Flooded Lizard Kingdom

1. Home Fries (1998): Advertised as a light romantic comedy with Drew Barrymore, turned out to be a vicious black "comedy" full of people being awful to each other.
2. Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas (1998): Why did I think that a movie about people being on drugs would be entertaining for me, even though I find drunk and drugged people quite annoying in real life?
3. Secret Window (2004): You know I love me some Johnny Depp, so it's odd that two of his movies are on this list, but I actually put down my popcorn and walked out of this one... and all the way home, since at that time my apartment was walking distance from the theater. I don't know how to be more specific about why I disliked the movie, but it was like nails on a chalkboard.

This movie was bad even by Christopher Lambert direct-to-video standards.

Writing decent movie reviews is harder than it looks. I have some favorites among the ones I've written so far on Heroine Content. I feel like they're insightful, but also fun to read. Unfortunately, there are also a few that I find as entertaining as chewing on cardboard. When I'm ranting here about The Dog being a pain, it seems relatively easy to whip out a few funny sentences. When confronted with the task of writing a Serious Review that Raises Important Issues, my writing often comes out stiff and flavorless. And it can be hard not to get a little clumsy when you're trying to introduce character names as well as actor names while describing the plot.

However, I don't think I've written a sentence as bad as this one from Richard Schickel's review of Breach in Time Magazine:

Who knew how entertainingly, if sometimes scarily, bent Hanssen — brilliantly played in director Bully Ray's film by Chris Cooper — was?

How many minutes did it take your brain to put that sentence back together in a reasonable order?

A couple of days ago I read a review of the Bollywood movie Fanaa on the blog Kashmir. I started thinking about how much "information" I accumulate from films and television, especially with popular entertainment from other countries where I don't have any context for those narratives.

If I had caught Fanaa when it screened in Austin, I would have come away with images of the political situation in Kashmir that may or may not be accurate. (I haven't researched beyond that blog post, I don't really know whether the film is anywhere near reality.) I don't think I would have started applying to history departments to teach the history of Kashmir, but I can't imagine that these images wouldn't influence me - especially if I never gave them any thought. I don't have any information that would lead me to notice discrepancies, so I might have just carried those images around for a while.

With that in mind, I was concerned to read a blog post on the Carribbean Amerindian Centrelink Review about the new Pirates of the Carribbean movie. It calls for a boycott due to the film's portrayal of the people indigenous to the area where the movie is set, whom the CAC blog identifies as Caribs:

Let us keep in mind that such depictions were used to enslave and murder the ancestors of today's Caribs, there was never anything innocent or "fun" about these portrayals. In addition, generations of Carib descended school children in the Caribbean have been taught that their ancestors were savage cannibals. Shame over ancestry was inculcated as a matter of routine. In my own field research experience, I have encountered individuals in their forties and fifties who told me very directly that the main reason they did not wish to self-identify as Caribs is that people in the wider world see Caribs as cannibals, as inhuman man eaters, and they found the stigma unbearable.

This portrayal of a fictional event set against a historical backdrop should have been easier for me to identify as a problem. As a resident of North America, I should be very familiar with cultural images of people of African descent that portray them as "less than civilized." But honestly, I don't know if I would have picked up on it without reading this blog post. I did notice it in King Kong, but would I have caught this one? Or would I have been swept along in a story I enjoyed, with actors I enjoy?

That, my friends, is one of the ugly privileges of being white. You don't have to think about race.

You have to make the choice whether to hold yourself and your culture accountable for racism.

Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, the Paramount Film Series is showing the original version of the 1954 Godzilla.

I'm really excited! My mother, in addition to being a devout Methodist Sunday school teacher and gardener, is also a fan of monster movies. Mothra was a staple of my childhood television viewing. Godzilla came later, and now I am working my way through the Godzilla films to build a list of personal favorites. (So far, Godzilla v. Gigan and Destroy all Monsters join the Mothra films as my top picks.)

The New York Times had a good piece on how the restored film differs from the version that was originally made available to American audiences.

