I was looking forward to seeing Cloverfield for a while now. So, of course we went to see it opening night.

My summary for this movie is that the concept was great, the effects were awesome, but the movie stumbled at points because of bursts of horrible writing. Basically, we get to see a Godzilla movie but from the perspective of a video camera carried by a 20-something and his friends trying to rescue someone trapped in the city. The movie starts of slowly, almost lulling you into boredom when, Wham!, the action starts with only a few pauses. The perspective is awesome, and the film really captures the chaos and terror of being on the ground if something like that were to happen. The details are awesome, too. Of course folks, early on during something like this, would probably stand around trying to capture pics on their cell phone cameras. I loved the perspective and the taste of what it would be like if you were there for a monster attack.

The film had two recurring writing problems. First, the characters weren’t very sympathetic. You weren’t rooting for them in any way. The film works simply by making you a witness of the event, but it would’ve been better if I wasn’t impartial to the main characters. This was a relatively minor problem.

My bigger problem with the writing was some laziness in the details. Characters, when they need to be, are gravely injured (for example, impaled on rebar), but then can run carrying someone else 20 minutes later. There were a few of these moments in the movie that jarred me out of suspending disbelief. Again, not what you want in a monster movie.

I still loved the concept, though, and recommend seeing it. This is one to see in the theater if you love monster movies or pulp science fiction. It’s definitely a rental otherwise. The concept is unique (Heidi mildly disagrees) and that alone makes it worth seeing.

Speaking of end of year giving (give via Kiva.org!), another organization I give to every year is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). I mention this because the entertainment setup I describe below is one that the movie industry would like to outlaw directly and have, with current laws and lobbying, managed to indirectly make very difficult. The EFF fights these laws that are both anti-free-market and anti-consumer (a more common combination than you might think).

In fact, the setup I describe below is really only possible with a little bit of labor and using DVDs as opposed to HD-DVDs or BluRay sources. The movie industry tries to “protect” their movies and music with a technology broadly called DRM, which makes it impossible to view the movies you buy in the ways you want to. New DRM technology is why I’ve sworn off buying HD media. To make this clearer, let’s walk through my new setup.

Here’s what my goal is with the new setup. I want to be able to use my computer as a digital video jukebox with my TV. Basically, I’d like to end up with my movies on my computer so that I don’t need to keep the DVDs in the same room as the TV. This way, I can also copy the movies to my laptop when I travel (again, no discs to break or carry), or put them on my iPhone just in case I’m stuck somewhere.

The first part of getting this working is to get the movies onto my computer. Because of the DRM the studios use, this is more difficult than it ought to be. I’ve written up how I do this on the Mac in an older post, so if you need help, check that out. Please note that I’ve since changed my process a bit, though it involves some commercial software. Specifically, I’ve switched to using a great piece of software called VisualHub. It has presets for every device, including Apple TV, iPhone, PSPs, etc. So, everything from Step 6 onward has been replaced with the simple, “fire up VisualHub, select your device and quality and hit GO.” I typically use the Apple TV settings, with H.264 checked and High quality. I let iTunes cut an iPhone specific version as well when I need one.

Now that I have a version on my computer, I need to get it on the TV. Since I own an Xbox 360, this turned out to be pretty easy. The XBox can connect to a Windows PC and stream videos, photos, and music to the XBox and out to the TV and receiver you have it connected to. It’s not just for playing video games, after all. I assume that the PS3 allows similar functionality, but I don’t own one to try it out.

Now, I don’t own a Windows PC, since I’m a Mac/Unix person and only have Macs in the house. That would be a problem except for a nice little program called Connect 360 made by the fine folks at nullriver. They have a free demo so I downloaded it and fired it up. Within seconds, I was able to fire up the XBox, navigate over to the Media tab in the Dashboard, select Movies and I was thumbing through the films on my laptop on the big screen. These movies are at DVD quality, which is roughly 480p for the HD enthusiasts here. Sure, it’s not as pretty as an HD source, but the XBox does a good job upconverting to 1080p.

I wanted to see if the software and network could keep up with a 1080p video without trouble so I borrowed a 1080p rip of Transformers from a friend because I don’t know how to convert an HD-DVD yet. I’ve streamed that using the above setup with great results. The video is gorgeous and I could still surf the Internet off the same computer. Not a bad setup.

Of course, if the movie industry had their way, I wouldn’t be able to do what I did. Technically, the DRM on the DVDs should prevent me from doing what I did. Because, however, it has been broken by numerous hackers over the years, it merely represents an inconvenience in this process. You could argue that I could easily just buy my movies off of a service like iTunes or Amazon Unbox but that still presents the DRM dilemma.

For example, in my setup, I have devices from 3 different manufacturers and several different movie studios. Microsoft makes the XBox 360 and Apple makes my Mac and OS X and Sony makes my PSP (which I’ve stopped using for video in favor of the iPhone). If I chose iTunes, I would need to buy an Apple TV in order to watch the video on my big TV. In fact, the movies I’ve bought from iTunes don’t work in the setup I’ve described because the XBox doesn’t understand Apple’s DRM. Amazon doesn’t support Macs or my iPhone (yet), so that’s a non-starter as well. The only way to do this is with a DRM-free copy of the movies.

Which brings me to the title of this post. There are two ways to get DRM free copies of your favorite movies. The first is to do what I’ve done, buy DVDs and go through the trouble of stripping the DRM off and encoding them for your computer. It’s a lot of work (takes about 4 hours per DVD on a MacBook Pro).

The other option is to download these movies via a peer-to-peer (P2P) network or BitTorrent or whatever. This is technically both against the law (for the person making the video available) and opens one up to civil lawsuits from the movie studios.

Think about that for a second: To use the devices I own in a way that they all enable, the convenient choice is to download the movies for free. All I want to do is use the hardware I already own with movies I’ve paid for and my choices are to circumvent the DRM on the DVDs or to download them from the Internet.

It’s ridiculous, and really shows the idiocy of the current copyright fight between the studios and their customers. There’s a future here for a nice little video jukebox device with a couple of USB ports for devices like the iPhone or iPod that serves as a nice hub for all your media. My Mac is almost perfect, in fact, but imagine a little $200 device. Believe it or not, they exist already, and the only reason they’re not more popular is because of stupid DRM battles from the studios that do nothing to stop piracy anyway.

