Queue Tips: Rabbit Hole

Apparently, "Rabbit Hole" is not some kind of Jewish porn.  I guess I read the title wrong.  This is a film starring Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart, who play a couple who lost their young son.

Being a fairly new parent, I have had a lot of fears, morbid scary thoughts that I wish would never happen.  It's tough to imagine what it would feel to be in that kind of situation.  God forbid something happens, I just don't know what kind of person I would become.

My main problem with this movie is that we're watching the characters after their tragedy.  We don't really know who they were or what their life was like before.  We're seeing them react to the situation but we don't know how they may have changed.  Either that, or I totally just missed it.

I thought the film was well done, although I felt it was a little melodramatic at some points.  There was a little too much yelling for me, but I guess the characters needed to let out their frustration.  I would still recommend it but you can probably wait for the DVD.

This movie was based on a play, and I would actually be more interested in watching the stage production.

Queue Tips: The Fighter

Apparently, "The Fighter" has nothing to do with Dave Grohl.  Cos he was in the Foo Fighters.  Hello?  Anyone?

This was a pretty good film despite the plain, generic sounding title.  Christian Bale never disappoints.  You gotta love his dedication to his craft.  He kind of actually reminded me of a client who was a former boxer.  Mark Wahlberg was all right, I guess.  He hasn't actually done anything that has truly impressed me.  But then again, I haven't seen "Invincible" yet.  Or "Max Payne".

Melissa Leo was awesome.  I didn't know she would be in it.  I always love little surprises like that.  She was of course terrific in "Frozen River".  Recently she was in HBO's "Treme".  And you've probably never seen her in "Homicide: Life on the Street", but that was a pretty good show.

I don't like to reveal too much, and I don't know what else to say, so just check it out when you get a chance.

Queue Tips: Where my speeches at?

Apparently, "The King's Speech" has nothing to do with Elvis.  Or one of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement.  Or a basketball player from Sacramento.  Or a hockey player from L.A.  Or Fu's Chinese Restaurant.

Nope.  Instead, it's about King George VI, who reigned over England during World War II.  Apparently, the guy was a stutterer, and being a public figure who had to speak to his people, that was a problem.  So he hires a speech therapist who tries to help him.

It's a good film, although I felt they made some situations feel a little too convenient.  The movie didn't start out with the main character as king.  He was only the Duke of York in the beginning, and they kind of made him less ambitious than you would expect a normal human being to be.  Even when he was finally crowned, he seemed less than enthusiastic to be at such a high position.  Of course, they show that he was burdened by his duties and that he didn't actually have total power or anything.  But I just kind of expected him to be a little happier.  Just a bit.

Geoffrey Rush was terrific as the speech therapist.  You may have seen him in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.  I don't know if you've seen him in "Quills" though.  If you haven't, put it on your queue and check it out.  I watched that film a while ago with my wife.  I popped the DVD in before going to sleep one night, hoping to just watch a few minutes before dozing off.  We ended up staying up to watch the whole thing and sleeping around two in the morning.  That was the latest we've gone to sleep in a long time.

Oh yeah, and Guy Pearce plays King Edward VIII, the older brother of George, who is played by Colin Firth.  Helena Bonham Carter plays his wife.  Michael Gambon aka Dumbledore plays King George V.

And the film is directed by Tom Hooper, who I didn't know much about.  It turns out I've seen some of his work as director of the mini-series "John Adams".  If you haven't seen that, check it out also.  It stars Paul Giamatti.  David Morse is in it also, as well as a small role by Mamie Gummer, who is the daughter of Meryl Streep.

Queue Tips: Dawn tread on me.

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Narnia.

Narnia who?

Narnia darn business!  Mwahahaha!

