the one

I just finished watching "The One" on Netflix. I won't spoil anything, but the premise is that you can submit your DNA to a company and they'll "match" you to your "one," assuming they're in the database too, of course. when you meet your "match" it'll be like nothing you've experienced before. like you kind of already know them from somewhere, and they'll be irresistible to you, you both to each other, even if you don't know you're matched. 

an interesting "side effect" is that they are a lot divorces after current spouses take the test anyway and get matched to people who they're not currently married to. I can totally see this happening, lol. the british govt gets really antsy about the rising divorce rate (the show is set in London), but the founder of the company says that eventually marriages will be on the rise, and there won't be divorces at all anymore since everyone will be matched. supposedly, if you're already happy with your spouse, you won't submit your DNA.

an interesting side story is that a happily married woman submits her husband's DNA. he gets matched to another lady. she looks up the woman, befriends her by going to her yoga classes, and generally acts a crazy person. it comes a head when the husband (who knows nothing of this) goes thru the wife's phone and unwittingly invites his wife's new yoga friend to a surprise birthday party he's throwing for his wife. the matches meet at the party, have a connection, but don't know exactly why. eventually the wife tells her husband who this woman is. he ends up telling his match why their connection is so strong. blah blah blah. he eventually chooses his wife and the heartbroken match plans to move far away. but before she does, she asks the wife why she didn't submit her own dna rather than her husbands? the wife says that she loves her husband and she's secure enough with that.

I think the psychology is really interesting cause the science is obviously crazy. this actually happens several times in the show, but people obviously have a choice in who they decide to be with, regardless of their connection with someone else. worth mentioning that in the show you can also, albeit very rarely, be matched to more than one person (usually your match's sibling, or someone they share a lot of DNA with. [I did immediately think of identical twins when they were introducing the science, altho did you know that even identical twins don't have identical DNA?]) 

one more interesting tidbit is that, well, being matched to someone doesn't mean you'll be happy. there's a reference to this: this one promising young woman gets matched to a druggie repeat bad criminal guy. like, that does happen. people fall in love all the time with people who are "bad" for them. but again, you always have a choice. loving someone doesn't mean you have to be with them. and this is further demonstrated in that people are getting matched to others around the world. but like, what if neither of you can (or wants to) leave where you are? 

anyway, it's a howcatchem series of only 8 episodes, kind of dumb, but I did definitely enjoy it.

the interview 2

rip, ting and i watched the interview on the 25th via youtube. it was surprisingly similar to the version i watched months ago! i only caught three changes: the franco/rogen party scene seemed much shorter, i think they added in a lot of the butthole stuff (esp at the end of the actual interview), and they definitely way changed the face on fire part.

all in all, reasonable changes. i was hoping they'd use the nicky minaj interview about superb ass / super bass (that was in the commercials) and cut off the rob lowe interview (that i saw the first time), but they kept lowe in. bah. i didn't think it was funny then, and it certainly didn't get any better.

overall, i stand by my original review in that the movie is hilarious. knowing what jokes were coming didn't change my reaction to any of them. i laughed probably almost as hard as i did the first time.

i'm glad sony decided to release the movie. i think they messed up quite a bit in their handling of this whole thing, but in the end, they did the right thing. i mean, i get that sony is a private company, and one not held in the united states, but i think it's fucking crazy that we would let some other govt tell us what we can and cannot makes movies about. our own government doesn't even censor us this way, so why would be give some other govt the power to?! especially when this movie is billed as an obvious work of fiction and comedy! i do think that the creators of the movie could have made some concessions to not offend real people. they could've called it north something, and not north korea. and it didn't have to be kim jong-un. they could've picked any name. most people would still know who you're talking about. but anyway.

one last thing: altho a lot of people illegally dled the movie, rip bought it, which i commend him for. he wanted to support sony's decision to release the movie. and there's no better way to say you approve than to monetarily back up your approval..

the interview

i signed a nda, but imma write this anyway since no one reads this website and since i only have positive things to say "the interview". i watched it a few months ago as a screener. (i get emails that invite me to these free movies. they're unfinished so sometimes the effects aren't done yet, or they ask for feedback about certain things. anyway. this movie) i didn't really know what to expect. it was billed as a comedy starring seth green and james franco. about 10 minutes into the movie i still wasn't that into it. it was kind of funny, but not that great. as the movie went on tho, it got better and better and as i was walking out of the theater later i was thinking that this was probably the best screener i'd ever seen. it was hilarious! i disliked a couple specific things about the movie, but overall, the acting, pacing, comedy, story, ending, action, everything was awesome.

so this sony hacking thing. honestly, i do think it's north korea. if only because their only demand is that sony not release the movie. i would never have thought a govt so petty as to hack a company because they don't like their product, but when the hackers asked for nothing except for stuff pertaining to this movie, well, who else would it be?

