The odds state perspicacity
implies a willingness to freely
circumvent constrained conditions
in each risk a feigned fruition.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Friday, January 30, 2015
Escobar: Paradise Lost
The tranquilities of a peaceful life living on a beach teaching surfing unexpectedly mutate in Andrea Di Stefano's Escobar: Paradise Lost, as love magnetically draws a couple together, and a Canadian romantic is suddenly thrust into the world of cocaine exportation.
Tectonic shifts.
Alternative outputs.
The couple is quite young and Nick (Josh Hutcherson) somewhat ill-prepared for his newfound corruptly honourable daily transactions, their relationship fervid and flourishing, his responsibilities, a discombobulating mind fuck.
Kingpin Pablo Escobar (Benicio del Toro) takes religion quite seriously.
He distributes wealth to the people.
He takes care of friends and family.
Requiring strict obedience.
And no nonsense.
The film embraces its haunting naive blossoming recourse to sound polarized youthful degeneration with multidimensional popularized efficiency, almost tumbling off a cliff, the established and the entrepreneur coming together as family, age inspecting its curious new fledgling, love securely blanketing the stage.
The crimes.
A chilling if not formulaic examination of familial stress and stipulated largesse, competing ethical constabularies cauterized in political inflammations.
Nick is forced to adapt as the authorities move in and Escobar downsizes.
To fight back.
To survive.
Solid career move for Hutcherson.
Tectonic shifts.
Alternative outputs.
The couple is quite young and Nick (Josh Hutcherson) somewhat ill-prepared for his newfound corruptly honourable daily transactions, their relationship fervid and flourishing, his responsibilities, a discombobulating mind fuck.
Kingpin Pablo Escobar (Benicio del Toro) takes religion quite seriously.
He distributes wealth to the people.
He takes care of friends and family.
Requiring strict obedience.
And no nonsense.
The film embraces its haunting naive blossoming recourse to sound polarized youthful degeneration with multidimensional popularized efficiency, almost tumbling off a cliff, the established and the entrepreneur coming together as family, age inspecting its curious new fledgling, love securely blanketing the stage.
The crimes.
A chilling if not formulaic examination of familial stress and stipulated largesse, competing ethical constabularies cauterized in political inflammations.
Nick is forced to adapt as the authorities move in and Escobar downsizes.
To fight back.
To survive.
Solid career move for Hutcherson.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Super Bowl Pick
New England Patriots/Seattle Seahawks: controversy surrounds this year's Super Bowl as the Patriots find themselves embroiled in scandal. Did they deflate the footballs they used to defeat the Colts in the AFC Championship Game, and even if they did, does it matter?, Andrew Luck still only completed 12 passes for 126 yards, and it seems probable that New England would have scored at least 10 even if they had been using regulation footballs. If they're found guilty there should be an enormous fine, but either way, that game's over, and Seattle didn't have to cheat to win. Not that the Patriots cheated to win. Green Bay should have defeated the Seahawks but Russell Wilson pulled a Tim Tebow to ensure victory for his team. His defence helped out a bit. Seattle turned the ball over 5 times and Green Bay could only score 22 points, and even if Wilson has another bad game, I doubt New England will be given so many extra opportunities to score. Green Bay's offence scored more points than New England's during the regular season and still were stymied versus the Seahawks. But could Brady lose the Super Bowl 3 times after winning it 3 times? This seems unlikely. I should pick the defensive team. I usually don't and am often wrong. It seemed that New England was poised to defeat the Giants both times they played them in the Super Bowl, and this year it seems that Seattle is poised to defeat the Patriots. Perhaps Seattle destroys them. I'm still picking New England.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
American Sniper
Clint Eastwood's American Sniper is about soldiers.
It's not about politics or asking questions, it's about the people who risked their lives fighting for a cause they believed in, incendiary polemics aside, they were on the ground, fighting an enemy intent on killing them, living through events that would haunt the survivors for the rest of their lives, experiential extracurricular extents, forging bonds through action, teams, through combat.
It's focused on one sniper in particular, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), with a gift for precision, an eye for detail.
He becomes a legend.
A part of a team, embracing his role as protector, he saves the lives of his fellow recruits time and time again, through vigilance and dedication, making decisions no one should have to make, accepting the consequences, psychologically covering up the outcomes.
Civilian life becomes difficult.
He leaves unfinished business in Iraq, a nemesis at large, who continues to hunt his compatriots, this unnerves him as he tries to live with his family, überconscious conscience, the fall out of his exceptional track record.
Which leads to an exciting Young Guns sequence.
A compelling cinematic interpretation of levelheaded battlegrounded hysteria.
Direct, straightforward, and to the point, while mixing in enough trauma to unsettlingly exfoliate, American Sniper brings together eclectic teams, unified through bitter shattering circumstances.
What actually took place is fictionalized to the point where it makes a strong war film, however, this aspect of its creation makes what actually took place seem fictional, which takes away from its realistic impacts.
But it still salutes the life of a great Navy SEAL who went beyond the call of duty and risked everything to do what he believed was right, individuality within the collective, cohesively functioning as one.
Made the most of the worst possible situation.
Persevered.
It's not about politics or asking questions, it's about the people who risked their lives fighting for a cause they believed in, incendiary polemics aside, they were on the ground, fighting an enemy intent on killing them, living through events that would haunt the survivors for the rest of their lives, experiential extracurricular extents, forging bonds through action, teams, through combat.
It's focused on one sniper in particular, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), with a gift for precision, an eye for detail.
He becomes a legend.
A part of a team, embracing his role as protector, he saves the lives of his fellow recruits time and time again, through vigilance and dedication, making decisions no one should have to make, accepting the consequences, psychologically covering up the outcomes.
Civilian life becomes difficult.
He leaves unfinished business in Iraq, a nemesis at large, who continues to hunt his compatriots, this unnerves him as he tries to live with his family, überconscious conscience, the fall out of his exceptional track record.
Which leads to an exciting Young Guns sequence.
A compelling cinematic interpretation of levelheaded battlegrounded hysteria.
Direct, straightforward, and to the point, while mixing in enough trauma to unsettlingly exfoliate, American Sniper brings together eclectic teams, unified through bitter shattering circumstances.