I love that lame little joke.  I look forward to "Chronicles of Narnia" movies just so I can tell it again.  When I first watched "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe", I didn't even realize what exactly a wardrobe was.  I thought it was just clothes.  I didn't know it also stood for the piece of furniture that holds the clothes.  I was like a little kid watching that movie.  I was like, "Ohhh, that's the wardrobe."  And later, "I guess she must be the witch."  And then when the lion showed up, I was like, "That's the lion!"  Well, I guess I already spoiled it by revealing that there's a lion, a witch and a wardrobe so I won't say anymore.  Put it on your queue if you haven't watched it yet.

I recommend "Prince Caspian", too.  There is a prince in there whose name is Caspian, but that's all I'm saying.  Apparently, some audiences didn't like this because it wasn't Christian enough or something.  I wasn't viewing the film in those terms, so I actually enjoyed this movie.  I never read the books either, so I was neither disappointed or appointed not disappointed in the plot.

"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was a bit of a letdown, even though I knew the two older kids weren't going to be in it.  I kind of feel bad for the young fans who weren't aware of this going into the film.  In addition to that, the Dawn Treader is a ship where the characters go on a voyage.  You don't actually see much of Narnia, and you see less characters than in the previous two films.

In this third installment, we are introduced to an annoying cousin not unlike the one in those Harry Potter stories.  I found him pretty damn irritating, which was the point, I guess.  I think maybe they could have used him more to show or re-introduce the Narnian characters.  "Dawn Treader" wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either.

And now, some Metallica:

Queue Tips: Wireless.

This is what I liked about "The Wire".  Any character can die at any time.  And you simply move on.  And the show was still good until the very end.  The series ended after five seasons.  Despite some situations being unresolved and some characters not getting their comeuppance, the show was over.  Furthermore, there were actually some new developments.  I'm glad it ended before it got stale.

Before this, "The X-Files" was probably my favorite series, and that show definitely got formulaic, especially with the so-called "monster-of-the-week" episodes.  And then near the end after David Duchovny left, I felt like they were stringing the audience along whether Mulder was coming back or not.  I wish they had just killed him off and challenged themselves.

The summer after I graduated college my then-girlfriend and I stayed up nights watching this.  Around 4 in the morning, we would cook ramen noodles.  Most of the time I fell asleep on her lap and missed some of the shows.  She would fill me in the next day.

The apartment we were staying in at the time happened to have some mice.  We would see them scurrying about in the dark from time to time.  We decided to hunt them.  We pretended they were aliens and we were Mulder and Scully.  We set traps all over the place.  We were armed with tennis racquets, a broom and a dustpan.  It was fun.

Anyways, a friend tells me that "Shameless" is pretty good.  He taped the first episodes, so I might check it out.  And then I'll let you know what I think about it.

Queue Tips: Are you series?

I don't like TV shows.  Well, I don't want to like them.  If I do, I'll have to sit through all those hours because if I don't watch each and every episode, I feel unfulfilled.  Even if everyone says it's good, I won't check out a TV series because by the time I've heard about it, I've already missed out on some of the shows.

I almost caved with one show though.  People would always mention it on Facebook or Twitter.  "Modern Family" is on.  But I never did change the channel.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend lent me the first season DVDs.  I didn't know anything about the show, but when I saw that Ed O'Neill was in the cast, I decided to give it a chance.  It turned out to be pretty good, actually.

It's kind of like "The Office", but with a modern family instead of an office.  The difference is that some of the timing of the jokes in "Modern Family" are a little off, while some are simply weak.  My guess is that they don't improvise much like the cast of "The Office" does.  Still, it's worth watching I think, and I don't really mind being hooked to it.

A while ago, my friend also let me watch "True Blood".  I didn't like it.  It just wasn't my thing.  So I was glad I didn't have to watch the rest of it.

I did check out HBO's "Boardwalk Empire" though.  It was produced by Martin Scorsese, and he even directed the first episode.  It was okay.  I could take it or leave it.  But since I had started to watch it, I kept tuning in for the rest.  I thought it was interesting that one of the lead actors is Michael Pitt, who kind of looks like Leonardo DiCaprio I think.  I also like hearing references to Jersey City every once in a while.

