Category: reviews

As mentioned previously, tonight I attended a screening of Terry Gilliam’s film version of Hunter S. Thompson’s book “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”.

Whole lotta hipsters there. I guess me, wearing my fedora and Chucks, fit right in.

The movie is just as drunken and elliptical as I remember it. It’s as close as I ever hope to get to being actually stoned.

I’ll stick to drunk, thanks very much. That’s as out-of-control as I ever need to be.

“Speed Racer” feels like an entire TV season packed into a 2 hour and 15 minute movie.

And not necessarily in a good way.

Visually amazing, though. Can’t really follow what’s happening a lot of the time, but still looks amazing.

Make sure you stay all the way to the end of “Iron Man”.

And knowing about the Marvel universe helps make the movie more enjoyable.

Got out of work at 4:30 tonight. By 4:38 I was standing in the lobby of the Pioneer Place Theaters, ticket in hand to see Leatherheads.

Cute movie, but the timing seemed a bit off to be the screwball comedy it clearly wanted to be. Also caught John Krasinski looking directly into the camera on at least one occasion, which works for “The Office” but not so much for a major motion picture. Hope that guy finds another role that suits him. I like him but he needs to bust out.

Also, I think I have a little crush on Renée Zellweger. I don’t get it, either. But she’s cute.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a deeply dishonest documentary.

I’m mad enough about it to give the movie and its claims a full-on, point-by-point rebuttal, but here’s two small tastes.

Did you know that Darwin was responsible for The Holocaust? That’s practically the film’s central thesis. They start laying the groundwork for that little bit of propaganda right from the top, as the credits roll over stock footage of the building of the Berlin Wall. Communists, Nazis… and Charles Darwin. The 15 minutes (I’m guessing) of Ben Stein being given a tour through a Nazi sanitarium and concentration camp are surreal – is this really appropriate for a movie purportedly about science? The film descends into self-parody long before Ben Stein tries to pin the evils of the world on noted hate-monger John Lennon.

No. I am not kidding. That’s the level of evidence that Mr. Stein and the producers are aiming for. Judge them by their conclusions.

Another argument the film tries to make is that scientists who attempt to research “Intelligent Design” are somehow shunned and blacklisted from the scientific community, denied any grant money and silenced for daring to challenge the orthodoxy of Darwinism (the over-use of that word makes Darwinism seem like some dangerous cult, doesn’t it?). But in order to evaluate that claim, the film’s producers leave out a huge piece of evidence for evaluating said claim, and leave out some background material to boot.

Like… the evidence. There’s virtually no discussion of what research Dr. Gonzalez (who is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, noted creator and proponent of the wedge strategy to get religion back into public schools), Dr. Meyer (Director of the Center for Science and Culture, a branch of… hmm… the Discovery Institute), or Dr. Crocker (Executive Director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, whose board consists almost entirely of Senior Fellows of… hmmm… the Discovery Institute, again), were all pursuing. The most information we get is that their research included the phrase “intelligent design” and that they had their contracts not renewed, their tenure denied, and their research money taken away.

Gee, those poor scientists, just scraping by on the meager earnings they get from the Discovery Institute and the IDEA Center, which has funding from Christian conservatives in the millions. Yeah, that’s sad. And obviously they’ve been simply crushed by the scientific community. Oh, wait, no – they’re all collecting incomes and getting grant money from those pseudo-scientific and secretly-religious “think” tanks.

But, besides the money issue – where’s the research and evidence that is supposedly being denied? If their research is, in fact, credible and not just strings of half-truths and bad logic, why didn’t the producers spend some of their time on, y’know, showing the evidence? Oh, wait, they were too busy dwelling on the horrors of Dachau. I forgot.

Even on the “Expelled” website (which I am not linking to – Google it yourself) there’s absolutely no mention of their research. Maybe because said “research” couldn’t even stand up to a layperson’s review.

So much more to say… but suffice to say that “Expelled” is simply dishonest. Much like the Creationism movement itself.

Saw “WITW is Osama bin Laden?” and now I’m waiting for “Expelled” to start. Plan is working.

