#1,477: Moonwalker

Deliberately let this lay a while.  Starting back in with the easy post.

• 3 Dev Adam, Death Warrior, The Eliminators, and Hands of Steel - 4 of the fine feature films, at least half of which are Turkish, presented to me via Doc Mock's Movie Mausoleum, an internet show that combines a big of the ol' Ghoulardi and a bit of the MST3K via a bunch of UCB-LA guests.
• Hearts of Darkness and Coda - two documentaries about Francis Ford Coppola, shooting Apocalypse Now and Youth Without Youth, as shot by his wife, Eleanor.  It's understandable that FFC would feel like some of the footage might make him look bad, but there was nothing particularly damning or shocking in-context, and having read Eleanor's book Notes, not too many surprises.  Strongly recommended to fans of the series Firefly, for Brando's read on the line "I swallowed a bug."
• Mr. Majestyk and The Mechanic - a Bronson double feature at the New Beverly.  The Mechanic is almost completely great.  Bronson badassing around as a professional hitman, and an ending that made the whole theater cheer.  Mr. Majestyk features Bronson as a melon farmer with a disinterest in taking any guff from the local hoods.  Contains graphic scenes of violence done to watermelons.
• Sunset Blvd. and Queen Kelly - amazing that I hadn't seen Sunset Blvd yet, since I have it on DVD, and may have even been assigned to watch it at some point.  A cool double feature, Queen Kelly is the film Norma makes Joe watch in her living room.  It was an actual film Gloria Swanson had made (but not completed) as her own career was in decline, and was actually directed by Erich von Stroheim.  The restoration was kind of boring, actually, but still neat.
• Animal Crackers and Duck Soup - another New Beverly double feature!  I'd wanted to see how the Marx Bros played with an audience, since they worked out a lot of their material on stage in advance of filming, and left the same pauses for laughter on the screen.  If anything, the pauses weren't long enough and there were lines I couldn't hear.  There was a lot of great stuff in both, but I'm especially curious about the things that looked like mistakes and improvisations, and whether they were or not.  Groucho's occasional asides not to the camera, but to someone just off camera, the bit where at the end of a long take he gets his character's name wrong and they work it in, and Margaret Dumont just laughing away during Harpo's closeups in the card game, to name 3 examples.
• Life with the Dice Bag - a largely uninteresting and unflattering homemade doc about tabletop RPG fans.
• Hoop Dreams - an exciting and surprising doc about two young would-be NBA stars, via Hulu.
• Last Tango in Paris - at least watching this helped me to get a reference made in a recent issue of The Bugle.  Also via Hulu.
• Hellboy II - I didn't really like the first one, but I think I like this one better.  I haven't read the comics, but maybe it's more true to the source material than the original, which was more or less Men in Black 3.  Even more surprising, how good Seth McFarlane's character was.
• The Man with Two Brains - the earlier flavor of Steve Martin comedy, this had at least 4 or 5 really stand out gags that I really really liked.  Murmuring, and a bit about retiring, and the 19th century Indian rubber vase.  Steve Martin has made a lot more comedies (and more of them were actually good) than most (all?) of the actors coming up in that era that we remember as comedians, I think.  Your Robin Williams?  Your Eddie Murphy?
• The Horribly Slow Murderer With the Incredibly Inefficient Weapon - I thought I'd heard of this somewhere before, but I couldn't say where.  It seemed like it just had to go on my list, a title like that.
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Even though the previous three X-Men movies were mostly about Wolverine, this one adds in some additional contrary backstory.  It's pretty much bound to be a wash though, since we know he a) lives and b) won't remember anything that happens.  I guess I kind of appreciate making Sabretooth less of a caveman.  Curious waste of deadpool though.
• Terminator Salvation - this movie isn't anything.  It's not even bad, it's just a big empty naught sign.  Nothing happens, no story is added to the existing mythos, and there is no reason why the audience might care about anyone on screen, nor are they challenged to at any point.  Supposedly the title meant something before folks started meddling, and while the 'real ending' that was removed after someone told the internet last year might have been intriguing, that would have ended up seeming pretty out of place in the final product.
• Le Voyage dans la Lune - always good to learn about the hard sci-fi and special effects masterpieces that have gone before, to better understand those coming soon, to a theater near you!
• Star Trek - is one such example.  This movie was way better than it deserved to be.  I hadn't previously thought of Abrams as a good director (nor a bad one, his notoriety simply isn't based in directing) but this was so well made that I barely noticed it was written by some guys that write things I don't like at all.  I found myself agreeing quite a bit with this article about the movie.
• Up - oh boy did I ever like this movie!  I missed a free screening due to foolishness beyond my control, but I got out on opening day (but not on the first attempt - lots of sold out screenings near me) for a 3D screening.  I can't remember the last movie I enjoyed so much in a theater.  I went in knowing almost nothing about the plot except what the teaser trailer revealed (a house and some balloons) and got the most adventurey, violent, sad, delightful, funny Pixar feature to date.  Even the short that preceded it (Partly Cloudy) was simultaneously touching and laugh out loud funny.  Also perhaps the best use of 3D for storytelling purposes I've seen so far (some scenes in the 3D cut are just in 2D, because that's what serves the story).  Can't say enough nice things about it.  With the expanded 10 nominees, even with the animated feature category, this deserves a best picture nod.  The only downside is that 3 of the next 5 announced Pixar releases are sequels.  They'll probably even be good, but when a director can do such great work with original IP, it seems like a waste to go back to wells already tapped.
• Moonwalker - I think I'd seen this before, but it wasn't on the list.  I've been a Michael Jackson fan almost literally all my life, and with his scheduled return to performing in two weeks, I sure thought I was going to get to see him live in a big crazy world tour next year.  Alas.
• Moon - This is terrific, but not getting a very wide release, I think.  You should keep an eye out to see if it's going to turn up near you.  Very solid, interesting, and fun all by itself, but even more so to someone who happens to be writing stories about a guy stuck in space alone lately.  Bonus points for the robot, for including some of my own inside jokes by chance, and for making the 'answer' a reasonable extrapolation of events, not a mind-bending twist.  The movie is not about it's "twist," which is why it's given out fairly clearly fairly early.