Another show I've been watching is "Treme".  I highly recommend it.  It's produced by David Simon, who has also written and produced some of my past favorites in "Homicide: Life on the Streets", "The Corner" and "The Wire".

The series is about residents of a neighborhood in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  I didn't know John Goodman would be in it, so I was pleasantly surprised.  Melissa Leo plays his wife.  In addition, Khandi Alexander also has one of the leading roles.  And in one of the last episodes of the season, I actually saw a client of mine actually saying a line.  So that was cool.  I think the DVD is coming out in a few weeks so be sure to save it on your queue.

Queue Tips: True Grit

Apparently, "True Grit" is not a documentary about properly cooking a Southern breakfast.  It is the latest film by the Coen Brothers.  I was so excited about this film when I first heard about it that I went out and rented the 1969 version starring John Wayne.  That wasn't such a good idea because now I knew the plot, and as I've mentioned time and again, I like to know as little as possible about a movie when I see it.

I guess I kind of expected it to be very unlike the first one.  When I heard Quentin Tarantino was directing "Inglourious Basterds", I went out and rented "Inglorious Bastards", the 1978 Italian film.  The differences with those two were pretty stark, including the story.

I guess I expected the same for "True Grit" because I knew the Coens were going to be truer to the novel.  Still, both films' stories are basically the same.

Joel and Ethan definitely had a much better cast, and the performances were excellent.  In the first one, Kim Darby as Mattie Ross was many years older than fourteen and looked it.  It was a little tough for me to look past it, and I think maybe they shouldn't have mentioned her age at all.  Her youth is actually very important though because it adds to her character.  As much as John Wayne is all over the posters for the movie, I think the title applies more to Mattie and her determination.

For the new version, I thought Hailee Steinfeld was terrific.  She is part Filipina, by the way.  It's not really relevant, but just FYI for those who wouldn't mind knowing.

And all you have to do is mention the names of the rest of the main cast - Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin.  Those are pretty much synonymous with good performances.  And then they have Barry Pepper playing Ned Pepper.  Awesome.

Maybe I need to watch it again someday when the earlier film still isn't fresh on my mind.  If you haven't seen that one, then maybe watch the new one first.  If you have seen the John Wayne movie, then I guess I still think it's worth seeing.

I still have to check out the original versions of "Intolerable Cruelty" and "The Ladykillers".  Wait, was "Intolerable Cruelty" a remake?  I always thought it was.

Queue Tips: 127 Hours

Apparently, "127 Hours" is not the sequel to "The Hours".  Or "27 Dresses".   It is the latest film by "Slumdog Millionaire" director Danny Boyle.  Surprisingly, I was able to keep up with it even though I haven't seen the first 126.

As always, Boyle's composition, editing and use of music don't disappoint.  The plot involves a hiker who gets trapped under a rock and must fight for survival.  How much of a story can you make of that?  I think Boyle made a successful film by exploring the mind of the character as he assessed his situation and struggled to escape. 

There was a movie I saw once as a child that I barely remember.  I think Kevin Bacon was in it.  It was about a group of climbers or scouts or something.  There was a scene where one character breaks his lower leg, and I kind of cringed a little.  All I can say is, you probably won't be eating popcorn and sipping your soda while you watch it.

Queue Tips: Shyama-lama-ding-dong.

I didn't really have much time to write yesterday.  Been kinda busy.  But I wanted to reflect a little bit on the work of the great genius M. Night Shyamalan.  Mainly because after going through the special features, I have learned that "Devil" is only the first of an apparent trilogy called "The Night Chronicles".  So finally, I found something scary.

It had been a while since I've watched a film and actually felt what the characters were going through.  The last time I think was during "The Happening".  Through most of that, the characters were wondering about the things that were going on, confused as to why they were occuring.  I certainly empathized.  I myself couldn't figure out what the hell was happening.  And much like the characters, I just wanted it to stop and be over with.

