Moving Pictures

As Jason and I have discussed, neither one of us has been very good about keeping this one up to date. However, part of my reasoning is that I haven't seen a whole lot of movies lately. We have 2 DVD players - one built into one of our two TV's and our laptop. Well, the TV has a short in it and won't turn on. And, the one on the laptop has never worked well - I think it's software issues (have I ever told you how much I hate Dell?) So, for the past few weeks, we haven't been partaking in our Netflix subscription. But, I'll be back before too long, I hope.

The real point of this post is to point out to all you Netflix-ians that they now have it where you can stream video from their website - just go to the Watch Now tab across the top. The number of free streaming is equal to the amount you pay them each month. They don't have a ton out there yet, but I did see more than one that is also in my queue (which they point out for you). So, if you're bored while waiting for one to come in the mail, or if your DVD is stuck in your stupid TV that won't turn on and you can't watch a movie any other way, check it out. Free of charge.

Posted by DS in Southside at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments

from Netflix...

Amelie. Wonderful. It reminded my why I liked all my friends from the art department at Montevallo so much. An encouragement to find pure delight in all that ordinary life has to offer. Technically, extremely well done (sorry for that bit of obvious info). People have told me that they think this was the first film to experiment with color grading the way that this film did, but I disagree... every French film I've seen has been treated similarly... City of Lost Children, which came much earlier looked very similar, Delicatessen... also looked similar. That said, Im not trying to take anything away from the look of Amelie, it looked wonderful, there are just a lot of other films that also look like this that came out before it. All in all A+, and if anyone has a friend that reminds them of Amelie (the character, not the movie itself) feel free to introduce me to her.

Coheed and Cambria: The Last Supper: Live from the Hammerstein Ballroom. So good you'll probably crap on yourself. (that is if you are a Coheed fan... if not then you probably will find it annoying or boring)

Rushmore. Wes Anderson's second movie (I think). You know, I want to like Anderson's stuff a whole lot, but I just don't. I love the Life Aquatic, and the Royal Tennanbaums was ok (a controversial statement I know), I thought Bottle Rocket was incredibly boring, and Rushmore had some ok parts, but I won't be upset if I never see it again. Maybe his stuff will grow on me but for now, I'm just not too impressed.

Borat. Funny in some parts, but overall I was disappointed. The Ali G. show; much funnier.

The Departed. Loved it... and I did see it before all the Oscar buzz. The music was cool... I actually went out and bought some Flogging Molly and Dropkick Murphy's after watching it. It had an interesting story, great acting, unconventional editing (that won an Oscar... and yes, I thought the editing was unconventional before it won), and was just plain cool. I can't help but equate any organized crime flick set in Boston with the Boondock Saints, which I think is probably more original than the Departed also, so though I loved it, it felt a little like eating week old leftovers, but the good kind of leftovers... say dressing from Thanksgiving, that you enjoy eating because it is just inherently good, but the taste of it only reminds you how much better was last Thursday. The Departed... great. The Boondock Saints... awesome.

The Science of Sleep... got it the week it came out on DVD and loved it all over again. I wrote about it earlier so check that out for more detailed info.... or just watch it for yourself.

Thank You for Smoking. It was funny, that's about all I remember.



In the theater...

The Number 23. I love seeing Jim Carrey not making an idiot of himself (though I love that too). The story wasn't quite what I thought it would be. From the previews it seemed like it would be some linear progression of Carrey's character moving from fun loving family man to murderer. What actually happened was much more interesting than that. I don't know how to explain the plot without being a spoiler, so I just won't try, and I don't like recapping movies on here anyway. It was an interesting story, and Jim Carrey was fantastic. I also liked the opening titles a lot... I generally do though. Opening Titles are probably the most design intensive part of any movie; worthy of people's attention.


300. I didn't think I would like it, but I did, but I didn't love it. I heard that it was going to be a lot like Sin City, which I also didn't like, because people said that it was directed by the same guy.... which is misleading. Robert Rodriguez co-directed Sin City with Frank Miller, the artist/writer/creator of the graphic novel (adult comic book) Sin City. Im not sure how it all panned out with Sin City, but I seem to remember Miller being involved to preserve the comic book like look for the movie, and the actual direction being done by Rodriguez. So all that to say, I know that Rodriguez had no part in 300 so to say that it was from the same director kind of is misleading... but 300, I found out right before going to see it, is also based off of an adult comic book, by Miller, and I suspect he had a similar role in the making of this film, to preserve the look, not so much actually direct the actors. But I do think that in both movies, shot composition and all that junk was based very heavily on the layout of frames from the graphic novels. Comic Books are fairly interesting because they walk through very complex scenes one frame at a time. Its got to be difficult to capture the entire emotion of a scene in one frame.
Anyway... I was surprised by the fact that there was actually some plot to the movie. I thought it was going to be all visual effects and nothing else. I'm not a huge fan of stories that tell me that I'm only a man if I'm willing to kill everyone around me for not agreeing with my ideas. Im not sure I can fit this one into that category or not. They sure killed a lot of folk, thats all I know.



