Looper.

Just finished watching Looper.  It was decent, but I'm not sure what my final verdict is because I'm still processing it a bit.  I think I get the point, but I'm not sure if I agree with the premise.  I mean, a guy kills himself to protect a future just because the kid who grows up to destroy it misses his mother like the other guy?  That's sort of lame, even if it does include time travel, Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and the guy who wrote and directed Brick.

[Ed. Note] I wrote this post when this movie came out, but never published it. Until now.

Battlestar Galatica.

I recently purchased Battlestar Galatica on Blu-ray. I have since started to re-watch the series. It was an amazing take on the space opera, with modern political and social commentary. The best sci-fi isn't about the future, it is about right now, set in a different setting. The points they make are poignant and telling about what is going on in the world. I posted something last night that BSG is the best sci-fi around, and was contradicted by a young guy, just out of high school. He argued that Star Wars, Firefly, and Stargate are all better. He is wrong. Star Wars has it's moments. The Empire Strikes Back continues to be one of the best films ever, not to mention just sci-fi. Firefly was an awesome space Western, with gun fights, outlaws, and running from the law. Don't get me wrong, Firefly could be one of the wittiest non-comedy shows ever. Stargate was alright. However, these films and shows and idea might not live up to the test of time, because they don't incorporate the commentary of the time. 1984 is long past, but the critiques and fears that it espouse are timeless. Will the themes of Firefly or Stargate be relevant in 10 years? Probably not, since they don't really have themes, they only have actions. They are narrative without ideological substance. Star Wars does have some of that Western, Samurai, and pulp serial themes of good versus evil. I get that. However, the extended "universe" of Star Wars lacks all of that feeling and morality. It is just narrative. I can say this was a lot of certainty, since I spent several of my teen year obsessed with Star Wars, reading, watching, compiling, collecting stuff related to it. I'm glad I didn't have access to the internet until I was past that phase, because I would have been beyond obsessed. But so much I have read and seen regarding this series is just a list of emotionless facts or stories without any heart. True, some of the stories might be good or have emotion or ideological substance or political commentary, but the vast majority do not. But BSG has a core of commentary on the impact of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, and what it does to people. There is confusion, anger, fear, depression, and hope. The show doesn't shy away from these topics. Each character does things differently, and is imperfect. But it is a futuristic mirror that Americans needed to see what they were doing and how they should be reacting. Colonel Tighe is an alcoholic, who deals with tragedy through a bottle. Starbuck deals with it by tempting fate and bucking authority. President Roslin deals by taking charge of the government of the Colonies and treating everyone as people, worthy of respect. We need more shows like BSG to help us to see the ills of society and to help us want to change and improve the world around us. James Cameron's Avatar got us halfway there. It showed us our mistakes, but didn't really answer how we could fix them. BSG doesn't really fix them, at least not right away. Still, it will go down in history as a commentary on the post-9/11 world.

The Hurt Locker.

I just watched this Saturday night. I started off liking it. It was well shot, superbly acted, and intelligently told. But, by the end, or at the end anyway, I was left wondering, what is the point? Yes, James is an adrenaline junkie. But where does that leave him, and us, when the movie ends? I was disappointed by both the lack of moral and the lack of resolution. Yes, James ends his rotation, returns home, and finds civilian life to be tedious. I get that when he is tasked with getting cereal, he is paralyzed by indecision. I get that. I feel that way about a lot of things. I get overcome by choices. But that is my own personality flaw. But James seems to choose to leave the mundane for the spectacular without any motive other than he is unwilling to face his flaws. He should see a therapist to deal with his addiction to stimulation. So, this film just left me wondering what the point of the story was. I understand it won a bunch of Oscars, but I'm not exactly sure why. What did the Academy see that I didn't? Am I too much like James, paralyzed by normalcy, that I can't see my own flaws and continue to participate in the addictions? Or was there some other point? I'm just not seeing it.

Rescue Dawn.

This movie was very good. I enjoyed all of the performances, Steve Zahn's in particular. I knew Christian Bale would be good, because he always is. But Zahn was the real knock-out for me. I'd only ever seen him in the buddy role in comedies. He was always sort of a generic character, with little depth. This film showed me that he can actually act. The directing was good, but I'm not familiar with Herzog's other movies, so I have little frame of reference. And what is with Bale being in war films? Empire of the Sun basically started his career. Dawn is a great addition to his films, but maybe he should lay off films where he is in Asia as a war prisoner. Just a thought.

Whiteout.

I watched this last night. I thought it was supposed to be a horror movie that took place on Antarctica. Like John Carpenter's amazing sci-fi horror film, the Thing. But it wasn't. It was a murder thriller. Set in Antarctica. It stars Kate Beckinsale as a US marshall stationed at the research facility at the South Pole. Why a US marshall would be at the South Pole, on a continent that isn't part of the US, is beyond me. In fact, the fact that it's portrayed as normal is ridiculous. Most of the movie is terrible. There was a scene near the beginning of the movie, that explains the "whiteout" and what the Antarctic weather will do to the human body. For absolutely no reason, a group of newbies is exposed to the 50 below weather. It was a horrible plot device to show how harsh the weather is and how it would kill anyone within a few minutes. However, later in the movie, Kate Beckinsale spends 15 minutes outside, without a facemask without any problems, but midway through she gets frostbite on her hand after 2 minutes. It makes absolutely no sense. Her face would be frostbitten, like her fingers. Also, the guy who looks like Kris Kristofferson is trusted, for whatever reason. The entirety of the film was terrible. I made me feel stupid. The writing was horrible, as was the acting, directing, and everything else. The only the halfway decent about the movie was the scene, near the beginning of the movie, in which Kate Beckinsale takes a shower. There isn't any nudity, which sucks monkey balls, but she does take off her clothes and show her hot, sexy, taught body in only underwear. That was a major bonus. Kate Beckinsale is clearly fucking hot and I would totally put it in her. But this film was pretty bad. At various points it had potential, but I couldn't believe most of it. For instance, they kept flying a propeller plane around. That isn't unbelievable, but what isn't understandable is that they shut done the plane and leave it on the open ice. It's 50 or 60 degrees below FUCKING ZERO. Regardless of the intent, a plane parked in the open would freeze. It would become unflyable. In fact, the engine might freeze solid, preventing combustion. The same goes for the Caterpiller tractor thing. You can't leave that shit out in the freezing arctic without it breaking down or freezing up. You put planes in hangers, so they are usable. In Siberia, cars must be parked in heated garages, so they actually continue to run. If you don't, the engine oil freezes to sludge and the engine doesn't work. Why on Earth would you leave a plane in the open, turned off, so it cools off and then won't start again. What a terrible movie, except the scene with almost nude, bent over Kate Beckinsale. That part was awesome. But don't bother to even rent this movie. It was pretty bad. Just download the shower scene, since it's all that is worth it. If you want to see hot shower action, rent something else. If you want an awesome Antarctic movie, get John Carpenter's The Thing. It's so much better.

