Scaea's Reviews

The Fast Runner (2001)

2012-01-27T11:26:00.000-08:00

I like movies that are not out of Hollywood. I think part of it is just unrecognizable actors who look a lot more real. The people in Atanarjuat look like Inuit, not like southern California models. Because they are. Atanarjuat is the first film from Canada written, directed, and acted by the Inuit people.

It is also pretty fascinating to watch movies that are outside of one's own culture. I learned a little about how igloos are made, and how the Inuit ate and dressed. I learned that their women had (perhaps they even still have) blue tattoo marks on their faces. And that they treat their dogs absolutely wretchedly.

That was the worst part of the movie. It is obvious that these dogs are not happy campers in real life and pretty much hate their handlers. Apparently no one ever told them about clicker training.

The movie is Anthropological in its cultural intensity, but has Cool (cold? ha ha. I'll stop) story telling. Some weird camera angle choices and some little 'continuity' errors (I think I saw a scene where someone was wearing modern boots), but if you can overlook the lack of special effects, it is a good movie. And if you can stand to see a little Inuit penis, because that's in there if that stuff gives you an aneurysms.

It by Stephen King, 1986, and It the TV mini series (1990)

2011-10-11T13:05:00.000-07:00

I must thank Tim Curry. Without him, I wouldn't be alive right now to write this review. He saved my life while I was watching It. If he hadn't consented to be in this awful, no-good, very bad movie, it would have killed me.

Maybe that's an exaggeration.

But maybe it's not.

I got hooked into reading It by the first 50 pages. They were interesting. They tied back onto each other and and had enough interesting little details that I thought the book would have a fairly complicated plot. In the end, It didn't. By the time I got to page 600, I had started reading really fast. By 700, I was skimming parts that didn't seem like they'd be much more interesting to actually read and weren't important to my general understanding. By page 800, I was skipping parts. By page 1000, I was starting to read again.

But, Jesus, that 3/4 mark was grueling. I was just wishing that Stephen would stop using so many words! The book managed to end strongly, but it is simply Too Long. Really, It could be thought of as "It 1" and "It 2" (like Thing 1 and Thing 2 but not quite so cool) all rolled into one book and spliced together. It bounces back and forth from "It 1" to "It 2" and, like a disney sequel, they are the same story (Little Mermaid and Lion King are the best example). King uses this feature a little bit, but mostly it gets tiresome hearing about how, 'oh, we're not kids anymore' No shit. 'oh, I hope it's a little different this time. So we can win' Weel, ya kinda did last time. It is a lot of flashback in a lot of book.

Yet watching the "movie" made this book look like an unrivaled masterpiece. I think the movie is the worst thing I have ever watched. Even beating out The Magic Sword. And you cannot see anything in that movie. It is no wonder that King doesn't like people making movies of his stories after this... um... I suppose "It" is an appropriate word. This Thing. It is impressively bad. Out of a core cast of 8 characters, only 2 or 3 give a performance that I would say is better than "L" or "M" acting caliber (There are some who give downright "Z" caliber acting) and even Tim Curry isn't better than "B" acting in this. But it seems fitting. Like he's making fun of his role. He isn't scary, he's funny. And that is what saves your life if you have the balls to try and watch this Wretched Movie. I have been trying for two weeks to find the right way to emphasize how bad this movie is, but I haven't managed to do it yet. It is just awful.

That it won an Emmy does nothing for the reputation of that award. Unless they were trying to award turds like the Razzie. I would have given this movie all of my Razzies. I don't expect the remake to be much better. But unfortunately for me, I am curious.

Some things that should have been done:

Fired their director.
They shouldn't have made Bill Denborough stutter. They could have easily changed it to some other "loser" quality.
They should have only told one of the two stories. It 1 and left out It 2. Because It 2 is dependent on It 1 and It 1 should be a little scarier; since it's about kids.
Actually build up a character or two. If you are going to spend 195 minutes on a film, then there should be someone to care about. King realizes, while he is writing, that you have to care about a character to get scared (consequently, his books are 1100 pages). The bullies in this movie are so etherial that there doesn't seem to be any thing to worry about.
Show something scary or just jump two feet into comedy. There is a scene with a rock fight and everyone throws about one rock and one person gets hit and it doesn't even seem to hurt. The whole scene is about 15 seconds long and looks like a girly sleep-over pillow fight in a teen movie.
Hired some good actors.
Kept Steven King on the writer's roll. Even if he is long-winded. And not scary.