GrindHouse. The most fun you can have for 3.5 hours in a theater. Planet Terror (directed by Rodriguez) was pretty stinkin' fun. Zombies that squirted ooze on people to spread their disease, lots of guns, over the top blood and guts when zombies got shot, and "missing reels" all added up to a very funny movie (if you think over the top violence and other offensive things are funny) What I didn't like about this half of GrindHouse was all the extra film grain and scratches they added in post to make it look crappy like it was shot in the 70's... I know that was the idea, but it just made me mad. It made the film look like crap, they could have left out about 75% of the dirt they added to their digital effects shots, to make it look like film. If I were directing it, I would have just shot it all on 16mm, crap film stock, and left it alone. Be a little messy in post if you want it to look like it was made 30 years ago. Don't shoot 35 or HD (not sure which they did), make it look pristine, then spend more time adding a bunch of dirt and grain back on top of it to make it look "authentic." Anyway that's my soapbox on that, but still very funny.
DeathProof... Tarantino's half of Grindhouse, was extremely boring about 90% of the time... just Tarantio showing off his skill for writing dialogue and really nothing else happening. But, the 10% where action is going on ruled. And some of the dialogue was great. Stuntman Mike was an awesome character, and his lines were awesome. But when the 4 actress girls came into play, I could have done without most of their "development." Though Zoe was a great character. Overall, I thought that this was a short film that they felt the need to stretch into an hour and a half. Honestly about 45 minutes of it would have been more than enough. I thought it was shot beautifully... Tarantino is talented, not just in writing, but a great DP. The stunt scenes were amazing, and I really think that's what Tarantio was going after. There were also some surprises as far as editing, which were hilarious. In the end people in the theater were cheering and clapping... I've never seen that happen before. So Quintin, Robert, kudos on the great idea of two films for the price of one and having the guts to make movies that are just plain fun. Oh and the fake trailers, were awesome. Long live Machete.

Posted by Jason Harmon at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments

I agree with David... didn't hate it. I was dissapointed with it though. I expected a comedy about the oddities of art school, what I got was a teenage "love" story / murder mystery. There were funny parts but none that weren't in the trailer. The trailer was great the movie was sub par. (I felt the same about Shop Girl and its trailer.) You're not missing anything if you drop this one out of your que.

Posted by Jason Harmon at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments

I can't post about them all at length, but I thought I'd throw out a list of what I've watched over the last few months with very, very brief comments (Susan's comments in purple):

• I [Heart] Huckabees - characteristically postmodern, a movie about nothingness but an entertaining flick nonetheless
  
• Saved! - funny and too close to home at times but ultimately based on a narrow view of Christianity, the other side of the coin (the movie makes fun of Christians for being too narrow-minded, but the only way resolution is found is by turning their backs on at least some aspects of the faith, which is equally narrow-minded in an Opposites Day kind of way); The Breakfast Club with Jesus
  
• Lost: Season 2 - weirder than the 1st season - I'm slowly losing interest
  
• Art School Confidential - I didn't hate it, but it is more social commentary than anything; I think the writer has a bit of a chip on his shoulder; plenty of things that don't make sense, but the goal of the movie is obviously making a point rather than making a good movie
  
• Hudsucker Proxy - enjoyed it, but not great
  
• So I Married an Axe Murderer - love the Scottish dad and the poetry, can do without the rest, but it was Mike Meyers' first swipe at a flick, so I'll cut him some slack and watch it agian within the next 5 years; Heed! Pants! Now!
  
• Grizzly Man - amazing movie! The subject was fascinating on its own, but the filmmaker did a wonderful job piecing together the footage and getting into Treadwell's head in a sympathetic yet objective way, and the music was good, too. If it were a poorly done movie on Treadwell, it would be good. If it were done this well but on a boring subject, it would be good. Fortunately, this was a combination of both.
  