Arctic Monkeys.

I saw the Arctic Monkeys last night in DC. They are surprisingly good. I enjoy all of their albums, but wasn't really sure what to expect from them as a live act. Their first album is a fantastic example of the horrors of the loudness war in cd mastering. It is maxed out to the point of almost distorting it. But the music is still good. It would be better if probably mastered, but isn't much I can do about that. Before the show, I bummed around DC for a few hours. My boss recommended the Saloon on U Street, for their selection of draft beers. And he was right, they were very good. The bar maid/waitress was cute, and told me she liked my "sweater" (sweatshirt). Its hard to take a compliment when you are slightly embarrassed for wearing something based on an H.P. Lovecraft story and when you have the sneaking suspicion she is just fishing for a higher tip. Still, the beer was good, as was the burger. I would have liked to have gone to Ben's Chili Bowl, two shops down, but they don't serve beer. Maybe I'll head down there some Saturday just to try it. After dinner and a few beers, I headed out in the cold to the 9:30 Club. It was just before doors opened, so I had to wait in line, with all of the teenagers. That is one way to feel old, quickly; go to a rock show. In line, I chatted a bit with the other 20/30 somethings standing around me. The woman in front of me was pretty attractive. She commented that she was old enough to be some of these kids' mother. I find that a bit hard to believe, but as I assumed the guys she was with was her boyfriend, I let it slide without any flirting. Not that I would have done much of that, but I did have a few beers in me at that point, so anything was possible. I checked my coat upstairs, and as I was coming down the steps, I lost my footing, as fell down the stairs. Now my left wrist is bothering me. Stupid falling. Anyway, the opener was a trio called the Screaming Females. A bit of a misnomer, as there is only one screaming female in the group. But, I can live with misnomers. But I can't live with several things about this band. First, they are from New Brunswick, New Jersey. I fucking hate New Jersey, and just about everything from or in that state. That is strike one. Second, they couldn't decide what genre to be. They were all over the place. It wasn't classic rock, hard rock, punk, metal, prog, country, rap, screamo. It was all over the place. And not just a bunch of different sounding songs, but songs that weren't even internally consistent. Some songs would start as a straightforward power chord rocker, have a screamo chorus, then melt into an 80s guitar shredfest. It was annoying to listen to. Third, the guitarist, who is the lone girl, also sings. This isn't normally a problem. But I chose my words carefully just now. She is not a singer. She sings, but she is not a singer. And someone should stop her. Don't get me wrong, she can play a mean guitar. Some of what she did there was excellent. It just needs to be within a coherent genre or blend of them and without her singing, which vacillated between the sound of strangling cats and monotone boredom. This band would actually have potential without such a shitty singer. Fourth, the songs were boring. Hire a lyricist or something. Get a song written that doesn't suck, written within a standard genre, sung by someone who can. Fourth, the guitarist needs a damn haircut. Listen up, girly. Just because you are "punk" doesn't mean having hair covering your eyes is cool. Get over yourself and get a damn haircut. You look as retarded as your band sounds. I'm all for the Do It Yourself ethic they apparently have. They book most of their own shows and crap like that. Fine, cool, good for you. But that is no excuse for sucking. The Arctic Monkeys were, on the other hand, awesome.

Reservoir Dogs.

I watched this movie last night for the first time in a very long time. I'm talking years. In the intervening years, I've come to appreciate the Tarantino style, at least partially. Some of his movies are pretty decent. Usually the plot is a bit complicating, but they are worth a viewing, despite the language and violence (or because of them). But his debut is kind of pointless. The acting is good, don't get me wrong. He knows who to cast. The performances are all good. But much of the movie has the feeling of an indie film, with a very modest budget. I get that, he wasn't a director until that point, so it probably was. But the plot is unreasonable. I understand, its about a diamond heist gone wrong because one of them is a rat. However, what is the point of showing everything but the robbery? I seems to take half of what makes a great caper movie away. Well, I might take that back. It removes nearly three-quarters. We don't see the planning, we don't see the robbery, and we don't (or barely) see the get away. We only see the aftermath. Which may be the point. But those are always the most fun part of a caper movie. We like to see the planning so we know what should happen. We like to see the actual execution, and everything that goes wrong. And we like to see the get away, possibly for the shootouts and car chases. But this movie has none of that. It just left me thinking, "what's the point of this movie?" I wasn't entertained by the heist or car chases or shooting. If its an examination of the psychology of criminals, maybe it does a good job, but that doesn't make it entertaining.