Posts Tagged ‘movies’

Ariel Had Great Legs

Saturday, April 19th, 2003

Dear Little Bald Bastard,
  Who do you feel is the most attractive Disney character?

- F’ing Goofy

Dear F’ing,
  It’s a little difficult to fathom being terribly attracted to characters from what are, generally, movies made for seven-year-olds. However, when put on the spot, I’d have to say Bruce Willis in The Kid. There’s just something intriguing about an actor who can make every line of a light comedy sound like “I’m going to break my fucking agent’s neck.”

It Went Down The Hatch

Wednesday, June 6th, 2007

Dear Little Bald Bastard,
  Where has all the rum gone?
- Capt. JS

Dear Capt.,
  I used it to host a Pirates Of The Caribbean drinking game. It’s very simple; put on the first film of the trilogy, and drink every time someone says the word “pirate.” Most of my guests were dead from alcohol poisoning by the end of the second reel.

Question #112: Obligatory Thanksgivingness

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

Dear Little Bald Bastard,
  So, what are you thankful for?
- Bringin’ Turkey Back

Dear Bringin’ Turkey Back,
  I’m thankful that Jerry Seinfeld’s Bee Movie got the modest, tasteful marketing campaign that a film of its obvious artistic merit so richly deserved.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Question #117: Holiday 2007 Postmortem

Friday, January 4th, 2008

Dear Little Bald Bastard,
  What’s your favorite part of the holidays?
- Elf Help

Dear Elf Help,
  My favorite part of the Winter goodwillgasm is when it’s finally over. The trappings are packed away and the insane amount of refuse and discarded wrapping is hauled away to the landfill. Radio stations shelve the all-Christmas tunes and go back to their brain-numbingly horrible soft rock and adult contemporary schedules. People drop the rotting veneer of holiday spirit and go back to being unbelievable pricks.

  And yet, there are nuggets of real enjoyment buried amongst the vast strip mine of treacle, especially for veteran cranks like myself. One of those compact bundles of corrosive glee is the 2004 animated train wreck The Polar Express.

  Screenwriter/director Robert Zemeckis is either a black-hearted, cynically commercial holiday troll or a pathetically desperate believer in the secular magic of Christmas. Whatever his motivation, Zemeckis and his team of animators managed to turn a 32 page children’s book into a feature length Christmas freakout.

  I love this movie because it fails so spectacularly. It wants so hard to be a warm parable about the wonder of the season and the magic of belief, punctuated by family-friendly thrills. But despite all efforts, it steams right past the village of Holiday Charm and derails just outside of Fucking Creepyville. Here are just a few of the unsettling elements of this Christmas creepfest.

The Animation: The rich, warm painted illustrations of the book are replaced by a gasping attempt at photorealistic animation. Everything is rendered in crisp, hyperaware detail, which makes the human characters really odd to look at. To be fair, the animators are pitting their processing power against millennia of evolution teaching our brains how to interpret human faces. The result crashes right into the Uncanny Valley; the faces are too detailed to be cartoonish, but not quite human enough to be… well, human. As a result, the non-intoxicated viewer can’t help but twitch a little bit every time one of the human faces is in close-up.

The Scary Train: Let’s start with the fact that this train is clearly haunted. Not only is there a hobo who appears to live on top of the train, but he’s a DEAD HOBO GHOST. Maybe it’s just because I’m old, but I suspect I’d be too freaked out by the fact that I’d been hanging out with a dead hobo to be all that impressed by meeting Santa.
  Next, let’s talk about safety features. Rather, let’s talk about the total lack of safety features. Why is a train, specifically intended to transport curious pre-adolescents, designed in such a way that a passenger can scamper onto the roof? And why does the track seem to be laid out in such a way as to pretty much guarantee mortal peril? Again, maybe I’m showing my age, but I think the pants-filling scares of nearly crashing and derailing several times, not to mention almost falling off the top of a moving train riding on what is essentially a roller coaster track, would put me right out of the mood to believe in a benevolent winter spirit.