What actually took place is fictionalized to the point where it makes a strong war film, however, this aspect of its creation makes what actually took place seem fictional, which takes away from its realistic impacts.
But it still salutes the life of a great Navy SEAL who went beyond the call of duty and risked everything to do what he believed was right, individuality within the collective, cohesively functioning as one.
Made the most of the worst possible situation.
Persevered.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Shanty
Close robust in-flux encounters
cellular seductive pounce per
chillion churns diverse shock aid
instructive inverse understated
braved indebted bare exchange
language lounging lisps arcanely
twittering like sentient bonds
enwhispered vettings thriving spawned
containment coriandicon
insatient saunter Alderaan
come on pronounce it like a chic
seraphic scorched envirostreaked
retention reticently spiced
puréed insignias advice
sufficed my stutter struts to sway
in sights which strum hushed palisades
Allayed.
cellular seductive pounce per
chillion churns diverse shock aid
instructive inverse understated
braved indebted bare exchange
language lounging lisps arcanely
twittering like sentient bonds
enwhispered vettings thriving spawned
containment coriandicon
insatient saunter Alderaan
come on pronounce it like a chic
seraphic scorched envirostreaked
retention reticently spiced
puréed insignias advice
sufficed my stutter struts to sway
in sights which strum hushed palisades
Allayed.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Whiplash
Worst case scenario.
From my point of view anyways.
The drill sergeant teacher, militaristic jazz, believing that greatness can be cultivated using cruel ruthless humiliating tactics which psychologically destroy while potentially diversifying.
If you can take it.
If you don't break down as he viciously insults you and contentedly rips you to shreds.
This guy's brutal, a true Full Metal Jacket.
Thoroughly versed in the dark side, he finds an historical example where callous pedagogical shocks produce skills beyond exception, and then tries to recreate the soul crushing circumstances which harshly brought about the virtuosities, not taking into account the uniqueness of the situation, the educational, demographic, individual, historical, and social characteristics at play, difference exploited as a means to oppress rather than a factor to be conceptualized, music isn't war, you're trying to elevate not conquer, you have to push to succeed but you can push without pulverizing, excel without collapsing, although there are people who need the drill sergeant, I simply never understood why.
Was lucky in school. Never ran into teachers like this. I can't function in such environments, just shut down and suffer, can barely think.
Long time since I've been in one.
Whiplash is about a young drummer attending Shaffer Conservatory who is given the opportunity to play in their premier ensemble, and chooses to find a way to become part of its core.
The teacher uses despicable methods which lead to improvements but his heavy hand is too much for the 19 year-old to take.
Bad decisions.
Pushed too hard.
He does excel though and is given the chance to say fuck rather than thank you eventually.
A well-casted examination of emotionally disturbing teaching methods and their outcomes, Whiplash's unquestionable villain sacrifices balance for beatification.
Hoping to nurture sheer brilliance.
Clucking malevolently in the abyss.
From my point of view anyways.
The drill sergeant teacher, militaristic jazz, believing that greatness can be cultivated using cruel ruthless humiliating tactics which psychologically destroy while potentially diversifying.
If you can take it.
If you don't break down as he viciously insults you and contentedly rips you to shreds.
This guy's brutal, a true Full Metal Jacket.
Thoroughly versed in the dark side, he finds an historical example where callous pedagogical shocks produce skills beyond exception, and then tries to recreate the soul crushing circumstances which harshly brought about the virtuosities, not taking into account the uniqueness of the situation, the educational, demographic, individual, historical, and social characteristics at play, difference exploited as a means to oppress rather than a factor to be conceptualized, music isn't war, you're trying to elevate not conquer, you have to push to succeed but you can push without pulverizing, excel without collapsing, although there are people who need the drill sergeant, I simply never understood why.
Was lucky in school. Never ran into teachers like this. I can't function in such environments, just shut down and suffer, can barely think.
Long time since I've been in one.
Whiplash is about a young drummer attending Shaffer Conservatory who is given the opportunity to play in their premier ensemble, and chooses to find a way to become part of its core.
The teacher uses despicable methods which lead to improvements but his heavy hand is too much for the 19 year-old to take.
Bad decisions.
Pushed too hard.
He does excel though and is given the chance to say fuck rather than thank you eventually.
A well-casted examination of emotionally disturbing teaching methods and their outcomes, Whiplash's unquestionable villain sacrifices balance for beatification.
Hoping to nurture sheer brilliance.
Clucking malevolently in the abyss.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Selma
Slow moving change.
Sometimes change does move too slowly.
Sometimes mind-bogglingly frustrating bureaucratic 'efficiencies' prevent the advancement of basic civil rights, in Selma's case, the right for African American citizens to vote in the States, in the Southern States, in the 1960s, Alabama particularly.
They have the legal right to vote, but the caucasian population who controls the voter registry comes up with ridiculous loophole after ridiculous loophole to prevent them from actually voting, to make seeking the right to vote seem debased and futile, insert various humiliations.
Obviously this is unacceptable, and leaders emerge to change things, not twenty years from now, but in the near future, Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo) actively advocating for peaceful non-violent change, for peaceful non-violent dignity.
Selma's best moments feature King in action, delivering powerful speeches which motivate his listeners, debating strategy with his fellow activists, discussing tactics with his devoted wife Coretta (Carmen Ejogo), or holding firm to his principles when upholding them with President Lyndon B. Johnson (Tom Wilkinson).
His goals are immediate and necessary, making compromise an untenable option.
The film presents a basic opposition between progress and stagnation, those standing by the status quo appearing backwards and simplistic, those hungering for change, thoughtful and brave.
Johnson's character does change after the violence reaches outrageous heights and the protests continue.
It's still going on.
In light of the Ferguson tragedy, and several other recent disillusioning American tragedies which have deeply affected African American communities, Selma historicizes the present, to encourage an impregnable sense of unity.
There should be accountability when unarmed people are shot dead.
It doesn't have to be about white versus black, it can be about different groups working communally to forge strong integrated multidimensional secularly spiritual pluralities, strength in diversity, acculturating as one.
It's about simple acts of kindness and the acceptance of alternative points of view.
