One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 44)

Movie to See: Give 'em Hell Malone

I enjoyed this movie far more than I should have, but it was a good private eye romp. While I'm not sure the writer was in on the joke, clearly the directors and actors in this movie understood this silly modernization of the typical film noir fare. A lot of over-the-top shoot outs combined with bizarre plot twists, gruff double-crossing relationships and stinging one-liners make you really wonder what The Maltese Falcon would look like if filmed today. After all, the tag line on the 1941 film poster was "A story as explosive as his blazing automatics." This one has LOTS of blazing automatics! Thomas Jane is no Humphrey Bogart, but he does a pretty good job nonetheless. You really feel for his character and the constant messes he finds himself in; he may be tough, but he really is trying not to be stupid...or suicidal.

 

If you don't take this movie seriously, I think you'll get a kick out of it. 

---

Movie to Skip: The Ghost of Mae Nak

I can pretty much sum this one up in one word: "Meh." This is not exactly an edge of your seat thriller. The acting is mediocre, the set up is silly, and ultimately I just can't care enough about the main couple involved to feel any suspense. I just kept thinking to myself:

"Hey listen folks. Either help the ghost, or ignore the ghost, just do something other than standing around wringing your hands about it."

And when they do decide to do something about it, and things go pear shaped, I just kept thinking:

"Hey, well, at least you made a decision... but every moron watching this film knew you were making the wrong choice looooong before you did. That's what you get for being stupid."
 

I think this was an effort to modernize an old Thai legend, but it wasn't carried out very well. Or hell, maybe it was carried out well, but it was just a stupid legend. And maybe there was some subtle genius to this film that was lost on me because I had to read it... although I really doubt it. Either way, it didn't make for a very entertaining movie. Skip it. 

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 43)

One Movie to See: Monsters

What a great independent film! This movie really is a cross between District 9 and Cloverfield; that is, the aliens are already here before the movie begins, but we spend a lot of the movie just trying to get a good look at them. Fortunately in this one, unlike Cloverfield, we actually do get to have some moments watching the monsters in their new native habitat. This one also has much more likable characters and a better script.

There are three things about this movie that I really liked. First, this movie does a good job at societal introspection. How would we react if aliens landed? Would we build a wall around them? Would we attack them? Would we try to figure them out? Something else? What should we do? All great questions, and Monsters explores them all with an honest eye. I liked that. 

  

Second, this movie just feels very real. The dialogue is genuine. The situations, although entirely fictional, feel as though they could actually happen in the way they play out. And the characters are just ordinary people caught in a bizarre reality that everyone is having a hard time adjusting to. There are no super heroes. No one has special talents or abilities; they're just people. Because of that, it's easy to imagine yourself in these circumstances, and wondering if you'd be able to do any better. 

  

Third, and most important, this was a movie that was not destroyed by studio executives. There is no hidden agenda. And the film makers were able to build a movie with creative vision and without a formulaic plot or shoe-horned elements inserted so that the movie would appeal to the morons... er, masses. It really does make one wonder what this movie could have been like if it had the budget of a Hollywood movie, but was still able to leave the studio executives out of the process... and thus were still able to make a good movie.

A very enjoyable movie. Although there is a slow boil element to this "thriller" that some people may not like, I thought the slow building tension was a good thing. If you want action from start to finish, watch War of the Worlds, but if you want to watch the thinking man's version of that film, watch this one instead. 

---

Movie to Skip: 2001: A Space Odyssey

There is probably a special place in Hell reserved for me, but I didn't like this movie. In general, I like Stanley Kubrick films. I can see where he was coming from in A Clockwork Orange (although the author did not appreciate that Kubrick chose to leave off the last chapter regarding the main characters ultimate redemption), and I loved The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket. All of those films are on my "must see" list. But the Kubrick name doesn't make something automatically great. For me, despite the forward thinking encapsulated within it, this one was a miss. 

  

My chief complaint about this film is that it moves at the speed of space: it is slooooooooooow. Slow can be ok, but in this case it just translates to boring. At the end of the day, I just don't see a lot happening in this movie. I mean, a lot is supposed to be happening, in the subtext of the film, but you've got to really dig to find it. I don't think you have to dig as much with most of his other movies. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I would have appreciated a heads up as to his overall goal. At least then I could have been trying to deconstruct the film as I watched it rather than trying not to nod off. 

