i should watch some of werner herzog's fiction films, cos i've only seen a couple of his documentaries and they were only interesting due to their subject matter. i didn't really find anthing he did with the subjects particular cool.

the documentaries are pretty interchangeable with the fiction work when it comes right down to it. you can probably stop while you're ahead if what he's bringing to it all doesn't do anything for you right off the bat. herzog isn't for everybody, and something tells me you'll find too many hangups in his outlook to find the greater thrust of his career meaningful.

I watched Halloween for the first time (seasonal!!) and liked it a lot. The daylight bits where the teenagers are wandering around the suburbs and there's nobody in the backgrounds to the shots, no cars or neighbours. Parents + teachers appear once before vanishing forever, not even any other teens. Purgatory 'Burbs. Purgaburbs. I was all pleased with myself for noticing until I watched to the end and realised that the film had been consciously playing with this feeling / image all the while... Well, I got suckered... But I liked that and thought one of the reasons M. Myers(?) was creepy was because he starts off kind of registering as someone's creepy dad, the kind who wears some ratty old leather jacket and breathes too hard and leers at highschool girls from his car and who is horribly at home in peaceful neighbourhood.
I wasn't as into the actual murdering parts but still thought there were good touches, the vapour on the inside of the car, the closet light coming on as he flails inside, draping a sheet over himself and putting the dead kid's glasses on top as a disguise was very funny.
 
Also watched Event Horizon on TV, it was very bad, especially the set design was some Quake shit. Haunted house movie with no sense of place, psychological horror film with bad stock characters. I remember seeing it before and liking it along with that movie Sphere, which is probably also terrible, but I at least theoretically like the idea of movies with scientists wandering around some unnerving locale.
 
 
 
ps kinda agreeing about no country for old men, it lays out the theme of EVIL pretty directly but i dont remember it doing anything interesting or insightful with it?? most of the stuff on that wikipedia page is awful and reads like dopey filmcritics just filling column space. What Mass Effect 3 Has To Say About The Post 9/11 World. maybe i just haven't seen it in a bit, i'm up for anyone posting links about it...

Despite being Yahoo, this is a decent reading, he nails the basics:

http://voices.yahoo.com/analysis-joel-ethan-coens-no-country-old-6357108.html

It's definitely interesting in how they do it. Chigurh has a code of morals and everyone is sort of in a grey area (bar Sherriff Bell I spose). I'll write more later, I need to see it again myself.

I saw Shame a couple of nights ago and it was fantastic, but I really felt dirty and drained afterwards. Still, reinforces that Michael Fassbender is an amazing actor. I didn't think it was as sexually graphic as it was made out to be but it's incredibly dark in how it uses sexual themes.

Its about "evil" and how some are incomprehensibly capable of it without discrimination or regard. Tommy lee jones pretty much lays it out for you the first 5-10 minutes of the movie. I mean, theres probably a whole lot more in there but from my understanding thats the gist of it.
 
Its not even a hard movie to get dude and the action sequences aren't out of place and they're pretty accurate for the subject matter imo.

nah it's bull man. bull. bad movie. spit. i could write longer about why but i dont think it (this movie) ain't worth each others' time... !! noticed just in time, thanks for catamites for support... let's mow down this loser!!! *beats the s*it outta loser mope on school yard* who gets who now!! *smack bam crack speed*

quelle surprise

idk why i write this but no country for old men kinda bothers me that for something that strives out to be 70's-existential side - style of action film, it really doesn't seem to have any kind of profound view on things happening within the movie, thuss coming out more of a tarantino-like-series-of-sudden-events - effect than anything substancial. probably also needed more view/fleshing out on the tommy lee jones part. sorry for this blurt.

for whatever it's worth the gist of this is pretty much how i'd describe all the other coen brothers movies i've seen. the only reason why i couldn't say it about this one is because i haven't seen it.