i'm interested to see what happens. i'm writing this post on the 16th but am waiting until after the planned release, just in case that nda (or the hackers) come back to bite me in the butt. but seriously, it was a hilarious movie. we'll see how much they change it. some parts, i know, have already been changed cause i watched the end helicopter explosion scene and that is MUCH "cleaner" now. the way it was before was surprisingly "detailed", even before any of this craziness happened!

i'm glad sony changed the release date, from some north korean holiday to christmas day. it did seem unnecessarily antagonistic. them changing a few scenes here and there is also okay. i just hope they didn't ruin the movie.

one more thing. while, yes, the movie does make fun of the north korean leader, i felt like it mostly made fun of americans. kim was portrayed as a lonely, misunderstood, hypocritical person. but any actual vip (esp leader of a something as big as a country) would be lonely and misunderstood! the movie makes you feel bad for him. i mean, yes, north koreans are brainwashed to believe some incredibly fantastical stuff about their leader, but every hero's background is exaggerated at least a  little. but the americans in the movie were idiotic. i mean, even the cia looks ridiculous sending that can't-do-anything-right pair to do such important dirty work!

(follow up post romrow)

advanced genius

jason hartley - the advanced genius theory: are they out of their minds or ahead of their time?

the wikipedia entry on the advanced genius theory

a few years ago rip and i "argued" about how metallica was no longer good and how their saint anger cd was proof of that. i said that the band had maybe progressed past the level that rip was at. people evolve, obviously, and so do bands. problem is that maybe the fans and the band don't evolve together. music is a pretty person experience, after all.

so imagine my surprise upon reading "the advanced genius" theory to see that apparently this was actually a theory! btw, i do NOT think that metallica is genius. and the book itself wasn't all that awesome either. the wikipedia entry sums up the book pretty well.

anna karenina

i watched anna karenina recently because i couldn't get thru the book. it's forever long and everyone has a million names (as the russians do) but i'd always wanted to read it since it's a classic and i've never read a russian book before (i know... not even crime and punishment!)

in any case. the movie is worth a watch. it's shot really interestingly. some of it's like a play; there's a stage sometimes. some of the movements (the dance scene especially) is very choreographed, like a ballet. it's really interesting.

but, the point of this post, actually, is that some people is crazy. i dunno what it is about love, but it turns some people into raving lunatics. a lot of people grow out of it (i certainly did) but some people do not. i guess i'm just curious about why people act crazy. like, what do they think they're accomplishing? guilting people into things, stalking people, berating them, being paranoid... this does not keep people in love with you. in fact, it will eventually drive them away from you. it's tough being in love with someone who is all about the drama. a normal person will indulge you for a while, but no brand of crazy is so awesome that they'll stick around forever. ...unless there's something wrong with them as well.

support

rip and i watched a movie a few weekends ago. there wasn't anything out that we really wanted to watch, but rip had a free movie ticket that was expiring so... there was haywire, redtails, and contraband. we watched haywire, mostly because the showing time worked out best. but i also wanted to watch it because it's an action movie with a female lead. (rip rolled his eyes when i said this, but eh, that's who i am). you might say, hey, that actually happens a lot: catwoman, underworld, tomb raider, and while yes, those female characters do kick ass, they are also portrayed as sex objects. the haywire commercials did not portray gina carano as a sex object who happens to be tough, she was clearly a very tough woman who happens to be sexy.

in any case, the movie was interesting. i didn't like it much at first. there was minimal background sound / music, and what music there was, was really... cheesy. it felt like it was trying too hard to be "hip" and not hip like cool, but hip like from the 60's and 70's. it reminded me a lot of the ocean's 11 actually. anyway, the style took some getting used to, but all in all, i liked it. ...altho i think most audiences will not agree. which is a shame, since their dislike isn't really of the movie itself (or being unconvinced of a strong female lead), but because of the style of the movie. it really did have a lot going against it...

(btw, i was also thought of watching redtails because of the controversy associated it: how studios wouldn't give george lucas any money for it since the movie didn't have any leading white roles. but at the end of the day, you should support what you feel most strongly about, and while i absolutely care about racism, feminism affects me in a more direct way. [you could argue against that, of course. but it's one the "perks" of being in the model minority living in a place that is quite racially diverse])

james frey

i recently reread james frey's "a million little pieces" and i can't help but wonder why everyone was so mad that some parts were exaggerated. well, okay, i don't know how much of it isn't true, but i remember reading that most of it was and that just a few things were not (he shortened the time line, the length of time he spent in jail, how lilly killed herself...). if that's really the case then who really cares?! it was marketed as a memoir, not an autobiography (which, while not too different, is totally different). and even in many autobiographies certain names or details are altered in order to protect privacy. importantly, the main story of frey's book, the addiction and the recovery, are true. also most of the incidents are fully true (as corroborated by others). and most of the narrative are actually his own thoughts, and who's to say that he wasn't thinking those things?

