zustifer: (Jim Jarmusch)
ONE. Someone capped Marie Antoinette so as to exclude all the actors. This was a great choice, because it emphasized the decent shooting, fancy set dressing and costuming, rather than the horrifying... most other things (also it's something I want to do with most movies). There are some great disses in the comments:

i think sofia coppola's personal life often overshadows her movie making "abilities"

The movie was SO gorgeous, if nothing else. (I personally think that although a lot of people did their jobs well, the editing ruined a lot of it for me. Ignoring the script.)

but really - how many more times do we have to hear sofia coppola tell us that spoiled, wealthy and privileged white girls are sooo bored and unhappy? if she actually made a film about someone other than herself, i'd be mildly amazed.


TWO. The new Fire Emblem has IN-BATTLE SAVES. This will make it playable. My cup runneth over. If only they had kept the art 2d.
(I do rather resent the idea that I am not hardcore because of my lack of desire to replay missions potentially endlessly. Especially when battles in said missions can hinge on a dice roll quite easily.)
zustifer: (carla)
This is one of the reasons why I don't disrespect Ebert for stating that games aren't art. At least he's cool enough to post some nice, well-reasoned responses.

Although in among those there is this: "Guy gamers seem to think of the movie bits as interruptions in the real action of running around and shooting things. Girl gamers sometimes think of the video game part as an interruption in the movie."
Sigh. Don't we have a sisterhood here, female game people? Do we really need to do this shit? Make these stereotypical generalisations that don't help anyone?

Also, I'm so sick of people arguing about the definition of art.
zustifer: (Rik Mayall)
Some stuff on the internet:

Debbie Harry is putting out a new album. Her voice has changed some, but in sort of a rougher, more interesting way (apart from the fact that it sounds almost like two different vocalists on the track linked). I don't know if I quite approve of the effects, but the song is fairly nice. If you listen to it, spot the part where I expect it to segue into 'Cish Cash.'

Women as carriers of autism. The incidence of autism is three times higher in men, apparently. Good for autism researchers for managing to generate some public awareness and therefore funds for research, of late.

A band that consists of two sisters whose parents seem to have named them after two of Tom Baker's companions. The song whose video is on that page is pretty catchy, as well.

Total burn on the typographical redesign of a dutch newspaper. Good fonts misused in annoying ways.

Useful post by tongodeon about hansei (sort of 'reflective consideration for others, only more active').

Writeup of the case of the fellow with very little brain matter, which probably everyone has already seen, but it's fairly neato.
zustifer: (Jim Jarmusch)
Since I'm sort of paying attention to the Transformers movie (which I have not yet seen and probably will not pay for in the future), further hilarity can be found at the New Yorker. It doesn't live up to the marvelous deconstruction of Dude, Where's My Car? I read in I think Sight and Sound back in 2003 (which was just beautiful), but then LITTLE DOES. (I'm still trying to find a copy of that issue.) Anyway, this thing is a lovely example of exactly what you'd think; snooty and not-quite comprehending, but gamely trying to diss a crummy director who deserves it, for the wrong reasons.
zustifer: (Jim Jarmusch)
Not very spoilery review of the new Transformers movie. Whoops, all Michael Bay!
Right, no one could possibly relate to a robot, that's insane! We'd better make this about people talking to each other, instead! God, Robby (from Forbidden Planet) didn't even have a face and he had a strong personality. I don't quite know if the Transformers redesigns have faces, due to overcomplicated busy-ness, but I feel sure that humanoid robots that sustained several seasons of animated series (I don't really think anyone, of animal or machine intelligence, watched the show or 80s movie for the humans) are in fact comprehensible and differentiatable even to our puny human brains.

