Thursday, March 28, 2013

March Anniversaries

Here's some notable anniversaries for this month.

30 Years Old This Month
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - This is often overlooked in the MP filmography, but it's my personal favorite. It's the one that best captures the tone of show - a bunch of sketches that are barely related if at all. And most of the skits are supremely memorable. I can't tell how often I've had to stop myself from belting out "Every Sperm is Sacred" at the bus stop. It also has the most satisfactory ending of the proper MP films, in my opinion (Life of Brian was a downer and Holy Grail was anticlimactic).

50 Years Old This Month
The Birds - I wanted to mention this because it is such a cinema classic, and it is well done. But I don't have much more to say because, honestly, I had a huge problem with it. Namely - I want to know just why the hell the birds are acting that way. It's never even hinted at in the film, and everyone I've asked who read the original book say there's not much more there. This isn't Jaws, where it's just an individual animal being a super-persistent predator. They aren't the Jurassic Park raptors, who are straight-up sadists. I'd probably buy any explanation at this point, as long as it was explained.

These will ramp up as we get into the summer months.


  1. "I want to know just why the hell the birds are acting that way. It's never even hinted at in the film"

    I believe the implication is that they're enacting revenge on being persecuted and caged up by humans for so long (hence the bird shop at the beginning).

    In all honesty though I was never really bothered by a direct lack of explanation because I never really felt it was necessary..."birds going crazy" was the premise we were asked to accept at the beginning of the film, and that's what they gave us. For some reason I never felt an explanation was fully necessary.

    1. I guess. I don't know, something about it still rubs me the wrong way. Which is odd because there's plenty of other films where that kind of thing doesn't bother me. I guess I can't really complain (and note that I don't hold it against the overall quality of the film, just how it struck me).

  2. I know this if off-topic but I want to ask this: Adam could you *PLEASE* do a rebuttal article on the "there is too much CGI in the Prequel Trilogy" argument and explain why that argument is a complete load?

    I have seen this argument present virtually EVERY website on the net and they are all done by irrational hateboys who believe a Star Wars movie should only be done with tinker toys and not with the most advanced technologies we have in film-making today.

    Hateboys will gladly praise the CGI in films like Avatar or Lord of the Rings but bash it in Star Wars. It's double standard I tell ya!

    Please do this article! All your other papers have been great so far! Keep up the good work!!!

    1. Find my "Truth, Whole Truth, etc." article where I mention that. If you don't think that's enough, let me know and I'll expand upon it for the future.

    2. This is actually something I wholly agree with, too. I may have complaints against the film, but "it's bad because it totally looks like it was made in 1999 instead of 1977" is a ludicrous argument (though I have to say the "tinker toys" remark sets me off the wrong way).

      (mind you, I think there are cases to be made in how CGI has been badly overused in place of better and more creative effects and that CGI has a lot of negative impact in how films are made nowadays, but that's an argument that in no way is constrained to Star Wars specifically).

    3. Totally. CGI has its place, and there have been wonderful uses of it, but it's not the end-all-be-all.

      I think I-III has a good balance of effect styles, all things considered, though for my money no blending of styles will ever beat Jurassic Park.