Anyway, I’m considering moving my old iMac downstairs so that it’s attached via the wired network to the XBox 360. Leave all the videos on an attached terabyte external drive and I’ll have my video collection available whenever I want.

Also, consider this an thumbs up for Connect 360. The software has made all the videos and music available on my XBox and offers some nice other features that I’ve yet to take advantage of. The software retails for $20 and is worth it if you plan on making use of a setup like this. Enjoy!

Update: PS. HD Podcasts that I download via iTunes look GREAT. No DRM on those, and they look great on the TV. I can recommend the Political Lunch as one to start with. It’s a good rundown of the day’s political news. Good stuff.

Just a random note: Someone at work just put on The Ringer on our big TV. It’s an awful movie, but there’s a scene where the guys are all dancing in a sauna. The music used during that scene also appears in Moonraker, as Bond rides the horse into the monastery/MI6 research base. I’ve heard it enough that I knew it had to be from some other work, probably a soundtrack but maybe a classical piece I just didn’t know. Turns out, I was right. The music used in both scenes is the theme from The Magnificent Seven by Elmer Bernstein.

Further proving that everything worth knowing is on the Internet, Wikipedia’s entry for The Magnificent Seven contains a section about the score which mentions both The Ringer and Moonraker.

Walking out of Transformers last night, I couldn’t decide what to say about it. The movie was a lot of fun, and the last few sections of the movie were just filled with amazing action/CG sequences, but at the same time I felt a bit underwhelmed. Bottom line: the movie is just so-so, but the experience of seeing it on the big screen outweighs the story. Definitely worth seeing, just don’t expect much from the story.

Honestly, that almost seems like a perfect summary of all Michael Bay movies. All of his movies have had horrible writing. The Rock is probably the best story among all of them, and even that movie had it’s boring/awkward moments. There are simply some awful moments in this film with the dialog.

Of course, that’s not why you’re going to see Transformers. For those of you looking for a connection with your youth, I hate to say that the new incarnation of the characters are just not even close to the original cartoons. That’s not to say that they’re not fun, but they’re a bit… wooden, if you can call 40 foot CG metal robots wooden.

For those of you looking for a great special effects movie, you’ll be happy. The final 30 minutes is pretty much the best CG/live action sequence I’ve ever seen. The live actors blend in almost perfectly with the CG characters. There was only one moment where the CG/live illusion was broken, and that was about 10 seconds. A lot of scenes look like they were written in just to provide visually cool ways of incorporating the robots into live sequences. So, the dialog sucks, the acting is good, but this is why this movie is worth seeing. You will not see another movie this summer where the computer generated characters blend in so well.

This is a milestone film for computer generated effects, and that’s why you should see this movie.

This is a cross-post which can also be found at The Connecticutian.

While I wanted to see Sicko on opening night, we went to see Ratatouille instead. So tonight, we finally went to see Sicko, even though I pledged on MoveOn.Org that I would see it Saturday evening — Sorry, MoveOn. My first reaction when I left the theater was — I really want to feel empowered and inspired, yet I feel a sense of despair and powerlessness. It seems the lobbies in this country are magnanimously strong. But I’d like to try to get beyond an initial feeling of powerlessness.

Ironically — or not ironically, I suppose — the movie was not playing at one of the major cinemas in our area. We saw Fahrenheit 911 at the cinema in Plainville, and I was going to get tickets to see Sicko there on Friday afternoon, yet it was only playing at one of the Hartford “arts” cinemas (and a mall cinema that is fairly far from us). I was surprised it wasn’t at Plainville, and Sujal told me his theory that it might have something to do with the fact that Hartford is the insurance capital. Makes sense…

Take the time to look at Michael Moore’s website, as it has lots of info and resources.

Here’s an interesting YouTube link in which Moore responds to potential attacks on 911 rescue workers.

Finally, at the end of the film, it lists this site, Hook-A-Canuck, a dating site for Americans to find a Canadian mate so the American can get free healthcare — though it is not serious, of course.

I truly hope this does open a national healthcare debate and movement. It is high time!

Go See It Now! Right now. If you hurry, you can still make the 10:something showing. This is easily one of the best Pixar movies in recent history. Though they haven’t really made one I don’t like, Cars and The Incredibles weren’t up to the same level as Monsters Inc or the Toy Story films. Ratatouille is one of the best Pixar films, period.

The impressive thing about this one is that unlike the last few films, this movie requires a heavy suspension of disbelief. Compared to say, Monster’s Inc, which exists in a complete fantasy world, Ratatouille is based in a more realistic world where some completely unbelievable things happen. High up on that list are that Remy, our protagonist rat, can understand English (French?) and can control his human friend by tugging on particular clumps of his hair. When we’re first introduced to the concept in the film, I couldn’t help but think of it as absurd. Normally, that’s where a film would lose me, when suspension of disbelief is broken. That didn’t happen this time because the story immediately became about the characters.

Ultimately, that’s why this movie is so awesome. The story is funny and entertaining and rich. Everything else is forgivable when you have that. There were entire stretches of the film where Heidi and I couldn’t stop snickering, giggling, and laughing along with the film. Most importantly, the movie ends on a really strong note with an awesome little twist that just makes the film.

As with all the movies I really love, I’ll leave you with a few other reviews. As always, my favorite comes from Salon’s Stephanie Zacharek, who calls the film “pure joy, a grand achievement — one of the most beautiful animated pictures ever made.” Rotten Tomatoes has this film at an almost unbelievable 95%. (Cars was a 76%, though The Incredibles hit 97%(!)).

Go see this, you’ll enjoy it!

I got another rich ad from Google Adsense on FatMixx. These are clearly widgets, not just plain old rich ads.

Why is it a widget? Because you can embed it. Check the “Share” tab out:

In fact, I’ll embed it here:

Hopefully that works. That’s a great advertising model.

Update: Hmmm, the embed tag doesn’t work… wtf? I’ve checked the code again and I don’t think I embedded it incorrectly… anyone have any ideas?

Update 2: I see what might be wrong. Should be fixed in a sec.

