My Human Interactions

legoexpress:

asaucerfulofcobras:

Lego Lost

juliasegal:

Someone needs to start a Strokes cover band called Different Strokes…

This is one of my top 5 favorite things the internet has ever made for me.

movielove:

brokensocial:

Tom Cruise, Magnolia.

Cruise is good in this playing a completely unlikable SOB and there’s an excellent cast who seem to be acting their little hearts out but I cannot stand this movie.  Maybe it’s the frogs.  I guess I would say “watch it for the frogs”.  And then perhaps explain the frogs to me.

The short answer is that the frogs symbolize french people and that french cinema’s over-the-top use of symbolism is ruining otherwise good movies. It is nice because it is sort of recursive.

The slightly longer answer involves all the coincidences at the beginning of the movie, presented to the viewer as factual. If you accepted them, then the frogs should not be too much more for you to believe. The only character who is not surprised by the occurrence is the kid who is full of facts. He says that “this is something that happens”, and there are some cases of it actually happening via tornadoes and other weather phenomena.
The director has said that all of the events occur within a few blocks of each other, and the frog event does not take that long, we just see it multiple times from different perspectives. What the frogs serve to do is tie every one together and get them to look outside of their lives/problems for a moment. Now, here is where the recursion mentioned earlier comes in. The frogs can be a natural occurrence, if you as a viewer ascribed higher meaning to the coincidences explained at the beginning, then you will probably ascribe a higher meaning to the frogs, and project that onto the characters, thinking that this symbolic message told them to each turn their lives around.
After having written the frog bit, Anderson learned of the plague in the bible regarding frogs and went back to sneak many references to the chapter and verse into the film. Now religious folks who watch it will cling to those references and say the frogs are god’s message. So it is a litmus test for you the viewer, did you ascribe higher meaning to it? It sounds like you did not. Did the movie? Most everyone changed their lives afterward in one way or the other. But maybe it was just a scary, catastrophic event to the characters that snapped them out of their bubbles of self importance (9-11 parallels could be given here).

synecdoche:

dumbjabronimotherfucker:

flesheatingmothers:

(via tears4fears)

i love fake food

these ruled

HOTCAKES.

I had all of these (except that thing in the upper left). They transformed into dinosaurs and robots. The ice cream was stupid though because its arms and head were goofy. The arms collapsed back inward, and you had to jam a pen cap up its butt to get the head to stay out. I probably wouldn’t be this messed up if my ma got me real transformers.

Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster (1966) (or Godzilla, Ebirah, Mothra: Big Duel in the South Seas) was fun. It felt more Hollywood than any of the previous films. The music was very Henry Mancini-ish, and the plot felt like a discarded James Bond plot with a small team of civilians fighting the evil, world conquering villain. Godzilla was really more of a secret weapon than the focus of the film. His destruction scene and big battle with the crab monster were shorter than I would have liked, but still fun.

Did anyone else like John From Cincinnati? I remember enjoying it when it was airing, but none of my friends would watch an entire episode so I just sat alone in my bubble and watched it all.

It has an annoying, pretentious poetry to its dialogue (from the same writer as Deadwood). At the time I wished that everyone I knew spoke like this. I would not have wished to engage in any conversations with them, but I would have laughed at everything they said.

There are several types of romantic movies.
1. Those made for a couple who are currently in a relationship, but have no clue what love is or if they are in it (these usually suck).
2. Those made for a couple who are in a relationship and in love, and who understand how to make love work.
3. Those made for a person who wants to be in love but thinks that they cannot be for some perceived personal flaw.
4. Those for a person just coming out of love or some semblance thereof (this category could also apply to unrequited lovers).

There are others and there are subsets within these sets, but these are the 4 types I see most often.

Eagle vs. Shark is a type 3. If you want to see Jemaine from Flight of the Conchords act sort of like an aging Napoleon Dynamite and sort of like Jemaine while stumbling through an extended metaphor of a man who cannot grow up enough to really love just yet, then this is the movie for you. It had some moments that made me laugh and has that quirky indie feeling that some find appealing.

Funny Games (2008) is described by its creator as a test of the viewer. Regarding his original version of the film, the director said “Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn’t need the film, and anybody who stays does.” A pair of young 20 something boys torment a family of three in their home. One of the tormentors (Bradley Pitt) knows that he is in a horror film and occasionally points out genre cliches and then breaks them to upset the viewer’s comfort level. He goads you into feeling different ways and from time to time stares at you, the viewer, as if to ask why you are still watching.

Bradley Pitt’s character personifies media violence. It is clear from the two book-ending scenes of the film that he does not sleep. Someone, somewhere is always watching. He knows that what he does is entertaining and desired. SPOILER: Pitt transcends the film, so look at the only other person who survives. If you made it through the entire film then that character is you. You are Pitt’s accomplice.