Happy Panic Productions

It was a lovely weekend with some lovely people visiting. On Saturday, Levi and I dusted off my disused copy of Blood Bowl and played a match. I'd played the 2nd edition of the game quite a bit in high school. Then a few years ago, I was in a software modelling course and decided to model an online version of the game. As I looked into it, it turned out there was a 4th edition of the rules

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Study: Movie Critics Speak Even When They Don't Utter a Word (2006)

For every movie I have seen in the theater since December 13, 2004, I have afterward posted a review of Ebert's review of the same movie. Perhaps it's time to crunch some numbers and give this project a real analysis, but the heuristic impression I'm developing during the execution of this exercise is that the quality of Ebert's writing is directly proportional to his passion for the film he's reviewing. Hold the presses! It's a pretty unremarkable hypothesis in hindsight, I admit. Given the impressive quantity of writing Ebert actually does, it's perfectly reasonable that even a professional would whip out the reviews of films which other critics would pass on. Right?

It turns out I'm not the only one who is studying Ebert these days. Duke University has issued a press release announcing a study of movie reviewers to be published in June. The responses among the movie reviewing community to this silly press release have been rather entertaining, Ebert's included. But kudos go out to former reviewer Marc Caro, who did some real reporting and reveals that the full report is even more idiotic than the press release.

So I'll take this as a warning to be more careful when analyzing the results of my Ebert review. But like Duke, I'll tease you with another preliminary finding in advance of the full report. The two characteristics of Ebert's reviews which I wanted to study were the quality of his writing style and his inaccurate reporting of movie details. Above I addressed the former. Here, I reveal what may possibly cause the latter:

Movie Answer Man

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC / February 19, 2006

Q. Last week I went to see "Munich" ... About halfway through I felt the normal human need to visit a restroom. But I wasn't about to leave for a minute, afraid I'd miss the most important part. So I endured for an hour and a half rather than miss a minute ....

A. ...My own strategy is to try to sit on the aisle so that I can slip in and out quickly. Your ability to "endure" for 90 minutes has my most sincere admiration.

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Brokeback Mountain (2005)

I don't have much to say about this one except that I congratulated myself while watching it for having predicted who would be the bottom. It's a very well-made movie that never stirred a single passion in me, and I'm not just saying that in a defensive hands-over-butthole kind of way. I remember when I drove through Casper, Wyoming with my friend Paul Rodriguez (not the stand-up comedian) and we both said that it seemed like a nice place to live. After this movie and Boys Don't Cry (1999), I'm glad I have that memory or else I would be unjustly terrified of the plains states.

Here's another boring one wherein I think Ebert's review is well written and agreeable. He liked the film more than I did, but he's much more articulate about his feelings on this one than I am, too. Score this one in the "Ebert's review is better than the movie" column!

Roger, Ebert, I read you: The New World (2005)

Ebert nails it. The most encouraging result so far of this exercise of reviewing Ebert's reviews is discovering that the more serious the movie, the more thoughful and well-written are his reviews. Perhaps he wisely apportions his effort in proportion with the height of the film's artistic aims.

Roger, Eber, I read you: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

The first ten or fifteen minutes are as expertly made as anything I've ever seen. You'll be hard pressed to find greater economy in establishing setting, sketching out four different characters, and getting the plot moving. As for the rest... it's about characters making interesting choices and the consequences of those choices, and it shocks me to realize how rare that's becoming in mainstream movies. And the animals look good. And Georgie Henley never fails to charm past the melting point. (It breaks my heart that such sweetness can be in the world.) But it's still kind of flat. I think the biggest problem was Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. She seemed like a cross between Cate Blanchett's Galadriel and Cruella de Vil if played by Meryl Streep instead of Glenn Close. Minus any dynamism. She was only the vague concept of a threat. Her menace was pure theory.

Ebert's got some good lines on this one, but it's my charge to repeat the bad ones.

For those who read the Lewis books as a Christian parable, Aslan fills the role of Christ because he is resurrected from the dead. Well, if that was all, then Lazarus could be a parable for Christ. Or could Gandalf. "Aslan dying for Edmund's sins," as Ebert writes later in this review, is more the point.

