, I was immediately drawn to it, despite being a non-fan of their music. I didn't hate their music, but it's not the sort of thing I listen to in my leisure. Thankfully, Some Kind of Monster does not require one to be a Metallica fan, although fans will certainly enjoy this movie. Surprisingly, a lot of the movie dealt with Phil, the therapist (yes, therapist) the band hired to sort out rising tensions between the band members after Jason Newsted's split from the band. It is a nice fit, since the movie never really focuses on the band's music or antics except when they relate to the band and it's difficulties (for example, the movie will spend some time watching the formulation of a song to show how a rift between Lars (Ulrich - Drummer) and James (Hatfield - Vocals/Guitar) comes into play, or it shows James Hatfield riding his roadster as a means of escaping the tension in the recording studio). Instead, the movie opens with the fact that the band is having trouble uniting for another album, and begins by looking at the immediate problems, then slowly works backwards through some of the events that have formed Metallica as friends and not necessarily as a band. To that end, Some Kind of Monster is a fantastic film. It basically begins where VH-1's behind the music left off, and covers the band's recent history from a very fresh perspective. It shows them as family men, as friends, as coworkers, and as people with a past. Some of the most beautiful moments come from these side stories, like the therapist-incited visit between Lars and (former lead guitarist) Dave Mustaine (who went on to form Megadeth). Dave's bitterness and regret comes through very clearly and it affects Lars in a very real way. Combined with Lars' visit to see Jason's band Echobrain (a very interesting band, btw), the movie shows the characters as very real people with friendships and relationships sundered by fame and their own devices. The movie also covers Lars' conflict with Napster and the search for the new bassist seemingly mainly because the movie wouldn't feel complete without it. For the metallica fans, there is also quite a bit of time devoted to the creative process and the evolution of a few of the songs, and at those moments I felt a great desire to know the music if only to more fully realize the type of progression made in the studio. In fact, for fans of the music, these parts may turn out to be the highlights of the movie, but there is still plenty for non-fans to enjoy as well. Did I mention that SKoM clocks in at almost 2 1/2 hours? The real joy of this movie comes from the band's dealings with Phil. It is pure bliss to see Lars say things like "It's great that we can make an aggressive record and still have all of this positive energy behind it", and to hear James say "I'm sad but I'm not depressed" in the most deliciously earnest way possible (and god help me, the movie is worth it just to hear Dave Mustaine say "my little danish friend"). There are a lot of reasons to like this movie. From a documentary standpoint, it has virtually no narration (save for the band members talking or the occasional informative subtitle), is very self-aware (at one point the band calls a meeting discuss calling the film off), and is very fly-on-the-wall, which gives the film and it's stars a very real, thankfully down-to-earth sensibility. A definite must see for documentary fans, metallica fans, and anyone inbetween. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Garden State | Movies | 2004-07-01 18:32:46 | By: Anotherfluke | Garden State, the first movie directed by (also written by and starring) Zach Braff, is a wonderfully beautiful film that follows a somewhat conventional storyline through often stunning cinematography. The movie begins in a very dry, surreal LA where Andrew Largeman (Braff) is living in a prescription-drug induced haze. He returns to his hometown after learning about his mother's death and slowly emerges from the fog of modern psychotherapy into a world as familiar, emotional, and real as they come. Braff has an excellent control over the camera, filming beautiful scenes one after another. It seems funny that a conventional, even predictible film hides underneath such a wondrously constructed sheath. This may not be true for all people, but I immediately connected with Braff's character, and saw many of my friends in the supporting characters littered throughout the film. It was difficult trying to determine if the predictability of certain scenes was due to Braff's first time writing, or if it came from the realistic down-to-earth nature of the characters pushing their way out of the script and onto the screen. Since this is Braff's directorial debut, only time will tell. Garden State is a thoroughly enjoyable film, but make no mistake. At it's heart it is a romantic comedy with dramatic overtones. It is almost incongruous with how it is filmed, and creates a bit of strife for