no use for a headline

#21, See 100 more movies from “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die”, is one of those on my list that is going to take a long while to accomplish. Rather than check these off individually I’m just going to periodically go through the book and mark off all the ones I’ve seen since the last time.

When I went through the book this morning there were eight great titles that got my initials next to them. I won’t do a big review for them, but just a little blurb for each of the eight.

1. It Happened One Night (1934) – This one is also on the AFI list. One word: funny. I’ve been into the 30s screwball comedies of Cary Grant for a while, but I’d only seen Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind and Mutiny on the Bounty, neither of which is a comedy though he has funny moments in the former at least. This is a true screwball comedy though. Claudette Colbert is great as a fast talking heiress on the run who gets caught up with a somewhat slimy journalist (Gable) who is secretly trying to use her for a story. A fun movie for a Saturday night. Guys, impress your lady by watching a classic while still enjoying yourself fully.

2. His Girl Friday (1940) – I won’t say much here since I wrote a review of this movie last week. Long story short, it’s really really good and really funny. The review.

3. Double Indemnity (1944) – I saw this as the TA for a film class this spring. A great film noir. You’d probably recognize Fred MacMurray from My Three Sons reruns, but this is no family comedy. It’s a well written story of murder, betrayal, and fraud. The title refers to an insurance loophole that insurance agent Walter Neff (MacMurray) finds to help another beautiful, smart, fast talking blonde (Barbara Stanwyck) kill her husband & collect life insurance. The two leads do some killer verbal sparring. This movie is work renting just for that.

4. White Heat (1949) - This was actually in the same unit as Indemnity this spring. White Heat is another film noir, but more of a pure gangster film. It’s lead by the legendary James Cagney playing a mentally disturbed gangster with mother issues. Gangster movies aren’t usually my thing, but I’m glad I saw this. If you like gangster movies at all it’s a must-see.

5. Being There (1979) – Jumping 30 years in time, Being There is about a gardener who is completely uneducated formally to the point where he is almost childlike. The man who he works for, and has always worked for and lived with since childhood, dies and he is forced to go out into the world. He’s played by the amazing Peter Sellers (the original Pink Panther movies, among others) in a more unusual role for Sellers. Though not laugh-out-loud funny all the time, it is very well written and entertaining. Being There also has one of the most ambiguous endings I’ve ever seen. I’d love to sit and talk that one out with you sometime.

6. Hannah and her Sisters (1986) - This is a pretty classic Woody Allen film making it a thumbs up for me. It’s a basic love triangle (two times over) story. What makes this so good is the interesting characters and the classic Allen dialogue. Allen isn’t as central in this film, which is good for those who tire of his nebbish character. I don’t, for one. It’s also a good romantic comedy, though I do know that some don’t really dig on Woody Allen movies.

7. A Fish Called Wanda (1988) - I remember that, as a kid, I always confused this with Splash, simply because of the fish connection. Silly me. Anyway, this is a hilarious movie. The cast is amazing: John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, and Michael Palin lead. I’d extol the virtues of this comedic con movie, but I’m fairly certain I’m the last person to catch up with the world and see this, so just go watch it again.

So that’s it for now. Oh, I’ve also completed #57. It’s one of the undisclosed ones, which is why I buried it here. This one was done by accident, but it’s done and that’s what counts.

Let me first say that I wish this movie was bad if only so I could make the bad joke: “Up? More like Down!” But it wasn’t. In fact, this movie was damn good. I’d be surprised though if no one has made some joke about Up being a downer. Okay, I’m done with the bad puns.

In case you’ve been hiding under a rock, Up (2009) is the latest gift from Pixar to the world. It’s about an old man, Walter, who decides to fly his house to Paradise Falls, a mystical place in South America that was seemingly named after a McMansion gated community. Russell, a young boy trying for his “Assist the Elderly” scouting badge, is accidentally brought along for the ensuing adventures.

Unlike some other Pixar movies, one thing I noticed about Up was that it’s main adventure changes almost halfway into the movie. The journey of the floating house is sidetracked once the pair gets to South America. To be nitpicky, this brought me out of the movie a bit. I was invested in the original plotline when the change happened. The very human, very personal journey was more engaging for me than the more fantastical quest the pair ends up on. Case in point, Finding Nemo (2003) may have been about fish, but it was about a father’s journey to find his son, and there was no magic sea horse or wish-granting starfish.

