Ernest Alba's Blog

Review: Love Actually

Looking for love? Look no further, you've found Love Actually, a movie so full of love, you begin to wonder if love really means anything more than thinking someone else is attractive, personable, and available. Love Actually tries to squeeze several love stories into a two hour span, leaving little room to create quiet, thoughtful moments. This movie is full of movement, excitement, laughter, and revelry. Carrying along the mood is a memorable soundtrack filled to the brim with British pop classics ranging from The Beatles to Dido. If there is one thing you come away with from this movie, it's that love abounds. There's always room to love, and love always has a chance.

This isn't a great movie. It's too tame to be great. Not once did I laugh extremely hard, want to cry, get mad at any character, or even feel overtly happy when the girl got the guy. But it's really hard to get too attached to any of the characters considering they each get about fifteen to twenty minutes of screen presence to tell their story. So, perhaps it's not a terrible fault of the movie, but an unfortunate side effect of the time constraints. The experience is an enjoyable one, nonetheless. We do invest some of ourselves in the characters and are intrigued by their actions and reasons. Much of this attachment to the characters comes from the fact that they are played by actors like Liam Neeson and Hugh Grant, with whom we are familiar. If not already known, the actors are extremely likeable as is the case with Liam Neeson's character's son and Hugh Grant's love interest. And because they are likeable, our interest is piqued, and we are hooked for the duration of the movie.

Marc's List

I wasn't raised watching movies. Some families go to the theater every weekend. The only movie I remember watching in a theater as a child was The Little Rascals. It seemed like a spur of the moment decision of my parents to take my sister and me to see it in Dallas one Sunday afternoon. I vividly remember to this day the feeling of being in a dark theater seeing so many bright colors on an enormous screen, the biggest I'd seen in my life. I'd never seen anything like it. I remember being absolutely enthralled. After that, I rarely got to see movies. They were expensive to see in the theater, to rent, and to buy. That's another reason I probably read so much when I was younger. Besides The Little Rascals, the only movies I remember seeing as a child were Chuck Norris's Delta Force, and Rain Man, which I absolutely loved. Just the idea of movies excited me, even though I could never see them. I've made up for it. In the past two years, I've seen at least one movie every week, sometimes two. My DVD collection has ballooned to probably over 100. And I buy ONLY movies I really like. I don't buy movies that are just good for a while. I read up on directors, actors and actresses, writers, and film composers. I'm right now reading my first history of Hollywood. The world of film is an exciting one, and one I want to be a part of. Now as a hobby - later as....maybe something more.

Despite all I know about film, two of my cousins know more. Marc, who now works at Blockbuster, knows a lot about movies. He has a collection of over 300 by now. And it increases by 2-5 films per week. And he knows about the people in the business. But there's still someone else who knows more - his sister Martha. She's a manager at a Blockbuster, and she is a guru. Don't play Hollywood Trivial Pursuit with her. She will murder you. I managed to secure Marc's top ten movies list. To tell you how much more he knows than I do, I hadn't seen most of these movies until this year, and I still haven't seen some of these. So, I now proudly present Marc's Top Ten Movies

(In no particular order)
Crash
Equilibrium
Rounders
Tombstone
The Karate Kid
Swingers
Clerks
Memento
Pulp Fiction
Empire Strikes Back

Honorable Mention: Number 11 would be The Salton Sea

Review: Memoirs of a Geisha

Memoirs of a Geisha is a disappointment. That doesn't mean that it's a bad movie, but in comparison to the book and in comparison to our expectations for a movie produced by Steven Spielberg, directed by Rob Marshall (director of Chicago), scored by John Williams, and portrayed by Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li, Zhang Ziyi, and Ken Watanabe, it fails to attain the level of passion, romance, and mystery that we expect. This is a forgettable experience, one of the least impressive of the aforementioned people's many wonderful works.

