So anyone who has been following Christy's blog knows that we just got back from spending Thanksgiving in Houston. It was a great trip and we did a lot of relaxing but both Christy and I managed to catch a cold on our last day there and combined with the turn in weather it has made the adjustment back a little more difficult than usual.
A few people have asked me for my opinion on the "climate-gate" scandal. I think that this guy sums it up for me pretty well. If you don't feel like reading that article, the gist is that I think it's an embarrassment and I am a staunch believer that scientific dissent should never be bullied or silenced for political, theological, or ideological purposes. But I think the outrage has been severely misdirected. The ire should be reserved for the individuals involved in the e-mails. Instead it seems to be being used to suggest that the whole case for climate change has now somehow been undermined, and that's just not true. The fundamental evidence behind climate change being real and man-made remains as strong today as it did 2 weeks ago, and nothing I've seen in any of the e-mails changes that one bit. Yes, there are admissions of things that are unknown and unexplained, but that is hardly a smoking gun. Every year scientists find out new pieces of information on evolution and make corrections to prior assumptions, but each revision does nothing to call into question the initial theory put forth by Darwin 150 years ago. Creationists like to leap on every change and reside in the margins of what is still not known to "prove" that evolution is incorrect, but that is just a failure in understanding the scientific process. Something as complex as evolution or climate change is unlikely to ever be modeled to the point of 100% accuracy, but it is not necessary to achieve that level to draw the conclusion that they are correct. Still, again, that does not excuse a lot of the bullying and dismissive tone and tactics in the e-mail. Like it or not, one of the consequences of free speech is allowing others to put forth misinformation and things you don't agree with. History has proven that where science is concerned the facts always win out in the end, even if it takes a lot longer than some people are comfortable with.
Not much else going on right now. I updated my reviews with a few more movies I've seen. I was surprised how much I enjoyed Adventureland; I highly recommend it. The new Christmas Carol, while decent, really just made me want to go home and watch the Muppet version, which I dutifully did on Tuesday. I'm also finally getting around to reading again. Currently, I'm making my way through What the Dog Saw . . . and Other Adventures; the new book by Malcolm Gladwell (of The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers fame). This book is actually just a collection of articles he has written for The New Yorker over the years but it is just as compelling as his other books, even if it doesn't have a single common theme like his other books. At about 20 pages per story, they are long enough to be meaty and substantive but also short enough to be accessible for people who don't like making a commitment to reading 400+ pages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Glad you guys are back home safe!
I loved Adventureland.
Zombieland was pretty darn good too.
That's two movies in one year for Jesse Eisenberg with "land" in the title. I'm glad to see more nerd types in leading roles.
I have to say, I was disappointed in Adventureland. I didn't think it really said much that hadn't been said before, in movies like Garden State (which people hated on much more than this one... why, exactly?). They were both explorations of the same semi-pretentious post-hipstery ironically-wisened existential ideas.
Okay, I didn't hate it that much, but... like I said, it's been done.
Also, when I try to recall scenes from the movie, I can picture Kristen Stewart okay, but from forces beyond my control, in Jesse Eisenberg's place it is Michael Cera saying all the lines. Very odd side effect.
"I didn't think it really said much that hadn't been said before, in movies like Garden State (which people hated on much more than this one... why, exactly?)."
I have the distinct feeling that you talked to a very small subset of people who happened to not like Garden State and you're extrapolating to say that people hated on it. On IMDB, Garden State has an overall average of 7.9/10 and on Netflix it's 3.7/5. That hardly seems like people are "hating". This is as opposed to 7.3 and 3.3 for Adventureland, so it looks like the film-viewing community is agreeing with you that Garden State was better. I would agree with that, but I don't think the two films are at all comparable in theme.
Garden State was waaaaay heavier. It's about 2 people with major issues trying to work out what life is all about. In Adventureland, other than Kristen Stewart's mom dying, you're largely talking about pretty much "normal" people going through the problems that most people face and can relate to. Garden State is about letting go of your past, working through crisis, and accepting yourself. Adventureland is really just about growing up. To me it's more like a grown-up American Pie rather than something to compare to Garden State.
I just think that you were expecting too much, which is fairly amazing considering that you had never even heard of the movie five minutes before we put it on. Originality is not the end-all, be-all. I thought Adventureland was a fun movie with some likeable characters that felt three dimensional and it had a little something to say about growing up. Isn't that enough?
I have high standards for my movies. I guess you're right... this one did an okay job at being enjoyable. It was no Eggs Benedict with hash browns. It was some Frosted Flakes, maybe a Pop Tart.
I'm going to give you the benefit and assume that you didn't mean it this way, but that's a fairly condescending thing to say. It implies that I (and anyone else who liked this movie) do not have high standards because obviously if we did we wouldn't have liked it.
And BTW, if we were playing Catchphrase and Adventureland came up, and you gave the description that it was a movie that was an "exploration of semi-pretentious post-hipstery ironically-wisened existential ideas" you're going to be waiting a while (like about a year and a half) before anyone guesses Adventureland. (Side note: the "qualifying post-hipsterism" section in wikipedia is awesome.)
And a question for you of the oh-so-high movie standards, can you remind me again what incredibly original statement The Cutting Edge made that elevates it into the realm of great cinema?
Yowsa! You were taking me to task for having (too) high standards for my movies, and I was just trying to say, "Yeah, so?" Stand by my principles. Isn't that what people do here?
The Cutting Edge is in no way a great movie. It's Cheetos. Sometimes they're just good to eat. And besides, I haven't watched that (or wanted to) in years.
No, I didn't take you to task for having too high of standards, I suggested that you were applying the wrong standards.
To paraphrase Ebert, the quality of a film depends not on what it's about but on how it's about it.
To use your food analogy, if a movie is "cheetos" that's fine. But not all cheetose are created equal. You've got flaming hot cheetos, baked cheetos,generic cheetos, and cheetos which have been left out on the coffee table all night and are now stale as hell. The point is that when you bite into a cheeto, you rate how good it is based on what your expectations of what a cheeto should taste like are. You wouldn't eat a cheeto and say "I don't like it; it wasn't chocolatey enough". You don't apply "dessert standards"; you apply "cheeto standards" (or at least snack-food standards).
That's what I felt you were doing when you brought up Garden State. I gave you a cheeto and you told me it wasn't chocolatey enough.
It's probably also an issue of perspective. I have had the DVD for Adventureland for 2 months now and I put it in with the mindset of "let me just put this on in the background while I play poker so I can finally return it". Thus, my expectations couldn't have been much lower, and I was pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, when you came over on Friday I was already on record as saying that it was really good, so that probably set your expectations differently.
And now I've made myself really hungry . . .
Okay, okay. :(
Arguing makes me all icky inside. Especially when it's about stupid things.
(I own the Cutting Edge. Suck it. Toe pick.)
Call my disappointment a product of its own marketing, but 10 minutes into Adventureland I was looking at my watch and wondering "How long is this going to take?"
Michael Cera clone.
Ryan Reynolds.
Summer carnies.
Couple people from SNL.
Trailer focused on comedy.
Holy fuck I was bored with this movie.
A girl hung up on the guy that won't choose her.
A guy hung up on the girl that won't choose him.
My job sucks.
My family doesn't understand me.
I wish I was cooler/more popular than I am and that I hung out with the cool kids.
I'm not saying that everything has to be original or new, but this movie just took a crapload of 'coming of age' cliches and slapped them together. This is fine if the movie is actually entertaining (see: Can't Hardly Wait, and the aforementioned Garden State for comedy/drama examples) but I was just bored through all of Adventureland.
Movies in general have been disappointing me. The last thing I saw was "Men Who Stare at Goats" and even with that great cast, I thought it was just a stinking pile of mediocre.
Weir, I can't believe that you brought up Can't Hardly Wait. I literally had a sentence in one of my earlier responses that said "Sometimes you can put together a string of cliches and all you get is a mediocre piece of crap that just falls flat (like Can't Hardly Wait)" but I deleted it because I didn't want to go on another big tangent. So, basically, we could just as easily be talking about Can't Hardly Wait and have the exact argument with us changing sides. To this day, I *loathe* that film. I remember it most, though, for the fact that it was in the middle of it that I realized that I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing Paradise City again.
And as for being disappointed in movies lately, did you see Inglorious Basterds? I went in with extremely high hopes for that and even so it still managed to exceed my expectations.
Post a Comment