But that’s just me.

That said, the execution of the story was pretty flawless. As usual, the casting was choice and the writing amazing. Up had plenty of the kind of hilarious side jokes that have made Pixar movies so reliably fun. For example (SPOILER) there is a pack of talking dogs in the land of Paradise Falls who will frequently interrupt themselves by looking quickly to the side and yelling, “Squirrel!” only to then return to the subject at hand as if nothing happened. I’m not sure if that sounds funny written out, but as mentioned above, the execution of it is perfect and hilarious.

The choice of first time actor Jordan Nagai was excellent. He brings an authenticity to the role of Russell that is difficult for a seasoned actor. Actually it’s pretty hard to review this movie. Reviewing Pixar movies has become like the Lewis Black joke about the Southern California weather man who just has to say, “It’s nice,” everyday. Personal opinion about the plot is really the only thing that one could take issue with.

As I alluded to at the beginning of the review, Up does have a good bit of tearjerking moments. I won’t spoil what they are, but if you aren’t getting choked up in the first twenty minutes then I’d check your pulse. While this is an atypical quality for a kids movie (at least to this degree) the positive side is that it shows Pixar pushing the traditional limits of animated family movies once again. You have to at least respect it. Fortunately the film ends on an uplifting, if still very emotional, note.

Up offers the kind of quality moviemaking that Pixar has become known for. If there is any reason not to see this film it would be that you really don’t want to exercise your tear ducts. Up isn’t my favorite Pixar movie of all time (probably Nemo), but as usual it blows all other animated family movies out of the water.

4/5 hastily constructed flying houses

Between Netflix and Hulu I have gotten into several TV shows from the last 10-15 years that I didn’t before. One of these is Firefly, from TV show guru Josh Joss Whedon. The series was about a smuggling ship in the future where the human race has colonized a whole new solar system, leaving our Earth behind. The inner most planets in the system are controlled by the Alliance, while the outer planets are a bit more wild and strongly resemble the Old West – but with space ships, of course. Sounds weird, but it really works in part because the dialogue is written in an Old West style as well. Another plus – no aliens.

Anyway, the ship, captained by Malcolm Reynolds and named Serenity, unintentionally takes on two fugitives in the form of a young doctor and his sister. The Alliance had been doing some pretty nasty experiments on the sister, River, since she is something of a genius.

Basically it was a cool show that Fox canceled in their infinite (read: crappy) wisdom. Flash forward to 2005. Whedon is able to write and direct a major motion picture to tell the rest of the story and give his fans some closure. It is called Serenity (2005). One of those fans, as of a few weeks ago, is me.

The major question in looking at Serenity after seeing the full one season long series is whether fans of the show and newcomers will like the same things. The basic story of the movie is that the crew of the ship eventually discovers why the Alliance is so actively pursuing River and figures they have to do something about it. They ain’t runnin’ no more.

I’ll just say here that I liked the movie. I actually liked it a great deal. The major problem with the movie is that it’s clear Whedon had a good amount of stuff to put into two hours that should have been done over two seasons. One of the greatest things about the series is that it’s ostensibly an ensemble cast. This review would be much longer if I went into each of the ship’s crew as much as I’d like.

Characters like the priest with a mysterious past, Shepard Book, and the natually gifted, plucky female mechanic, Kaylee, were so interesting. The character of Captain Reynolds, played by Nathan Fillion, balanced his gruff exterior with moments of emotion and passionate loyalty in dealing with the crew.

With only two hours for Serenity, the supporting cast was not active enough for this Firefly fan and was probably not developed enough for someone coming in fresh. Needless to say, Whedon had quite a balancing act to play throughout.

One of the greatest evil forces in the movie is the Reavers. These are humans who were somehow driven so mad that they disfigure themselves, are known to do the most horrendous things to anyone they encounter, and are no longer considered human by most. Again, the Reavers are more morbidly interesting than two hours allows, but Serenity does a good job at bringing them in early so that their involvement at the end makes sense. The downside is that their role in the movie is more poignant if you have the background offered by the TV show.

