This post over at Boing Boing is funny, in a twisted sort of way. I mean, on the one hand, the whole street view thing from Google Maps is kind of cool, allowing you a virtual-eye view of the street and making it easy for you to locate landmarks and, if you've never been there, give you a picture of the landmark to recognize when you get there.
But what about private residences? Or, for that matter, what about people leaving public establishments they might not brag about to their friends and neighbors? What if they can identify you from your license plate?
And is it really true that you "don't have a right to privacy over what can be seen while driving the speed limit past your house"?
Now, I don't know about you, but this sort of thing makes me want to stand naked in the front window of my home so I can offer a skin-flute salute when the picture-van drives by. Of course, I know that it will be eons before anyone thinks about (or cares) street-mapping Vermont so all I can say is, when the photographer shows up, he better have a long lens.
Update: Since posting these links, all but the first two no longer show you the street-view shown when I linked them. I'm not sure if this is a glitch on my part or if Google is taking some preemptive action. Either way, if you live in a fairly populated area, I encourage you to go to Google Maps and discover your "street". Might open your eyes a bit.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The Best of the Breast
Gotta love this:
"We have to remember that while more women are showing more cleavage, you really have to use your breast power responsibly," Squires said.
That's it, ladies. Be responsible in using your "breast power" because, you never know, you might just put someone's eye out. Or something.
Now if only someone would write about the responsible use of cock power. Hmmm...
"We have to remember that while more women are showing more cleavage, you really have to use your breast power responsibly," Squires said.
That's it, ladies. Be responsible in using your "breast power" because, you never know, you might just put someone's eye out. Or something.
Now if only someone would write about the responsible use of cock power. Hmmm...
The Decline and Fall
John Leo looks at the state of writing in the postmodern world:
George Orwell, at the beginning of his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” made clear that he thought the language had become disheveled and decadent. That was in 1946. Intending shock, Orwell offered five examples of sub-literate prose by known writers. But these examples don’t look as ghastly to us as they did to Orwell, because language is so much worse today. If you doubt this, I offer a few examples.
George Orwell, at the beginning of his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” made clear that he thought the language had become disheveled and decadent. That was in 1946. Intending shock, Orwell offered five examples of sub-literate prose by known writers. But these examples don’t look as ghastly to us as they did to Orwell, because language is so much worse today. If you doubt this, I offer a few examples.
In plain English, what does it mean when students “achieve a deficiency” or reach a “suboptimal outcome?” It means they failed. A suboptimal outcome is even worse in at a hospital. It means the patient died. The airline industry sometimes speaks of a hull loss. What they mean is that one of their planes just crashed. Here’s more twisted language. Your doorman is now known as an “access controller”, and a receptionist is a “director of first impressions.” Hospital bills can be filled with such language, How about a “thermal therapy unit” (an ice bag) or a “disposable mucus recovery unit”, also known as a box of Kleenex.
Read the whole thing.Monday, May 28, 2007
Fire In The Hole
Scott Adams looks at global climate change:
For the record, I think it’s entirely possible that human activity is warming the earth, we can predict its consequences, and those consequences are dire. I just think that case hasn’t been made to my personal satisfaction. I’m bothered by the fact that the people trying to save me are feeding me nuggets of potentially useful facts buried in huge loads of what looks and smells like bullshit.
Be sure and read parts 1 and 2, also.
For the record, I think it’s entirely possible that human activity is warming the earth, we can predict its consequences, and those consequences are dire. I just think that case hasn’t been made to my personal satisfaction. I’m bothered by the fact that the people trying to save me are feeding me nuggets of potentially useful facts buried in huge loads of what looks and smells like bullshit.
Be sure and read parts 1 and 2, also.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Fresh Air
Last night was the first night we've been able to leave the windows open since early October. All of which means that A)Spring is here, so don't blink or you'll miss it, and B)Winter is sure to make one more appearance so don't put your woolens away just yet.
The highs will be in the upper 80's today, but just to keep some perspective, the water temp in nearby Lake Champlain is a nippy little 42. Just in case anyone was thinking of taking a dip.
The highs will be in the upper 80's today, but just to keep some perspective, the water temp in nearby Lake Champlain is a nippy little 42. Just in case anyone was thinking of taking a dip.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Reelin' in the Years
"Nostalgia is a corrupting emotion."
How much do we remember of our lives and how much do we invent? As Ann Althouse points out in her post, Oskar Eustis was 8 years old during the Summer of Love, so he's more likely remembering it wholesale, although watching an attempt to levitate the Pentagon would probably stick in the memory banks. But is it true that "what really imprints on you is what was happening when you were 17"?
