Anabelle's due date is exactly 3 weeks from tomorrow. That means that tomorrow she will be officially at 37 weeks and thus considered to be at full term. That means that from this point on it could pretty much be at any time. We went to the doctor on Wednesday and she's actually a little ahead of schedule but of course they don't push up the due date or anything because they don't want you blaming them when it doesn't happen. Personally, I just have this feeling that she's going to come the first week of September and be a few days early. But of course if my "feelings" were always correct my Vegas experiences would be a lot different so who knows.
We had the joy of attending Lamaze class all last weekend. And I mean ALL weekend; 9-4 on Saturday and 9-2 on Sunday. Actually, while not the most exciting of experiences I found it to be a lot more worthwhile than I expected and I'm glad that we went. It's funny because going into the class you think of giving birth as the most painful,traumatic experience in the world but then the way they talk about it and explain it with the various models/videos/diagrams it makes it seem like it's this really easy process that basically takes care of itself. So it's like going from one extreme to the other. Christy is still pretty positive that she's going to get the epidural but she's going to try to go up till that point without pain medication. We'll see how that works out. All in all though I've never been more glad to be a guy and not have to worry about going through this. I think that the most surprising thing about the whole class was that I thought that it would be at some point during it that everything would "hit me" and I'd start freaking out about how close it all was to happening. But it actually was just the opposite. I ended up being far more reassured because now I know the logistics of where I need to go to drop her off, where we'll be staying before she has the baby and after and what's going to happen to Anabelle between birth and when we leave. Of course, I'm sure there will still be plenty of opportunity for freaking out.
As you may be able to tell from looking to the right of this post, this week has been dominated by movies ('cause the Cubs certainly haven't given me any reason to follow them dilligently). In general, the 2 movies I saw in the theatre were excellent and the two on DVD . . . not so much. For sure anyone that likes sci-fi at all needs to see District 9 immediately and all Tarantino fans will enjoy Inglorious Basterds. I had heard very bipolar things about The Reader: people seemed to either love it or hate it and now after seeing it I can see why (of course, after saying that I gave it a firmly middle rating). Without giving too much away, there's a plot device that the whole movie hinges on which some people will just accept and other people will think is just horribly, horribly stupid. You can put me closer to the latter category. Other than that it is well written and acted, and it certainly wasn't boring, but I just don't think it had any business being anywhere near the Best Picture category. And Winslet's performance, while solid, wasn't really Oscar-worthy either in my opinion. Meryl Streep gave a much better performance in Doubt, but I think the Academy just expects great performances from her so it doesn't get the attention it should. Finally, there's not a lot to say about Rachel Getting Married. I struggled with how exactly to rate it because . . .well, the best way I can describe it is that this movie was not meant for me. If you love you some melodrama and the idea of basically being a fly on the wall during the wedding weekend of a fairly dysfunctional family appeals to you, then by all means see it. Probably the best way I can sum it up is that it's probably a 4-Star movie that I had a 1-Star reaction to; hence the 2.5 Stars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
John, what's District 9 about? I don't want to read the synopsis on IMDB because it has spoilers.
I don't really like family nastiness either, but if it there is some perspective to come away with I might watch it. Does Rachel Getting Married have anything important to say?
For District 9 I'll just tell you the set-up. A spaceship arrives and hovers over Johannesburg. After a year when it hasn't moved and no one has come out we cut into it and find ~a million aliens aboard all malnourished and dying. They get put into a concentration-style camp (District 9) that quickly becomes a slum. The local population gets progressively more pissed off at them and basically views them as low-level bottom-feeders who are only good at scavenging and stealing to survive. There is a multi-national corporation in charge of the security of District 9 and it's decided that they will relocate the entire populace a few miles south so that they're segregated from the human population. The movie starts on the day when the relocation is set to begin.
On Rachel: yes and no. It's largely about working through tragedy and complex familial relationships (which is certainly relatable) but in my opinion the things they are working through are so specific to that family that I don't think it has a lot of wider relevance.
Oooooooh District 9, sign me up. Rachel, meh. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Did you ever see Moon? I've seen intriguing trailers but that's about it, haven't gone to see it.
No, haven't seen Moon but I do want to. Most likely will be a Netflix at this point, although I did see that it's still playing at Piper's Alley.