• Ray - painful because I love Ray Charles, but that's part of its charm, that you are drawn in on an emotional level and ride the highs and lows with Jamie Foxx. I love a movie that I can be emotionally involved with. And the music is fantastic as well - Foxx has a degree in classical piano. So, it's a keeper.
  
• To Kill a Mockingbird - good movie, but I preferred the book - I wasn't as drawn into the movie as I was the book, on an emotional level.
  
• Kingpin - a great, yet often nasty, movie. This is one of those comedies that has lines that I use on a regular basis because they are so damn funny. And I love Bill Murray, especially when he's a jerk (which seems to be his role in most of his recent films).
  
• Broken Flowers - speaking of Bill Murray as a jerk, this is another one about the emptiness of life and being forever haunted by your actions (or inactions), but it's still worth watching, though not buying - just remember that it's not a Wes Anderson, even though at times it feels like it is.
  
• Crash - do I have to do this again?
  
• Donnie Darko - I can't tell you my true feelings because Jason won't be my friend any longer. Watch it, then call him so he can explain it to you.
  
• Rushmore - I love Wes Anderson, even though this is my least favorite of his works.
  
• Junebug - I hated it, personally. I hate movies that portray Southerners as stupid rednecks, where the only people who are worth a crap are the ones who leave the South. And I took it personally the inaccurate depection of Howard Finster - he was an amazing artist, obsessed with angels and not the nasty stuff that this guy was in to - don't drag Finster's image thru the mud, damn you.
  
• Meet the Fockers - about like the first, predictable and unoriginal, like most main stream comedies (on tv and movies)
  
• Fletch - one of my all time favorites - I LOVE Chevy Chase, and this movie inspired me to become a huge smartass; without it, a huge part of my personality would be missing. It's a rare mix between a comdey and drama where there's actually a little bit of drama/mystery. Great, great movie. You might have to take it back from me, Jason.
  
• Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou - My favorite of the Wes Anderson movies (I've been a fan since I was a senior in high school, when Bottle Rocket came out).
  
• Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil - blah - maybe the book was good, but the movie didn't do much for me.
  

Posted by DS in Southside at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Comments

I'm planning to write about all the movies I've seen lately (which is actually a lot, thanks to Netflix), but until that time, I want to share this trailer with everyone - check it out - it looks great!

Posted by DS in Southside at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments

I'd heard some friends talking about this crazy movie with Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead / Army of Darkness) as a decrepit Elvis Preslely living in an old folks home in East Texas who ends up fighting an Egyptian Mummy. So two and a half years ago when I saw Bubba Ho-Tep sitting on the Movie Gallery shelf for a mere $14 I couldn't pass it up. I watched it the day I bought it and thought it was brilliant. But I think I was just in awe that someone came up with such a ridiculous story because all I remembered about it was that I thought it was funny. This past saturday night I was having trouble sleeping (which sadly is becoming the norm for me) so I poked around through my movies and decided to give this one another go. Again, I fell in love with this quirky story, but this time I laughed far less. The less I laughed the more I found myself thinking about the complexities of the "American Hero," growing old, and the pain of being forgotten... or worse yet, never really being known.

I usually try not to give too much of the story away in my reviews, however this time I feel like I have to explain the story a little more in depth in order to build the foundation for talking about what I think is actually at the heart of the movie here. SO if you don't want the story spoiled stop here, watch the movie, then come back and read and disagree with me in the comments section.

Here's the story... first off the King is not dead; he's in a retirement home in Texas. Back in his heyday he got so burned out, from drugs, shows, people loving his image and caring nothing for who he was, so he cooks up a scheme to escape the from monster that his manager, the record labels, movie studios, and the American public had created. He tracks down the worlds best Elvis imitator, Sebastian Hath, and swaps places with him. He draws up a contract stating that anytime he wants to he can swap back. Unfortunately the contract is lost and the real Sebastian now pretending to be the actual Elvis, has a weak heart and love for drugs, food, and women, which eventually lead to his death. The general public thinks Elvis is gone, but he's not, he just has no way of proving that he swapped places with the now dead guy. His only means of income is to continue on as Sebastian Hath impersonating himself. Let me stop here and say, if that were the entire movie... money well spent... thats genius. Fame creates a persona that gets forced on a guy. He rebels and escapes, only to be forced by fate back into his original role of playacting. Brilliant! And there's a lot to think about there, but the story gets thicker.

