No imperdível “Procurando Amy”, Holden (Ben Affleck) e Banky (Jason Lee) são amigos de infância, que moram e trabalham juntos, eles são os criadores de uma história em quadrinhos de muito sucesso “Bluntman e Chronic” inspiradas em Jay e Silent Bob.

Quando Holden conhece a bela Alyssa (Joey Lauren Adams), imediatamente se encanta por ela, os dois se dão muito bem, e o apaixonado Holden acredita que ela é a mulher de sua vida, o que ele não sabe, porém, é que Alyssa é homossexual. Mesmo assim Holden insiste na amizade com Alyssa e a situação fica cada vez mais insustentável para ele. Isto também abala sua amizade com o hilário Banky, que tenta de todas as formas terminar o relacionamento platônico do amigo.

Quando Alyssa corresponde Holden, o que parecia ser o final feliz se revela apenas o início desta história que durante os seus 105 minutos de emoções e risadas, consegue abordar de forma muito inteligente e engraçada, as dificuldades de Holden, Banky e Alyssa, em compreender e conseguir lidar com sua sexualidade, seus preconceitos, e a dificuldade de conviver, sem enlouquecer com as experiências do passado.

Como não poderia deixar de ser, o filme tem a participação da dupla Jay (Jason Mewes) e Silent Bob (Kevin Smith), a curta participação da dupla é suficiente para explicar o nome do filme e fazer Holden compreender melhor o que sente. A solução que Holden encontra para resolver os problemas com os outros dois protagonistas é esdrúxula, e fica impossível não chorar de tanto rir.

Este é o 3ª filme de Kevin Smith, com um elenco muito parecido com o de "Mallrats" (1995), a grande mudança deste para os filmes anteriores do diretor e roteirista é a capacidade de discutir temas mais “profundos”, (o que também aconteceria em seu próximo filme “Dogma”) porém sem perder a leveza, o bom humor e as longas e hilárias discussões sobre assuntos triviais como a sexualidade de um personagem de história em quadrinhos.

Por: Fry, só um pequeno camundongo...

Procurando Amy (Chasing Amy). EUA. 1997. Direção e Roteiro: Kevin Smith. Elenco: Ben Affleck, Joey Lauren Adams, Jason Lee, Dwight Ewell, Jason Mewes. Gênero: Comédia. Duração: 105 min.

Great cinematography, Typography and an interesting theme tune.

It was fun watching the applecart being upset… but now where do we go for apples?

That’s Paul Schrader, screenwriter for Raging Bull and Taxi Driver.  The quote is lifted from Robert Fulford’s National Post article surveying the long wreckage left in the wake of film critic Pauline Kael’s reign at the New Yorker.  Ever since 1967, the idea goes, when Kael came out swinging for Warren Beatty’s Bonnie and Clyde, American film has been steadily vulgarizing.

The trouble with the democratization of taste is that you too often end with something unpalatable.  It’s a popular sentiment among cultural mandarins as well as the creatively frustrated and underappreciated, and perhaps there’s some truth in it.  But it’s not enough to fault the critics for the trend, and Fulford admits Kael can hardly shoulder all the blame.  Her career was simply emblematic of her era.  Rather than summoning and driving it, Kael too was a victim of that fleeting specter -the zeitgeist- that so single-mindedly set about dismantling bourgeois sensibility and prejudice in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

We all get a little spooked by the zeitgeist.  But I wonder if the critic, like the artist, isn’t a little more susceptible to a good spooking than most.  Perhaps, like a 19th century medium channeling spirits, a critic who manages to levitate his way to prominence and popularity does so by an especially effective channeling of the zeitgeist’s own critical genius.  In which case, Kael may have given herself and her colleagues too much credit when she complained:

When we championed trash culture we had no idea it would become the only culture.

Is it really so bad?  Have we fallen so far?  Are the Love Gurus, Terminators, Armageddons and Independence Days that have plagued American box offices these past twenty years the truest, best representatives of the age?  Was cinema and artistic sensibility in the United States prior to the Kaelian Revolution such an unadulterated paradise?  Surely, no one who has seen American Pie or Superbad can deny there’s been some movement towards greater vulgarity, even compared to the teen movies of my own generation, like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off or The Breakfast Club. 

But I think there’s something more fundamental at work here, too, something that trips up all romanticizers of the heretofore.   We too easily fall victim to that ruse of perspective by which the far horizon of the past seems full of towering achievements only because its lesser works are rendered invisible by distance.   If we’re unable to see any legitimate cinematic achievements in our own age (I nominate There Will Be Blood), it’s because we’re so thickly surrounded by the present undergrowth of lesser works which will, with time enough, find a merciful oblivion on the horizon.