This was a good batch, and I think it's turning out to be a good year for movies, and there's still like 15 movies slated for '09 that I think I might like to go see.  No real summer blockbusters though, except maybe Up.  I guess that's the strike for you.

I wish these things were better.

"There's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." And yet, just wanting to like something doesn't seem to be quite the same as genuinely enjoying it.

Legends of Zork is a newish browser-based game, nominally set in the world of Zork text adventures.  A more accurate description of the game seems to be turn-based World of Warcraft, with Zork-flavored names for the places and some of the monsters.  There are no puzzles, or, there are things called puzzles which you solve or don't based on a dice roll.  There is no inventory, or, there are weapons you can hold, which, in combination with magic spells you can buy, modify your dice rolling battle results.  There's nothing to look at, aside from maybe a dozen banner-ad sized illustrations, no clever descriptions of things, and nothing to do except grind for points.  Players may fight monsters in order to gain experience points and level up, or they may fight each other for useless fame points and slightly less useless money points with which more weapons and armor are purchased, in order to fight more monsters in order to level up, which increases the maximum allowed wager in the PvP arena, which allows faster money making to buy weapons and armor.  Great.  I've stuck it out so far in the hope of something interesting happening.  Even tried multiple characters with different goals (making money, magic user, fighter) and the gameplay offers nothing to make these characters different from one another.  Still, it's probably a slightly better version of Zork than the novelizations of the late 1980s.  But at least the books didn't keep automatically logging me out.

Parks & Recreation is the quasi-spin-off of The Office (US).  It seems like it leans on the fact that most viewers will see it immediately after The Office on TV, and makes heavy use of all the mock-doc techniques found in the other show.  Granted, I didn't really like The Office either two episodes in, and now I'm a fan, but the thing that makes it seem odd to me is that it doesn't feel like it is or could be a documentary.  Similar to how The Foot Fist Way attempted to use that style without committing to the limits that go with it, maybe, or just too jokey.  I guess I'd rather be wrong, but it's not sitting very well yet.

I saw one Dane watch a Desperate Housewives last night.  That only barely qualifies for this topic because I don't think anything should have to be that lousy.

