I've somehow managed to survive almost 12 years in Portland without riding a bicycle. I guess I've always been a bit scared of city riding, having grown up in carefree suburbia (okay, it was technically a gated community, with no streetlights nor sidewalks). I loved my BMX bike as a kid, doing minimal stunts that my little body could pull off. However, using a bike for legitimate transportation was never something I seriously considered until recently.
It all started with my new job, which is quite close to where I live. Close, yet just far enough to be kind of an annoying walk twice a day. With the weather getting warmer, the gas prices rising, and the $600 economic stimulus check in my lap it ended up being a pretty natural decision.
I started my journey by buying a bike from a co-worker, which I had for about a week before it was stolen from in front of my apartment building. I was pretty annoyed but I didn't give in just yet, I couldn't not ride now, because I had also equipped myself with this sweet new green helmet which Emily helped me turn into a turtle shell.
My week of bike riding taught me quite a bit about what I wanted and needed from a bicycle. Gears were strange and seemingly unnecessary to me, forgetting to roll up my pant leg proved potentially problematic, and I obviously hadn't figured out proper locking techniques. I set out to find the ideal bike for myself, and well, I feel like I found it:
I love the single speed, the low-profile design, the lightweight frame, the handlebars, the chain guard, the photos on Trek's web site showing a dude riding it in Portland, and the price wasn't bad (just a bit over my stimulus check with the accessories). With my fancier lock and my hardened perspective I am definitely better prepared to hold onto this one. Oh, and Nathan and Rachel at The Bike Gallery on Sandy Blvd. were real friendly and helpful. I'd even met Nathan 7 or so years ago back at Rip City.
Portland, I finally gave in to your bike loving culture, so let's be bike friends, okay?
Not quite this guy, but I'm getting there...
Check it out
I'd seen a bit of this film when it played at my theatre a few years ago (the line "would you like to polish my knob" is unfortunately stuck in my brain), but I only recently sat down to watch it for the series. On_Line is aimed at the young, tech-saavy youth of today, who think they will be able to use the internet to help fulfill their sexual wants and desires. It focuses on an introspective young guy named John who runs a service with his roommate Moe called Intercon-X, where people can connect with others through video chats to help get each other off or possibly meet-up IRL. The irony here is that John is unable to get over his ex-girlfriend and spends all his time updating his video blog and admiring girls without ever contacting them.
Things get more interesting when cheating, potential suicide, and bisexuality are introduced, but overall this was a pretty tame film with some lofty ambitions to update the classic romance formula with new technology. Let's take a look at some photos.
Note: On_Line is the first film in the "movies and the internet" series to be viewed in High Definition, which didn't really make much of a difference, except that I was forced to take literal screenshots of my display for the images. Of course, there is something weird about watching something in HD that contains a good amount of footage obtained via webcams.
This is our protagonist, a classic internet nerd with nothing much to say except things like "the world is a lot smaller than you think" and "this is my life, these are my obsessions"--ugh.
Whoa, this shot is underneath the desk! There were so many attempts to make sitting at a computer seem dynamic and sexy.
Check it out--John's roommate is totally Michael from LOST!
This is the computer of the totally sexy lady Jordan who drives the guys crazy. Let's take a look around--furry pink monitor! a dildo! a wig and sunglasses for pretending to be that other character!
To get deeper into John's world, make sure you use the SnorriCam.
John meets up with Jordan and the screen explodes into dozens of frames! This made my head hurt--what am I supposed to pay attention to?!
Moe meets this lady Moira who likes to spend time with the suicide-obsessed on "Final Exit", chatting with people why they talk about how miserable their lives are.
Look! Moe/Michael is totally playing with himself!
Things don't work out with Moe and Moira, so John steps in and she helps him get over his ex, who we find out is the girl on the "Angel Cam" we have been watching the whole film. Something about watching your ex live her life out on a web cam seems a tad bit unhealthy, no?
