Astronauts stuck in space need something to pass the time. Two years ago, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the website GovernmentAttic, NASA released a list of the books, movies, television shows, and music kept in the International Space Station.

The books on board include a standard canon of histories, science fiction, and action novels, but there are a few surprises. For example Michael Crichton’s anti-global warming novel State of Fear makes an appearance, and so does David Sedaris’s essay collection Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. The films include some great comedies, including Blazing Saddles, There’s Something About Mary, and National Lampoon’s Animal House, along side some truly terrible films like Rush Hour II, 50 First Dates, and the Ashton Kutcher thriller The Butterfly Effect.

In response to the list, the independent film organization The Shooting People complained to NASA, saying, “I felt that Caddyshack, Cheaper by the Dozen, and heaven forefend Beverly Hills Cop, might weaken the critical faculties of those on board, possibly even putting their lives and ours in danger.” The organization made some suggestions, including replacing Harold and Kumar with Harold and Maude and offering Man on Wire instead of Man on Fire.

NASA responded, thanking the organization for its input, and promising to pass the letter and the suggestions to the crew office “for further consideration.”

(Thanks, Scientific American.)

Source:  GovernmentAttic ,  The Shooting People ,  NASA  

Andrew Breitbart, a longtime editor at the conservative Drudge Report, has had enough with movies that vilify the government and celebrities who are admired for talking smack about their country. So he’s out to make Hollywood “pro-American” again.

Breitbart launched the conservative pop culture and politics blog Big Hollywood this week, positioning it as an outlet “for those who think something has gone drastically wrong and that Hollywood should return to its patriotic roots.”

The site encourages conservative entertainment industry insiders to come out of the closet loud and proud, and the conservative movement as a whole to “figure out pop culture.” As Breitbart sees it, right-wingers need to realize that in the battle for ideological prowess, "(pop) culture is the big prize and that politics is secondary.”

The stories posted on Big Hollywood so far include a piece by California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore praising Tom Cruise's new Nazi flick Valkyrie for its “soul and dignity”, and a post speculating that 24’s unapologetic nature may be moderated “to adapt to a new political reality”.

As the blog embarks on its master plan to remake Hollywood politics, one thing's for sure: They'll have plenty of lefties standing in their way. In a no-holds-barred takedown of Big Hollywood for the American Prospect's TAPPED blog, Adam Serwer wrote, "It consists of failed showbiz types whose insanity hasn't been tempered by the incessant mockery of the blogosphere, which means that each post is pure wingnuttia."

(Thanks, RealClearPolitics.)

Hollywood’s romantic comedies aren’t just innocuous cinematic tripe. They’re actually warping children’s minds (pdf), according to new research from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. The films, including Notting Hill and You’ve Got Mail are skewed portrayals of relationships with “both highly idealistic and undesirable qualities,” the researchers write, where romantic problems or transgressions “have no real negative long-term impact on relationship functioning.” The films tend to focus on the early stages of relationships, but the characters displayed emotions that generally develop over time, including deep feelings of love and emotional support. Adolescents sometimes use these films as models for their own relationships, which could lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment. 

In the book and film High Fidelity, the main character  asks, “What came first, the music or the misery? Did I listen to music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to music?” For romantic comedy films, researchers may now have an answer. 

(Thanks, Miller-McCune.)

Image from the film Notting Hill.

Americans delight in bashing French movie clichés—the cigarettes! the adultery! the self-conscious seriousness! French films are perhaps an easy target for mockery. Still, I can’t help but laugh at this particularly creative send-up, a bit of one Netflix user’s review of François Ozon’s See the Sea, singled out by the blog A Whine Colored Sea:

Key elements to a french movie - slow as thick snot in January - moral depravity - infidelity - boobs are shown, sometimes crotch - people smoking…

These do not make for essential viewing:

Only recommended if you enjoy activities like sewing your head to the carpet…

Image by Nils Alsleben, licensed under Creative Commons.

Film critics are grumbling about Disney’s decision to use blogger comments—rather than official reviews—in ads for its latest film, the UK release The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. The studio lifted online plaudits like "Simply stunning" from IMDb.com, reports Telegraph, in a move that some professional critics view as a preemptive strike by the studio's marketing department, which may have feared negative reviews and decided to use existing blogger praise for blurbs instead. Then there's the question of accountability: Who’s to say that the quoted praise, which is all but anonymous when submitted by Theedge-4 or Pete63, wasn’t written by a producer or actor from the film?

Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine ridicules the controversy: “How dare a movie studio quote the people who actually buy the tickets and watch the movies? How dare they give respect to the audience?” It’s difficult to say how much influence these blurbs have over potential moviegoers, but those who oppose Disney's decision have common sense on their side. The average person is probably more inclined to believe a full review from an established voice like the New York Times’ A.O. Scott than a sound-bite accolade from an unknown entity like the Disney-quoted blogger Mjavfc1.

