http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:44:49 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/31/184449.php Michelle MauriereFinally I got to watch Super Size Me. I watched it in German, with German subtitles and the narrator-voice dubbed. It was a very good documentary, I think.Before I started watching the movie I bought me a big pizza. First I thought about going to McDonald's to buy me a huge meal - just for the fun of it, to point out the irony. But I was too lazy to travel through my city to get me McDonald's food. I must say, I also haven't been at McDonald's anymore for a really long time. I don't even remember when I was there the last time. Though I worked there for about a year, and I didn't feel bad about it really. I was a vegetarian when I worked there, so all I ate was salade, burgers without meat and such, and I drank the shakes often. It didn't damage me, but I saw others that worked there and regularly ate ALL the stuff, and nobody ever got into that kind of trouble.I mean, the documentary definitely has a point. I think especially the sugar is really bad, and that is probably what causes the addiction. You shouldn't eat that kind of crap too often. But I don't know... I think, Morgan Spurlock must have had some problem already before he started this documentary. Maybe it's in his genes. It's weird that he got that sick. Maybe his body was just shocked suddenly, because he wasn't used to that much sugar and fat at all.Anyway, I put half of my pizza away as soon as they listed all diseases you can get. Haha. I wasn't hungry anymore anyway. And maybe that is part of the problem - maybe some people just can't stop when they're done already. Morgan Spurlock went on eating also, although he didn't feel like it anymore. And I do think you can't just blame it on the industry. Of course, it's their fault also. But people should just watch themselves what they're doing.Conclusion in the end is - I think, this is the best, most entertaining documentary of the year so far. And for me it sure had the biggest impact among all docus so far this year, too. Not concerning McDonald's, but just about food and habits in general. Fahrenheit 9/11 couldn't have that kind of impact, because I already knew and felt with my whole body that Bush is a prick before. So - maybe Super Size Me is a good candidate for the Oscars in 2005. Video18117@blogcritics.org Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:44:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/28/175159.php Michelle MauriereFinally I got to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Though, I mean, it's been out since only a few days, how can I say finally? But yes, I was very curious and impatient to hear what's so special about this movie and what Michael Moore is telling. I'd heard of a lot of people saying good things about it, having been impressed, having been touched this or that way. Then it broke the Box Office record for documentaries last weekend. All the trouble Moore's gone through to get the documentary published on screen. Yes, it certainly added a lot to the hype this movie's currently experiencing. Though I've decided not to be too hyper about this movie. Yes, it was interesting to watch and listen. And it touched me - made me angry, made me laugh, made me sob. But I'd known a lot of the information provided in the movie already before, because he'd talked about some of the things in his book Stupid White Men already. The interesting thing to me was to actually get to see some taped proof of what Moore had talked about in his book already. In some parts I thought Moore had exaggerated again though by e.g. pointing out that President Bush had been 42% of his time on vacation within the beginning of his presidency. Bush said he didn't have to be in Washington to run the White House, and I think that's true. Nobody said Bush hadn't worked while he was on vacation, and I doubt Moore could say that Bush actually didn't work while being on vacation. Though that's only one point in which I support what Bush said. Though the footage of 9/11 and how Bush sat there in this classroom was just pretty funny and shows just the real Bush, the boy that has no power when it comes to making wise decisions and acting like a responsible man. He should have stood up right away and move his butt. But he just kept sitting there saying nothing and reading a book, as if nothing bad had happened, while the Trade Center Towers crashed. Amazing. It's nice to finally know now where Bush actually was at that time. I'd always wondered about that, because it took Bush so long until he addressed the US nation the first time after the attacks. I'd always presumed he'd been on vacation while the attacks happened. I also liked how Bush called himself a "war president". True, man, too true. And the scene in which they presented that parachute against terror attacks was just hilarious. In the first place I thought it was simply pathetic to actually buy that kind of parachute to protect yourself from terror attacks. But then I also found it funny that it took the woman so long to put the thing on. When you're panicked you'll never manage to put it on and probably jump out of the window and it won't work. How dumb will your gravestone look when they mention the cause of your death on it - parachute wouldn't open, hit face on ground. I think, I liked the beginning of the movie most, because there was high density of useful information. At the end it turned a bit slim in that department and focused more on emotional stories that were meant to probably especially address Americans. To me as a European who follows the news a lot and as one of those that have read Stupid White Men I guess the movie didn't have many surprises left. But I'm thankful for the videos that I