[Insert Clever Title Here]

What to say about this film: it was whacky. It was a little ugly, but I think that was the budget reasons. The acting was a little odd, the characters eccentric, but perhaps that is part of the charm.
I guess I'll try to tackle the science of it. How in god's name does this bird go back in time? That makes little sense. It's like in comic books when they use science mumbo jumbo - just use some big words, some fagamatazz, some cockamamie theories, and bam - people will suspend disbelief ("The gamma rays are crossing with the photons and making him a superpowerful mutant who's clothes change size with him!". Point is, I'm going to try to make sense of this, because I think it is important; these two women were scientists, and it feels disrespectful to spit on science in trying to pay respects to their characters.

So we have this photo, which for some reason is extremely fast 1860's flash photography, of Ada. A photo is a capturing of a moment in time, imprints that are tracing of a point in the timestream. So we have this photo. Then we have this agent, this Charlene thing, and Charlene exists in the computer. The computer stores data - data that can exist in the future. You could make a (pretty crappy) argument that data exists outside of the timestream. It doesn't change over time, isn't altered - it stays the same forever and ever. Inputting the DNA, which is the coding, the equation for life, and that somehow creates a connection between the photo and the agent - the point in time of the photo and the out of time agent. The agent connects its info to the computer and the person using it, in the timestream. We've now connected two points at different places in the timestream.

So yeah. I think that makes sense. In a stupid way.

And that is why "The Sandlot" is the pinnacle of modern film.

Is There a Mnemonic To Spell It?

Johnny Mneumonic is a confusing movie. It leaves viewers as confused as Keanu is at any particular time, and requires an attention to detail to understand that. Why is that guy Jesus? Why is that dolphin killing things? Why is Dizzy from Starship Troopers reprising her role (note: I have no proof of which film came first – my internet is down)?

Beyond these burning questions is some semblance of inspiration for further questioning. While I’d love to tackle the identity of Jesus, frankly, I lack the energy and gusto. Or maybe I just missed it the one line where they explain it. Regardless, bounty hunter Jesus, hired by the teacher from Battle Royal (hoorah for the evil corporation, a time honored villain) is after our old protagonist. And there’s a reason for this: our Johnny Mnemonic is special, and has some valuable info in his brain. That’s what I’m getting at.

For the second time, we come across a commodifying of humanity (the first example being – scroll down to it when you finish this sentence – THX 1138). A conscious choice to get parts – natural ones – removed to increase your data storage space? Seems nuts, but it is essentially data prostitution; the newest oldest profession. In our capitalist society filled with bottom line thinking, number crunching, downsizing, and outsourcing, thinking of a human as a number isn’t a huge stretch. When person A costs more than they produce, they get removed. This is true even out of business. Think of a professional sports team: when loud-mouth A becomes a detriment to the team that exceeds the positive gain of his skills, he’s getting traded. So perhaps this “dystopic” view is one that doesn’t fall too far from the tree.

And that is why "The Sandlot" is the pinnacle of modern film.

I Dream of Ahnold

There are some things I may never know. For instance, I may never know if I am really typing this or if it has been implanted in my brain. I may never know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. I may never know why LA Lites went out of style. I may never know whether Quaid is dreaming/remembering or really doing these things.

That may be the idea. You gotta think that is what they were going for – you were intended to feel the same confusion as Quaid himself. Sure, we can take some liberties with continuity errors, because all movies have them (his hands are covered in blood, yet her shoulders are clean after he grabs her), and I guess we can look past the fact that, regardless of whether this is a memory or dream, he is seeing things he wasn’t there for. Looking past those things, it is very tough to figure out whether or not he is dreaming.

Then again, I’m not sure we need to. Maybe that is the point. Although this was almost twenty years ago, the relevance of the digital and virtual age becoming more and more integrated with our lives is obvious. You know they have cars that parallel park for you? What’s next, JohnnyCab? The Sims or SecondLife, message board and blog personas, a video chicken you can command to do things; don’t forget Seaman, that Dreamcast classic that had you taking care of a sarcastic man-fish, including his social and emotional needs for stimulating conversation. The virtual pet is a popular thing now.