The action in Serenity is good, but not great. At the beginning of the film it is revealed that River was meant to become a weapon for the Alliance. Those experiments also made her almost childlike from psychological damage, so when she clicks on and starts busting skulls, especially near the end, it makes for a great fight sequence. The character of the bounty hunter on her tail is played well by the great Chiwetel Ejiofor and his gentlemanly way of dispatching his targets is both poetic and cringeworthy.

I think the best way to see Serenity is to watch the full Firefly series (only 14 episodes) and then watch the movie, if only to get the full time line. Part of me wants to recommend watching the movie, the series, and the movie again, but that may just be my own curiosity regarding how the movie plays with fresh eyes. It shouldn’t be too bad doing that as Serenity doesn’t give away much that will take away from the TV show.

Overall Serenity is good. The characters are interesting, the almost literal take on space as a futuristic Old West is ingenious, and there are some good, solid fights to boot. It’s clear that Whedon had another season or two of plot ready to go, so I have to excuse some things because he was trying to please two audiences. This is the only reason I may sound like I didn’t like the film. If you like solid futuristic action movies then check out this movie. If you really like sci-fi as a genre, watch Firefly and then fully enjoy the conclusion offered in Serenity.

Serenity is available for instant viewing on Netflix.

3/5 spaceship inspiring arthropods

With not a ton going on as I am on the job hunt I thought to myself, “What could I be blogging about?” My buddy Josh has been running a cool series of posts reviewing his past college courses and what they did for him. I briefly thought of doing that as well, but A) that may be depressing and B) that requires I remember my password for the Marist website.

So instead, I thought I’d start reviewing all the movies I watch. I do watch a good number, both good and bad. While I’m no Gene Shallot, a good bit of my formal education dealt with the study of film. Plus I don’t read enough to review books.

---

LAST NIGHT I watched His Girl Friday (1940). I had this movie on my Netflix queue for one reason: Cary Grant. Notorious (1946) is probably the first movie I saw Grant in, but I didn’t appreciate him until I saw the amazing film The Philadelphia Story (1940 – those guys really cranked ‘em out!). He was in that with Katherine Hepburn and Jimmy Stewart, making it destined for awesome.

But that’s neither here nor there. His Girl Friday is about newspaper editor Walter Burns (Grant) who finds out that his ex-wife and former reporter, Hildy, (Rosalind Russell) is about to get remarried to an insurance man from Albany (Ralph Bellamy). Because Walter isn’t about to lose a wife and a reporter to an insurance salesman he hatches a plan to get Hildy working one last big story on a pending execution which may be undeserved. Hilarity ensues.

First of all, this is the best kind of movie for Cary Grant. It’s in the genre popular in the 30s & 40s, the screwball comedy. He was great in Notorious and North by Northwest (1959), but that man was made for screwball comedy. We’re talking pratfalls, crazy schemes, and most importantly fast, witty verbal sparring with fast, witty women. Hepburn is one of my favorites at this, Irene Dunn (The Awful Truth (1937)) was great, but I have got to see more with Rosalind Russell. She gives Grant back everything he dishes out and then some. Any ladies out there who love to see strong female characters should check out this genre and this movie. It is about (sort of) manipulating Hildy into getting back with Walter, but she is one step ahead the whole way and most of what Walter is doing is reminding her how much she loves being a reporter (albeit through questionable means at times).

His Girl Friday is directed by Howard Hawks, who is responsible for many classics including the incredible Grant/Hepburn picture Bringing up Baby (1938). To his (and the editor’s) credit, the pacing is perfect. It never stops and never loses your interest. The one downside to this is that sometimes things go so fast (particularly dialogue) that you miss a great line. Fortunately there are enough in there (credit to the writers) that there is another great one in short time. The dialogue is good enough that the fact that much of it is delivered over the phone doesn’t do anything to detract.