Somehow, I seem to be alone in my estimation of this movie. It is hard to find other reviews that support my opinion. Seems most people like this thing. So, hell, don't take my word for it. But if watching this movie kills you, it is not my fault.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini (Eragon, Eldest, Brisingr 2003, 2005, 2008)

2011-08-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

(By Ellie:)

So I should be doing homework....or something more productive, like laundry, but I have to get this off my chest:

Someday I'd like to meet Christopher Paolini, perhaps while he's walking down the street, and when he least expects it, punch him as hard as I possibly can in the face.

Why, You may ask, do I want to punch Paolini in the face?

Because! his book series was the greatest disappointment in my entirety of reading!

You see, I love dragons. My room is decorated with dragons and a large chunk of my art is dedicated to dragons. I've wanted to read his books for a while but it wasn't until recently that I've had the time. So I started reading his series in May and I just now finished.

His first book I felt like, "Okay so you can tell this was written by a sixteen year old." But hey, no biggie, I was told by several other people that you gotta trudge through the first book to get to the second which was supposed to be better.

it was not.

Oh....Kay. Before I go off on all the reasons I didn't like his books, I'll mention the things I did like:

I liked the dragon Saphira, she was at least a fairly interesting character, my bias coming from the fact that I like dragons. I also liked the story of Roran and his escape from the Ra'zac and the survival of Carvahal, it kept me interested (page turner). I liked the idea of the dragon and it's rider sharing a consciousness and being equals, instead of some guy taming a dragon and riding it around like it's his pet. Oh and Angela was a fairly interesting character.

Now the reasons for wanting to punch Paolini in the face:

One: his writing style. His dialog is similar to his narration. Although there are a few characters who have a different way of speaking (Angela, sometimes Saphira), for the most part everyone has the same dialog and says similar things. I suppose I could pull out a few examples from the book but I'm lazy.

Oh! and how he uses descriptions. He'll describe the tiniest, most unimportant shit, like the shadows on his knuckles, the way a sunrise looks, the way the sap dribbles off a tree and bla and bla and bla and bla and bla. I think there's a way to do description which helps your reader to see what it is you are describing all the while giving them the liberty to have their own picture in their head. And quite honestly you don't need to describe a sunrise in explicit detail. Everyone has seen one at least one.

Two: the character Ayra... I wouldn't cry if she dropped dead, you know, just in the middle of the story. So, anyways, Eragon falls in love with this elf warrior and, well, she has the dullest personality out of everyone in the book. It would be like falling in love with an angry stump. A bitter, angry, sad little stump protruding from the ground. She hardly laughs, smiles, or does anything for that matter other than fight and be angry. Quite honestly, I'd like to know how many guys would fall for someone so boring and angry just because she's a hot elf with a tattoo.....uh I might be mistaken.

Three: The Urgals vs. Raz'ac. So the series has like two bad guy groups, the brutish Urgals and the dreadful Raz'ac. What I liked about the book was that Oromis and Glaedr, Eragon, and Saphira's mentors, teach them both that the Urgals are not necessarily bad evil creatures, just simply misunderstood. He explains to the hot-headed Eragon that it's not right to judge them, for having a different culture and bla bla bla and that they do not deserve to be driven to extinction.
BUT FUCK THE RA'ZAC! kill them all, they're evil bitches they are! In fact Eragon you should wipe them off the face of Alaglasea!

Ahem..

Four: Eragon gets to celebrate with the elves the blood oath celebration, in which he is given a gift that restores his body and makes him look elfy... Yay.
In the celebration there are a set of twin elf ladies, who get naked and show off their--get this--Rainbow dragon tattoo. Rainbow....Dragon.....Tattoo. Singular.
They then dance and the dragon tattoo comes to life and blesses Eragon. But seriously... A shimmering Rainbow Dragon Tattoo? Does anyone else think that sounds incredibly cheesy? It makes me constipated it's so cheesy! Oh other cheesy things

Brom in diamond tomb - CHEEZE
The dwarves giant rose shaped gem thing - CORN
the name: Saphira - Big serving of mac and CHEEZE!
Riders having a sword the same color as their dragon - Blaaaarge!
Flaming Blue Sword - Corny Poopie (And that's the Rating!)
Ayra - WTF. Why does she exsist?
The elves themselves.... Legolas would cry

Five: The Ancient language. So this language is like cheating, It makes it too easy to write the story. So how the language works is that whenever someone speaks in this language they have to tell the truth, and if you promise something in this language you can't go back on it. So basically the bad guys, never really have their own motives, the reason why they do bad things, is because the one bad guy Galbatorix, has forced them to swear loyalty to him in the ancient language. Basically if something difficult arrises in the plot Paolini just has to say..."well they swore in the ancient language." Grrrrrrrrrr! So Hitler was able to kill a shit ton of people with his Nazis, do you think they swore in some ancient language?