Update 3: OK, so Wordpress bit me in the butt again… this time, the dynamic_replaces in the wptexturize function replaces the x in 300×250 (see the different x?). That value was in the URL, so that broke the URL and kept the embed from working. I hate these fancy replaces WordPress has, and may finally just give up and turn it off. I do like the extra typographical flourishes, though… Just wish it would detect whether it was in an HTML element or attribute or script block. I fixed this by replacing the x in the URL with %78, the urlencoded value for a lowercase x in utf-8.

A quick review because I promised Josh I would write one. If you liked The 40-Year-Old Virgin, you’ll probably enjoy Knocked Up. It’s pretty much the same cast with the same style of writing with the same uneven pace throughout. There are great laughs in the film but the film relied too much on a couple of jokes. Too many pot jokes for my taste. I didn’t like it as much as Virgin, to be honest. The biggest problem is that Seth Rogen’s character’s transformation took too long. They make it to week 24 before he realizes she doesn’t like the fact that he’s broke, smokes a ton of pot, and is a bit, uh, vulgar in public. And then, in the last 12 weeks, he suddenly realizes what’s wrong and changes everything about his life. It’s forgivable, because his being normal kind of ruins the foundation of most of the humor.

So, go see it if you liked Virgin. You could wait until it comes out on DVD, though, because it didn’t seem to benefit from the crowd much at all.

I just finished watching V for Vendetta on HD-DVD. I read the graphic novel a while ago, right around when the movie came out and enjoyed it. The political overtones and the almost surreal storyline make for a great graphic novel. Clearly influenced by 1980’s British (and American) politics, the book sets up an interesting world in a post-nuclear holocaust Britain that succumbs to fascism. That world was set in the near future then, which I guess would be right now. The story and the society in the novel have some eerie parallels in our modern world. It’s not hard to pull some symbolism out of the novel to our modern world shaped by terrorism.

Unfortunately, the movie takes this idea and kicks it way, way over the top. In general, I’m sympathetic to the idea that societies must be vigilant against those that would offer safety in conformity. The government’s motto in the novel/movie is “Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith”), and I definitely bristle at that. Unfortunately, the film takes the novel, introduces the vocabulary of our modern battle with terrorism, and bludgeons the viewer over the head several times during the movie. It’s almost as if they took a smart novel and tried to dumb it down so that everyone would get the point. It’s especially bad as the style of V for Vendetta is over the top. V, the protagonist, is over-the-top, a theatrical person who speaks in monologues to explain his purpose to a populace that has forgotten it’s own purpose in society. He isn’t written subtly.

Thankfully these moments are relatively few and, assuming you like stylized novels/films like Sin City, the movie ends up being pretty good. A lot of things are different in the film, so if you’ve read the novel, be prepared to reacquaint yourself with a number of the minor characters. The “Fate” computer is gone, as is the entire development of the Chancellor’s character.

The soundtrack to the film is solid, by the way. The closing credits feature a song by Ethan Stoller called BKAB. The version used in the movie had clips of Malcolm X and Gloria Steinem speeches playing over BKAB’s Bollywood influenced beats and samples. Cool piece, especially since I’m a fan of artists that fuse Indian and Western beats/music. Karsh Kale, Cornershop, Nitin Sawhney, etc. are all interesting artists if you’re into that. BKAB is only available from the artist directly, FYI. I also can’t find a version with the speeches overlay. It’s not on the soundtrack and the artist’s web site says that he’s still working on getting rights to those recordings so he can remix the track with them in there. Interestingly enough, the name of the song comes from a Malcolm X speech. Check out the artist’s site for an explanation.

I’ve seen The Notebook, Wedding Crashers, and The Family Stone and through those films, I’ve become a fan of Rachel McAdams. Now, I’m watching Mean Girls and I’m floored that this is the same Rachel McAdams. She’s a pretty good actress, but it’s hard to believe she’s the evil blonde in Mean Girls. All four characters are pretty different and she’s been believable in all of them.

I’m not sure I’ve posted about this, but Heidi and I just got the DVD last week and just watched it again. It is such a good movie. It’s actually way better than I remembered, in part because it’s such an unassuming movie. It’s such a light plot that it doesn’t interfere with watching the characters evolve. Zach Braff and Natalie Portman are amazing in this movie. The soundtrack is phenomenal.

Zach Braff directed and wrote the screenplay, so this is really a movie about his life. The commentary for the DVD was worth listening to for the random trivia of the film. His high school is in the film and a lot of little details were actual experiences or things from his life. Of course, a lot of it is just random stuff only a guy like him would make up, but then again, that’s what makes the movie rock. If you haven’t seen this, rent it, buy it, or see it. It’s a great movie.

This has to go in the bizarre but apparently true column. An independent filmmaker is making a film about Ryan Leaf. Why? I don’t actually know. Will I watch it? Let’s just say I hope to never see it even on accident flipping through the channels. It might even be more unbelievable in HD.

Here’s the trailer:

I can’t even tell if it’s an elaborate joke or just bad production values…

I was watching something the other day, and I can’t remember what network it was or when, even, but I caught the tail end of this documentary which basically followed two Western men who were allowed to go to North Korea and film a documentary. Because it was officially sanctioned, they were taken to see the sights by “approved” guides, in approved cars, through approved streets. The surreal quality of the guides and people they interacted with was overwhelming. I caught this by accident and ended up watching the rest of it.

I didn’t catch the name, but some Googling tonight turned up this link which makes me think that I saw Welcome to North Korea. This was brilliant and highly recommended.

If you have an hour to spare, you can download the movie at the link above or here. You won’t be disappointed.

Before I say anything else, watch this:

So, what did you think of the ad?

Well, NBC has refused to air it because it deals with “public controversy.” Weinstein plans to take legal action, though I’m not sure how or on what grounds. We’ll have to see if that ends up materializing.

We ended up in a rather long and heated discussion at work about the controversy that prompted the movie. You might remember in 2003, lead singer Natalie Maines said to a crowd in London, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” The overreaction from holier-than-thou country music fans was swift and harsh.

Cumulus Broadcasting pulled their music across the network, and Clear Channel stations organized protests where people were encouraged to stomp on, burn, or destroy Dixie Chicks CDs and memorabilia. It was pretty ugly stuff.

It was this participation by the larger media companies that prompted our discussion. Specifically, we debated whether anyone should be upset by the actions taken by NBC or by the radio stations in 2003. After all, the radio stations and these networks are simply making profit decisions. If the decision isn’t the one that will make them the most money (or it angers customers directly), the market will let the stations and networks know by taking their money elsewhere.