The North Pole: Santa’s Fortress Of Holi-tude is usually depicted as a homey place, with fireplaces and overstuffed armchairs and earnest elven workers making wooden toys by hand. Santa keeps the naughty and nice lists, but nobody worries about how he actually knows the moral balance of each child’s soul. He just knows.
  This is, of course, an absurdly quaint and sentimental notion. To manufacture and ship billions of toys a year would require a huge facility, armies of workers, and assembly line automation that would make Henry Ford’s colon explode. To give Zemeckis credit, his North Pole, modeled after a railroad car manufacturing complex, tackles this conundrum. It’s huge, cavernous, and mechanized to the hilt.
  There are two issues with this approach. First, it sort of undermines the whole “belief” message. Who needs to believe in magic when there’s a giant conveyor belt shuffling thousands of machine-wrapped packages off to be shipped. Second, the whole place is creepier than Grandma’s thong drawer. It’s massive and empty. Christmas carols play on a skipping record player, and tinny speakers echo in the vast spaces. (If Hideo Nakata ever directs a glacially-paced horror movie set at Christmas, he’ll have his soundtrack.) A skeleton crew of elves mutters Yiddish slang while keeping tabs on the children of the world, peering at them on a giant bank of video monitors straight out of Orwell’s dream journal. Giant machinery sits brooding, lurching to life without anyone at the controls. It’s the antithesis of the traditional North Pole, and the least heartwarming place outside Hades.

The Elves: So much is wrong with the movie’s version of Santa’s traditional indentured servants that I have a hard time even seeing them. My brain tries to focus on other details of the scene, so that I won’t have to look at them directly. To start with, they suffer from the same not-quite-lifelike facial animation plaguing the human characters. This is compounded by the exaggerated features that are supposed, I guess, to look comical, but just come off as unsettling. They look like the world’s sprightliest nursing home patients, with big floppy ears, long pointy noses, and eyes that scream about centuries of cabin fever. All of this is stuck onto tiny bodies so small that, even to the 10 year old protagonist, they’re running around just below eye level.
  To make matters worse, there are millions of the little lunatics. When they all pack into the square surrounding the North Pole, it looks like an inside out ant colony.
  The final straw is the Steven Tyler elf, who appears to sing about how the elves all rock out after Santa departs. That guy is weird enough looking, and the transposition of his features onto such a cringe-inducing character design kind of makes one wish he’d done us all the favor of overdosing when he was still doing heroin.

Know-It-All (That Fucking Kid With The Yellow Pajamas And The Horn-Rimmed Glasses): All of the other kids sound like kids. Why are they hanging out with a “child” who is clearly a middle-aged Jewish man?

Tom Hanks: I respect Tom Hanks. He’s a good actor and, based on interviews I’ve heard, seems like a genuinely decent person. That said, why are we forced to pretend that he’s a competent voice actor? Was there no other voice talent available that week? Hanks had to voice the Father, the Conductor, the Dead Hobo, the Janitor, the Guy With The Wart, and God? All of these characters are clearly Tom Hanks. The small affectations he puts on aren’t enough to distinguish any of the voices from the others. Why do we have to pretend that they are?

The Difficulty Of Believing: Let me say that I am a skeptic. I like to see evidence before I believe in things, especially extraordinary things like, say, a fat guy in a sleigh who delivers toys to billions of kids in a single night. That said, how much do you need to experience before you start to buy the party line? A bell flies off a reindeer’s harness and lands at your feet and now you finally buy it all? We’re talking about a kid who has literally climbed into Santa’s actual toy bag, and been dropped out of the sky into his sleigh. Somebody tell the Tooth Fairy that she’d better punch this kid in the nuts if she doesn’t have all night.

  In short, it seems like the message of this film is something like “you’d better believe, or we’ll freak you out until you do.” Alright, Mr. Zemeckis, you win. Just don’t make me look at Steven Tyler elf anymore.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Necessary Linkage

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

  Expelled Exposed, a website set up by the National Center for Science Education to counter the lies in the creationist propaganda film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

  I’ll be haranguing you about this more thoroughly in the near future. In the meantime, check out Expelled Exposed, and you’ll know why I’m foaming at the mouth and biting chunks out of the walls.

Question #123: Bile Expelled

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

Dear Little Bald Bastard,
  Why haven’t you been screaming off the top of your lungs about this Expelled movie? It looks like something that would really wind you up.
- TooDo0od

Dear TooDo0od,
  Sure enough, I have been keeping a quivering, rage-filled eye on the marketing of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If you’ve just gotten Internet access in your cave, Expelled is an odious piece of creationist propaganda that purports to uncover a vast conspiracy by “Big Science” that keeps legitimate evidence for “Intelligent” Design out of the science classroom, and ruins the careers of innocent scientists who dare to question the “Darwinist” regime.