It is only after Edmund (Skandar Keynes) follows her into the wardrobe that evening that her breathless reports are taken seriously. .. Peter (William Moseley) and Susan (Anna Popplewell) believe Lucy and Edmund, and soon.... If you're going to be so prosaic as to merely retell the plot, could you at least retell it correctly? I saw this two weeks ago, yet I can remember plainly that Peter and Susan believe Edmund, not Lucy, because Edmund contradicts her. It's only after all four go into the wardrobe that they believe her. Thanks, Roger, for reminding me why I still write these things!

But it's remarkable, isn't it, that the Brits have produced Narnia, the Ring, Hogwarts, Gormenghast, James Bond, Alice and Pooh, and what have we produced for them in return? I was going to say "the cuckoo clock," but for that you would require a three-way Google of Italy, Switzerland and Harry Lime. I admit with apprehension that I know what Ebert means by that last sentence despite scarcely comprehending it. I just googled "three-way Google" and I still don't fathom its meaning. I doubt the Google help pages will tell me how to perform one.

*Accelerating the trademark dilution by refraining from capitalizing the verb. Because I might use another search engine. In theory.

I just saw the most wonderful thing: snowflakes in mid-air, no more dense than a field of stars, not falling but floating, slowly, as many going up as going down, and many more moving this way and that, not so much snowflakes as sleepy snowflies.

Bumper sticker watch

"Don't let the car fool you,
My real treasure's in heaven."

It's immediately reminiscent of the classic "My other car is a Cadillac", except that this one you would put on the Cadillac. Right? A statement of "I'm driving this camel through the eye of a needle," or "I'm having my eucharist and eating it too." Except the sticker is very trashy looking (white and yellow text on a black field, in ugly 1990's alterna-rock font) and it was spotted on a Toyota Corolla. So I guess the "fool you" part is supposed to be smart-assed? Is a new age of irony-laced evangelism upon us? "Saving my juicy shaved pussy for marriage. Abstinence is hot!"

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)

The instrument of [McCarthy's] destruction is Edward R. Murrow, a television journalist above reproach, whose radio broadcasts from London led to a peacetime career as the most famous newsman in the new medium of television. A television journalist with a career in television! This is the kind of sentence construction you might expect to find in a high-school essay which is padding length to make the word count. And let's chose our words with some care, Mr. Ebert. Murrow is the author of McCarthy's destruction; television is the instrument.

He is backed by his producers and reporters, and supported by the leadership of his network.... Except, of course, when he isn't.

Clooney co-stars, as Fred Friendly, Murrow's producer, who remained active into the 1990s. He also directed and co-wrote the movie. Don't let Ebert confuse you: Friendly was active into the 1990s, and Clooney directed and co-wrote. (I'm starting to think Ebert didn't do too well on his SATs.)

Trick-or-Treater scorecard 2004

Most common costume, female: princess, then devil.
Most common costume, male: skeleton.
Number of trick-or-treaters whose costume was, apparently, themselves: 2.
What I almost said to the aforementioned: "And you must be going as a Cool Dude."
Reason I hesitated to say it: I would sound like an uncool dude.
Most memorable costume: 10 year old boy with orange and black make-up smeared on his face in no particular pattern; on his shirt, in orange, was scrawled, "I hate Bridget."
I asked, "Who's Bridget?"
"She's this girl," he said over his shoulder, moving on to the next house. "It's a long story."

Channeling Mr. Dangerfield

I tell ya, someone in the White House takes a leak, and we all have to hear about it!

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Corpse Bride (2005)

(Warning: here be spoilers, though vague.)

Tim Burton's disdain for the establishment and embrace of the misfit is so well ingrained that apparently even he takes it for granted. In Corpse Bride, it's obvious that he finds the titular character the more attractive of Victor's romantic options. Yet he gives the audience no reason to believe that Victor would feel remotely likewise; she is given less personality than a one-eyed skeleton, and all of her character depth is conveyed by one marble-mouthed mediocrity of a song, delivered by a forgettable spider and maggot. In the end, it's clear Burton wasn't able to convince us because he never convinced himself. Contrary to his every instinct which we have come to know in the course of his career, he gives the groom to the living girl whom he loves no less arbitrarily than he briefly loved the corpse, having met them mere hours apart, for no better reason than falling back on the status quo that the living should marry the living. It is a shocking lack of imagination at work when this lifeless love triangle features one bride murdered and another whose murder is planned, yet the potential passage of the living bride through the mortal veil, thus rendering all distinction between the romantic rivals moot, is a concept never remotely considered by any party to the plot or its direction. I never thought I'd breathe the words, but for once, a movie should have taken a page from The Frighteners.