If the U.S. is the most advanced country in the world, why does it still have these problems?
Why are they persisting?
Generation after generation.
Sometimes change does move too slowly.
Sometimes mind-bogglingly frustrating bureaucratic 'efficiencies' prevent the advancement of basic civil rights, in Selma's case, the right for African American citizens to vote in the States, in the Southern States, in the 1960s, Alabama particularly.
They have the legal right to vote, but the caucasian population who controls the voter registry comes up with ridiculous loophole after ridiculous loophole to prevent them from actually voting, to make seeking the right to vote seem debased and futile, insert various humiliations.
Obviously this is unacceptable, and leaders emerge to change things, not twenty years from now, but in the near future, Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo) actively advocating for peaceful non-violent change, for peaceful non-violent dignity.
Selma's best moments feature King in action, delivering powerful speeches which motivate his listeners, debating strategy with his fellow activists, discussing tactics with his devoted wife Coretta (Carmen Ejogo), or holding firm to his principles when upholding them with President Lyndon B. Johnson (Tom Wilkinson).
His goals are immediate and necessary, making compromise an untenable option.
The film presents a basic opposition between progress and stagnation, those standing by the status quo appearing backwards and simplistic, those hungering for change, thoughtful and brave.
Johnson's character does change after the violence reaches outrageous heights and the protests continue.
It's still going on.
In light of the Ferguson tragedy, and several other recent disillusioning American tragedies which have deeply affected African American communities, Selma historicizes the present, to encourage an impregnable sense of unity.
There should be accountability when unarmed people are shot dead.
It doesn't have to be about white versus black, it can be about different groups working communally to forge strong integrated multidimensional secularly spiritual pluralities, strength in diversity, acculturating as one.
It's about simple acts of kindness and the acceptance of alternative points of view.
If the U.S. is the most advanced country in the world, why does it still have these problems?
Why are they persisting?
Generation after generation.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Perplexicon
Static starchy crispy cling
bursts of fresh air pitch and swing
styled sporadic seesaw stretches
splurged to pester prized perspectives
harnessing the dyed eclectic
polar shy renewed collective
drafts denoting ties concise
hovering like jived precisely
buzzing blistering bezoned
interpretistic chromosomes
winds blown and blowing who's to say
what trapezed twist entwirls today?
Forecasted.
bursts of fresh air pitch and swing
styled sporadic seesaw stretches
splurged to pester prized perspectives
harnessing the dyed eclectic
polar shy renewed collective
drafts denoting ties concise
hovering like jived precisely
buzzing blistering bezoned
interpretistic chromosomes
winds blown and blowing who's to say
what trapezed twist entwirls today?
Forecasted.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Inherent Vice
Blistering pronounced enigmatic athleticism, neat and tidy obscurity, a question asked, a question, answered, competing forms of non-traditional rationalities searching for clues within a down and dirty faceless salute to comic cerebral lechery, with role playing, familiarity, pop-ups, explanations, free form investigative hallucinogenic heartache, golden plunders, an error, bows and arrows, cameolot, freewheeling receptive improvised incognitos, purpose, demand, facts and fictions fused to fornicate, to love, the ether, groundless fluctuating intuitive forward motion, possessed, indecisive, a partnership, sympathy, acquiring a foothold, intransigent brawn, a narrator's clarifications, grinding and gone.
Far gone.
It seems that America's great directors must now hear the call of the The Big Lebowski's pastiche of The Big Sleep to make misguided judgment hedonistically live again.
Insert pot smoke into the underground world of high-stakes narcotic reality.
Remain calm.
React.
It's more about potential and theory, ideas, than plot, although the plot is astounding.
Difficult to say if the events depicted are actually taking place or simply expiring in an exposed hemorrhaged zig-zagged amphetamine.
I didn't see any evidence for this however.
The cast reminded me of that which you often find in feel good comedies, Eric Roberts (Michael Z. Wolfmann) filling in for Sam J. Jones or Billy Idol.
Martin Short's (Dr. Rudy Blatnoyd, D.D.S.) still got it.
I'm buying some absinthe.
Far gone.
It seems that America's great directors must now hear the call of the The Big Lebowski's pastiche of The Big Sleep to make misguided judgment hedonistically live again.
Insert pot smoke into the underground world of high-stakes narcotic reality.
Remain calm.
React.
It's more about potential and theory, ideas, than plot, although the plot is astounding.
Difficult to say if the events depicted are actually taking place or simply expiring in an exposed hemorrhaged zig-zagged amphetamine.
I didn't see any evidence for this however.
The cast reminded me of that which you often find in feel good comedies, Eric Roberts (Michael Z. Wolfmann) filling in for Sam J. Jones or Billy Idol.
Martin Short's (Dr. Rudy Blatnoyd, D.D.S.) still got it.
I'm buying some absinthe.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
NFL Conference Championships Picks
Green Bay Packers/Seattle Seahawks: damn it. I always take the Pack. They're always good enough to take. They're solid this year having racked up 486 points during the regular season, winning 12 games, and beating Dallas at home last weekend (on a controversial call [that was the best playoff catch I've seen in years {they may have still won the game had Dallas scored a touchdown}]). They can beat Seattle if they move the ball but the Seahawks are good at figuring out ways to shut down high-powered offences and know how to keep the lead once they've gained it. Rodgers is one of the best. If he has one of his best games, Green Bay can win. Wilson may not play well either, but, so far, he seems built for the playoffs and generally takes on crucial game changing hysterics without even breaking a sweat. Seattle's offence scored 394 points during the regular season and their team has won 7 in a row. Can the Packers run the ball? Can the Packers continuously pick up third downs to keep the ball in their possession? They can do this. But I'm still picking Seattle. Hoping the Pack wins, picking the Seahawks. *Hold on. Went downtown yesterday to watch Whiplash and I only saw 2 people wearing NFL gear, both wearing tuques, one, a New England Patriots tuque, the other, a Green Bay Packers tuque. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, I'm switching my pick to Green Bay. Go Packers Go. - updated on Jan. 16th/2015
Indianapolis Colts/New England Patriots: a potential changing of the guard in this one. If Andrew Luck can beat Brady as well, the Brady/Manning era may be coming to an end. Both Dalton and Manning didn't play well versus Indianapolis, but neither quarterback has had much success in the playoffs. Did they both just have another bad playoff game, or did the Colts's defence figure out a way to ensure that they did? Brady was impressive last weekend. He's been impressive all season. 468 points for the Patriots during their first 16, and they quickly came back from being down 14 twice last weekend. They were down 14 twice though, and if Luck plays as well as Flacco did, and Indianapolis's defence continues to shine, the Colts can win, even if they were crushed at Gillette Stadium in the playoffs last year. I was surprised Baltimore didn't win last weekend honestly after seeing the Patriots abandon their running game altogether. They only ran for 14 yards. I figured it would be easy to shut down a team who's passing on every play, especially if you're winning by 14, for the second time, but they didn't, New England's offence is that good. Can they play that well two weeks in a row? Can Indianapolis shut down the Patriots's running game with as much efficiency as the Ravens did? Who knows honestly. But New England's playing at home. They had a bad game last week and still won. They beat the Colts 42-20 earlier on in the year. I think they'll beat the Colts again after scoring early and often, giving Luck too much of a deficit to overcome. Maybe he'll play like he did versus Kansas City last year in the playoffs. That would be amazing. Picking New England.
