Mala Hierba Buena

Season 4 of Weeds is completely different. The leave Agrestic/Majestic (or what's left of it) and "transplant" to San Diego. Nancy gets deeper than she ever wanted to and the family grows up a little bit more (Shane and Silas especially).

I'm not sure if I liked it. Nancy's conscience grows but there are not really any new frontiers on her personal troubles. She's still a crappy mom, a crappy friend, and has a messed up love life. The funniest story line of the season is Doug and Andy's coyote-with-a-heart-of-gold business. Because this aired last year, the commentary on the border seems a little stale (the major immigration reform dust up bruhaha was 2006).

Also, it sucked seeing Guillermo (Guillermo Diaz of "Half-Baked" and "Wrap it up B!") go from an affable if not a little scary guy to a complete villain. I like him and his comedy, so seeing a bad side of him was disappointing. Also, no Simon. Although, maybe the commentary on race and class had run its course.

The real slum, dog

One of the things that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire was that it didn't explore the depths of poverty in India. It sort of glossed over it.

Born into Brothels does not. I'm not sure who recommended it or if I just heard about it because it won the Oscar for Best Documentary (?) in 2004, but it is fantastic. Not that long, but pretty powerful. The story follows a group of 9 children in Calcutta who live in a brothel in the red light district. An American photographer ("Zana Auntie") teaches them photography and gives them little cameras to go take pictures. Besides taking brilliant pictures of their little part of the world they are also dealing with some pretty real stuff. About half-way through the movie, it starts to focus on the American woman's attempts to intervene into their lives to get them into school. Scenes of the Indian bureaucracy messing up the kids names on their forms, rejections from schools, and resistance from the families and the kids send this story into some sad moments. Not going to ruin the ending, but I think its worth the watch.

Movie-wise a couple of things bothered me. First, the music is melodramatic and kind of diminishes what is an otherwise powerful film. Take away the music and there's a whole new ball game. Second, and maybe I'm comparing it too much to Mad Hot Ballroom (a MUST-see documentary about an inner-city ballroom dance competition in NY public schools) but the drama and intrigue are not strong. The kids are very sympathetic and their stories are compelling and heart-wrenching. But, the film tried to make it into a drama and not an expose on their lives. I think it could have done with less work in the editing room.

I think its available online (Netflix has it to stream or rent) and maybe at the video store. Check it out.

The most trusted name in news

I get random bits of information from Yahoo! because it is my home page (for now- read below). When I saw this article/blog post I was very appreciative of its timely relevance to my life.

As for Yahoo! being my home page, that may soon go by the wayside for several reasons. First, they change the layout so much that I'm tired of it trying to figure it out every so often. Not a big deal but its annoying. Second, I don't use their mail that much any longer (the funny e-mail name isn't as cure when you're 26 as it is when you're 13- when I got it). Third, the things that Yahoo! has been the most useful for- checking to see if I have an e-mail or not- is no longer available. I can't go to yahoo.com and see that I have (or don't) a new e-mail so, why not just go directly to mail.yahoo.com or to games.yahoo.com to play a crossword? Fourth, as my ironic blog title indicates, I get my "regular" news from other sources: NYTimes, WaPo, Chron.com, etc. so why flip through to Yahoo's webpage to see what they're saying?

The previous paragraph probably should be filed under the category of gratuitous posting of life's minutiae that maybe should be left to one's self. But, whateryagonna do.

A.O. Scott

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about the New York Times is the movie reviews in the Arts section. Often I find myself reading reviews of movies I have zero interest in watching just to read how others think of them. My favorite reviewer is A. O. Scott and until tonight I had never seen his face.

He review "Mad Max" in their video section of their website in this clip. Its short so there's not much there, but for other fans of his, I thought it might be interesting.

The mind of an unemployed person

So, I may be on a little bit of a blogging kick.

Last year I was informed of the foreign policy blog "Passport" by the magazine (wait for it) Foreign Policy. Everyday they do a Morning Brief entry with the day's most important goings on, etc. The title of this morning's post tickled me a little bit (I'm weird) because it reminded me of this.