Memoirs of a Geisha, originally a best-selling novel by Harvard and Columbia graduate Arthur Golden, tells the story of a young Japanese girl in the early 1900's who was sold by her family to an okiya, a business that takes in women and trains them to be female entertainers (not prostitutes). There, the girl Sayuri learns to become a geisha and eventually becomes the greatest and most famous geisha in the region. Her childhood at the okiya and her rise to prominence make up the first two thirds of the movie. The final third recounts the effect of World War II on her life and the lives of those similar to her. It also finishes the thread of the story involving her long-time crush on the chairman of an electric company played by Ken Watanabe.

What follows is a laundry list of the faults in this movie. First, the romance falls flat. Are we really to believe that based on one moment together, lasting not more than ten minutes, when she was a little girl, an exponentially greater relationship develops without any further intimate contact between the parties? The few times we see them talk to each other don't belie any underlying feelings. Dialogue is a real weakness in this movie. It is further exacerbated by the fact that these people are speaking in English. This is one of my pet peeves in movies. Why must people who obviously do not speak English, speak English in an accent of someone from their respective countries? In this movie, we have Japanese people speaking English in Japanese accents. Why? Why don't they just speak Japanese and let us read the subtitles? Lucas probably agrees with me. In 1980, The Empires Strikes Back starred a Hutt by the name of Jabba. Jabba only spoke Huttese, and, therefore, spoke Huttese in the movie. Subtitles were graciously provided. Because of his language, Jabba became much more convincing as a character. He is an actual being with a language of his own that we can't understand. Language provides realism. When everyone speaks English, there's no sense of culture. Everyone becomes American. This becomes acutely noticeable in Memoirs of a Geisha where everyone speaks English. I suppose because their accents make their English sometimes unrecognizable, we can now qualify them as Japanese instead of American. But this ploy doesn't work. We become aware that these are Asian actors doing their best to sound as American as possible. They carefully enunciate every word, making sure they don't embarass themselves by pronouncing a word incorrectly. It becomes a distraction. Just let them speak in Japanese and we'll be glad to read the subtitles.

Second, this story has a purpose. It isn't clear, though, unless you've read the book. And though I think a higher percentage of the people who are going to watch this movie have read the book than is the case with many other movies, a large percentage of moviegoers have still not read the book. As such, many might think that this movie has no point since it isn't explicitly stated. This movie is a biography and a history. It's the biography of Sayuri, set against a historically accurate background. We are here to learn about the life of an actual geisha in the early 1900's in a fun way. Where this movie goes wrong is in its delivery. There is so much to tell about Sayuri's personal life, that we get little opportunity to see much of anything else, including the history and culture of Japan and its geishas. In this important aspect, the history of Japan's geishas, the film fails.

Unfortunately, this movie is not worth seeing. Please read the book, instead. It's an excellent book.

Shocked and Amazed

Right around this time, one year ago, I was shocked and amazed to receive an envelope with my name on it and an MIT acceptance letter inside. That feeling of elation has not been matched - until now. I admit that I've struggled like a dumb animal through first year chemistry, struggling to get decent grades. And at the beginning, I failed miserably. I won't say what grades I got, but let's say that on my first test, I'd have been able to count the number of people who got a lower score than me on two hands. My grades steadily improved, but not by much in comparison to the rest of the class. Of the three exams we took before the final, I only passed the last one. As the final loomed nearer and nearer, I knew I was at a crisis. I was failing, and the only thing that would save me is an exceptional score on the final. Not just passing, but doing well. For five days, five horrible days, I studied and studied. The day of the final finally came - and it took me by surprise. The first part of the test eased you into the material, pretty easy. About halfway through, I was coasting along through the test, hitting a few bumps, sure, but in general keeping the pace (and breathing sighs of relief), when out of nowhere BAM. I ran headlong into a brick wall. An enormous, impossible, gigantic 46 point problem stopped me cold. While the 10, 15, 20 point problems had gone down like wimps, one right after the other, this 46 point heavyweight wouldn't budge. I just couldn't solve it. I put down what little I knew about the topic, and bitterly moved on, knowing that I'd taken a big hit. The problems afterwards, though not as hard, only slowed me down even further. I stumbled through them, cold fear running up and down my back, knowing my chances of passing this class were fastly dwindling. I finally hit the end and with the time left, backpedaled, trying to fill in or fix anything I could find that I might have the expertise to add or change. But the fight was over. And I knew, I knew that I had lost.