Image by casalingarevival, licensed under Creative Commons.

Christian leaders in Korea are up-in-arms over a new television documentary depicting Jesus as a good person, a political leader, but not as God. The Korean Times reports that the TV show called “Shineui Gil, Inganeui Gil” (The Road of God, the Road of Man), “was intended to seek harmony among religions involving Jehovah, God, and Jesus.” Christian leaders, however, have tried to stop the program from airing, claiming the directors are “trying to tarnish the honor of Jesus.”

Considering the offence they took over the TV show, Korean Christian leaders should probably stay away from the Wittenberg Door’s recent list of 10 of the worst movies about Jesus ever made. Writer Danny Gallagher selected a number of standouts from Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (seen below) to Jesus, the Miniseries. A few of these films walk that fine line between satire and a truly horrible movie. The list also includes the Tom Hanks bomb, The DaVinci Code, but mystifyingly neglects The Passion of the Christ.

Rotten Tomatoes is a movie review aggregator that scores films on a “freshness” scale of 0 to 100 percent. In some cases, as with the recent cinematic catastrophe Meet the Spartans (2 percent freshness), the reviews showcase more comedic ability than the film itself. I’ve compiled some review highlights into a greatest hits recap. Enjoy:

Meet the Spartans isn’t a real movie, so this isn’t a real review, either.¹

Yes, crotch-flashing celebutantes and macho gladiator epics are rife for spoofing. It’s just too bad the job has been entrusted to Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the witless, Dumpster-diving duo who wouldn’t know satire if it puked on their faces.² When the comedy revolution comes, Friedberg and Seltzer will be the first ones shot.³ The filmmakers have one basic joke—that there’s something a little bit gay about all these buff Spartans—and they work it into the ground, trotting out every dumb homosexual panic joke in recorded history.⁴

This thing is so utterly lackluster, so without spirit or humor or energy of any kind, that the characters have to tell you what the joke is.

“Oh, look!” they say. “It’s Paris Hilton!” Like that.⁵

What’s the point of making a parody that’s dumber than the stuff it parodies?⁶ For example, the film starts with an old man examining an infant while a narrator tells us that in ancient Sparta all the babies were carefully checked for defects. This is a fine setup for a lot of potentially funny sight gags: What might this baby’s “defect” be? Then comes the reveal: It’s a baby Shrek. Why? Because Shrek the Third was recently a popular movie. The baby Shrek says something with a Scottish accent and then pukes all over the old man. Why? Because puke is funny. Aren’t you laughing just thinking about it?⁷

It’s so bad even Carmen Electra should be embarrassed.⁸ Electra proves herself a national treasure as our highest-priced whore.⁹

In their deeply ingrained tradition of something less than mediocrity, Friedberg and Seltzer make their annual locustlike descent on theaters leaving a trail of ruthlessly murdered brain cells in their wake.¹⁰

It’s not even a movie. It’s just a thing.¹¹ I’m moving to Europe.¹²

—Erik Helin

(Sources: 1. Sun Media; 2. Detroit News; 3. EricDSnider.com; 4. Mountain Xpress; 5. Sun Media; 6. Newsday; 7. EricDSnider.com; 8. Detroit News; 9. Village Voice; 10. Mountain Xpress; 11. Mountain Xpress; 12. Village Voice)

In the short YouTube clip below, well-known film director David Lynch (Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet) talks about the movie-watching experience you’ll get on an iPhone. It’s not a real iPhone commercial. It’s far more funny.

—Bennett Gordon

In a perfect world, film buffs and science geeks would live together in sublime harmony. Thanks to the November issue of Discover (article not available online), it seems we’re making significant progress on that front as physics professor Sidney Perkowitz pins down the best and worst science-themed films of all time. Both popular (Contact, 1997, and A Beautiful Mind, 2001) and artsy-sounding (Metropolis, 1927) titles crack the top five. Perkowitz’s favorites, which he dubs “Golden Eagles,” are lauded for thoughtful, scientifically accurate storylines—though he does concede, in his discussion of Contact, that “not many actual scientists would bet their careers on the slim chance of finding advanced aliens.”

In the “Golden Turkey” department, I’m happy to see The Core (2003) take its rightful place as the most odious. This film, which I found too unbearable to finish on an international flight some years ago, sends a group of scientists drilling a dangerous path to the earth’s core; Perkowitz notes that it “manages to impart record-setting amounts of scientific misinformation about basic physics (like elementary magnetism, electricity, and heat) in a mere 134 minutes.” He’s also not a fan of The 6th Day (2000), a Schwarzenegger action vehicle with a plot “so far off-base that you just can’t suspend enough disbelief.” —Danielle Maestretti