2007 movies: FAIL.

I haven't been posting movie reviews in 2007 as I have in previous years, and this is why. I think my new year's resolution may have to be, "I am never going to a movie theatre again, and this time I really mean it." Next year, I should just wait for cable for everything. That way I can fast-forward. And the popcorn will be better, too.

As best I can recall, here are the movies I saw in theatres in 2007, and the shortest possible reviews I can muster, which in two thirds of the cases, is the longest review that they deserve:

Children of Men Great. Interesting story, believable characters, amazing cinematography and future-building. Saw it twice.
The Man From Earth Great. Saw it twice.
Zodiac Great. Historical SF reconstructions were neat.
Black Snake Moan Great.
Ratatouille Great.
Knocked Up Great.
Waitress Great.

No Country for Old Men Pretty good. Somewhat unsatisfying.
Bourne Ultimatum Fun. Would have enjoyed it more if I remembered what happened in the first two.
Live Free or Die Hard Fun fluff.
Balls of Fury Fun fluff.
Bridge to Terabithia Pretty good, but I've forgotten it already.
Resident Evil: Extinction Milla Jovavitch shoots things. Better than the last one.

28 Weeks Later Weak.
Pan's Labyrinth Sucked. The dream sequences were good, but I just didn't care in the slightest about the horrible lives the real-world characters lived.
The Number 23 Looked good, stupid lame-assed "twist" ending.
Pirates 3 Pretty much sucked.
Stardust Mediocre, too long.
Sunshine 60% great, 40% utter crap.
1408 Terrible.
The Mist Fuck Stephen King, seriously. What a hack. Didn't I already swear I'd never see another movie that had his stink on it? Dammit.
Shoot 'Em Up Fun for 30 minutes. The joke is over after that.
300 Very pretty. But crap.
The Golden Compass Intensely boring. Crap CG animals. At least an hour of superfluous exposition.
Southland Tales Sucked. How does self-indulgent bullshit like this get made without anyone involved having the sense to say STOP THAT?
Tags: , ,

DNA Lounge: Wherein our webcasts (and, in fact, society) are put to shame.

This is pretty amazing -- Fabchannel webcasts live shows from The Paradiso in Amsterdam.

Rather than the fully-automated webcasts that we do, They have a multi-operator video crew shooting the show, and then do offline editing of the footage before posting it (which is a huge amount of work). They appear to be getting label permission for each shoot, which means they can often leave it up forever. And they're giving it all away for free, on their web site and the iTunes store.

The question that their FAQ doesn't answer is, "how the hell are you paying for this?" There aren't even ads on the site, just a logo for their ISP.

But this interview with Justin Kniest, the CEO has the answer: the Dutch department of Education, Culture and Science and the city of Amsterdam are footing the bill. Wikipedia says that Paradiso is a "publicly-subsidized youth entertainment center", and that the city of Amsterdam owns 25% of Fabchannel (at a cost of 1.25 million Euros).

Free government money! This is in somewhat stark contrast to my governmental experiences of late. Meanwhile, I'm scrounging eBay looking for some cheap replacement camcorders, just to keep our webcasts at the shitty 1998 level of technology you've come to expect.

Good times.