Six: The gore. Alright so I think a lot of Epic fantasy writers look up to Tolkien and his works because he really set the scene for how we view fantasy, including elves, dwarves and the like. He's also a pretty good writer and story teller. Thing about Tolkien is that he himself was a soldier in world war one and lived through world war two. And yet in his writing he never describes the battles in explicit detail. You watch the movies and the battle scenes are epic, you read the books and they almost seem diminished.

Paolini hasn't gone to war. I'm pretty sure he hasn't killed anyone. But he's fine with going into explicit detail on every battle scene or gory event in his books. One particular scene that stands out in my mind, is when bloodthirsty Roran is fighting in battle, and he's practically fighting all by himself with an injured shoulder and leg, and somehow he ends up standing on a hill twenty feet high composed of dead bodies, bodies of the soldiers he killed. All of them who probably swore to Galbatorix in the stupid ancient language. (that's convenient)

Eragon and Arya kill a group of soldiers with their bare hands, one of which pleaded for his life before Eragon killed him. Of course they go to battle a bunch more times and kill some more, and then they kill a little bit more. Towards the end of Brisingr, In the last battle of the book, Eragon is described as being "surrounded by a mist of blood".

I'd honestly like to take Paolini, stick a sword in his hand, ship him overseas to fight in the military and see how well he can hack someone to bits.

It's not that a little bit of gore is a bad thing, and he does mention the twinge of guilt his characters have for killing people, but I feel that he describes it to such a great detail, that it's just immature. I'm not sure how his books have gotten to be so popular, because he writes like a guy who plays too many video games, or maybe a pampered home-schooled rich kid....tell me if I'm close?

In the end I think my question is, will I read the last of the Inheritance Cycle? Hmm maybe. As long as I get to throw the book at his head.

(Anybody have some suggestions of other fantasies series I might actually like? I need to cleanse my brain of all this cheese, corn and gore.)

The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003 movies)

2011-04-24T09:05:00.000-07:00

As a long-time fan of Tolkien's masterwork, it was difficult for me to let go and enjoy The Lord of the Rings movies by Peter Jackson. But they were very well done. They are not completely to my liking, of course, but it would be impossible to please every fan of this (or any) work in translation. Always something is lost, but always something is gained. It becomes something else, a little, no matter how faithful it attempts to stay to the source material.

'Tis best not to try being completely true. Some things just cannot translate. Which is why I am glad that Jackson (and no other filmmake who has adapted The Lord of the Rings) has ever tried to do Tom Bombadil. It would have been grotesque. There are so many people who are disappointed by this decision, but I feel that if you want to hear about Tom, then you should read it from Tolkien. I would rather see a good movie production than a generic reproduction.

But these movies are very artistic. Their attempt at the Shire is most remarkable, their Gandalf is good (though they never call him Mithrandir... Ok, once.), the dwarves and elfs are decent (I still say the elfs should have been computer generated. Elfs would look odd if you ever saw anyone so blemishless) If you are not familiar with the books, you can easily follow the plot (I think) but you do miss out on details (such as their cloaks from Lothlorien; and when they are used, you would be very confused), which is fine. If you want to know everything about Middle-Earth, read the Silmarillion (and then read Snorri Sturluson, the Icelandic Homer). Tolkien's work is five times as deep as it is long.

Poor Gimli takes a lot of brunt as a joke. But he seems to take it well. Every good story needs a good relief and Gimli does a fine job.

I must admit these movies to be a "Success" even if I am not too much a fan of the dominance the battle scenes exert over the trilogy. And re-watching them I was again reminded of the antiquated way in which Tolkien considered blood-line. Very British. Royalty deserves their royalty because of some Manifest Destiny. It is somewhat 'offset' (a bad solution) by the more valuable and wise philosophy and thought in the story. This movie can move emotions of any kind. The music is stellar.

The End of the Matter by Alan Dean Foster (1997)

2011-04-24T08:40:00.000-07:00

The End of the Matter is an alright book. It succeeds in being "Entertaining", but only just. It did derail me from my reading of Light in August. It has one of those "Let's just wrap this up already" endings; things are contrived and explained with dialogic narration rather than actual story telling.

There are some fun characters and I can sometimes see the person who wrote Star Wars in here.

Mostly, my problems with the production have to do with inconsistencies which can only be discussed with horrible scary Spoilers!

Analysis (Haven't done this in a while)

While the story can be said to be entertaining, it is so filled with character holes that it will boggle your mind more than wondering how anyone can "watch" a quasar form when they are traveling past the speed of light.

Answer: you can't.

Flinx is randomly interrupting any other thoughts that might have gone said to worry about the danger he puts people in 'people seem to die around me.'

Really. Well, perhaps that is because you have the galaxy's most feared family of assassins after you. Should you tell anyone?

'Nah. They already don't trust me enough. No need to put them on edge, right?'