The article's author makes reference, amusingly and usefully, to a John Boorman quote regarding MTV editing, which he calls 'new brutalism'. (This is very cute for one very big reason, and that reason is called Zardoz. There may actually be several sub-reasons contained in it, not the least of which: the idea of the suit-wearing Brutals in the Zardoz universe being hollywood editors and producers? A-dorable.) I will not fail to integrate this term into my lexicon. Anyway, Boorman's explanation of why he's annoyed by the new brutalism probably could have been put a little better, but it's still a great term.
zustifer: (Beetlejuice: Juno shh)
New biopic about Edith Piaf. I had no idea about any of the details of her life (which seem to be pretty surprising), but if Ebert says the actress did a good job, then I am satisfied. I would like to see it.
zustifer: (1 of 11)
Since I'm confined again to a small verbal space, I will link to this pretty terrible logo over at typophile for London's Olympics thing. I don't know about reflecting London, but regardless it's pretty appalling all on its own.
zustifer: (JFK with psi-rays)
YES I CAN POST

Here's a pretty neat article (though not terribly meaty) about people's ideas of their own 'life narratives'. I'm amused to find that my conscious mind is at about the level of a preadolescent in this regard:
[M]ost people do not begin to see themselves in the midst of a tale with a beginning, middle and eventual end until they are teenagers. “Younger kids see themselves in terms of broad, stable traits: ‘I like baseball but not soccer,’ ” said Kate McLean [.]


Are you guys better at this?
It's also unsettling, later, when it's brought up that people who see their life problems as being outside themselves (even psychological ones) have a better chance of overcoming them.
They described their problem, whether depression or an eating disorder, as coming on suddenly, as if out of nowhere. They characterized their difficulty as if it were an outside enemy, often giving it a name (the black dog, the walk of shame). And eventually they conquered it.
zustifer: (animalcule)
It is sometimes said [...] that patients with Parkinson's disease have a "reptilian" stare. This is not just a picturesque (or pejorative) metaphor; normal access to the motor functions, which give mammals their delicate motor flexibility, is impaired in parkinsonism; this leads to alternations of extreme immobility with sudden, almost explosive motion, which are reminiscent of some reptiles.

(Oliver Sacks, The Island of the Colorblind)
zustifer: (Beetlejuice: Miss Argentina)
Yuckers, so very uncalled-for, Harry Potter IMAX poster.

(Here's the complete post for that, in case I'm erring in linking to a sub-page.)
zustifer: (comics: decapitated jughead)
Dang it, the first review of Spidey 3 I've seen yet, and it's pretty much exactly what I feared: too many villains, with no focus given to anyone. SIGH.
zustifer: (comics: Nivlem says See Here)
The cartoonbrew crowd and such are getting kind of goofy over this article, which is unfortunate, in part. Okay, the 'self-perpetuating middle-aged losers' concept is amusing, but what is this crap about referential humor ruining the source material? If you're unable to deal with two different versions of a scene, one amusing and one not, you have larger problems than laughing at the severed horse head in the Godfather (also, what a poor example! Jebediah Springfield's head is only contextually a stand-in for the horse head; if these putative idiot viewers are 1. still watching season one of the Simpsons, and 2. able to make the conceptual leap with really only atmospheric and timing cues for help, then they are probably decently well-educated in film/television and will appreciate the reference).

Admittedly, Family Guy has taken this to an obnoxious extent, which the article does address (substituting 'recognition' for 'humor') in a nice way. I can't even watch Family Guy anymore, even though I used to sometimes watch it for the One Legitimately Funny Bit per episode. However, at least in the first twelve or thirteen seasons (can't vouch for later ones; stopped watching) of the Simpsons, referential humor is usually used as a layer over an already amusing concept. At the very least, it's an entertaining way of hitting a plot point, which is generally not Family Guy's way.

I would also like to point out the egregious 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' stinger at the end of the article. You know you're reaching when you're bringing that up.
zustifer: (comics: Nivlem says See Here)
One named Velocipede reminded me that I was going to make a post about the recent spate of Being Batman posts on askmefi.
Tools, training, workout.

