A History of Violence - Reaction

A not-half-bad movie with a measured pace about a calm, quiet, family man in a small town, and what happens when allegations of his violent past emerge. As such, it's a movie about character. Sadly, the plot felt like it was written by someone in Creative Writing 101. Furthermore, it's hard to understand the villains' and hero's motivations.

Nevertheless, the film deals with many deep issues. The movie's plot shows that even if a person is resurrected--this word was primed by the image of jesus at the beginning of the movie--, he can't leave his past/history behind. In a similar vein, it's about the impossibility of escaping violence. It's also about opening one's self and telling the truth to one's spouse, even if one's already been redeemed for past actions. In addition, the film touches on a mistaken sense of normalcy--how normal can life really be? Finally, it's about the inheritance of violence in children from parents. It explores why people turn out the way they do, and wonders whether violence begets violence through bad examples or through genetic nature--survival of the fittest. As such, this theory returns to idea that violence tends to become pervasive.

Darkon - Reaction

An interesting, well-put-together, funny-at-times, open-minded documentary about people who play a particular live-action role playing game, what they think about it, and why they do it. The real-life characters are interesting and they do a good job acting in fantasy-life roles. (Indeed, the costumes they make are much better than I expected. In fact, they display an impressive commitment to role playing in terms not only of costumes and makeup but also time.) The movie is by necessity haphazardly photographed, as it's trying to capture unscripted fast-paced events.

Although the film mentions the rules of the game (different colored weapons, how they affect various armors, the rules of resurrection, etc.), it mainly focuses on what the players get out of the game. Some players use the game as a form of escapism from real life. The game is where they can pursue the American dream: to live their lives as they desire. Some of these players draw the analogy that just as reality, where one has responsibilities, is like adulthood, the fantasy world is like childhood, where one is unencumbered and more free. Others use fantasy role playing to gain confidence and train for real-world situations, developing skills for socializing, playing politics, negotiating, or leading. (One person playing the game for this purpose, Danny, says "sometimes Danny doesn't have the balls to do what needs to be done.") Interestingly, a number of players reflect upon the idea that just as they're playing a role in the game, they're playing a role in their real lives.

The movie also explores the different lines people draw between this world and the real world. For instance, some players' characters don't date in the game even if they're dating outside of it. Players generally try to maintain real-world friendships regardless of in-game actions, though sometimes the line is crossed and real life impinges on one's fantasy life and vice versa.

I particularly liked two scenes: one, the neat opening transition from a hexagonal game board (the common board for role playing games) to an aerial view of the suburbs, and two, a brief interview with an Iraqi war veteran who plays and why he does so.

Some of the deleted scenes are quite good.

I must admit the movie is probably not interesting to people who've never role played.

I first heard about the film through a radio segment: The Role of a Lifetime (WNYC's On The Media via NPR). The story provides a good overview of the film and its feel. (Listen to the story; if you read the transcript, you'll miss out on the sounds and voices.)

Spaceballs - Reaction

I rewatched this Mel Brooks comedy classic which plays off of Star Wars. It was as good as I remembered. Nothing more needs to be said.

Blazing Saddles - Reaction

Important note: I saw the theatrical release, not the TV one. The TV one apparently has some extra scenes.

Mel Brooks's dated, okay, vaudevillian comedy-western involving a black sheriff in a white town. I think it's meant for people with short attention spans. The straightforward plot isn't the point--indeed, one IMDB reviewer said the "structure is a total mess"--; it's merely an excuse for the gags, whether slapstick, raunchy, scatological, or racial (in ways that probably are unacceptable nowadays). Basically, it felt like the script-writers threw in the kitchen sink every crass or crude joke they could think of, especially those that mocked westerns. Generally, it wasn't my type of humor. There is one minute of action near the end that I liked much better than anything else in the movie. Sadly, the movie didn't end on that note but instead got too strange, turning its attention to mocking movie-making in general.

I think I missed a good number of references. For instance, I only knew one character was parodying Marlene Dietrich because someone pointed it out to me.

The movie apparently was somewhat controversial in its time. Some people complained it was racist; others thought it reflected reverse racism.

D.O.A. - Reaction

Important note: I saw the original 1949/1950 version. The movie has apparently been remade later.

An average, unexceptional noir: some action, a relatively confusing plot, not particularly snappy dialog, and a generally unnecessary romantic subplot with an annoyingly one-dimensional female character. A novel premise, the movie follows the previous twenty-four hours in the life of a man who enters a police station and declares he's been murdered by poison. There's a good jazz segment in the middle of the movie. Near the beginning of the movie, on the other hand, the film uses wolf whistles to indicate when the main character notices an attractive woman. The whistles are out of place and distracting. The audience already knows what's going on.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Reaction

A preposterous (both in terms of details and high-level plot) action flick that never decides if it's an indiana jones movie or a parody of an indiana jones movie. The script is poor: there's stilted dialog in places (often using exposition) and the way the relationships evolve isn't plausible (Oxley, Marion, and Indiana; Mutt and Indiana). Relationships aren't built so insanely fast, and no one can be as accepting as the movie makes it appear. In addition, the ridiculous plot--almost a cross between the X-Files and Indiana Jones--is inexplicable at times. Also, it's a few minutes too long. Maybe this all adds up to a standard (not good) summer blockbuster.

The movie references past Indiana Jones movies. I probably missed some. Had I caught them, maybe they'd have made the movie funnier.

Aspects of the movie are even more over the top than past Indiana Jones movies. I hear there's a movement to replace the phrase "jump the shark" with "nuke the fridge" in reference to Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear explosion by hiding in a lead-lined fridge that is thrown by a nuclear explosion miles through the air.

This At The Movies discussion generally reflects my mixed (though tending to the negative) reaction to this film.

This American Life - Reaction

On May 1, 2008, This American Life simulcast a live production of the show to many theaters throughout the country. (Well, for us west-coast viewers strictly speaking it wasn't a simulcast because they delayed the broadcast in order to show it at a reasonable time in the evening.)

This well-produced, entertaining simulcast was similar in feel to the radio show though the structure differed. Ira did some segments live, narrating, queuing clips, and balancing background music. In addition to these segments, other regulars appeared on stage to do pieces. It's amazing how fast I can recognize them from their voices. There was also an discussion segment where Ira and the This American Life's television show's producer talked about how they make creative decisions and what they're doing differently for the next season of the show (e.g., try omitting narration entirely). The simulcast wrapped up with questions and e-mails from the audience.

As for the content of the show, it had some clips that had been broadcast on the radio and on the television show, plus segments that didn't make it to air due to length restrictions. I particularly liked a cartoon they made for a radio segment and the talk-to-an-Iraqi segment. They also showed some outtakes. In addition, before the presentation began, the screen displayed animated games of hangman and anagrams to keep us entertained. (It worked.)

Ira didn't look like I expected him to. Indeed, he joked about this fact at the beginning of the show, remarking that he must remember that people who meet him for the first time don't hear anything he says for the first minute, instead attempting to integrate his appearance with their mental image of him. Later in the show, they showed clips of Ira's reactions he interviewed a guy talking about skinning a bull and crying. His facial expressions were hilarious, making it obvious why they don't show Ira's face during interviews in the television show--it'd be too distracting.

The theater was mostly full. I noticed a number of people, I included, craning their necks to look around to see what kind of people watch/listen to This American Life.

I wonder how much of Glass's motivation for this simulcast was a promotion for the second season of the TV show.