Saturday, February 16, 2013
We finished watching all the movies up for the Oscar for best animated picture.
It sadly isn’t 2009 when four of the five films could’ve/should’ve won (in addition to winner Up, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Coraline and The Secret of Kells)
Nor is it like so many years when no really good animated movies were made.
The nominees for 2013 are OK. None are classics like Wall-e, Up, or the Incredibles.
None are embarrassing “we gotta nominate something” juvenile, toilet-humor filled trash (Shrek, Kung-Fu Panda, Lil & Stitch). But as if it matters, here’s what I think:
It almost lost me during the extended zombie-chase scene, but ParaNorman has an interesting plot with some good twists and exciting graphics, three ingredients for a good movie/Oscar winner.
By far the most original premise of the lot, Wreck-it Ralph could take prize too (again, interesting plot, good twists, exciting graphics). I personally dislike Sarah Silverman, which why it isn’t at the top of the list for me. But I’m not in the Academy so it doesn’t matter.
Eerily similar in plot to ParaNorman (a boy and dead things), Frankenweenie is -I thought- overly macabre (a boy and his dead dog). It just didn’t do it for me.
PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS
I thought this would be good, and it just wasn’t. The whole premise -pirates!- started off promising, then they decided to go to England. Want to make a boring movie? Have it take place in England. Claymation is cool, but it lacked good twists.
Really didn’t like Brave. Neither original nor fun nor exciting, it’s a paint-by-the-numbers children’s movie with an overly obvious ‘message’ at the end. Snore.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
|Or this guy? Are you fucking kidding me?|
So, I'm like, so what?
A bigger issue is who's not being challenged: multi-term incumbent Richard Conlin.
Conlin is horrible for above all being the epitome of the green-washing hypocrite. He claims the environmental champion label for his work legalizing urban chickens and curbside gardens, endearing him to some, um, of Seattle's greener greenies.
Meanwhile, he's the city council's biggest proponent of single-occupancy vehicles, championing the tunnel, destroying the monorail, to name but two of his "accomplishments".
Conlin needs to go. So far, no one has stepped up to challenge him. But one person has pondered it publicly, and that person would be not only a great candidate, he'd be a kick-ass councilmember.
So, with total rip-off of Letterman's standard, here are...
TOP TEN REASONS DOMINIC HOLDEN NEEDS TO RUN AGAINST RICHARD CONLIN!
10- "Dominic Holden" is a great political name. Everyone likes a Dom -strong, powerful, um, dominant- and everyone identified with Holden Caufield in high school. Win win!
9- He has a track record of running successful campaigns.
8- He's right on all the right issues.
7- He appeals to key constituents that should be more involved in city politics.
6- His paying job can figure it out. Journalists running for office is nothing new, there's plenty of precedent. His boss grants him a leave of absence or just transfers his beat to another section, like movie reviews or something.
4- Did I mention that Conlin needs to go?
3- Grant Cogswell lives in Mexico City and probably won't run, but he'd also be a great candidate: experience, vision, connections to really rich people (who may or may not donate to his campaign, but he ran before he knew the Gyllenhal gang), HAD A FUCKING MOVIE MADE ABOUT HIM! If Grant lived in Seattle, I'd convince him to run and volunteer for his campaign. But he doesn't, so Dom is the next best bet.
2- He's already written both a damning critique of Conlin (plenty of them, actually) and his vision of what Seattle should be (though the latter is more implied through his witing).