Eh, you might be right. Jus' let 'em die without warning instead.

To be fair, the Qwarm (the assassins) aren't all that good at their job. They fail to kill the teenager even when they have a direct shot (somehow killing who he is talking to instead). They are really just the most feared incompetent best assassins in the universe.

The geniuses in this book are hardly geniuses either. It takes them months to figure out some rather simple things that are floating around their faces for most of the book. Even though there are more than one of them. I suppose they did find the remains of an ancient civilization that is legendary throughout the galaxy

If you can forgive this story it's moments of lunacy, it can be an entertaining story. If you want cohesion, it will annoy you to no end.

I'm in the middle. I'll complain about this book, but I did read it all the way through. And even if the end slows the story down a bit, it isn't half so slow as Light in August.

Chromeos and the Cr-48 (Google's online operating system)

2011-04-10T21:46:00.000-07:00

I got a little laptop from Google the other day. I had to buy it off of Craigslist, but I was intrigued.

I am not quite the tech-head that most people with these things are. But I already sort of like it. I like the lack of logos, I like the name, and I like the style. But physically, Cr-48s are built like Fisher-Price toys. That is the primary detraction. It's a Macintosh from Mattel. In the software, I would have also liked access to just one folder for a file system. Just a little local storage. But what can you do. I expect that will be included by the time the OS actually launches.

Overall, I think that it's a little underwhelming. Partially because I wanted to use the battery-efficient computer to watch Netflix and didn't realize that Linux has no compatibly with Silverlight. There were also some compatibility issues with Google Docs... which is rather strange. Both of these I expect to be fully resolved by launch as well. The computer is very open, so I loaded Ubuntu on the thing with instructions I got from here (rather than Google's instructions... I'm not that good at Linux and I didn't have a way to print it or anything for reference. I am not sure how either way works, or if there are problems with one over another but I read from someone on a forum who also used the easy way that his Ubuntu disappeared after he used Chromeos again... So I am hesitant to move back for a little while...)

Ubuntu's running pretty well. I've not had the chance to use Linux on a competent computer and am pretty happy. I run Chrome for the internet, so I'm pretty close to still being a Chromeos user. However, Ubuntu is not set up to use the nifty touchpad that comes with the Cr-48's. Caps-lock doesn't work, most of my f keys don't work, it's not set up for it. Someday, I'll figure those little things out.

In Chromeos, everything works pretty well. Pressing Alt+Ctrl+/ will bring up a shortcut key layout which will help anyone figure out how to use the operating system. Early users complained of how the touchpad functioned, but I didn't have any problems. Instead, I have a lot of those problems in Ubuntu.

Chromeos is "Nifty". If you can handle livin' in th' clouds, it's great and I kinda think it and it's ilk will work well on netbooks. But I also expect the line between netbooks, tablets, laptops, and desktops to be further blurred. Most "netbooks" of the future will probably be "tablets", which means that Android is the Google OS of choice in the future and it is already out.

Rango (2011 movie)

2011-04-08T20:15:00.000-07:00

The movie Rango is quite good, despite the fact that it is entirely peopled (with the exceptions of Rango himself) of very standard, cliche, but quintessential characters: the Wild West gunslinger, the fat banker, the old mayor, the Native American Tracker and the South-west shaman, Mexican mariachis, the damsel in distress. Hillbillies (with a blind pa). Clint Eastwood, for a second there. This all may be an intentional metaphor. The main character is an actor, and therefore endowed with the miraculous ability to do anything. He is also a director. Filling the story with obvious celebrity worship only heightened by plastering Johnny Depp's name across the top of every poster.

But in this movie, the Depp worship it is somewhat appropriate. In the beginning, I thought of this movie as something of a filmography for Johnny Depp. It seems to reference a few of his characters from the past. It moves out of that, quickly. It becomes a little more about story and it does story better than most films.

First of all, the movie succeeds in character development. Instead of instantly changing character 60-70% of the way thorough, everyone slowly evolves. Details are important. Attention to detail is handled very well.

Visually as well. The style is unique. The animals aren't caustically cute, they are rugged, ripped and gritty. They are all pretty hideous and the effect is a very pretty movie. The cinematographers prove them selves to be pretty well traveled, including little details such as blooming flowers and sand-slides on dunes. Either that or they come from the desert.

It is a movie that is worth it. It may not be the best computer animated film of all time or anything, but it stands out.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010 movie)

2011-04-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

The most impressive thing about the Legend of the Guardians: the Owls of Ga'Hoole happens in the first few seconds: they hunt a mouse. Kill it and eat it and they are still the good guys. I liked that very much. When was the last time a hunter was a good guy? One that showed themselves to be a hunter. You never saw Simba eat anything but bugs, the hyenas ate a leg of zebra. Or a predator why hadn't tried to turn over a 'new leaf' and not be predators? I cannot think of one other example, myself.