  The exploits of the movie’s producers are legendary and widely documented. They lied to secure the participation of prominent science advocates like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott. They prevented Myers from attending a screening, and then lied about why they did it. They’ve packed screenings with creationist wonks, while trying to exclude legitimate film critics.

  The film appears to be as incompetent as its producers. It quickly abandons its central thesis in favor of a ridiculous (and entirely ahistorical) attempt to blame Charles Darwin for the Holocaust and Stalinism. It tries (and fails) to cast Ben “Bueller…” Stein as a right-wing Michael Moore. It gets wrong basic facts about the scientists whose careers it purports to defend, and about the evolutionary science that it blames for all the world’s ills. And apparently, it’s an all around amateur mess.

  All of this is tangential, though, to the actual question. Why haven’t I weighed in on the controversy surrounding the movie? Why wouldn’t I go all head-splodey over a creationist flick that claims scientists are conspiring to keep “Intelligent” Design out of science and science education, and that other researchers are losing their jobs for taking “I”D seriously?

  It’s true that the controversy has been thoroughly dissected by just about every blogger with an interest in science or religion. I doubt my contribution to the general chatter will be at all interesting or enlightening. But that’s not the real reason. The real reason…

  I wish they were right.

  “Intelligent” Design is a non-testable, non-falsifiable hypothesis, for which not one shred of verifiable evidence has ever been discovered. It’s entirely based on the ignorance and misunderstanding of fools, who believe that their inability to comprehend the details of evolution means that their idea must be better. Their whole argument consists of pointing out parts of evolutionary theory that haven’t quite been ironed out, and pretending that those wrinkles support their nonsensical alternative.

  Call it Creationism, call it “Intelligent” Design, call it Magic Dancing Deity Jizz - call it whatever you want. It’s NOT. FUCKING. SCIENCE.

  I would love it if real scientists had the necessary combination of will, clout and impressive genitalia that it would take to grind this nonsense out of science education once and for all. Every time I read about another school board trying to inject religion into public science education in the guise of a non-existent scientific controversy, I want to take a road trip just so that I can throw up all over the officials responsible. I want to force feed them pages of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, brand the First Amendment on their chests, and then vomit on them until they resign.

  I would also be just fine with the summary firing of any scientist whose grasp of the scientific method is so tenuous that he or she agrees with Creationist arguments as they’re currently framed. If you want to be a scientist who believes in “Intelligent” Design, fine. But you damn well better come up with evidence to support your argument, or be willing to check your faith at the laboratory door. Science, REAL science, is all about evidence and examination, and letting other scientists test your conclusions to their limits. If you can’t handle that, you’re not a scientist, and you should go get a job with the Discovery Institute.

  So there you go. I’ve held off on mentioning the whole Expelled mess because, in my cold, dark, secret heart, I wish that they had a valid point. If anybody actually read my blog, I’m sure I’d be in for criticism for fueling their righteous fire. (As if these hacks had gathered anything remotely flammable on their own.)

  I’m going to slither off my soapbox now, but I want to say one last thing. Mr. Stein, show us one, ONE piece of evidence, ONE THING that is not a straw man swipe at Darwin or a ridiculous conflation of evolution with genocide. Show us that one piece of evidence, or shut your fucking lie hole.

JC Penney: Get High For Back To School

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

If you’ve gone to the movies in the last month, you’ve probably seen the new JC Penney ad. It strangles The Breakfast Club, stomps out everything mildly interesting and replaces it with 60 seconds of brand powered suck. The ad threads blandified bits of several recognizable moments into its main appropriation, the scene where all of the detentionees dance all around the library. Of course, library dancing on a Saturday afternoon is the secret dream of every disaffected teen.

Which leads me to a few questions. Did anybody on the advertising team actually see The Breakfast Club? If yes, did they not remember that the characters started dancing around in the library because they were all high? Was this something that a hip young ad agency guy snuck past the corporate suits, or was everyone involved too strung out on quality Park Avenue blow to notice? Why does JC Penney want our childrens to be struck down by the demon weed?

As a side note, I am now determined to never get stoned, for fear of waking up in plaid cargo shorts and a polo shirt.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States