hadn't seen before. It's definitely worth watching it for that. I guess it's a no-brainer if I predict that this movie's gonna win the Oscar 2005 for best documentary. And I wonder how they're gonna deal with Moore's speech this time, whether they'll censor him again. Rating: 8 / 10 Video16901@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:51:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/23/140535.php Michelle MauriereIn the beginning I heard The Terminal was not a great movie. Well, I also think, it is not great, it was a bit boring and slow and over-lengthy, but I liked it. When they showed the terminal in the beginning I recognized JFK airport right away. I even thought it had been the terminal where I left the USA in 2001. Though then again, maybe the new JFK terminals all look the same, I'm not sure. I liked the performance of Tom Hanks very much. I think it's definitely Oscar-material. If Hanks gets nominated for another Oscar next year I won't be surprised. Also Catherine Zeta-Jones and Hanks went very well together. Very good cast. First I thought the writer of the story had been desperate to be too unique, because the story of The Terminal is very weird and uncommon. People are always asking for something new, something they've never seen. And I thought in The Terminal this goal was overly achieved. Though I began to wonder whether a story like that could really happen in the USA, whether it's possible to stay at an airport for those reasons Hanks had to stay there, and whether he'd be allowed to accept a job there without having a visa and all that. I thought it was merely legally impossible in the USA, but nevertheless I did research on the story and found out the idea is based on a true story that once happened in Paris. USA Today has reported on it: The premise behind DreamWorks' The Terminal is grounded in the convoluted, true-life tale of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian refugee in his late 50s who has been living in Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport for nearly 16 years. According to published reports, Nasseri showed up at the Paris airport in 1988 with a ticket to London but no identity papers; he said they had been stolen in a Paris subway. He flew to England, but authorities sent him back to de Gaulle, where he remained in legal limbo — living off food vouchers donated by sympathetic airport employees, snoozing on a bench near the Paris Bye Bye departure lounge and becoming the star of French documentary films until he received a French residency permit in 1999. Still I believe that a story like this couldn't happen in the USA. Rating: 8/10 Video16764@blogcritics.org Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:05:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/21/174150.php Michelle MauriereThis time it was Barry Manilow night. Not that I'm much into his music, but okay. I thought all in all the show was fine, nothing seriously disturbing. My take on the seven candidates goes like this in the order of their performances: DIANA DeGARMO: Somehow she slightly reminded me of Celine Dion with her performance, sometimes her tone of her voice was similar, I thought. I think, she has an unbelievable voice, and she truly gave it all past night. I was almost in tears at the end. I see many dislike her, but I like her very much and believe she's got lots of potential, she just doesn't believe in herself enough. Randy Jackson said, she was the most ambitious 16-year-old he'd seen so far, and I believe this is part of why people do not like her. She probably tries too hard, and people can't bear it. But I look at her for the artist with a great voice she is, and to me she's one of the best. GEORGE HUFF: I really love this guy, he's got such a positive aura, and I think his voice is special. I think he could still improve a lot technically, but he was born with treasure in his throat. He always reminds me of Luther Vandross, and I like Luther very much also. Though past night's performance didn't impress me as much as others before. I felt kind of bored, I didn't listen closely, because his spirit just didn't touch me this time. But I'm sure he's gonna make it again and again. JENNIFER HUDSON: I have the feeling, although she's still going strong and fighting, she's lost some of her magic throughout the past few shows. I think she's lost a bit of faith in herself. But I like her, and I think she's also very talented. The jury gave her props all the way, but her performance didn't fully convince me. JASMINE TRIAS: What irritates me about Jasmine is that her strong, powerful voice just doesn't fit her petite physical appearance. You look at her, then she opens her mouth, and you feel like this can't be the same person. I think she has a great voice, but now with all her strong rivals I'd have to say she's one of the weaker candidates. But she sounded great. LA TOYA LONDON: To me it would be a disgrace in history if La Toya dropped out of the competition any time soon. To me she's the winner. She performs like a real pro, she's so secure when she sings, her voice is amazing, she looks beautiful, I like her seemingly smooth personality. She is just perfect. I'd not be surprised if record companies were already standing in line rooting for her. JOHN STEVENS: As cute as he is for his 17 years, and as much as I like it if people have their own, different style, I think he just gotta get booted this week. He just can't stand the pressure anymore, he is the weakest of them all, and I hope nobody has to leave the competition before he leaves. It would be a shame to the others. I also thought he just didn't feel the song. Like Simon Cowell said - it sounded mechanical. And yes, probably it's his age, or maybe not, I don't know. The song choice was great, but he messed it