Now I can honestly put a lie to Robin Williams' famous dictum ("If you remember the 60's, you weren't there"); I lived through the 60's - going from 7 to 17 - and I do remember them. Of course, I remember them the way anyone remembers an era 40 years gone; in bits and pieces and mostly in the form of personal anecdotes.
Like all kids, I went through a lot of changes during that decade and, like most boys, those changes primarily involved girls and sports. The political events of the 60's, with a few exceptions, were a blur to me and the notion of trying to stop a war - even a war that I would almost participate in a few years later - never blipped on my radar screen. The Kennedy assassination in '63 may have scarred my psyche but the arrival of my new best friend Mr. Boner the following year had a much greater effect on my day to day life.
Now, in fairness to Mr. Eustis, I can remember two things (that I'm reasonably sure I'm not, you know, inventing) that happened in my life before the age of 8 which have had a much more lasting imprint than anything that happened when I was 17. So, perhaps if the event is traumatic enough - Look, son! The Pentagon is wobbling! It's starting to rise! - maybe it can leave a lasting imprint. Or perhaps not.
Anyway, the only thing that left a lasting imprint on me when I was 17 - other than graduating high school - was that the Beatles broke up.
And I'm sure not nostalgic about that.
How much do we remember of our lives and how much do we invent? As Ann Althouse points out in her post, Oskar Eustis was 8 years old during the Summer of Love, so he's more likely remembering it wholesale, although watching an attempt to levitate the Pentagon would probably stick in the memory banks. But is it true that "what really imprints on you is what was happening when you were 17"?
Now I can honestly put a lie to Robin Williams' famous dictum ("If you remember the 60's, you weren't there"); I lived through the 60's - going from 7 to 17 - and I do remember them. Of course, I remember them the way anyone remembers an era 40 years gone; in bits and pieces and mostly in the form of personal anecdotes.
Like all kids, I went through a lot of changes during that decade and, like most boys, those changes primarily involved girls and sports. The political events of the 60's, with a few exceptions, were a blur to me and the notion of trying to stop a war - even a war that I would almost participate in a few years later - never blipped on my radar screen. The Kennedy assassination in '63 may have scarred my psyche but the arrival of my new best friend Mr. Boner the following year had a much greater effect on my day to day life.
Now, in fairness to Mr. Eustis, I can remember two things (that I'm reasonably sure I'm not, you know, inventing) that happened in my life before the age of 8 which have had a much more lasting imprint than anything that happened when I was 17. So, perhaps if the event is traumatic enough - Look, son! The Pentagon is wobbling! It's starting to rise! - maybe it can leave a lasting imprint. Or perhaps not.
Anyway, the only thing that left a lasting imprint on me when I was 17 - other than graduating high school - was that the Beatles broke up.
And I'm sure not nostalgic about that.
Quote of the Day
For Kate:
Writers know that when we write, we feel the world move; it is flexible, crammed with possibilities. It certainly isn’t frozen. Wherever human existence permeates, there is no freezing and no paralysis, and actually, there is no status quo. Even if we sometimes err to think that there is a status quo; even if some are very keen to have us believe that a status quo exists. When I write, even now, the world is not closing in on me, and it does not grow ever so narrow: it also makes gestures of opening up toward a future prospect.
Writers know that when we write, we feel the world move; it is flexible, crammed with possibilities. It certainly isn’t frozen. Wherever human existence permeates, there is no freezing and no paralysis, and actually, there is no status quo. Even if we sometimes err to think that there is a status quo; even if some are very keen to have us believe that a status quo exists. When I write, even now, the world is not closing in on me, and it does not grow ever so narrow: it also makes gestures of opening up toward a future prospect.
I write. I imagine. The act of imagining in itself enlivens me. I am not frozen and paralyzed before the predator. I invent characters. At times I feel as if I am digging up people from the ice in which reality enshrouded them, but maybe, more than anything else, it is myself that I am now digging up. (h/t Ambiva)
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Hackneyed
Christy Lemire of the AP reviews Shrek 3 and finds it hackneyed:
"Shrek the Third" begins with a death, and from there the movie itself steadily dies. The third installment in this monster of an animated franchise still subverts the fairy tales we grew up knowing and loving, but it's smothered in a suffocating sense of been-there, done-that.