This set a stage for a unique animated, computer-generated movie. It doesn't quite live up to staying so unique, but it is still quite an entertaining movie. Better than most, but doesn't match How to Train Your Dragon just because of humor. The Owls of Ga'Hoole is not as specifically funny. It has jokes, cleaver ones that fit the circumstance, but that's not what it is about.

Legend of the Guardians is an epic fantasy and it's "A Hoot". It is good enough that I want to read the books now. Of which there are 15... written in 5 years. But more than that, and more important to me, it breaks the need in our movie industry to make pro-war rhetoric. War isn't 'fun' and shouldn't have that much glamor. The soldiers who graduated alive from The Great War knew this and it was called "That Old Lie". We seem to have completely forgotten that by now. Legends of Ga'Hoole isn't very vocally opposed, it shows war as fun and glamorous, but it includes one good speech to the contrary, which I appreciated.

Even if it did evoke nauseating memories of 300's speed-up then slow-down fight scenes.

Cinderella (1950 movie)

2011-03-02T13:07:00.000-08:00

What a famous movie Disney's Cinderella is. For all it's fame, I found myself laughingly deconstruction all the messages one could glean from it if they were so inclined. The only path to happiness is riches or royalty; the only way to elevate to that is with magic; glass makes a good shoe; one can only be born with high-class, and it doesn't rub off even if you are forced into abject poverty; a girl is only happy when married off, she is not the driving force in her life; cats are evil and mice eating holes through your walls is adorable, not structurally compromising.

Perhaps that wasn't the point... But Cinderella seems to me as much of a nightmare to feminists as The Lion King is to equal rights activists (and anti-monarchy people, which is most everyone; most people do not point out my favorite point though - that once two races are commingling on the pride-lands it becomes a wasteland and only when the good segregationist empire returns does the light come back). It is a fun movie to poke fun of, but it is not nearly as fun as TerryToon's version in 1938. I would have thought that this was a brilliant lampoon of Disney's Masterpiece if it didn't come out 12 years prior.

Futurama: Bender's Big Score and Bender's Game (2007 and 2008 movies respectively)

2011-03-01T09:16:00.000-08:00

If you can pick out your favorite character in Futurama, you have a far more organized mind than I do. I like them all fairly well, but none of them very well. What is more remarkable to me is the cast as an ensemble. I am sure that this Futurama is one of those projects that really just writes itself. And hardly even gets a glance over for re-writes.

I like Futurama and I like the Simpsons, but these two movies are about as random as one can possibly get. Bender's Big Score a little more so than Bender's Game.

Still, they are both very fun movies. Quick entertainment if you want a quick fix. Neither one has a very satisfying ending and it is obvious, after watching both of them, that there is nothing of a 'canon' to speak of in Futurama. They do not end in such a way that anything is meant for after them; but with how "Wacky" each episode (for that's what these movies are: episodes) is, that doesn't matter. Nothing is supposed to make much sense. I don't think. There are quite a few recurring themes and returning jokes with the overall plot being simply demented.

Prince of Persia (2010 movie)

2011-02-21T18:47:00.000-08:00

A lot of people will complain about Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, but I wont (too much); I actually sorta liked the film.

However, keep in mind: this is not a brilliantly intelligent film, this film isn't really philosophical, nor is it expertly composed and choreographed or even highly funny. It is "Simply Fun". If you are looking for more in your movies, don't look here; if you don't like action movies and hero movies, don't look here. This is a genre film: it fills its roll it it's genre. It gives english accents to persians because they aren't americans (and they are from europe, what other accent ya gonna use?), nobody really looks like a Persian, it has a lot of sword fight scenes, it has a lot of acrobatics. In its genre, though, it stands apart as pretty good. Its fight scenes are almost mediocre; there's a lot less attention given to them than to the arial acrobatics, which suits me fine. I am getting a little tired of fight scenes. They are there, too be sure, and they aren't horrible, and they aren't so long as to get too stale.

There are those who would disagree with me on both ends, I am sure. People who are annoyed they are there at all and those who lament that they are too short. For me, they are easy to pass by and get to what the film does well. The plot is pretty good. The ending might be obnoxious for many, it certainly wasn't my favorite part, but I had predicted it by the time the movie was a quarter though. It was cemented in my mind by three-quarters.

There really isn't much of a reason to like this movie, but I still do. Perhaps I am biased because it casted my ol' creepy roommate "David the Vampire" as a creepy snake-wielding Voldemort like character. Other characters are fun as well (especially the entrepreneur - he is as close as this movie gets to political). See if if you liked the Zorro movies.