A lot more people in here. So sad. But still only about 17, not including me, so it ain’t no summer blockbuster.

Wednesday night Kevin and I saw “There Will Be Blood” at my neighborhood cinema. This completes my quest to see all of the Best Picture nominees for the 2007 Academy Awards.

I was captivated by “TWBB” and not just by Daniel Day Lewis’ performance. I very much appreciated the storyline and how it personalized the turn-of-the-previous-century’s history of how oil collection and production became a monopoly. But Daniel Day Lewis was great, as well, creating an intense characterization from the ground up.

Yeah. I liked this one.

Now that I’ve seen the quinella, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that “There Will Be Blood” will take the Best Picture Oscar. I’m not 100% sure of it; “Atonement” seems more like the kind of movie that the Academy chooses, but in my entirely un-expert opinion, I think they’ll lean towards “TWBB”.

However, of the five movies, I personally prefer “Michael Clayton”. It’s a more complex story, with interesting characterizations and plot twists that kept me engaged throughout. It’s a writer’s movie. It’s, frankly, a movie from the ground up; it’s in the minority of the top five – only it and “Juno” were written specifically for the screen. The others were all adapted from a novel. So in my eyes, “Michael Clayton” gets the personal nod.

Note I’m not hedging my bets by picking two movies. I really think that the Academy is going to select “There Will Be Blood”.

We’ll see how right I am on Sunday.

Saw “Jumper” today. I was in the mood for a goofy action flick, and this one fit the bill.

Hayden Christensen totally reminded me of my youngest nephew. Especially when he does that furrowed-brow angry glare of his. But not when he’s teleporting from place to place. I don’t think my nephew can do that; he just drives now that he’s got his license.

I don’t get why movies aimed at “young adults” have to have such dickhead parents. Oh, wait… yeah, I remember being a teenager. Of course it makes sense. Nevermind.

Wow. That was the busiest boring weekend I’ve had in a long time.

Also, “Atonement”, which I saw tonight, was sad in an anticipated way, and an unanticipated way. I anticipated that Keira Knightley would not be naked at all, and I was right. See? Sad.

The unanticipated way relates to the ending and I won’t be giving that away.

I’ve now seen four of the five Best Picture nominees. The last one, “There Will Be Blood”, I will attempt to see early next week, just to complete the set.

Waiting at the bar next door to the theater prior to showtime, Ayesha, the waitress, asked me what I was doing. I told her about my quest to see all the Oscar nominated films, and listed the ones I’d seen and the one I was about to see. She seemed unusually eager when I listed them off, and then interrupted me to tell me she’d seen “There Will Be Blood”.

“Daniel Day Lewis is… is…” she searched for a word.

“Wow,” I said, “your eyes just lit up.”

An older guy, a regular, laughed. “Chicks’ faces always light up when they talk about Daniel Day Lewis!”

Ayesha smiled, happy but not embarrassed by her enchantment with the actor. “No, you guys, seriously. He’s mesmerizing in that movie. I couldn’t look away! It’s, like, a three hour movie and I didn’t look away once!” She turned to make change out of the register, continuing to talk over her shoulder. “He’s not a good man in that movie, but, damn, I couldn’t look away.”

I can’t wait to see it. It’s highly recommended.

Kevin called me as my work day unwound. We talked about all sorts of stuff and decided we’d have to get together next week to hang out and do fun, unplanned things. He talked about “Lost”, which he and his wife are now watching, starting from the first season, and working their way up. I mostly listened, and I tried very hard not to give anything away.

We also talked about movies. I mentioned seeing “Michael Clayton” and he talked about seeing “No Country for Old Men”. He kept talking about the ending, without giving anything away, but said that it ended rather abruptly.

After I left work, I had to go downtown to pick up some stuff before going home. And I decided on a whim, to go see a movie. And of course, I saw “No Country for Old Men”.

I liked it. The dialogue is poetic and stylized but entertaining. The character of Anton Chigurh is… well, he’s evil. Unstoppable, relentless. I have a theory about the ending. I can’t wait to share it with Kevin.

But I have to say that of the three Best Pictures that I’ve seen, I liked “Michael Clayton” best.