Skip to main content

in-flight movie reviews

Outgoing Flight:
Christmas With the Kranks: gave it a miss, or maybe it wasn't playing.
Kindergarten Cop: I saw and enjoyed this in theaters a long time ago. It doesn't hold up at all. Who the hell is the love interest in this movie? She went up fast and disappeared quick, like a bottle rocket. Whatsit? Penelope Ann Miller? And the villain and his mom? Pure 80's suspension-of-disbelief-stretching movie kitsch.
Must Love Dogs: gave it a miss; I'll watch John Cusack in almost anything. Almost.
The Perfect Man: gave it a miss. Was that Heather Locklear?
The Polar Express: Not /nearly/ as bad as I'd expected. The Uncanny Valley comparisons are not unfair; the characters are all, to a one, very creepy. Where they should have used unmanipulated motion capture data or hand-animated the whole thing, they stay in some middle-of-the-road compromise that looks as unnatural as the weirdly facial motion-captured "acting." Truth to tell, they should have used a greenscreen technique like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow did. However there are musical segments that are a lot of fun, gorgeous sets and impossible camera movements that are really just breathtaking.
Seabiscuit: gave it a miss
X2: X-Men United: Stunning how well Brian Singer captures the feeling of what made the X-Men comics great, and updates it just enough for grown-ups and film transition.

The flight over pretty much sucked for movies. Luckily it was just over eight hours, nothing like the twelve hour return flight.

Comments

  1. I once had something to say about being partially unsuccessful in not watching "The Perfect Man". Without audio, it looks like crap. Maybe on the audio track they were just slamming on the bad writing. That would've been ok.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tony diTerlizzi and classic D&D monsters

The sixth entry of his series on drawings of classic D&D monsters is up. He's one of my favorite fantasy artists. His work tends toward the charming and cozy, rather than others' focus on machismo or melodrama.

sad fate

“Our legendary personalities are evergreen ‘brands’ with the benefit of worldwide recognition,” reads a message on the Richman agency’s website. Guardian UK Article *vomits* Where is the line drawn between “public figure” and “celebrity”? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It’s one thing to insist that Duck Soup is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn’t personalities and such pass into the public domain as well? ( boingboing : Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al )

on sheeps and androids

The movie Blade Runner is very dear to my heart. It is a treatise on the nature of existence expanding on, and perhaps exceeding the reach of the Phillip K. Dick work which inspired it, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Perhaps I have missed out on some greater subtlety of PKD's work, but the point of DADoES pursues the definition of fake, while Blade Runner instead focuses on what is real. Where the replicants in the novel are sociopathic monsters who emulate emotions solely to gain traction against humans who may hunt them, the humans there rely on machines to dictate their own emotions for them. They dial for "energetic determination" or "six-hour self-accusatory depression." As much as the replicants are machines incapable of real emotion, humans are similarly reliant on a machine to simulate emotion for them. In contrast, the movie's central them is spelled out for us in Deckard's apartment, when Rachel is playing the piano. She professe...