A expedição de Pizarro pela selva amazônica em busca do El Dorado, só que eles meio que se perdem, e entre os problemas, além de falta de comida e abrigo, há os ataques dos índios nativos, e intrigas entre o bando, tendo como foco Aguirre, e seu fanatismo e ambição. Intriga, morte, desespero, e no fim, um sonho.  Só que mais sutil, e com a câmera e o enfoque diferenciados do Herzog. E a cara do Klaus Kinski.

Seen it!

Oscar, Sunny (write-up here!), and I did a double feature last night, starting with Hellboy II at 8 pm, and then the much buzzed about midnight showing of The Dark Knight.

One quick thing, because I am still currently bleary eyed, even after a double caffeine fix (it's a 2.5+ hour movie). Yes, Heath Ledger's Joker is a very disturbing psychotic figure, an effective manifestation of anarchy and chaos; that there are no matching fingerprints, DNA, or dental records on him tell me that he is a force or an idea made flesh, rather than an actual "character." Nothing pretty there, no traces of anything that ever made Ledger endearing to us at all. This is indeed a remarkable performance. I don't think it's Oscar-worthy, but it is very convincing. There are some inappropriately hilarious moments here, and so much, "OMG I can't believe he just fucking did that." And what's great is that his character doesn't dwell on it; he does the fucked up deed in a blink and moves on to the next fucked up deed.

But the thing I wanted to say is this: whereas we are popularly led to believe that the Joker is the Batman's "foil," here is something Oscar and I were talking about this morning: consider the foil for Bruce Wayne/the Batman as Harvey Dent/Two Face. In the film, Christopher Nolan really does tease out and even exploit the parallels and contrasts between these two characters and their alter egos, from their love for Rachel Dawes (and thank goodness for Maggie Gyllenhaal, for I wouldn't have been able to bear Katie Holmes in this role for what this film called for in the character), to their similarly attractive physical appearances, "important" social/public statuses, and hero statuses.

That Wayne is ready to call his Batman vigilantism quits, to leave it to Dent's within legal means heroism is as much of "noble" intentions as it is of selfish motives. Bruce Wayne wants to get the girl. Harvey Dent's got the girl. Bruce Wayne can't get the credit for all the "good" work the Batman does. Harvey Dent gets all the credit for everything the Batman and Gordon set into motion.

Gotham City's "White Knight," is what they call Harvey Dent. Obvious contrast against film's the title. All these obvious dichotomies of day and night, light and dark, open and masked. While obvious, still I think it's well wrought/well handled. Aaron Eckhart's gleaming White Knight-ness is convincing. He's earnest and idealistic, but he's also slick and charismatic, which is another thing he has in common with Bruce Wayne. Dent believes we all create our own fate, and with his two-headed coin, we see he isn't always law-abiding.

Realizing of course that in The Dark Knight we are seeing the origins of the Two Face character, I still can't help but think of Arkham Asylum's Harvey Dent/Two Face, in which his "treatment" at Arkham consisted of transitioning him from the two-sided coin, to the six-sided die, to the deck of cards; expanding his decision making options. Oscar tells me that at that point, farther along in the life of Two Face (and please! Banish all thought of the Tommy Lee Jones Two Face character!), he really has come to believe in the power of the coin toss. In this film, I don't see that yet. I do see him grappling with the randomness of fate. But this character is so interesting.

So there's that. I have some things to say about Hellboy II and Guillermo del Toro's work and aesthetics, but that'll have to wait for another time.

[/caption]

What a night... Dot dot dot! 

Som namnet på bloggen min tilseier, har eg ein tendens til å la meg rive med.. Idag har eg berre ein ting å seie: Ta beina fatt og spring i full fart for å sjå Mamma mia-filmen! Eg såg den for andre gong i forgårs, og fleire skal det bli.

Dette er spikertynn søtsuppe og karikerte klisjear, men it doesn't matter! FOR EIT KICK! :) Denne filmen er eit fyrverkeri, ei energibombe og uimotståeleg sjarmerande. Den trår klampen i bånn fra første sekund og tar rett og slett heilt av! Sjefen sjølv, Meryl Streep, er både dancing queen og drama queen, og høgdepunktet er når ho syng "The winner takes it all" så rått og lidenskapleg at frysningane varar lenge etterpå. Og Pierce Brosnan overraskar! Når sjølvaste 007 kastar seg ut i sang og dans, er det nesten så ein ikkje trur det ein ser: Han tullar ikkje - han meinar det. Det er så ektefølt og inderleg at det er ikkje til å tru.