  

Theoretically I should be encouraging you to watch this film as an example of a masterpiece from one of the greatest American film makers of all time (I think I'm supposed to say it that way), but I can't bring myself to do it. No, you won't understand why it's funny when someone markets a monolith "action" figure. No, you won't get all the Hal references that crop up in popular culture. But frankly, I'm not really sure it's worth it to be in on the joke. I could have skipped this one and have been fine with it. There are FAR better Kubrick movies available to watch, and infinitely better science fiction movies that borrow the themes of this one (i.e. Alien, Contact, Terminator, etc.). 

  

Borrowed Hobby Tips: Weathering

I'm not painting genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I sure can recognize painting genius when other people do it!  Further, why bother going through the process of explaining to you what other folks have already done MUCH better than I could have? Am I right?

With that in mind, I present to you two articles on weathering by Aaron "Grey_Death" P. over at The Painting Corps.  Aaron does some fantastic work, and most of his techniques are incredibly simple to implement (his Medusa army in particular is just stunning...).  At the moment I'm attempting to apply some of the techniques below to some scenery projects I have on my own hobby table.  Once that's perfected... maybe I'll give this a shot on my models as well!

Weathering Armor: Link to Article
Deceptively simple, yet amazing results.  A "must see" tutorial.

Weathering Marines: Link to Article
Like the armor article, this uses a very simple sponge technique that anyone can do.

As you can see, Aaron is pretty talented, and he's willing to share his talent with all of us.  We should take him up on the offer.  Visit his site regularly and catch his regular weekly tips... you won't be disappointed.

News for the Masses

Watch this:

Within 5 years I predict the word "journalism" will be considered a synonym for "tabloid" or "joke" (and possibly "fuck-tard") by all reputable academic sources... if there are any left.

Seriously folks, what the hell kind of world are we living in when this is considered news worthy by the media 'powers-that-be'? And here I thought there were plenty of serious problems that needed addressing in the world rather than dressing up non-issues to display our overwhelming prejudices and abject stupidity for the world to mock.

Remember the simpler times when we used to keep the village idiot behind closed doors so that he wouldn't embarrass us in front of visitors from neighboring towns?  Not any more! Now we call them "journalists" and "psychologists" and pay them more money in a month than three honest and hardworking folks can earn, collectively, in a year while actually contributing positively to society.  It is an exercise in total intellectual dishonesty to call these news outlets anything other than "entertainment" (more and more often in the same offensive vein as hardcore bukake porn and snuff films)  and should be required to introduce each and every "show" with a disclaimer providing as such so that the actual village idiots among us know when their chains are being yanked.  We totally need to resurrect Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, infuse them with the power of the Incredible Hulk (possibly letting one of them carry Thor's hammer), and let them met out some brutal medieval justice on the mockery of what journalism has become in the United States.

For the good of the order, the producer(s)/editor(s) at each of the actual * "news" outlets that green lighted this story should be immediately deported to Tunisia or Libya or the Fukushima reactor in Japan or someplace else that actually has something news worthy going on, until they remember (or 'figure out' if no one ever bothered to tell them before hiring them as a news editor/producer) what journalism is supposed to be.  And if they can't figure it out in six months... while being on scene of an actual human tragedy... how said tragedy relates to producing "news" and how to identify what kind of "news" should  be shown on a "news" program, well, then they can fucking stay there.  We've got enough morons in country as it is, and we really need to start getting rid of some of the louder and more obnoxious ones.

* Or "purported 'news' outlets" in the case of Fox News.

Ugh. Rant over. At least we get to enjoy the Daily Show's righteous mocking of yet another exemplar of just how stupid we are becoming...

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 42)

Movie to See: The Duchess

This movie made me want to know more about the life of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, who was the topic of this fantastic period movie. Keira Knightley is magnificent in her role as the Duchess, a character who struggles to strike a delicate balance between dutiful wife while finding a modicum of happiness in a world where women have no real power... even if married to one of the most powerful men in England. (The Duke is played by the indomitable acting powerhouse Ralph Fiennes.) The story is fantastic, and the entire movie is well written and beautifully shot. Knightley gives a moving performance - possibly one of her best. Fiennes, as usual, is amazing. (Just compare his dream-peddling character from Strange Days to the Duke, a hated, and yet somehow amazingly sympathetic character, and you can see the amazing range of Fiennes.) Fiennes, as usual, doesn't hold anything back in this film, and creates a solid pillar of conflict by his mere presence in a scene. 

  

The Duchess is a solid movie, not a mere flowery chick flick. But... it is a drama, and a biographical drama at that, so it won't be everyone's cup of tea. (Earl Grey or otherwise...) Personally, I liked it. I think you probably will too. 