up emotionally. FANTASIA BARRINO: I hadn't liked her much in the beginning, but I must say - I've changed my mind. Especially past week she did an amazing performance! Absolutely gorgeous! But this week I felt the fast songs are just not for her, she can't show in fast songs how great she can be technically and emotionally. Too much fun factor makes her sound wishy-washy. But I'm sure she's gonna make it again this week, and I hope next time she chooses a better song for herself again. It's probably her personality to sing songs like that, but I think she just sounds better if she slows it down. All in all, my guesses for the bottom three this week are: John Stevens, Jennifer Hudson and Jasmine Trias. And I think John Stevens is gonna drop out. If this competition and America is fair, then he's gotta go. Video14965@blogcritics.org Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:41:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/25/160616.php Michelle MauriereYes, you heard it, a trailer is out for Kill Bill Vol. 2. In my opinion the whole story sucks, because it's way too simple: woman is angry, goes out, takes revenge and leaves bloodshed behind her, cool. But okay, technically it's well-done. And I'm probably gonna force the sequel on me also this time, just to belong to the cool people who've actually watched this supposedly cool movie. Doh. Haha. Whatever. Just check out the trailer, I'm only doing this here for the addicts that can't wait any longer. Video14070@blogcritics.org Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:06:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/25/154729.php Michelle MauriereReviews regularly posted at Vacuity. When not too lazy, then even with audio downloads. Just watched Tuesday's American Idol show. Here go my ratings for the 11 contestants this time. Diana DeGarmo - 9/10 George Huff - 7/10 Fantasia Barrino - 9/10 John Stevens - 8/10 Camile Velasco - 8/10 Jennifer Hudson - 7/10 Jon Peter Lewis - 6/10 Jasmine Trias - 8/10 Matthew Rogers - 5/10 La Toya London - 9/10Amy Adams - 9/10 I loved Diana DeGarmo again. She is just such an amazing singer. I just have to repeat myself every week. Her and La Toya London are my absolute favorites among the contestants. George Huff was great, but I'm still still waiting for him to sing the right song. He just doesn't cling with anything he sings. I think he should choose some Luther Vandross stuff, that's what his voice is made for. Fantasia Barrino and John Stevens had their, in my opinion, best performances Tuesday night so far. They were both really good, even though I still don't like John Stevens' style, but he's just great for who he is, even though he forgot his lyrics. It wasn't Camile Velasco's best performance, but I just love the sound of her voice. I can't get enough of that. Jennifer Hudson, well, she was okay, but I think there are just too many great rivals, and she's just not among my favorites, even though she's sure talented and a nice person. Jon Peter Lewis was boring. Jasmine Trias was boring this time, too, just wasn't her song. Matthew Rogers sucks, I think, and I mean that from the heart, I want him out. La Toya London is such a great singer, and she did a great performance, she's just a true entertainer, she knows how to work with the audience and the camera, and her voice is also amazing, but I think she really chose the wrong song this time in which she couldn't show all her talent. Amy Adams did the best country (which was the motto of the night) performance of the night, I think. She's not the greatest singer of them all, but her song was actually real country, and she performed it like a real country star. I liked her performance loads. It's really hard to guess this time who drops out, they all appeal to the audience differently, and I really don't know who's got most of the fans already and all that. But only judging by what I saw about Tuesday my guesses are... Jennifer Hudson, Jon Peter Lewis or, I really hope, Matthew Rogers. If Matthew dropped out I'd find it really fair, but I could imagine it's one of the other two first, because Matthew seems to have lots of fans, because he's just a funny type, and his football stuff and such. But I almost fear Jennifer Hudson won't make it this week. I'll add the results to this entry later. BTW I always wondered about Paula Abdul's ethnicity. She's one of the jurors of American Idol, and what I find interesting is that the jury members are of total different ethnicity, which I find good, because that way you avoid that certain people of different ethnicity are probably judged more for their heritage than for what they're actually doing on stage. Even if one doesn't cling too much with someone's style, like e.g. Jasmine Trias' very Hawaiian image, she might appeal to another one of the jury, because people look at it from different perspectives. I could imagine they've done that on purpose to appeal to all kinds of people in the USA. But I always wondered about Paula, but now I looked it up and was surprised. She's Syrian-Palestinian and French-Canadian. I would have never thought she was one of those. She's American, of course, but her heritage - I wouldn't have known. Was interesting to find out about that. I mean, her name Abdul already got me thinking, but doh, I really wouldn't have known. So good, see you again in here later. LATER: THE RESULTS I just watched the results. I still can't believe who the ones in the bottom three were. I mean, Matthew was totally okay to me. But Camile and Diana? Oh my God! When they announced who's gonna drop out and Diana DeGarmo's name was said first I almost suffered from a heart attack. I already thought she was out. I mean, even Paula Abdul said she was shocked about seeing her among the bottom 3. But thankfully Diana was just the