Eg er veldig glad for at eg har evnen til å ta hemningslaust av over ein fjollete film. Denne evnen delar eg med ein filmanmeldar utanom det vanlege, nemleg fargeklatten Arild Abrahamsen i Stavanger Aftenblad. Les hans anmeldelse av Mamma mia her, så forstår du kva eg meinar. 

Thank you for the music!

Garner's former Alias co-star Victor Garber confirms that she is with child and five months along, at that.

“Yes, she is.” A source adds, “She is five months pregnant. They are very happy.”

Possibly realising that it was a mistake to give the game away, when he has no business doing so, Garber has been quick to issue a (not particularly convincing) retraction:

"I haven't confirmed that at all, no. I know they want to have another child and hopefully that's true, but I don't know that. No, I know that they are hoping to be. I just don't know that it's for sure. It's a very...personal thing."

Story courtesy of US Weekly & E!

Written By - TheLostGirl ONLY for TheLostGirl’s Blog website - Accept no imitators.

Please let me know if you are reading this post ANYWHERE other than http://iamthelostgirl.wordpress.com.I, TheLostGirl, have NOT given permission for my post to be reproduced in full elsewhere - excerpts only please, people.

Thoughts? Please leave a comment in the box below. No registration or name required!

Would you like regular FREE updates at the click of a button? If so, click on the RSS icon to get posts in your reader or by email!

Rai 1: Una Voce Per Padre Pio

Rai 2: Signs

Rai 3: Enigma - 6^ & Ultima Puntata

Prima Serata Mediaset:

Rete 4: Pirati

Canale 5: Ciao Darwin - L' Anello Mancante - 7^ Puntata

Italia 1: Bad Boys

Seconda Serata

Su Italia 1 alle 23:40 "Vanished" in 1^ Tv 1^ Serie e alle 24:35 "Prison Break" in 1^ Tv 3^ Serie. Su Rai 3 alle 23:30 "La Nuova Squadra" in Replica.

Ciao Darwin - L' Anello Mancante

Prove di coraggio, quiz, viaggi nel tempo e sexy sfilate: Paolo Bonolis e Luca Laurenti conducono un nuovo viaggio tv alla ricerca del carattere dominante del terzo millennio con il consueto tono ironico e semiserio.

Signs

In onda venerdì 18 luglio 2008 alle 21.05

Titolo originale: Signs
Regia: M. Night Shyamalan
Interpreti: Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Cherry Jones, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin, Patricia Kalember
Genere: Fantascienza
Anno: USA 2002
Durata: 106'

Trama
Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) è un predicatore padre di due figli, che, dopo la morte della moglie in un incidente d'auto, ha perso la fede e ha smesso l'abito talare. Ritiratosi a fare l'agricoltore nella sua casa di campagna in Pennsylvania, insieme ai figli e al fratello Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), Graham inizia ad accorgersi di strani fenomeni che accadono attorno alla sua casa. Tutta la famiglia comincia a sentire il fruscio delle pannocchie in assenza di vento, i latrati di cani nella notte, ma anche un vociare confuso trasmesso dai walkie talkie.

Quando però Graham scopre che nel suo campo appaiono dei segni geometrici perfetti, visibili nella loro interezza e perfezione solo dall'alto, comincia a preoccuparsi per l'incolumità della sua famiglia. I bambini e il fratello sospettano che si tratti di alieni e cominciano a inventarsi degli strumenti di difesa che non convincono Graham, alla ricerca di una risposta razionale ai suoi timori.
Note e curiosità:
Joaquin Phoenix sostituì Mark Ruffalo che aveva dovuto rinunciare al ruolo per malattia.
Il ruolo di Graham Hess era stato scritto originariamente per un uomo anziano e la parte fu offerta a Paul Newman e a Clint Eastwood che rifiutarono entrambi.

Il regista M. Night Shyamalan ama apparire nei suoi film come Hitchcock, uno dei suoi registi preferti. In questo film, non si è limitato a un cameo, ma si è ritagliato un piccolo ruolo, quello di Ray Reddy.

Due poliziotti, Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence), tutto famiglia e lavoro, e Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), incontenibile playboy, sono costretti a scambiarsi ruoli e identità per indagare su un omicidio.

Si imbarcano così in un'impresa disperata alleandosi con una prostituta (Tea Leoni) per recuperare una partita di droga del valore di cento milioni di dollari.

Enigma - Un tris di donne per chiudere la stagione di Enigma

Frankenfish – Film uit 2004 – Welcome to the bottom of the foodchain.

Snakehead Terror – Film uit 2004 -

Frankenfish en Snakehead Terror zijn niet zomaar films, maar overdreven weerspiegelingen van het ontstaan van een vis met een slangenkop (een vis die zelfs 3 dagen lopend over land kan overbruggen) naar aanleiding van een dumpaffaire in 2002 in een meertje in Crofton, Maryland.