the viewer. This comes to a head at the end of the film when two of the larger themes, Braff's confrontation with his psychiatrist father and his relationship with Sam (Natalie Portman), are rather neatly tied up (in an indie we've-added-closure-but-not-really kind of way) right at the end of the film. In Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown commentary, he calls his film adaptation of Rum Punch a 'hang out' film, wherein the film follows characters doing normal things that may feel slow at first, but their normal activities become the reason one returns to watch a movie a second or third time. The audience watches in order to 'hang out' with the characters from the movie. Garden State feels like it follows this formula, and it's very possible that it will benefit from a second viewing in the same way that Jackie Brown and Out of Sight have improved with age. Despite a slightly formulaic storyline and rushed, slightly awkward ending, Garden State's undeniable sense of style and honest feel will endear the film to people stuck between the me generation and generation X, and anyone else who appreciates a lightly offbeat and touching comedy. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Fahrenheit 9/11 | Movies | 2004-06-26 09:27:23 | By: Anotherfluke | Michael Moore's latest film comes just in time for the 2004 elections, and it's pretty safe to say he is a liberal. Fahrenheit 9/11 continues his tradition of entertaining, sensationalistic documentaries. Filled with facts but light on numbers, Moore deftly moves from topic to topic, often criticizing Bush jr.'s motives by providing evidence that his motivations may lie somewhere other than the american people. The largest themes that run through this latest film are the corruption of the government on a financial level and the lack of real connection between Bush's actions and the source of America's troubles, with a dose of the administration's manipulation of the facts to acheive their ends thrown in for good measure. On a technical level the film is very skillfully put together, transitioning from subject to subject, and always returning to the source. The movie begins by setting the stage with Bush's bumpy road to the whitehouse, then examines how he spends his time leading up to September 11th. It then shifts gears to explore the financial connection between Bush and his administration and the middle east. Shifting back towards 9/11, the movie then spends some time examining how Bush's administration used the events of 9/11 to further its own goals. The move spends most of the rest of it's time focusing on the war in Iraq and how it is affecting both countries. Michael Moore has always been criticized by the right wing because his movies are as highly spun as the media he contends. And it is true that when you watch a M. Moore film, you are only getting one side of the story. People seem to be a little more credible, a little bit wiser, than the sources they are talking about, and of course the way that Moore portrays these people has a lot to do with how they are perceived, but at least part of that simply comes from the fact that there is a 9 foot tall talking head that somehow made it onto the silver screen that lends credence to the things they say. Moore's movies are always entertaining and 9/11 is no exception. It is less focused on people and interviews, less gimmicky (the only real 'gimmick' is Moore's attempt to get members of congress to sign their children up for the army) and more reliant on the stories to tell themselves, which does more for Moore's campaign against Bush than any other aspect of the film. I definitely enjoyed watching this movie, and encourage everyone to go see it. Warning: there are a few scenes of graphic violence. ~N | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Riding Giants | Movies | 2004-06-18 19:07:10 | By: Anotherfluke | Documentaries are a subtle pleasure for me. Michael Moore is really popular right now, but Errol Morris has always been a favorite of mine ever since I stole A Brief History of Time from a Wherehouse in the U District about 8 years ago. So Riding Giants I figured would be a particularly interesting journey. Having seen Endless Summer II, I thought that I knew a bit about surfing, and was interested to see more footage. But where this movie's heart lies is in the evolving passion of surfing and how the expression of the sport has changed over the years. It begins with a beautifully animated montage of the history of the sport. It fully kicks into gear in the 1950's with reel after reel of footage from Greg Noll's archives showing the legends of surf living in hawaii and pioneering the art of big wave surfing. The movie spends the most time here, laying the ground rules so that casual viewers (like myself) can see just how the rules have changed over the years. And it pays off. As the name implies, Riding Giants focuses on big wave surfing. It