samiracle
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Paranormal Activity
"That's probably because I know a lil' bit about stuff that I'm pretty sure you don't recognize at all, samiracle. The nonsensical behavior of this film's invisible leading man was right on the money, based on reports throughout the centuries. Demons seem to do a lot of s*** just for lulz" So you're saying when demons want something specific, instead of directing their actions towards accomplishing their goals, they do something else that doesn't accomplish anything and then just hope that eventually what they want will happen until it gets fed up with waiting and just goes for it? That sounds like a wishy-washy teenager more than a supernatural being. This movie tried to pass off a hodgepodge of demon/spirit/entity behavior lifted from paranormal detective shows and several other crappy movies, as opposed to presenting any general philosophy or point of view (with an unconvincing and unlikable couple as our protagonists to boot). You DON'T need stupid protagonists in a horror film. You need characters whose actions you can get behind instead of characters whose actions you disavow completely. That is, if you expect people to remember the movie when the marketing campaign withers away. Terrible writers just can't come up with anything else to keep the story going, and that's the problem here. But what do you expect when the writer/director's self-admitted inspiration was shows like Ghost Hunters? He wanted to make a quick buck and he did, and now his reliance on marketing gimmicks is hurting his efforts to sell us a sci-fi movie next (called, guess what,- Area 51!), because the studios aren't convinced his work will make money without a full-scale marketing assault on the intelligence of the American movie-goer. He's already exhausted that idea, and apparently has no others.— November 12, 2009 10:47 a.m.
Paranormal Activity
The purely accidental and serendipitous birdwalking into an almost "structuralist rigor" doesn't make a difference when it adds nothing to the film. Those are the most egregious examples of the terrible writing on display here- worst, they are the most boring scenes in the picture, and they were supposed to be frightening! (Why the hell would this demon entity thing bother biding it's time playing stupid pranks? if it wants the girl for itself why would it waste time possessing her, just to make her do stupid things like wanting to sleep on the rocking bench in the backyard, or standing around in her sleep for half an hour? Why wouldn't it just do what it does at the end of the movie if it wanted nothing more than to have the guy out of the way, instead of this protracted nonsense that accomplishes nothing?) The movie doesn't deliver anything but annoyance at the characters' convenient stupidity and the script's reliance on stupidity for its forward momentum. It's hard to be scared when you just want the "entity" to kill them already, instead of wishing for the protagonists to vanquish it. I'm shocked you gave it two stars frankly- this was worse than a dozen "antipathies" put together, and felt like a bigger ripoff than anything else this year. AND you even complimented that God-awful acting!? Have I wandered into a parallel universe? Are you still punch-drunk from the ecstatic experience of A SERIOUS MAN?— November 8, 2009 6 p.m.
The Music Room
"The latter aspect is less well under Ray's control and may be a little beyond his comfortable reach. " This seems an odd critique, as Ray's depiction of Roy as tragic is contingent on the pride and foolishness of patriarchal, heteronormative male identity in India, as filtered through a Lear-like emphasis on the importance of property and status, the squandering of what matters in order to maintain what doesn't, (an old-money, antiquated aristocratic superiority that Roy has only ever known) and losing everything in the process. Having had the great treasure of a wonderful Indian father who, not detrimentally but nonetheless veritably in his living days, easily succumbed to pride, boastfulness and keeping up appearances, just like all the Indian men I have ever known, I find it incredibly easy to see the tragedy of Roy's self-inflicted predicament (just like Lear). It was always important to assert one's dominance on intellectual, social, or financial grounds throughout my life in the Indian diaspora, and little has changed. It seems that Ray's story is uniquely timeless AND Indian, and hence well-within his reach- he is analyzing a sea change in Indian culture that adversely affects caste-derived Indian male identity, one which allows Ganguli to flourish and causes the insanity of the immutable Roy.— November 4, 2009 10:15 a.m.
To Have and Have More
Well, remember the abominable insult to Indian culture that was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Wherein Kali worshippers fed human sacrifices to her, and ripped out their hearts? Or when Indian cuisine was reduced to baby snakes live from the mother's womb, eyeball stews, chilled monkey brains and insect innard appetizers? Spielberg never seemed to hold much reverence for cultural accuracy. And it appears he never will.— June 7, 2008 10:13 a.m.
A Second Coming
Just FYI, J.K. Rowling chose to identify herself by initials because she wanted to avoid the stigma that young boys place on reading works by female authors. It was a choice that cleverly exploited the male-as-default-gender precept to her advantage and to ensure that her gender didn't limit the reach of her work to all children. Having worked in a bookstore for 6 years I can confidently say she was absolutely right to have done so. With the exception of the Harry Potter novels, (which you really should avoid commenting on outside of their public and media representation if you haven't read them), boys only ever went for books written by men when not encouraged to read something else by their mothers. At least in Rowling's case, the monogrammed moniker was justified. I can't speak for Lewis and Tolkien.— June 7, 2008 9:56 a.m.