Een meertje waarin het bestrijdingsmiddel retenone (een stof die in tropische planten te vinden is en de ziekte van Parkinson veroorzaakt (afsterven van de hersencellen) werd gedumpt samen met potassium permanganate (een op chemische wijze verkregen zoutsoort en gebruikt wordt als sterk oxidatiemiddel / desinfecteermiddel en diverse medische toepassingen kent waaronder het behandelen van huidaandoeningen en kanker en gebruikt wordt bij aborties).

Het artikel van CBS (LINK “3 dagen lopend hierboven”) geeft aan dat een lokale inwoner de vis had geïmporteerd en in het meertje had losgelaten, maar verklaard verder dat er in 6 andere staten (Hawaii, Florida, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) eveneens meldingen zijn gedaan over deze lopende vis.

Is die inwoner soms al die 6 andere staten afgereisd om daar ook zo’n geïmporteerd visje te deponeren, of zijn er mogelijk nog 6 anderen geweest die zo’n visje hebben geïmporteerd en gedumpt of mogen we aannemen dat er wereldwijd chemische troep wordt gedumpt en geloosd)?!?

In een tijd waar flink wordt ge-experimenteerd met DNA en waar Genbedrijven ala Monsanto lekker nagenoeg ongestoord zitten te spelen met groeihormonen waaronder het bekende (of moet ik zeggen beruchte) Posilac Bovine Somatotropin (bST, rbST, BGH, rbGH), hoe groot is daarbij de kans dat er iets mis kan gaan met die mijns inziens duivelse techniek (gezien er veel te weinig controle op dit soort experimenten is en testrapporten door de Genbedrijven zelf worden gecensureerd)?

Wat als tijdens zo’n experiment nou eens iets gruwelijk mis gaat en films als Frankenfish en Snakehead Terror nu eens werkelijkheid zouden worden?

Over vissen gesproken…

We kennen waarschijnlijk allemaal de zalm.

Niet die “politiek correcte” Zalm aan de rechterkant die ons bedrogen heeft met de Euro, maar die aan de linkerkant, want we waren bezig met een artikel over groeihormonen en andere genetische toevoegingen.

Ik ga er maar van uit dat de Zalm aan de rechterkant GEEN producten consumeert waarin zich chemische toevoegingen bevinden, die zijn immers voor het normale werkvolk bedoeld.

We gaan het dus hebben over de Zalm aan de linkerkant!

Een vissoort die o.a. Nutreco (beursgenoteerd) en haar dochter Marine Harvest (29 zalmkwekerijen en 7 zoetwaterkwekerijen (verkocht in 2005 voor 881 miljoen euro)) in speciale bassins kweekt.

Handig dat bedrijven er kweekvijvers op na houden, want daarmee zouden de zogenaamde vrije vissoorten mogelijk wat meer worden ontzien.

Doch me moeten ons geen illusies maken, voordat zalmen een bepaald lengte hebben zijn er enkele jaren verstreken en deze moeten al die tijd continue bijgevoerd worden, wat een dure zaak kan zijn, dus is het ergens niet onlogisch dat die kwekers allerlei capriolen uithalen om te proberen de groei wat te versnellen zodat de kosten lager worden en sneller aan de zalm wordt verdiend.

Doch…

Hoe zit het met de gezondheid van diegenen die deze genetisch gemodificeerde en met groeihormonen behandelde producten consumeren, en wel over een langere termijn gezien?

Ontkennen dat er genetisch gemanipuleerde vissen bestaan heeft geen zin, vanwege dit uitstekend en compleet rapport van de COGEM van juli 2003 geeft reeds aan dat er zalmsoorten bestaan die genetisch gemodificeerd zijn, dat wil zeggen dat ze zodanig genetisch gemanipuleerd worden dat er een zo groot mogelijk rendement uit te halen valt, o.a. door zalmen sneller en groter te laten groeien, maar ook toevoegingen die de zalm beter resistent maakt tegen bv kou en ziektes.

Nu ben ik GEEN voorstander van dat geëxperimenteer in DNA van dier, mens en plant!

Maar als er dan toch perse geëxperimenteerd moet worden, laat het dan verantwoord gebeuren door:

1. Te experimenteren in afgesloten ruimtes zodat het natuurlijk evenwicht van de natuur en de voedselketen zo weinig mogelijk in gevaar worden gebracht.
2. Te experimenteren met overheidstoezicht zodat eventuele milieu catastrofes binnen de perken blijven door goede regulering rampbestrijding en te voorkomen dat genetisch gemanipuleerd materiaal ergens gedumpt wordt.
3. Door regelmatig onafhankelijk onderzoek te doen naar de gevolgen van genetische experimenten op de gezondheid en de natuur waarbij opgemerkt dient te worden dat de betrokken bedrijven onder GEEN beding toegang mogen krijgen tot de testresultaten voordat deze geanalyseerd en gepubliceerd zijn zodat deze bedrijven geen cruciale data kunnen achterhouden of wegmoffelen.