Second, is there anything wrong with the radio stations simply doing whatever they think makes the most business sense for them? If they want to avoid upsetting the administration because it makes business easier, then so be it. They have that right, as they have the right to do what they want with their own stations.

Those that know me will know that while I appreciate the sentiment in those thoughts, I couldn’t disagree more. The idea that markets are self-correcting is fine, but markets often don’t consider externalities until the cost of dealing with them is acute. To look back at 2002 and 2003, market-driven media brought us the poor journalism surrounding the lead up to the Iraq War. Very little media sought to anger or alienate a President riding a big popularity surge. It is also cheaper to simply report what the government says rather than doing actual investigation.

Beyond that, however, people can and should make moral judgments about why these companies chose to pull the music or reject the ad for the movie. This is not to say that laws should be created to compel these networks to air songs or commercials they don’t want to. Instead, the public has a right and obligation to inform the company of their displeasure and to either convince the network to make the “better” decision or to help change circumstances so that the “better” decision is the natural choice for the networks.

For example, in the case of this commercial, if NBC was standing up for some principle or for a real business case where their customers (advertisers) would really take their money elsewhere, that would be unfortunate but morally neutral in my opinion. Companies try to make money and listening to the people that give them money is a natural thing. It’s a mantra of business, after all.

On the other hand, there are situations like this:

The studio provided media outlets copies of “clearance” reports from NBC’s standards and practices department bearing handwritten notations stating the ads were deemed unacceptable because “they are disparaging of President Bush.“

To me, that represents a different choice, not one born of business or customer needs, but by fear of retribution or by political considerations outside of this particular transaction. In either case, that is a failure of a free press and NBC should be criticized for this. I’m sure that the market might end up costing NBC something, but the reality is that the market will reward the Dixie Chicks and NBC will see no lasting impact. They will sell their inventory to someone else, and they’ll hardly look back at this.

The background upon which this entire story is unfolding also has to play a part in our judgment of what NBC is doing. There have been numerous examples of our media protecting the administration and Republicans. The bias is undeniable and is unprecedented in our modern history. Imagine if President Clinton were protected and coddled by the media as much as President Bush?

That alone isn’t reason to criticize NBC, but it is reason to be concerned that more is going on here than a simple business decision. It would be great to see some actual reporting on this. Unfortunately, if there is something that the media is bad at, it’s self-examination. Without critical journalism, we’re relegated to having public outrage drive the day. In fact, without concerned citizens asking the next level of questions, where would we be?

Glenn Greenwald has more on the issue, including other pointers on Bush administration voodoo over the media.

Click through if you want to see the full trailer.
(Click here to read the rest of this post)

The next Bond flick, Casino Royale, comes out November 17th. It looks like this movie will be close to the book which happens to be the the first Bond book Ian Fleming ever wrote. We’ll see how close to the books this movie is. Already from the trailer, I see that they’ve changed the casino game from Baccarat to Texas Hold ‘Em, but I guess you roll with the times (and the marketing tie ins?).

I have to admit, I’m a bit confused. This movie has been supported by NASCAR, and NASCAR has been hyping up the movie as a way to reach out to new fans, to go mainstream, as it were. The movie is really pretty good, and I’m happy I saw it, but it doesn’t really help the image of NASCAR at all. In fact, many of the jokes come at the expense of NASCAR stereotypes, and very little of the sport comes through in the movie.

In fact, as I watched the film, I couldn’t help think about how some things just wouldn’t happen in the NASCAR we know today. Ricky Bobby’s crew chief is black. There are no black crew chiefs in NASCAR. The driver that supplants Ricky Bobby is openly gay and French. Riiight. We won’t even get into Ricky Bobby, his wife, or the rest of the characters that also play on stereotypes. Stereotypes make the jokes more accessible, though, and I’m not faulting the movie for playing on them. I’m just curious about why NASCAR was pushing the film so much.

Less forgivable for a movie that’s supposed to help raise awareness of NASCAR, there’s nothing about the fandom of NASCAR or the sport. No stories about fans that drive hundreds of miles to see a NASCAR event, the crashes were incidental, and there’s nothing about the technology of the cars. Most of the people I know that like NASCAR like it for one of those reasons, so I’m not sure what was there to draw new fans in.

All of that doesn’t change how good the movie is, and it’s just plain good. Like Anchorman, another Will Ferrell movie also directed by Adam McKay, Talladega Nights has a good story with lots of completely random bits thrown in. Try and make sense of the film and you’re going to be disappointed, but just go along for the ride and you’ll have a great time. Even though there wasn’t a NASCAR fan in our group, we all liked the movie. Of course, all of us walked out with our opinions of NASCAR unchanged.

Ratings

• My Rating: 7 out of 10
• Rotten Tomatoes: 73%
• Metacritic: 66
• Google: 3.6 / 5

As always, here’s Stephanie Zacharek’s review at Salon.com.

We went to go see Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest tonight. I’m a big fan of the first Pirates movie, and Heidi loves Johnny Depp, so this ended up on the must see list for the theater. It didn’t disappoint at all.

Everything about the movie is bigger than the first. It feels longer, has more special effects, and even more action sequences. Overall, the movie captures the same irreverent feel of the first film but has a few small niggling drawbacks. The first is that the love triangle of sorts in the first film becomes an unnecessary love quadrangle. It was a distraction, though it may have provided the “reason” that Jack needed help finding this movie’s treasure.

It was also obvious about halfway through that we were getting set up for a five hour story. In other words, it’s obvious that they already shot the third movie. Think Back to the Future II.

Beyond that, it’s a good movie. If you liked the first installment, you’ll enjoy this. It’s just as fun and goofy as the original. I’m looking forward to the third film.

Rating

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest:

(Note: Standard disclaimer applies.)