seriously though, is this movie actually at all worth watching apart from that ONE GUY? you know who the hell i'm talking about, and i watched a bunch of clips on the youtube(s) because he's reasonably entertaining with that stupid haircut, but the rest of the movie just looks like it stands around waiting for him to come back so it can get interesting again. i've seen a bunch of clips of this movie and it looks like some generic minimalist homage to a bunch of movies nobody cares about. which is cool, you know, just referencing other movies rather than making your own movie, TOTALLY NOT A WORTHLESS WAY TO MAKE A MOVIE AT ALL. we need more homages DESPERATELY, this is IMPORTANT. don't know if that's a fair way to describe this movie, as i've heard a bunch of people kinda foaming at the mouth saying how this movie is some COMPLETELY REDEEMING genre study about THE DEATH OF THE WESTERN or something, which is also totally not an unacceptably empty goal of filmmaking. the thought of movies actually being about something in reality rather than just some fucking commentary on other movies? THIS IS A LUDICROUS PROPOSAL AND I VOW TO REPEAL IT WHEN I AM ELECTED INTO OFFICE.

please welcome: The Revolut- i mean welcome DIRTBIKE666, that's some good username when i see one.

for whatever it's worth the gist of this is pretty much how i'd describe all the other coen brothers movies i've seen. the only reason why i couldn't say it about this one is because i haven't seen it.

seriously though, is this movie actually at all worth watching apart from that ONE GUY? you know who the hell i'm talking about, and i watched a bunch of clips on the youtube(s) because he's reasonably entertaining with that stupid haircut, but the rest of the movie just looks like it stands around waiting for him to come back so it can get interesting again. i've seen a bunch of clips of this movie and it looks like some generic minimalist homage to a bunch of movies nobody cares about. which is cool, you know, just referencing other movies rather than making your own movie, TOTALLY NOT A WORTHLESS WAY TO MAKE A MOVIE AT ALL. we need more homages DESPERATELY, this is IMPORTANT. don't know if that's a fair way to describe this movie, as i've heard a bunch of people kinda foaming at the mouth saying how this movie is some COMPLETELY REDEEMING genre study about THE DEATH OF THE WESTERN or something, which is also totally not an unacceptably empty goal of filmmaking. the thought of movies actually being about something in reality rather than just some fucking commentary on other movies? THIS IS A LUDICROUS PROPOSAL AND I VOW TO REPEAL IT WHEN I AM ELECTED INTO OFFICE.

ahhahah I'm not saying that you'd have to write aggressively to be funny but both of your last bigger posts have been pr good/funny...!! it reminds me of a guy i know in fb who makes pr funny posts but somehow only about binge drinking/hangover/vodka and old cars for some reason (like only things he occasionally posts anything about in fb). This Amazing Lit/Charismatic Personality & His Knack on Charismatic Humour on Old Cars and Alcohol
 
as for the post, erm i think the shortest reply is no? No, there's probably no good reason to watch the movie unless if you want a movie you just DISAGREE with even in point of view just multiple times during the movie (and it's different kind of disagreeing than what i talked about your game). That Guy with a goofy haircut is idk he does a little better acting but not so much and the movie is pr much waiting for him to come to screen and Who He Kills (Or... NOT! *what a mindfuck*) Someone. they even (acting, directing) fucked up the amusing part when the guy appears to the man's wife house (it's like obvious and if u dont like spoilers then fu, i also dont think this needs explaining aaa its just not worth our time baby) and i'm sorta thinkign how do you do that?? you need to both the actors to act bad but you must also undermine the importance of the event/story so welp gj coen/cohen/coy...shit, look at me go man. I have to restrain from starting to fucking POUR all the annoyed things i was bothered abotu the movie, idk how to explain this without sounding like a mindless idiot and i'm already angry that i'm already fitting that bill groaaaann!! you know the feeling that you are going to nasally go on about the failures of the movie (a fucking cohen brother movie) and just point out to the big world how This Fine Product Doesn't Deserve The Fame and now you are going to right the wrong except that in the end youre gonna end up just drained and tired, nope not worth our time dear reader.
 
