BEETle is DROOOLING
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
RANDOM
BEEETLE IS BRAGGIN'
I thought that I would share the picture of my beaaaautiful beaaautiful baby that is en route to me. T'is a stunningly sexy Nord Lead 2X. My amazing friend G-Hahn found one and is bringing it it for me. I get it on Friday! I pretty much cannot wait until I can make sweet sweet music on it's sweet sweet keys. seriously, wait until you hear this bad boy. the freaking noises that it can make are soooo warm and vintage. UGH i love it. I CANNOT WAIT TO HAVE IT AT HOME. You will never see me again cause it's going to take me 900 years to learn all of its functions and sounds until i can piece something productive together. Anyways, i am verrrrrry excited!! I want to hear your input/suggestions! GO!
SOCIAL COMBUSTION
LOVE, LUST AND LIGHTERFLUID
Glitter on the west streets
Silver over everything
The rivers all wet
You’re all chrome
Dripping with alchemy
Shiver stop shivering
The glitter’s all wet
You’re all chrome
Dripping with alchemy
Shiver stop shivering
The glitter’s all wet
You’re all chrome
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
FILM SYNTHESIS
syNTHesized by theRealist
So the other day I went out and saw the new Wes Anderson, (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Darjeeling Limited) film, "Fantastic Mr. Fox," which is an adaptation of Roald Dahl's childrens book by the same name. My brother had seen it before me, and he came with us to see it again, because he thought it was an amazing movie. I have to agree with him on all fronts.
The cast itself is impeccable and if you know anything about Wes Anderson films, he sticks to a select group of people, (i.e. the Wilson Brothers Owen and Luke, Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Jason Schwartzman, Anjelica Huston etc.) who are all amazing actors. This time through we were also given the talents of George Clooney and Meryl Streep, which was a very good choice.
This is where I have to make my comparison as to why the movie was amazing. When we went and saw the premiere for Where the Wild Things Are, we were hoping for a beautiful and incredible movie. What we got was a well put together, Hollywood-esque childrens film, with adult undertones. In retrospect, it's almost like watching a Pixar movie, like Shrek for instance, where characters are making adult references for the parents to understand but it is very obvious.
What Wes Anderson did that was so different was also so simple: he stayed underground. Sure he grabbed Clooney and Streepy for this one, and also had his usual all-star cast on board, but he adapted the book to the direction he wanted, where as with Spike Jones adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, marketing and the need to appeal to masses reigned supreme.
Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. I understand the need for movies to make money. But the paradox of that is that if you make a movie that is shitty, it's not going to make a lot of money. I know that after seeing Where the Wild Things Are, I probably won't rush out to see it again, even when it's out on DVD.
I could go back and see Fantastic Mr. Fox three times over, and find new things to love about it each time. It's an incredible film, but obviously because of Anderson's choice to keep it underground, this movie won't be for everybody.
All in all, this movie accomplished what Where the Wild Things Are tried (and failed) to do.
The cast itself is impeccable and if you know anything about Wes Anderson films, he sticks to a select group of people, (i.e. the Wilson Brothers Owen and Luke, Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Jason Schwartzman, Anjelica Huston etc.) who are all amazing actors. This time through we were also given the talents of George Clooney and Meryl Streep, which was a very good choice.
This is where I have to make my comparison as to why the movie was amazing. When we went and saw the premiere for Where the Wild Things Are, we were hoping for a beautiful and incredible movie. What we got was a well put together, Hollywood-esque childrens film, with adult undertones. In retrospect, it's almost like watching a Pixar movie, like Shrek for instance, where characters are making adult references for the parents to understand but it is very obvious.
What Wes Anderson did that was so different was also so simple: he stayed underground. Sure he grabbed Clooney and Streepy for this one, and also had his usual all-star cast on board, but he adapted the book to the direction he wanted, where as with Spike Jones adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, marketing and the need to appeal to masses reigned supreme.
Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. I understand the need for movies to make money. But the paradox of that is that if you make a movie that is shitty, it's not going to make a lot of money. I know that after seeing Where the Wild Things Are, I probably won't rush out to see it again, even when it's out on DVD.
I could go back and see Fantastic Mr. Fox three times over, and find new things to love about it each time. It's an incredible film, but obviously because of Anderson's choice to keep it underground, this movie won't be for everybody.
All in all, this movie accomplished what Where the Wild Things Are tried (and failed) to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