I doubt, however, that this was the director's purpose.  There had been much hype about how this was his first ever R-rated film, which stands for "restricted".  Someone should have restricted him from making it.  There was too much focus on the "R-rated" part than the "film" part.

I thought at the time that Shyamalan should stop doing everything himself and start working with another writer.  As it turned out, he actually let another director take charge of "Devil" while he produced it.  So I guess it turns out that I was wrong.  I think Shyamalan should probably just stop altogether.

I was thinking more about trying a different genre though.  If you've ever seen his early film called "Wide Awake", that happened to be a Disney film and it worked very well.  It was also able to explore some of the same themes shared in his other works - religion, faith and doubt.

"The Happening" came out around the same time as "I Want to Believe", and I think it would have been interesting if M. Night and Chris Carter had each other's material for their movies.  The plot for "The Happening" was more of an X-File than the last X-Files movie.  And I would like to see Shyamalan directing a less fantastic, more realistic mass murderer hunt movie.

I don't know if "I Want to Believe" needed to be made anyway.  Apart from the characters, it didn't really feel like "The X-Files" at all.  The filmmakers should have challenged themselves by having the characters of John Doggett and Monica Reyes involved, I think.  Or they should have moved on after David Duchovny left the show and should have stopped stringing the audience along in hopes that Mulder would come back.

So anyway, what was my point?

I really liked "Wide Awake" when it first came out and I didn't even know or care who directed it.  I liked "The Sixth Sense", too.  I didn't even see the ending coming, although most people apparently knew what was going to happen in the first few minutes.  I didn't see the first five though, so maybe that's why?

I even liked "Unbreakable" even though some people thought it was simply stupid.  I've only seen it once though.  It was at the theatre with a bunch of my friends, and we happened to be in a great mood at the time.  So maybe that's why I didn't hate it.

His first films were pretty decent, I guess, but his movies lately have been terrible.  The difference between his early and recent works is - here it comes - night and day.  Get it?

Queue Tips: What made them do it?

I don't pay attention to detail because the devil is in the details.

Anyways, apparently, "Devil" is not the sequel to "The Devil Wears Prada".  Also, it's not a documentary about a hockey player from New Jersey.  Or a wild and crazy cartoon character.

This movie is about a group of people who end up stuck in an elevator together because the devil decided to torture them.  I don't know if the filmmakers aimed to punish the audience as well, but they certainly accomplished it.  Watch it at your own risk.

Queue Tips: Children of old ages.

Have you ever seen "Pinocchio"?  It's been around forever, but I've only seen it recently.  It was fun.  And as far as I can remember, it stays pretty true to the Carlo Collodi book.  It's a classic.  I recommend it no matter what age you are.  Both the book and the film.  They're for children of all ages, as they say.

The only thing I didn't like about the DVD was that once it finished, it automatically redirects to this god-awful pop cover of "When You Wish Upon a Star".  What a letdown.  Way to ruin your product.  I grabbed the remote right away, pressed stop and just shook my head.  SMH, as the kids say.  Some things I just don't understand.

Trying to keep an open mind, I actually watched "Mamma Mia!"  I guess you have to be an ABBA fan to appreciate this.  I found the plot ludicrous, and the songs didn't fit the situations.  They were forced.  It also bothered me that with the cast's voices, the songs didn't sound like the original.  They were butchered.

I felt the same about the songs in "Happy Feet", especially their rendition of Queen's "Somebody to Love".  Some of my friends found this movie a little boring.  Well, I didn't think it was great or anything, but I found it watchable.  I'm sure the target audiences - the kids and the young at heart - enjoyed it.

_.. ._ ..._ .. _.. ..._ .. ._.. ._..

Queue Tips: Uneasy.

"Not Easily Broken" was not very easy to watch.  It was quite awkward, and in my opinion, amateurish.  It's about this married couple who are having trouble staying together.  They kept showing why the union wasn't working but never really gave a reason why the pair should have been together in the first place.  It's hard to care about what happens.  Wood Harris is in it, if you're a fan of "The Wire".  Geez, I mention that show in almost every one of these posts, don't I?