I'm not sayign much from the in-movie scenes/events btw but honestly, what is there to say? It's pr much close to what the movie synopsis says anywhere in internet for whole 2-3 hours. it doesn't go anywhere with it, it's mostly a action movie with suspense much like tarantino's less-than-full-time-violent movies. A regular joe tries to escape (dies by other hands later in the movie *mindfuck*) a crazy guy with lopsided sense of moral compass (arbitrary rules on who he kills/uses on his way to goal, sometimes coin throwing), a sheriff Tommy Lee Jones a troubled man who in his scenes goes on and about how people just get more evil and evil & follows behind on who goes dead and when. the tone of tommy lee jones parts is actually outright shocked/conservatist and it just stays there or gets worse with tones of resignation or whatever, whoa almost started listing/foaming again, close...!! tommy's not really acting in his best even, like i know it's him and who cares about him but at least he can have pr good facial expressions/convey the characters well with that crazy rubberface/dogface of his and in this movie his character just doesn't progress anywhere (also wife acts like an Outsider than Wife to tommy lee, hell yeah).
 
that's it though: you would think that you could somehow redeem the plot IF the movie was more about tommy lee's republican/texas world and dealing/coping with the violence/crazed murder or situation (where the theme of resignation & growing old could had made somewhat more sense) or SOMETHING but it just doesn't happen and the movie never elaborates the Lee's world apart from being a scenery where some of the talk and events happen.

did someone say tommy lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coha7AQVTvI

I watched Hellraiser 2 after hearing people say that it was a decent sequel. Those people are wrong. It is a very, very bad movie that is boring and nonsensical when it isn't recycling plot elements from the first one.  How people demanded more sequels after watching this one is beyond me.

watched werner herzog's encounters at the end of the world again with my mom. had already seen it, but watched it again because i am trying to get my mom to watch less richard gere movies. all she watches are richard gere movies!!! i've even started to kinda like richard gere as a result of her watching nothing but richard gere movies. UNACCEPTABLE.

so, anyway, encounters is a really cool movie. there's something fairly superfluous about it, as the main point is that werner herzog is hanging around with scientists in antarctica and just recorded it, tying it into something fairly compelling out of herzog's sheer will and the fact that it's stuff you don't get to see too often. bit of an oversimplification, as it feels quite a bit less like some stupid nature documentary, almost feeling more like the sort of movie that herzog would make if they let him film on the moon. despite it just being herzog bumming around the south pole, he manages to touch on all these little things that add up to a pretty interesting experience, even if nothing in the movie really feels like pertinent information.

although there is one great scene, which you can pretty much watch instead of watching the whole movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWH_9VRWn8Y
the scene before this is kinda cool too, where herzog is bothering this reclusive scientist and somehow not antagonizing the hell out of him with stupid questions like TELL ME ABOUT GAY PENGUINS

anyway, i love this. my mom came really close to crying after seeing this and i tried really hard to push her over the edge by continuously raving about how THE ONLY THING THAT AWAITS HIM IS A SLOW AND PAINFUL DEATH. couldn't quite get her to go that far, though. maybe if i had suggested richard gere wandering off into the mountains it would have pushed her over the edge...

also i pretty much just made this post as an excuse to post the link to that video

i think pollen cores are cooler than ice cores, although layers in ice cores are a little more immediately differentiable

also phytolith analysis

looking at tiny things & extrapolating huge, locationally-specific things

The point of ice cores is not to date them, it's to look at different isotope ratios and use that to project global climate & examine atmospheric composition for evidence of meteor impact/crazy volcanism. I guess they're sort of equally important. The new ecology research isn't related to archaeology (while the ice cores are used in environmental archaeology), so I didn't think that's what you were talking about. Could be really cool, though.

If you're uninterested in ice cores, chances are super high that you will find pollen cores incredibly boring. Same basic methodology (with a few different variations), but you core still persistent waterbodies (usually) and get people to identify the plants based on the pollen. It's a good way to reconstruct ancient local environments, and that sort of identification is mind-boggling to me but constitutes most of archaeological science. Phytoliths are microscopic silicate structures that form in plants' cells as they grow. Plants don't really preserve, but phytoliths do, and their forms change as plants become more domesticated, so people can identify cultivation & agriculture and make rough timelines for domestication.

I really need to watch Cave of Forgotten Dreams sometime! That penguin video is wonderful and sad and ridiculous.