---

Movie to Skip: The Beach

Let me save you some trouble and sum this one up for you: a spoiled twenty-something kid runs off to Thailand - funded by his parents - and finds a secluded colony of beach bums. The bums take things a little too seriously, and ultimately the whole beach bum lifestyle isn't as fun or as idyllic as the spoiled kid thought it would be. End of story. Want to watch that film? Of course you don't, because it's boring and ultimately you don't learn anything that you didn't already know before you went in. I guess we get to see Dicaprio's character figure it out, but similar to my feelings about Hathaway's character in Havoc, I just find it hard to care about this 'growing' moment. There is something about the spoiled little rich kid genre of film, where the (anti-)hero does something so obviously stupid and then takes an hour and a half of my life to figure that out, that just annoys me a little. (I don't think that bodes well for my own children...) 

  

For what it's worth, DiCaprio does an ok job with this film. I thought his character was a moron, and I totally didn't buy into the Rambo thing in the middle, but at least his acting was on par with most of his other work. At the end of the day, however, Inception was a MUCH better film than this one... even if you hate it. This one is not worth your time. 

  

Buzzard's Top Fives

Top 5 Candy Bars of All Time

(1) Bar None (Hershey): My favorite candy bar from the late eighties until it was discontinued in 1993.  While it had a short run, this one sticks in my mind as the best candy bar ever from my youth.  Thin chocolaty wafers covered in peanuts and a thin coating of chocolate, this one just melted in your mouth with just enough serious crunch to make it interesting.  Ah, I miss you Bar None. (216 calories)

(2) Lion Bar (Nestle): Nope, you can't get them in the United States, but they are readily available to sweet tooths everywhere in Europe.  I discovered my love for these little goodies while at a laundry mat in England... and they quickly became my laundry day treat.  A Lion Bar is the love child between a 100 Grands and a Nestle Crunch bar -- as tasty and chewy as a 100 Grands, but with less caramel and a bit more chocolate like the Crunch bar.  A glorious treat! (269 calories)

(3) Twix (Mars): While there is probably less actual product in this bar when compared to similarly sized junk food, the fact that there are two little bars in each package (FOUR in the King size!) fool me into thinking I've had a bigger snack every time.  Chocolate, caramel and wafers... the winning combination in just about every candy bar on this list.  And best of all?  The least amount of calories per serving compared to any of the others that are still manufactured today - but just barely. (220 calories or 110 each)

(4) Whatchamacalit (Hershey): The older (and still surviving) distant cousin of the Bar None, this is a delightful little candy bar.  While similar in many ways to Bar None, this one swaps rice for nuts and regular rather than chocolate wafers.  It also has a little bit of caramel that is not in the Bar None... otherwise, exactly the same.  Come to think of it, most candy bars suffer from 'Taco Bell' syndrome: mix the same six or seven ingredients around a bit, slap it in a different wrapper, and Presto! -- brand new product. (222 calories)

(5) Snickers (Mars) / Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (Hershey): I really don't like ties, especially in a short list like this one, but I simply couldn't decide which one of these bars I prefer over the other... despite the fact that they are just as completely different from each other as they are from the rest of this list!  On the one hand, you've got a super-filling chocolate bar with peanuts and full of that chocolaty fluff like a 3 Musketeers bar, on the other you have a peanut butter filled chocolate disc of goodness.  Both have their places (Snickers makes a great snack, while Reese's - especially the many holiday varieties - are a great treat when you're packing on the spare tire for winter), and both are simply yummy.  (Yeah, I said it: yummy!) (Snickers: 270 calories; Reese's: 260 or 130 each).

The truth of the matter is that I don't eat nearly as many of these little morsels as I used too... although still far more than I should.  I think my cravings come in chocolaty waves...but that doesn't mean they aren't empty calorie sinks!  It's probably a good thing that the top two bars on my list are simply unavailable to me or else I'd be even chunkier than I am now.  Mmm... now I want a chocolate bar.  Dang it!

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 41)

Movie to See: La Femme Nikita

I'm a big fan of Luc Besson's work, and this is one of his classic films. Other Besson films you probably know are Leon: The Professional, The Fifth Element, the Transporter films, Taken, and many others. He always manages to come up with fantastic stories, and this one is no different. There is a real difference between a "movie" and a "film". A movie will entertain you for a couple of hours, and then you'll forget all about it. A film sticks with you and approaches the elusive "art" of the cinema. Nikita, like most of Besson's movies, is art. 

  

One thing that that strikes you right away about this film is that you've seen the story before: a convicted felon is turned into a super spy in order to escape prosecution. It's a common theme (going all the way back to The Dirty Dozen -- hell, Spartacus if you want to push the theme a bit), but you have to keep in mind that this movie is twenty years old! There have been LOTS of movies made with that theme since then! This one, however, has passion and grit that is missing from the impersonators. This is a solid film... even if it is in French. 