Which is all well and good. I mean, I don't know if I agree with her assessment or not, but I'd agree that any movie with a 3 in the title has to have at least a little feeling of overuse. But then Christy just can't keep from being a little hackneyed herself:
(Why Fiona can't take over in a fairy-tale land where the all the other rules have been upended is never addressed. She is the more even-tempered and levelheaded of the two, after all. Perhaps if Hillary were president ....)
*Sigh*
Is it just me, or have movie reviews become more and more politicized these days? It's as if movie (and theater) critics are secretly ashamed to be writing about "entertainment" and would rather be discussing "important" things like global warming and the Bush administration's misuse of political power.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if an upcoming review of Pirates 3 doesn't compare the East India Trading Companies' effort to stamp out pirating to the War on Terror or wonders how broom riding stacks up on carbon emissions in Harry Potter 5.
"Shrek the Third" begins with a death, and from there the movie itself steadily dies. The third installment in this monster of an animated franchise still subverts the fairy tales we grew up knowing and loving, but it's smothered in a suffocating sense of been-there, done-that.
Which is all well and good. I mean, I don't know if I agree with her assessment or not, but I'd agree that any movie with a 3 in the title has to have at least a little feeling of overuse. But then Christy just can't keep from being a little hackneyed herself:
(Why Fiona can't take over in a fairy-tale land where the all the other rules have been upended is never addressed. She is the more even-tempered and levelheaded of the two, after all. Perhaps if Hillary were president ....)
*Sigh*
Is it just me, or have movie reviews become more and more politicized these days? It's as if movie (and theater) critics are secretly ashamed to be writing about "entertainment" and would rather be discussing "important" things like global warming and the Bush administration's misuse of political power.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if an upcoming review of Pirates 3 doesn't compare the East India Trading Companies' effort to stamp out pirating to the War on Terror or wonders how broom riding stacks up on carbon emissions in Harry Potter 5.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
See the Glory
Over at Word Around The Net, Christopher Taylor has finished his 5-part essay on Global Warming and compiled all the parts into one post. This is a quiet, thoughtful look at a subject that has a number of people running around like Chicken Little. If you want a better understanding of the science and the facts of the matter, Chris has done the heavy lifting for you.
So go read it, already.
So go read it, already.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Any Major Dude Will Tell You
The AP's David Bauder wonders: Where have all the TV viewers gone?
The first clue is staring you right in the face.
The first clue is staring you right in the face.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Question Begging
Economist Brad DeLong excoriates the American press for being Bush's lapdogs: (h/t Rebecca Blood)
Why didn’t the American press corps cover the Bush administration properly for its first five years? I really do not know. I do know that the world cannot afford to rely again on America’s press for its information: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So I appeal to all of you working for newspapers, radio, and television stations outside the United States: it is to you that we – including those of us in America – must look to discover what our own government is doing.
*Sigh*
As I read this tripe, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start with the notion that Brad is not - and never has been - a fan of our current president:
It was the summer of 2000 when I began asking Republicans I know – generally people who might be natural candidates for various sub-cabinet policy positions in a Republican administration – how worried they were that the Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush, was clearly not up to the job. They were not worried, they told me, that Bush was inadequately briefed and strangely incurious for a man who sought the most powerful office in the world.
Not to worry, Brad is told by his Republican friends:
Bush knows his strengths and weaknesses...he will focus on being America’s Queen Elizabeth II, and will let people like Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill be America’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Alas, Brad's Republican friends were wrong. Bush rejected the advice of his "betters" and essentially tried to run the country like a bored frat boy:
A strange picture of Bush emerged from conversations with sub-cabinet administration appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends. He was not just under-briefed, but also lazy: he insisted on remaining under-briefed. He was not just incurious, but also arrogant: he insisted on making uninformed decisions, and hence made decisions that were essentially random. And he was stubborn: once he had made a decision – even, or rather especially, if it was glaringly wrong and stupid – he would never revisit it.
Sheesh! What a guy, huh? I mean, who could ever doubt what "sub-cabinet administration appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends" are saying, right? Brad continues:
So, by the summer of 2001, a pattern was set that would lead British observer Daniel Davies to ask if there was a Bush administration policy on anything of even moderate importance that had not been completely bollixed up. But if you relied on either the Washington Post or the New York Times, you would have had a very hard time seeing it. Today, it is an accepted fact that the kindest thing you can say about the Bush administration is that it is completely incompetent...