As the historian William Tsutsui reminded us in last year's cult classic, "Godzilla on My Mind," the 1954 movie was a dark, poetic production that dealt openly with Japanese misgivings about the nuclear menace, environmental degradation and the traumatic experience associated with World War II. [...]

The American company that bought the rights to distribute the film in this country cut a large chunk from Honda's original film and rearranged the plot. The biggest change involved splicing in Raymond Burr, who played an American reporter chronicling the devastation for the press. Dialogue that dealt heavily with human suffering, the morality of all-out war - and the temptation to play God with weapons of mass destruction - was left on the American cutting room floor.

I love watching Gojira stomp on tiny tanks, but I also like a little substance with my smashing. Thanks to the Paramount for such an opportunity!

I saw Blue Car (2002) on DVD. The DVD box (left) pissed me off more and more as I watched it, since the main character, 18 year old Meg, NEVER wears an outfit like this - and the only sexual encounter shown in the film is extremely difficult to watch because it's such a betrayal.

Check out the original movie poster (right), from the Miramax website for the film. Apparently it wasn't thought sexy enough to coerce people to rent DVDs.

It's an interesting film, though, and despite some of the more harrowing moments I did enjoy it. I'm enjoying small films more lately - films that follow a small number of characters and no buildings blow up.

Casa de los Babys (2003) fits that bill. It's a drama about American women waiting to adopt babies in a Latin American country. In contrast to the comment at IMDB, the actor interviews in the extra features on the DVD contend that director John Sayles isn't trying to preach any particular viewpoint on international adoption, childbearing, etc. He just follows the lives of a group of women in this situation and several people who actually live in the country, for contrast. You're allowed to draw your own conclusions.

Sayles's comments about casting in the DVD extras really struck me. He said that since the majority of female actors in Hollywood over 30 are unemployed, he knew he could find a great cast. Bonus for him, I'm sure, and for me since I enjoyed their performances, but a sad statement. Lili Taylor, Mary Steenburgen, and Marcia Gay Harden should be difficult to book.

Steamboy (2004) had only one major female character, who was irredeemably annoying. It was also a bad movie. The End.

I'm not a big fan of Amazon.com, either, but they have the Hitchhiker's Guide trailer up right now. At one point, you will say "Zaphod only has one head?! WTF?!" Just wait.

[Update: OK, apparently I'm the very last person in the world to know this. I should, oh, I don't know, read the news or something.]

I did not expect much from The Chronicles of Riddick. Pretty spaceships, evil alien cult armies, Vin Diesel's glowing eyes.

But now that I've seen Tomb Raider and Underworld, I'm much less forgiving of weak female characters. Especially when the female characters actually kick tremendous amounts of ass and should be treated with more respect by the story's architects.

In Riddick, he's violent because he's an invincible alien with special powers. Kyra's violent because she's broken. He's capable of taking care of himself. She always needs his help at a critical moment. She can only win by sacrificing herself. When he wins, he gets the extra prize of a devoted army of followers. She is strong but also looks like a sex bomb, and is not taken seriously as a threat by men because she's a woman. He is amazingly competent, no questions asked. Her violence is lamentable, a waste of her life that the other characters mourn. His violence is because he's allegedly evil, but we only know that because other characters say so - we only see him making the right choices - and it's necessary to save the world.

Give me Lara in Tomb Raider, owning her own destiny and making her own choices. Give me Selene in Underworld, in love but still dedicated, strong, determined. Don't give me Kyra in Riddick, or Anna Valerious in Van Helsing who is only good for a chick fight, or Trinity the ever-martyred.

I just can't deal with it anymore.

(Now if I could just stop giving them my money...)

My ex-husband would have gotten a lot more action in college if he liked boys as well as girls. So many boys wanted him. Sadly for them, he always maintained that he was "straight until proven otherwise"...that is to say, he wouldn't rule it out, but he was doubtful he would ever meet a man to whom he would be attracted sexually.

This year, my ex-husband threw a party near Valentine's Day to celebrate the new love of his life, and it's a man.