There are certainly lots in His Girl Friday that are of the time. The film begins with a title card disclaimer saying essentially that the reporters occasionally act like scumbags, but today’s reporters (in 1940) wouldn’t do such a thing. The press room is also pretty classic, with a table full of old style phones, one for each paper. No dialing here. Finally, the alleged murderer is accused of killing a policeman. The explanation given for why the sheriff and mayor want him executed is because the cop was black and the black vote is so important in the city. This smells a bit of diminishing the crime because of the policeman’s race, although not said explicitly. The movie was made in 1940, so it is a product of its time.

Overall I definitely recommend this movie. One of my favorite things in a movie is great verbal sparring, and this has it in spades. If you’ve stayed away from Cary Grant movies or comedies of this era because they’re in black and white you are really missing out. The comedy holds up very well and we just don’t get movies like this anymore.

His Girl Friday is available for instant viewing on Netflix.

5/5 pre-cancer warning cigarettes

ps. the whole movie is on YouTube, though I recommend you bump Semi-Pro down your queue and get this in a better quality version.

image attributions: hat, diploma

It’s been a while since I gave my 101 list much attention. I knew this would be the case as the semester got hairy, which is why I designed it to have more short term and low-cost items. A benefit of this is that it’s possible for some of these to happen without purposely doing them for the list.

Case in point: #90. Play music for people. Two weeks ago was the Relay for Life here at Virginia Tech. The Communication Grad Student Association had a team, so Friday evening I joined my colleagues/buddies in the middle of the drill field. Going in, I had no idea how big this thing was.

Rather than try to describe it, I’ll direct you to the video on the Collegiate Times website. I’m not sure if I’m in it, but if so I’d be the guy walking around furiously checking his Touch for an email about his thesis. One of my fellow grad students is in the a capella group featured at the beginning, however.

Anyway, it was big.

Before our shift in the relay, my buddy Evan had the idea to run home and get his guitar and my djembe drum to do a little jam-out. Long story short, we got the instruments, came back, and got our jam on for some of our friends. I’m pretty out of practice and my drum was out of tune, so it wasn’t my best performance, but it was fun. As soon as I get a drum key and tune the drum up I want to give it another go.

So that’s my story. Not as epic as the old Marist coffeehouse days, but good times nonetheless.

Yeah, that face does not say “elegant” or “luxury” to me. “Fun” and “stress-relieving” maybe. I’m also getting a hint of “someone just slipped an eel in this tub and I want to get the hell out now.”

I’m guessing it was a previously used picture recycled with new text. Take an extra five minutes next time, ad gurus.

One of the benefits of having very few readers is that I really don’t have to put up with the ultra-negative commenters that tend to overshadow the good in the blogosphere. I’ve had people argue with me on points a few times, but they always had a specific point, not just criticizing for criticism’s sake.

Work through the data collection for my thesis, I am reading hundreds of blog posts and comments. There were some posts that had so many people complaining for such small reasons that I wanted to throw in my blogger towel. Of course there are also examples of great value being provided by blog commenters.

One post on TreeHugger exemplifies this wide gap. The post is written by a communication professional, Jerry Stifelman, about how to effectively use branding for nonprofits. The article is great and the first comment lived up to that. The commenter, Glenn, responds with a four paragraph, well thought-out commentary on communication strategy in nonprofits as well as when it goes too far. I highly recommend you read both.

Then there’s Tim. Does Tim disagree with any points made? Does Tim put any actual effort into an intelligent response? Of course Tim doesn’t. Tim’s whole response was:

Nice, but you spelled torture wrong.

Really? Really, Tim? Mr. Stifelman just put together a great discussion of media strategy for NGOs, for which I’m guessing he was paid little to no money, and you respond with a spelling error?

Is it wrong to point out things like that? Not necessarily, but you don’t get to do so without earning the snark. If Glenn, the good first commenter, had noted the mistake at the end of his piece that’d be fine. He made a positive contribution. But you, Tim?

Those are the kind of comments that make blogging not fun. Fortunately there are Glenns. Glenns engage in the discussion, add to the collective knowledge, and really make it worth blogging as opposed to traditional print reporting.

I got into blogging because a friend suggested it and it was fun. I stayed with blogging because it was an outlet and I could engage with my other blogging friends. As I’ve gotten into reading more topical blogs I have come to enjoy the intellectual discussion that can come from blogs.