first one out of the bottom 3 who made it to next week. And thank God, Matthew Rogers dropped out this week. The USA seem to be pretty predictable to me when it comes to guessing who's got to drop out. But damn, I still have a hard time believing Diana DeGarmo was in the bottom three already this time. She's just absolutely amazing! I don't know what's wrong with these people! Never shock me like this again! =(( :D Video14069@blogcritics.org Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:47:29 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/02/174043.php Michelle MauriereI'm glad I'm finally through with The Passion Of The Christ, I must say. There were some parts that were hard to watch, and I had to turn my head away, especially when they knocked Jesus' hands against the cross. Although the brutality he received before was also already bad, and some say it was the worst. Many say the brutality and bloodshed is too much in this movie, but I wonder - who can tell it wasn't so?Just think back a few-hundred years when people were still malicious and retarded enough to burn people who they had declared to be witches for one or the other reason. Or people were threatened to be sentenced to death for claiming planet Earth isn't flat. Who tells me that a few hundred years before that, maybe people were not even crazier, more evil, narrow-minded and hungry for blood?And about all the discussion about whether it includes anti-semitic sentiments I'd say, the movie blames all kinds of people equally, and even though Jesus says - It is he who delivered me to you who has the greater sin. - the hypocrisy of the Romans was equally evil. I mean, nobody really forced the Governor to ask for Jesus' execution. He was just afraid to lose his face, although he didn't believe that Jesus earned the punishment he then put on him. And the Romans that executed him enjoyed doing so, even though they'd probably say nowadays they only did their job.I think Jews who feel it's a movie all against them should take the focus away from the group of people that are portrayed as Jews in the movie. The focus of the movie is Jesus, and the people around are equally guilty, because nobody stopped it. Though they also showed people among the Romans and among the Jews who defended Jesus. I personally think the movie was balanced concerning who's to blame. In the end Jesus hasn't put the blame on anybody and it was his choice, and he believes it was God's choice.I thought the movie was well-done concerning the guidance of the audience through the story. In the beginning and at the end the story is summarized, but in the middle of the movie you feel as if it were all in real-time and probably takes as much time as it's taken until Jesus was finally nailed against the cross. It all takes ages, all the thrashing and the suffering. It seems quite realistic.Though I think there is nothing really all that outrageous about the movie. We've had other movies already about Jesus' life and way he died. I remember well the old version called King Of Kings from 1961. They often show it for Easter on TV, and I think it's quite an impressive movie also, it's probably just half as realistic concerning the suffering Jesus must have gone through. But who knows what it was really like? Nobody of our time's been there to see it.By the way, there were two sentences in the movie that had the greatest impression on me:- If the world hates you, remember that it has hated me first. - For if you love only those who love you, what reward is there in that?I think the movie arises interest in the Bible, and maybe it's gonna influence some people to have greater belief in it again. I've always thought about reading the Bible from page 1 to, uhm, dunno how many pages. If I weren't too lazy this movie would make me read it finally. I guess some will actually read it after having watched this movie to make up their minds.Another thing I thought I'd mention was - I think King Herod seemed pretty gay in that movie. I don't know whether he was gay, but he seemed gay in the movie, that's for sure. Maybe he was just simply misplaced, or Mel Gibson felt Herod had to be ridiculed. I thought King Herod was a pretty disturbing character within the movie.So, that's it. I don't think I'll ever watch this movie again. Not because I didn't like it or because I thought it was wrong. The reason simply is that I couldn't bear watching the real-time scenes again. It's enough having watched it once. I don't need it twice. And yes, I do think the movie was hyped a lot, and Jews demonstrating against the movie sure won't make it better, because it arises even more interest and attention.Rating - 8/10And finally I can read all the reviews of other people. Video13336@blogcritics.org Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:40:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/18/191158.php Michelle MauriereI'm bored. I thought I'd point out a news bit I find interesting today: RIAA sued under gang laws That's a whole new way to look at it: Through her attorneys, Michele Scimeca contends that by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime. Which just reminds me of that different view I lately read about again that, in reality the artists are not the ones that worry much about material that's shared online, because many of the people involved in a production are paid per hour or paid per month, and they do not profit from the rest of the money that's made by record companies and such. The ones that really profit in the end are the record companies, but not the artists. As far as I know Michael Jackson gets about 3 to 4 dollars per album that's sold. The rest goes to the company, and in Michael's case e.g. SONY hasn't even promoted his last album for that money they made. And Michael is one of the