Satan's Evil Aide: Don't worry, I'll go to Earth and get them to put the feeding tube back in.
Satan: But how?
Aide: I'll do what we always do: use the Republicans.

South Park managed last night, in a scant 30 minutes, to cover The Lord of the Rings, The Sony PSP and the Terry Schiavo controversy. Hell has a big population advantage over heaven (invoking canon from the show, of all the different religions it turns out the Mormons were right and only they got to go to heaven.) Satan was going to use this to invade Heaven all Mordor style. God's gonna be outnumbered, so he created the PSP to send to Earth to find the master human strategist to lead his armies (Last Starfighter style!)

Kenny get a PSP and it turns out he's the master strategist. His death is arranged by heaven, but then just as they're getting ready a doctor revives him back on Earth, trapping his soul in his body which is kept alive by a feeding tube:

He's just like the Kenny you know, but more like a tomato.

Cartman desperately tries to get the feeding tube taken out (Kenny left him his PSP in his will) while Stan and Kyle want to see their friend live. Heaven wants the feeding tube out so Kenny can run their armies, while Hell wants it in so they can win the battle.

It all works out in the end, and a suspiciously Minas Tirith looking heaven is saved.

Brilliant!

At least you'll never be a vegetable - even artichokes have hearts.

Amelie is a wonderfully sweet, quirky movie. Whimsy is a hard thing to do in movies and make it work. It's especially hard when done like it is in Amelie, where everything is fast paced, tangents are everywhere, and none of the main characters approximate normal people. It's like a short exursion into a fantasy world, and that theme is supported by the visual style, dialog, colors, and most importantly the scattered naration.

I had a lot of fun watching this movie, as most do (it is well loved.) But I actually found the subtitles to get in the way more then they typically do. Subtitles always detract a little from watching a movie, it's just not the same as hearing the actors deliver the lines in a language you understand. But the other problem is by definition you're watching the subtitles instead of the movie. This is problematic for movies with lots of dialog, and especially fast paced dialog. Amelie suffered from this a bit, not because of the dialog, but more because of the extensive natation. During all those great overview and montage shots the narrator is talking, usually very quickly, and it was tough for me to really take in the scenes and take in what the narrator was saying.

It wasn't too bad though, I just had to pay attention while watching. And I still greatly enjoyed myself. Nothing like warm and happy movies.

There is no settling down! This is blood for blood and by the gallons. This is the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days. They're back!

I started drafting an Evite for a Sin City movie night on Friday night, and just kept on writing. I easily blew away Evite's 3000 character maximum, and thought I should share those musings with the world. If you're in Seattle Friday night and would like to be invited just let me know, I'll add you to the list. That said, here's my preview for Sin City:

Minor Spoilers: But nothing you don't see in many previews or press releases

Sin City is a series of graphic novels (comics in book form, for those of you who aren't geeks) by the great Frank Miller. Miller has done a lot of ground breaking work, most notably the Dark Knight Returns Batman books, and many people see the Sin City books as the best work of his career. They are sadistic, dark, twisted, and very stylized. All indications are the movie is just the same way.

Robert Rodriguez, one of Hollywood's most creative directors, took on this project because he's a big fan of Miller's work. He's such a big fan that he heavily involved Miller and is sharing a directing credit with him (note that he got kicked out of the Directors Guild of America for that move too, the guy's a true believer.) Rodrigues likes to make his movies with small digital cameras and in an ambitious move this entire movie was filmed on them with no real sets, they've all been drawn in with a very comic book feel. The trailers show off how stylized this movie is. If you haven't seen the trailers in the big media blitz they've been putting on, I suggest you go watch them here.

The movie is actually structured as three smaller stories, each from one of Miller's books. In the original Sin City Marv, a tough guy, meets the girl of his dreams. After they consumate his love (she's a hooker) she is killed in bed next to him. He then goes off on a murderous mission to avenge her. In That Yellow Bastard Hardigan, a veteran cop, rescues an 11 year old girl but goes to prison in the process. He gets out eight years later and is determined to make sure she's ok. Sadly, she's now a stripper with some unpleasant admirers. In The Big Fat Kill a client gets disrespectful with a ring of prostitues and they kill him. Unfortunately he was well connected, starting a gang war in the streets between the prostitues, the mob, and the cops. This is dark stuff, you can open a Sin City book to any page you like and you'll see something unpleasant - and the movie is sicking closely to the books.

The good news is the it appears to be very well made. Right now on Rotten Tomatoes there's only one review that doesn't like it. But here's a quote from that review:

Film noir on steroids; a movie so cool you’re not supposed to be concerned about its total lack of moral grounding. Nor its profound sexism. Nor its misanthropic nihilism.