Indianapolis Colts/New England Patriots: a potential changing of the guard in this one. If Andrew Luck can beat Brady as well, the Brady/Manning era may be coming to an end. Both Dalton and Manning didn't play well versus Indianapolis, but neither quarterback has had much success in the playoffs. Did they both just have another bad playoff game, or did the Colts's defence figure out a way to ensure that they did? Brady was impressive last weekend. He's been impressive all season. 468 points for the Patriots during their first 16, and they quickly came back from being down 14 twice last weekend. They were down 14 twice though, and if Luck plays as well as Flacco did, and Indianapolis's defence continues to shine, the Colts can win, even if they were crushed at Gillette Stadium in the playoffs last year. I was surprised Baltimore didn't win last weekend honestly after seeing the Patriots abandon their running game altogether. They only ran for 14 yards. I figured it would be easy to shut down a team who's passing on every play, especially if you're winning by 14, for the second time, but they didn't, New England's offence is that good. Can they play that well two weeks in a row? Can Indianapolis shut down the Patriots's running game with as much efficiency as the Ravens did? Who knows honestly. But New England's playing at home. They had a bad game last week and still won. They beat the Colts 42-20 earlier on in the year. I think they'll beat the Colts again after scoring early and often, giving Luck too much of a deficit to overcome. Maybe he'll play like he did versus Kansas City last year in the playoffs. That would be amazing. Picking New England.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
The Imitation Game
A mind unlike any other, with an idea, a vision, confidently clad in driven unyielding pertinence, searing arrogant genius, applied to teamwork, to working as a team, to theorize, to crack codes, to imagine an immaculately mechanized gaseous maelstrom, sucking in cyphers then spitting out circumstances, World War II's oppressing destruction caught in its construct like visceral vacuumed variability, results producing tactics which serve to plan, to strategize daily essential outputs affecting lives and the people who live them, the soul crushing realities of life and death logic, covertly consensualized, as spiralling boisterous bedlam.
To suffer in ecstasy.
And win the war.
The Imitation Game celebrates unprecedented advances in theoretical practicalities, adding humanistic plights to the achievement of goals, balance and structure within the hierarchy, competing authoritative conceptions, managing the exceptional's zeal.
Creation's credibility.
Love's unacknowledged blush.
It's about a brilliant mathematician who creates an apparatus that cracks Nazi Germany's enigma machine.
Beyond tragedy, what eventually takes place, difficult to think that so many incredible leaps forward have been squashed in their infancy by culturally accepted prejudices, suffocatingly husking hopes and dreams.
Futures.
From Black Bear Pictures.
To suffer in ecstasy.
And win the war.
The Imitation Game celebrates unprecedented advances in theoretical practicalities, adding humanistic plights to the achievement of goals, balance and structure within the hierarchy, competing authoritative conceptions, managing the exceptional's zeal.
Creation's credibility.
Love's unacknowledged blush.
It's about a brilliant mathematician who creates an apparatus that cracks Nazi Germany's enigma machine.
Beyond tragedy, what eventually takes place, difficult to think that so many incredible leaps forward have been squashed in their infancy by culturally accepted prejudices, suffocatingly husking hopes and dreams.
Futures.
From Black Bear Pictures.
A Mix of Songs
A friend recently asked me what kind of music I was currently listening to, and I replied, "you know, I really like Gypsy violin."
This didn't go over as well as I had hoped.
Regardless, the following is a mix of songs I purchased in 2014. Discovered some of the bands at FrancoFolies, others at Jazz Fest, others by going to movies etc.
Antitaxi, La Femme
Weberttango, Martina Eisenreich
Mojo, M
Son of Raunchy, Henry Mancini
Hora Martisorului, Briga
Song for Two, Martina Eisenreich
Ontario Gothic, Foxes in Fiction
Le mode d'emploi, Les 8 Babins
Rock me to Sleep, Henry Mancini
Nous étions deux, La Femme
Faites-moi souffrir, M
Did You Sleep Well?, Crooked Still
Borders (feat. Galleries), Foxes in Fiction
Oh Baby Doll, La Femme
Der Wachmann Und Das Kleine Mädchen, Martina Eisenreich
Ku Ku, Henry Mancini
Viva L'évolution, Les 8 Babins
Igraj Devojko, Briga
Njoka, Mokoomba
Nobody's Empire, Belle & Sebastian
Time, Hans Zimmer
Found out La Femme had a song called "Oh Baby Doll" the day after I wrote my Baby Doll poem.
That was weird.
I like to post videos in my film reviews sometimes to advertise bands that I like. Note that I generally purchase these songs as well.
Bears.
This didn't go over as well as I had hoped.
Regardless, the following is a mix of songs I purchased in 2014. Discovered some of the bands at FrancoFolies, others at Jazz Fest, others by going to movies etc.