The First Millimeter (2009 documentary movie)

2011-02-19T15:50:00.000-08:00

The First Millimeter is a great documentary especially when paired with Dirt!. It has a few problems with its composition, there are a lot of visual glitches, ineffective cuts and cuts which are too quick (especially during some interviews). It seems like there are always sub-titles in the sections from Africa, whither the speaker was dubbed or not, yet there are few sub-titles from anywhere else.

There is still some invaluable information in there.

"Everyone Should See" The First Millimeter, especially decision makers. We are currently making our national parks and wild-life reserves less and less wild because we have forgotten two parts to their ecosystem: large herd animals and predators. It's hard to get predators because they need absolutely huge tracks of land, but perhaps something can be done which will improve our land quality more than what we are doing now. And in this age of too much carbon in the atmosphere (and too little in the soil) we must figure this out.

My major contention with the film is how much credit it gives to human beings. Casting us as the manages, that we have been "endowed" with this capability and if we are to make anything better, we must be better managers.

We must copy the management of the gods: grassroots. We make rather shitty managers, see what has happened to the earth under our rule. When the world was "animal maintained" it was in much better shape. Still, there is wisdom in framing it this way because the homo sapiens is unlikely to relinquish his control, even if he is spiraling toward disaster.

Seeing as these two movies, Dirt! and The First Millimeter, came out recently and almost concurrently, I am tempted to have hope that these ideas will spread. If more of our ranchers and agriculturalists see this movie, we could begin to rewild the world.

Meet the Spartans (2008 movie)

2011-02-19T15:28:00.000-08:00

Way back when, when Meet the Spartans first came out, I thought the advertisements were hilarious, but also that they were probably the best part of the movie.

I was right. This movie is "Very Stupid", it's just a series of jokes, and it works better in the 30-second add format far better than it works in the 86 minute movie format.

It is still a million times better than 300, which it is parodizing, and not even half so stupid. It objectifies women horridly, and makes a lot of gay jokes, but it still manages to be funny in a few places, Not worth the 86 minutes you'll spend on it, but there's still some things in there.

Especially if you suffered through 300. It does a good job of making fun of that worthless militant war-glorifying thing which made it obvious we in America forgot the lesson of 'That Old Lie'.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009 movie, missed the beginning, never read)

2011-02-09T14:50:00.000-08:00

"Cussin' Funny". I like the sense of humor in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. George Clooney's Mr. Fox reminds me reminds me of Ulysses Everett McGill from Oh Brother Where Art Thou, which I think is the best role I have seen him in. Now, there are two roles which are hard to choose between.

Too bad they are so similar; That might say a something about the mans acting ability, but he was pretty good in Men Who Stare at Goats as well, so I wont be the one to say it.

The first thing that most anyone will notice is that the animation style is very unique. I thought that it would be horrendously distracting throughout the movie, and that it would never have been accepted when Sleeping Beauty was new, but it fits the story and fits itself so well that it does nothing of the kind. It may not have been accepted in 1959, but it is very impressive now.

Still, there aren't veyr many movies this style will work well with. This movie is unique.

Wes Anderson, the writer and director, is far more of an impressive writer/director than the block-busting James Cameron. He's only made 8 movies, but all of them that I have seen I have found impressive at the least. They don't have the same mass appeal as Cameron, but have more of a controversial nature. That cannot be liked by everyone. And is therefore better.

Starship Troopers (1997 movie)

2011-02-09T14:20:00.000-08:00

I am "Undecided" on how I feel about Starship Troopers. That may seem like a shitty cop-out of a rating, but I'm stickin' to it. I think it'll end up encapsulating my decision once it is made. I like most of what I have read of Heinlein's: Job, Stranger in a Strange Land. But this movie is not very similar. It is campy, that is where the humor lies, but it supports military aggrandizement a little more than I think is healthy. It seems to make the metaphor that war is sometimes necessary if we are fighting an alien without a sense of empathy. But since that will never happen (I seriously doubt that if we meet with bug aliens they will actually lack empathy), the point is moot.

But that might not really be the point. That is just the surface, that is just the opinion of the characters. In reality, the film seems to be almost entirely satirical. And like any satire,

At least, that is the controversy about Heinlein's opinion. But in this movie, that seems to only be the opinion of the characters. The situation and the attitudes are almost entirely satirical. And like any satire, the point where satire ends is rather hard to distinguish.

This film is violent and acted with not the greatest degree of skill. If you are in the mood for a simple movie and in the mood for satire, this is a good one to pick up.

I feel the need to eventually read the book. There is some controversy on Heinlein's own opinion. It seems that he hates communism (no surprise, I suppose, considering Stranger in a Strange Land) and believes that only those who earn suffrage should be citizens, an idea I could probably get behind.