Update:

I’m shocked at the low scores this movie got from MetaCritic and RottenTomatoes. I would expect them to be in the mid 70s or 80s. Here’s the direct link to both:

Other Reviews

• MetaCritic reviews of POTC:DMC
• Google Reviews
• Rotten Tomatoes

Last week, Heidi and I went to see An Inconvenient Truth as part of our double feature. I didn’t really know what to expect from this movie. Documentaries often have this annoying habit of either being too serious and thus preachy or too entertaining (often masquerading as being “accessible”) and thus too light or even misleading. When I heard about Truth, I was worried it would fall on the preachy side. Even more concerning, when I found out that Al Gore’s life forms a major part of the story, I was concerned that it would be sappy and too much to handle. That, and well, two hours of Al Gore and two hours of a Keynote presentation… how much fun could that be? When the mostly positive reviews started coming out, we decided to go give it a shot. I’m happy we did.

The movie is built around a presentation Al Gore has been giving for years (even before he became a Senator) on global warming and the evidence of an impending climate crisis. The presentation has gone through different versions over the years, of course. The version shown in the film is a modern slideshow built on Keynote. Much of the movie, indeed most of the best sequences, are simply of Gore doing the presentation in front of a studio audience. Between sections of the presentation, we’re treated to back story about how Gore became aware of this issue, what he’s done over his political career to help improve policy around global warming and climate issues, and other personal stories that are relevant to the film.

These segments are how the filmmaker keeps the movie from being “Two Cameras and a Slideshow.” In general, they are deftly woven into the film and provide the transitions between different topics. Too often, however, a monologue or narration by Al Gore is simply played over a really tight shot of his face lit by the glow of his Powerbook and Keynote. He’s not a bad looking guy but I really don’t want to be that close to him (or anyone, really).

In general, though, the stories about Gore are not really about him. A story about the Gore farm becomes an allegory about how humans change habits. The story about his political efforts is about how Congress deals with long term warnings. My fears ended up generally unfounded.

Even better, though, is that very little discussion of the current administration or partisanship in general comes into the film. Short of a few jokes and a discussion about Kyoto, there are few mentions of the Bush administration. Katrina, while held up as an example of the types of disasters we can expect if warming continues unabated, doesn’t become a polemic against Bush’s inaction. As Gore himself says in the movie, this isn’t about politics and the film stays true to that.

The movie also doesn’t really try to scare the audience with the scenarios presented. That’s not to say we’re not shown worst case scenarios, including the ocean current theory butchered in Day After Tomorrow. They’re just not presented in the Dateline/11 o’clock news way, where everything is soooooo very scary. The director doesn’t want you to be afraid. He wants you to act.

It’s this lucid discussion and sensible presentation of the science that makes the film so powerful. You will end up concerned, but in a thoughtful way. This is the first time I’ve watched a film or TV special about global warming where I walked away learning something while also believing there’s still time to do relatively simple things to curb the overall effect.

This is my favorite part of this movie, by the way. I love that the movie spends a significant amount of time talking about what you can do to improve your energy usage and reduce your output of greenhouse gases. The most interesting slide is the one where Gore shows how employing existing technologies can reduce global output of CO2 to 1970 levels. Best of all, none of these involve everyone switching to electric cars or something else ridiculous. Increasing fuel efficiency, replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, and improving home insulation all have far greater impacts than I would’ve expected. Granted, some of the steps listed require political action and legislative help, so they’re not all possible unless Congress and both parties take this issue more seriously.

I recommend seeing this movie. It’s worth it and is a far better documentary about a politically charged issue than any I’ve seen. If you’re interested in taking action to reduce your own impact on climate change, the film’s website lists many ways you can help reduce your own carbon footprint. We’re taking some of those steps today because of this film.

Rating

An Inconvenient Truth:

Other Reviews

• RealClimate.org’s review, which includes errors in the science
• Salon.com review by Andrew O’Hehir
• Rotten Tomatoes list of reviews
• Google’s review page

Reading the various reviews of Cars around the web, especially the one at Kottke’s place, I was trying to figure out how I would rank the Pixar films (not including the short films).

• Monsters, Inc.
• A Bug’s Life
• Toy Story 2
• Toy Story
• Cars
• The Incredibles
• Finding Nemo

It’s pretty close, I think. The original Toy Story could really be anywhere in the list because it’s showing it’s age, but also because it was one of the best stories in the group. I go back and forth on the Incredibles, too, but my initial reaction was, “Eh,” so I’m sticking with that.

Leave your rankings in the comments. Curious to see how different your lists are.

Please note: I’m writing here for myself, not as an employee of Disney. These are my opinions, not those of the company. Thanks.

Spoiler alert — if you haven’t seen X-Men III, you may want to skip this review. There are no spoilers in the Cars review.

As I mentioned earlier, Heidi is currently away for two weeks in Ireland. I’ve been left to my own devices, which has included a lot of random housework and programming projects. For fun yesterday, I decided to do something Heidi has been trying to get me to try: I went to go see a movie by myself. No one else was around, and Heidi has suggested trying it. I did, but not content just to try it once, I decided to turn this into a double feature. I ended up seeing Cars followed by X-Men III: The Last Stand.

Cars

Cars was a really fun film. Though not at the level of the Toy Story films or A Bug’s Life, it was entertaining and fun. As you would expect, there were some great characters, fun gags, and, above all, phenomenal animation.

The animation was by far the star of the show. It seems every film that Pixar rolls out features some advancement in animation technology. I remember watching Monsters, Inc. and just staring in amazement at Sulley’s fur. The Incredibles was a disappointment because I couldn’t tell what the advancement was (I’m assuming there was one). With Cars, well… what can you do with cars to advance animation? They’re metal, after all, and far simpler objects, visually, than people or skin or fur. I was expecting another Incredibles. I was wrong.

True, the cars weren’t that special, but the roads, the lighting, and the rugged, Western terrain were spectacular. Now, you’re going to see lots of road and you’re going to think, “That’s not so special.” Just wait until the scene where Lightning and Sally go for a drive. These scenes make me want to move out west, they look that good. The light is the most amazing part of these scenes, the colors and the way light looks as it filters through trees is just right. It’s a jaw dropping visual.

The usual breadth of characters is there, including cameos by racing legend Mario Andretti and a bevy of NASCAR stars past and present. The Car Talk guys make an appearance as well. Don’t forget to stay through the credits. This movie is vintage Pixar, though perhaps a notch below the rest of the films.

I really enjoyed this movie, if you can’t tell. There’s just a lot to like about it and very little to not like. It’s not as clever as some of the other Pixar films, but it’s still smart and entertaining. By the way, you don’t need to be a racing fan or a car guy to get the jokes.