  

 Nikita is a classic. You should watch it. 

---

Movie to Skip: Transylmania

A throw away spoof movie if there ever was one, but I've definitely seen worse. It's better than the later entries in the Scary Movie franchise, but that's really not saying a whole lot. It's also better than Stan Helsing, which is also not saying much, although Jennifer Lyons is no Doira Baird in the 'sream queen' department. Lyons does an admirable job with the light-switch personality (ditzy one moment, menacing the next) and was generally pretty funny, as are most members of the cast, but the story was complete crap. I guess I suspected that much before I watched it, but I'm always hoping for a surprise gem. I don't think this was it. If you're looking for a waste of time with the typically suggestive pseudo-horror theme then maybe this one's for you. Otherwise, totally skipable.

 

Cartoons Can Be Very Dark...

Below is a trippy little cartoon that I found on the interwebs...  Remember when "cartoon" meant The Smurfs or the ever so slightly darker He-Man and the Masters of the Universe?  I do.  This is NOT that kind of cartoon.  Progress?  Regression?  ...Depravity?  You be the judge.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 40)

Movie to See: Frida

This is an interesting biography of the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, the title role of which is played by the beautiful (dare I say, iconic?) Mexican actress, Salma Hayek. I've got to say that I was pleasantly surprised by Hayek's performance in this movie. Generally, when I think of a really good Mexican actress, Hayek typically isn't on my short list. Hell, most of the great Mexican actresses I can think of are dead! (i.e. Delores Del Rio, Lupe Velez, etc.) And then I thought, why didn't Penelope Cruz play this role? But then again, she's actually from Spain... so that probably wouldn't work out very well... kind of like having Canadians or Brits play great American icons. (Although it was humorous to see flip-flopped nationalities in Canadian Bacon, which was likely one of the few redeeming qualities of that film, in retrospect.) Anyway, the point is that Hayek really brought life into this role. 

  

The life of Kahlo was fascinating, apparently, which certainly helps a good biography. While, admittedly, I was not familiar with Kahlo's work prior to the movie, and I can't say that I'm overwhelmed by her style (it's just not my particular aesthetic), I can say that my mind is happy to have been educated about her life. Kahlo led a sordid and interesting life after overcoming significant challenges in her youth. I think this movie portrays that struggle well, and it was enjoyable to watch. I do think that some of Kahlo's life was glossed over a little to briefly, and I wasn't always over-joyed with some of the aspects of her career that the film focused upon, the artistic element of the film was damn near perfect. Many of the scene changes were literally cut right out of Kahlo's paintings, which was well done... even though I could see some critics considering that move to be... trite. I think it worked, and added to the story behind the works themselves. (Which was probably the point...) 

  

This is a movie worth watching. I think I prefer a dramatized biography over a straight documentary as it breathes a little more life into an already interesting story. If this had been a documentary, I probably would have fallen asleep... but the warmth that the actors brought to the role gave Kahlo's story the vitality necessary to tell the tale. I probably have to recommend this film on a straight 'historically interesting' basis. Had it not been a biography, it would not have been as compelling, although I think it still would have worked as a film in its own right. I don't know what liberties were taken with Kahlo's life in order to tell this version of her story, but the more factually based this movie was, the more intriguing she becomes. 

---

Movie to Skip: A Tale of Two Sisters

I don't have a lot to say about this one because I think the language barrier may have tripped me up a little more than usual. Technically this movie is a horror film, although I would be at home calling it a 'supernatural thriller'... if there's any real difference. Like most Asian ghost films, the ghosts in this film are far more menacing than what you'll typically find in a Hollywood version. Asian ghosts know you on an intimate level, regardless of whether they have any reason to actually 'know' your history. Because of that, they understand how to terrify you with your own history and to torture you with images from your past. I don't understand how that works, but apparently Asian ghosts can do that... 

  

What is confusing about this movie is determining just who the ghosts are. It's obvious from the get-go that there are ghosts, but you have to pay very close attention to just who is interacting with whom in order to figure out who's there... and who isn't. When you're reading the movie, it's difficult to pick up on the subtle clues of character interaction that give you that answer. 

  

There are a few surprises in the film, which was nice. But as I stated above, sometimes I was a bit confused when the reveal was made... either because I missed some clues along the way, or I'd unconsciously figured it out before hand and simply didn't realize the 'surprise' was still a mystery. 

  

I think a lot was lost on me with this film. But then again, maybe it just wasn't as good as I am trying to make it. Either way, I could probably have skipped this film and have been fine with it.