Pop Culture
See All Categories

Pop-Culture Retard

If "retard" means to slow or to hinder, then I am definitely retarded when it comes to popular culture. I love movies and look forward to seeing the ones that catch my interest, when I see them advertised but it's usually a loooong wait for me from the time I hear about something until I actually get to see it. There are some movies I've been wanting to see which I have NEVER seen - since we won't go to the theatre - too expensive, too annoying and too uncomfortable -  I have to wait until stuff comes out on DVD. That is if I manage to actually hear that a film is out on DVD.

Case in point? Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd - an absolute must-see for me because I'm a Tim Burton freak AND a Johnny Depp fan - plus a bit of  a freak over over just about anyone in Gothy makeup - but have I seen it yet? I have not.

Just today I discover the DVD came out last month. I have not seen it on sale anywhere. I have not been hiding in the closet for the past month. I have been out in the world, shopping and participating. I watch TV. I listen to the radio. Apparently no one thought the release of the Special Edition 2-DVD boxed set of Sweeney Todd was newsworthy. In order to find out if it was available, I had to google it.

Redman thoughtfully looked it up on The Beat Goes On's website today - apparently someone else has bought it and either didn't like it or has already made copies - and it's mine, delivered to my door for under $25. Now I just have to wait another few days to see it.

I still have to look around for Lars and the Real Girl (I think that came out, like what, last summer?) and it will be some time before I see Tropic Thunder, The Dark Knight, Ironman, Bottle Shock, Hamlet 2 or anything else that came out in the last couple of months. 

Filed under Pop Culture, Aug 20, 2008
 

Comments (0)

bar

The Not-so-Incredible Hulk

I've been a little confiused lately by television ads for the new Incredible Hulk movie. I mean, didn't Ang Lee make Hulk, like, 5 years ago? Seems to me they even parodied it on Robot Chicken. And now there's a new one with Edward Norton as Bruce Banner with memorable lines such as "I have trouble controlling certain aspects of my personality" (Tyler Durden, anyone?) My first thought was that is was a sequel but then I read that THIS version is made by Marvel Comics as a tie-in wth Iron Man. With a different cast director & pretty much an entirely new origin story it seems not like a sequel but a re-make, and this has gotta be a record for re-make turnaround — 5 years! So my confusion stems from - if this isn't a sequel, why make a new Hulk movie so soon? Is anyone actually going to go see this? (Answer - of course they will — moviegoers are sheep.) OK, so it's NOT a remake — it's a "New Interpretation".

Popular opinion has it the first version sucked out loud but I had never seen it, until they showed it Saturday night on Space - sponsored by the NEW Hulk movie. OK, now I'm doubly confused. So, what, they're using the old version to promote the new version by showing us how bad it was?

It wasn't that terrible, but perhaps a bit more thought-provoking than the usual fan-boy might want or expect, but I confess I was too tired to watch the whole thing - it was on past my bedtime, after all. The casting was pretty good - I found Nick Nolte's turn as Banner's father kind of interesting - and the CGI was adequate (better than the first Harry Potter flick, anyway.) Ang Lee was a pretty off-beat choice to direct it. It DID have the Marvel Stamp Of Approval - and Stan Lee even had a cameo in it. So what's with the revisionism on Marvel's part?

Because Robert Downey Jr. has an appearance in it as Tony Stark I'm guessing cross- promotional tie-in to Iron Man, but the Iron Man movie is made by a different production company. (The Incredible Hulk is made by Marvel Enterprises, Iron Man by Dark Blade Films.) Anyway, I'll likely wait until this one comes out on TV, but I think I might buy/watch Iron Man when it comes out on DVD.

But the whole thing just serves to point out how Hollywood has more money to throw around making pointless dumb-ass movies than is humanly imaginable. Myself, I'd rather see more movies like Fargo or The Darjeeling Limited.

Filed under Pop Culture, Jun 2, 2008
 

Comments (0)

bar

Transformers

Michael Bay’s new movie “Transformers” opens today. Is it just me, or is Hollywood really bankrupt for ideas when they start basing them on popular kids toys from the 80’s? I guess we’ve tapped out all the bad old TV series and video games, so what’s left?

From the previews of this, it sort of looks like the kind of movie you would end up with if you handed 145 million dollars to a 12-year-old boy. Which I guess is fine if you like that sort of thing. Me, I’ll just stay home and watch DVD box sets of HBO series.

Filed under Pop Culture, Jul 3, 2007
 

Comments (1)

bar

Survivor Fiji Outcome

I hate to be one of those obsessed people who goes on and on about a bloody TV show, a REALITY show for chrissakes, but I have long been a fan of the “Survivor” series and this past season, Survivor Fiji, was a particularly good series.

Like a lot of people, I guess, Yauman was my personal favourite and he really deserved to win. He played a pretty smart game right up until the end, until that is, he trusted the flaky and unpredictable “Dreamz” to carry him into the Final Three.  Gentleman that he is, he even admitted the whole thing was his fault: because he trusted Dreamz to live up to his word and because he was stubborn in his belief, he couldn’t bring himself to make a final plea to him to honour the agreement.

For those of you who didn’t watch, (assuming you care) here’s what went down: Yau won a truck in a reward challenge and knew how badly Dre wanted the truck. So he made a deal with him: he’d give him the truck if Dre agreed, IF they both made it to the final four and IF Dre should happen to win immunity, to give Yau his immunity. Dre readily agreed, saying he was a man of his word, and got the truck.

For the remainder of the game Dre was all over the map: one minute trying to get Yau voted out before the final four so he wouldn’t have to live up to the bargain (probably a good strategy), the next minute saying he was an honourable man and would keep his word, then later hinting that he might not keep his word. However, Yau had a hidden immunity idol for the next vote and wisely played it, saving himself, and won immunity in the maze challenge leading up to the second last vote, and was saved again. Dre, of course, won the final immunity challenge. So he was forced to decide if he would honour his end of the bargain or keep the idol for himself, thus assuring himself a one-in-three chance in the final million dollar vote.

And of course, as I predicted and as we all now know, Dre kept immunity for himself. Yau got voted out by the other three (who knew he would win the jury vote if he stayed in) and in the end Dre did not get ONE SINGLE VOTE from the jury, who were all pretty disgusted with him for what he had done, so he sold his integrity for nothing.

Dre later tried to justify himself by saying “It’s only a game, and it’s a game about lying and cheating.” Really? Is it? I thought it was a game about strategy and forming alliances, which (I would think) requires trust and honour. Who is going to form an alliance with you if they can’t trust you? Most of the people who have won the game have done so by being pretty up-front and playing as clean game as they could. People who play dirty usually get bit on the ass by karma at some point. Hell, Richard Hatch, who one the first survivor ever, is now serving 4 years in prison for tax evasion. If that isn’t karma, what is?

Here’s why Dreamz is a moron: firstly for having even a shred of an expectation that anyone would vote for him in the final three once he had pulled that low-life stunt. Secondly, for making a decision that I have no doubt made him feel shame the second he made it and which will surely cost him a huge measure of self-esteem, and then deluding himself that it didn’t reflect badly on him or that he didn’t care what others thought of him for it. Thirdly, by believing his own lie that he was playing Yau all along and never intended to keep his bargain. And fourth, for thinking that bald-faced lying to someone when you make an agreement would somehow put you in a better light than making a pact and then going back on your word.

It IS only a game, but it’s a game that changes lives. If you play Survivor, your life will be changed whether you win a million dollars or get voted out in the first tribal council. If you’re an “Indian Giver”, the other kids in the schoolyard hate you. If you cheat at cards, other players despise you. If you screw someone over in a business deal or cheat your customers, you are scum and won’t succeed long.

What does a person have, if not his honour and integrity? You don’t have to be a Christian (I’m not) to practise “Christian” values. And being ethical isn’t all that hard – I think we all instinctively know right from wrong. If you have a hard time deciding if something is the right thing to do, it probably isn’t. Be fair to others. Don’t lie. Don’t hurt others for your own gain. Don’t make a promise unless you intend to keep it. And keep your word.

Mr. Dreamz, if you are setting yourself up as a role model for young people, why would you risk that image by demonstrating in the most public way possible, that you are a dishonourable asshole? And what kind of example are you setting for your son?

Filed under Pop Culture, May 15, 2007
 

Comments (1)

bar

Chick Flick vs Dick Flick

Yesterday morning (Sunday) when I came down for breakfast I announced to my husband that aside from doing the dishes, doing the laundry, helping him clean the bird and lizard cages, tidying up, vacuuming and cooking a roast dinner, I was planning to have a day of sloth, and I would probably be spending the afternoon in front of the television watching DVD’s. “Just so you know,” I said.

I had planned to watch a DVD I bought the day before,  “The Libertine”, with Johnny Depp. A Johnny Depp movie is something to be savoured but a Johnny Depp movie with Johnny Depp looking pretty in Restoration costumes and having lots of sex (plus a bonus appearance by John Malkovich) is something not only to be savoured but definitely calls for chocolate. I made sure I had an offering from Mr. Cadbury laid in for the occasion. (And a new knitting project.)

It was a very good movie and I enjoyed it, in spite of the fact that Mr. Depp wasn’t too pretty by the end of it (poor chap was dying of the Clap, you know.) Too bad I didn’t get to see the thing sans interruption. Not possible when you are trying to get the wash done, start dinner and have to live in a house with other people in it. I will try to watch it again sometime, possibly without the knitting. I might even talk Redman into watching it with me, having convinced him it is NOT a Chick Flick.

Chick flicks are usually defined as movies about relationships and feelings which will appeal more to women than to men. In my opinion a chick flick is a movie with a marginal plot (ostensibly about relationships and feelings) which is cynically marketed to women, who are considered to be suckers for this sort of thing. Films which fall into my definition of the Chick Flick genre are movies like “Almost Heaven”, “Sweet Home Alabama”, “Failure to Launch”, the recently released “Catch and Release” – well, you get the picture.  These are the kind of inoffensive, mindless movies that end up being shown on airplanes.  And they deserve to be summarily dismissed.

There are good movies out there that might appeal to more to women than men “guys” which may also be thoughtful intelligent films – or at least highly entertaining. These in my opinion are NOT Chick Flicks. These include (but are not limited to) movies like “Sophie’s Choice”, “As Good as it Gets”, “About Schmidt”,  “A Beautiful Mind”, “Nurse Betty”.  Well, these are just my subjective choices – your opinion may vary. How can ANYTHING with Nazis, Jack Nicholson and/or a violent murder be considered a Chick Flick? But I’m sure each one of those films has been classified by someone at some time or another as a Chick Flick, and that term is generally considered to be derogatory.

So, why do we not commonly use the term Dick Flicks in a derogatory way? You know the kind: anything with tons of senseless violence, car crashes, big boobs and macho loading men shooting everything in sight. Movies like “The Fast and the Furious” or any film that features street racing, “XXX”, the Jackass movies, almost any James Bond film. The movie we watched on Saturday Night, “Crank” was a prime example of that genre. In fact it was SO over the top it might even have been considered a parody of the Dick Flick. You do not see these kinds of movies on airplanes (especially that one.)

Anyway, my Sunday relaxation campaign was in aid of trying to get myself into vacation mode (in spite of having to work today) because we leave for our annual Week in Cuba tomorrow. I’m not looking forward to the dreaded Day of Wait Travel and we won’t arrive at our hotel until nearly midnight tomorrow night. There’s the drive to Toronto, checking in and going through security, the loooong wait at the airport, the going through  Cuban customs on the other end, the two-hour bus ride (in the dark so you can’t even see the scenery) to the hotel. The flight will be the least boring part of the whole effort. At least they show you a movie. Hey, I might even finally get to see “Failure to Launch”.  

Filed under Pop Culture, Jan 29, 2007
 

Comments (0)

What I'm Reading
Middlemarch
by George Elliott

Where I Go wilwheaton dot net Big Pink Cookie cobolhacker.com Dooce flagrantdisregard flickr.com International Metropolis Internet Movie Database Marie Wise, Artist Marie's Art Journey PHP.net Presstube rotten dot com Scout's Swag The Sneeze Wil Wheaton In Exile Yarn Harlot

What I've Been Shooting

     
     

Blog Manager

See next entries under this heading or see the Archive