Panique au Village!

Everone, stop what you're doing right now and see a movie named "A Town Called Panic". Here's the trailer:

What the shit is this movie about, you ask? Well, having seen it, it's still hard to say really. But it has a cowboy and indian and grumpy horse who live in a house together and these frogmen steal their walls and then their neighbor makes her husband a breakfast of Nutella on bread that covers the entire table and their farm animals all sleep in little beds with little sheep pajamas at night and they use pigs as weapons and fire them in a house until it explodes! Does it make sense to you? Because it should make perfect sense! Bears!


Please, if you have the chance, and are someone who enjoys laughing and fun things and bears and screaming and action figures and especially if you enjoy bricks (not the cocaine kind) and or grumpy farmers (not on cocaine either), please go see this. Because this movie will love you more than you will ever love yourself. I promise.

an unnecessary rant in defense of the fan(boy)

Before we begin, I have two things to address: (1) I realize that is is a response to a review written over two months ago. Old news. Why should I even bother writing about it? Because it made me very very sad. The internet seems to be ruining my happiness lately. (First the old man 30 Rock lover is a sex offender and now this?) (2) I don't necessarily consider myself a Star Wars geek (though I have been known to make a mean tauntaun quip in my day), but I have fanboyish tendencies towards many things, so perhaps that is why this Ebert review upset me so much.

I have a bit of a beef to pick with Roger Ebert, who you may remember from my blog as the best person ever to exist. I watched Fanboys last night and enjoyed it. It wasn't a brilliant movie, but it was amusing and entertaining. Then this morning I read Roger Ebert's review of the movie. You might not want to read it. It made me very unhappy, mainly because I have such faith in Ebert, even when he is praising movies like Paul Blart: Mall Cop. I can still appreciate his reviews even when I disagree wholeheartedly with him because he is generally very consistent in how he watches movies. He critiques movies based on what they aim to be. It isn't, for instance, correct to compare a movie like Paul Blart to Ben-Hur. They are not trying to be the same thing, and thus it would be unfair to treat them alike, regardless of the quality of both movies. This is where my beef with Ebert's review of Fanboys comes into play. It seemed to me that his entire dislike of the movie stemmed from his dislike of the people it tries to depict. Before he even begins to critique the movie, he starts with a critique of fandom devotees (awkward terminology, I know, but I'm trying to differentiate here between the category of people and the movie, and it is hard so give me a break). Here's what he has to say about fanboys (lowercase f): "If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else. That's why it's excruciatingly boring to talk to such people: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to."

This is okay in itself. Ebert does not have to enjoy these people. But, as a critic, he should understand that this movie is made for these people just as Paul Blart is made for the kind of person who goes to see that movie. He should have reviewed it with that in mind, as he usually does. But he just doesn't seem to be able to get over this.

"Its primary flaw is that it's not critical. It is a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle, and I don't think it knows it..."

No, I'm pretty sure Fanboys realized it is a celebration of this lifestyle. It just doesn't (as Ebert obviously does) think that lifestyle is "idiotic". That's why the movie was made. Just as many other movies about a certain group of people is a celebration of those people. Pirates of the Caribbean is a celebration of pirates. Free Willy, a celebration of whales and boys; Ben-Hur, a celebration of chariot races; and Jurassic Park, a celebration of dinosaurs. Okay so I'm terrible at examples (although I think I would be a terrific asset to the marketing of any of those movies). It seems to only be Ebert who has labeled this lifestyle "idiotic". He can not understand the motivations of any of the characters and shrugs off the entire premise of the movie because he can not understand that a love of Star Wars is just as valid a passion as a love for anything anybody could possibly love. It's all about what makes people light up.

Fanboys wasn't a masterpiece of cinema, no, but it didn't have to be. That's not what it was aiming for. I still love you Roger Ebert, but consider us in a lovers' quarrel for the moment. Congrats on your fancy new plaque though.

Don't Worry, One Day We Will All Be Amazing Little Boys Playing With Monsters

Go watch this trailer right now and share in my joy/

(It looks so good! I am excited! Who's with me?)

PS: This is how I feel right now...

An open letter to awful

Dear Elliot Davis,

You are the worst. The absolute worst. I know you somehow continue to work in the line of work you've chosen, but that is probably just God fucking with you because you are absolutely the worst at what you do. I can say this with absolute certainty after viewing just one of your films: "Twilight". That movie/series/crazy girl fandom is terrible enough on its own without your awful awful cinematography thrown in. Circling shots cut together with other circling shots? No. Just...no. Most of the rest of this movie is blacked out from my memory as a natural response from my brain to its awfulness, but I remember those god damned circling shots, damn it. I understand this may have been the director's vision, and you are only the scapegoat for my wrath. If this is the case, I am not sorry and do not retract my previous statement because, though this may make you slightly less the worst, you are still the worst. You still chose to have your name associated with the camera work on this film, and that was completely up to you. No one was putting a gun to your head telling you to "make more circle-y shots! Yes! Yes more of those. Now, from a different angle! Yesssssssss oh yesssss oh man yes more more MORE!" If someone did do that, maybe you should have taken the bullet. You would have sacrificed yourself to uphold the forward march of film. Instead, you chose to let this movie be that much more terrible with your choices. Next time, I implore you, take the bullet.

Fitfully Yours,

Throwing up Violently in Colorado

Authors Note: I was originally going to post this on IMDB but my critique of this man's camera work grew into something of a monster and I could not in good conscience put this somewhere Elliot Davis checks regularly. I still thought it was entertaining enough to post here for my three readers. Though much vomit may have been spilled by me on behalf of this film, I still love you Elliot. I'm sure you're really great, aside from this circle bullshit. The possibility exists, I suppose, that Elliot is a regular reader of my stupid blog. The good Mama knows stranger people have been known to read it...

I'm listening to Girl Talk right now, so I'm going to call this post "sampling" rather than plagiarism...

"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make. You can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years. And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce... And they say there's no fate, but there is, it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead, or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain wasting years for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right, but it never comes. Or it seems to, but it doesn't really. So you spend your time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along, something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel cherished, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is is, I feel so angry! And the truth is, I feel so fucking sad! And the truth is, I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long, I've been pretending I'm okay, just to get along! I don't know why. Maybe because...no one wants to hear about my misery...because they have their own. Well, fuck everybody. Amen."

I could add to this but really there is nothing to add. It is beautiful and real and the most haunting part of "Synecdoche, New York", a movie I am still (weeks later) recovering from and discussing and thinking about. It is a movie that needs to be properly digested. Like an anaconda eating a hippo. The hippo is too big for the anaconda to eat, and the anaconda knows this. But it tries anyway. It may have to spit it back up and start all over again, and the anaconda might fail to digest the hippo for a second time. The hippo may never be fully digested.

A Very Harry Neely Day

Today two wonderful things arrived in the mail for me: The Tales of Beedle the Bard, and 'We Are Wizards'. I read and watched and read and then I think I went to the bathroom and ate some potatoes and bought some shit.

The book was okay. I don't know. I liked it, but the magic has ceased to work for me. I need to find some new magic. It is really fucking pretty though. I got the fucking expensive version because fuck you. I will probably used the hollowed out husk of the book the actual book came in to store cats or some shit. Cats and whiskey.

The movie was alright I guess too. Most parts were vaguely boring because I wasn't really into what they were saying at all. There was, of course, one exception. That exception being Brad Neely, golden god of the funny. My mom was peeking over the couch at the movie (for some reason, I don't know. She is a couch peeker) and laughing her head off. We are going to be Neely groupies, my mom and me. I never want him to actually read the books. It is much much better this way. The best part about Wizard People, Dear Reader is how much better he makes the story by being so horribly wrong about everything.

"Every Harry Potter fan should record a commentary for Harry Potter two, which would be really easy 'cause that movie is really good. [laughs uncontrolably]"

Before he made Wizard People, Neely was also in these really shitty infomercials. In one he plays a wheelchair man who is obsessed with this chick's earwax. In an outtake from the documentary, he talks about her theories about earwax:

"There are little hands in there making pancakes and tossing it out"

"Fucking candle ears."

In another one of the outtakes he goes to the zoo and berates all the animals. He is the best thing to happen to things since the beginning of stuff.

"That's like a fashion possum. Hangin' out in some kind of ewok village."

(looking at a monkey): "This is what happens if like a guy has sex with a cat."

There is a commentary track of just Brad Neely, which I am going to watch right now. It is going to be pure gold. Gold with turds in it.

Charlie Kaufman Articulates Things Like Nobody's Business

I just read this interview with Charlie Kaufman (he's a screenwriter, you guys...look it up) and, wow. I mean, I understand he is a professional writer, and I'm just some schmuck who can't write for the life of her, but he just...wow.

Charlie Kaufman's thoughts : me :: I can not articulate this analogy. Kaufman would be much better at this sort of thing.

I can't even write an adequate analogy. Perhaps an equation would be better:

Charlie Kaufman's thoughts > 552(x + y), where x = anything I have ever thought, ever and y = all the happiness in the world

Okay, so perhaps that's overstating and exaggerating things. I just really love the way he puts things. He'll say things like "It's a problem and it's not a problem.", "Yes and no.", and "Sometimes and sometimes not." when first responding to the interviewer's questions which might seem repetitive and contradictory, but is also the perfect way to encapsulate what he says in the rest of his response. The way that he goes about writing is something I aspire to, and I'm not even a writer. His search for truth and honesty in writing no matter what is something I really admire. His approach seems more like an approach to life more than it is strictly an approach to writing, and that's what I admire about it. He's not trying to follow a formula or a plan. He's trying to put forth a more accurate version of life in his writing, one that is confusing and not laid out beforehand and encompasses all of our past, present, and future experiences. I'm very much looking forward to seeing Synecdoche, New York (which, coincidentally, I've just learned how to say...si-nek-duh-kee. I think that's right).

In other news, I got tickets to see of Montreal in Denver next month, which I'm really excited about. Of Montreal is on a short list of bands I have made a pact to see if the opportunity arises, so I'm happy I get to see them. I haven't listened to their new album, Skeletal Lamping in full yet, but I'm working my way through it as of this writing, and I like the craziness that I hear so far. Speaking of hearing craziness, I have been listening to ridiculous amounts of The Bugle, an "audio newspaper for a visual world". It's hilarious and British and I can not recommend it enough. (subscribe via iTunes here)

I'm also working diligently on my Halloween costume, which is coming together better than I could have expected. I have the tentacles sewed and am halfway through the dragon wings. I'll probably post something more detailed about how I made it on here in the future. So you all have that to look forward to.