Antitaxi, La Femme
Weberttango, Martina Eisenreich
Mojo, M
Son of Raunchy, Henry Mancini
Hora Martisorului, Briga
Song for Two, Martina Eisenreich
Ontario Gothic, Foxes in Fiction
Le mode d'emploi, Les 8 Babins
Rock me to Sleep, Henry Mancini
Nous étions deux, La Femme
Faites-moi souffrir, M
Did You Sleep Well?, Crooked Still
Borders (feat. Galleries), Foxes in Fiction
Oh Baby Doll, La Femme
Der Wachmann Und Das Kleine Mädchen, Martina Eisenreich
Ku Ku, Henry Mancini
Viva L'évolution, Les 8 Babins
Igraj Devojko, Briga
Njoka, Mokoomba
Nobody's Empire, Belle & Sebastian
Time, Hans Zimmer
Found out La Femme had a song called "Oh Baby Doll" the day after I wrote my Baby Doll poem.
That was weird.
I like to post videos in my film reviews sometimes to advertise bands that I like. Note that I generally purchase these songs as well.
Bears.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Gristle
Freezing sparse prospects frenetic
walk the beat discreet and vet it
piles of dispensed perspiration
each drop bustling herds encased then
keep the pace outlast the cold
before its bitter grip takes hold
impunities of forlorn nights
nerves like frozen crystal spikes.
walk the beat discreet and vet it
piles of dispensed perspiration
each drop bustling herds encased then
keep the pace outlast the cold
before its bitter grip takes hold
impunities of forlorn nights
nerves like frozen crystal spikes.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Into the Woods
Intersecting adventurous clips, securely stashed in a spell; wandering blindly baffling blips, serving to cast off a shell.
The forest provides what the hapless surrenders, riddle me opaque bouquets.
Paths intertwining, confidence rendered, lushly air brushing the haze.
The narrator holds things together.
It's not to be taken seriously, Into the Woods, according to his unconcerned tone, as if, even though the events that take place have paramount repercussions, love, happiness, giants, they're still simply banal and insignificant.
This aspect is captured in the film's focus on preparation as opposed to orchestration, apart from the accumulation of necessities, the land of the giants remaining overtly off limits, the balls Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) attends, never actively showcased.
Brilliant way to save money.
It also explains how easily the Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) acquire the bizarre knick-knacks they must find, the humdrum coronation of the fantastical, realistically equipped with sensation.
The songs are kind of fun.
Evil is punished, good natures, rewarded.
It wasn't enough to keep me captivated, although I did revel in its mischief.
The middle-class finds salvation.
Paths lined with embowering gold.
The forest provides what the hapless surrenders, riddle me opaque bouquets.
Paths intertwining, confidence rendered, lushly air brushing the haze.
The narrator holds things together.
It's not to be taken seriously, Into the Woods, according to his unconcerned tone, as if, even though the events that take place have paramount repercussions, love, happiness, giants, they're still simply banal and insignificant.
This aspect is captured in the film's focus on preparation as opposed to orchestration, apart from the accumulation of necessities, the land of the giants remaining overtly off limits, the balls Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) attends, never actively showcased.
Brilliant way to save money.
It also explains how easily the Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) acquire the bizarre knick-knacks they must find, the humdrum coronation of the fantastical, realistically equipped with sensation.
The songs are kind of fun.
Evil is punished, good natures, rewarded.
It wasn't enough to keep me captivated, although I did revel in its mischief.
The middle-class finds salvation.
Paths lined with embowering gold.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
NFL Divisional Round Picks
Baltimore Ravens/New England Patriots: New England crushed many a team this year, and, unless they were playing the New York Jets, seemed like a potent threat. Their numbers are stronger than the Ravens's, they're playing at home, and seek vengeance versus a team that has defeated them twice in recent playoff years (almost defeating them 3 times). According to the stats, Pittsburgh should have won last week. They possessed the ball for 10:34 seconds longer than Baltimore, Roethlisberger threw for more yards than Flacco, and they rushed for more yards as well. But the Ravens kept them from scoring touchdowns and intercepted Roethlisberger twice, and still put up plenty of points when they had the ball, making for a well-rounded offensive/defensive attack. On paper the Patriots are a better team, but Flacco's starting to remind me of Eli Manning, and Baltimore, the New York Giants. New England still might punish them, but I'm thinking they can pull off the upset. Picking Baltimore.
Carolina Panthers/Seattle Seahawks: Carolina's hot. They've won 5 in a row. Cam Newton's picked up his first playoff win. They have nothing to lose. No one's expecting them to win. I don't see how they could possibly beat the Seahawks but it's possible that Seattle's too overconfident, and the Panthers could offensively exploit this. Seattle seemed to think they were invincible earlier on in the year, and lost 4 games as a consequence, almost losing to the Panthers as well (13-9). The only other team to be in a similar playoff situation to that of Carolina is Seattle, when they pulled-off a huge upset win versus New Orleans in 2012 after a lacklustre season. But I'm still thinking the Seahawks will shut the Panthers down. Hoping Carolina makes a game of it, picking Seattle.
Dallas Cowboys/Green Bay Packers: these two teams are practically identical. Both finished the regular season 12-4, their numbers on offence and defence differ only slightly, 56 touchdowns scored by Dallas this year, 58 scored by Green Bay, both won 4 of their last 5 regular season games, there's not much to go on here. Look at this, Dallas was 8-0 on the road while Green Bay was 8-0 at home. You've got to love it when teams this close play each other in the playoffs. They've met myriad times in the postseason, but not since 1995. I keep thinking Romo's bound for the Conference Finals because he's never had a serious playoff run, but for that to happen, he has to win at Lambeau in January. Prove it Romo. I don't think it's going to happen. The Pack's better than they've played in the playoffs the last three years, and like playing in the bitter cold. Picking Green Bay.
Indianapolis Colts/Denver Broncos: once again, two evenly matched teams. What a great divisional round. The Colts won a big game last week, they look good, consistently putting up strong numbers, showing up for big games. The Broncos look good too. Not as exceptional as last year, but still winning much more than they lost and proving that they can contend with the best of them. Peyton Manning is the best of them, but a Broncos win comes down to Jack Del Rio and the defence. If the defence holds strong, as it should, and I know it will, the Broncos's road to the Conference Finals will be smoothly paved. Don't be overconfident Denver, the Colts are fearsome, but play like you're going to win. A tight game. Picking Denver.