People seem to fear that kids especially are getting wrapped up in the technological age and no longer going inside. They don’t call people or go see people – they IM them. They don’t go play football, they play Madden on Xbox Live. Hell, even video games used to involve going to the arcade with your friends. The next generation seems to be who we fear for, not the adults who are internet dating and have a cell phone attached to their ears. Talk about cyborgian.

Who would have thought Arnold could create such stimulating conversation.

And that is why The Sandlot is the pinnacle of modern film.

Can Harrison Ford Make Babies?

I think this is the first film that’s genuinely and truly forced me to think about the question “Can Harrison Ford make babies?” and that is a feat in and of itself. We should applaud for a moment. Moment over. Now, onto the answering this all important question.

He’s a pretty strong guy. It would make a lot of sense in the context of how this film was made to have him be a Replicant in the end, and there are definite hints. If Ridley Scott isn’t answering this question (more on this later), then he’s definitely putting it out there anyways. First of all, normal people don’t dream about unicorns. We just don’t do that. Perhaps more importantly are two scenes with Rachel and one with Roy. “Have you ever taken the test?” Rachel asks (and I’m paraphrasing), referring to the Replicant Test. That’s a super huge red flag right there. Sure, it could be Rachel attempting to establish some humanity, but we all know better. So less of a scene than a line, but whatever.

The…we’ll call it “seduction” scene with Rachel is another. What the hell is he doing? He’s not a forceful guy, and this is a forceful scene. It’s almost difficult to watch. There’s a lot of subtext about programming there, but we’ll ignore it to get to the gold. Why would he be so out of character unless he was coming to a realization he just isn’t ready for? In fact, prior to that, he seems out of sorts, though one could make a plausible argument that it is because he was saved by a Replicant. Finally, the scene with Roy. I know he’s a Bladerunner, but Roy should have messed him up. He can’t jump well, as demonstrated, by the scene where he is climbing to the roof is extremely impressive as far as strength goes.

Going back to his scene with Rachel, we have to wonder, can he make babies? If he’s a Replicant, we’ll assume “no”, because that would kind of defeat the 4 year lifespan model. So…babymaker or no? You decide.

Alright, True Believers, that's all you're getting.

And that is why "The Sandlot" is the pinnacle of modern film.

It's All About Beating the Final Boss

Tron explores the complex world of video gaming and computers, before they became super complex worlds. Nowadays, you've got 3 major systems engaging in the System wars, you've got PC and Mac gaming deep into the internet age, with MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games) gaining huge popularity, and console systems becoming hugely internet integrated. The gaming market is a large industry with a variety of consumers, producers, and suppliers.

The truth about Tron is that it simplifies what otherwise might seem far more complex, on both an ethical and moral level. That's ok. I want to stop and say that this isn't a criticism. I understand construction of story. You can have a good guy and a bad guy. No wrong about that. But I would like to comment on this unrealistic portrayal of "the industry". I say "the industry" because it isn't just gaming and computing that has seen this sort of trend. This is something that has spread wherever there is creation: music, art, invention, etc. Back on topic. The industry giant isn't always the bad guy. I think while a simplistic view would have ingenuity and creative freedom as one end of the spectrum and profit on the other. You can have both. You can be successful and praised, even "mainstream", without losing creativity.

Well, that is that. Glad we settled it.

And that is why The Sandlot is the pinnacle of modern film.

George Lucas Does It Again...For the First Time

George Lucas's name comes with a lot of baggage these days. Lucas created the best mainstream sci-fi, and some of the most famous films of all time. They are classics, all time favorites, and are etched deep into the skin of the body populous. Then he made lesser blockbusters. His studio is easily recognizable, and the licensing that has spread is monstrous. Oh, and he helped make Indiana Jones. It all started though, with THX 1138.

I won't bore you with the details, but instead will launch into the discussion.