covers aspects such as which boards were good, how the board evolved to accomodate larger waves, what is physically and emotionally at stake to the surfers, and how surfing has managed to break ground in feats capable of being survived only by teams of people dedicated to the goal of finding the ultimate wave. The cinematography of this film is excellent, constantly feeding the viewer with astounding images and fascinating looks at both nature and the people who aspire to master it. Even still pictures are skillfully manipulated, and no image is static for too long, without appearing gimmicky or confusing. Riding Giants is an excellent movie for documentary fans, surf fans, or anybody else that enjoys an interesting look at a passionate theme. I highly reccomend this movie. After the show, Greg Noll and Jeff Clark were on hand to answer questions. It was a great treat to see two people so prominently featured in the film speak about their dedication to their craft. I thank them for coming to support such a great film. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Terminal | Movies | 2004-06-15 12:41:43 | By: Anotherfluke | Terminal was a disappointment. Not a huge disappointment, but considering the resources available for this movie, it winds up being less than the sum of its parts. Directed by Steven Spielberg, and starring Tom Hanks, and involving airports, you immediately begin to compare it to Catch Me If You Can, Spielberg's last movie, also starring Hanks and involving airplanes. Unlike Catch Me If You Can, Terminal fails to give you a sense of the big picture. Instead, it establishes characters and situations, but so much screen time is given to establishing precedent for later events that there isn't a good feeling for the supposed months that Hanks' character is spending in JFK's terminal. For those who don't know, the story goes that Viktor Narvoski (Hanks) arrives at JFK international as a coup in his russian country renders his passport useless. Unable to step on American Soil, he is forced to live in the Terminal's International Shopping Area until his country stabilizes. This sounds like a great idea, but Spielberg never quite decides if his movie should fall into the realm of the real or the fantastic. What we end up with then, are conflicting, seemingly confused characters, and coincidences and events two shades away from real. For example, the chief antagonist, Frank Dixon (played by Stanley Tucci), is a member of Homeland security who alternates between nice guy and asshole. He and other characters in the movie (like Catherine Zeta Jones' character, the love interest) attempt to appear complex, but instead come off as shallow and irrational. The movie itself isn't bad, and you enjoy watching it, but the fact that it never really decides whether to be realistic or fictional weakens the dramatic and romantic touches while preventing the audience from really becoming lost in the story. Terminal is a decent popcorn movie, a romantic comedy that is worth seeing if you want to see a movie and nothing else out there interests you, but Terminal holds little else besides. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Saved! | Movies | 2004-06-11 10:31:06 | By: Anotherfluke | I actually saw this on Tuesday, and I just haven't gotten around to writing my review of it... I had hoped, after seeing the trailer, that I would be seeing a sort of satire of Christianity, but what I wound up seeing was a Christian satire. Saved! is actually a teen movie told from the point of view of Jena Malone, a popular girl whose boyfriend decides he is gay, and gets pregnant trying to "de-gay" him. What follows is your basic teen movie, with an ensemble cast, popular vs. unpopular kids, etc. The Christian theme has a tendency to reverse the roles, putting the 'cool' kids on the outside. The funny thing about the movie is that it gets a little preachy (pardon the pun) but there is a touch of satisfaction to hearing the speeches, at least to us liberal gnostics. It is a good movie, but not the type of movie that those of you who actually read this might like. If you're under 20, then consider checking it out. Otherwise, nm. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Napoleon Dynamite | Movies | 2004-05-27 01:36:19 | By: Anotherfluke | Napoleon Dynamite, due out this June, is a wonderfully dark comedy in the vein of Welcome To The Dollhouse and Rushmore. Directed by first timer Jared Hess and written by Jared and Jerusha Hess, Napoleon Dynamite is a high school student that everyone in the US has known or been. Specifically he is the dork. The kid who draws fantasy creatures in his trapper keeper, wears T shirts with foxes on them, and lies about his internet girlfriend and his abilities with nunchakus. The movie takes place in rural Idaho, a small town where (like most of middle america) the 80's and 90's still dominate. Like the best dark comedies, Napoleon Dynamite relies