#1,437: Lawrence of Arabia

Seems to me most flicks I see lately fall into one of three categories, and that they mainly break down by era of production. I'd say that it feels like the majority of films produced nowadays feel unsatisfying.  I suspect it's to do with trying to break from the formats and conventions that have come before, and I couldn't say whether the uncomfortable feeling comes from having the accepted norms broken or from the new breed of filmmaker still struggling to find the next thing, which perhaps hasn't quite hit yet.

The convention they're escaping seems especially prevalent in films from, say, the late 1960s through the late 1990s, a generation back.  These are movies with strong, well-defined three act structures, and beats you can absolutely feel adhering to the campbell-style hero's journey and whatnot.  

Perhaps the former group represent the democratization of film, the era in which I can have a video camera in my monitor here, while the latter are the film school generation.  And if so, then the generation they followed and broke with are the pioneers - the first generation of filmmakers to have access to film technology as we'd generally still think of it today.  

Or, we could probably follow the money and see a similar story.  Films today made by corporations that were previously made following an auteur model that followed the studio system.  In either case, I don't believe that the modern audience is dumber than it used to be.  If anything, it's more responsive to film on a technical level, more apt to catch shots that would have once been considered subliminal images, simply from being trained by modern TV / commercials.

And yet, even though it's a popular comment to make, I'd say it is very rare, the modern movie that is worthy of the claim that repeat viewings are necessary "to catch everything."  Even with the recent popularity of huge twist endings.  For my viewing dollar, it was those much earlier flicks that stand up to or even demand the repeat screenings.  Maybe there's something inherent to an age in which repeat viewings meant repeat trips to the cinema vs. the present day theatrical release as commercial for home video.  Maybe in a previous age when a studio owned itself and was in the business of making movies they were less afraid of subtlety than the present day conglomeratory edicts of synergy.  

Or maybe, since nearly all strata of movie are made in all eras of cinema, less of the previous generations' chaff is conveniently available and I happen to have been drawing a bunch of latter day losers.  Here's the recent rundown:

• Young @ Heart - I highly recommend the trailer for this documentary.  As much as the movie itself, about a senior center choir that sings songs from soul to punk, adheres to the hero's journey formula, the trailer adheres to the tradition of including the only worthwhile and enticing parts of the film.
• Blip Festival: Reformat the Planet - This was a slightly better music doc, about making music with (mainly) repurposed electronics, like original gameboys (which have a warmer sound).  Naturally, it's a pretty nerdy cast.
• His Name Was Jason - Because the studios aren't quite ballsy enough yet to simply release a disc that features all the nudity and kills strung together.
• Rocky III - Hulk Hogan!  Mr. T!  Mick!  Oh, and Rocky, too.  I didn't realize that the whole "I pity the fool" schtick actually came from a scripted line for a Clubber Lang.  I suspect I still haven't seen Rocky II, so this is the fulcrum on my Rocky movie scale.  And there's something to be said for the 80s model of making sequels that says you're actually supposed to deliver more of what people liked the last go 'round.
• The Thing - I got to six of the items on this list because Hulu just lost a load of features for some reason.  I'd seen the Thing-like episode of a number of other sci-fi shows, especially the X-Files, but it's a pretty solid and suspenseful movie.  Even the monsters hold up pretty well.
• Swimfan - This is pretty ridiculous.  Fatal Attraction set in high school.  I'm pretty sure it's not actually supposed to be a comedy, but it's really silly.   In brief: boy meets girl, boy has sex with girl behind girlfriend's back, girlfriend finds out and breaks up with boy whilst girl frames boy for a dozen felonies in the space of a week, boy is cleared of all charges and gets back together with girlfriend who seems to have forgotten the one thing he actually did do was cheat on her.
• The Siege - Starring Denzel Washington as himself and Tony Shaloub as an arab.  What if New York City were the victim of a terrorist attack?  It's pretty simple, actually.  All you have to do is apprehend The Last Cell of terrorists and then terror will be over.  I'm surprised you didn't think of that.
• Thunderbolt and Lightfoot - This was pretty great.  Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges and George Kennedy are going to rob a bank in the 1970s.  I'll admit though, I'm surprised more talk show hosts and such don't keep re-using clips from this movie of Bridges in drag.
• The Final Curtain - Straight to video story of warring game show hosts, with Peter O'Toole and Adrian Lester, aka Hustle's Mickey Bricks.  Not, you know, very good, perhaps because they couldn't decide if they were making a mock-doc or not.
• The Warriors - One gang gets framed for killing a member of another gang by another gang and then has to fight all these other gangs to just get away from the other gang on their way home, where they'll fight that first other gang?  This is one you hear about a lot, and it seems like the sort of thing you couldn't do anymore, even if they are apparently remaking it.  The comic book transitions seemed really modern though - I may have been watching the recent rerelease. Also: probably a/the inspiration for River City Ransom, if I had to guess.
• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - The thing I usually dislike about Star Trek is the strict syndicated maintenance of the status quo.  Episodes end where they began so we can watch in any order.  I suppose there's a certain amount of story told across the various series as they grew and evolved, but I didn't realize how much the original film series was telling a continuous story (even though I saw part 6 in theaters for some reason), because this movie didn't make a lick of sense.  From the opening that chooses to not recap previous films for new viewers but instead to make sideways references to them as a nod to the fans, to somehow inventing an even lazier explanation for time travel than Superman: The Movie.  I did enjoy how this fits into the mold of 80s sequels as well, where other film series run out of ideas and eventually add "In Space!" to the title, this series about being in space goes down to earth!
• Death Race - Statham.  Works as a pretty good video game movie, although not explicitly based on a video game.  Kind of in the Ultraviolet school of moviemaking.  But really, there was no reason whatsoever to have 'copilots.'  They don't help, can't do anything, and apparently the audience can't even see them.  (There's the line about how they bring in the chicks to entice viewers, but Statham doesn't have to wear the Frankenstein mask while he drives, so there're no cameras in the cars?)
• Monsters Vs. Aliens - Thumbs down.  Too campy.  Animation just doesn't hold up the competition (everyone's crosseyed, lip sync is weird).  More overtly gimmicky than most of the recent spate of 3D releases.  (At least the animated movies.  Didn't see Bloody Valentine or Journey to the Center of the Earth).
• Knowing - Something in this movie makes me not want to give it the thumbs down, but I can't tell what that something is.  The movie seemed very episodic, with each episode only barely having any bearing on episodes to come.  Oh, here are some fancy effects scenes.  Now back to the mystery.  Now let's be a horror movie for a few minutes.  Just too scattered.  Maybe the trouble is that we (that is, I) never have any particular reason to care about the characters?  Nic Cage's one expression isn't really suited to characters the audience needs to feel something about.
• Lawrence of Arabia - Tremendous!  I would've gone right back into the theater and watched this again, if that'd been an option.  I think for all the movies on this list, it can be distilled down to 10% or less (per sturgeon's law, I suppose) that I'd actually recommend to someone, and this rises right into a spot on that part of the list.

So that's approximately 4/15 this round.  It makes me wonder if 'see everything' is really the right approach.  Sometimes, 'just see good things' sounds better.

#1,424: Watchmen

Lately, I've been employed.  I'm an assistant editor on a new program for SpikeTV called 'Surviving Disaster,' and I'm really good at it, so it's going very well.  The assistant editor, in case you were curious, is mainly responsible for getting media in and out of the editing system, which in our case is Final Cut Pro.  So capturing tapes, making the six or more types of media we have incoming play nicely together, keeping everything organized between multiple editors, and doing it without a central server.  Easier done than said, practically, and although production seems like it might be behind schedule, post is now ahead.  Also, if you ever see our main character show up somewhere you are, RUN!  A terrifying experience is just around the corner, and several of your companions may end up dead or badly hurt just to prove a point!  RUN! I read 'The Road,' possibly in part because someone who might be Luke liked it, and because I liked the movie of No Country for Old Men.  I think I liked 'The Road,' and I didn't really question why at the time.  The setting is indeed bleak, but not as depressing as I'd been forewarned.  At some point, the string of events almost become comical, when not horrific.  And there's a nice current of a father and son relying on each other for different reasons and some of the same reasons.  I did occasionally have to take a step back to parse what I'd just read though, or try to map out who was speaking, since no punctuation will do that to you.