X-Men III: The Last Stand

X-Men III, on the other hand, was a letdown. The second X-Men movie is one of my favorite Marvel movies. To say that I had high expectations is probably understating it. I really was looking forward to seeing how Jean Grey came back and to the final battle between Magneto and Xavier’s armies.

Not having read the comics before, I was surprised by the change of Jean Grey into the Phoenix. The whole subplot there of her dueling selves made little sense. In fact, it was explored so little in the actual movie but so central to the overall story line, that it became an anchor holding down the whole movie. A full third of the movie is the quest to get Jean, to save Jean, to kill Jean. No explanation of Jean, though… why did she suddenly lose all the blocks that Xavier put in place? I guess I don’t really need character development (it is an action flick after all), but her character is completely wooden in this film. If it wasn’t for the big sequence at the end, the film could’ve been made entirely without her character. It wouldn’t have changed the movie at all. That’s terrible when you spend so much time around that character.

Some of the action sequences also didn’t make a ton of sense. How come more of those stupid darts weren’t being shot during the final battle? If Magneto is moving the bridge with magnetism, how come the cars didn’t move? Yes, I know, suspension of disbelief. The darts, though, are a big deal to me. Why not just start shooting the moment they show up on the bridge? And once you shoot them, how come these people don’t keep fighting? Think about it… Mystique’s mutant abilities are shapeshifting. Why can’t she continue to fight like she did before she lost her powers?

Anyway, like I said, I was expecting a lot more from this movie and it disappointed on nearly every front. The only memorable thing was that there was the arrival of Ellen Page as Kitty Pride (eventually Shadowcat). This is a far more interesting character than Anna Paquin’s Rogue, though the director managed to make this character uninteresting, as well. They’re both Canadian, by the way… is that a coincidence? Or related to the fact that this film is shot in BC?

I would say to wait until DVD for X-Men III, especially if you have a halfway decent home theater setup. You’re not missing much and, if you don’t know the comic mythos, you’ll probably end up as lost as I was. I second Eric’s comments, though. Stay to the end of the credits. You’ll know that this isn’t the last X-Men movie.

My Ratings

Other Reviews

Cars:

• Salon’s review
• Reelviews
• Rotten Tomatoes page for Cars
• Jason Kottke’s review

X-Men III:

• Eric’s pervious review of X-Men III
• Rotten Tomatoes page for X3
• Salon’s review

I know many of you may not have Salon accounts, but I really like Stephanie Zacharek’s reviews. I don’t always agree with her, but in this case, her review of X3 is nearly 100% in line with how I felt about the movie.

Please note: I’m writing here for myself, not as an employee of Disney. These are my opinions, not those of the company. Thanks.

If you are wondering if you should see the new X-men movie, I would say yes.  Most die hard fans are not wondering and will go see it no matter what.  For those fans, I will say the movie is good, but doesn’t live up to comic series (literally).  There are numerous changes from the comics that are sure to drive a true fan batty.  But, for those that aren’t that familiar with the written works, the movie is entertaining and has more plot development than the previous two.  For what it is worth, my girlfriend, who is not a fan of comic book movies, thought this was the best one of the X-men movies.  But, I will say this: 

If you see the movie, STAY UNTIL THE END OF THE CREDITS.   If you are a true fan and you don’t stay until the end, you will not get your $10 worth. 

I just saw on CNN.com that M:I3 had disappointing results this opening weekend at $48m. While it’s not exactly doing badly by any rational measure, it didn’t open as strongly as the previous two installments, looking to pull in 3 million fewer viewers than the previous two installments.

The article speculates that Tom Cruise’s interesting personal life has hurt his box office appeal or that the long interval between sequels cooled interest. I find the second explanation a bit of a stretch, as it’s going up against absolutely unspectacular films this weekend. The rest of the top 5: RV ($11.1m), An American Haunting ($6.4m), Stick It ($5.5m), United 93 ($5.2m).

Normally, I would’ve wanted to see it opening weekend but I’m choosing not to see the film until it comes out on DVD, if I see it at all. I don’t care about his appearance on Oprah and his odd love affair with Katie (sorry, Kate) Holmes or his belief in Scientology. I pretty much made up my mind not to see the movie when I saw how he behaved in response to South Park’s satire of Scientology and of Cruise himself. His threatened lawsuits and persistent rumors that he threatened Viacom if they played the episode again bothered me. Since I try to limit how much I go to the movies anyway, this movie is now on my wait-until-DVD list. Nice job, Cruise.

(Editor’s note: Eric left this as a comment in my post, but I think it’s worth having as a top level post. I’ve republished it and I hope Eric won’t mind.)

Ok, I saw this movie last night with my girlfriend. I was really hesitant at first. My impression going in to it mirrored a professor of mine (retired army) at the military school I am attending. Basically, we thought 2 hours was long, so they must do what most all movies that depict real life do: they pick out a few characters, show their background (both truth and fiction), and follow them through a set of true events that are sensationalized. This is the exact reason why I did not want to see it. I thought to myself, if I ever want to watch anything like it, it should be a documentary that tries to capture the true essence of the events, not some Hollywood interpretation playing on fears and emotions.

But, I wasn’t set against seeing it. So, my girlfriend, who was more curious about it at the time than I was, and I went last night. When we first arrived (about 30 minutes before the movie), it was empty. I figured it would have a small crowd, but to my surprise, it filled to almost capacity. Then it started.

To tell the truth, I was very surprised and completely wrong about my previous assumption. This movie was a documentary. Not a conventional one. It wasn’t narrated as clips of events were shown. It was a glimpse, as true as they could make it, of 6 different places the morning of 9/11 (the flight, 3 regional air traffic control centers, FAA headquarters, and a military air defense station).

They didn’t follow any ‘characters.’ They didn’t show any background. They didn’t show crowds or civilian reactions. They didn’t use Hollywood theatrics (as we have come to know). And what is more surprising is that they used the real people that were there that morning. You did have your share of actors (mostly unknowns), but where they could, they used normal, everyday people. You could tell, it wasn’t ‘scripted,’ as in the normal Hollywood sense. The lines weren’t meant to create superficial tension (they let the events do that), but to just reflect peoples actual thoughts in the situation. And, it was in real time.