A Town Called Panic (2009 movie)

2011-02-09T14:04:00.000-08:00

A Town Called Panic is "NOT for Everyone"; it is in french and it has subtitles.

And it is animated like vomit.

But I loved the movie. It is strange in the finest and makes about as much sense as a platypus-taur, but it was erroneously entertaining for me. The surreality engenders a sense of adventure which is surprising.

Mostly, it is just funny, though. That's the whole point. It's bleeding funny. If, of course you can get past the choppy stop-motion animation which makes Wallace and Gromit look like a Pixar masterpiece (which is something of a misnomer - I think Wallace and Gromit looks better. Makes it look like Final Fantasy in plot coherency and graphics.)

It was recommended to me because I like Monty Python; if you like almost everything in the Flying Circus, then look up this movie.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (2009 movie)

2011-02-09T13:48:00.000-08:00

It is amazing how name-brand can affect how much people like something. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, for example. It carries the weighty name of the HP and people have collectively given it 7.3/10 on the ever-popular Internet Movie Database. There are several lengthy reviews on the value and brilliance of this composition, but I find it more than dull and not at all worthy of the source work.

7.3 might not really sound all that bad, but if I were into giving numbers it wouldn't be half so high. It is like the makers of these movies realized that they left out so much in the previous movies that they would have to split #7 into two and to correct this they made sure everything was in there somehow. Let alone how choppily it fit in.

This movie is just "Bland". It didn't induce very much emotion in me, even in the horrifying final scene which caused everyone who read the book to simultaneously break out into sobs. I laughed a few times, but I feel I was laughing at the movie, not with it. I just didn't care about anything that was happening. Nothing was developed, nothing was explained. My cousin watching with me, who hadn't read the book in a few years, found herself lost. Even though she had read it once, it wasn't enough to help her along through the movie. That is when you know you didn't plot out your story very well.

But pretty much every plot is there: two romances, Aragog, death and destruction, Malfoy being a prick, searching for horcruxes, Slughorn and his collection of students, getting forgotten on the train. There's even a few new ones: HP being an idiot and running out into a hayfield (why? cuz he's dumb). It's all packed in there like forcing jigsaw puzzle pieces together whither that is where they go or not. I think there's some boarder pieces in the middle.

What makes Harry Potter such an enrapturing series? It has captured children's imaginations and even wrangled a few adult ones. I believe that one of the things that has done this is her character development. But the characters in the movies are largely boring.

Planet of the Apes (comparison of the 1968 and the 2001 films)

2011-02-07T20:05:00.000-08:00

I should have posted this about 3 months ago.... I didn't even realize that I didn't.

Inception (2010 movie)

2011-02-01T12:04:00.000-08:00

Inception is the second movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio that I have been pretty impressed with. The first (which I didn't see all of, hence there is no review) was Shutter Island.

The similarities of these movies are substantial. There's even a common being-washed-up-prone-on-a-beach scene. The central character played by Leo DiCaprio is very similar as well, "conflicted, tortured by their own demons, needs to deal with their past" et cetera. I almost wonder if there is some event in Leo's history, like he killed his wife or something which leads him to play in these movies.

But the choices are good. Inception is one of the better movies I have seen recently and I feel like I've been fortunate enough to have seen some good ones recently. Mostly because there is a good ending, which is so important to me. It is hilarious, those last few seconds, and make this rather long movie as brilliant as it is. Without such a quietly genius scene, the movie suffers a little too much from what I'll call "Star Trek Syndrome"

In Star Trek, there was often a great idea that was explored for a little while. It was intriguing, an idea that really made a person say, "wow! What if! Hmm!" and then, after the conflict was established, the only solution offered was Captain Kirk punching an alien in the face. Curtain.

Inception is the same way. A wonderful idea, but none of the characters can think of a wiser way to deal with anything in a whole fictional dream world than shooting it. Woo. Lack of imagination in a world of imagination. I don't know why they needed to use certain devices so much when nothing was real; they really could have used Neo.

It is still a "Good Movie". I liked it, at least.

Black Beauty (movie, 1994)

2011-02-01T11:45:00.000-08:00

Black Beauty; a classic of a movie. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why: "I Was Bored".

There is some rather phenominal cinematography in places which reminded me of the shots that Milo and Otis achieved. And the story line is alright, I think, but it is hard to tell under the surface veneer which is so sooty and tarnished. The central problem with this film was the way it was told. With unabashed narration. There's hardly any dialog and really no other characters than the central one who is just telling you why his life is so hard. The moving pictures are supposed to "show" you, but what the film-makers should have been told before they began is that having video is not the same thing as "showing". There was, for me, not emotional connection to the characters. There was nothing personal in its creation.