entirely on the performances of it's characters, and the interactions between them. When we laugh at the characters, we are also laughing at ourselves; it is important, then, that we are able to identify with the characters and their environments. In this respect, Napoleon dynamite succeeds in tapping into another seemingly tiny demographic that for some reason we know all too well. The indignant dorky guy that loves fantasy and teen angst, and lies about his abilities in the most unconvincing ways while living with his grandmother and older brother. Do we really all suffer such individuals so well that entire crowds should laugh knowingly when he takes an action figure and drags it behind his school bus on a string, or when he uses a photo he found to impress his friends with his internet girlfirend/model? Apparently so. Napoleon Dynamite is an ensemble cast featuring a very strong lead. Jared Hess simultaneously demands a strong presence and evokes the need to look away by creating a character so unaware of his audience yet so completely cognizant of his impact on everyone around him that you'd feel bad for him if he wasn't so sure of himself. There are a ton of memorable lines and memorable scenes in Napoleon Dynamite, all of them remarkable in their apathy. The whole town is gifted with deadpan humor masquerading as dramatic flair leaving you with a smile on your face the whole time. I look forward to future efforts from Jared Hess, and encourage everyone to see this movie when it is released on June 11th. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: The Day After Tomorrow | Movies | 2004-05-27 00:37:14 | By: Anotherfluke | I have been putting off this review because there is quite a bit to say about this movie, and I'm worried that it will turn into a rant, so I'll start by going over the facts. The Day After Tomorrow is coming out this friday, and is the big memorial day weekend blockbuster for this year. Another disaster movie, this one is being groomed as the next Independence Day. It stars Dennis Quaid and a host of other actors all playing their various parts which generally function to show as many different aspects of the effect of a large scale disaster as possible. For example, there is the Nurse with the abandoned child patient in a snowed in area, the meteorologist in a tower in LA during hurricanes, the british fellow in a remote area of the UK as the power and communication lines go out, the group of people trapped in New York during the big freeze, and even the astronauts in space watching the storms unfold on Earth. In this respect TDAT succeeds in creating a sense of scale. The obvious drawback of creating so many threads is that there is virtually no room for character development. The extent of development between the two main characters (Quaid's father and Jack Gyllenhaal's son) is limited to a few short scenes in which Quaid forgets to pick up his son, and Gyllenhaal tells his love interest that his favorite vacation was when he and his father got stuck on a boat together for 10 days without rescue. The shallow nature of the characters is generally forgiveable except for Quaid's incredibly irrational and nigh-unbelievable trek through the storms to find his son. Such distinctly un-human behaviour coupled with either a lack of building a proper sense of danger (such as the scene where Gyllenhaal gets cold and his love interest strips him down and snuggles to give him body heat when there is a fire seemingly feet away), or creating insurmountable odds that are easily surmounted (the aforementioned trek from Washington DC to New York). Virtually all attempts at heroism elicited smiles, chuckles, or outright laughter from the audience at the sneak preview. Fortunately one thing that TDAT does succeed at is the disasters. Top notch special effects and digital shots create eye candy that is hard to look away from. Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blizzards and hail all appear larger than life, and give you an excellent sense of destruction. The only digital aspect that was overused was the 'impossible angle'. Cameras swoop under archways and within inches of buildings, monuments, and towers, supposedly during the worst weather humankind has ever seen. It does allow for some spectacular visuals, but any sense of realism is totally lost because of it. The last and perhaps most striking element of this movie is the powerful left-wing message pushed throughout the movie. Aside from the inherently liberal environmental message upon which the entire basis of the movie is laid, potshots are taken at the current administration's economic, foreign, and environmental policy with such regularity that even the extremists were rolling their eyes towards the end of the movie. The Day After Tomorrow is the 90's definition of the blockbuster summer movie. The only thing missing is Will Smith. Of course, this movie must be viewed for what it is. And in the context of the genre, I did enjoy this movie. It is nice to sometimes just walk into a theatre, look at the pretty pictures, and have my emotions manipulated for awhile, even if it ultimately is not as affecting or successful as a less visceral film. If you enjoyed Independance Day, Deep Impact, or Armageddon, then you will be able to forgive most of the narrative shortcomings found in The Day After Tomorrow. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Valentin | Movies | 2004-05-20 00:56:26 | By: Anotherfluke | I just got back from seeing this movie (which has actually been in theatres for a couple weeks already), and I really enjoyed it. When you first start to watch this film, you almost immediately draw a comparison with Amelie. Valentin, a 10 year old living with his grandmother in Argentina, spends his days being precocious and distressing over his broken family. Unlike Amelie there is no fast forward, and the movie follows the cross-eyed wannabe astronaut as he searches for the mother and father he never had. The movie is subtitled, and the subtitles do an excellent job of bringing through the characters' voices although they do ruin the timing on a couple of jokes. Alternating between funny and sappy, this movie succeeds thanks to the surprising range and nigh-intolerable cuteness factor of it's star, Rodrigo Noya. Valentin is written and directed by Alejandro Agresti, who writes Valentin as an adult, and directs him with precision, leaving you with the impression that Noya's character gathers his wisdom from his brutal honesty and innocence. The only grievance I have with Valentin is with its ending. The movie ends rather quickly, and in the same manner as the rest of its events, which is to say by going from start to finish in approximately 2 steps. Ultimately this gives the movie a rather one-dimensional feel, but the enjoyable characters, witty writing, and swift pace make this a forgiveable offense. ~N | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Without A Paddle | Movies | 2004-05-18 22:02:24 | By: Anotherfluke | Just got back from seeing this movie at the HUB. It's still pretty preliminary. Some scenes are missing music, the film stock was unfinished (so it looked kind of like a home movie), and some scenes were less than finished effects wise, but it was a good movie. The first thing that pops into your head is 'Goonies 2' with characters who grew up watching movies like The Goonies. 3 best friends get together after the 4th friend dies, and together they go to Oregon to complete the late friend's dream, finding D.B. Cooper's missing money (For more info on DB Cooper, go HERE). What follows is a near parallel telling of Chris Columbus' 1984 opus The Goonies. Pursued by two redneck criminals, the hapless three run amok in the Washington Forests (the film was actually shot in New Zealand), rivers, and rapids, ultimately finding what they are looking for. The moral of the movie is quite sappy, but hopefully they will fix that in post production. The criminals are pretty one dimensional, which is disappointing, but the three main characters, played by Matthew Lillard, Dax Shepard (from Punk'd), and Seth Green (In a surprising twist he plays the geek to a tee), fill out their roles quite well. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie has the trio on an ATV being chased through the forest when Green mentions that the scene looks just like the endor moon speeder chase in Return Of The Jedi, cueing the Star Wars music for the rest of the chase. In the spirit of screwball comedies like American Pie and in homage to generation X staples like The Goonies, Without A Paddle does justice to it's genre, and is worth seeing if you enjoy a goofy buddy movie. It comes out this August. ~N | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Coffee and Cigarrettes | Movies | 2004-05-07 12:14:18 | By: Anotherfluke | Thanks to The Warren Report, I was able to score a pass to the sneak preview for this movie. It was playing at the Guild on 45th, and is opening next week on a limited run. Unfortunately I couldn't find out whether it will be playing here, but it most likely will (check out landmark for more info, and the official site for a trailer). If it does you should go see it. Jim Jarmusch (Ghost Dog, Stranger Than Paradise, Permanent Vacation) has actually been making these shorts for years. The first short he made (of the same title) is also the first short shown in the movie, featuring Roberto Benigni and Steven Wright, and was originally made in 1986. In all there are probably 15 vignettes of various people having conversations while smoking over a cuppa joe. At first I thought it was going to be all witty conversation, but Jarmusch takes the opportunity to cover a wide spectrum of 'real' conversations from famous people acting (or not acting) like themselves. Many of the shorts (Cousins?, Delerium, Jack Shows Meg His Tesla Coil) are funny. Some