I am sure had you been in any of the regional air traffic control towers, the FAA headquarters, or the military air defense, it would have been as close as a mirror image as you could get. The actions, reactions, and speech mimicked what I believed happened at that time at those places. As far as being on the plane goes, it is only a guess to what happened, although their interpretation is as probably as good as any others. The hijackers were portrayed as real people with real fears and hesitation. The passengers were as you would expect to be in a crisis, not as those in a Bruce Willis film or Oliver Stone interpretation.

To tell you the truth, I did get a little sick. I thought about leaving, half way through, but I was able to stay. Others did leave, but not as many as I had expected. The camera work was shaky (intentionally), which can cause some motion sickness.

Overall, I don’t think there was an intended message, be it political, patriotic, etc… I think the scenes were a series of events that were put together to (as best as possible) be unbiased to the events that happened that morning. I think whatever you take from it, is solely from where you stand going in. Some will take it as a political message, some as a patriotic one, some as over-hyped, and some as too overwhelming. It becomes your own manifestation of feelings towards that day, and towards the events.

I am not trying to convince anyone to see it or even give it a good review. It struck me as a recreation, as best as could be shown, not as a movie attempting to give insight we didn’t already know or a new interpretation to something already familiar. I didn’t feel as someone was trying to capitalize on a tragedy, but I do still believe in the best of mankind. Entertainment Weekly said in its review:

“Do we need to see this? No. There’s no right or wrong way to remember 9/11, no shame in skipping the movie-fied sight or prize for those who dare to look.”

I just wanted to let people know, that the thoughts I had going into it were wrong. I am not necessarily glad I saw this movie or upset that I did. I think in the coming years, it will be a good movie to have for people that were too young to remember what happened that day. And a good reminder, down the line, when I am ready to watch it again.

Salon.com has a very good review of “United 93″. Her reaction to the movie is what I imagine mine will be. As she says,

But while “United 93″ offers a horrifyingly realistic evocation of pain and fear, it doesn’t open itself out to any greater, more expansive truth. And it offers us no hope of transcendence. “United 93″ spells out for us horrors that previously we could only have imagined, as if imagining them could never be enough. It’s an expertly made picture that I wish I could stamp out of my mind. What’s the value of artistry that sucks the life out of you?

The review basically praises the filmmaking but says, as you can guess from that excerpt, that the film was very difficult to watch.

I was also surprised to learn that some of the characters are played by the actual people doing those jobs on 9/11:

And some real-life figures, among them air-traffic controllers and military personnel, appear as themselves. Perhaps most notable is Ben Sliney, the manager of the Federal Aviation Administration’s operations command center in Herndon, Va. On Sept. 11, 2001, Sliney had just been appointed to that position; it was his first day on the job, and his performance here suggests a masterly and controlled channeling of the feelings he must have had as he faced this daylight-nightmare challenge: What must it be like when your job is to respond, calmly and efficiently, to the unspeakable?

I wonder what those people felt while making the movie.

(and yes, I’m still not going to see it yet)

In the post on United 93 below, Sural asked me:

it’s always interesting to me, hearing your views on 9/11. I’m not sure if it’s because i left the country less than a week later/was a little preoccupied (admittedly self-centered) with my own safety in flying…but it’s never been as intense an experience as it seems to be for you, maybe because i feel “silly” thinking i have any right to feel loss when i didn’t really lose anything….

…

why do you think this is so personal for you?

Here’s the answer I promised.

The short answer is, “I don’t know.” I think intellectually, I agree with you… I feel “silly” to feel loss when I didn’t really lose anything. On the other hand, I do really change the channel when I see the commercial come on for that movie. That discrepancy made me write the original post in the first place.

I don’t really feel loss, though. It’s not that feeling. It’s more a recognition of what happened. I’ve internalized a lot of the events of that day and the days and weeks surrounding it, like many who were here. (and I’d emphasize, again, that I don’t think I’m any different than many if not most people out there). I wonder if being out of the country changed the experience for you?

I felt it was important, at the time, to witness what I could and to remember what I could. In October, I had to go to NYC to pick up visas for Mom and I to go to China. I ended up walking from 42nd and 12th Ave down to Chambers and Greenwich while I was waiting. I saw the wreckage from as close as I could. I even knelt and said a prayer. On my way down I passed firehouses, collective tributes and shrines to the victims, and the other ways people grieve. After seeing all that, how can I not be affected?

The way many of the victims died also affected me. It taps into some personal fears about death. I’m someone who likes being in control of my situation. Those deaths ripped control away from every victim, even the ones that survived.

All of it sort of blurs and blends together. Combine that with the intellectual things that I recognize. Knowing that 9/11 would excuse racism and bigotry. The historical impact of having this particular President at that particular time (I can’t think of anyone worse and remember thinking that pretty much on 9/12). This movie will start all of those discussions again. A common sentiment I’ve seen on blogs is that this movie will remind people of 9/11 and what we lost. As if we need reminders. The politicization of the film is sort of the final straw.

Don’t know if that answers anything. Probably doesn’t, but there it is.

I saw the musical Rent with my mom and sisters while it stopped in Philly on it’s national tour. It remains, to this day, one of my favorite musicals ever. I even have the Playbill somewhere. The story about artists in the Villiage struggling with money, AIDS, and the threat of eviction kept me leaning forward in my seat for both acts. And, as a theatre geek, I was amazed at the staging, the sets, the lighting, the singing and acting, everything. It was all perfect for the script and the story.

So you can imagine my trepidation watching the 2005 film version of the play. I was surprised that they got most of the original Broadway cast back to do the movie. The one exception, and I don’t know why (yet) was the original actress that played Mimi. I was also curious about whether they were going to sing everything, or whether they would remain true to the story.

There’s always that tendency to screw up a good thing. We’ve all seen treasured books and plays get taken to the big screen and get ruined. There are exceptions, of course, like Six Degrees of Separation, West Side Story, or Fiddler on the Roof. In general, though, things don’t always make it to film intact and as vibrant as the staged version.

This film, however, falls into the exception category. Though not as strong as the others I listed above (except perhaps Six Degrees), the musical remains true to the original play and captures the essence of the film. Bringing back nearly the entire original cast helped, of course. Especially since I know those voices for those parts from countless hours listening to the soundtrack. The direction and sets were true to the play with a few minor exceptions. The opening sequence with the fire was a bit too much, and I wondered how Maureen could afford all the TVs and lighting in her protest piece, but beyond those details, the movie was really good.

