This was a pleasant documentary following the legendary Bill Cunningham. It gave a few details about his history and his personal life, but it mostly just showed Bill being Bill. What struck me about this movie was all of the dichotomies.

Bill Cunningham is the godfather of the street fashion photography. But it was clear in this movie that he’s still a man of the people. He’s still on the street every day. He does other things too, but his primary thing is taking pictures of clothes. He’s the ultimate recorder of the people, working for one of the biggest institutions. Meanwhile so many of the people he inspired started on free blogs taking pictures of the street and moved to a little fancy pictures of celebs and models, and writing books and only taking pictures of fancy people. Bill is the people’s street fashion photographer, even with the clout of the New York Times. Which stands in contrast to all of the street fashion photographers on the web, which use the people’s platform (i.e. internet) to be sort of elitist.

[Rambling, I had a point somewhere in there, but it fell apart pretty quickly.]

After the last week of work, which isn’t over yet, needed it.

Daily Drink pictures. Probably won’t cross post all of them, but since this was the first.

This was a very entertaining movie. Cute even. The story of love and loss by a fifth grader (or something like that). I got this movie via recommendations from friends, and it was great. Don’t get me wrong, a bit on the cheeseball side, but you don’t really notice because you’re caught up in the movie. I don’t know if I cared about the characters in a traditional sense, but I definitely wanted to know what was going to happen to them.

I thought the acting was pretty good. The children actors I thought did a great job carrying the movie. I thought Bradley Whitmore did a great job as the dad, less so about Cynthia Nixon as the mom. Truthfully, they played an important subplot, but if it was removed from the movie, I don’t think it would’ve made the movie any worse. For all intents and purposes, parents in this movie could’ve been the “Wah-wah-wah-wah” Peanuts adults and it would’ve worked solely in the kids’ world.

I think this makes a great date movie. Works for the ladies, and while there aren’t any explosions, guns, car chases, I think guys could more relate to the main character in this movie, 11 years old or not, than most male characters in standard “chick flick”/rom-com fare.

So I don’t understand this movie. It’s based on a book right? I’m not even going to bother looking it up and Amazon linking it (BTW, buy from Amazon via me folks. Put some shekels in my pocket, haha.).

So you have a movie that plays up every kind of negative female stereotype, that actively has a character succeed by following rules that play again said stereotypes, only to “discover” stereotypes are the better life? Though what could’ve I expected, the movie really does play to the stereotypical rom-com formula for most all of the relationships in the movie.

I’m sure everyone can, on some level, relate to one character or another or multiple characters in the movie, but it seemed to be a pretty mediocre effort. I thought the acting was passable. I mean how hard is it to play kind of crazy? (By everyone, not just the women.) Also, I didn’t think the talking heads/”When Harry Met Sally” [DVD] interview bits were at all useful, entertaining, necessary.

This movie was filmed by the same guy who did “State of Mind” [DVD]. Both documentaries on North Korea. “State of Mind” was about the Mass Games. I thought it was a really interesting view on North Korea. This movie is about U.S. soldiers, one in particular, who defected to North Korea and have lived there as part of that society since.

I have to say, I was extremely bored throughout this movie. The subject matter was interesting enough. And I’d certainly read a book about it, but in movie form, I just felt it was lacking any real compelling points. A lot of interesting, but nothing to grab you and pull you in. Which is a shame.

It’s not a bad watch. It’s an interesting glimpse into that part of the world. I’d say watch “State of Mind” over this.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. It’s in like new condition (mint), as I only used it two times (that I can remember, anyway). I have the original box, manuals, cases, tripod mount, etc. I also have a multi-coated, low-profile, high quality UV filter that I’ll throw in with it. I’d like to get $1300 for it. It sells for around $1600 brand new, and $1400 to $1450 for similarly conditioned used lenses on ebay.

I also have the 40D. I’d guess that it has fewer than 500 shutter actuations on it (I can get the exact number off the camera tonight). It is also in like new condition and came bundled with a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens (not L series). This bundle sells for around $1050 new (which is about what I paid for mine) and $899 for refurbs. I can part with mine for $850.

I’d sell both the big lens and the camera kit for $2000.

I’m just passing along this info. I’m not vouching for the guy or his gear. I’m told you can of course meet him and see the gear prior to purchase if you are local DC metro. I guess contact me via Twitter (Twitter.com/seoulfully)

This movie is confusing. I’m not going to pretend I can even come close to fully getting this movie. So here goes as good a review as I can write. This movie, while 100% centered on the great Philip Seymour Hoffman, feels as sprawling as the grand masterpiece his character is creating. Continually adding layers and layers of meta in the movie. It’s pretty amazing. That’s as much as my brain can muster right now.

Hoffman is powerful in this flick, but he always is. He’s so good at playing the sad sack. (By the way, this is why I enjoyed him so much in MI3. The Owen Davian character was no sad sack. In fact, the character seemed kind of like a grown up more evil version of his character in “Scent of a Woman” [DVD].) Everyone else, including Catherine Keener, is so peripheral that it doesn’t even really warrant much discussion. Keener is almost non-existent in the movie. Michelle Williams is okay. Samantha Morton is the only true supporting role. And she’s great.

It takes a lot of brain to watch this movie. Definitely not a bored on a weekend watch, but worthwhile if you’re invested in it.

How to review this movie without coming off as some kind of chauvinist. It depicts women at their absolute worst. The movie itself is ridiculous beyond belief. Anne Hathaway >> Kate Hudson. Kate Hudson really looks like her mom. The last 10 or so minutes of this movie are so unbelievable I don’t even know how to talk about it. Not a good movie. Not at all.

A lot of the reviews have mentioned the lens flares in the movie. To which Abrams replied something that basically sounds like “my future’s so bright (i gotta wear shades)”. Okay, the actual quote:

I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, “Oh that’s ridiculous, that was too many.” But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn’t be contained in the frame.

So moving along. Everyone says this is a movie for fans as well as newbies, I think fans get more out of it than newbies. The tiny characteristics of each character are put up front, but only meaningful to people familiar with them. JJ Abrams certainly also has a thing for time travel. To take a line from the movie, it kind of feels like a cheat. Some things have to happen, just not the same way or something crazy “Lost” like.

You know they have totally setup the franchise for a gazillion more movies because this reboot really worked. And I sort of hope they do. I definitely enjoyed the movie. Oh I didn’t see it on IMAX, but I bet it’d be awesome on IMAX. Or IMAX lite (or as Aziz Ansari calls it “Bullshit IMAX”).

Mild spoiler to follow:

Oh, but I 100% don’t buy Kirk finally being officially captain. You have a recent grad, saving earth/Federation certainly gets him a commendation and certainly pushes him through the ranks quickly, but the FLAGSHIP of the Federation? Pfft.