of them (Cousins, There Is No Problem) are less so, but they do not fail in their poignancy. The movie is in fact listed as a drama, and when you watch it you begin to realize that humor aside, you really begin to get a feel for that thing we all do at IHOPs, Denny's, Shari's, and greasy spoons everywhere. Jarmusch has really succeeded in capturing the feel and comfort of casual conversation, showing us that everyone has double meaning, mindless drivel, awkward moments, and bitter sentiment even as we have our quiet comforts. A very good film, but a tad slow for those looking for the next 'Waking Life'. ~N | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Kill Bill Vol. 2 | Movies | 2004-04-29 10:01:06 | By: Anotherfluke | Went and saw this movie last night, and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie actually starts out with the same footage of Uma Thurman in her car talking directly to the camera. It is line for line exactly what you see in the trailer. After this, the movie essentially moves on as if there has been no break between the two. People looking for the same level of action from the first movie will be disappointed, but the story is moved forward at a much quicker pace. Strictly speaking, Kill Bill is an action movie, so despite the fact that it's directed by Tarantino, you really can't look for too many hidden meanings or meaningful dialogue for that matter. Taken purely as action, KB2 is a fine movie. One thing I would have liked to have seen is a little more correlation between the two films. Aside from the fact that you know more background on the characters, you could probably see KB2 without seeing KB1, and be none the worse for wear. None of the characters return (most of them are dead anyways), and only small references to the first movie's events are made. Despite my complaints, I really enjoyed this movie, more so than the first. But I think I'm in the minority here. | View Comments | Post A Comment | Movies: Supersize Me | Movies | 2004-04-19 12:19:23 | By: Anotherfluke | I went and saw this movie last night at the Seattle Art Museum. Supersize Me, for those who don't know, is a documentary about the terrible nutritional state of the nation. The director and star, Morgan Spurlock, decides to see if McDonalds' claim that their food is a nutritious food after hearing about a lawsuit by two teenage girls alleging that they didn't realize McDonalds food was bad for them. The judge denied the suit, saying that the girls could not prove that McDonalds intended for people to eat their food for every single meal. Spurlock puts this to the test by eating nothing but McDonalds food for 30 days. The movie itself is somewhat unpolished. There are a few cheesy wipes and a lot of cheesy graphics, and the camera moves a lot when it really should be stable, however the information and sources that Spurlock finds and presents are top notch. Throughout the 30 days, Spurlock and his "crew" (mainly just his cameraman/producer) travel around the country exploring the different aspects of the subject. Naturally, McDonalds is a big part of the film, but really it is about the sad state of the nation's health. Spurlock avoids the socioeconomic aspects of the McDonalds/Fast Food debate except when it serves to prove a point (For example, he points out that McDonalds spends over 1.6 Billion dollars globally on advertising, while the US' own commission on nutrition and health gets only 2 million dollars as an example of the leverage fast food has over influencing people). Spurlock also visits school districts to see what kind of nutrition and physical education students today are receiving (both in the classroom and the lunchroom). Of course the real fun of the movie is watching Spurlock subject himself to eating McDonalds for 30 days. He sets the stage by visiting 3 doctors who give him a clean bill of health. He follows with checkups throughout the month as well as weight checks. His rules are simple: Only eat what's on McDonald's menu (including water!), try everything once, and Super Size only when asked. Watching him eat is way more entertaining than you might think, and it quickly underscores many of the other points made throughout the course of the movie. So many interesting points are made that the movie never slows down. Addiction, education, reform, legislation, obesity, surgery, responsibility, all are covered with surprising detail. There is much more to this movie than I've been able to cover here, and I highly recommend it to anyone (especially Michael Moore and Errol Morris fans). It opens May 7th, and you can watch the trailer at the official website, www.supersizeme.com. Oh, and in case you're wondering whether this movie will make a difference, McDonalds is removing the Supersize option from their menus, and is introducing a new "Adults Go Active" meal with nutritional information and healthier food. When? May 6th. | View Comments | Post A Comment |