Sorta related, did you see Quentin Tarantino on Tavis Smiley last night? I liked what he said about the present state of moviemaking, but sorry to say I still find him about 6% annoying. 94% cool, I'm saying, just 6% annoying.
I suggest checking out Tarantino's top 20 since 1992. Interesting stuff.
The Matrix? Really Quentin? For a guy that makes his living on dialog, that was shockingly depressing.
Here it is at six minutes long.
Interesting. But sure, The Matrix deserves to be there. He's made clear that one of his criteria is how groundbreaking it was at the time, and you can't deny that The Matrix was that. Originality of plot, mythology, musings on the human condition, the hero's journey, and kick-ass action sequences (which, by the way, I'm a hard sell on). Totally. You just gotta not think about the second and third movies.
You're the one. No, I'm not the one. Ok, you're not the one. Wait, maybe I'm the one. Nope, I take it back I'm not the one. Yep, you're the one. How do you know I'm the one? I'm the one supposed to fall in love with the one. I guess I AM the one.
Terrible acting, atrocious dialog, Jesus allegory.
The plot is NOT terribly original, but an amalgam of classic literary concepts melded with some modern tech. It is really just a play within a play.
The only thing good was the (yes) groundbreaking special effects. But the thing about special effects is that their shelf life is way short. They get copied and improved on by the next year. You want awesome special effects, go watch 'Hero.'
Or watch 'Bound.' No special effects, but it is the movie that convinced Mirimax to give the Wachowski(?) brothers the money to make the Matrix.
Wait; Jennifer Tilly's breasts weren't digitally created?
The Matrix tends to be a real hot-button issue among movie fans, and I've never quite understood why (assuming it's not a carry-over effect with reaction to 2 and 3). For people who dislike The Matrix, it doesn't seem to be enough that they dislike it, they really want everyone else to dislike it too. Or at the least, the opinion is "you are allowed to like it, but you're not allowed to say that it's a good movie."
Weir, your rant sounds a lot like Randall going off on The Lord of the Rings in Clerks II. While his points (and yours) are valid, they kind of miss the point. To me, fantasy and sci-fi movies are less about all the individual components that make up the movie (acting, writing, effects, editing, etc) and more about how good a job they do at drawing the viewer into the story and world that they've created. I mean, you certainly can't call Star Wars a good movie based on the acting or the writing, but if somebody had put together a list in 1987 of the top 20 since 1970 would you really criticize them for putting Star Wars on there? Maybe you would.
Like Star Wars (though in a much different way), there's also some cultural components to consider too. Part of its appeal was how unexpected it was. I mean, it was dumped into theatres at the end of March. The February to mid-April period is a traditional wasteland where big budget movies go to die. Also, 1999 was the year when DVDs really took off and that was the starting point of where special effects could still look really cool at home instead of just at the theatre. The Matrix quickly became the centerpiece of every DVD collection and was generally THE movie people put on when someone said "show me what's cool about DVDs". I mean, did you know anyone who owned a DVD player in 2000 and didn't own The Matrix?
I actually bought DVD's before I had a DVD player. I was able to land bot the Clerks and Matrix DVD's for $5 each through online specials. I thought, "I'll eventually get a DVD player, so why not go ahead and buy these now."
Yeah, I guess I'm in the "You can like the movie, just don't think for a second that it is actually good" group.
Like when I hear a girl list a RomCom in their top 10. (This is a byproduct of facebook/myspace.)
I just can't sit idly by and have someone list "10 Things I Hate About You" as their #3 alltime favorite movie. I just can't do it.
Mainly it is become I am a movie elitist and I am right and you are wrong.
But, about the Matrix. The beginning is too long and doesn't make much sense. Is Keanu a hacker? Is he just a black market programmer? How did Morpheus pick him, how does Neo know about him, and why would he believe him? Rewrite the first 20 minutes, give me a little background on Neo Anderson, and maybe I'll care about him a little more (if at all.) As it stands, the first 20 minutes is Keanu standing there with a WTF? expression (a stretch for him, I know...ACTING!)
Next up, the 20 minutes in the middle of the movie dealing with the oracle.
Cut it.
It serves no purpose, provides nothing, and is really just a 20 minute way to get Larry Fishburn kidnapped.
"There is no spoon."
No, there is no point to this way-too-long subplot.
I'll go off on Star Wars too. How about a farmboy with like 2 or 3 weeks of actual training is able to take down a double team of the 2 most powerful and badass Jedi's in the galaxy?
Harrison Ford once said to George Lucas "George, you can write this stuff, be we can't actually SAY it..." (paraphrase)
Sacrilege, Weir!. Sacrilege, the way you talk. Sci fi should be judged on imagination, and having something original to say! Plot holes, spotty acting, that's all forgivable in service of a greater purpose. I mean really. Name me one sci fi movie that doesn't suffer from some ailment or another. Come on! Don't make me revoke your sci-fi fan card.
You must not like Roger Ebert's views then, either. 'Cause you're pretty strong with the, "You're not allowed to like this movie because it's not worthy of being liked" stuff.
You've got it wrong Becks, it is "You can like this movie, just don't think it is good."
My parents love the TV show '2 and a Half Men.' I'll watch it, laugh at it, and then tell them it is no good. My dad says "But you were laughing at all the jokes!" And I say, yes, but the concept is cliche, the jokes are old and recycled, and the kid can't act a lick.
There are very few perfect movies (if any.) Perfect sci-fi movies are even rarer. Off the top of my head though lets say Blade Runner, Alien, and for some modern flair I'll say Children of Men. (I was tempted to say 2001, but I fell asleep the first 5 times I tried to watch it, so it has some obvious flaws.)
Assist from imdb best/worst sci-fi
(Some of the titles on that list make my stomach ache. Star Trek 2009? V for Vendetta? Grindhouse?)
This is an argument I have had on countless occasions with Joe. The idea that there is some form of objective rating that exists separately from a subjective reaction. I don't believe in that at all. All of entertainment and indeed all of art is purely subjective. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" comes to mind.
Weir, on some level you must believe this too. You said that you were going to add 2001 but that you fell asleep the first 5 times "so it has some obvious flaws". But wait; if we're being objective then why should your reaction to it matter? And why does your failing to appreciate it indicate a flaw on the film's part instead of a flaw in you? Obviously you're incorporating some form of subjectivity (i.e. your reaction) into your rating.
When I say that such and such "is good" there's the implied "in my opinion" before that statement. And that's how I hear it when other people say that too. I was somewhat astounded when I found out that when some people say that something "is good" they often think they are expressing a fact and not an opinion. Even when I say that a movie "is bad, but I liked it" what I'm really saying is "I thought it was good, but I don't believe that others will share that opinion."
That's why I like arguing/debating sports far better than movies and music. At least there's stats which really ARE objective (sometimes). I've been part of sports arguments that have ended with one person saying "I thought that so and so was really good, but I guess he's not" but I've never been part of an argument about movies/music (or politics for that matter) and heard that.
Finally, you seem obsessed with originality. I think it's often overrated. You know what one of the most original superhero movies of the last 10 years was? Hancock. But the "twist" halfway through (I won't "ruin" it), though original, was so catastrophically stupid that it basically killed the movie. Had they just had some super villain show up in the 2nd half that Hancock saved the world from it would have been far less original but a far better movie.
Oh, and your imdb link is broken.
FYI, the deleted comment was mine. It double-posted my last one for some reason. Probably 'cause it was so awesome that it was worth reading twice.
(Of course, that's just my opinion)
Top Sci-fi
In case anyone ever comes back to read this, since it's days after the original argument...
The banter about liking movies and it being art, "in the eye of the beholder" thing...it reminds me of two arguments I have had with friends about music.
1) Mike from highschool. I didn't ever really get into VanHalen. Somehow this sparked Mike into fighting with me about my stupidity about music. I reminded him music is subjective, 'I can like whatever I like and you can like whatever you like. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I'm saying its bad.' That wasn't good enough. We stopped being friends.
2) I once mentioned the White Stripes to Blonstein...and as many of you know it was a big mistake. He hates them...it turned into: Blonstein, "do you even know ANYTHING about music? Have you ever even played an instrument?!?"
Me: "Yes, I've played two."
From then on I decided never to even bring up music around him..
I absolutely hate arguing with people who turn a difference of opinion into something very personal.
Post a Comment