The best part of all three threads is this part: Finally, you really do have to factor in the oft-untouched factor that Bruce Wayne is severely insane. Because, you know, you do.
zustifer: (Jim Jarmusch)
Logos and N0wak lunk to this Tarantino debate between a Lover and a Hater. I of course side almost entirely with the Hater (who makes many points I've been trying for years to make about various things), although I do really think Reservoir Dogs is a well-realized film. Haven't seen Grindhouse though. If, as Hater says, the redeeming factor is mostly that Tarantino is Serious About Thinking Chicks are Awesome, then, uh... yeah. Not terribly compelling.
Oh, and the Simpsons' cultural value is not entirely in its parodic regurgitation, it's the synthesis. Jeez.
zustifer: (lady of your acquaintance)
Collection of westernized-Japan prints so awesome, you'll... slap Dan Aykroyd. If he's around.

Many of these prints are supposedly from the collection of the MFA here. HMMMM.
zustifer: (Jim Jarmusch)
Pretty neat essay about popular music in Rear Window. Good stuff.

(Actually, this is ancillary, but it's funny to see what people think Bart said instead of 'St. Swithin's Day'. 'Saint Wyvens day'? 'Thanksswivings day'? Dang.)
zustifer: (why can't monsters get along)
Another supercool Darmok post by the Tensor.
The only fault I can find with it is in the 'Dude, seriously—Shaka, when the literal walls literally fell' bit, where I would assume that the speaker would just choose a more appropriate phrase, perhaps one referring to something being broken or some sort of home repair thing. Maybe their culture has a television show about something like that (that would be an awesome way of transmitting new phrases).
Also, no mention of the on-the-fly modification of the dictionary, when Picard's new action is added to it? Are the poor suckers not present supposed to just pick up the meaning from context? Also also: Alien Leader did explain the Darmok & Jalad story to Picard in pidginy (Tamarese-A) statements, as I recall. I do not know why this only worked in that one instance.

I would like to mention how annoying it is when (commenting, in this case) people talk about 'turning off knowledge.' Sigh.
zustifer: (Jim Jarmusch)
How can you attack American Beauty for the completely wrong reasons? It wasn't the surface detail that was annoying, it's the fact that the layer underneath it was only marginally more thought-out. Seriously, buying a sports car is character development? The plastic bag, though, I could watch a whole movie of that.
And sincerely. I will fight anyone who says 2001 is incomprehensible or boring. FIGHT. Unless your excuse involves never having seen a movie before and not really getting what this strange too-long jokeless sitcom thing that's shot in 70mm is all about.
(Not one of the Overrated Movies, but we just watched Barry Lyndon, finally, and it hasn't got a dull frame in it. It did however make me realise that Shelly Duvall is the true form of any leading woman in a Kubrick movie.)
zustifer: (Beetlejuice: Jane Butterfield)
This is how you know (scroll down to just under the column of screenshots, to where it says 'Miyazaki and son') that someone is dedicated to their craft. Their response to hearing about the Miyazakis' cold relationship is that hey, maybe that's why Miyazaki Sr.'s work is so good, and maybe this family bullshit is just getting in the way.
I love it when people get that obsessive.
[To clarify: I mean I am fascinated by the viewpoint of the cartoonbrew guy, that he would have this perspective, not that I think the Miyazakis are exemplary in their behavior.]

Doughy

May. 7th, 2006 11:57 am
zustifer: (clever Hans)
Schwa linked to this guy's writeup of the Big Lebowski, and it's pretty awesome. I had a similar experience with the movie, kind of looking at it askance after I saw it the first couple of times, not really having it brought home for me. But then it started clicking in later viewings, though I wasn't as astute as this fellow in my assessment. Ah, the Coens. Is there anything you can't do?
I ran across a book on the-making-of a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't pick it up because it was like 15 bucks in a used bookstore. It wasn't terribly in-depth, it was just sort of a behind-the-scenes kind of piece; although it did have some great costume design illustrations in the back. I probably should have bought it, shouldn't I.

Profile

zustifer: (Default)
Karla Z

February 2012

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26 272829   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:39 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios