Surprisingly compelling

You’d think it would be ridiculously saccharine, or stupid, or… well, bad.  But it’s actually kind of quaint, and touching, in an internetty sort of way.

Righteous Kill

(2008) dir. Jon Avnet – w/ Robert De Niro and Al Pacino; also Brian Dennehy, Donnie Wahlberg, John Leguizamo, Carla Gugino, & 50 Cent.

Synopsis: Two seasoned detectives stumble across the case of a “mysterious” vigilante… who only kills bad guys!

Review: “Righteous Kill” has exactly one good idea.  And unfortunately, that idea is: put Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in the same movie.  Admittedly, it’s a very good idea — but things go downhill quickly.  For starters: the movie is introduced (literally opened with) a statement that necessarily limits your viewing of the movie to one of the two following possibilities: (A) you know the ending from the opening credits, or (B) you know the entire movie is based on a cheap (and obvious) trick (and probably can figure out what that trick is, because it’s not even that clever).  Another problem: it’s nice to see De Niro and Pacino side by side, but this movie could have been made with anybody.  Realistically, “Righteous Kill” and “Heat” are completely, totally incommensurable.  And for Righteous Kill, this is not a good thing.

(Another note: “Who ever heard of a cop serial killer?!” is not the movie’s second good idea.)

It’s a fair movie.  Everyone tries.  Performances are commendable all around.  The music’s fine.  But I could have walked out half-way through and not actually felt like I was missing much.

Rating: [•••] out of [•••••]

Trafficking in rumor and innuendo since 2008

This could be good, I think.

Partly because it would be interesting to see Catherine Zeta-Jones in a different sort of role (time-travel is different, right?), but mostly because a movie with David Tennant would likely be excellent.

But who knows.

(WalesOnline: “Talk of Doctor Who Film Role for Zeta-Jones” [10 Sept 2008])

Not the best track record

Which is, really, fortunate.

“10 other dates when the world failed to end.”

One of my favorites:

Sept 11-13 1988 – Former Nasa engineer Edgar Whisenant sold 4.5 million copies of his book 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988, mostly to evangelical US Christians. Follow-up works, which revised the prediction for dates in the 1990s, failed to sell as well.

Shocking!  (Emphasis added.)

Also, I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be “March 1997” and not “Match 1997”.

(via Monochrom)

Versus

(2000) dir. Ryuhei Kitamura – w/ Tak Sakaguchi as Prisoner KSC2-303, and a bunch of other folks as random, ominous-sounding figures (e.g., “Motorcycle-riding yakuza with revolver,” and “Yakuza zombie in alligator-skin coat”). But you didn’t watch this for the characters. Yet.

Synopsis: Really?  Synopsis?

Review: Open with a bunch of– Oh, come off it.  The plot doesn’t really matter that much.  I mean, there is a plot.  Kind of.  The kind of plot you’d get by taking a “choose your own adventure” book and putting it in a blender and adding glue.  I’m not saying it’s total chance when parts of the movie actually make sense.  But seriously.  Think Kill Bill plus Highlander plus The Evil Dead plus The Matrix, minus the high production values (compared to this movie, Eraserhead has high production values).  The backstory: a couple “escaped prisoners” meet some Yakuza in the Resurrection Forest for some unspecified plot, which really doesn’t matter.  The Yakuza thugs don’t actually want to do what they’re told, some folks are shot/decapitated/etc.–and then, surprise!, come back to life.  A real shocker, what with it being the Resurrection Forest or what-have-you.  People run around, shoot at one another, fight zombies, and so on.  You can tell things get serious when the filters go wonky.  Everything goes red, or pink.  It’s like they’re in an alternate past dimension, maybe.  I don’t actually know.  What’s most astonishing is that, when there are flashbacks, they kind of help the story.  Sorry, the “story.”  Oh, and the plot twists!  Well, you’d be surprised, if you could actually follow the plot.  Which–you can follow the plot, it just doesn’t make all that much sense.  But it’s all in good fun.  And it is good fun.  You’ve never seen a collapsible samurai sword?  Or one with a laser sight?

Rating: [•••] out of [•••••] (Rating a movie like this is difficult.  Mileage per star may vary, based on your personal preferences, i.e., how much entertainment value you can actually derive from this kind of thing.)

Truth in superheroes

How long would Bruce Wayne have to train to become Batman?

In some of the timelines you see in the comics, the backstory is he goes away for five years—some it’s three to five years, or eight years, or 12 years. In terms of the physical changes (strength and conditioning), that’s happening fairly quickly. We’re talking three to five years. In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years. Probably the most reality-based representation of Batman and his training was in Batman Begins.

An interesting interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience, tying into “The Dark Knight” and promoting a forthcoming book, Becoming Batman: The Possibility of a Superhero.

(And then of course there’s the question of who would win, in a universe of superheroes.  The battles have already been played out in the comicsverse, but of course not in the context of a rigorous, double-blind study.  Rigorous isn’t the right word, but HowStuffWorks looks at unlikely superhero match-ups in a vaguely science-y sort of way.  Starting off, quite naturally, with Superman vs. a Jedi.)

(Scientific American: “Dark Knight Shift: Why Batman Could Exist — But Not For Long,” by J.R. Minkel in conversation with E. Paul Zehr [14 Jul 2008]; and How Sutt Works: “Battling Blockbusters,” by Tracy Wilson and Robert Valdes [)

This is why you should not eat too much candy

Your stomach will explode in fiery brilliance.

 

 

And yes, red gummy bears being excellent is scientific fact.

(via MAKE Blog)

And then this happened

I’ve seen better film editing… But I can’t say I’ve actually seen birds whistling the imperial march from Star Wars (or for that matter, any movie themes).  I mean, now I can, sort of.

(Although after a quick search, I am more impressed by birds performing the 1812 Overture and the Andy Griffith Show theme.)

(via io9: “The greatest thing you will see on the internet all day”)

Perilous indeed

A book’s journey from one language into another can be perilous. The Russian title for J. D. Salinger’s classic tale of adolescence translates as “Above the Precipice in the Rye.” A clerk in a Yokohama bookshop once told John Steinbeck’s wife that yes, he had a copy of Steinbeck’s “Angry Raisins.” Has this bumpy road gotten any smoother in recent years? Let the following quiz be your guide.

3. James Finn Garner dedicated his best seller “Politically Correct Bedtime Stories” to his wife, Lies (pronounced “lease”), which is the Dutch equivalent of Elizabeth. In the Norwegian edition, the book’s dedication reads:

a) “This book is dedicated to Untruths, for everything”
b) “For Dissembling, my everything”
c) “For Rental Unit, my north star”
d) “Lies Flat, I can’t live without you”

(via NYT: “Transloosely Literated,” by Henry Alford [6 Jul 2008])

Much better than first generation wings

(Cybertek Wings Version 2)