There's a lot of talent involved here as well. Besides Rodriguez and Miller, Quentin Tarantino is listed as a guest director (he likely directed an intro or a flashback or something, but possibly as much as one of the three sub-stories.) And there's enough cast here for three movies, which makes sense, since it really is three movies. The cast includes: Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Elijah Wood, Benicio Del Toro, Jessica Alba, Michael Clarke Duncan, Josh Hartnett, Michael Madsen, Jaime King, Brittany Murphy, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, and Alexis Bledel. As Roger Ebert noticed "How is it possible that Tom Sizemore is not in this thing?"

All of that should be enough for you to know if you're interested in this movie or not, which I guess is the whole point of a preview (in my world, in Hollywood's world it's to make you interested whethere you should be or not in order to inflate opening weekend box office numbers.) If you go see this movie be prepared for a relentless, sadistic, and ultra-stylized experience that has no redeeming value what so ever. I personally can't wait.

It has to be done, it's God's will

Most of the time I was watching Fraility I couldn't get over how disturbing it was. But oddly enough by the end of the movie it had managed to morph. I wasn't sure about it any more. Yes, it was still super-disturbing. But the movie hints that everything is ok. That instead of this being a tour of extraordinarily derranged people it's a supernatural thriller instead.

Similarly, for most of this movie I kept thinking "this is well made, but what's the point." I didn't really find it to be all that entertaining. Of course, horro and thriller movies are not really my genre.

So there you go. Well made, well acted, and fairly interesting. But super disturbing, not enough plot development until the end, and not really my thing.

Yvonne: Where were you last night?
Rick: That's so long ago, I don't remember.
Yvonne: Will I see you tonight?
Rick: I never make plans that far ahead.

There are obviously lots of famous quotes from Casablanca but that one had a special ring to it. I liked it both because it was quick and witty and because the second line (I never make plans that far ahead) gets recycled by Ilsa during the Paris flashback.

For me the best thing about Netflix is I force myself to add movies to my queue that I otherwise wouldn't watch, like Casablanca. Sure, this is a great piece of classic cinema. But I find as I watch these great old movies that I really don't enjoy them all that much. They're interesting to watch, and I recognize their quality - but the style just doesn't jive with me.

I think it's the lack of subtlety in the filmmaking. The dialog is choppy and unnatural. The cameras are static. The music is overpowering and forceful. Filmmaking has come a long way, especially in the last 20 years, and I must admit I'm shallow enough to really like the improvements.

Sure, these old films have great sentimental value. But I challenge you to put the great films of the past up next to the great films of today and claim the movies of the past are better. Like many areas today's films are better because they get the benefits of fifty years of progress.

No! No!
Make that cat go away!
Tell that Cat in the Hat
You do NOT want to play.
He should not be here.
He should not be about.
He should not be here
When your mother is out!

My back has me saddles up in bed or on the couch most of this week, which I admit has sort of degraded my entertainment intake. I go through the old TV I had saved, and today watched most of The Cat In The Hat. I must say this movie has lived up to the poor reviews it got.

Sure, the colors are bright and vibrant. And the acting is overdone as expected (and I suppose required for a movie like this.) But it just falls flat. I waited it out until the Things show up, but they didn't do much for me.

It's ok, it was on HBO so giving up on it is as easy as changing the channel. No harm, no foul.

100% of men polled said that when they broke up with someone, it always meant that they didn't want to go out with them anymore.

I read He's Just Not That Into You last night (yes, that was quick - but the book is fluffy, is in a large font, has small pages, and there's only 160 of them.) This book was a nice break from the much more dense, and excellent, Guns, Germs and Steel that I've been slowly working through for an embarassingly long time.

He's Just Not That Into You was written by two Sex and the City writers: Liz, a no-nonense single woman, and Greg, a happily married stright guy (the only straight guy on the writing staff, and he was only a consultant from time to time) who came up with line in the first place. The book they wrote is funny, but repetitive, since they repeat the same basic message over and over again.

Their basic thesis is that you deserve to be happy, you deserve to be with a partner who makes you happy, and if your current partner isn't doing that he's only taking up time and preventing you from meeting the guy out there who will. They claim that if your guy is causing you to second guess things about the relationship, wait by the phone for when he said he'd call, not going out with you very often, etc. it's all just symptomatic of a guy who's just not that into you. If a guy is really into you he won't let you forget it, he'll make sure you don't get frustrated and go off searching for someone else.

One of the biggest themes of the book is all of the guy's bad behavior is his fault. He's not that into you, he's afraid of being honest, so instead he'll just disengage and hope the thing runs it's course without him having to be all confrontational about it. At this point the book strays a little bit, it's letting the women off the hook too. Shouldn't they be reflective and see ways they can improve their communication and relationship skills to not let it all deteriorate like that? If there's a string of guys who all disengage for the same reasons could it be her fault instead? Might she want to focus on being a better person. If you pay very close attention it's all ok though. They talk in a couple of places about this. They say instead of wasting your time and energy on a guy who's just not that into you, instead spend that time and energy being happy on your own, not needed a boyfriend for happiness, becoming a better person. This is great advice on a lot of levels. Being a happy, independent woman makes you more attractive to real men. Plus, it makes you less susceptible to settling for that guy who's not really your match.