Carolina Panthers/Seattle Seahawks: Carolina's hot. They've won 5 in a row. Cam Newton's picked up his first playoff win. They have nothing to lose. No one's expecting them to win. I don't see how they could possibly beat the Seahawks but it's possible that Seattle's too overconfident, and the Panthers could offensively exploit this. Seattle seemed to think they were invincible earlier on in the year, and lost 4 games as a consequence, almost losing to the Panthers as well (13-9). The only other team to be in a similar playoff situation to that of Carolina is Seattle, when they pulled-off a huge upset win versus New Orleans in 2012 after a lacklustre season. But I'm still thinking the Seahawks will shut the Panthers down. Hoping Carolina makes a game of it, picking Seattle.
Dallas Cowboys/Green Bay Packers: these two teams are practically identical. Both finished the regular season 12-4, their numbers on offence and defence differ only slightly, 56 touchdowns scored by Dallas this year, 58 scored by Green Bay, both won 4 of their last 5 regular season games, there's not much to go on here. Look at this, Dallas was 8-0 on the road while Green Bay was 8-0 at home. You've got to love it when teams this close play each other in the playoffs. They've met myriad times in the postseason, but not since 1995. I keep thinking Romo's bound for the Conference Finals because he's never had a serious playoff run, but for that to happen, he has to win at Lambeau in January. Prove it Romo. I don't think it's going to happen. The Pack's better than they've played in the playoffs the last three years, and like playing in the bitter cold. Picking Green Bay.
Indianapolis Colts/Denver Broncos: once again, two evenly matched teams. What a great divisional round. The Colts won a big game last week, they look good, consistently putting up strong numbers, showing up for big games. The Broncos look good too. Not as exceptional as last year, but still winning much more than they lost and proving that they can contend with the best of them. Peyton Manning is the best of them, but a Broncos win comes down to Jack Del Rio and the defence. If the defence holds strong, as it should, and I know it will, the Broncos's road to the Conference Finals will be smoothly paved. Don't be overconfident Denver, the Colts are fearsome, but play like you're going to win. A tight game. Picking Denver.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Big Eyes
Isolated freedom, revelling in its independence yet struggling with domestic determinants, a husband left behind, another guaranteeing affluence, the domain of patriarchy, one gender controlling, uplifting as it suffocates, a deal is begrudgingly struck, the wife possessing talent, the husband seductive salespersonship, his greed stretching beyond the limits of the financial, his oppression, firm and resolute.
Lies.
Nothing but lies.
Desperate for the prestige yet unable to qualify its conviction.
In terms of actually creating his own texts.
Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) produces them regularly, changing and growing over time, a specific insight blossoming in the bower, dedicated, talented, active.
Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) sells them as his own.
The critical art versus kitsch continuum actualizes the scene as recognition leads to expansion, as opportunity pluralizes the popular.
Do what you do well I say.
If Margaret had wanted to stay in the background, the situation would have been perfect, a fortune made, the strengths of both partners flourishing, a pool, a house, mutual agreement, not bad, if it's agreed upon beforehand, and artfully managed with subtle praiseworthy comments here and there, in various conversations, socially constructing a contradictory narrative, intriguing in its gentile playfulness, if time changes the nature of the agreement, and credit need be applied where credit's due.
No such agreements.
No such amendments.
Don't freak when the critics don't like you.
There are myriad critics, myriad points of view, myriad methodologies, myriad revelations, extract relevant insights that can help you grow from those who aren't malicious, pretend like it's all nonsense, onwards.
This is where liking sports comes in handy.
In the NFL, you can be one of the greatest players of all time, but you'll still be torn up if you have a bad game, you can't let it get to you, the opposition's fierce, prepare for the next game, let it go, let it go.
Walter turns out to be incorrigible, trying to take all the credit for his wife's work, but she embodies true integrity, leaves the luxury behind, and starts from scratch again.
I liked the film and was impressed that Tim Burton wasn't directing another remake.
I think he still has another Beetlejuice within, I watched it again recently, I love that film.
Like Margaret's work, Big Eyes is accessible and witty, charmingly plucking its heartstrings, multidimensionally navigating cultural tributaries.
Nice to see Jon Polito (Enrico Banducci).
And Mr. Terence Stamp (John Canaday).
Lies.
Nothing but lies.
Desperate for the prestige yet unable to qualify its conviction.
In terms of actually creating his own texts.
Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) produces them regularly, changing and growing over time, a specific insight blossoming in the bower, dedicated, talented, active.
Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) sells them as his own.
The critical art versus kitsch continuum actualizes the scene as recognition leads to expansion, as opportunity pluralizes the popular.
Do what you do well I say.
If Margaret had wanted to stay in the background, the situation would have been perfect, a fortune made, the strengths of both partners flourishing, a pool, a house, mutual agreement, not bad, if it's agreed upon beforehand, and artfully managed with subtle praiseworthy comments here and there, in various conversations, socially constructing a contradictory narrative, intriguing in its gentile playfulness, if time changes the nature of the agreement, and credit need be applied where credit's due.
No such agreements.
No such amendments.
Don't freak when the critics don't like you.
There are myriad critics, myriad points of view, myriad methodologies, myriad revelations, extract relevant insights that can help you grow from those who aren't malicious, pretend like it's all nonsense, onwards.
This is where liking sports comes in handy.
In the NFL, you can be one of the greatest players of all time, but you'll still be torn up if you have a bad game, you can't let it get to you, the opposition's fierce, prepare for the next game, let it go, let it go.
Walter turns out to be incorrigible, trying to take all the credit for his wife's work, but she embodies true integrity, leaves the luxury behind, and starts from scratch again.
I liked the film and was impressed that Tim Burton wasn't directing another remake.
I think he still has another Beetlejuice within, I watched it again recently, I love that film.
Like Margaret's work, Big Eyes is accessible and witty, charmingly plucking its heartstrings, multidimensionally navigating cultural tributaries.
Nice to see Jon Polito (Enrico Banducci).
And Mr. Terence Stamp (John Canaday).