I didn't really enjoy this film, since it compromised in too many areas while it tried to be provocative and progressive. The use of video chats was somewhat cutting-edge, but I'm unaware of any sites that actually have the bandwith alloted to maintain a half-dozen simultaneous video chats some 4-5 years after this film came out. The film mostly doesn't work because there are only so many ways you can convey information via computer screens, and it tries way too hard to make that interesting.
I leave you with a few more choice quotes from the cast:
"How exquisite it must feel to be a thing of beauty"
"Of course I believe it--it's on the fucking internet!"
"It's much easier to love an image than a real person."
I return with some findings about HD presentations, specifically in regards to this whole KING KONG letterboxing situtation. Thanks to everyone who commented on my previous entry, and thanks to the various sources on the wonderful internet (see below) who provided the answer to this short-lived mystery.
Turns out KING KONG was shot on Super 35 mm film, which allows the filmmakers to utilize additional space on the film that the soundtrack would have previously used, to create a larger negative to work with. It also helps to enhance the presentation of different formats, as it can add horizontal space to home video releases, and with todays widescreen televisions means you can see a significant amount more of the horizontal image.
Of course you are losing some of the vertical image as a result, as is always the case with non-letterboxed scope aspect ratio films, but the difference is less noticeable than it used to be on a standard 4:3 television. For the HBOHD version, they made it open matte to show the additional horizontal image that was always there. Which is basically the same thing they've been doing for full-frame TV versions, but here at least you aren't losing as much. Kind of an interesting compromise if you think about it.
Check out this thread on AV Science Forum where a bunch of nerds like myself went over the same comparisons. (Thanks to cag.com member Ph8te for pointing me in the right direction.)
Also, if you feel like delving even deeper into this, check out widescreen.org's aspect ratios and filming techniques page (their motto is "defending the visions and intentions of film makers").
Okay, I still have some movies and the internet stuff waiting to get published, but before I finish that series I need to post some HD-related "Consumer Reports-type" content. I've been meaning to comment on the different presentation qualities present among the broadcast HD channels, and now I can also see how they compare with the current Blu-ray and HD-DVD technologies (yeah, I have both). First up was the obvious comparison of recently debuted on HBOHD "King Kong". Since my HD-DVD player came with a copy of "King Kong" on HD-DVD, it would be easy to see it stacked up against my Comcast HBO feed.
Upon tuning in to HBOHD I immediately noticed that the movie was not being shown letterboxed. This surprised me, considering that I had watched a bit of the HD-DVD and knew it to be heavily letterboxed (Peter Jackson loves his epic, cinema-scope scenes). I took a few screenshots to directly compare how they displayed the exact same shot. What I found astonished me:
First we have this close-up shot of Kong on HBOHD:
Then the corresponding shot on HD-DVD:
Whoa! It actually looks like the letterboxed HD-DVD is cutting off part of the image! I would have guessed the opposite to be true. To further illustrate my point let's take a look at a wide shot of the airplanes that attack the giant ape:
First we have the shot on HBOHD:
Then the corresponding shot on HD-DVD:
You can totally see more sky above, and also more of the plane in the lower right corner. Weird. I guess I need to find out more about what kind of version HBO receives--and if the HD-DVD is actually fake letterboxed?! If anyone has any idea what is going on, feel free to comment. Also, I should point out that no amount of fancy HD technology could possibly make me enjoy this piece of shit film--"but it looks pretty good."
SNEAKERS, released in 1992, features an "all-star cast" of Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, my old John Sayles buddy David Strathairn, Dan Aykroyd, a pre-death River Phoenix, Mary McDonnell (another Sayles alum), Ben Kingsley, Donal Logue, and a final cameo by Darth Vader. Pretty cool lineup, right? Pretty lame movie...
It covers the same surveillance territory that FF Coppola tackled in 1974's THE CONVERSATION, only with more updated, computer technology. I became immediately skeptical of this film the second they tried to make me think this rag-tag bunch would be capable of infiltrating high-level security.