While in the home, Elvis, starts seeing people around him die. He knows it comes with the territory, but these folks deaths combined with an odd encounter with a huge scarab and the discovery of some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics on the wall of the guest bathroom are enough to rattle the King's cage a bit. While wading through these strange experiences Elvis meets an unlikely companion. Former president Kennedy. Yep JFK is still alive too and in the same nursing home as Elvis. Well with the combined forces of the King of Rock n' Roll and americas most Rockin' president its time to get to the bottom of this mystery. Well long story short (kinda) a cursed mummy is on the loose eating people's souls to stay alive. He chooses the old folks home because its easy prey and also the residents are expected to die so the frequent deaths should raise no suspicion. This is one smart mummy. But he needs to eat frequently because old souls aren't all that nutritious. Well when the King and JFK figure out exactly whats going on its time to "T.C.B baby." (take care of bin-iss)

I think the writer of this film chose his characters very wisely. Elvis Presley, the all american pop hero, and JFK the only rock star president our nation has ever had, both who live on as legends due to their deaths. These guys were huge, as big as anyone can be I suppose, and their deaths only made them bigger icons. So to subvert the idea of the American hero, what better way to imagine that the two heroes immortalized by their deaths aren't dead at all but still kickin' it as nobody nut-jobs in a nursing home in rural Texas. (In the story the only people that believe Elvis and JFK are who they claim to be, are Elvis and JFK everyone else thinks they are crazy) Two of Modern American History's biggest icons that have been stripped of all that made them icons... their personas, their fame, their positions, their youth, and even in an odd way, their deaths. They were stripped of all that had made them who they were... or a better way to say it... they were stripped of all that the public had made them out to be and expected them to be. The question I found myself asking was, "What deems a person valuable?"

Well as if all that weren't enough to think about there's another level to the story. Aside from the position that JFK and the King find themselves in, forgotten and alone, they now are seeing that this Mummy is eating their friends' souls. What troubles them most about this is, oddly enough, the fact that they found hieroglyphics on the "shit house wall" means that the mummy eventually has to take a dump. Well if the only thing that he eats to sustain him is souls, and he then just shits them out that means that the souls of the people he eats don't get to rest anywhere, they just go down the toilet. So as if it weren't enough dealing with being old, forgotten, misunderstood, and all that jazz, now the boys have to fight to keep the one thing they've still got... their souls. They both know they are going to die, but they want to at least to have their souls live on. Isn't that a pretty common hope? To die well. To die and have peace. Its my hope, thats one of the reasons I believe the things I do, that when I die there will be peace. Its an odd way of getting at it, but in the end this film, to me, reflects so much of the common hope that people have. To not be alone, to not be forgotten, to be known for who you are not who you're made out to be, and if old age is inescapable to die well. This film also does an amazing job of conveying the pain of getting old... how unnatural the decay of the body is... and again eludes to the hope of an existence where the body doesn't waste away and where souls are free.

Its a great movie on so many levels. Its just plain entertaining, amazingly well contrived, funny, and there's a lot there to think about. Give it a watch, its worth the time. There are some pretty crude comments pertaining to male old age, but nothing that anyone hasn't heard before.

Long live the King!

Posted by Jason Harmon at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments

Another good one. It wasn't until about half way through this that I got the idea... not the idea of the plot, but the gimmick that makes this a unique film. Its a noir film like the Maltese Falcon, which if I have to classify the genre, means its a detective story with a damsel in distress, really wordy and lots of jargon that is kind of meaningless outside of the story. I knew that coming in, but due to the fact that there were so many, not to be offensive to the them, "no name" actors that I just thought the acting was bad at first. Not so, I really think that its more that the director is staying true to the genre. What makes this particular noir film unique is that all the characters are in highschool. The scene that made it click for me was the scene where Brendon the protagonist is in the vice principal's office, the VP is hounding Brendon and it becomes clear that Brendon is a kind of informer, he digs around and gets dirt on people then turns them over to the authorities, the VP and principal in this case, in exchange for favors from them. It sounds kinda dumb, but its a pretty neat concept I think.
The story was very interesting. The acting as I say seemed a bit forced and lame at times, but stayed true to its roots... which in an odd way legitimized it. I thought it was shot extremely well. Great framing and very simple shots for the most part. There weren't a lot of fast cuts the whole time. Some scenes consisted only of two shots. Im becoming a fan of seeing entire scenes from one perspective, as opposed to the typical back and fourth mid shots of peoples faces... action / reaction, your line / my line style that is so boring, or the just pick up a camera and wave that junk around then cut it together 100 short shots. I think it takes a lot of discipline and trust to let the camera be still and allow the actors to introduce the motion. Its kind of cheap, I think, to just do zooms and dolly moves on every shot to provide visual interest.
All in all this was a good watch. An interesting story, a cool gimmick, all executed well. Its on netflix, its worth adding to the ol' que.