I also missed the original Mimi. Rosario Dawson is a good actress and a decent singer. Her voice, however, lacked the power and pop of the veteran Broadway actors around her. Her version of Out Tonight just lacked the power and raw power and sexuality of Daphne Rubin-Vega rendition. I think they had to alter the mix of the song to compensate for her voice, which made the whole thing a bit flat. That song is one of the highlights of the movie. I know several people who have it mixes and love to blast it in their cars, singing along. It’s an awesome song. Except in the movie.

Contrast that to Idina Menzel, who plays Maureen. She has clearly had dance training. It shows during Tango Maureen, which, by the way, was a very cool sequence in the film and a good change from the musical.

I’m also embarrased to say that I didn’t realize that Jesse L. Martin and Taye Diggs were both in the original Broadway cast of the film. I told Heidi that I didn’t think Martin did Broadway and probably only got cast because of his TV credentials on Law and Order. Silly me. He’s actually really, really good. It was amazing to see him playing something so different than the city cop he plays on the TV show.

This movie is worth seeing even if you’ve already seen the musical. The changes are mostly welcome and well worth it. If you haven’t seen the musical, then you really ought to see this. You may or may not like it (hey, not everyone likes musicals, even ones that are all rock music), but you’ll walk away with a couple of good conversations and some great music.

I’m watching Bridget Jones’s Diary right now while I’m working, and I just realized that the woman that plays Bridget’s friend Jude is the same actress that plays Moaning Myrtle in the Harry Potter movies. Shirley Henderson plays both characters even though they’re completely different ages. It’s actually pretty damn impressive that she can pass for a teenager even though she’s 40.

Heidi and I watched the original The Manchurian Candidate tonight. I hadn’t seen it before, but it’s obviously a classic. It was a good film, though a bit over-the-top.

Anyway, when the film started, I was surprised that it was in black and white. The film was released in 1962, nearly 25 years after The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. They were both released in Technicolor in 1939, which I also got wrong… I thought they were post-WWII films. So, while watching the movie I googled around a bit and found a synopsis of sorts of a PBS show covering the color films of WWII. In the text, they mention that as America entered the war, the government seized all the color film for the war effort.

I was curious about this, so I spent the movie writing a little script to grab a list of color movies between 1930 and 1950 from IMDB. I did some work to remove shorts (the vast majority of color films released during the period) and then broke them down by year. The list still includes random documentaries and films where only a part of the film was in color, but there’s clearly a drop in 1942, the first full year the U.S. is at war.

1930 39
1931 5
1932 5
1933 5
1934 7
1935 6
1936 13
1937 8
1938 13
1939 19
1940 20
1941 21
1942 15
1943 30
1944 31
1945 29
1946 42
1947 55
1948 75
1949 66
1950 90

It’s not as dramatic as I would’ve expected based on the firm language of the PBS page I found. Other histories indicate that color didn’t become popular until the 60’s, further making the Manchurian Candidate an anomaly (to me).

I was able to find one interesting note about film stocks, which says:

Hollywood, like other industries, encountered many wartime problems. The government cut the amount of available film stock by 25 percent and restricted the money that could be spent on sets to $5,000 for each movie. Nevertheless, the war years proved to be highly profitable for the movie industry. Spurred by shortages of gasoline and tires, as well as the appeal of newsreels, the war boosted movie attendance to near-record levels of 90 million a week.

Anyway, I don’t have much to say. Just wanted to pass on those numbers.

Update: of all of the numbers up there, the 1939 number has to stand out. It just looks like a lot of 60-80 minute two-strip Technicolor or mixed black and white/two-strip Technicolor films were released that year.

If anyone has any particular knowledge of this stuff, I’m curious for the history… Here’s a really cool history of Technicolor.

Update 2: Duh. Regarding the 1930 to 1931 drop, the depression was in full swing by 1931.

This is cross-posted on my blog.

Sujal has been asking me to write a review of Wallace and Gromit since we went to see it about 3 weeks ago. Well, here it is. The film, yes film, was decent. I liked it in that it was Wallace and Gromit-ilicious — Gromit, the poor, mute dog that always goes through so much bologna for his friend Wallace. In this film, he has a beloved watermelon. He’s such a hapless pup. that Gromit. And I love when he knits. Truly, the claymation is great. The detail of it is unlike any other claymation I’ve seen, and I’m a connoisseur from the days of Davey and Goliath, christian claymation at its best. Truly, the expressions on Gromit’s face alone are worth seeing the movie. Wallace is also well claymated. And we all love Wallaces proclamations of “CHEEEEEEESE, Gromit, CHEEEEEESE!” Oddly enough, as Sujal had been badgering me for days to write this review, I was annoyed that he ate all of the cheese, and when I said, “I can’t believe you ate all of the CHEEEEEESE”, I had to end it with, “Gromit.” Thus reminding me once again to write this, which I promptly forgot. What madew the film merely decent instead of being amazing is the fact that it was trying to be a bit too filmish, if you will. One of the things I love about Wallace and Gromit is its ability to just be what it is, cleverly innocent. In one of the original episodes, A Grand Day Out, Wallace and Gromit are out of cheese so they go to the moon, because everyone knows it is made out of cheese. This film, Were-Rabbit, gets a tad too action-flicky toward the end, complete with fiery explosion. Don’t get me wrong, it is still pretty innocent, but it loses a touch of it by trying to add too much “suspense”. If I wanted to see a suspense film, I wouldn’t see claymation. Here is another link to “A Grand Day Out”. Overall, I did enjoy the film, and I just get so excited by the music!!

Here are some additional links:
Official Site
BBC Report — who better to cover British claymation
NY Times review
Fire article
Guardian article on fire

I just watched the trailer for the next Harry Potter movie. It just made me think of something… I’ve read and reread a lot of the books in the series, even right after I read them for the first time. I used to use them as books to read before I went to sleep, so I would reread sections of them. I haven’t done the same with the latest book. I think I may have read it once only. This last book is still hard to read because of the ending.

The next movie marks the turn in the series, by the way, where it became darker and more serious.