So, let's sum up, shall we? In the summer of 2000 - before the elections - Brad is so concerned about a Republican presidential candidate who is "clearly not up to the job" that he asks his "Republican friends" why they're not worried. They tell him that Bush, like Dirty Harry, knows his limitations, that he'll make a swell Queen and let other, smarter people - people that he'll appoint, naturally - do the actual work of running the country.
But darn that G.W.! He just won't listen. And, thanks to Brad's having the inside scoop with his legion of "friends", we learn that Bush is lazy, arrogant and stubborn, and this is all within the first year of taking office! And so, the kindest thing we can now say about the Bush administration is that it's completely incompetent.
And the kindest thing I can say about Brad's post is that it's just another ad-hominem attack and one of the worst examples of question-begging I've ever seen. A more appropriate response would be to quote a line from the movie Time After Time:
"Herbert, a bigger crock of shit I never heard."
What he's really asking is why hasn't the American press covered the Bush administration the way he sees it. Why hasn't the press agreed to the "accepted fact" that - at the very least - the Bush administration is clearly incompetent? Why doesn't the world see the Bush administration the way he does?
Not that Brad offers any support for his belief, other than his conversations with administration insiders and their friends, and their friends of friends. Is that not the lamest qualifying statement you've ever heard? Try it out yourself: "Based on conversations with sub-cabinet appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends, I now believe..."what, exactly? But Brad doesn't have to come up with any, you know, actual evidence because to him it's an "accepted fact". And that the accepted fact simply mirrors a belief he held before the man was even elected only goes to show that he's been right all along.
I guess being lazy, stubborn and arrogant isn't such a bad thing after all, is it?
Why didn’t the American press corps cover the Bush administration properly for its first five years? I really do not know. I do know that the world cannot afford to rely again on America’s press for its information: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So I appeal to all of you working for newspapers, radio, and television stations outside the United States: it is to you that we – including those of us in America – must look to discover what our own government is doing.
*Sigh*
As I read this tripe, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start with the notion that Brad is not - and never has been - a fan of our current president:
It was the summer of 2000 when I began asking Republicans I know – generally people who might be natural candidates for various sub-cabinet policy positions in a Republican administration – how worried they were that the Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush, was clearly not up to the job. They were not worried, they told me, that Bush was inadequately briefed and strangely incurious for a man who sought the most powerful office in the world.
Not to worry, Brad is told by his Republican friends:
Bush knows his strengths and weaknesses...he will focus on being America’s Queen Elizabeth II, and will let people like Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill be America’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Alas, Brad's Republican friends were wrong. Bush rejected the advice of his "betters" and essentially tried to run the country like a bored frat boy:
A strange picture of Bush emerged from conversations with sub-cabinet administration appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends. He was not just under-briefed, but also lazy: he insisted on remaining under-briefed. He was not just incurious, but also arrogant: he insisted on making uninformed decisions, and hence made decisions that were essentially random. And he was stubborn: once he had made a decision – even, or rather especially, if it was glaringly wrong and stupid – he would never revisit it.
Sheesh! What a guy, huh? I mean, who could ever doubt what "sub-cabinet administration appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends" are saying, right? Brad continues:
So, by the summer of 2001, a pattern was set that would lead British observer Daniel Davies to ask if there was a Bush administration policy on anything of even moderate importance that had not been completely bollixed up. But if you relied on either the Washington Post or the New York Times, you would have had a very hard time seeing it. Today, it is an accepted fact that the kindest thing you can say about the Bush administration is that it is completely incompetent...
So, let's sum up, shall we? In the summer of 2000 - before the elections - Brad is so concerned about a Republican presidential candidate who is "clearly not up to the job" that he asks his "Republican friends" why they're not worried. They tell him that Bush, like Dirty Harry, knows his limitations, that he'll make a swell Queen and let other, smarter people - people that he'll appoint, naturally - do the actual work of running the country.
But darn that G.W.! He just won't listen. And, thanks to Brad's having the inside scoop with his legion of "friends", we learn that Bush is lazy, arrogant and stubborn, and this is all within the first year of taking office! And so, the kindest thing we can now say about the Bush administration is that it's completely incompetent.
And the kindest thing I can say about Brad's post is that it's just another ad-hominem attack and one of the worst examples of question-begging I've ever seen. A more appropriate response would be to quote a line from the movie Time After Time:
"Herbert, a bigger crock of shit I never heard."
What he's really asking is why hasn't the American press covered the Bush administration the way he sees it. Why hasn't the press agreed to the "accepted fact" that - at the very least - the Bush administration is clearly incompetent? Why doesn't the world see the Bush administration the way he does?