Aykroyd is annoying as ever as "Mother", full of tired conspiracy theories. Strathairn's "Whistler" gets a few comedic turns as a blind man whose hearing is so acute he can detect the slightest change in audio levels, etc. Also, he gets to read braille Playboys and drive a van. Phoenix doesn't do much except be a pretty boy charmer, and Poitier almost saves himself with a good one-liner at the end. Redford carries the film for the most part, but can't do much to save the boring, implausible script, which basically involves the group stealing a high-tech espionage device, then having to re-steal it. HIJINKS!!!
Let's look at some photos:
Here is the braille Playboy--perhaps the joke is that old saying that guys like the magazine for the articles.
This is the guy they have to steal the device from initially, and yep, it's Donal Logue, AKA Jimmy the Cab Driver. I bet he'd like to forget how lame he looks as a nerd in this film.
Ha Ha! The blind man dances funny! Ugh.
More blind jokes--look, "Whistler" is hacking in the dark.
At least he is able to decode this mess.
Obligatory license plate enhancement shot:
The film takes an amazingly dark turn for a second when Poitier's character "Crease" lets loose on some bad guys with the line "Motherfuckers mess with me, I'll split your head!" WHOA.
James Earl Jones shows up at the end to provide some unneeded comic relief, granting blackmail wishes to the crew.
Finally, Redford looks like he is just as glad as I am that this film is over with.
Neat--I've made it far enough that I can review sequels to previous internet-based movies. I am actually quite excited to see how they update the classic 1995 THE NET, with this straight-to-video sequel starring absolutely no-one. (Although one of the ladies was in FINAL DESTINATION 2.) Anyway, let's check out THE NET 2.0.
Beginning with a mildly interesting chase scene, THE NET 2.0 introduces us to our protagonist, Hope Cassidy. She is on the run from the police in some foreign city, and there are multiple freeze frames to provide character backstory. Actually, there is far too much slow-motion in the movie, I suspect to drag out the running time to make it feature-length. Most of the movie takes place in flashbacks, and it isn't afraid to employ every plot development attempt to make you forget that you are watching essentially the same story as the first movie. Woman has computer job, someone steals her identity, she has to fight to prove that she is herself, blah blah blah. That's it...let's look at some photos:
Here's that freeze-frame I was talking about. Run, Hope run! You are the only HOPE in this movie.
We know she is good at her job, 'cause she is able to make windows like this appear on her laptop.
Hope flies to Turkey to accept a high-paying job, and the flight attendant is so nice, she just gives her this bracelet! At first they make you think it is going to be like that bad voodoo charm Greg Brady picked up when The Brady Bunch went to Hawaii, but it is totally way cooler! We later find out it is actually a GPS tracking device. How thoughtful of that lady.
You'd expect this sequel to have newer and neater gadgets, and they sort of deliver, as with this tablet PC.
However, most of the time Hope is just running and will sometimes check her email. Hmm, I wonder why there is so much Microsoft product placement in this movie? Also, I can't get www.danemidnight.com to load!
I never knew translating to Turkish could be so easy. Time to recycle that old Turkish-English dictionary.
OMG, doesn't it look like that thing just exploded out of her belly?! Actually, Hope had to pretend to be shot to help nab the bad guys. Blood-packs are cool.
Good thing Hope ran into these folks. I'd always want a guy with an awesome mustache on my side.
Obligatory computer room shot at the end.
Well, THE NET 2.0 wasn't very good. It didn't have 10+ years to become outdated and cute. Instead, it was the same basic story as the first film, with "exotic" Turkish locales that didn't make up for the predictable story. Oh well, maybe it will be a fun watch in the year 2015.
Okay, I'm back for another go at this series. This time I'll be looking at 2001's ANTITRUST, which focuses on fresh-out-of-college computer supergeek Milo Hoffman (played by a way-too attractive to be such a nerd Ryan Phillippe), who is offered a job he can't refuse with the hip Portland-based company NURV, headed by Bill Gates-esque Gary Winston (Tim Robbins). ANTITRUST is yet another cyber-thriller, although this time around the emphasis is on the inner-world of competitive programming, and the drive to be the dominate force in controlling the flow of information, even if it means killing people!
