the host (2007)

i watched this movie in the most beautiful movie theatre i've ever been in. they played opera before the showing, the popcorn was amazing, and the stage/theatre was just amazing. la paloma theatre in encinitas, san diego. check it out.

i thought the movie was pretty good too. a bit slow but every time the pace slacked, the monster would arrive. that's the best part about the movie; they didn't skimp on showing the (very obviously) cgi monster. i thought the movie was hilarious as a satire but my film companions just thought it was so-so. i liked it; although i'm not sure i'd watch it again. but i'd return to the theatre!

popular (1999) vs undeclared (2001)

it kills me that judd apatow's most successful venture is "40 year old virgin." that was such a crappy movie; now judd's name has been sullied. his deserving of accolades masterpiece, freaks and geeks, came out in 1999 but was cancelled after one season because everything great must die young. his follow up, undeclared, is much sillier and generally not as well loved as freaks and geeks. still, it was a critically lauded show -- and also cancelled after one season.

popular came out the same year as freaks and geeks, and lasted two seasons. this last point is criminal because despite being a good show, popular is not a classic like freaks and geeks, yet it went on longer. popular probably lasted one season longer than freaks and geeks because it was on the wb, an up-and-coming network at the time who took a few more chances and had a bit more patience. not too much patience however, since popular ended up being cancelled after two seasons; in the middle of a cliff hanger no less, and with a third season originally promised to creator. too bad, so sad.

having just watched the first disk for both shows, i have to weigh in: which show is better? undeclared or popular?
continued on diorama...

the fountainhead (1949)

i didn't realize the fountainhead movie was adapted to the screen by ayn rand herself. she only did it on the condition that "not one word be changed." typical, right? the movie isn't half bad actually. gary cooper and patricia neal are about what you'd expect as the main characters, and due to the style of the movie, all the dialogue (essentially ripped straight from the book) sounds somewhat natural. i don't think this movie could be made today because they'd dress it up for no reason; it's too idea/dialogue heavy; and current acting methods would make the movie overly campy.

apparently, nobody liked it when it was released (in 1949, six years after the book was published), but to be honest, as a huge fan of the book, i wasn't disappointed in the movie. sure, cooper's dramatic monologue had the most uneven delivery i've ever heard but i can look past it.

i'm curious what a non-randian would think of the movie. would any of the philosophies get passed on? or would it just put people to sleep? this also makes me even more curious about the upcoming movie version of atlas shrugged -- starring angelina jolie (and maybe brad pitt) of all people. not who i envisioned as dagny taggart but that's the least of my worries about how rand's seminal work will translate to the screen.