Perhaps one of the most interesting concepts is the "value" of lives. I personally have always thought of a difference between "people logic" and "capitalist business logic", which balance each other out in our society. For example, McDonald's is trying to make money. When people sue them because they are getting fat off eating too many fries, I don't think McDonald's has a social responsibility to them, I think they have it to themselves. However, if you're roommate is mad because you always cook fatty food for them, you might have more responsibility in the matter. In THX, once it exceeds the value (I predict the value is equal to the "profit" from THX's existence - how much he produces minus how much he costs to maintain) THX has to keep him, they let him go. What will he do anyways? This is business machine logic. It is being applied to life. As far as their system goes, it makes some sort of twisted sense. Yet, when we see it directly applied to human beings, it seems grotesque. However, in the real world today, we see a similar logic applied to the firing of lower level employees of large companies that are downsizing or merging. Not quite the same, but the parallels aren't difficult to see.

One thing that struck me was the "courtroom" scene, as it were. The almost childlike "lawyer" condemning the actions of the sexual deviants was an odd, but I just wanted point out it's existence.

That's about all I have space for today. I'm glad I watched THX, even if I didn't think it was an amazing film (although it did a lot more with little dialogue than 2001 did, IMO), but it brings up interesting issues and shows something about Lucas. Plus, the ending shot is a beautiful shot that can delight even the most jaded film cynic (if only for a second, and they'll never admit it).

And that is why The Sandlot is the pinnacle of modern film.

2001: A Space Odd-ysee

2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic film. You can often hear it brought up in Sci-Fi conversations. Really. Sure, the first line of dialogue doesn't come until 25 minutes and 58 seconds into the film (I looked it up), and it is pretty easy to completely forget everything that happened during the movie when you're watching the Stargate sequence...and there ain't no dialogue during or after... But it's a pretty big deal.

The film was confusing. It was a little ridiculous (and I'm not referring to the futuristic inferences - those aren't Kubrick and company's fault) and the opening and ending are just...well...weird. This could just be to the conditioning of 21st century cinema.

Despite that, there was plenty of discussion to be had about the implications of technology and it's relationship to man. Technology is what...well, separates us from the apes, so to speak. It allows us to rule the Earth despite our poor senses, weak bodies, and lack of naturally developed weapons (poisons, camoflauge, flight, etc). Overall, we're pretty pathetic. Yet, here we are, able to kill anything, in control of all we inhabit. Technology allowed us to get there. Sure, it helped ancient man to be in groups, but animals have been doing that for forever. What really allowed us to keep up with greater hunters was the spear, fire, the club, the bow. Now it is the gun, the car, the plane, the cage.

Can technology, which has blessed us so, truly make us it's tool? Is HAL really a vision into the future? I don't know. Perhaps that is the implication - that, like the kindly ape destroying to defenseless skeleton - we are incited to become more greedy and aggressive by our ability to, thanks to our technologies. Maybe the video, who's flickering could be a possible indication that a dying and weakened HAL is trying to make one last attempt to get Dave to forgive him. If he does want Dave's forgiveness, which he apparently does, it is because he thinks that is efficient or because he truly feels? He admits he has been acting funny lately, and that that won't be going on for long (implying it is bad). How much does he really feel? Fear, maybe.

There are a lot of maybes. We can't really say. But here is what I think, succintly:

1) HAL feels. He IS afraid. He is prideful. He is offended by the suggestion of him making a mistake. He cherishes his life. He likes Dave.

2) The video is HAL's attempt to explain himself.

3) Technology is only as dangerous as those who use it.
3b) If and when technology gains free will, it will no longer BE technology - it will be its own being, as much the creation of humans as I am of my parents.

And one last theory...if HAL didn't intentionally launch the video, it DID launch when HAL when shut down, and opened with a congratulations at reaching Jupiter. This could be a sign that reaching Jupiter would trigger HAL's shutdown, in turn activating the video. Maybe it was deemed they wouldn't need HAL on planet, and then with all the others revived, a full crew. HAL could just be practicing self preservation. Crazy, I know.
And that is why The Sandlot is the pinnacle of modern film.