The new love of his life is Johnny Depp.

The news that my ex-husband has finally found a man to whom he is prepared to give himself would undoubtedly cause gnashing of teeth and rending of garments among men who have desired him in the past. This news would be so shocking that I would argue it might cause them to question whether the earth is going to continue on its current axis or spin off into space - so numerous were the men who would have slept with my ex-husband if given half a chance, and so resolutely (though politely) did he continue pronouncing his straightness.

All I have to say is, my ex-husband needs to go see Secret Window.

Then he will know the error of his Depp-loving ways, he can reclaim his previous sexual orientation, the world can rest comfortably on its axis, and the entertainment industry can revel in more ill-gotten gains.

[UPDATE: 9:12 p.m. My ex-husband wishes to point out that it was Pirates of the Caribbean and Once Upon a Time in Mexico that sold him. He didn't just wake up one afternoon and say "Hey, I want to sleep with Johnny Depp." Although who hasn't had that thought? Except for people who have tried to sit through Secret Window, that is.]

[UPDATE: 9:14 p.m. My ex-husband also wishes to point out that he never actually got around to throwing the party. But as far as I knew when I wrote the above, it had transpired. Isn't instant messaging wonderful? You can learn so much so quickly...]

The Princess: In America didn't really grab me, something just didn't click.

B: Has your heart turned to stone?

It made my heart glad.

Austin-American Statesman: "A bunch of dim bulbs and projection problems are muddying movies at some Austin cinemas"

Professional projectionists say screen size dictates proper bulb wattage, so the smaller the screen, the less bulb power is required to provide an adequately lit picture.

Problem is, most of the chain theaters -- those operated by Regal, Cinemark and AMC in Austin -- use extremely large screens in their multiplexes, possibly without proper bulb size or bulb output. Generally, larger multiplex screens demand at least a 3,000-watt bulb but should have a 4,000-watt bulb for an optimal picture.

Something I had never thought of complaining about - and how often does that happen?

What I learned from watching Vertigo:

1. If you throw yourself into the San Francisco Bay, unstable men will fall madly in love with you.
2. The two most important skills for good detective work are notetaking and parking your car about 1/3 block behind the car you're following.
3. Sweaters with high collars that button all the way down the front are not sexy.
4. When talking to the man you're in love with, don't call yourself "Mother," because it's terrifying.

Skip the dating show bit in TAP: Web Feature: Queer Factor and read the part about Queer Eye. The "cartoon utopia" aspect is precisely why I enjoy the show so much - and why I enjoyed the film Big Eden despite some character development shortcomings. It is lovely to have even a one-hour vision of what the world is like when straight people and gay people aren't scared of each other.

Reading: Could not finish The System. I would have quit my job in despair. So it's How the Irish Saved Civilization, which is delightfully well written and tends to make me laugh quietly on the bus every few pages. And now I know much more about Rome. And I have realized that I'm just not all that Irish. Really. I'm just too much of a coward and an anti-hedonist. Plus, going into battle *naked*? You could get *hurt*!

Listening: Pete Yorn, The Ukrainians, Cake, Nick Cave, and a few other things that make me feel so alternative...but we all know I sing along to Belinda Carlisle's "Mad About You" when I hear it in the grocery store.

Watching: Agni Varsha was the last movie, I think. I watched the entire thing without realizing that the female lead (Sonali Kulkarni as Nittilai) was also Pooja in Dil Chahta Hai, which I loved loved loved. Agni Varsha struck me as extremely Shakespearian, and I'm just barely educated enough that I said "Aha!" when I saw this on IMDB: "The story is derived from the myth of Yavakri, which is a part of the great Indian epic, the Mahabharata."

I'm also plowing through reruns of Cybill as fast as the chick channel can air them. I don't know why I find sitcoms so reassuring. They are not Shakespearian at all. Shakespearian and reassuring are opposites, though, so maybe that helps explain it.