Imagine my complete shock and utter amazement when I checked my grade a few minutes ago and saw that I passed the class. I passed! Miracles do happen! This is perhaps the greatest undeserved gift I've gotten since that fateful day last year. Though Daneaya's constant selfless giving puts up a huge fight.

Finals

Review: King Kong

Peter Jackson's beloved classic is being remade by none other than the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson himself. Along with him are James Newton Howard creating a masterful and fitting musical score and a special effects team that knows how to do its job. We all know, to some extent, the tragic tale of King Kong, but no one could expect that his story could be made into such an unforgettable film. Seeing this movie is more than an evening of fun. It's a thrilling, moving, and engrossing experience that will leave a lasting impression. This is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Jack Black as the zealous movie director provides welcome comic relief, but he is also capable of delivering solemn lines, especially the famous final words of the film. Brody does a satisfactory job as playwright Jack Driscoll and possible romantic interest for the real shining star of this movie, Ann Darrow, played by Naomi Watts.

I am so ashamed for ever despising Naomi Watts as an actress. She is absolutely luminous and I now admire her for her acting abilities. She along with King Kong, played by Andy Serkis, the actor who played Gollum in Lord of the Rings, give the movie it's lasting presence in film history. They are the heroes of this movie. They provide the heart and purpose of the movie, and lift it high above any ordinary action movie. Because of them, this movie succeeds on every level. Because of them, the action has a purpose. Nothing in this movie is mindless drivel used to entertain empty minds. It gives an important message about love, courage, forgiveness, and humanity. I don't want to give anything away because you need to watch this movie without knowing what will happen. Because despite the fact that you know what will happen, how it happens is what is important. And in the end, you very well might feel wonderfully moved by this amazing tale, this amazing woman, and this amazing creature.

Update: The Chronicles of Narnia

I'm sure Disney execs and the entire movie business are breathing sighs of relief. With the first week receipts of Narnia exceeding expectations, the end of the year looks to end the scare brought by low receipts for the first half of the year. The estimated 67 million weekend for Narnia is second only to LOTR: Return of the King.

Review: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

When I was a child, my favorite book was Watership Down. If you haven't read it by now, it's probably too late for you. See, as a child, I had imagination. And it ran wild. Just like the rabbits of Watership Down. My imagination gave me the ability to experience everything I had ever dreamt of, all my fantasies and all my adventures. It made them grand, larger than life. Books, Watership Down, in particular, funneled my creativity into a cogent force, enabling me to see worlds I could never imagine on my own. Remembering the cherished story, I picked up Watership Down again last year. I reread it. I had become a more experienced reader since my fourth grade year, and it took me all of a few hours to complete this once epic journey. And the magic, sadly, was gone. The words no longer held the same instrinsic beauty. The personalities, I no longer believed in. The mythology was stale. The war of the rabbits, replete with strategy, battles, spies, treason, and sword-clashing action seemed now a much simpler and quicker war than I had remembered. This is not the fault of the book. Since then, I've picked up more and more of my treasured children's stories, The Mouse and the Motorcycle by Beverly Cleary, Redwall by Brian Jacques, Roald Dahl's books, Louis Sachar's books, and even C.S. Lewis's masterpiece The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, only to have them, one by one, fail to inspire in me the same sweet delight that kept me reading late into the nights, through recesses, through classes, and, God forgive me, through Masses.

The final nail was hammered into the coffin of my childhood fantasies tonight. After a week of growing and insurmountable anticipation, I got to see one of the most fantastic and, to quote from the trailers, "beloved" stories of our times. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe opened today after much talk about the Christian undertones of the movie. From what I saw, it is easy to draw correlations between the story and Christianity. However, it is just as easy to not see any correlations. The themes under question are broad enough that they don't necessarily have to be compared to any Christian story. Lewis himself said that there is no specific correlation between the two, but that is doubtful considering his personal dealings with Christianity. It shouldn't matter, in either case, because the story stands up on its own. Whether you look for interpretations or not is up to you.

On the technical side of things, everything has been lavishly done. Director Andrew Adamson, seasoned now that he's made Shrek 1 and 2, creates a huge and breathtaking landscape the likes of which haven't been seen since Lord of the Rings. The special effects are incredible, especially Aslan the lion who, at times, looked almost completely real. I look forward to the day when CGI looks real, not realistic. Even the best CGI of today still doesn't consistently attain a look of reality. This film's special effects team, despite having to create over 60 different species of animals, still does an impressive job of making the audience believe. The story is exactly how I remembered it, so I think they made sure to stay true to the original story. Violence is kept to a minimum to ensure that the PG rating is appropriate. You never see blood, and what little killing there is, is only implied and never seen. This makes the film better because the true audience, the children, will appreciate it more, having to not worry about being frightened. Like Harry Potter, this movie does a wonderful job of creating its world. But again, I'm not a part of it. I'm merely a spectator. I wish I could be in it. I wish I could play the game. Now I realize why I missed the point of Harry Potter. I saw the movies, I appreciated them, but I could not feel them. It wasn't the director's fault; it wasn't J.K. Rowling's fault; it's my fault. I'm too old, too cynical, and too dim-witted to let myself go. To let myself be like a child again.

How I envy the children who sit wide-eyed in the darkness of the theatre, absorbing this magical tale and seeing themselves kneeling before Aslan, battling against the evil White Witch, and becoming kings and queens of the land of Narnia. They will enjoy this film much more than I ever can.

Update: No Updates

Review: The Constant Gardener

I went to LSC's showing of The Constant Gardener with Thomas. When it had come out in theatres, it hadn't caught my attention. It's too bad I waited so long to see it. It is a movie definitely worth seeing. With inventive camerawork and true mastery of the art, director Meirelles, who also directed City of God, weaves a coherent fabric from differently colored situations. In a mere two hours, he creates a powerful relationship between two people, a suspenseful quest for a secret truth, and a documentary of the lives of terribly destitute people. His camera does some incredible things to establish these situations permanently in our minds. For example, one small scene has Fienne's using a webcam to view his wife pregnant in the tub. Now, this is becoming more common in films, but how he uses it, I've never seen done. The camera sits outside the bathroom. We see the blurry people in the bathroom but not too well. Our only view is through the laptop showing the video on the right corner of the screen. This is blurry, too, telling us that we must know what's going on, but not too much because this is a special, private moment between people very much in love. This film's strength does not only lie in the direction, however. A strong cast including Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, the wonderful Shakesperean actor Pete Postlethwaite, and Bend It Like Beckham's Archie Panjabi enhance the overall effectiveness of the movie's many messages. Notice, for example, the way Fienne's friend utters the word "cheap" towards the end of the movie. You can almost taste his complete disgust and bitter remorse for what he, they, and we all do to others. Also notice the way Weisz plays the part of the potentially unfaithful wife and philanthropic saint simultaneously during the beginning when Fiennes does not know the truth. She knows what she is, but she does a balancing act so we don't know. Fiennes himself plays the role of Weisz's husband convincingly. We feel his anger, his jealousy, his pain, his remorse, and his sorrow. We are with him at the end of the movie when he does what we all know must be done. What this movie tries to do, the messages it tries to get across, it all gets across to us because of Mierelles' superb direction and the convicing performances of these actors.

Number Theory

Proof, a movie starring Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hope Davis, is about a math proof. After a retired mathematician dies, a notebook is found in his locked desk drawer. In the notebook is one of the most important proofs in the history of mathematics. This particular proof solves a problem in number theory that had, until then, never been solved. This post isn't about the movie or the proof; it's about number theory.

What is number theory? Simply put, it's the study of integers. Integers include all positive numbers, their negatives, and zero. They don't include fractions and decimals. One might ask how can mathematicians study just numbers. What's there to know about them? I mean, you use them to count and to order. What more is there? Well, a more pointed question might be: What more can you do with them? Some basic properties of numbers are:

You can add them: a+b=c
You can subtract them (subtracting is adding): a+(-b)=d
You can multiply them: a*b=e
You can divide them (dividing is multiplying): a*(1/b)=f

OK, well, we learned how to do all that stuff in elementary school. Why, then, is there a branch of mathematics about it? Well, consider the following:

The Pythagoreans, an ancient sect of mathematicians, said that a number is perfect if it equals the sum of its positive divisors, excluding itself. For example, 1+2+3=6 and 1+2+4+7+14+28. But 10 is not perfect because 1+2+5=8 not 10 and 12 is not perfect because 1+2+3+4+6=16 not 12. Euclid was able to create a formula that would find all even perfect numbers. But are there any odd perfect numbers? We know there aren't any between 0 and 10^300, but mathematicians have yet to prove that there exist no odd perfect numbers.

What about this?

Are there infinitely many primes p such that p+2 is also prime? For example, 3 is prime which means it is only divisible by itself and 1. 3+2 equals 5, which is also prime. Conversely, 13 is prime, but 13+2 is not. And 97 is prime, but 99 is not. In 1966, Chen Jingrun showed that there are infinitely many primes p such that p+2 is the product of, at most, two primes. So if 13 is prime, which it is, then 15 must be the product of two primes (in this case, 5 and 3).

Proofs usually have two parts

A proof that something exists.
A proof that nothing else exists.

Without these two crucial parts, a theorem is not complete, and, therefore, worthless. In the words of the greatest contributor to mathematics in history, Carl F. Gauss, "(1/2)*proof=0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible."

There are many more questions we can ask about the properties of numbers. What are their relationship to one another; are there patterns in operations involving numbers; how do they act when under certain conditions. And, though this may seem meaningless to the average person, these questions are important because they bring us closer to understanding where we are, what we are, and who we are. These patterns, rules, and properties belong to the universe we inhabit. Just as we toddled around our home when we were infants, so we continue in our quest to explore, to know, and to understand our larger home.

Greenspan must be very excited

London (AP) - Britain's Treasury chief Gordon Brown paid tribute Friday to outgoing U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, saying he had served his country and the world with distinction.

In recognition of his 18 years at the helm of the U.S. central bank, Greenspan was granted the Freedom of the City of London -- a symbolic honor dating back to medieval times which bestowed the right to drive sheep across London Bridge and be hanged with a silken cord if handed the death penalty.

What basic creatures we are

There's a discrepancy between what we like and what we know we should like. It becomes painfully obvious when looking through Yahoo's News in Pictures. You can put the pictures in many different orderings, but in particular you can put them in order of most viewed and in order of most highly rated. If you put them in order of most viewed, most of them are news articles about barely clothed women. If you put them in order of most highly rated, you get pictures of zoo animals. How sad, we can't deny who we are. We love and can't stop thinking about sex, and it shows in everything we do. Even reading the evening news.

The worst thing is that we acknowledge that we are like that to ourselves, but when it comes to sharing that with others, we don't. We hide our shame and guilt. Similar to Adam and Eve. What shame our bodies carry with them! We must keep our sinful business to ourselves. That is why if you order the pictures according to most e-mailed, you once again get mostly animal pictures. If you're going to be sexual, admit it to yourself and to the world. Liberate yourself. Express your sexuality! Don't hide it; it's not shameful business.