Meer weten over de Zalm, volg de volgende LINK

Enkele relevante termen:

Groeihormonen:

Behandeling tegen groeihormonen:

Somatotrophin:

From DNA to Human: Leuke interactieve informatie van de BBC (klik op een nummer en verkrijg de relevante informatie)

Transgene Zalm van de Universiteit Wageningen.

Salmofan stalenkaart 28-01-2003 Een kleurenkaart ontwikkeld door Roche waarmee zalmkwekers hun zalm de juiste vitaminen met kleurstoffen kunnen geven.

2000 Earth Alarm Schotse zalmkwekerijen slecht voor dier, mens. (Nutreco bezit 20% van de Schotse zalmkwekerijen waarbij zalmen opeengepakt in kooien gevoelig zijn geworden voor de zeeluis die met giftige chemicaliën wordt bestreden).

De zalm krijgt hierbij antibiotica toegediend om ziektes te bestrijden ontstaan door die chemicaliën en er worden kunstmatige kleurstoffen toegevoegd om de vleeskleur mooi roze te houden.

Verder zijn er hoge concentraties PCB en Dioxine in die zalmen gevonden (schadelijk voor het menselijk zenuwstelsel, het afweer systeem en het voortplantingssysteem).

2002 Chili: Zalmkweker Nutreco aangeklaagd! (o.a. Antibiotica in zalm).

2003 PCBs in Farmed Salmon (Zalm met PCB (veroorzaakt kanker, leverschade,geboorteafwijkingen etc.).

2003 Contaminated Salmon on sale to public. (zalm met Malachite Green (veroorzaakt genetische mutaties en tumoren)).

2007 – Chemical in petfood also fed to state hatchery fish! (Zalm met melamine).

I read a blog over on CNN's website about the new Batman movie. I will be seeing the new Batman movie in t-minus 4.5 hours. The blog entry had a very good topic about bringing kids to the movie theater (read it here).

Can I just say there is nothing more annoying than people being disruptive during a movie. DO NOT bring kids under the age of 8 to a movie that doesn't involve Pixar or Hannah Montana. Period. I am not being insensitive, I just don't think there is any reason or redeeming factor for kids to see all of that stuff or to disturb people who have payed $10+ to be there.

I will say that I realize it is not always kids who are being disruptive. You have "that guy" or "that girl" who think that they are watching a movie in their living room and can talk through the whole movie.

I can't believe I just ranted about that. Actually, yes I can.

Any opinions out there?

$

The movie opens with a bang, literally, as we fall upon a bankrobbery that ends in bloodshed. This is where we get a first glimpse at Heath Ledger's "role." (More on that later) Without spoiling too much, which I would never do, he terrorizes the city while the infamous Batman attempts to foil his plans.

The movie is epic in scope, it holds it holds itself higher than any movie I have seen it recent years, and it never brings itself down. The prequel, Batman Begins, is like the ugly duckling to this masterpiece, and that movie was fuckin' amazing. Is it long? Yes, it's a whopping 2 hours and 32 minutes, which is unprecedented for a superhero flick. Would I prefer it to be shorter? Abso-fuckin-lutely not. There isn't a shot, a scene, a line of dialogue that I would change to shorten this film. In fact I probably wouldn't be upset if there was a ten minute scene of Heath Ledger watching duck's walk across the street.

Christain Bale, is always good, and this film is no different. His role is definitely toned down from Batman Begins, not from his role as Batman, but his role as Bruce Wayne.

In Batman Begins, he was still trying to figure out who he is, and what he was, was a playboy. There are scenes in this movie where his whole playboy facade shine through, but my feeling is when he does these things it is just to make Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), his true love, jealous.

Aaron Eckhartas Harvey Dent, is equally impressive and at the same time truly heartbreaking. His origin story differs from that of the comics, but the one Nolan employ's makes his role seem that much more real.

Now, for the real treat, Heath Ledger. I'm going to let my inner-woman shine through and tell you that I got chocked up at the end when I realized that I'll never see this man in another movie ever again. He was a deeply under appreciated actor, and his filmography is both diverse and brilliant. His pre-mature death was one of the saddest times of this year, and blooming actor who was finally being seen as a great actor. Like James Dean, and River Pheonix, his untimely death has had an enormous impact on the film industry.

