We are living in the future
No more cavities:
http://us.gizmodo.com/5924447/scientists-find-molecule-that-will-make-your-teeth-cavityproof
Eat pizza all the time:
http://gawker.com/5923097/scientist-creates-pizza-healthy-enough-to-eat-3-times-a-day-every-day?tag=pizza
Drink soda & lose weight:
http://gawker.com/5960224/new-fat+blocking-pepsi-will-soon-render-all-non+soda-liquids-redundant
Finally. What I’ve been waiting for my entire life. Soon I can be a total slob and suffer no consequences. TO INFINITE AND BEYOND!
Sinister X Bourne Legacy: Movie as Franchise Pilot
So I just finished watching Sinister and I came out of it with the same feeling that I did when the credits of the Bourne Legacy began: What?! It’s over?! That’s the ending?!?!?!
Both movies come off less as complete films and more as pilots to a franchise launch (or in the case of The Bourne Legacy, a relaunch). They aren’t full stories. They both have bad guys that are featured in the film, but are never actually confronted. In Bourne, Ed Norton chases Jeremy Renner all over the world, then Jeremy Renner gets sick, gets better, then gets on a boat and the movie is over. In Sinister, Ethan Hawke figures out all the spooky details then dies just as the “cycle” is completed. Sinister at least fits within the “figuring-it-out-but-it’s-already-too-late” horror movie trope (which also includes The Wicker Man, House of the Devil, and Drag Me To Hell), but it’s just way too calculated. Hell, they’ve built five prequels into the movie already.
From a business perspective, it makes sense. Why resolve a film when you can just put it off for another movie or three and reap the ticket sales? But as a movie goer, I just feel like it’s taking advantage of my money and my time. I won’t go see either of the sequels, which are inevitable. I’m done with that bullshit.
There is nothing in the desert and no man needs nothing.
I saw Lawrence of Arabia for the first time last week, and I’ve thought about it every day since. There’s something about that movie that’s really unsettling.
I’d been told that it was beautiful, but it was even more than I thought it’d be (the version I saw was the 2012 restoration which played in theaters for one night only). The landscape is so expansive and desolate that it becomes abstract. It’s almost like a science fiction movie, where the environment is as deadly as it is beautiful. It can swallow you whole in minutes or starve you to death over days. What’s more interesting is the allure of it.
And Lawrence is such a strange character at the center of it. So many paradoxes and hypocrisies. Unbridled ambition and really intense self-loathing, identity confusion regarding being an honorary Bedouin and an illegitimate son of royalty, ambiguous sexuality/asexuality, totally self absorbed but plagued by moments of self-awareness and fear of himself. I can’t think of any character that’s as complex and compelling. The only one I can think of that is anything like Lawrence is There Will Be Blood’s Daniel Plainview, but the comparison comes mostly from the characters’ megalomania.
Anyway, it’s a great movie, and I’ll have to see it again soon.
Posted in blogTagged David Lean, Lawrence of Arabia, T.E. Lawrence, There Will Be BloodLeave a comment