"Valkyrie" is a movie about Nazi officers who plot to kill Hitler.  I couldn't care about these characters either.  They're freaking Nazis.  And I already knew they wouldn't succeed.

So those are a couple of big problems there.  You can't identify with the protagonists and you already know they will fail.  They should have explored these characters more and examine their emotional conflicts about what they thought was good and bad.

After being Nazis for so many years, did they suddenly just realize they were bad people?  Were they afrraid that they would lose the war if they don't surrender?  What did they plan to do if they were in control?  Stuff like that.  Or did I miss something?

The bigger question though is, what were audiences supposed to take from this?  Were we supposed to idolize these Nazi failures?  Why are we lionizing them?  Seriously.

"My Blueberry Nights" is a film about a woman who wants to save money for a car.  She works two jobs to accomplish this, at a bar at night and a diner in the daytime.  Things happen at work, things that don't contribute much to the plot.

She goes from New York to Memphis to Las Vegas and back to New York.  I don't really understand why she has to go through all that.  It didn't seem to change her anyway.  She's just the same old boring person she was at the beginning.  It's almost as though they were just making things up as they went along.  Not recommended.

_.. ._ ..._ .. _.. ..._ .. ._.. ._..

Queue Tips: Hail stones.

Apparently, "Shine A Light" is not the sequel to "Shine".  Or "Little Miss Sunshine".  Or "Sunshine".  Or "Sunshine Cleaning".  Or "Visions of Light".

I don't know what to make of this Martin Scorsese film.  Is it a documentary, or a concert movie?  I don't think the director was sure either.

If it was a concert movie, then why break it up with behind-the-scenes and archival interview footage?  If it's a documentary, then why not explain things whenever possible.  For example, I would have appreciated knowing what songs they're playing.  I mean, I know the Rolling Stone enough to recognize "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Shattered" and the rest of the popular stuff, but there are lesser known songs that I wouldn't automatically recognize.  "Shine A Light", for example.  Or they may be younger audiences out there who might not know who originated "Just My Imagination".

There was a point in the show when another musician joins them on guitar and vocals.  Obviously, I'm not "hip to the scene" because I had no idea who that guy was.  He must be somebody.  He was worthy enough to share the stage with the Stones.

The target audiences are definitely those who are big fans of the band and don't need anything explained to them, like me.  I like the Rolling Stones, and I like Martin Scorsese.  And I like hearing Stones music in Scorsese pictures, from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" in "Mean Streets" to "Gimme Shelter" in "The Departed".  However, I'm not crazy about him directing their concert movie/documentary.

I admit though, that the first few minutes brought up some not-so-happy experiences for me.  The film opens with the film crew trying to get on the same page with the musical act.  Decisions needed to be made, but didn't get made until the last hour.  Those kinds of memories were brought up, and I don't know whether it affected my enjoyment.  This film is still worth watching though.

Queue Tips: It's not anything.

I recommended "Black Swan" yesterday.  It's not out on DVD yet, so you can't have it on your Netflix queue apart from the Saved section.  But you can stand in an actual theatre queue and get your tickets to it.  Interestingly, it looks like Darren Aronofsky's next movie will be about Wolverine the superhero, starring Hugh Jackman.

I've never been a die-hard X-Men fan or anything, but I've always found them interesting.  I have noticed though that everytime I've read a comic or watched a cartoon, there always seems to be a different storyline.  So I don't really know what the original plot should be.  I know many of my friends were complaining about that with "X-Men Origins: Wolverine".  As for me, I had no expectations or predispositions, and I was able to just sit back and go along with the ride.

I actually found the story interesting.  I've enjoyed the other X-Men movies as well, and of course, I recommend this one.  Hugh Jackman as the title character didn't disappoint.