His "role", I'll explain the quotations, is the highest point on an Everest sized movie. I slam down the quotations because calling what he did a "role" is putting down what Ledger did. He didn't play, the Joker, he was the Joker. Throughout the movie I tried to find some remnant of the actor I knew underneath that frightening makeup, and I tell you, he isn't there. He steals every scene he is in, he is scary and disturbing and I truly believed that there is some psychopathic clown faced maniac out there.

My favorite scene is when the Joker's face turn to disappointment when he finally realizes everything he is trying to prove is absolutely wrong. He thinks that in every single person there is bad, that there is evil, but when his ultimate social experiment goes awry he realizes that people are good, and people don't hurt people just for the fun of it.

One last thing on ledger, everything he does, the way he walks, the way he talks, the way he fights, the way he stands, the way he smooths his hair, the way he shoots, the way he licks his lips while he talks, is The Joker. Ledger disappears into something evil and sinister.

A final note on this film, if you go to the theater to see an upbeat fun superhero movie, go see Hancock (which has a pretty dark ending). Because the Dark Knight is not a fun, upbeat superhero movie. It is dark, bleak, and realistic which goes against any conventionality that was thought to be needed in such a film.

***** 5 out of 5!

But by the month before TDK's release, it was already here. Fanboy paranoia.

Before I go any further, I would just like to establish my background in terms of fanboy-ism. (I use fanboy for both men and women, but my experience has been mostly with the 18-24 male demographic.) I am pretty proud of my geekiness, especially as a girl where it can be tough to show up to class packing the latest volume of X-Men next to the latest color of lip gloss. I grew up on comics, on scores of them. Particularly, I enjoyed my father's collections of (reprints, not original) Batman comics from the 40's through the 90's or so. While I am sure there are those who are better read than me with Batman because I didn't exactly follow a distinct pattern of reading but rather picked up on story arcs and then put them down, I am by no means comic-illiterate. I'm the chick that awkwardly stands in the comic section of the local book store waiting for the 10-year-old boys to move over so she can take a peak at the latest Alan Moore. I read Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" more than once.

The second thing I should point out is that I am also a film student, so seeing a movie like TDK creates an interesting dilemma: at which point to I let my inner-fanboy run loose and at which point do I view the film as a piece of cinema to be studied and learned from?

Back to the current situation: It started with simple praise. A few critics who saw the film early made the grave decision to refer to the flick as "The Godfather of comic book movies" and "Scorscesean." I let this excite me instead of send off warning signs of what was to follow. "Awesome!" I thought. "Can't wait!"

But here we are and I should have known: the fanboy paranoia has hit everyone hard. Not only has praise of TDK reach hyperbolic heights, but even the slightest criticism of it causes an outburst of flaming, hate mail, and very not-nice things being said. It started a week or so ago when the first negative reviews (which, by the way, were hardly bashing the film but rather pointed out a few flaws any film - even a "masterpiece" - will have) started popping up on Rotten Tomatoes. This caused a slew of hateful comments that betrayed both the ignorance and malice of their authors. New Yorkers were being bashed since so many reviews came from there (I wonder if it's because the PUBLISHING INDUSTRY is in New York), a female reviewer was threatened with a "penus-slapping," and any male viewer was promptly deemed homosexual. In all cases, the reviewer was considered a hack for being to nit-picky and not "understanding" the film. If they were a woman it was because "chicks don't get Batman" (a statement if said in front of me will make me go all Talia Al Ghul on your ass), if they were a dude it was because they "clearly didn't read the original."

I wish every positive review that based its wild praise on shallow evidence would be so fervently condemned. Don't get me wrong, I loved the film, but for every reasonable criticism - positive or negative - there seems to be ten reviews based on "how awesome the explosions were" or "how cool/macho/whatever Christian Bale is." (A favorite comment I read was "This makes up for Ledger playing a gay cowboy." Wow. The ignorance is almost awe-inspiring.)

All of this fanboy hysteria trickled down to opening night at the midnight showing, at which point I actually feared for my life and well-being of pointing out anything... ANYTHING... even slightly negative about the film. As a comic-geek, I was enthralled by the film's deepening of the Batman mythos (and nearly squealed with glee at the one or two shots of young Barbara Gordon, a promise of Batgirl awesomeness to come), yet as a film student who always tries to learn something from every movie I watch, I of course picked up on some of the flaws. Yet I know enough as a 21-year-old woman in a theater filled with 21-year-old men twice my says to save it for the blog.

My main point is: do we really want to have an environment surrounding what is otherwise an excellent film that inhibits the discussion of the film? Great films are meant to be discussed. It is a credit to a film if there is a debate about the details of its content. So why be hostile towards anyone who wants to actively engage in the discussion of something you love?