My point is this: For almost the whole history of mass media we have been observers. The reporters, pundits, and commentators got to talk and we listened. The best we could do was write a letter to the editor, but that’s hardly a way to engage a discussion.

Blogging has given us that–a way to discuss the things we are interested in with others who share those interests. If I go to Slash Film there are other film geeks to debate a movie’s artistic merits. I can go to Lifehacker and share productivity tips and experiences with other commenters. Even commenting on blogs like Dooce can be fun for some people to just have friendly conversation.

It may be a symptom of this dialogic freedom that we must deal with trolls. Comments like Tim’s are not the real problem, and pointing out spelling mistakes isn’t really trolling, but it’s not adding to the value of the blog. We’ve been given a chance to engage with our media. I’d rather not see us waste and abuse that gift.

Doing my thesis data collection requires me to read about 300 posts on Treehugger. While I have liked this blog for a long while, I haven’t been reading as much lately since the research was killing my reading pleasure. One post just reminded me why I love Treehugger.

Since Treehugger is made for the modern environmentalist, reconciling true conservation with the things that we encounter every day, they sometimes will feature a sweet little green gadget. This article features Wattson, a home electricity monitor. If you’ve ever driven a hybrid, you’re familiar with the fuel economy monitor that most have in the dashboard. This is the same thing, but for your house.

When I drive my parents’ hybrids (yes, like any good East Coast liberals) and see that my mpg is low I change how I’m driving to increase it. The same thing could happen if I saw that my energy usage was super high. The Wattson actually glows red when your usage is really high! How awesome is that? Very.

Since I will (hopefully) be getting a job and moving out soon after graduating, I am mentally designing my ideal apartment set-up. Though I’m not sure if the Wattson would work in an apartment building, it’d definitely be something I’d want in my home whenever that happens.

It doesn’t look like it’s available displaying energy costs in US dollars, but I might be willing to learn the conversions just for this. Combining technology, environmentalism, and data collection? So money it doesn’t even know it.

UPDATE: I just found an American version! Its design isn’t as cool, but I’ll forgive it that. Check it here.

The Great Blog War, part IV (parts. I, II, III):

First of all, I would like to thank my fellow bloggers for ad hominem attacks as Sideburns pledged not to do. I will assume that Deliverance’s assertion that I “lack mental acumen” and ‘Burns’ that I am one of his “dumbest colleagues” were purely ex hominem. I assume this since they are both turds who wouldn’t know the difference.

But I digress.

Fortunately for those of us who love the acumen-ific challenge that Sudoku offers, neither of their arguments hold up under scrutiny. First, both gentlemen refer to Sudoku being subject to the newspaper industry and paper and pen in general. To the newspaper point, I will have you know that Sudoku books outsold crossword books 2 to 1 last year. While I am totally making that statistic up, the Sudoku puzzle book on top of my commode begs to differ with the crux of the newspaper arguement.

Sideburns goes further to say that both Sudoku and its unworthy cousin, crosswords, are only for paper and pen, likening them to D&D. I will not join in his mocking of D&D since the nerd revolution is nearly upon us, but his point is null regardless. I have it on good authority (me) that Mr. ‘Burns has an iPhone. Maybe he should take his mouse on a little trip here (iTunes link).

Yes, the most popular game on the iPhone App Store is Sudoku. While I made that up that fact as well, it is definitely available for the king of all portable multimedia. Boo-yah.

Second, while video games might enable us to explore virtual worlds where Sideburns can actually do well at sports, does it offer the mental challenge of Sudoku? It does not. So while the screen jockey XBox fanboys will be immoveable masses of Cheeto gut and thumbs by age 30, we Sudukites© will be molding the world to our will.

I would argue against Deliverance’s point that math is not universal because aliens “use only symbols,” however I don’t know if he can read a computer screen through his tinfoil helmet. Oh yeah, and numerals used in Sudoku are symbols. Boo-yah.

So to conclude, I will explicitly answer question posed in my previous post, since Deliverance isn’t able to reason the answer (explaining his inability to Sudokize©). Is Sudoku a great game or the greatest game? It doesn’t really matter since it’s better than video games and crosswords, and also because Evan and Josh smell.