Since reading that, (but not because of it,) I think I've been asking 'why' more often.  I saw the 1954 version of Animal Farm, a cartoon much more bleak and depressing than that book.  I wondered a little bit why Orwell went with certain names, since in a big blatant allegory the names are probably valuable.  I was also reminded of the multiple reports and projects and essays I've done on his other book, 1984, over the years.  I still haven't read that one though.

I saw The Fisher King, and I now know that some movie I saw a snippet of once, of a kid who wants to go out to play with a guy who's more interested in having sex with his girlfriend is officially neither Prince of Tides nor Fisher King (I know these aren't similar movies, but they came out at the same time and somehow got tangled around in an eight-year-old brain.)  I found it to be the least Gilliam-like Gilliam movie I've seen, and also the one that dates itself the most.  Seems like trying to 'modernize' a classic story really puts down roots into the specific time it was made.  IMDB says Private Parts wouldn't be for another six years, so I guess there was still a little time before Stern was completely irrelevant.  

The Brothers Bloom, officially coming out this May, is a new movie from Rian Johnson, who made Brick.  I liked it a lot.  Adrian Brody is a con man who's ready to settle down, quit the game, and have a real life.  Someone else plays his brother, who draws him in for the classic 'one last score.' And Rachel Weisz plays Natalie Portman, who complicates things, naturally.  In it's favor, the movie has a very 'interactive' feel to it, in the sense of a 90s adventure game, maybe, where actions have consequences.  If something breaks, it stays broken later, or someone has to fix it.  Also a plus, the curious out-of-time feeling in which the movie is both modern and in the era of the classic con man.  Working against it, the character games do sort of get dropped towards the end in order to handle all the plot that's been piling up, but the attention to detail never fades (Bloom is always thinking of the Queen of Hearts).

The Room is, to paraphrase a pal, ridiculousity from top to bottom.  Something of a cult phenomenon in LA but more-or-less unknown to the rest of the world (it's had a billboard up since long before I moved to LA, at the director/writer/star/producer's expense).  It's just a crazy pile of nonsense, with eye-bending special effects (his building must be rotating on its foundations, if the green screen work is to be believed), and dialogue that could only be written and delivered by a non-native speaker that has probably still not gotten the necessary foothold on the meanings of certain words.  Like 'room.'  Very MSTable.  Best viewed with a group, a sense of the absurd, and a pizza, half canadian ham and pineapple, half pesto and artichoke, light on the cheese.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno was better than I'd heard.  The characters speak more like people in a movie and less like characters in Kevin Smith movies do, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.  I laughed at it sometimes.  It felt...clumsier than previous outings, and I think the popular excuse for that is something like trying to appeal to a broader audience, but I don't know if that's true.  It is, more or less, the story of the making of Clerks.  Maybe it needs another viewing someday to figure out what I think.  I don't think I've made it through all the DVD extras on Clerks 2 yet though, and that's a movie I know I liked.

And then there's Watchmen.  I guess this left me with more questions than anything else, and I'm about to mainly discuss the ending, since that's the only part that's interesting.  I understand most of the condensation that takes place earlier in the story, which does occasionally change characters' motivations, but I'm pretty sure they remain motivated.  When it was done, my reaction was that it was accurate, but unnecessary.  Was it too accurate for its own good?  Is my opinion that an adaptation -should- shake things up?  And if so, why did the last couple minutes irk me a little bit?  Is my opinion that folks shouldn't do adaptations?  I'm okay with the general idea of adapting a work from one medium to another:  the audiobook of American Gods didn't need to change up anything from the text edition, and yet it adds a new dimension.  So what is the point of adaptation?  To retell a story in a way that takes advantage of the strengths of the new medium.  If that doesn't happen, then the work isn't an adaptation, it's a translation.  And the function of a translation is not to impart new meaning but to relay the existing meaning as accurately as possible.  