At least the film is gorgeous. It should excite folks to the possibilities of animation that doesn't come from a computer. The knockout sequence is when the Corpse Bride first rises from the grave. Her movement is in striking contrast to that of every character that we had seen thence, fluid and ethereal; her pursuit seems inescapable. Was her model filmed at a different frame rate and the image composited? I didn't notice the effect in the remainder of her scenes, when she interacts more physically with her environment.

And some of the character designs are excellent. Is it just me, or was the priest a spitting image of Old Man Winter from Santa Claus is Coming to Town?

But what does Ebert say?

This marriage, according to the rules of the netherworld, is a legitimate one.... I risk playing spoiler by revealing that, for once, Ebert doesn't play spoiler, but only at the expense of correctly describing this detail of the plot; or to be more specific, saying the opposite of the truth.

My own feeling is that the artificiality of stop-action animation adds a quality that standard animation lacks... In what way is �standard� animation not artificial? I guess he's referring to the movement of real, living creatures.

All of that is a lot for an animated fantasy to convey, but "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride" not only conveys it, but does it, yes, charmingly. No! Charmingly?!? Of all the adverbs!

Roger, Ebert, I read you: The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

This is a strong candidate for Movie of the Year. Go see it.

In a bookstore he asks a cute sales clerk one question after another, which works charmingly until she finds out he has no answers. This... does not happen.

Consider... Andy's neighbors, who like to watch "Survivor" with him, although he has to bring the set. He does? Doesn't he ask them to tape it for him when he can't watch? Maybe I missed a line.

At the end, for no good reason except that it strikes exactly the perfect (if completely unexpected) note,... So much for unexpected!

Overheard from the next room

Seymor blew her nose, then exclaimed:
"Oh! It came out!"

Roger, Ebert, I read you: The Baxter (2005)

We are informed early in "The Baxter" that "the baxter" is a term for the guy in a movie who never gets the girl. This came as news to me, and I expect it will come as a shock to my friend Billy (Silver Dollar) Baxter, who always gets more or less what he wants, especially when he wants a good seat in a restaurant Ha ha! Good ol' Billy Baxter. Yes, I bet that will get "under his collar", if you know what I mean (right, Roger?)!

To be a good nerd in a movie, a nerd should resemble a baked potato, as I have so often heard them described by Billy (Silver Dollar) Baxter: "I've been tubbed, I've been scrubbed, I've been rubbed! I'm lovable, huggable and eatable!" Hee hee ho! Oh, that Billy! Whee! You guys are so cool.

There's also a hilarious supporting performance by Peter Dinklage, as a wedding planner named Benson Hedges. His name reminds me of the year Edy Williams introduced me to her date on Oscar night: "I'd like you to meet Dean Witter." Wow! Can I sit at your lunch table? Pretty please?

Tech Support with ELIZA

System
Connecting to server. Please wait...
12:29:11 PM

System
Connected to quicken.ehosts.net
12:29:11 PM

System
Initial Question/Comment: Can only unlock & run Quicken when logged in as admin.
12:29:22 PM

System
Roger has joined this session!
12:29:29 PM

Roger
Hi ! I am Roger. Welcome to Quicken chat. I've reviewed the brief issue summary you provided. Could you provide specific details to help me better understand your situation?
12:30:42 PM

You
I installed Quicken on WinXP and completed unlocking online (logged in a admn, of course). When I log back in as user and launch Quicken, I get this error:
12:31:16 PM

You
"Quicken is unable to complete the unlock process. Please use the help menu..."
12:31:44 PM

You
When I click OK, the error reappears after about a second, too quick for me to even select an option under Help.
12:32:07 PM

Roger
Thank you for the details...
12:32:19 PM

You
I have logged back in as admin and unlocked again, and it runs fine, but I keep getting the error when logged in as user.
12:32:25 PM

Roger
You mean to say that you have installed Quicken with the Admin login and now when you try to open Quicken with the user account you are getting the error message,is that so?
12:32:32 PM

You
yes
12:34:43 PM

Roger
Well,Quicken has the inbuilt function that no one can use Quicken with the user account when Quicken is installed as in the Admin login,you will not be able to open Quicken when you login as the User account.
12:35:27 PM

