noble_zone

Saw Brothers Bloom while experiencing an earthquake... but I don't think I was affected too much by geologic vengeance.

My one sentence review: It feels like a parody of Wes Anderson movies.

For something with greater verbosity:

With BB, the filmmaker wants to have it both ways. He wants to create a comical fable about brotherly love, con artists and crazy-fun characters. At the same time, he wants to give all this a big emotional impact.

He fails.

Too-broad characters and the con-artist genre prevent the audience from feeling for just about anyone here. The Magical Japanese girl Bang-Bang may be fun but she's an anime character that never feels like she belongs here. Ditto with "Diamond Dog" who's strangely comical but, utlimately, way too over the top. The Belgian, ditto part 2. They all felt like movie characters, impossibly strange, and nothing more.

Both brothers are terribly miscast. Ruffalo feels like he's stretching to play anything whimsical and Brody is as charismatic and watchable as leukemia. Rachel is smashing if only because the actress is so damn luminscent you can't help but root for her.

Since it's a con artist movie that winks at the audience you can't help but assume *everything* is a con and that pretty much undercuts our connecting with anyone here. Now throw in the forced whimsy the filmmaker throws at us and what results is a movie that feels very empty (this despite an attempt to cram emotional poignancy down our throat).

Dear Rian Johnson, go sit down with Quentin Tarantino and let him teach you on how to make a movie that commits to its own internal logic. Hopefully he'll show you how to do the same. But hell, didn't you do that already? I loved Brick. Upon seeing Brothers Bloom, I wish you had made a sequel to your first movie instead. This one is rather a mess.

Clearly, the Star Trek franchise had reached an end. With the last movie making hardly anything at the box office and the Trek TV series facing an ever dwindling audience -- Enterprise, actually cancelled -- something had to be done to the franchise that would reinvigorate it.

The new Star Trek movie was made with that intention. Does it achieve that?

Yes. It succeeds with great spectacle, turning Star Trek into space opera on grand scale full of grade-A special effects, charismatic characters and action-filled spectacle. Basically, it becomes Star Wars.

The ever-dwindling Star Trek die-hards may have a problem with this as the Trek that has existed for four decades has been contemplative and, at the best of times, intellectual (at the worst, ponderous and boring). There's none of that in this movie and what you get is ACTION, ACTION, ACTION (pretty, occasionally silly, eventually wearying) so that, somehow, even the Transformers movie seems more staid than this flick. But I get that modern audiences expect in their summer tentpole movies more bravura entertainment so old, head on its shoulders Trek is dead. New Trek is adrenalin filled, fast and furious and rather witless. (As self-serving as it is, can I just point out that Dark Knight managed to be adrenalin filled but very clever, too - maybe tentpoles don't need to be dumb...)

To be clear, I had a lot of fun with it but it's far from perfect.

I loved:

- beautiful effects; they just looked terrific and the ships were magnificent
- the "bullet" warp effect -- now that's velocity
- the drill-platform sequence

I liked:

- Chris Pine as Kirk -- I found him to be fun and likable.
- Zach Quinto -- far better than I thought he was going to be
- the new Chekhov -- reimagined as a brilliant tactician. Nice.
- the weird engineer-midget who seems like a character out of Star Wars.
- Karl Urban as McCoy. Yea, it was an imitation of DeForest Kelly but he does get some of the best lines.
- Vulcan's fate. Good luck on your future!

I didn't love:

- A major villain written in such a shallow manner. Kahn remains safe as Star Trek's greatest villain. Nero felt like he shouted a lot, didn't have a lot to say and was never given the chance to be interesting.
- A lot of plot holes, not the least of which what did Nero do for twenty-five years. He's reactionary and psychopathic -- does anyone really think he just twiddled his thumbs for half-a-century? They were trying to tie in Kirk's "origin" with Nero's arrival but it feels really awkward. Also, why the fuck is Earth, home of star-spanning empire, defenseless. There are no other ships and no defense network. Really? So the entire fleet was laid waste?!
- Kirk on the ice-planet sequence. Felt like a studio note: "add more action!". It really never belonged

I kind of hated:

- Uhura. I was fine with the connection to Kirk but they didn't lay the groundwork for her relationship with Spock. She just seemed to be a sexual toy and wildly inappropriate.
- So old Spock was abandoned on an ice-planet that's closer to Vulcan than Earth is to its moon? Why didn't Nero just hold old Spock aboard his ship so he could witness everything from there? It makes little sense.
- Lens flares. I get it. You like lens flares, JJ. Stop it. Please. The bridge already looks like an Apple store -- I don't need lens flares too.
- Engineering is a refinery now? Ugh -- all those pipes felt stupid.
- Why does it feel like there are 14 people on board the Enterprise? I barely got a feeling of any other crew.
- Vulcan's fate. Damn, I liked that world.
- Red Matter. Yay, sci-fantasy super fluid!

