picture of bill's head in a jarWhat's In Bill's Head?

Posts for Category Movies

Thank god for subtitles: watch…

 Posted by Bill on October 21, 2011 at 9:47 pm  Movies
Oct 212011
 

Thank god for subtitles: watching a Norwegian movie (“Buddy”), character cleared his throat nervously and they subtitled that as “ahem.”

Movie review: Shutter Island

 Posted by Bill on June 15, 2010 at 12:15 am
Jun 152010
 
Devil niece

My niece, in a picture that suits the tone of the movie in a way. (That’s not her actual head—she’s wearing a Halloween mask. People gave her all the candy she wanted.)

The best part about Shutter Island: I brushed my teeth before I started watching it, so when it got so interminably tedious that I couldn’t stay awake any more, I was able to go upstairs and go immediately to bed, without any bedtime chores to delay me. My rating: it was shite.

Were you hoping for a more insightful review? OK, here’s how I reached this rating:

Continue reading »

 

Movie Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

 Posted by Bill on May 15, 2010 at 9:06 pm
May 152010
 
birthday card for sister


The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
was two hours and ten minutes to begin with, and I kept getting up to go do other things, so it ended up taking me about four hours to get through it. By the time it ended, I was tired of it and of doing laundry, but at least I had finished making this birthday card for my sister.

I knew the movie was famous for being Heath Ledger’s last movie, but I don’t really know who Heath Ledger is (no, I’ve never seen Brokeback Mountain or The Dark Knight), so I had to take a break right away to go look it up and see which character he was. Later there were other actors playing his character, but I didn’t really even notice that, except to think at one point that Heath Ledger suddenly looked a lot like Johnny Depp, so that tells you how much I care about Heath Ledger, and, I guess, how much attention I was paying to the movie.

The film was visually interesting, as you’d expect from Terry Gilliam. I liked the atmosphere of the “real world” scenes, where modern London still felt like the 19th century. In fact during the opening sequence I hadn’t noticed the cars in the background as the imaginarium lumbered along, so I was thinking it was the 19th century and was jolted when people were suddenly spilling out of a modern nightclub.

Dr. Who and Romana in the TARDIS

Here’s a TARDIS picture because I can’t find a good imaginarium picture

I loved the imaginarium itself–the giant traveling theatre that also housed the living quarters and, like the TARDIS, appeared to be bigger on the inside than on the outside. That was one of my favorite things about Dr. Who: the fact that the Doctor traveled with his own completely self-contained world. I was fascinated by the idea and liked the episodes where we got to see glimpses of the TARDIS outside of the control room. I always wanted to see more. What did the Doctor’s bedroom look like, for example? We saw a companion’s room a few times, but never the Doctor’s. (Speaking of companions, I was amused to learn several years ago that Romana II (Lalla Ward) is now married to Richard Dawkins. Why is that amusing? I don’t know.)

Meanwhile, back at The Imaginarium, though I liked the imaginarium itself, the imaginary world found through the imaginarium’s mirror struck me as much less imaginative. The cartoony feel of it just wasn’t that interesting to me. And unfortunately neither was the story of the movie, which was uninspired and hadn’t much in the way of character development. I didn’t care about any of the characters or what happened to them, except for Tom Waits’s  devil, who was the most interesting person in the movie. Maybe Valentina should have ended up with him. Or with the dwarf.

I was left thinking about Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I also saw recently. At only 87 minutes it was still too long by at least 40 minutes and had the same problem as The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: nice visuals dragged down by a failure of storytelling, with a thin plot and characters I didn’t care about. Wes Anderson has been a disappointment ever since Rushmore, which I loved but am afraid to go back and watch again for fear that I will discover I was an idiot when I saw it the first time.

My rating for both movies: Meh. Shrug.

 

Movie Review: The Back-up Plan (Why is there a hyphen in it?)

 Posted by Bill on April 24, 2010 at 12:07 am
Apr 242010
 

Back-up planWell, I didn’t actually see The Back-up Plan, and never will. I don’t need to: I “know” that it will be a piece of shit. So we’ll call this a “Hotard review.” There: end of review, and I think I’ve just invented a new genre of criticism. Or at least given it a catchy(ish) name.

Now the interesting part: when I saw a real review for this movie in the paper today, I thought there was a typo in the title. Why is there a hyphen in “back-up”? Me, I have backup plans. So I checked, and that’s the official title. OK, well, it’s a crappy, formulaic romantic comedy starring Jennifer Lopez. It wouldn’t be surprising if they had botched the title and no one noticed.

Just to be sure, I read a plot summary to see if I was missing something: maybe it’s a pun and the movie involves some sort of plan for getting back up (like these good people, who help people get back up on their feet after spinal cord injuries). Nope, it seemed pretty straightforward: artificial insemination as a backup plan. (And reading the plot summary confirmed my initial judgment about the quality of the movie.)

Now, I didn’t think that the hyphenated usage was wrong, just unusual and archaic. It seems like a compound adjective that’s been around long enough to lose its hyphen. Like “online”: no one writes “on-line” any more, but I remember writing it that way a mere 15 years ago. So I went and looked around the Web, but unfortunately this is one of those cases where Google thinks it’s smarter than you but isn’t, so you can’t search specifically for the hyphenated usage (unless I’m missing something embarrassingly obvious). Wordnik has some recent examples of hyphenated usage, strangely concentrated in the Wall Street Journal, which apparently is sticking with that form for their stylebook.

I’m nothing like a proper linguist, so the best I could do was some paging through Google results for anecdotal results, plus a quick perusal of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (where “back-up” appears more often in transcripts of television and radio broadcasts than in “written” texts). Based on that haphazard research, I “confirmed” my suspicion that “backup” is far more common than “back-up.”

A dictionary check sort of bears this out: My Webster’s Third New International and Random House Webster’s Unabridged Second Edition have “backup” but no mention of “back-up.” The OED Online has 1952 for its earliest citation of “back-up,” and 1956 for “backup.” Both forms are about equally represented in the rest of their citations, but those end in 1985, so that doesn’t tell me anything.

But the proof we need is in this citation from 1967:

Backup involves having one computer on-line and the other standing by

There! See that: “backup” is well-enough established in 1967 to be one word, but “on-line” is still hyphenated. No one hyphenates “on-line” any more, so no one should hyphenate “backup.” Q.E.D., yo.

Half-assed amateur linguistics research completed but still nothing better to do with my time, I went looking for another plot summary of the movie and happened to notice the poster (see image above), where they have the little to-do list, with the arrows rearranging things. At that point I remembered one of the OED‘s definitions for “back-up” was “with the back facing upwards,” i.e., upside down. So, I don’t know. I guess you could make the case that she had an upside-down plan.

But really, who cares? I know you don’t, and I have now wasted more time thinking and writing about the title of this stupid movie than I would have wasted if I had just gone and watched the damn thing. But at least I saved us both 10 bucks.