You
But you cannot install unless you are admin
12:36:01 PM

You
Do you mean to say you can only use Quicken when logged in as admin?
12:36:12 PM

Roger
Yes,You need to install Quicken with the Administrator login .
12:37:04 PM

You
Do you realize the security risk this poses?
12:37:18 PM

You
No one should perform everyday tasks while logged in as admin.
12:37:52 PM

You
And the data in Quicken is the most sensitive data on my computer. Your company cannot seriously require that I use their product while logged in as admin.
12:38:35 PM

Roger
I apologize for the inconvenience you are facing because of this issue..
12:39:14 PM

You
This is completely unacceptable and I expect a full refund.
12:40:03 PM

Roger
Please let me know if Quicken is open with the User account?
12:40:14 PM

You
I just quit it.
12:40:37 PM

Roger
We will try to unlock Quicken with the User account and check if we can unlock it .
12:45:01 PM

Roger
Please type in some text and press Enter key on keyboard. Please let me know that we are connected.
12:45:07 PM

You
ok
12:45:46 PM

You
Thanks. While you're working on that, I'll give you some feedback.
12:45:59 PM

Roger
Sure..
12:46:30 PM

You
It's extremely frustrating to get an error message that tells you to perform a task under a menu, and then won't let you follow its own instructions because it keeps popping up.
12:47:29 PM

You
That error needs to give better information. It was telling me I could do something to fix the problem when I couldn't. It didn't describe the problem.
12:47:56 PM

Roger
I understand your concern. I have seen this issue so many times.This error persists only when you try to open Quicken with the user account and not with the Admin login.
12:47:57 PM

You
It was extemely frustrating to try to follow the instructions when the software wouldn't let me.
12:49:46 PM

Roger
I can imagine your frustration, If I were at your place, I would probably feel the same way.
12:50:10 PM

You
Also, I understand that most Windows users don't understand basic computer security, but I expect your software designers should. So even though most users foolishly only ever log in as admin, requiring them to do so for non-admin use of your product violates very basic tenets of computer security.
12:50:36 PM

You
Seriously, it's something worth reporting to the Better Business Bureau, it's that bad a security policy.
12:50:52 PM

Roger
I apologize for the inconvenience. You have a valid point, this will be a good feature to get added in Quicken. I will surely pass this suggestion to the development team. Would you also like to submit a product suggestion for this issue? The more people request a feature, the more likely it is to be added.
12:51:52 PM

You
I haven't been able to use the product yet, so I can't really comment.
12:54:09 PM

Roger
As you are facing the issue with the Admin Right you can submit the product suggestion on our site and Our developers will work on to resolve it.
12:54:26 PM

You
Ah, I see. Thanks.
12:54:40 PM

You
URL?
12:55:03 PM

Roger
Please use this link http://altserv.intuit.com/orien/qkn_enhance.html for Product suggestion.
12:55:23 PM

Roger
I hope you understand that this is an issue with the Product and there is nothing further I could have done to resolve this for you.
12:56:08 PM

You
Wait -- I thought you said you were trying to unlock it. Did I misunderstand?
12:56:50 PM

You
see 12:40:37
12:57:11 PM

Roger
I apologize.This will not help us resolve the issue as you have installed Quicken with the Admin login you will not be able to unlock it in User account.
12:57:30 PM

You
So how do I get my refund?
12:58:56 PM

Roger
I understand your situation .I will Refund you for the purchase of Quicken 2006,Please let me know the order number for the purchase of Quicken 2006?
12:59:44 PM

You
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
12:59:54 PM

Roger
Thank you..
1:02:44 PM

Roger
I apologize for the inconvenience caused. There is some maintanace happening in our servers due to which I am not able to process your request at this time. Please contact us on Monday and we will be happy to help.
1:03:31 PM

You
via chat?
1:03:49 PM

You
Do I just say I want the refund or do I have to explain the problem again?
1:04:00 PM

Roger
Yes..please get back to us using same e-mail address so that we get your session history for further assistance, we would be happy to resolve your issue.
1:05:10 PM

You
thanks for your time.
1:05:38 PM

Roger
While we weren't able to resolve your issue at this time, can we agree that I've provided reasonable support to address your needs? If not, please tell me how I can be of further help?
1:07:05 PM

You
I just wish this could have been resolved today without me having to re-initiate help on Monday. I've made a request for a refund, that should now go into some kind of queue. I shouldn't have to ask for the same help twice.
1:07:15 PM

You
Otherwise, yes, you've been very helpful.
1:08:08 PM

Roger
I can understand the inconvenience caused to you...I apologize for whatever trouble you had .
1:08:08 PM

Roger
Is there anything else I can assist you with today regarding Quicken?
1:08:26 PM

You
Oh go fucking die.