He was also in "Australia" with Nicole Kidman.  That was disappointing.  First of all, the title is too bold and broad for what turned out to be a simple action movie, especially if you can tweak a few elements and set it anywhere else.  There were scenes involving half-caste kids which seemed like cheap imitations of "Rabbit-Proof Fence", but maybe that's just me.  They tried to incorporate World War II in the story, and it was about as historical as "Pearl Harbor" was.

Speaking of history, WTF happened to The History Channel?  Where's all the education stuff that you would normally expect?  History, as I understand it, is a written record of the past.  "How The Earth was Made" is actually a great show, I think, but it's not strictly history, is it?  It's a bit of a stretch that I can sort of accept, but when they show stuff like dinosaurs walking around eating, hunting, fighting, that's a bit too much for me.  That's considered prehistory, I believe, before written records existed.

And now they have "Pawn Stars", "Ice Road Truckers" and many other reality-type shows.  According to their slogan, they produce these shows on their channel because history is made everyday.  Wow!  By that standard, so much history is made everyday that they are being made on every other channel as well.

It's a free country, I suppose.  But what really irritates me about this, is that this channel probably survived through the years because there were many history buffs out there who supported it.  This is no way to thank them, I think.  At the end of the day, it's all about the bottom line.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to mention MTV, formerly known as Music Television.  This channel who became so popular because of the music videos they showed, no longer shows music videos.  But now you can check out MTV2, MTVU, and other offshoot channels if you want music videos.  That is, if they show them there anymore or at all.  Likewise, The History Channel has many other permutations out there.

As for The Animal Planet, they used to have all these nature shows like "Wild Kingdom" and "Meerkat Manor".  Now it's just full of reality shows about people and their pets.  Who wants to see that?  I can see cats messing up our trash cans or dogs pooping on the sidewalk when I step outside.

One other channel I'd like to mention is TruTV.  Their tagline: It's not reality, it's actuality.  What's the difference?  I don't know.  I do know their shows aren't actually real.  A while ago, they had a marathon of this show about a tow truck company, and my wife and I actually found it interesting.  After a handful of episodes, we started to notice a pattern that everybody was always irrational and for people who had been in the business for a long time, they certainly didn't seem like they knew how to handle irate customers.  Once they had a man pretending to be handicapped, and they find out that he wasn't when he decides to stand up and fight them.  Once they were towing a very expensive sports car and of all the things that could happen, they get into an accident and total it.

I got Fios not too long ago.  I like it.  It's already cheaper than what I was getting with cable, and I'm already getting so many more channels.  But it's really frustrating because I still can't find anything to watch.

Queue Tips: Black Swan

Darren Aronofsky's "Black Swan" is kind of like "The Wrestler" with dancers.  (I wonder if I'm the first one to say that.)  I knew Natalie Portman was in it.  I wasn't aware of the rest of the cast or the story.  And I definitely didn't expect some of the scenes that were in it.  They were pleasant surprises.  Very pleasant.  So yes, I recommend it, and I won't say much more.

One movie that I would really love to watch while it's still in theatres is "True Grit".  I generally get excited about Coen brothers films and want to see them right away.  If I can, I would love to see this one on the big screen.  If I don't get to, however, I don't think I would really mind so much this time.  I've already seen the earlier film with John Wayne, so I know the story.  Now this new version might be different, especially if Joel and Ethan stick to the book.

I would like to see their take on it since it's already out.  Otherwise, I don't generally like remakes, even for them.  I haven't seen the original versions of "Intolerable Cruelty" and "The Ladykillers".  Both were okay, for the Coen brothers.  I really should check out the earlier films so I can make up my mind whether they needed to be remade.

Then there's "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader".  I would like to see this one as well if I had the time and money (for popcorn and such).  I liked the two previous "The Chronicles of Narnia" films, but they were both directed by Andrew Adamson, while this third one is directed by Michael Apted.  I hope it won't be a disappointment.  I can probably wait for the DVD though.

