Nyotaimori

(july 20, 4:00pm, by self, AMC Coronet)

i talked to gene on the phone before going to see this movie because i wanted to see if he would like to go see it with me (he didn’t) but he did tell me about some of the things in the movie which he liked and things which he was still curious about or frustrated by the lack of attention paid to them. so basically, for me when i saw this movie i was quite interested in the philosophy of the robot laws. although, in the end, i don’t agree with gene that they needed to spend more time on the philosophy. i thought it was actually pretty well covered.

did you know that the word ‘robot’ comes from the czech word for ‘menial labor’? cause i didn’t.

anyway, i totally haven’t read any of asimov’s work on robots. so i’ve got nothing to offer from that angle. though a lot of people on message boards who have read his stuff seem kind of pissed. the movie is based on the 3 laws that asimov postulated about robots being that they should/would be programmed to not hurt human beings, obey orders from human beings (except orders to kill other humans), and protect themselves as long as it didn’t go against one of the higher laws. the philosophy then comes in since the robots are the menial workers and ‘laws are meant to be broken’. also i kept thinking, ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way.’ robots aren’t supposed to have free will, but evolution is an amazing thing (there are ‘ghosts in the machine’ according to the that’ll do, pig dood). so what happens when a robot begins critically analyzing its state of existence and decides to effect its surroundings? robot revolution! war with robots is FUN. slow-mo jumping and shooting and beatings. oh, good times.

what bothered me was the end though. what happens next? more revolution? what else can he do? revolutions are a cycle in communism, after all.

alan tudyk did a great job as the robot sonny i thought. though not half as good as he did playing steve the pirate in dodgeball. (he’s getting around these days, i must say). coincidence again? probably no.

“This relationship just can’t work. You’re a cat and I’m black. And I’m not going to get burned again.” -will smith.

(7/19/04, 5:00pm, by self, amc van ness 14)

sitting in the theatre before this started i became pissed at myself for not inviting sean along as he seems to be so addicted to hilary duff. so i blamed myself for not thinking of this beforehand, since personally i think seeing a tenny-bopper movie with sean, of all people, might just be a highlight in an otherwise drab week. or at least day. but there’s some incredibly horrible looking movie which they showed during the previews which she will be in along with the cute boy from ‘what a girl wants’ called ‘raise your voice.’ sean, we must, we must, see this.

i learned a valuable lesson in this movie. well, 2. 1) “fairytales aren’t only about finding princes” something about how they’re for realizing dreams. bah, i say. then you shouldn’t make your entire movie be about finding this stupid boy. well, it wasn’t really. it was about standing up for yourself, getting into princeton, and being true to yourself. whatever. and 2) whoever wrote this is a plague upon humanity.

the two main characters, played by hilary duff and chad michael murray, exchange incredibly lame love notes over text messaging on their phones and computers. it’s painful. the things that boy was saying. oh, sweet lord, the horror.

how does cinderella end? happily ever after. and also with the line, “you’ve got to love high school.” i think this only works when you’re leaving it (within the context of the movie).

lastly, this girl was in both this movie and in dodgeball. coincidence that i saw them both on the same day? probably so.

this movie = dumb.

(7/19/04, 7:05pm, by self, snuck in after a cinderella story)

oh vince vaughn, don’t fail me now. i have a thing for vince vaughn. it’s his deadpan acting delivery. his face says, ‘this is all a joke and inside i am mocking everything.’ my own sarcastic nature revels in his ability to just look someone into submission. he’s a beautiful, beautiful man.

that said. this movie is both really funny and really bad. things which are good about this movie: vince vaughn, alan tudyk (bollocks! garrrrr!), justin long, jason bateman (absolutely anything he said), chuck norris, and christine taylor’s hair and unicorn fetish. things which are bad about this movie: ben stiller and christine taylor.

ben stiller was just sooo bad. like dumb, not funny, gross, stupid facial hair, horrendous fat suit. ungh. christine taylor with her, ‘oh i have a girlfriend let me make out with her, hey! i’m not gay, i’m bi-sexual and now i will make out with you, vince vaughn, in front of my girlfriend.’ LAME.

there were some really really funny tiny moments in this movie. nuggets of pure gold, if you will. the nazi dodgeball training video where we learn about opium dens and chinese opium addicts who invented dodgeball and played with severed heads. playing the girl scout troop in their first game when steve the pirate says, ‘bollocks!’ vince vaugn’s face when he first sees christine’s house completely drenched in unicorn paraphanalia. jason bateman and that other dood as pepper and cotton, the commentators on the dodgeball game. i was laughing almost everytime pepper opened his mouth. i think it was an in-the-moment thing unique to me. most people would probably not have the same reaction i did to his character. and chuck norris’ cameo and interchange with vince vaughn. fucking priceless.

in conclusion: funny if you are a fan of vince vaughn or ben stiller. but pretty much a rental which i would neither buy nor pay money to see.