Not that Brad offers any support for his belief, other than his conversations with administration insiders and their friends, and their friends of friends. Is that not the lamest qualifying statement you've ever heard? Try it out yourself: "Based on conversations with sub-cabinet appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends, I now believe..."what, exactly? But Brad doesn't have to come up with any, you know, actual evidence because to him it's an "accepted fact". And that the accepted fact simply mirrors a belief he held before the man was even elected only goes to show that he's been right all along.
I guess being lazy, stubborn and arrogant isn't such a bad thing after all, is it?
Monday, May 07, 2007
Notebook
Harry took the wand. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wand above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls. Hagrid whooped and clapped and Mr. Ollivander cried, "Oh, bravo! Yes, indeed, oh, very good. Well, well, well...how curious...how very curious...."
He put Harry's wand back into its box and wrapped it in brown paper, still muttering, "Curious...curious..."
"Sorry," said Harry, "but what's curious?"
Mr. Ollivander fixed Harry with his pale stare.
"I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather -- just one other. It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother -- why, its brother gave you that scar.
Harry swallowed.
"Yes, thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Curious indeed how these things happen. The wand chooses the wizard, remember.... I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter.... After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things --terrible, yes, but great."
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
No matter how many times I read the HP books, I always get a chill up my spine when I come to this passage. It's a master-stroke of storytelling, with a wonderful sense of mystery and foreboding, and it's one of the moments that the movies got just right, with John Hurt providing the perfect spooky touch as Mr. Ollivander.
He put Harry's wand back into its box and wrapped it in brown paper, still muttering, "Curious...curious..."
"Sorry," said Harry, "but what's curious?"
Mr. Ollivander fixed Harry with his pale stare.
"I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather -- just one other. It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother -- why, its brother gave you that scar.
Harry swallowed.
"Yes, thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Curious indeed how these things happen. The wand chooses the wizard, remember.... I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter.... After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things --terrible, yes, but great."
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
No matter how many times I read the HP books, I always get a chill up my spine when I come to this passage. It's a master-stroke of storytelling, with a wonderful sense of mystery and foreboding, and it's one of the moments that the movies got just right, with John Hurt providing the perfect spooky touch as Mr. Ollivander.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Seis de Mayo
Memo to the galley:
No more is Romulan Ale to be served at official diplomatic functions. Or at any unofficial functions. Or at any functions at all.
Really. Just beam the shit into a Borg Cube, already. Along with any leftover burritos.
Oh, and someone tell the Warp Engines to keep it down, will you?
No more is Romulan Ale to be served at official diplomatic functions. Or at any unofficial functions. Or at any functions at all.
Really. Just beam the shit into a Borg Cube, already. Along with any leftover burritos.
Oh, and someone tell the Warp Engines to keep it down, will you?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Movie Slut
So, I’m sitting at my desk, a calendar of summer movies laid open in front of me, munching on my ogre-sized M&M’s, and I’m wondering just what to make of this rancid, steaming pile-o-crap that Entertainment Weekly calls the “sweet insanity of blockbuster season”.
May leads off the summer with a troika of 3rds (or a trio of turds, depending on your point of view); Spidey 3, Shrek 3, and Pirates 3. Will any of these be any good? The correct answer to that is who cares? These three movies – together with the 5th Harry Potter movie, coming in July – represent the closest thing to a license to print money that any movie studio could want. So go see them already.
Now, with all that firepower right out of the box, can any other movie squeeze in for some of the booty? Looking at the release calendar for May, the only one that might stand a chance is another sequel: 28 Weeks Later, coming May 11. All things considered, the big 3 own May and most of June, too.
The first real challenge to the big 3 comes June 1 with the release of Knocked Up, an adult comedy brought to us by the same creative team that did The 40 Year Old Virgin. Also on June 1 comes the Kevin Costner thriller, Mr. Brooks. I think KU could have benefited from an August release date (like Virgin) and maybe mommy and daddy will drop the kids off for a repeat showing of one of the big three while they treat themselves to some R-rated goodness but I have doubts that KU will capture lightning in a bottle like Virgin did. As for Mr. Brooks, I don’t think Mr. Costner will have to worry about any planned sequels.
The next challenge comes a week later with two more sequels, Ocean’s Thirteen and Hostel II. O13 is a perfect definition of a "whore's" movie. The only reason to make this movie is money. Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve were money-making turds made by grassfuckers (to borrow a term from Mr. Filthy) and 13 will hopefully see a big enough drop in revenue to ensure there’s no 14. Hostel II also seems like an August movie to me but it will draw in all those who can’t wait for Saw 4 next fall.