Reading: The System, by Haynes Johnson and David S. Broder - next to last politics book that C. lent me before she left. Very long, but then I'll know why I have lame health insurance.
(Also Planetary, thanks to I-ROCK, who is probably under the misapprehension he will get it back. Poor fellow.)

Listening: Ashley MacIsaac - the new one only has three good songs, very disappointing after Helter's Celtic. A man who wrote a celtic fiddle tune called "Andy Renwick's Ferret" shouldn't be allowed to do trite love lyrics.
(Also Ministry's Psalm 69, but only the once since I bought it. Today, while writing a grant.)

Watching: Last two movies were Junglee and Greenfingers. The former was fabulous, the latter utterly predictable but mildly charming. I couldn't quite work out the time in Junglee. People get stuck in a snowstorm with only enough rations for a hike up the mountain, and by the time they get back (alive and healthy, with no grocery shopping or hunting/gathering shown) a woman who was six months pregnant when they left now has an infant son. It was a little suspicious. But Shammi Kapoor concinvincingly played a wide range as his character was transformed - by the end of the film I had trouble even recalling the physical appearance of his character at the beginning, he moved and behaved so differently.

Alan Moore: I read League. Well, I tried. Maybe The Watchmen was the apex of your career - it was amazing, and revolutionary, and I loved it. This...

Guy at Dragon's Lair: When I told you my heart was breaking because The Invisibles was over, you recommended Transmetropolitan instead of Planetary. What the hell were you thinking? I could have been reading Planetary years ago!!

My Own Common Sense: How did you not predict that Tadpole would be so vicariously socially awkward that you couldn't bear to finish watching it? However, it was an extremely cool feeling to just go into the indie video store and rent whatever I wanted. I had already cut up my Blockbuster card, so I didn't get the $2 off or whatever they were offering to help me transition away from sending my money on censorship.

I could not have set my expectations low enough for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The best thing about it was the matinee pricing.

However, my walk there proved that I now live only 15 minutes away from The Alamo Drafthouse North and The Quilt Store. They're in the same parking lot - it's very convenient.

If you're not all going to see Harry Potter on Friday night, there's something terribly wrong with you.

A horror movie populated by extremely cheerful people. Seriously, they don't seem all that stressed by having a blood-sucking alien stomping around hanging people upside down in the greenhouse and shredding up dogs to feed the podlings that will take over the Earth. I actually started to suspect the woman *was* a podling, so insignificant was her fear reaction to these events. But it was kind of cool that she didn't faint. And she tied her boyfriend to a chair, so that's good.

"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" was eminently satisfying, and has aged wonderfully. Without the visuals, I'm even curious whether the time period would even be distinguishable. (Well, the reactions would seem a bit extreme unless they changed the accents to deep Southern.) While watching "issue" movies and television shows, I am often irritated that the characters don't seem to be using the best points available in their arguments - not so here. The characters' reactions are fully developed, realistic, and no one is the bad guy or the hero. Characters are, by turns, selfish, insensitive, fearful, joyful, naive, and compassionate. The film allows for a discussion about racism and race relations without polarization or playing on your sympathies. Quite an accomplishment.

Kudos as well to the Turner Classic Movies channel for having a "host" who tells you little bits about the movie and its stars at the beginning and end. Those of us who weren't around when these movies came out find these things quite interesting. As I pointed out to my grandfather wrt classical music, often these contextualizing factors help people make personal connections with unfamiliar materials, which can lead to greater enjoyment. I think he still prefers the all-music no-announcing style of radio broadcasting, but he did acknowledge my point that purveyors of non-mainstream culture often have to change to appeal to new audiences.

I've been thinking about Minority Report for a while, wanting to say something but not knowing what to say. But I think I have it: The only way you could enjoy this movie is if you actually were surprised that someone could mess with the system. Unfortunately, it's not really possible to be surprised about that. Oh well.

Here's what I have to say about Episode 2:

What, women are biologically defective in the force? One woman on the council, 4 or 5 more in the big fight. Irritating.

But the last 45 minutes did kick ass.