yay

i saw a pretty girl today. just thought i'd let you all know how shallow i am.

i just got smoked on the stupid quiz

Return of the School

PSCB01 - Instrumentation in Science
this appears to be a bland, dry, lab course, without lab write-ups. the professor specifically told us that students achieved high marks in this class because of its low low target level. luckily i missed today's lecture because i printed off my schedule way too early (august) and the room had since changed. i was busy with a crossword in the original room and by the time i thought to check for people it was 45 minutes into the hour. skip along now, shirley.

ENGB10 - Introduction to Shakespeare
huge class! cramped into one little room fit for 87 people. one of the first things the professor told us on the first day of class was that he suffered from U.B.S. -- utter bastard syndrome. luckily, he only gets UBS attacks when cellphones ring during lecture, and other such annoying circumstances. apparently he worked in a Shakespeare theatre group with Patrick Stewart (ST:TNG). he also told us he would be retiring at the end of this semester (to become a melon-man -- one who grows melons), so he sold some books off after the first lecture for <$5 (proceeds going to charity).

ENGC10 - Studies in Shakespeare: the Histories
one might wonder whether or not it is a good idea to take two Shakespeare courses at the same time, let alone a third-year course on his Histories (Henvry VIs , Richard III, etc), what with all the reading required for the intro course (8 plays!) and this one (6!). the professor is fairly admirable, being both a Russian and a stutterer (that's a HUGE linguistic disadvantage). he lectures quite clearly without much accent and only stumbles on a word every 2 minutes and 14 seconds. unfortunately the class is packed with females (6F:1M) and that weirds me out, since i'm from physics.

ASTC22 - Astrophysics: Galaxies and the Rest of the Universe
speaking of physics and more comfortable gender ratios (1F:5M), this is the hardest astronomy course possibly offered in the undergraduate level at UTSC. it is so scary that there was only one student enrolled in the course a mere 4 years ago. this year we have a veritable glut of physics students. i was reunited with the ASTB21 class from last school year (that i dropped half-way through) and joined by the students that took ASTB21 with me last semester. now i'll have people to work on homework assignments with (i.e. the elite eleven that took all five of vector calc II, physics lab, E&M, quantum and PSCB57).

ENGB43 - The Bible in Literature II
a continuation of last semester's fun fun controversy hour. i still haven't received my mark for that class, but i hear i did well, according to the professor. considering the mark i got on my crappy night-before-unedited essay, i'd say i did well. this time around will be a little harder to flake my way through, since we're no longer in the realm of the Torah/Pentateuch, but rather wading hip-deep into the Prophets and the Apocalypse.

today...

is my icq birthday.

uh-oh uh oh to meee
uh-oh uh oh to meeee
uh-oh uh-oh to meeee-eee
uh-oh uh oh to meee

thank you to all who ever fell for that stupid DMY/MDY joke. you all know who you are and there's no shame in humouring my attention-grabbing scheme.

Movie Review: King Kong (2005)

Starring: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Andy Serkis
Directed by: Peter Jackson (LOTR)

the highly hyped and critically acclaimed remake of the 1933 quintessential monster movie delivers on almost all levels.

[mild spoiler alert - read accordingly]

Plot: having not seen the original, i can only compare it to the various spoofs and homages paid to the classic through cartoons and such references. King Kong is an epic story told in three acts. the most recent movie to follow this formula was Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World. act 1: backstory, narrative set-up. act 2: island fun. act 3: new york, new york. the less patient may complain of the length (3 hrs 7 min) and the various points of monotany (chugging boat gears) that perforate an otherwise action-packed film. The movie seeks to cover almost every genre known to film. set in mid-Depression 1933, the first act touches on the harsh times (after watching Cinderella Man all the Depression references were pretty easy to pick up), framing the desperation and climate of a populace in need of distraction. There are dashes of vaudeville schtick (i kept thinking of those vaudeville guys on Family Guy) and mild romance to provide that distraction, but they are inevitably brushed aside for the things that matter (i.e. dinosaurs). at the outer core lies the whole monster horror/thrill/suspense/action ride where you can turn your brain off for a few minutes and enjoy senseless adrenaline. at the heart of the movie is the relationship between beauty and beast: Ann Darrow (Watts) and Kong (Serkis). where the original played up a certain amount of sexual tension between Darrow (Fay Wray) and a rapacious Kong, Peter Jackson recreates a more touching relationship (not physical touching -- heartstring pulling touching). other (actual) critics have touched on this aspect, wondering why that part was 'tamed' and Peter Jackson deftly addresses it early in the movie when Jack Black's character Carl Denham is pleading his case before a panel of movie executives. one of them asks if his movie will have boobies (since people only watch movies with boobies), and Denham calls him an idiot.

Visuals: breath-taking. from glittering cityscapes to towering jungles, King Kong is definitely worth the price of admission. the cgi is improved in comparison to the LOTR movies. Kong himself is beautifully crafted, based on actual gorilla specifications and animated with life-like precision by Andy Serkis (Gollum/Smeagol) after he spent two months studying gorillas in Jane Goodall fashion. the cinematography is gorgeous throughout, but gets a bit melodramatic towards the end. but since it's 1933, that's probably an intentional tribute.

Dialogue: having not seen the original, i cannot exactly tell if they followed the same script in this remake. however, the intonations and diction was anachronistically 21st century. dialogue definitely took a back seat in this movie and i think i could have watched it deaf and still understood everything.

Soundtrack: epic, as characteristic of the only Peter Jackson films i've seen. the tracks were evocative and spot-on. there isn't much else to comment on as i wasn't really paying attention to it.

Characters:
Carl Denham - this character is Jack Black's first crack at a 'serious' protrayal and i thought he did an outstanding job of it. as a desperate movie producer in search of 'the big one' (film, that is) Denham coerces those closest to him into a dangerous expedition all for the perfect film. Black's best scene is his Super Saiyin moment. his true allegiances are shown in counterpoint to the supposed monster.
Jack Driscoll - Adrien Brody plays a sensitive screenplay writer and third-wheel to the Ann-Kong relationship. his acting is above average -- emotive and all that -- but his nose sort of steals each scene.
King Kong - gorillas are usually considered ugly in my books and only cool under certain contexts (such as smashing stuff). this latest incarnation of King Kong is easily the most life-like, not just because of technological advances. the mannerisms and physical acting spoke volumes of Kong's inner lonliness and his jealous protection of that connection to Ann.
Ann Darrow - Naomi Watt's performance has opened my eyes. first to her striking resemblance to fellow Australian Nichole Kidman; second to her screaming skill. she doesn't say much so most of the acting is done facially. Watts does a brilliant and beautiful job (considering a lot of her screentime is spent with the computer generated and not physically present Kong) and now i have a huge crush on her.

Overall: watch this movie, plain and simple. the only failing really is the dialogue, which is uninspired and boring (it ain't no gilmore girls -- closer to smallville in terms of melodrama).

* * * * 3/4