To sum up:

Non-Trek fans will love all the eye candy and the quick pace.
Trek fans will love seeing their favorite universe really come alive for the first time but might be disappointed because it's not smart sci-fi.

In any case, I look forward to a sequel.

Not perfect... but terrific nonethless and rather poignant. I'm quite sad that BSG is gone but I'll be ruminating about it for years. Thank you Ron Moore et. al. for the best speculative fiction/sci-fi/genre series ever made.

What do you think of the first poster?

Movie is a rather amazing construction. I think you'll enjoy. They were taking photos where you can pose as Watchmen-styled costume superheroes. Here's Holly, myself and Dave Gibbons.

I once admired you.

Then you ran for President.

I saw you choose an abomination for a running mate.

I saw you play the race card whenever you could.

I saw you try to force Americans to abandon logic.

I saw you appealing to fear as much as possible and the smears you perpetrated upon your opponent were the worst I can recall in a presidential election.

So I say this with as much love as I can:

Please go away forever you miserable motherfucker.

A professor friend of mine wrote this and gave it to his students:

Proposition 8 is an attempt to rewrite the California Constitution to deliberately violate equal protection. The California Supreme Court decided in June that equal protection requires that the state should allow people to marry a person of the same sex. To change the law now, as Prop 8 would do, is like attempting to rewrite a law after you've lost the court case, or rewrite the rulebook after you've lost a game. That's otherwise known as cheating, or being a poor sport. So they had better have good reasons to rewrite the constitution -- the burden of proof is on the supporters of Prop 8 to show that it is necessary, or else we should vote NO.

The backers of Prop 8 claim that allowing same sex marriage somehow threatens marriage. I find it extremely hard to understand how allowing more people to get married "threatens" marriage, since it does nothing to affect heterosexual marriages. The backers of Prop 8 have offered no arguments to show that same-sex marriage would cause divorces or break up families, and Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Massachussetts are all still pretty civilized places despite legal same-sex marriage, so I don't see what their case is.

Supporters of Prop 8 instead claim that it would somehow force gay sex into schools, or into churches. These claims are baldfaced lies meant to frighten people, or at best wildly exaggerated half-truths, as this L.A. Times piece <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story> shows. That this is the best Prop 8 supporters can do shows the poverty of their position, and suggests that the real motivation for their proposed law is ignorance and bigotry.

Finally, some people think they must support Prop 8 on religious grounds, since their religion considers homosexual behavior to be a sin. However, this is a mistake. Prop 8 is not about anyone's religion; it is about the State of California. We cannot rewrite the state constitution, which applies to all Californians, to fit some people's religious views. Consider a parallel case: many Christians (such as Catholics) consider (at least, officially) that divorce is not allowed in the eyes of God. Indeed, while Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, he does clearly condemn divorce (see, e.g., Mark 10). Now, would it be right for some group to pass a law amending the California Constitution to outlaw divorce? Obviously not. The policy of the state, as long established in America, should be: hey, if you think divorce is wrong, you are free to believe that, in which case you shouldn't get divorced. But don't tell everyone else that they can't get divorced, just because you don't like it. In the same way, people who think gay marriage is wrong are still free to believe that. (Notice gay marriage has been legal since June now, and no one has forced anyone to change their views!) If you don't like gay marriage, fine -- don't have a gay marriage. But don't tell everyone else that they can't get married, just because you don't like it.

Or, a much shorter argument against Prop 8: it is wrong to hurt someone who isn't hurting you. Gay marriage isn't hurting anyone. It would hurt, a lot, to strip existing gay marriages of equal rights, and deny everyone the right to marry the persons they love and care about.

It's as simple as that: hurting people for no good reason is wrong, and that's exactly what Prop 8 does, so it's wrong. Please vote NO on Prop 8.

Here's a trailer for Bruce Campbell's new movie written and directed by him.

Go here.

I saw this flick a few months ago surrealistically sitting next to Bruce Campbell. It was the oddest thing in the world to see the Cult Movie dude on screen playing himself and then hearing him from 3 feet away hurling insults at the movie.