yes, he might not have been as heroic or even as derelict as he said he was but the point remains: he got over his addictions without the help of a 12-step program. 

a friend of mine went to alcohol counseling after receiving a dui. and she said that they also pushed aa and it's 12 steps. as with frey, she also said that the 12-step program felt like replacing one addiction with another. and i've heard it from others too, they've been told that without the 12-steps they are bound to relapse. 

should i then, an athiest, be especially worried if i were to become an addict? apparently i will NEVER become sober! it's simply not possible! it's not just one or two of the twelve, but seven (seven!!) of the twelve steps mention something to do with a spiritual being outside myself. 

even the first time i read frey's book i really liked and identified with his philosophy of taking full responsibility for one's own decisions, actions, and addictions. maybe some people need a holy power to help them get over their addictions, but surely not everyone does. 

frey's story is a parable. just because it's not 100% accurate doesn't make it any less profound. even most christians don't believe that jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, but they don't then discard the entire bible. 

of course, i'm not saying that frey didn't do wrong when he lied in his memoir. certain changes to specifics (names, locations, dates) are allowed, and it's to be expected that some events will be downplayed or exaggerated but apparently he majorly altered the truth in certain parts of his book, which is a big no no in a work of what's supposed to be non-fiction. but he didn't deserve the massive public condemnation or oprah publically humiliating him on national tv.

movies

i love watching movies, tho i normally don't get to watch nearly as many as i'd like. the last few weeks, however i've watched tons!

   500 days of summer - very cute! i liked it
   harry potter and the half blood prince - (again) not bad
   harry potter and the deathly hollows - okay, prob not great that i walked away most excited about the wedding dress being an alexander mcqueen tho. for someone who's never read the books, there were too many questions i was left with (to be answered in the next movie apptly [my friend who did read the series said so])
   a single man - very beautiful, tho a bit slow. and quite heavy handed i thought. good tho.
   an education - interesting movie. cute, but in a good way.
   splice - very very weird. creepily sexual. lol, i knew it wasn't really going to be a "thoughtful" or "philosophical" movie, but, lol...
   brothers - good. worth watching. it doesn't cover any new territory from other war movies, but it was well acted. best of the bunch.
   super size me - funny. educational, but really, you just learn details. we already knew all this didn't we? ...tho of course i am watching this movie many years afer it's release (lol, there's one scene showing gas prices: $1.67) "every time i drive past a fast food place i'm going to punch my kid in the face"

for fun only?

i watched the hangover recently, which was a pretty damn funny movie. however, i'm worried about the message the movie unwittingly sends out.

in case you don't know, the movie is about four guy friends who go to vegas for a bachelor party of one of them. the "bachelor" is a nice guy, his soon-to-be bother-in-law is a weirdo, another friend is a married morally challanged "smart guy" who you can tell has gotten way wit tons stuff before, and the last friend is sort of straight laced who's is kept on a VERY short leash by his girlfriend (he tells her they're going to napa for the party, not vegas.). anyway, they're only supposed to spend one night in vegas before heading back to la for the day of preperations before wedding day. that night tho, they start it off with a round of shots from the weird guy's flask.

the next morning they wake up to find their hotel suite in shambles, with a tiger in the bathroom and a random don't-know-who's baby in the closet. they can't remember a thing from the night before. they're all missing brain and liver cells (one ended up in the hospital with broken ribs), one of them is missing a tooth but is married to an "escort," and they can't find the groom. antics ensue.

in the end, of course, everything comes up rosy. they find the groom, make $80k, don't end up in jail, make it to the wedding and ditch the controlling girlfriend. whew! to add icing on the cake, they find a camera that documents their "missing" night. apptly they found strippers, met various d-list celebrities, and in general looked like they had a whole lot of fun. yay!

...wtf? how can it possibly be all flowers and rainbows if you can't remember a fucking thing but ended up in the hospital and pulled out your own fucking tooth! you didn't actually have a fun time if you can't remember a moment of it. why doesn't the whole weekend scare the shit out of these people?! oh, right, because they got away with it all. they didn't end up in jail, you can always get a crown, and i'm sure no one came home wit vd. all of which would not happen in real life.

i understand that it's just a movie. and that most people understand that movies aren't real life. but come on. you're basically saying that it's okay to get drugged up and drink way too much and black out and not remember anything, because you're gonna have fun (that you can't remember), and you're gonna be okay, and everything will work itself out. no matter wat trouble you get yourself into while you're blacked out, you can talk yourself out of once you wake up. and imagine the stories you can tell!

while all the main players in the movie are male, imagine if this were a group of female friends. how much you wanna bet that in real life, at least one of them (if not all of them) would be raped, and likely, multiple times by multiple people. imagine even, that it was not real, and it was just a movie about four women who went to vegas for a bachlorette party and got drugged and drunk and did all things the boys did. do you think this movie would even make it past the idea pitching stage? no, of course not. because there are serious dangers for women who are blacked out. unlike for men. ...wait, no, that's not right either.

