That is my excuse for a lousy update schedule and not putting time into my journals.

Till next time!

It's all about the glasses. http://www.throb.buzznet.com

The film is set in a dystopian 2027. Let's hope we never see it come down to this. Some might say, “Get use to it -- that is what's coming”. OR, “we should see what could happen”. I guess the latter is more the point. I still don't care.

I appreciate this film for what it is, a film. The cinematography is amazing. There are some really great single-shot sequences. I’ll admit I enjoy the story of eternal hope, of love that never ends. The acting was really good as well. Clive was/is great. Cuarón informed the art department that the film was the "anti-Blade Runner", rejecting technologically advanced proposals and downplaying the science fiction elements. It was a refreshing departure.

Just something, can’t put my finger on it exactly just didn’t allow me to become sucked in as much as pushed away. Maybe the bombs and blood, of which I’m not a fan of, but again I guess that is the point. It doesn’t change the fact that I don’t like it – even if it is just a movie. Why is it okay to see such violence? It can't be good for the soul...

Cuarón's dislike for expository film is refreshing too, so I’m a big fan of his style (Y tu mamá también is a favorite), and as he says -- "It's become now what I call a medium for lazy readers....Cinema is a hostage of narrative. And I'm very good at narrative as a hostage of cinema."

And I think the film industry is an important part of a global dialogue and good at percolating our sub-conscious with "a complex meditation on the politics of today", so these types of films are important for that cause.

That is all I can say about it right now. So how is that for a film review you didn't ask for?

You saw it here first: http://www.throb.buzznet.com

We all met back at the Little Joy after the show, I adore that pic of Becky (the lead singer for Lavender Diamond).

Thanks for keeping the peace: http://www.throb.buzznet.com

More info: http://www.myspace.com/lavenderdiamond

Damn, it's good stuff. I just like it.

One of these pieces will be my first real investment in art. I believe in these guys, so I'm going for it.

Happiness investment: http://www.throb.buzznet.com

More info: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=61325066

Google it: http://www.throb.buzznet.com

Mom's painting is great! Krisie's painting is great. Mine was a result of a bad hang-over and won't be shown, however, the one I did choose to show is my second in my 'Alive: Seeking Beauty' series.

Better than praying: http://www.throb.buzznet.com

TechDirt.com Post:

The buzz today is about the Motion Picture Academy's decision to have YouTube yank all the uploaded videos from the Oscars. However, unlike Viacom, who at least seemed to have a plan behind its decision to pull clips from YouTube, the Motion Picture Academy seems to be doing it for either spite or stupidity. Ric Robertson, exec administrator for the Academy, gave one of the most bizarre explanations. It's got nothing to do with money, apparently as he said it's "really not about (protecting that) business opportunity." Even though the Oscars have their own website with clips, Robertson says he plans to even yank down their own clips. Apparently, it's all an effort to "whet people's appetite for next year's show." Yes, apparently the Motion Picture Academy believes that the best way to get people interested in next year's Oscars is to... remove all evidence of this year's Oscars. Back at the Tech Policy Summit earlier this week, David Garfield of the MPAA insisted that movie studio execs weren't as stupid as everyone made them out to be -- but with stories like this, it's not hard to see where that reputation comes from.

Oh the irony: http://techdirt.com/articles/20070228/120118.shtml

Watch the video, then read: http://blogs.papermag.com/2007/02/20/performance-dvd-with-mick-jagger-and-directed-by-nicholas-roeg-and/

DVD shopping. http://www.throb.buzznet.com