The one big caution I have is to not take some of the stuff in the initial chapters too far. Greg talks about how men like to chase women, and it's better if the chase is a little hard. This may or may not be true - but you should never intentionally make it harder. This has all kinds of bad consequences:
1 - He might get dissuaded and give up (note: this is not a mixed message, this is him thinking it's not going anywhere and cutting his losses, just like this book counsel's women to do.)
2 - It undermines the trust and honesty you're building in a new relationship, and you do want trust and honesty to be a part of your relationship right?

Overall I suggest never making anything a test in your relationship. Sure, we all play a few games at the very early stages (like, before the first date) but that's just an attempt to survery the field without risking much rejection. Once you've actually gone out it's time to cut that crap and be honest with eachother.

The book may be a little exteme in some of it's notions, but I think that's good. Most people are too conservative in this area, so if they take this all to heart they'll meet the book in the middle - which seems pretty close to the right place.

Remember, if you're getting mixed messages from the guy (he's always busy, not calling you when he said, not wanting to tear your clothes off) it's because he's just not that into you, but doesn't want to tell you that. But you deserve someone who will be that into you, so cast the current guy aside and start looking for the right one.

Oooh, just for fun I have to include one of my favorite quotes. It's Liz writing about those dastardly guys that just disappear, making you wonder if the bailed or if they're in a coma in a hospital somewhere pining for you (sorry, that only happens in the movies):

Greg would say that we have the answer. He didn't want to stick around, and wasn't man enough to tell us to our face. Isn't that answer enough? That's when I would say to Greg, "No, actually it's not. That answer's definitely not good enough. I want to know why." And then greg would say, "Really? Are you sure? Do you really need him to detail every last reason why he didn't feel like seeing you ever again?"
I hate Greg.

Now if only someone would write a She's Just Not That Into You! I'd buy that book...

Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't

Spoilers Included

Instead of going to the gym after work today I went and saw Million Dollar Baby. There's not much I say about this movie, except it's often nice to just sit and watch a good movie. This was one of those times. I didn't see many of the nominations for best picture, director, actress, and supporting actor (all awards this film won) so I can't hem and haw about who deserved what - but I can say that I'm not complaining that Million Dollar Baby won those awards. All in all an excellent movie.

It also rang true for me because one of my greatest fears is to be debilitatingly injured. I don't do a lot of crazy high risk things. But there's lots of opportunity for it out there. I don't think about it much, and the fear doesn't stop me from doing things, but seeing it gives me the chills and reminds me of that fear.

I'm not going to sugar coat it for you, he's just not that in to you.

I'm taking care of some work at home with Sex and the City reruns on TBS in the background. The episode "Pick a little, talk a little" from seaon six is on and Ron Livingston just dropped some fabulous quotes.

Miranda was rehashing a date she went on where he dropped her off, they kissed, she invited him up, he said no ("he had an early meeting") they kissed again and then he took off. The girls were saying things like "two kisses, that's promising." When good old Ron (I still can't watch him without thinking about Office Space) broke the bad news.

He's just not that into you.

Ron dropped the bad news that there are no extenuating circumstances when you invite the guy up. Tired? Early start the next day? Have the flu? Broken leg? If you're into her it doesn't matter. All obstacles that can be dealt with. If she invites you up, you make it happen.

The girls reeled! Thinking of all the mixed messages they'd received and tried to decipher over the years. Ron just said "nope, sorry, he's just not that into you." If he's really into you, there are no mixed messages. I thought that was very insightful.

There are lots of notes though:
1 - Just because he's not that into you now doesn't mean that's the way it will be forever. Sometimes it takes a little time to really fall for someone (think back, have you ever fallen for someone over time, same deal.)

2 - There are a few exceptions of things you just can't make work. The show brought up diarrhea, I'm not thinking of others off the top of my head but I'm sure they're out there.

3 - While I stand my ground that there will be no mixed messages in this case, I make no guarantees of what will actually happen when you get upstairs (translation: you may not be getting any.) Believe it or not, many men, including myself, feel it is wise to have the physical and emotional pieces of a relationship progress at a similar pace - without one jumping in front of the other.

4 - Occasionnally you'll find some mixed messages in the initial times or in the process of planning dates. This is mostly an attempt to not seem over eager (see Swingers or The Tao of Steve for more on this.) But once you're on the date, you've kissed, and you invite him inside - all that goes right out the window.