Also coming on the 8th is an animated flick, Surf’s Up, with voice work by everyone’s favorite teen of the moment, Shia LaBeouf. What I’ve seen of this doesn’t thrill me but it’s animated and by this time parents will be sick of Shrek so expect some numbers.
On the 15th comes a sequel to the Not-So-Fantastic Four and Nancy Drew. The second FF can’t help but improve on the original (hopefully we won’t have to endure any more Jessica Alba naked while invisible jokes) but hanging on to Spidey’s coattails won’t help here. Nancy Drew, on the other hand, has a chance to be one of the few non-sequels to crack the box office top ten. The preview looks fun, it has a young star with an established Nickelodeon fan base, and Warner Bros likes it so much they’ve already ordered a sequel.
A week later come two movies with a lotta “might” in them: Evan Almighty and A Mighty Heart. EA might be a very funny sorta-kinda-sequel to Bruce Almighty, substituting Steve Carell and lots of CGI for Jim Carrey. My feeling is EA will fall a mite short. And A Mighty Heart is what I would call the antithesis of a summer movie; it’s a serious drama dealing with the heart-wrenching true story of Marianne Pearl (played by Angelina Jolie) and what she endured when her husband was kidnapped and then beheaded by terrorists in 2002. This movie could be Oscar bait or it might turn out to be another Beyond Borders, but anyone who thinks this will draw serious business in June needs serious therapy.
June ends with Live Free or Die Like a Turd, oops, Die Hard and Pixar's Ratatouille. Pixar has a phenomenal record and I'm a big fan of Brad Bird (Iron Giant, Incredibles) but after seeing the trailer, I'm afraid that Ratatouille may go Rataphooey. And big John McClane rides again, this time coming out of retirement to save his daughter - what a family! Coming soon, Die Punk! as Bruce Willis tries to save his ex-wife's career.
On July 4th, we have the biggest non-sequel of the summer, Transformers, which features cars from outer space that turn into robots who want to destroy the earth. Our only defense are other cars from outer space that turn into robots that turn into Shia LaBeouf. Also on July 4th is License To Wed, in which Robin Williams tries to pretend he had nothing at all to do with RV.
A week later we have the other 2000 pound gorilla of a sequel, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and a Stephen King thriller, 1408. With 3 of the 4 previous HP movies in the all-time top 10 (and the 4th knocking on the door at #17), expect Sirius, er, serious numbers. The only thing that can derail this movie is if J.K. Rowling kills Harry in book 7, due July 21. I liked the trailer for 1408, with John Cusack as a skeptic investigating the supernatural, but these days Stephen King movies are like Toyota when horror-movie fans are all buying Scions.
July has three more con(pre)tenders: Hairspray, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, and The Simpsons Movie. While Hairspray has a number of devoted (and demented) fans, I don't see John Travolta in a fat suit becoming phat city. Adam Sandler is hit (Click) or miss (Little Nicky): I see Chuck & Larry as one of his misses. And the Simpsons jumped the shark for me about the time they starting airing their Halloween episodes in November but this movie has been on people's radar for some time so I expect a healthy opening, at least.
In August we get down to slim pickens: two money sequels (The Bourne Ultimatum and Rush Hour 3), two regrettable sequels (Invasion and Daddy Day Camp), one reimagining (Halloween) and one potential sleeper (Becoming Jane).
So, when all is said and done, where does that leave us? Well, if you've lasted this far, you deserve some fearless predictions and here they are (full disclosure: here are my picks from last summer and, courtesy of LA Guy, here's how I did):
1. Spidey (First Out, First In)
2. Transformers
3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
4. Pirates 3
5. Shrek 3
6. Surf's Up
7. Rush Hour 3
8. Live Free or Die Hard
9. The Bourne Ultimatum
10. The Simpsons Movie
If I'm right, you can say you saw it here first. If I'm wrong, well, I'm sure I'll be in good company.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Forbidden Fruit
"Tra la! It's May!
The lusty month of May!
That darling month when ev'ryone throws
Self-control away.
It's time to do
A wretched thing or two,
And try to make each precious day
One you'll always rue!"
The lusty month of May!
That darling month when ev'ryone throws
Self-control away.
It's time to do
A wretched thing or two,
And try to make each precious day
One you'll always rue!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