Speaking of DVDs, apparently, "Last Day of Summer" is not the sequel to "(500) Days of Summer".  As I had mentioned in previous posts, I had my Netflix account canceled, and so I am now at the mercy of my friends who still subscribe to it.  One was kind enough to lend me this DVD.  I had no idea what i was watching.  It's about this guy who has had it with his job and decides to do something about it.  Don't rush to put it on your queue, but if it somehow ends up being mailed to you, I don't think you'll hate it either.  However, I don't know if I was only tolerating this because I didn't have to rent it myself.

By the way, I watched "Inception" again recently.  Or did I dream it?  (Okay, that's an old joke by now, but whatever).  I just wanted to mention how much I love that slow motion of the van falling off the bridge in the end.

Also, I love the fact that the twirly thingy that Cobb keeps is called a totem and not a token.  A totem pole, of course, is a bunch of heads on top of each other, as the characters in the film go through layers of dream after dream.  And lastly, for all the talk about how important it is not to let other people touch your totem, I find it interesting that the first time we see Cobb's totem, it has already been touched by a projection in the dream.  Also, it wasn't his totem in the first place; it was Mal's, if I remember correctly.  She locked it in a safe which he opened.

Trying to make sense of this movie is really an exercise in futility, I think.  But it's still fun.  For all we know, the whole film could have been a dream.  Perhaps Mal is still alive and it was her dream we've been watching from start to finish.  Including the credits.

Queue Tips: Curious hour.

Apparently, "Drunken Angel" is not the sequel to "Drunken Master".  No, it's totally different.  Especially since it came so many years before.  This is the seventh film by Akira Kurosawa, and I've only seen it a few days ago.

It doesn't disappoint.  It's one of the few stories by him not set during samurai times.  One of the lines, if I remember correctly, goes like this, "Forget about that feudalistic loyalty crap."  I highly recommend it, especially if you're into Kurosawa's films.

I won't tell you much more so that I don't spoil it for you.  As I may have mentioned before, I prefer knowing absolutely nothing about a film before I watch it.  Just put it on your queue.

Meanwhile, this will probably be the last DVD I'll ever get on Netflix.  I'm tired of all the changes they're making.  Discs have been coming in scratched and unplayable, and it's just not worth it having to keep asking for replacements.  They don't seem interested in getting new ones either.  Sometimes titles would just disappear and go down to the "Saved" section.

In addition, they raised the price of my plan.  So that was kind of the last straw.  From now on, I'll be giving hulu a chance.  As well as the library and my good friends who still have Netflix.

Queue Tips: The Social Network

Apparently, "The Social Network" is not the sequel to "Network".  I think that would be "Network 2: The Revenge".  Or is it "The Network Never Sleeps"?  I don't know.

Anyway, it's completely different.  It's about this thing called Facebook.  Ever heard of it?  It's kind of like MySpace, which is kind of like Friendster, which is kind of like Xanga, which is kind of like OpenDiary, which is kind of like AOL.

But supposedly this guy who invented Facebook is some sort of a genius because his website is more popular than the others.  And supposedly this movie is really great because it's about Facebook.

Am I just me, or don't you need to be able to relate to the main character?  I found nothing redeeming about the guy.  Don't you have to show some kind of good in him to root for?  I didn't care at all what happened to him.

I also was not a big fan of the incessant music.  The soundtrack needed to be closer to Facebook and not some annoying MySpace profile where you have to go through the thousands of embedded pictures and icons just to find the audio player and hit the stop button.

Lastly, as you may have already heard, the producers actually took a real life Indian character and turned him into a Caucasian in the movie.  I don't understand that.  It's like when I watch all those hospital shows on TV and not see one Filipino nurse.  Go to any big city hospital, and you'll see what I mean.

But I digress.  This film is worth watching, but I don't understand all the hype around it.  Check it out when you get a chance.  Meanwhile, I'm working on my screenplay called "Anti-Social Network".  It's about a Blogspot blog that no one reads.