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Tamarack
Dragons docile discreet hounds
hearths simplistic vintage sound
confounding enticed mysteries
twilight's caution dazed at ease.
hearths simplistic vintage sound
confounding enticed mysteries
twilight's caution dazed at ease.
Friday, January 2, 2015
The Man in the White Suit
There's a timeless quality to Alexander Mackendrick's The Man in the White Suit(1951).
Its examination of capital and labour faced with the advance of progress has transferrable applications for any historical epoch.
It's fun to watch too.
A scientist within, Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness), takes constant risks to develop an indestructible cloth that can't be stained, thereby revolutionizing the textile industry.
The owner of the company he works for is initially impressed, until his competitors note that Stratton's breakthrough will put them out of business, costing the British economy thousands of jobs.
It's a control issue.
Labour hears the news as well and recognizes their precarious position within the new marketable leap forward.
Heads contentiously clash until labour and capital realize they seek the same ends, proceeding thereafter to suppress Mr. Stratton as he tries to move forward with his discovery.
He doesn't realize the impacts of what he's doing until he accidentally bumps into an elderly person in the street, as he's on the run, laundry, the subject of conversation.
It's a compelling study of beginnings, of panic, in this instance, mixed with diverse voices from multiple stakeholders, and several unexpected serendipitous scintillations, the naive and the nepotists, the powerful, and the hungry.
Made me think of the Who Killed the Electric Car? film.
And baby steps.
I always thought that if you were making trillions of dollars from a non-renewable resource, you would spend some of that money on creating independent infrastructures to sustain local economies, if the resource happened to run out.
Future minded thinking.
You see this in the ways infrastructures are developing at the métro stations in Laval anyways, which are equipped with spots where you can park and rejuice your electric car.
Perhaps, as sales of electric cars (which are making a comeback), or hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, increase, petrol service stations will begin to proportionally offer a variety of services for them in order to manage profit fluctuations and keep their workforces employed.
Factories which manufacture cars fuelled by gasoline can switch to harnessing the power of electricity.
Slow moving change, linked directly to increased demand.
Rather than exclusively searching for new oil deposits, the focus could partially switch to finding new sources of electric power, in remote regions, while respecting local traditions, to supply the necessary increases in hydro-electric energy.
If the independent infrastructures are in place, the panic is slowly mitigated over time, and if you have 100 years and ample capital and labour to create them, civil unrest could be minimized.
A lot of people will still be mighty pissed-off however.
They may be upset if they find out they have cancer too.
This option could lead to a much cleaner environment.
A much healthier planet, more sustainable, in the fortunes of time.
Its examination of capital and labour faced with the advance of progress has transferrable applications for any historical epoch.
It's fun to watch too.
A scientist within, Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness), takes constant risks to develop an indestructible cloth that can't be stained, thereby revolutionizing the textile industry.
The owner of the company he works for is initially impressed, until his competitors note that Stratton's breakthrough will put them out of business, costing the British economy thousands of jobs.
It's a control issue.
Labour hears the news as well and recognizes their precarious position within the new marketable leap forward.
Heads contentiously clash until labour and capital realize they seek the same ends, proceeding thereafter to suppress Mr. Stratton as he tries to move forward with his discovery.
He doesn't realize the impacts of what he's doing until he accidentally bumps into an elderly person in the street, as he's on the run, laundry, the subject of conversation.
It's a compelling study of beginnings, of panic, in this instance, mixed with diverse voices from multiple stakeholders, and several unexpected serendipitous scintillations, the naive and the nepotists, the powerful, and the hungry.
Made me think of the Who Killed the Electric Car? film.
And baby steps.
I always thought that if you were making trillions of dollars from a non-renewable resource, you would spend some of that money on creating independent infrastructures to sustain local economies, if the resource happened to run out.
Future minded thinking.
You see this in the ways infrastructures are developing at the métro stations in Laval anyways, which are equipped with spots where you can park and rejuice your electric car.
Perhaps, as sales of electric cars (which are making a comeback), or hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, increase, petrol service stations will begin to proportionally offer a variety of services for them in order to manage profit fluctuations and keep their workforces employed.
Factories which manufacture cars fuelled by gasoline can switch to harnessing the power of electricity.
Slow moving change, linked directly to increased demand.
Rather than exclusively searching for new oil deposits, the focus could partially switch to finding new sources of electric power, in remote regions, while respecting local traditions, to supply the necessary increases in hydro-electric energy.
If the independent infrastructures are in place, the panic is slowly mitigated over time, and if you have 100 years and ample capital and labour to create them, civil unrest could be minimized.
A lot of people will still be mighty pissed-off however.
They may be upset if they find out they have cancer too.
This option could lead to a much cleaner environment.
A much healthier planet, more sustainable, in the fortunes of time.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
NFL Wild Card Picks
Some picks for this weekend's Wild Card matchups:
Arizona Cardinals/Carolina Panthers: These teams seem headed in opposite directions. Carolina's won 4 in a row and with the playoffs on the line convincingly crushed the Falcons last weekend. True, they enter the postseason having only won 7 games, but they're streaking right now and play the Cardinals at home which gives them a significant advantage. Arizona lost 4 of its last 6, blowing their chances at receiving a bye, stalling when they should have been surging, falling behind with the NFC's no. 1 seed on the line. They did lose two of those games to Seattle (they weren't even close) and also fell to Atlanta and San Francisco. But prior to this stretch they defeated San Diego, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Detroit, not to mention two wins versus St. Louis, who played well when faced with strong opposition this season. In 2008 they defeated the Panthers 33-13 in the playoffs on the road and their defence was much stronger than Carolina's this season. But backup quarterback Ryan Lindley's numbers aren't inspiring, and even if Arizona's defence plays well, I doubt they'll be able to put up enough points to stop the Panthers. Picking Carolina.