I'd like to end this rambling rant with a more personal note to the fellas out there: can you give the gals a break? We risk a lot more by being fans of comic books than you do, so if anything our opinion should be given extra consideration. There seems to be two topics in pop culture girls aren't allowed to have opinions (unless they're the same as a guy's) on: comic books and Quentin Tarantino. These happen to be two of my favorite things to discuss, but it's hard to carry on a conversation that always ends with, "Well, girls don't understand Jackie Brown."  How do you argue with somebody who can't hear what you have to say?

Main message: Calm down, fanboys. Lay off the rape threats and the homophobia. Whether a masterpiece or a flop, TDK is just another film.

because of the crush, i went out to meet old friends and watch the Dark Knight (to avoid idle moments and completely lose it).

it was a normal day... the usual, i woke up around 2.30p ate breakfast, watched t.v.  then i realized that i am still thinking about the crush.  i'm going ga-ga even when he's out of sight.  before i lose it, i sent a text to one of my friends and asked him if he wants to go somewhere.  it was perfect timing, little did i know that we were in for a treat!  our other friend just got his pay so he's going to treat us for a movie, the dark knight.

it was batman like no other. 

i'm no batman fan, but it has become a habit of mine to watch a batman film everytime there is one from michael keaton to val kilmer, and now christian bale. 

it was modern gotham city.  everything is hi-tech! they even now got a nokia.  is it just me, or has gotham city been always part of america?  when i was a kid, i thought that gotham city is a city in a fictional country just like ash from palette town in pokemon.  now it somewhat imposed in the film that it is in america.  hong-kong is also present which is a way of saying that "hey, we live in the same planet."

aside from being hi-tech, what happened to batman's voice? aint husky enough? blech!

heath's acting was superb! hands down to heath. 

the best joker indeed.

oh, and let's not forget professor x, morgan freeman and his "cerebro" machine.  could marvel sue them for that?haha it was so like cerebro from x-men, and batman is jean. haha

it was one of the best batman ever!  if only they could cut it short... a bit shorter would be nice...

it's just too long!  around 2.5 hours if i'm not mistaken.

good film nonetheless.

___

"I felt the emotion of both the mother and the father. ... They were happy." Dr. Michel Sussmann, who delivered Angelina Jolie's twins.

___

"The CD was a confidence trick. It wasn't just music that people used to buy, it was a total art form. ... I think that's what people like. They like it personal. They like vinyl because if you scratch vinyl, it'll be scratched, but it'll be your scratch. It will only be on your record." Roger Daltrey, saying the scrapping of long-play records signaled the death of the music industry.

___

"My dress has beautiful beads on the bottom of it, and I stepped on my gown and they made me slip. It was like I was on Rollerblades. There was no conspiracy or anything. Nobody left marbles on the floor. It was just me." Miss USA Crystle Stewart, who fell as she walked on stage for the evening gown competition in the Miss Universe pageant.

___

"It's terribly scary to be followed by men in cars with cameras. ... It's terrifying, you know? They're breaking traffic laws and putting you and other people in danger. I try to follow the speed limit and be Zen about it. It's not like I'm doing anything exciting going to the dry cleaners or to Whole Foods to shop for groceries." Jessica Biel, in an interview in Harper's Bazaar magazine.

___

"Working without knowing what you are doing from start to finish is very difficult. It was really improvisation. It was exciting. It keeps you on your toes." Lucy Liu, on her role in the hit summer animated film "Kung Fu Panda."

___

"When you write a song called `R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A.,' that is for the general public to consume. When you write a song called `Ain't Gonna Need This Body (Don't Need This Body),' that is for people who are halfway through their lives." John Mellencamp.

___

"I am committed to my belief in myself and in my abiding faith to meet this challenge with a heartfelt optimism and determination." Natalie Cole, who has been diagnosed with hepatitis C.

___

"The first time I heard people were asking for the Rihanna, it was really flattering and maybe a little strange. It caught me by surprise, but now I feel it's a very cool thing. I don't feel the pressure to change it up again at all. I like it, as they like it." Rihanna, on the popularity of her short hairstyle, in an interview in In Style magazine.

___

"I still never finish a book without being terrified I can't write another one. I never start one without being terrified that I can't finish it." Danielle Steel.

___

"I still very much love her." Al Reynolds on his soon-to-be ex-wife Star Jones.

___

"There was a time when working people could find a job. A young guy could get a job and he was going to stay there until he retired, get the gold watch and all. Today, he don't know if he's going to retire once he gets in." Bluegrass singer Del McCoury.

The film has been left as a musical and for a very brief moment when the first Abba song started I wasn't quite if it would work and be as good.  I soon changed my mind!  It's as cheesy as anything, but it is absolutely hilarious.  The actors seem to have real fun with it, and the words of the songs along with the expressions on their faces had me crying with laughter.  I loved every minute of this film and will no doubt watch it again and again!