_.. ._ ..._ .. _.. ..._ .. ._.. ._..

Queue Tips: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Apparently, "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" is not a documentary about Scottish Settlers in the New World.  It's a totally different film.  I don't know if it made a ton of money, but it kind of just came and went so I don't think so.

I was actually pleasantly surprised with this.  Michael Cera pretty much plays the same character as he has in other films, but it definitely worked for this movie.  I won't say much more because I don't like giving away details.  I myself prefer to watch with a clean slate.

Cera's persona kind of reminds me of Woody Allen.  It's basically the same guy in every film, but it works.  And now I wish I could see Michael Cera star in a Woody Allen film.

So I watch the Netflix DVD, and it's great and everything.  But get this.  I select "bonus features" on the main menu, pick the deleted scenes, click play all, and this comes up:

"This disc is intended for rental purposes and only includes the feature film.  Own it on Blu-ray or DVD to view these bonus features to complete your movie watching experience."

WTF is that?  Why even bother giving the option?  Why make us go through those selections?  Why bother writing all that and authoring it that way?  In other words, you knowingly gave me an inomplete movie watching experience.  Douchebags!  And they even took out the audio commentary, which doesn't take up much space.

This is one of the reasons why I have no respect for the movie business.  Apart from that, some of them make you sit through their previews before being able to even access the menu.  And when you finally do get access to it, some of them show you scenes from the movie or show you are about to see.

So for those who actually buy these products, they have to go through this every damn time they want to watch it.

_.. ._ ..._ .. _.. ..._ .. ._.. ._..

Queue Tips: Let's get dangerous.

"Bangkok Dangerous" is one of those movies that I keep trying to watch again and again.  This is mainly because it's so bad that I erase it from my mind immediately after viewing.  So I totally don't remember that I've already seen it.  You should forget about it, too.

The same with "The Day the Earth Stood Still".  It feels like time is standing still when you're watching.  I believe it came out on theatres exactly two years ago.  Keanu Reeves is a humanoid who shows no emotion and speaks in monotone.  He plays one in this film as well.

I also saw "Religulous" for some reason.  This is Bill Maher's documentary about religion.  He was okay in it, but he was very subjective.  I double-checked some of his facts, and they didn't all turn out to be a hundred percent true.

He did have some good points, but the film could have been much stronger  had he given more effort towards objectivity.  And less silly jokes.  Yes, I do know it's meant to be funny.  So they sacrificed accuracy for comedy.

Don't bother adding "Two Lovers" to your queue.  It's not a simultaneous thing.  It's one at a time.  Also, it sucks.

Queue Tips: Desperate for attention.

"The Tale of Despereaux" was okay.  I didn't care much for it, but I think kids will like it.  It was watchable, but at the same time, forgettable.

A more memorable kids' film is "CJ7".  It's not a cartoon.  It's directed by Stephen Chow.  I enjoyed it.  I laughed a lot.  It's too bad not many people know about it.  In this country anyway.  Check it out when you get a chance.  You might love it.

"Son of Rambow" is a good one, too.  It's about two kids becoming friends.  It made me think a lot about my own childhood and how much simpler things were.  We hung out with each other just because we liked each other and didn't have to worry about hidden agendas or ulterior motives or any kind of pretense.

"Bolt" was another good kid flick.  I pretty much enjoy most Disney cartoons though.  The last one I can remember not liking was "James and the Giant Peach",  and that was because I had read the Roald Dahl book upon which it was based.  I didn't like the decisions that the filmmakers made.  That was already so long ago forever though.  When I watched it again recently, it didn't seem so bad.  But I've already forgotten what I've read.

I also watched "The AristoCats", not to be confused with "The Aristocrats", which is nowhere close to a children's film.  I liked it.  It was directed by Wolfgang Reitherman.  I like the spirit of his Disney films.  He also did two of my favorites, "The Jungle Book" and "Robin Hood".  The voices all pretty much sound the same though.