Overheard in the library

boy: How was my message last night? Was I slurring my words?
girl: Were you drunk? I knew you were! I couldn't tell, though, 'cause it was a Wednesday night.

Another good time waster

Grab your joystick.

Since I'm not doing much writing lately, maybe I should read this.

Roger, Ebert, I read you: The Aristocrats (2005)

I am constantly amazed that the people who tell this joke don't realize that every single person in the English-speaking world has already heard this joke 500 times. Not a snark: I've never heard that joke. But there are a lot of jokes I've never heard. (Note: Ebert's comment is not in reference to the Aristocrats joke.)

I am an expert on joke-telling, and often hold audiences spellbound with my mastery of the topic. Holy shit! Would Ebert even make so audacious a claim about being an expert on films? I've never heard him tell a joke, so for all I know he's just telling it like it is, but goddamn!

...with all the firepower in this movie (George Carlin, Andy Dick... Some certain someone does not belong anywhere on the comedic firepower list, much less in the second spot!

...the funniest version ever told, everyone agrees, was by.... And as usual, Ebert goes on to describe in some detail what, in this film, is essentially the climax. I'll give hima break here, though. The details do relate directly to the main thrust of his criticism. Which, in typical Ebert style, is criticism of the joke and its telling, more than of the film. But I did enjoy his criticism of the joke.

It's true, it's not a funny joke. I was sort of depressed by how little I laughed. (Maybe seeing it in a group would have given the proper energy to the viewing experience.) Call me jaded, but piss, shit, and incest, in and of themselves, don't do anything for me. I only laughed at all when there was something else going on. Whoopi Goldberg made me laugh harder than she ever has in her career (the only other time she made me even chuckle was on her short-lived sitcom). Tommy Smothers makes me laugh just about any time he tries to explain anything to Dick, regardless of subject. However, I think it's Drew Carey who nails it. His flourish made the punch line funny to me for the first (and only) time. After I'd already heard it about a hundred times in perhaps 45 minutes, that's quite a feat. It's like Jack Benny figuring out that holding three fingers to his cheek was funnier than two or four. It's that kind of master stroke that I really appreciate. Craftsmanship!

The most puzzling and distressing thing about this movie is that director Provenza, a professional comedian, would be so hostile towards other comedians' timing and delivery with his editing. I still could have found this movie about an unfunny joke extremely interesting, just to take in the different styles of the telling. But the editing has so little respect for the comedians' craft, we hardly get to hear one speak two consecutive sentences without violent interference. The filmmakers are so insecure about holding our attention during the nth telling of this joke, it's like the editing is trying to apologize for this film even existing. Why not just play zany sped-up piano music throughout the film and make all the comics wear arrows through their heads? Maybe the worst cutting in a documentary I've ever seen.

Roger,Ebert, I read you: Fantastic Four (2005)

I was a sometime fan of thie comic, but the previews I saw made me very wary. I just didn't get the sense that this would be a movie that knew how to be entertaining. Also, nothing about the FF seems well suited to the motion picture medium. We are, after all, talking about the comic which is notable first of all for its building of a continuity between installments, and also for the ongoing interpersonal relationships among the tea members. This is the stuff of a serial, people, not of a self-contained two hour adventure. Lee and Kirby's genius was to break the superhero story out of the one-off adventure mold, and do something that, for all the world-saving exploits of the heroes, was on the personal scale nothing more than a soap opera. Shoe-horning that continuity into a summer blockbuster is a disservice to that stroke of genius.

It was nice to see Tim Story got the characters and the casting right (Chiklis is a good Thing, and Gruffudd rises to the challenge of making Reed Richards a character you don't want to beat up), except where he got it so very wrong. Ben Grimm voluntarily turns back into the Thing? Did this ever happen once in the comics? I remember the Thing living with a curse, staying behind on the desolate Battle World just because there he could turn human at will. The whole compelling basis of his
character is undone. Now we know he can stop being the Thing just as quickly as it takes Reed to build another of those Brundlefly machines. Yet he remains rocky... out of a sense of responsibility? He's no longer the Thing, he's Spider-Man.
And Invisible Girl is an unfortunate collision of bad writing and worse casting. Mere moments before she has to turn invisible at a magazine stand because she's "shy", Alba is strutting down the street like it's the catwalk. And I think enough has been said about Dr. Doom's origina and powers.

