Three Gratuitous Movie Reviews

Not to say that the movies are themselves gratuitous ... well, OK, I take that back.  They mostly are, in different ways.  None of them are Brand Shiny New; indeed, Shaun of the Dead came out in 2004.

( Shaun of the Dead )

Overall rating for Shaun of the Dead:  99 minutes of my life that I will never get back.

( Igor )

Overall rating for Igor:  Fun entertainment in the style of The Nightmare before Christmas, even though it fails to reach Nightmare's level.

( Avatar )

Overall rating for Avatar:  Typical action-movie-level entertainment as long as you're not expecting Robert Ludlum depths of plot.  Shiny, shiny pixels really showcase what's possible with current CGI technology.

[1]  Note that I do not include Pixar in this category.  Pixar does good work; Disney largely just bought the right to put their own name on top of the credits for Pixar productions, and I'll give them credit for having the sense to mostly keep their hands out of Pixar's production process.

[2]  Bonus points for back-of-the-envelope estimation of probable terminal velocity of the walker suit and probable Gs of deceleration on impact.  Keep in mind that since the walker didn't visibly either embed its legs into the ground at all on impact, or bounce, said ground can reasonably be considered both rigid and inelastic.

This entry was originally posted at http://alaric.dreamwidth.org/16513.html. That post currently has comments.
You may comment there via OpenID even if you do not have a Dreamwidth account.

"Mawwidge..."

"The sanctity of marriage", unfortunately for the homophobic, turns out to be a bit like the purity of the English language¹:

In the 21st Century, we've heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004.  Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the "sanctity of marriage" before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state.  The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent.  And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself.

An excellent article explaining that virtually everything we associate with marriage today dates back to at most the Victorian era.  Historically speaking, the "holy sacrament of marriage" that the religious-and-homophobic² use to explain why they should be allowed to dictate who may and may not marry simply doesn't exist.

The closing statement, in particular, is made of pure win.

[1]  "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore.  We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." — James D. Nicoll

[2]  Let there be no misunderstanding:  I am ABSOLUTELY NOT equating religion with homophobia here.  I'm saying that the "sanctity of marriage" argument is the almost exclusive province of those who are both religious and homophobic.