Watchmen is a story told through comics as well as about comics.  It is regarded as a masterwork because of how thoroughly and intricately it uses its medium.  The reason so many had previously regarded it as 'unfilmable' was less to do with whether the technology was available to create Dr. Manhattan, and more to do with why we don't have filmed adaptations of Infinite Jest, or House of Leaves (and why puzzle-based adventure stories are almost always unsatisfying in the format of a 90 minute film).  So when 98% of the Watchmen film is an abridged translation of the book (showing that the filmmakers concede that a completely accurate reproduction would not be feasible for the theater-going audience), book savvy viewers do not feel that the film earned its deviations from the source.  This is only compounded by the really odd choice to hang a lampshade on the altered dialogue.  Is it supposed to be a clever wink to the in-crowd?  Wasn't that the whole rest of the movie?  

What changed and why?  We ditch the monster, because it would take a lot of screen time to set up properly.  Okay.  Maybe a dozen major cities are attacked instead of just one, either to avoid the appearance of 9/11 flavored pandering, or maybe because we've seen what happens when just one country gets hit, and it isn't world peace.  The world isn't uniting against aliens, or another dimension, it's uniting against God.  Except, Jon doesn't get his god-moment in the movie, completing his transformation from human.  Maybe if Jon had said 'nothing ends,' it suggests that he -will- be watching or returning to Earth at some point, as opposed to agreeing to leave and keep the conspiracy.  But this means that Veidt has his final moment of reckoning with a human, and one that we know poses zero threat to him.  A fair sight different from the original ending, where Veidt's story ends in doubt, his confidence put in check by the fear of God.  On the other hand, maybe the lampshade moment is just an update of the same moment, when the Outer Limits similarity is called out.

I kind of hate to even be discussing it at length, since that's such the thing of the moment, but it left me a little puzzled on my walk home from the theater.  However, on my way back I was able to make a recent dream come true.  I passed a taped off section of freshly poured sidewalk, which I think is a first for me.  And I wrote in it.  Sorry, I don't have a picture yet, but with luck it's there forever and I can get a snapshot in the future.  What could I have inscribed on the curb to leave me feeling so self-satisfied?

"Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet..."

#1,408: 1408

I'm actually up to 1417 by now, but 1408 was a milestone.  The next title / count sync point is 1492, I think. On the screen:

• Sleuth - thumbs up.  Twisty and turny.  Not entirely sure about that last one though.
• Videodrome - Didn't like it very much.  I'm pretty sure Robocop addresses the issues here better.
• Fast, Cheap & Out of Control - Didn't like it very much.  May have deserved more careful viewing, but I didn't find any individual story or the connections between them that interesting,
• Surf's Up - Didn't like it very much.  3D modeling of water has gotten pretty good though.  If you're going to do a mock-doc, have the courage of your convictions and stick to the format, I say.
• American Teen - Didn't like it very much.  You took cameras into a school and discovered...the stereotyped characters every program about high school shows us?  Great.  Thanks.  The speculation on whether it was faked is supposed to get people talking, I guess, but why cast doubt on something even less remarkable if it -was- scripted?
• Snuff - Didn't like it very much.  Pretty much exactly the sensationalist fluff they decry in other films they excerpt.
• Pathology - Didn't like it very much.  Wanted to, since it was written by the guys behind Crank.  Nice for gore fans maybe.  Awfully low stakes for so much murderin'.
• Time Crimes - Done well enough, but contains just about the minimum amount of story one can tell in a time travelin' tale.  Should've been a short.  The stuff people say about plot holes is garbage though.  There were no other decisions to make.
• Monster Camp - I think it's hard to cover this kind of material and be fair to the people in it.  Contained a topic I'm hearing a lot about lately that I haven't heard of very often before: the D&D nerd who fails out of school. Would have benefited from a little time spent showing people enjoy themselves....unless the message was nobody does.  Hm.
• Friday the 13th Part 2 - In which the retcon fest begins.  Jason has lived and aged and started murdering.  Just because.
• The Gamers 2 - Better than expected, although at first I was expecting another D&D-styled doc.  Low budget project actual dramatizes a game of D&D fairly effectively, and represents the in-game world at least as well as the official D&D movie.
• Taken - Representing the 'take EVERYTHING from them' genre, the cool thing here is that Liam Neeson can't even be bothered to actually take everything from the people he hunts.  He's so single-minded in his task it's not even truly a revenge story.  A good use of the hip and mod realism in the field of fighting styles - almost no knock down drag out 5-10 minute battles.  If he's going to keep things moving he's going to incapacitate the baddies fast and professional-like.
• The Ruins - A good, fun horror in the man vs. nature category.  Trapped on a pyramid with plants that want to eat you?  It's not going to go very well.  Not well at all!
• Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium - Wonder is the key word in that title.  I do like exposition into a formed world and movies that sustain that world throughout.  The plotting is minimal, so as not to get in the way of all that Wonder and Magic going on everywhere, and that's just fine by me.  Full of neat ideas brought to life, like the congreve cube.
• Coraline - The best iteration of the Neil Gaiman movie so far.  The 3D was good, although at times it seemed like the frame-rate dropped.  Maybe the whole thing was a slightly slower rate that only showed in moments of high-speed?  Not sure.  Tried to win an auction for a jumping circus mouse, but it ended thousands of dollars more than I wanted to spend.
• Friday the 13th 12 / The Remake - lazy, shoddy work.  This was not a movie that should have tried the realism trick.  I -know- it's hard to tag a movie like this for nonsensical or unrealistic content, but it's in the same sense that magorium works that this doesn't.  It's not about our reality vs. the movie's, it's about the movie being internally consistent.  There were loads of goofy continuity-type glitches, but the problem that breaks the movie is not deciding what to do with Jason.  Is he a clever and military-minded guy who digs tunnels and rigs traps, or the traditional deformed, retarded man-child that can't tell his mother from this installment's heroine?  Is he a force of nature or a guy that needs floodlights to hunt his prey? And where exactly does he keep drawing weapons from, anyway? The other plot point that seemed really odd was Trent getting mad at girlfriend Jenna for befriending another dude who looks just like him, but neither of them having any problem with Trent having sex with their pal Bree (whom the other guys in the group know well enough to join on vacation, but find too intimidating to talk to).  Silliness abounds with lighting, water depths, orchestra hits, but for some reason not the kills, which are presumably why someone checks out a movie like this.  I didn't expect greatness from the group making this movie, but what a mess.
• 1408 - Much better than the trailer suggested.  And much less to do with Cusack's kid than one might have thought.  Sam Jackson has a fun role.
• The Daily Show - Watching weeks at a time on the Hulu, I have to say I was disappointed in Jon Stewart's interview with Jimmy Carter.  Sure, he doesn't have to be in the hard-hitting news business, or spend the whole time talking about the book Carter was promoting, but I was very disappointed to see so much of their time spent covering exactly the same nonsense they bashed the 24-hour-news channels for covering a few days before.  Bad form.

And in print:

• High School Undercover - Better than the recent, similar documentary, American Teen, but still not especially good. Mainly covers the boring bits of school with some drugs and sex thrown in to pique prurient interests. All the caution used to protect identities (characters formed from chunked and pressed actual student sweepings!) makes it tough to invest in anyone. The chapter done up like Van Sant's Elephant (students' lives intersecting, various events seen through a variety of viewpoints) should have been fun, not a chore. From bookmooch it was delivered, and back unto bookmooch shall it return!

Over in life, the radio program marches on, with another 5 or 6 scenes written in this week to be recorded next week, and a few more would-be writers invited to participate. They, of course, declined. 

I auditioned for a UCB house harold team, expected nothing, and got nothing.  I'm pretty sure I'm just fine with that. Especially because...

...I'm starting a night job with a new SpikeTV program next week.  Glad, in fact, that I didn't have to choose between what would be a substantial amount of pay for me and comedic advancement.

Oh, and I'm not sure if I like it, but I guess I'm a part of this facebook thing now, whatever THAT means.  The chart that draws lines between people I've met who know each other is kind of neat, I guess.  It seems kind of too spread out and inconvenient though.  I've been monkeying with it because it's a new toy, but it kind of feels the same as that World of Warcraft demo, in that it's designed to keep you logged in and wasting time for someone else's gain.  There's consistently a lot to do, but not much of it seems worthwhile.