fine whine

So yesterday I mentioned having watched Out of time with Denzel Washington, but I neglected to say whether I'd enjoyed it. I think I might have, but I am not sure. A lot of it was fairly humdrum and a couple actions incomprehensible (would you give somebody a large chunk of money and then expect to meet them later that night? Give them the money that night, duh!) but there were parts that briefly elevated it over the thriller-by-numbers it otherwise, well, is.

I can't imagine not pointing it out as a decent enough movie to watch, so I'll try not to give away too much hereafter. There is a brilliant bit of misdirection near the end that is well done and what is probably meant to be a twist ending that isn't. That misdirection is somewhat important as it can only happen when the film broadens from (Denzel's character) Matt's perspective into ones into which he has no possible view. I'm beginning to really dislike movies that do that sort of thing, but seeing as the vast majority of films are done that way I'll have to grin and bear it, though in this one the non-Matt scenes are very few and probably all the more noticeable because of it.

All of this brings me back to my ongoing procrastination of writing a cheesy film myself. Do I want it to be subjective, showing only what the protagonist could expect to see? Would Bond films be nearly as popular if we only saw Auric Goldfinger or the guy who wants to take over the world (you know, that one) during the final confrontations? The answer to the latter is a likely no, though there's a case to be made for Goldeneye wherein the main villain is basically offscreen until Pierce, er, James stumbles across him in Gorky Park. But what am I to do? Would Night of the living dead have been half as effective if we the audience got to see the outside of the house? I don't think so.

I'm not sure how to find them nor even how to spot them, but I know that there's a whole group of people out there that starts their sentences with "Yes," "Yeah," and even "Yup," and then so on and so forth. These last couple days I've been trying to figure out what that means. I have three hypotheses:

• These people are optimists but insecure ones such that they need to start their statements with an affirmative interjection to stay on the top half of the glass
• These people don't know how to work transitions into speech and as such cannot easily change subjects, so they use "Yep" as a sort of sign-post for new topics.
• These people are carrying on or responding to conversations from before or entirely imagined.

Those latter two don't make me happy to consider so I'm going to ignore them, and merely hope that those afflicted are just trying to keep everything on the sunny side.

Yeah, and while we were playing mini golf yesterday we took longer to play the second round. There were a couple two-to-foursomes ahead of us that were a little slower with the sticks and balls concept. The couple right in front of us seemed to dally a lot longer than they needed to after each hole, and it wasn't for several that I noticed that the guy of the couple had only one arm. He was the scorekeeper, so after each hole he'd balance his club against his leg or something, grab the scorecard from his pocket, brace it against something, grab a pencil and record the scores. Then he'd put everything back in his pocket, grab his club and carry on. All the while his lady friend would stand around sipping on her biggie Pepsi and make (probably) lighthearted remarks. I'm not quite sure what to make of the two of them other than they were holding us up and that was somewhat of a nuisance, but it is always nice to see people having fun.

Today we also watched Out of time and did some bowling, and Jesus rose from the dead. Eventful day, no?

I can't help some things. Here I was, playing miniature golf with my in-laws and wife, and what did my eyes espy but a stray golf ball bobbing merrily in the dye-saturated water. Naturally, I couldn't help but retrieve it and continue my merry way along the greens. I gave the "front nine" a decent go, beating the others but as we continued playing I took more and more side trips, picking up wayward and stuck balls out of the water hazards and elaborate (but not well-maintained) pipeworks and traps. By the end of the back nine I'd fallen a stroke behind my father-in-law (a real golf player, if that helps) but had picked up an extra seven balls. This meant that we were able to play a second course (our first, paid-for balls having returned to that mystical subterranean place they always go at the end of the eighteenth hole. So we enjoyed another game for the price of one on a beautiful day, and I lost the second eighteen by several more than one stroke.

Anyway a good time was had by all, and I got to remark at one point (while I was still ahead) that the reason Jessica's dad was trailing me in scoring was that he "didn't have enough balls". And I laughed. And we laughed. And it was good.

Intolerable cruelty is great. We rented it to watch with the in-laws, and then a brief check on my library reserves revealed that I'd be due to get it in the next week. I've only been waiting for it for three or four month, but what the hey, I didn't need to pay for the rental but the movie would've been well worth it anyway.

Not too often to I run across a movie without an audience (well, save for me), but such is the case with Disney's already-forgotten Atlantis: the lost empire. I was struck by how little it resembled any of their other children's movies, what with its lack of wisecracking sidekicks and (almost) complete dearth of musical interludes.
Frankly, I couldn't find more than a handful of scenes that would fulfill the entertainment needs of the children raised on the Pokemon oeuvre.

Naturally, I thought it was pretty good. They took the right tactic, I think, in making it all mystical without too much touchy-feely nonsense (those looking for the next Ferngully, keep looking) and the whole movie kept an engaging pace. My expectations were far lower and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It is indeed a pity that Disney has decided to eschew cel-based animation altogether, as between the non-CGI bits of this and Lilo & Stitch there were some pretty decent bits of film. Someday I may even track down Treasure planet just to give it its fair shake, too, but don't expect me to be hitting the theaters for that one Rosie's done. I have my limits.

Sometimes I can be such a goober. Despite having previously been master of a PBX and having root power over everybody and their phones, at my current job I am as much uninformed about what all the buttons do as anybody else. Add to that my pathological distrust of technology and it all comes together into a really weird attitude about any phone features more advanced than ordinary dialing. Take the case of transferring calls. I know that a good half of the time I am supposed to transfer a call I end up just hanging up (or at least I think so, and warn the other person of such).

What foolishness, me with my experience and computer engineering degree and all, to be stymied by a simple phone button. So today I knuckled down and attempted to make sure I was doing things correctly. I shanghaied my co-worker (thanks again, Ros!) and we did a quick three-phone test. Basically I called her, she transferred to me and I ended up answering my own phone call. She ran to the phone to say something to me but I cut here off with a "Can you hear me now? Good." and both of us laughed for a good minute or two, and sat down to return to work after a botched high-five.

And all I have to regret for it is the knowledge that I couldn't come up with anything funnier to say. But now I can transfer calls with confidence, and that's all that matters.