But maybe the single biggest problem with this movie, because it's the one part of FF that would have translated well to the big screen had Story bothered to pay it any mind, is that the scale of the physical plot is all wrong. The remainder of this movie, after the origin has been dealt with, would have occupied one page in Lee/Kirby's hands. Okay, maybe I'm exagerrating. Five pages, tops.

The real Fantastic Four only partake in adventures of a grand scale. On an average day, they're thwarting a plot to rule or destroy the planet. A big deal to them would be saving an entire dimension. The smallest plot I can ever recall them bothering with was the size of a metropolis. (Okay, technically, a Microverse.) And what is Dr. Doom's magnificent plot in this summer blockbuster romp? To knock off three members of the Fantastic Four so that his own girlfriend will like him again. I mean, he's not even trying to take anything that's not his -- they're technically still dating, for crying out loud! It's such a pathetically unambitious villian we have to watch in this movie, the only feelings he evokes are embarrasment and pity. The once mighty Dr. Doom, now nothing but a dweeb and a loser? I honestly don't think there has been a more broke-dick villain in summer blockbuster history.

I think Ebert nails this one. You have to keep in mind while reading this review that here is a guy who likes both comic book movies and comic books. But this feature is supposed to be fun, so I'll point out a couple of awkward passages.

It's all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating.... He forgot to mention it demonstrates a demonstrative demo demonstratively.

...you see one fire truck saved from falling off a bridge, you've seen them all. And if you've seen one person get shot, you've seen 'em all, I suppose. Why don't filmmakers spare us this repetition and simply supply title cards to tell us what happened?

Otherwise, it's a well written review, except: what the hell does he keep digging on X-Men for?

I got unexpectedly wistful when I happened to discover that eight colors were retired from Crayola crayons in 1990 (actually, renamed), and among them were three of my favorites: Green Blue, Orange Red, and Raw Umber. I suddenly remembered how my young mind had used the example of the Red Orange and Orange Red crayons to conclude that "pop", not "soda", was the proper shorthand for soda pop. I reasoned that Orange Red was more red than orange, and Red Orange was more orange than red; by analogy, soda pop was more pop than soda.

I also had a friend and neighbor named Umber, who incidentally was the first girl I ever kissed, under the table in first grade. I wouldn't describe the kiss as raw, though I suppose technically she was.

Things my boss just said

After sitting down at his desk and turning on a fan near his chair:
"Get ready for some fart air."

Roger, Ebert, I read you: March of the Penguins

The saddest, most erotic penguin movie yet.

"This is a love story," Freeman's narration assures us, reminding me for some reason of Tina Turner singing "What's Love Got to Do With It?" One of these days, Ebert will drop one of these brainfarts on us and then go on to explain how one thing reminds him of another.

And in other news, dog bites man

Headline on back page of today's Michigan Daily:
"After hosting All-Stars, Detroit returns to normal"

The Wikipedia is either indispensible or completely irrelevant

I can't decide which, but I am sure that one of those must be the case, ever since I stumbled upon the entry for kancho.

Roger, Ebert, I read you: War of the Worlds (2005)

I'm considering retiring this feature. Ebert's reviews of the last three movies I've seen didn't produce anything particularly noteworthy (I didn't even bother to do a post for Revenge of the Sith), and I've agreed with him more than I've disagreed with him. I think he's pretty right on with everything he says about War of the Worlds, except I'm surprised that he focuses solely on the surface details of the film. The real reason I was interested in seeing this one was because of the adage that sci-fi/horror/disaster movies are an expression of the anxieties of society at the time. From what I could tell of the previews I'd seen, Spielberg seemed conscious of this and its application to 9/11 when making this movie. And watching it, it is so conciously hitting all of these memes that you imagine the filmmakers running down a checklist to make sure they got them all (and interestingly, hit a few points I wasn't expecting, with a wider eye toward the War on Terror and Iraq). Too bad the end of the movie departs completely from these themes and feels irrelevant to our world outside the movie; Ebert hits the nail on the head when he compares it to Jurassic Park. Funny how Spielberg made the same error in Minority Report: he spends most of a movie building a story about a deeply flawed justice system, but sacrifices all of his themes for a neat and thrilling dramatic climax, with the result that it's no longer the system that's flawed, just one bad man. War of the Worlds isn't as bad, since it doesn't undermine its themes so much as depart from them. Anyway, I was surprised Ebert never addresses the 9/11 angle in his review.