Baltimore Ravens/Pittsburgh Steelers: again with the Ravens and the Steelers. How do you pick between these two teams, they play each other twice during the regular season and often meet in the playoffs, they've both won the Super Bowl in recent memory and know what it's like to play in big games? Who knows who'll win? Flacco's never lost a Wild Card game and Roethlisberger's made the Super Bowl three times since 2005. They split their two meetings during the regular season. Baltimore had the better defence while the Steelers scored more points. Pittsburgh looked awful at the beginning of the year but tenaciously turned things around to finish with 4 straight wins over Atlanta, Kansas City, and Cincinnati, twice. But they still didn't play well versus Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, the New York Jets, Tennessee, and New Orleans, which is odd to say the least. Nevertheless, it means they only show up for big games, and this is a big one. Baltimore's won 5 of their last 7 but they've never defeated the Steelers in the playoffs. Flippin' a coin here. Picking Pittsburgh.
Cincinnati Bengals/Indianapolis Colts: the Bengals recent playoff woes come to mind when thinking about the outcome of this game. They play well enough to consistently make the playoffs but can't seem to put together a strong performance in the postseason. They are good though. So is Indianapolis. The Colts beat them 27-0 in October and won 5 of their last 6. Nevertheless, apart from their destruction of the Bengals, they did lose to Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New England, and Dallas, falling in the later 3 games by large margins. The Bengals didn't do much better. Cincinnati had the better defence but Indianapolis's offence put up 93 more points. The pressure's off Andrew Luck since he won a Wild Card game last year and the commentators have been coming down hard on Andy Dalton in recent weeks, who generally seems to have trouble playing in prime time. This could work to Dalton's advantage. Evenly matched teams, one of them must win. Marvin Lewis is an excellent regular season coach who has lost 5 Wild Card games to date. He knows this. He must be doing something differently. Cincinnati lost to the Colts in the playoffs in 1970. They're turning it around in 2014. Once again, I'm picking the Bengals. Bengals by 1.
Detroit Lions/Dallas Cowboys: Detroit's been coming back to win games all season and play their best football when trailing in the fourth. Only Seattle and Kansas City gave up less points, and they beat Green Bay earlier on in the year. The Cowboys are back in the playoffs for the first time in five years and methinks Tony Romo's hungry for his second postseason victory. Dallas scored 146 more points than the Lions this season so if Detroit is going to win, their defence must be unforgiving. But Romo is thriving. He hasn't played in the playoffs for 5 years. Sitting on the sidelines for the past 4 years must have been infuriating, this game's being played in Dallas, and for the first time since the 90s, the Cowboys look good. If the Lions's defence can generate turnovers, while Stafford plays exceptionally well, Detroit can win. I think Dallas is going to dig them too big of a hole this time round though. Picking the Cowboys.
Arizona Cardinals/Carolina Panthers: These teams seem headed in opposite directions. Carolina's won 4 in a row and with the playoffs on the line convincingly crushed the Falcons last weekend. True, they enter the postseason having only won 7 games, but they're streaking right now and play the Cardinals at home which gives them a significant advantage. Arizona lost 4 of its last 6, blowing their chances at receiving a bye, stalling when they should have been surging, falling behind with the NFC's no. 1 seed on the line. They did lose two of those games to Seattle (they weren't even close) and also fell to Atlanta and San Francisco. But prior to this stretch they defeated San Diego, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Detroit, not to mention two wins versus St. Louis, who played well when faced with strong opposition this season. In 2008 they defeated the Panthers 33-13 in the playoffs on the road and their defence was much stronger than Carolina's this season. But backup quarterback Ryan Lindley's numbers aren't inspiring, and even if Arizona's defence plays well, I doubt they'll be able to put up enough points to stop the Panthers. Picking Carolina.
Baltimore Ravens/Pittsburgh Steelers: again with the Ravens and the Steelers. How do you pick between these two teams, they play each other twice during the regular season and often meet in the playoffs, they've both won the Super Bowl in recent memory and know what it's like to play in big games? Who knows who'll win? Flacco's never lost a Wild Card game and Roethlisberger's made the Super Bowl three times since 2005. They split their two meetings during the regular season. Baltimore had the better defence while the Steelers scored more points. Pittsburgh looked awful at the beginning of the year but tenaciously turned things around to finish with 4 straight wins over Atlanta, Kansas City, and Cincinnati, twice. But they still didn't play well versus Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, the New York Jets, Tennessee, and New Orleans, which is odd to say the least. Nevertheless, it means they only show up for big games, and this is a big one. Baltimore's won 5 of their last 7 but they've never defeated the Steelers in the playoffs. Flippin' a coin here. Picking Pittsburgh.
Cincinnati Bengals/Indianapolis Colts: the Bengals recent playoff woes come to mind when thinking about the outcome of this game. They play well enough to consistently make the playoffs but can't seem to put together a strong performance in the postseason. They are good though. So is Indianapolis. The Colts beat them 27-0 in October and won 5 of their last 6. Nevertheless, apart from their destruction of the Bengals, they did lose to Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New England, and Dallas, falling in the later 3 games by large margins. The Bengals didn't do much better. Cincinnati had the better defence but Indianapolis's offence put up 93 more points. The pressure's off Andrew Luck since he won a Wild Card game last year and the commentators have been coming down hard on Andy Dalton in recent weeks, who generally seems to have trouble playing in prime time. This could work to Dalton's advantage. Evenly matched teams, one of them must win. Marvin Lewis is an excellent regular season coach who has lost 5 Wild Card games to date. He knows this. He must be doing something differently. Cincinnati lost to the Colts in the playoffs in 1970. They're turning it around in 2014. Once again, I'm picking the Bengals. Bengals by 1.
Detroit Lions/Dallas Cowboys: Detroit's been coming back to win games all season and play their best football when trailing in the fourth. Only Seattle and Kansas City gave up less points, and they beat Green Bay earlier on in the year. The Cowboys are back in the playoffs for the first time in five years and methinks Tony Romo's hungry for his second postseason victory. Dallas scored 146 more points than the Lions this season so if Detroit is going to win, their defence must be unforgiving. But Romo is thriving. He hasn't played in the playoffs for 5 years. Sitting on the sidelines for the past 4 years must have been infuriating, this game's being played in Dallas, and for the first time since the 90s, the Cowboys look good. If the Lions's defence can generate turnovers, while Stafford plays exceptionally well, Detroit can win. I think Dallas is going to dig them too big of a hole this time round though. Picking the Cowboys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)