5 - This stuff only applies at the start. Once you've passed through those early stages (read: done it a few times) the rules change. Excuses may crop up. Don't worry about this so much - it's just a natural biproduct of the male focus on conquest.

6 - This whole thing reminded me that my friend Kim recently read and recommended the book He's Just Not That Into You which was conveniently written by an Executive Story Editor of... Sex and the City. Turns out according to the Amazon editorial review, the book was based on and extended from this episode. I now have to add it to my to read list.

What's the charge this time?
Striking a superior asshole.

A few years ago the Sci Fi channel remade the classic series Battlestar Gallactica as a miniseries. Then this year they've continued the story as a regular TV series. I've never seen the classic series from the 70's and I missed the miniseries when it played. But I did start watching the new TV show when it started this year.

I enjoyed it, and there was some background story I didn't really understand. So I had NetFlix send me the DVD of the miniseries and watched it. The feel of the miniseries is just the same as the TV series, which was kind of strange. Instead of watching a three hour movie, it was like watching three TV episodes back to back.

Overall I think what they're doing with the series is quite interesting. In the sci-fi space the theme is familiar - human race decimated by our own creation (robots in this case.) There are some original pieces though. The idea that the entirety of humanity is just who happened to be out in a spaceship when the attacks happened is neat, and it gives them lots of good plot points since now everyone has to survive on ships that are designed to have a support system back home, but now there's not system. Other interesting pieces are robots that not just look like people, but are integrated into the population as sleeper agents that don't even know they're robots.

I think the series premier, 33, is the most intriguing so far and was a great hour of TV. When this series comes out of DVD I recommned watching at least that episode to see if grabs you.

Recent episodes have made me worry a bit about the overall direction of the show. The whole plot with Dr Baltar having visios of his past cylon lover and their talks about God have been interesting, but are starting to both overwhelm the show and drag a little. Also, they've started doing a bit of destiny, spiritual stuff which can always go bad. Sci-Fi often falls into this trap of mysticism which sits on top of the technology. The trouble is you can explain technology through normal advances but it takes a lot more work to make mysticism work and be explained.

Now you don't have to always explain mystecism. Sometimes you can just allow it to exist as part of the world space. But to do that the mysticism needs to be a core piece of the world. With Battlestar Gallactica the story started out having very little mysticism, but now is being slowly revealed. This makes it a mystery and feels inconsistent with the rest of the world set up - and makes us as an audience want them to explain what's going on.

Compare that to The Matrix and the original Star Wars movies. There is a healthy amount of mysticism in both of those, but it's set up as just a piece of the world. The audience accepts it because the mysticism is a core peice of the fabricated world. The reason science ficiton and fantasy is so cool is the creators get to make up a world for their story, but they only get to sell the audience on their new world once. They create a baseline with the initial sell and the audience will buy it - but then if they change the rules the audience expects an explaination for the changes.

But even those movies that set up the mysticism from the start are still prone to messing it all up by trying to explain it. Just look at the second two Matrix movies and the Star Wars prequels. In both they took the mysticism that audiences accepted in the originals and tried to explain it all - to very poor effect.

Saruman: "OMG, I aven't finished my base defense yet! >.<"

Guy posted about The Lord of Rings: Two Towers in Leet Speak today. I had a great time reading it, since the whole leet speak phenomena is a particularly funny and endearing (in a nerdy way) part of the the computer nerd and gamer culture. Anyway, there were some leet terms in the story that I didn't recognize, which led me off on a trip around the internet catching up on it all.

My main source for this stuff was Wikipedia which is a gem of an internet resource. It's an online, user contributed encyclopedia. This means that random internet users write and update articles for it. You may think this is scary, since the only oversight of all of this is other users. But it works surprisingly well. Give it a try instead of google next time you're trying to find encyclopedia style information.

Anyway, one of the wikipedia articles I read pointed me an article whose very existence caused me to laugh out loud at my desk. Microsoft, my estemed employer, recently published it for parents who are confused by this crazy leet speak their kids are using as they run around and play computer games online. The levels of irony and ridiculousness in this whole thing are complex and many. Without ado, visit:

A parent's primer to computer slang.

That one's for you Guy. I knew you'd love it.

Side Note: In the article they mention that '$' can often be substituted for 'S' but curiously don't mention the ubiquitous spelling of Microsoft as Micro$oft. Wonder why that is? :)

Side Note - The Sequel: If for some unknown reason you want to know more about this whole thing then the Microsoft article can teach you start with the Wikipedia article on Leet. The Microsoft article (unsurprisingly) reads like the school principal trying to explain this newfangled rock and roll stuff to some stodgy parents while the Wikipedia article feels much more natural, has more information, and links in it to *tons* of information. Have fun, and then marvel and the depths of modern computer nerdiness.

Still want more?
Read the Archives!