Russian Ark (2002) is a single, unbroken tracking shot that: (1) lasts for an hour and a half; (2) manages to tell the story of two characters caught in the sweep of Russia's epic history; and (3) orchestrates the movement of over 2000 people.

Think about that. Think how many things could go wrong trying to make a feature-length film in a single unblinking tracking shot, and that didn't.

This is the cinematic equivelent of seeing how long you can go without coming, and discovering yourself dwarfing all of history's previous attempts, landing next to the fat twins on motorcycles in the Guinness Book of World Records.

The director, Alexander Sokurov, attempted the shot on a single afternoon, at the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. The shot covers nearly a mile of roaming the hallways, corridors, grounds, and rooms of the famous museum. He botched it on the first three attempts, but hit it so exquisitely on the fourth that one is simply left gaping at the beauty and power of his achievement.

Watching Russian Ark has the feel of witnessing exquisite choreography done on highwire, where even one aesthetic mistep would break the film's spell and collapse the performance---and yet, seemingly miraculously, none occurs.

There is an "ooh and ahh" quality to watching this film, as if one is experiencing the organic unfolding of a garden of flowers opening to the sun.

In its gorgeousness, sensuousness, ambition, and poetic orchestration of a huge cast, Russian Ark seems to be Sokurov's 21st century response to Fritz Lang's German silent film masterpiece, Metropolis.

Russian Ark is, as it were, a Russian Metropolis.

If you called Sokurov's achievement heroic, I would not argue. Ayn Rand would have loved this film, and if she has any aesthetically alert contempory devotees, they would love it too. Sokurov is Howard Roark and Cecil B. DeMille rolled into one.

The film begins with a black screen.

The narrator, speaking to himself, says "I open my eyes and I see nothing," and we are left to infer that he has perhaps died, so that when the tracking shot begins we seem to have joined him on his journey as a ghost with an unblinking, roving eye. 

Like one of the animals entering Noah's ark, the narrator follows a group of people (who don't perceive his presence) entering, via a side door, St. Petersburg's Hermitage. In other words, the "herd" moves from the wintery weather outside into the warm embrace of a building suffused with European high culture.

It is here that we begin to catch on to the conceit of the film's Noah-alluding title. The Hermitage is, as it were, an Apollonian Love Boat of beauty and high culture that floats in the midst of the heaving watery chaos of Russia's Dionysian history.

The narrator, as he begins to haunt about---sometimes visible to others, sometimes not---finds himself joined by another ghost, the 19th century French travel writer and aesthete, Marquis de Custine.  

So it is that we discover, with the narrator and Custine, that they---and we---are moving, not just in space, but in historic TIME. In one room we may find ourselves with the narrator and Custine in the 18th century, in a second room the 21st century, and in a third room the 19th century.

Custine functions as a kind of Virgil to the narrator's Dante. As a ghost with a century and a half of experience being a ghost, Custine seems to act as a kind of Hermitage guide to the narrator.

Their roles do switch up a bit in places. When a 20th century room is entered, for example, Custine, who died in the mid-1800s, is perplexed. The narrator then takes on the roll of guide, telling Custine tidbits of information about what is, to Custine, in the future.

Marquis de Custine is played perfectly by Sergei Dreiden. Tall and lanky, taut and elastic---he is utterly mesmerizing to follow. Dreiden almost literally dances through the film. And his sensuous and sharp eyed wit and commentary on the people and art that he encounters heightens our own appreciation of what we are experiencing. He is the spell-casting aesthete opening our eyes to life's beauty and strangeness.

What may be the most poignant moment of the film is where it starts to wind down, and in which we, and our accompanying ghosts, follow thousands of early 20th century people, still warm from an evening of ballroom dancing, down a grand staircase, soon to depart the Hermitage into the Russian cold, as a mass of animals might leave Noah's ark. The moment is poignant because we know their fate, for they are, without yet knowing it, moving in time and space toward the Russian Revolution and World War I.

The final moment of the film is devastating and perfect, and will be left for you to savor, and not be revealed.

Russian Ark is, in short, a seminal film---perhaps the first truly seminal film of the 21st century. It takes its place, deservedly, alongside Fritz Lang's Metropolis as one of the most beguiling and haunting films ever made, and that will ever be made.

...has a long name. I shall refer to him as "Gavin Mac" from here on out.

Jason has a new clip circulating "the internets" that features Gavin Mac. Peep it below.

Jenkins' Log Clip #15

Red Scarlet. Coming very soon....

I want this bike.

Now witness the best trailer, to the best movie of all time.

Best Trailer to Best Movie Ever!