...get real, hollywood.

movies 2

watched two more movies over the weekend. went wit harry and and did something i haven't done in like 10 years, we movie hopped! first we saw stranger than fiction, then we saw the fountain. btw, movie websites are getting better and better. some of them are seriously amazing... go to them! and hm... i think i'm gonna start rating movies like reepal. not wit stars tho, or numbers. that's too confusing. so imma do... wait for dvd, go watch now, and buy dvd.
stranger than fiction. good movie. it's will ferrel exercising his acting chops. so perhaps it's not as comedic as you might expect. i wasn't expecting it to be tho, so i was okay. it's quirky and interesting and smart.  it's a love story, but not a full on romance. a bit predictable but not boring, even so. good music. altho that might be because i like spoon.
the fountain. absolutely beautiful. a bit confusing tho. it's the type of movie you'll need to see more than just once to fully understand. after it ended, most of the audience stayed and quietly talked it over. it's also a romance. i urge you to go see it wit your boif / girlf. i saw it wit harry and it just wasn't as good. it's incredibly moving (i cried, seriously, like 7 times). and i'm seriously planning on watching all of darren aronofsky's films, starting wit requiem.

movies

have seen quite a few movies lately: jerry maguire, borat, marie antoinette, and casino royal, the new bond film.

jerry maguire. most of you have seen it so i won't go over it much. but that little kid? jonathan lipinski or watever? he's the cutest ever! the movie itself was good. could've done witout the nudity tho...

borat. disappointing. i was looking forward to liking it but... some parts were hilarious but overall the movie wasn't so awesome. the commercials give away a lot of the funny parts (but not some of the funniest bits of all). it was supposed to be hella funny because it was supposed to be all real, or unscripted or watever. but it wasn't. and i'm not talking about the parts where he argues wit his producer. i mean the bear, or garage sale, or pam anderson... eh, anyway. the movie wasn't bad. but it also wasn't good.

marie antoinette. i was totally looking forward to seeing this film and i was not at all disappointed. i think that it helped that i already knew the movie wasn't going to be 'conventional'. reepal didn't like the movie at all. i think he was waiting for the story to kick in. well, it doesn't. not really. it's just not that type of movie. wat it was... it was arty and beautiful. well shot wit good music. exuberant and colorful, candyful. i loved it.

casino royale. of the four, this is my favorite. i gotta say that i wasn't quite sure about daniel craig as bond. i didn't find him attractive enough, which i kno sounds silly for judging a whole movie. but bond is supposed to be hella attractive. anyway. after seeing the movie? wow. i'm sold. totally. he makes a great bond. i read something somewhere about how he's not handsome, but he's sexy. the bit that sold me on him being bond was when he was in the shower wit the girl. he does these two things and just wow. i don't want to ruin anything. but the finger thing and the temperature. :) i liked that. and he has a nice low voice. besides just sexy tho, craig does a good job. he's very human in this movie, which i liked. there's this part towards the end when he's on the boat talking to m and he's touching his feet. lol, i dunno why, but i thought that was nice.

i was pretty ew when i saw him wearing his tight little swim trunks in the commercials and movie. but really, wat else would work? reep said in some interview daniel said that the wardrobe people brought over a lot of different types of swimsuits. but craig said that the little shorts were the only thing bond would wear. which i agree wit. i just... wish bond would have worn regular board shorts. eh. oh! and nearly everyone in this movie has bad teeth! eek! or big noses... bond's love interest was pretty, but she looked better without all the overdone makeup. and her top teeth were a bit off. and the 'sexy lady' of the movie had a huge head. and an ever larger nose! and the 'bad lady' of the movie wasn't bad looking but her nose in profile was hugenormous! bah. and maybe that's just me as an american, but wat's wrong wit these europeans who don't care about orthodontistry! and yeah, i kno, i don't have perfect teeth either. but hey, i'm not an actor.

anyway, the movie itself is very solid. it's supposed to be like the 'first' movie. how he becomes like the bond we kno now. i think they did a really good job wit that. he blunders a little bit. doesn't have the drink or the name down just yet. but he's so egotistical that he carries it all off quite well. the movie addresses his personality and character. how come he can't seem to be true to just one women. and how come he seems so aloof and emotionless. anyway, definitely worth seeing if you have the time.

btw, for those of you who think you've seen him before, you probaly have. appt he's been in lots of things, including layercake (as the main character), munich, sylvia (her love interest), road to perdition, i dreamed of africa, and even tomb raider (her love interest). who knew? full list here.