Also, in case you just click the link and don't get to see the posts, there is this little piece of news that is sort of interesting. The post has a very snarky tone to it, which may or may not be appropriate.

VIVA LA HYPERLINK!

Let's open up the vault

If you're reading this you probably know me and that I'm willing to watch just about anything (also stated "I'm interested in seeing crappy movies"). There are some movies over the years that have escaped me for one reason or another and now with the invention of the Netflix queue and my laziness some of those movies arrive in my mailbox.

Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones star in Double Jeopardy, a thriller where Ashley Judd's character (I think they said her name but she'd probably prefer it if you call her Ashley Judd's character) is framed for murdering her husband and sent to jail only to discover while in jail that her husband is still alive and has started a new life with her son and best friend. That is approximately the first 15 minutes. I'm not sure what happens in the next hour and a half because I blacked out from ODing on obvious plot "twists" and assertions of the strength of Ashley Judd's character (think Not Without My Daughter). Tom Lee Jones plays somebody that does something and we're supposed to be interested but JHC its terrible. I could've just written this: Double Jeopardy: its bad, don't see it. However, I know my readers expect- nay, demand an explanation.

I watched Confessions of A Dangerous Mind last week. I didn't want to write a review of that because I was only half paying attention but it was worth watching. Interesting for sure. I wish they'd played up the fact that his CIA experiences may not have actually happened and sort of taken a bigger picture (like Adaptation) view of his autobiography: a movie both about and from the book. Not a lot to write about it b/c I wasn't immersed in it but its got some spy stuff and the visual effects are pretty neat (I was reminded at some points of Europa, Europa- I don't remember why).

OH, OH. A movie I watched that I really liked was Bloody Sunday. It was done in 2002 and won an indy award for making a political statement or promoting peace (something like that). Its about the Sunday in Dairy, Ireland (the Northern part) where British paratroopers killed a bunch (13) of innocent* people. Never having learned the story and knowing disappointingly little about the event (the one from the U2 song) I was amazed about the story. The frustrating sequence of events that led to unnecessary death was displayed masterfully. I was moved. The acting is phenomenal and art (camera work and lighting, especially) are amazing. I would watch this again for sure.

*= asterisk.

Royal disappointment

On my friend Danielle's recommendation I started watching the six episodes of Kings that they aired this past year. The premise was interesting- it is loosely based on the story of the great Jewish kings- and I'm a sucker for a new TV show so away I went last night and today.

The pilot (Goliath pts 1 and 2) is EPIC. If it were a movie I would've paid to watch it (luckily it is free at NBC.com and Hulu.com until Sept. 20). My crappy internet connection made it take a LONG time to watch, but I had to. It is incredible. So full of promise. The best parts were the character of David Shepherd (as in David vs. Goliath- a name that also makes an appearance) and the romance between David and the King's daughter. Plus they threw a plethora of story lines out there, so it looked like it was going to be an incredible show.

Oh, what could have been! Watching episodes 2-5 was so disappointing. David becomes a naive, impotent boy. The greatest story line- the rise of a smart, daring, passionate man to power based on a sense of fairness- gets thrown in the trash in favor of palace intrigue. All of the power plays that were alluded in the first episode (great and terrible people doing great and terrible things) become cloak and dagger boring minutiae.  Oh, and Macaulay Culkin shows up in the 5th episode. 

The actress who plays the princess is the best, by far. The actor who plays the king es no bueno. He's got no range and his character has some serious issues that need someone to show something besides arrogance.

I'll probably watch this one until they stop making them (a la The Black Donnellys- one of whom plays one of David's brother in Kings) but this show is unsustainable. For some reason I heard that it was cancelled/not picked up for the fall but have not confirmed.

Recommendation: watch the pilot and then wait until you hear some buzz (from me or someone else) about the show. 

UPDATE: The end of Episode 6 is better and more intriguing than the rest...

I forgot to mention that the music is terrible and that the use of the butterfly (a MONARCH naturally) is weird and does not work.