artists that actually earns well per album. There are other artists, that earn a lot less per album that's sold. No wonder that Michael didn't support the RIAA and said they should stop suing people. He knows he won't earn more money afterwards anyway, especially if his company fails to promote an album that could have sold probably twice as much as it did. There's no point for many artists to complain, especially for those that are paid per hour. They're all just trying to make money with least effort. Suing a few individuals for several 100 thousand dollars is quite a cheap way to make money and saves a lot of time and money they could instead invest in promotion to make that money they get from these few sued individuals. But ah well... I don't like music much anymore anyway. I'd also see no point in suing people, because they mostly just exchange stuff online that they also wouldn't buy if they couldn't get it online. People just listen to a lot of stuff, because they can get it easily. But if they didn't have the Internet they'd not want to have most of the stuff really and would never go to a shop and buy it, too. So I wonder how much money artists and companies would really lose if you abolished the Internet again. They'd probably just sell the same amount of albums, because people would still think twice about whether they want to buy the stuff or not. I find most of the released stuff so crappy nowadays that I wouldn't even waste my time on downloading it. I do not even watch music TV channels anymore, because it annoys me to have to listen to most of the stuff, and there I could get all that mess for free also. Same with the radio, I never listen to it, pointless. I think the RIAA should better ask around and ask what people want and think about how to make a change about the music industry to make it more attractive again to buy albums. But the RIAA doesn't even want to know about that kind of things. They just want money. Music12901@blogcritics.org Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:11:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/17/141523.php Michelle MauriereI thought I'd express my deepest feelings for cancer-sick Gavin Arvizo once again. It's really sad to be so sick. Especially as sick as Gavin. Cancer is really very horrible, it seems. Just look at the pictures published by the Mirror, UK: [pics removed] In the first picture Gavin jumped over an 8 feet high fence, just lately. When do people finally donate a kidney for him, I can't see him suffering like that any longer? He must suffer a lot. Not even I can jump 8ft high, I mean, I've got a damaged hip anyway. But dude, I think I've never jumped that high in my whole life. Cancer is really evil. But the second picture is great, too. I think Gavin and his mother have a lot in common. That running around with weapons in one hand must run in the family. I'd just like to remind you of Janet Arvizo, mother of Gavin, who can be seen with a knife in her hand in this picture, posing for the media. What else can you say? I'd just like to mention - from day one when the discussion about Gavin began and everyone thought he was still sick I said I have doubts about him still being sick and I have doubts about him ever having been sick, too. When I expressed that I got dissed on a German forum and they said I was heartless and shouldn't say such nasty things about a person that suffers from cancer. But hello? I just always smell shit from far away. I'm really gonna apologize badly if I'm wrong on this one, but I doubt I will be all that wrong. There is a slight chance Gavin was really sick before he met Michael Jackson. But I believe crap. I think they used this disease to get money from people and to get closer to Michael, who has a big heart for especially sick children, a way too big heart sometimes, and then to sue him, because they knew Michael is a great target, because he'd been accused of child abuse already before. If you keep telling the same lie, some start to believe it. If that is sick, honestly, then I want to be as sick as Gavin. I wish I could be so sick and jump up 8 feet. Originally posted at Vacuity, long-term fan of Michael Jackson since 1988. Music12856@blogcritics.org Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:15:23 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/03/204911.php Michelle MauriereWhoa, I just saw that The Butterfly Effect is getting quite bad ratings at Rotten Tomatoes. I don't understand that, really. I thought the idea for this story was amazing. I really like how the movie's made. I think if we look back in 2005 at what stories were told best in 2004, then The Butterfly Effect will still be branded into my head. I think it's not easy to tell that kind of story, so that the audience can still follow what it is about, but this movie was really well-done. The acting didn't really convince me, but it's great how the actors had to play very different kinds of roles within the story.I guess one problem many people have with this movie is that they're questioning the logic behind the story and wonder too much whether it's possible or whether it makes sense. But the movie is a lot about just screwing with logic and just changing one fact of the truth and look at how it would have ended if things hadn't happened the way they were. It's useless to question the logic, it's not about that. But of course, this movie inspires you to think about the logic, and I guess as long as the critics wonder about it this story has hit the right spot, no matter whether they liked what they saw or not.And I thought the ending of the movie was quite good. I thought I had recognized that the cover of the book the guy read said "The Butterfly". Video12345@blogcritics.org Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:49:11 EST