Overall, it's interesting, yet very difficult to enjoy. The tagline should read, "Relive the trauma!"

Water drops

Last night I bought a dehumidifier. I was carrying it out of the store, it was raining the biggest rain drops I have ever seen. Since The Matrix: Revolution, anyway.

I ran the dehumidifier in my basement overnight. I checked it this morning. In less than 12 hours, it had pulled 50 pints of water out of the air. And it might have taken far less than 12 hours; it shuts itself off when it reaches that capacity.

By my best estimate, by a small amount, I am currently living farther from a large body of water than I ever have in my life. Yet this morning, for the first time ever, I saw a pelican while driving to work.

One word

On a stair here in the library, scrawled in chalk, like the cry of some freedom fighter:
"Linoleum!"

Holy crap, I own a house!

Closing Day wasn't fun. I had applied for my mortgage through National City Bank because they were among only two lenders I could find in Michigan who had ever heard of an Energy Efficiency Mortgage, much less offered one. It's a cool deal: a federally-approved energy inspector runs some tests on the house, recommends upgrades, and calculates how much those upgrades would reduce your monthly energy bill. The cost of the upgrades is then rolled into your mortgage, provided the resultant increae in your monthly payments is lower than the monthly energy savings. I wanted to get this mortgage not only because it promotes conservation in general, but it would also allow me to immediately replace the 52-year-old furnace I was buying, even though I don't have the cash to do so. (It also would allow me to buy a top-of-the-line furnace and pay it off over 30 years.)

So yes, this is the mortgage I wanted, applied for, and offered. And about 30 minutes before closing, I learned that it was the mortgage I would not get. The loan officer calls to inform me that the energy inspector she had hired, as it turns out, is no longer approved for the program.

This is a crappy way of telling this story, so I'll try to re-write this post sometime this weekend, in the midst of painting the house that, yes, I did get nonetheless.

I was in Boston for the first time over the weekend. Reading through the Boston Phoenix, I spotted a couple of interesting bits:

The bass player from The Poster Children sold tickets to the sunset.

I was actually trying to get event insurance for these events, in case the sun didn�t set, and no company would insure me. Isn�t that funny?

...and...

In a six-minute exchange at the May 24 hearing (viewable at hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=238 [apparently no longer avaialable]), Bloch continued his evasiveness until an exasperated Levin finally berated him into conceding that, in fact, he believes the OSC [Office of Special Counsel] provides no legal protection to federal employees who are fired or otherwise mistreated because of their sexual orientation. "Why did it take me five minutes to get an answer out of you?" Levin moaned. "I believe it was longer than five minutes," Bloch replied.

Best description of R2-D2

"... a farting animatronic trash can that basically functions as Lassie-in-space ('what's that, ~~girl~~ R2?')."

"Why can't I stop loving Gloomy so much?"

It's the story of a boy who brings home a wild bear cub and, despite his mother's protests, keeps it for a pet. When the bear grows up, he attacks the boy. That's Gloomy, the Naughty Adult Bear.

"It is only natural that a bear attacks humans. I wanted to express that in a cute manner."

I absolutely love this.

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

I really liked this movie. The political themes were pretty thoughtful, the acting wasn't as bad as I'd heard (though Orlando Bloom doesn't get as much mileage out of his sole facial expression as he thinks he does), and the military tactics on display actually made sense (though when will a Hollywood swordsman keep his doggone shield in front of his body while he fights?).

Other than taking one sentence to spell out unnecessarily every plot point of the movie, I only have this bit from Ebert:

There is also exhilarating footage of young Balian makes his way to Jerusalem, using the 12th-century equivalent of GPS: "Go to where they speak Italian, and then keep going." The line that I recall is "Go to where the men speak Italian, then keep going until they speak something else."

As Jim was quick to point out, Goldie's hair is colored yellow in Sin City. Of course, Goldie! How could I have forgotten. I guess that's why I shouldn't wait a month to test my movie memory against Ebert's.