Posted by Jason Harmon at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments

FANTASTIC!! I loved this film. It was absolutely beautiful. Im finding that the more Im immersed in digital culture due to my job mostly, Im increasingly drawn to art that has a distinctly "handmade" quality. Miranda July, Harrell Fletcher, Tom Sachs, Tom Friedman are some artists who's work I really love and Im beginning to find filmmakers who's work have similar qualities. Michel Gondry's work, to me, not only fits into that category, but is defining it. As a guy who, be it on a small scale, manipulates pixels to create illusions, it is refreshing to see a film with the budget to have all kinds of fancy pixel manipulation avoid it at all cost. Rather than go in a lot of detail about how Gondry achieved all of these really complex "effects shots" and bore whomever may be reading, I'll just leave it at he did it all with the camera... all of it. In a way knowing that makes it more magical actually. I read an interview with Gondry and he said that he wasn't interested in using computers to do what he could do with a camera. He said he loves using computers and taking full advantage of DI (the digital intermediary... what happens after the film is transferred to tape and the whole process of editing, compositing, etc.) but he feels that he should treat the computer as a tool that has unique characteristics and use it in ways that are unique to it rather than recreate something that he can create by hand. "When I go into a digital mode, I will not try to imitate things I can do with the camera optically, but I will try to find how you can treat the machine to make it alive, to push it to do something that it's never done." (from an interview in RES magazine)
Anyway, moving away from my fascination with the process of Gondry's filmmaking, I really loved the story as well. I told a friend the night after I saw it, "I've never felt so confused and understood at the same time." At times I felt like I was telling the story because it was so on point as to what happens in my head on a daily basis. At the same time due to the story, which in a nutshell is a guy falls for the girl next door, but due to the fact that he has trouble dissassociating his dreams from reality, he royally screws himself in trying to pursue a relationship with Stephanie who appears to be the ideal match for him, I stayed fairly confused because you see the story through Stphene's eyes... so his dreams are blurring into his reality and vice versa.
Honestly I left the theater feeling alltogether joyful, hopefull, inspired and defeated. All those are probably the same feelings that most people left with barring defeated. The feeling of defeat is the same feeling that I get after hearing Chris Griffin play guitar, or the feeling that an aspiring pianist would get from hearing a guy like Rick Barnes. You just feel like you'll never do anything that hits the target the way that what you just experienced did. Its inspiring and crushing all in the same instance.
I can't say enough good stuff about Michel Gondry and his work. If you can see this film do so. (If you happen to be in Birmingham, AL the only place its playing is at Brook Highland and it might not be there anymore.) Absolutely wonderful.

Posted by Jason Harmon at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments

I went to the Sidewalk Film Festival this past weekend and saw some amazing documentaries.
the first, 10 MPH, documents two guys disenchantment with their corporate identities (or lack there of might be a more precise way of putting that). The drudgery of working day to day as a cog in the corporate machine that is Microsoft (they never say Microsoft but its implied) eventually drove them to quit their jobs, and head out on a roadtrip. A friend of mine made the observation in his blog review of "Little Miss Sunshine" (which is fantastic by the way) that the roadtrip is the great american metaphor for personal change. I don't think I'd ever made that connection before but after reading that its painfully obvious to me now... even in Dumb and Dumber their roadtrip was for the sake of personal change. Anyway it wasn't so much the roadtrip that made this doc. great, it was the means by which they hit the road. Not in cars, a Volkswagen van (ala Don Miller and the Little Miss Sunshine gang), but on Segway's. That's a rock and roll attitude if I've ever seen one.
The guys set out from Seattle and make their way to Boston over the course of 100 days all the while relying on the hospitality, and charm I would add, of complete strangers to make their trip and their movie happen.
I keep telling people that there is just something about this movie that resonates with me. This generation of people I think are terribly disenchanted with the corporate world, where there is no value on individuality, the only identity that you are to have is the brand of your employer, and the knowledge that any day without warning you could be axed and no one would think twice about it or remember you. There is something dehumanizing about the corporate world... I think of it that way at least... (and yes I realize there must be good corporations, but there must be bad ones too) I think that the reason this movie resonates so much with people is that these two guys are doing what everyone disenfranchised by the corporate world wishes they could do... get out of it and do their own thing.
In fact that was pretty much the theme of the movie, "what's your thing?" For each town they came to there was a quote on screen that kind of defined the attitude of the person that you, the viewer, was about to meet. It told you a little bit about what their "thing" was. For almost two hours you meet people doing their thing and loving life because of it. It really was great to see people from so many different walks of life enjoying life, because they were doing something they loved, or believed in.
I did think also that this it would be easy for people to leave thinking that all work is bad and that the only way to really feel alive would be to quit your job and take a roadtrip. But the fact is, work is great... Its God ordained and people should do it. (Even in the garden God told Adam to work...pre-fall) But the it is also a fact due to the fall work will suck a lot of the time (futility is the theological word I think). I think the felt presence of that futility in work is why people are going to relate to this movie, but I don't think the answer to overcoming that futility is to quit working all together. It may me a shift in where your work is going... like these guys, they didn't stop working all together, they shifted from making software to making movies. IM sure there is even futility there, but I bet for the most part they enjoy it more than what they were doing. All in all I think its a movie that is telling people that they should do what they love, and have the gumption to take a shot at doing it, weather that be in their working life, or in the life that working affords them.



The second doc I saw, Darkon, is very similar in heart to 10 MPH but that's about it. Darkon, to the best of my knowledge, is a fictional land (kinda like middle earth) and in the fictional realm real people dawn the personas of fictional characters of their own choosing and get together to form fictional societies and wage wars and form alliances against and with other fictional societies for ultimate control of Darkon. ...make sense??? good. (I don't feel like trying to explain it any better because there are more interesting things to talk about here... just google "larping" if anyone is interested in knowing the rules)
As far as production value goes, this was way up there. They apparently rented a helicopter for a day or so and got plenty of aerial photography that was just beautiful. The battle scenes had more in common with Braveheart than the average doc. (even though you could see cars and soccer goals in the background) And after comparing the trailer to the finished product... kudos to the colorist. This movie just flat out looked nice.
Also the filmmakers did something that I love in documentaries... left out the narrator. Im a pretty firm believer in the fact that if you need a narrator to carry the story (as opposed to just letting the people tell their story in their own words) there isn't much of a story there. Sure there are exceptions, but as a general rule I hate narration in any movie.
So yes, technically it was well executed, but I think it also has a lot of heart. For almost two hours I sat and laughed at these guys beating each other with hand crafted nerf weaponry, for control of imaginary hexes on a fictional map. They took it so seriously, why? And as some friends and I left we talked about why. It seems that the wonderful warriors and wizards of Darkon yearn for the same things the rest of us do. To have a part in something larger than ourselves, to be recognized for our roles in that, to feel accepted, and to have a place where we can thrive. It is just unbelieveable that these guys are pursuing these things in such an odd ball way. But for me seeing such strange ways of seeking fulfillment of these desires makes me realize how driven by the same desires I am. I felt a strange kind association with these warriors. I want the exact same things they do, possibly even more, and what's worse, Im not even really doing much about it.
There is a lot to think about there.

Also I started drawing parallels to Darkon and religion. I kept thinking to myself why would people be so engaged in something purely fictional. I guess people think the same thing about religion... why are people so devoted to something so intangible. In Darkon I can see the appeal, as weird as that may sound, there are real people there, you can touch and see them (especially when they are running full speed at you with their double handed black swords). You can actually have real interaction with them (real in the sense that it is happening... not real in the sense that Lothar and Kildor are actually going form some kind of lengendary alliance) I kind of get the appeal. Anyway Im not making any claims here or anything just blabbering about some stuff I thought was interesting.

Hope everyone will one day get to enjoy these movies... come on Netflix, don't fail me now.

Posted by Jason Harmon at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments

i actually didn't watch it again. and David told me i was stupid for saying i would and i think he lost a little faith in my movie taste for saying it was an ok movie.

...i'm currently trying to find the energy to finish Delicatessen (french movie with english subtitles... so far its directed really well, but im generally tired when i try to watch movies and the whole reading thing combined with french style filmmaking has proven a challenging combo to overcome.)

Posted by Jason Harmon at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments