Saturday, November 28th, 2009

Well, first and foremost the obvious reason is: It’s a movie. If you want to get pedantic on paradoxes, then you may as well kiss almost every time travel movie ever goodbye.

But here’s my real explanation:

I don’t even consider such situations paradoxes. Time is a river. Sometimes that river is diverted (time travel/alternate realities). If you add a specific amount of energy to the water (say with an electric pump, which would be analogous to the actions a time traveler uses to affect the past), you can divert a river so that it flows upstream and runs back into itself, affecting itself earlier in the stream and changing the ultimate outcome.

Eventually this will create a backlog of water, as the river is now carrying its normal load, plus what you pumped upstream. This backlog will overpower the energy required to divert it back, and it will no longer be able to all be diverted back. This is analogous to the self-correcting aspect of time. Another analogy: Eventually the diversion mechanisms (the electric pump, if you will) will erode away due to affects of time and mechanical failure, leaving no trace that it ever happened in the first place. But the flow of the river (time) was changed nonetheless — even though the original cause is no longer visible.

Eventually we will have a river that looks the same as it did before it was ever affected by the water pump (time travel). Time (and the river) has corrected itself, and events that “cannot” happen have happened in such a way so as to affect things, but as to leave no direct evidence. Corrective alternate realities only exist until the corrections are made in the past. But the system was affected, and is not the same as it would have been without the original diversion.

[A CGI animation custom-made for me would really help explain this!]

One example is the movie Timecrimes .. After everything happened in this movie, the paradoxical timeline actually no longer exists. How did he go back if he was never there in the first place? Because he did. And then he didn’t, because the timeline was fixed. But anyone sitting outside the timeline — say, in the 5th dimension — would have been able to watch these events occur. But only while they were happening. Timecrimes is not paradoxical at all; people who look at it that way are thinking [at least] one dimension lower than they should be.

My brain hurts. (more…)

 movie coverI'd rather be watching TV![IMDB link] [Netflix link] With a title like College (tho that has been used in movies before, but not since the 1970s) it’s kind of hard to avoid watching this. We love college party movies.

PEOPLE: Directed by Deb Hagan (her first full film), written by a couple unknown actors (one played a clerk in what may be my favorite action movie ever: Crank). Starring a bunch of nobodies…

QUIRKS: Your standard college party movie — except that the main characters were highschoolers visiting a college. This one possibly gains the distinction of having the most on screen minutes AT a party out of many of these, as well as having the least well-known names attached to it.

And possibly the coolest fictional-party-that-would-never-happen-in-real-life that we’ve ever seen in any movie!

VISUALS: Well, there ARE some attractive ladies in this movie. But it doesn’t center on that as much. You wont see naked chicks walking around inexplicably like in Sex Drive.

MORALS: It’s better to be yourself, than someone else. Oh, and frat boys are douchebags.

BAD STUFF: A lot of people said this was full of gross-out humor and a really poor movie, and that the fat kid would never, ever get laid with a girl like that. Who cares? It’s a frickin’ fiction movie. The gross-out humor wasn’t constant like some of the naysayers said. Yet they did manage to make BOTH of us gag at points. (Making Carolyn gag == easy. Making Clint gag == hard.) This was actually a good thing in my book; you’re supposed to gross your viewers out at least once in any college comedy.

CONCLUSION: After having such incredibly low expectations based on everyone’s comments, I was very very pleasantly surprised. I probably liked this more than Carolyn. Gave it 3/5 stars on netflix, and 6 on IMDB (would have given a 6.5, tempted to give it a 7). I consider this a bit better than our average “generic pass”. Not as good as Sex Drive; more comparable to Van Wilder 2 (which shared some similarities). This movie could be best described as Superbad meets Van Wilder 2/Revenge Of The Nerds.

RECOMMENDATION: If you like college comedies somewhat unconditionally, don’t believe the anti-hype. This is as good as any of those kinds of movies. One might argue they’re all the same movie anyway; you either like it or you don’t. I did.

SIMILAR MOVIES: Superbad. Revenge Of The Nerds. National Lampoon’s Van Wilder 2: The Rise Of Taj. All somewhat similar to this. Superbad because of the highschool “bros” trying to get the girls (Morris is as clueless as McLovin). Revenge Of The Nerds becuase of the douchey fraternity trying to oppress everyone else. And Van Wilder 2 for similar reasons: A snobby frat that sucks oppressing a few people who might not belong there as much. (more…)