Let's take a look at some scenes from the film:
Here we have Gary trying to convince Milo to join his evil company by impressing him with this CGI view of his mansion.
Once inside, Gary shows off this fancy painting that changes the display depending on who is in the room.
Someone in set design must have been terribly proud of this thing, because it shows up multiple times in the film. Oh, and Milo makes a comment like "doesn't Bill Gates have something like that?" To which Gary responds "Bill who?" Ha! Get it?! By acknowledging Gates with that quip, they can avoid any lawsuits I guess.
Here we have a look at their not-so-impressive lecture hall. I will NEVER UNDERESTIMATE RADICAL VISION again, and I suggest you do the same.
Whoa, not only does Milo have a hot live-in girlfriend, he also gets to hang out with a cute girl at work (yet another example of how computers will totally get you some action).
In another attempt to distance the film from Microsoft's Seattle comparisons, they insert the classic Portland shot so you know this isn't Seattle. I'm actually not too embarrassed to admit I've seen the exact same shot used in an episode of Beverly Hills 90210.
Hmm, I didn't know computer programmers were allowed to pump their own gas in Oregon.
Things start to go wrong for Milo in a meeting with Gary where he finds out some evil about NURV, and trippy montage head-explosion ensues.
When the bad dudes are chasing Milo they use a GPS navigation system, and it turns out those are actual real streets in Portland/Beaverton. Surprisingly, there is amazingly very little misuse of technology in this film.
Milo eventually exposes the horrible truth about the company and takes his message to the world, which of course is visually represented by Times Square.
BTW, The exact same seen was shown in HACKERS, although that time instead of Tim Robbin's face saying "I'M MURDERING PROGRAMMERS" it was Matthew Lilliard's ugly mug.
The last shot of the film shows Milo and his remaining two computer friends celebrating their survival, and thankfully it allowed me to finally see that those friends were actually two different guys. Talk about all white guys looking the same!
ANTITRUST is a difficult film to criticize technologically, instead it really takes a beating when it comes to the script. More than THE NET and HACKERS, which were fun because they were unrealistic and dated, ANTITRUST is just plain stupid, and therefore not recommended.
I recently finished reading Jim Schutze's "Bully: A True Story Of High School Revenge", which is sort of a momentous occassion since I haven't read a book in months. (Although it was before the Hott Denn media log.) Inevitably I found out about this story through the medium of film, in this case, Larry Clark's unflinching 2001 film BULLY, in which a bunch of aimless teenagers in south Florida decide to murder their antagonistic friend.
Reading the first few chapters gave me a greater appreciation for Clark's attention to detail, as scenes and dialogue were lifted straight from Schutze's book. I suppose you could make the argument that the author interpreted the accounts in order to make a compelling narrative, and Clark was just carrying out what Schutze had already pieced together, but I initially assumed Clark would have altered events to fit his bleak worldview.
Although it was a compelling read, I would be remiss to not mention the obvious typos and errors in the book. When you're engrossed in a book that advertises itself as a "true story" mistakes stick out a bit more. For instance:
On page 107 the author is describing a scene involving only Bobby (the subsequent victim), Lisa and Ali driving to a secluded location where Lisa and Ali had planned to shoot Bobby. Bobby is driving, but his best friend (and Brutus to his Julius) Marty's name is used. Huh?! How did Marty end up in the car I thought? Oh, it's a mistake. Weird.
Another mistake appears on page 168, when the car that Bobby had been driving mysteriously changes from a Mustang to a Camaro. I realize they are similar American sports cars, but I initially thought I hadn't been paying attention, and another car had appeared on the scene. Then, on the very next page it's a Mustang again, only this time it appears as "the mustang", without capitalization.
Granted, I can't remember other mistakes in the book, and at 300 pages thats a pretty good ratio, but it does amaze me that an editor wouldn't have caught clear errors like those mentioned above. Reminds me of my old freelance copyediting entry.