The flick is fun in a bad-SNL-sketch-performed-by-non-actors kind of way. I can't really recommend the movie except to the most hard core Bruce fans. It's only occassionally funny and, overall, you'll enjoy it a lot more if you are drunk.

Overall, Bruce in person is much funnier than this flick.

High on the list if not number one of coolest things I've seen today.

It's a shark versus a zombie.

This gives good review of Palin's environmental policy. It sounds reasonable -- if we were purposely terraforming.

Article here.

I've had the iPhone 3G since early August. I bought it primarily as a data-device, a palm-top computer that would be easy to use because I thought that the AppStore would signficantly lend functionality to the device and I wanted 3G speeds. FYI, I'm keeping my Blackberry as it's just too good at what it does best -- messaging with a hardware keyboard -- to use anything else; besides, it's the only way I can access my company's corporate e-mail.

I waited to give my thoughts on the iPhone so I could be a bit distanced from the "new toy" feel.

I think the iPhone is a very amazing device that manages to gain new functionality with each app that I download from the very-easy-to-use AppStore. Honestly, this is the future of mobile computing and easily downloading new apps to your device is terrific. Apple always seems to be updating the OS, essentially making your phone better, and, like I said already, getting new apps every so often. By comparison, my Blackberry's O.S. has never been updated -- my wireless carrier and RIM both point at each other as the obstacle -- so it's no "better" than the day I bought it. The iPhone system is fast, has a gorgeous display and is really easy to use. It's not perfect -- no cut 'n paste yet -- but it'll only get better. The full-blown safari browser installed is great and has handled most every site just fine.

My only problem with the iPhone's operation really isn't the iPhone's fault. The 3G network here in L.A. is overloaded and slow; seems like far too often, I'm getting Edge speeds. Mind you, I've used the iPhone in other cities outside of California and then the 3G speed is killer; AT&T really needs to get their act together here in Los Angeles. It's not just the iPhone that's problematic here; DevilMayCare's 3G experiences on her HTC are about the same as mine. L.A. = sucky 3G.

I'd unequivocally recommend the iPhone except for one, very crucial problem. The iPhone has TERRIBLE battery life. After about 2 hours of moderate use (mostly net surfing, in my case), it's a brick. I'm very glad not to depend on it as a phone as the battery life would be even worse, especially with bluetooth turned on. I think the battery life is so awful for anything calling itself a "phone", seems to me that Apple is selling a product that needs another couple years for battery tech to be R&D'd to match everything else about the phone. Apple really has managed to convince the masses that they don't need longer battery time. They would be wrong.

So, buyer beware -- the iPhone is an amazing technological device that needs a better power solution.

Let there be no confusion as to the airdates of the final 10 episodes of BSG. Here you go:

4.11 Jan. 16
4.12 Jan. 23
4.13 Jan. 30
4.14 Feb. 6
4.15 Feb. 13
4.16 Feb. 20
4.17 Feb. 27
4.18 March 6
4.19 March 13
4.20 March 20

Click for more:

Writing for the Daily Beast, Michael Kinsley relays a disturbing story about John McCain from Jeff Dearth, former publisher of the New Republic, when Dearth and McCain attended a magazine industry conference at a casino hotel in Puerto Rico in 2005:

McCain's game is craps. So is Jeff Dearth's. Jeff was at the table when McCain showed up and happily made room for him. Apparently there is some kind of rule or tradition in craps that everyone's hands are supposed to be above the table when the dice are about to be thrown. McCain--"very likely distracted by one of the many people who approached him that evening," Jeff says charitably--apparently was violating this rule. A small middle-aged woman at the table, apparently a "regular," reached out and pulled McCain's arm away. I'll let Jeff take over the story:

"McCain immediately turned to the woman and said between clenched teeth: 'DON'T TOUCH ME.' The woman started to explain...McCain interrupted her: 'DON'T TOUCH ME,' he repeated viciously. The woman again tried to explain. 'DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO?' McCain continued, his voice rising and his hands now raised in the 'bring it on' position. He was red-faced. By this time all the action at the table had stopped. I was completely shocked. McCain had totally lost it, and in the space of about ten seconds. 'Sir, you must be courteous to the other players at the table,' the pit boss said to McCain. "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? ASK ANYBODY AROUND HERE WHO I AM."

This being Puerto Rico, the pit boss might not have known McCain. But the senator continued in full fury--"DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"--and crisis was avoided only when Jeff offered to change places and stand between McCain and the woman who had touched his arm.