Instead, I spent most of the movie trying to decide how much abuse their equine actors sustained in the making of the movie. I don't think it was as much as one would expect, the horses rarely have their ears laid back, so at least the movie avoids that cruel irony.

Alice in Wonderland (2010 movie)

2011-01-25T12:47:00.000-08:00

I realize something with the viewing of Alice in Wonderland: Tim Burton is unimpressive. I think he has succeeded as a hollywood "artist" only because he has a characteristic visual flare. There are some movies of his I have liked, but he has a tendency to take a good story and commercialize it into a dime-a-dozen paperback. He did it with Planet of the Apes (which, only now, I realize I never published as a review...) and now he has done it with Alice in Wonderland. This movie is a really "Poor Attempt".

It's now just some (Spoiler alert as much as anyone could spoil it) random action story about killing a dragon with a magic sword under the gaze of an evil, big-headed Queen who usurped her throne from her younger sister. With Johnny Depp, of course.

Meh.

Due Date (2010 movie)

2011-01-25T12:30:00.000-08:00

Due Date just flies through and is a rather "Disappointing" movie in the end. It has one I-Love-Lucy moment (an unrealistically crazy moment where one can only think: no... no you didn't... Oh... I can't watch... Oh no... You got some es'plaining to do! ...You can't possibly get away with this, you realize?) which, coupled with a sudden reversal of character just moments before, crumpled what was left of a marginal plot in the beginning.

The Other Guys (2010 movie)

2011-01-25T12:24:00.000-08:00

The Other Guys may be just a little better than The Green Hornet, but it may be just a little worse. There are parts that are funny, it has a lot less action in it than The Green Hornet (a more reasonable level, really), but it is also less bright and simply fun.

The best part of The Other Guys is the ending credits. They are educational. They spell out in the plainest possible language who the real criminals are and how difficult it is to prosecute them.

Which make me wonder how wise The Other Guys just may be. Throughout the movie, there is this hyper-masculine manor which is promoted. Real Men don't drive Priuses, Real Men like guns and fighting, Real Men don't like the opera, Real Men get Drunk, and Real Men are tough! And the only man on the police force who is not a Real Man is a most abusive husband. The most Real Men men in the film jump to their death in the very beginning being macho. The movie seems, on review, to be like South Park in its utter lampooning of our culture. Like all satire, this movie can be taken the wrong way (and I think it will be by most people) but I have come to think that the wrightors of this film don't believe in anything that happens in it. Besides the credits.

Perhaps that's just what I want to see. In any case, the movie is quite "Interesting Entertainment" in the end...

The Green Hornet (2011 movie)

2011-01-25T12:12:00.000-08:00

The Green Hornet is better than most action movies for the simple fact that it is a comedy. Half of it is only making fun of action movies. The 3D effects were absolutely unnecessary. Like most movies with real actors filmed in 3D, every object seems apart from the rest of the environment.

Though a lot of this movie I was amazed at the level of destruction. It had to have cost a lot to make. If you like seeing class break (in 3D), then you'll probably love this movie. I find it a pit over the top. The main character gets just a little annoying, the 'side kick' really is a much better character.

In the end, the movie is "Entertaining", but it's really only OK.

The Sinistar Pig by Tony Hillerman (2003)

2011-01-25T12:09:00.000-08:00

I cannot find a lot of reviews on the omniscient Google that agree, but I find The Sinister Pig to be far less than just 'mediocre'. The best thing I can say about it is that is appears Hillerman wasn't very present in the story telling. Not even he is involved in the plot of this book, how could any reader be.

Apparently there are a lot of them, though. Most reviews of this book are positive. Perhaps if you have a relationship with this author you will like this book. For me, this is the first of his I have read and I really think it will be the last. It was a "Pathetic Attempt". The "Legendary Lieutenant"? Honestly?

Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut

2011-01-25T12:04:00.000-08:00

I was reading a book called The Sinister Pig, which I didn't find too awful by the 20th page (and, actually, a lot better than I thought it would be) but then I kinda accidentally, providentially picked up Slaughterhouse 5.

The Sinister Pig was quickly forgotten.

I have been wanting to read a Kurt Vonnegut book for a little while now. There are many people who verily worship the writer. This is the first work of his I have read, but so far I have to agree. Vonnegut is one of those writers that doesn't really inspire one to become a writer themselves because it's disheartening to try and keep up with him. Like running a marathon against Haile Gebrselassie, you lose. 'lest, I guess, you are also a world class, unbelievable writer.

I'm not that good, at least not yet. To craft such a story, half truth and half entertainment might just take an experience such as surviving the bombing of Dresden.

There are many people who claim this book is hilarious, but I did not have the same reaction. There are places that are very funny, and the entire alien half of the book is funny in premise, but I didn't laugh more than thrice.

The Childerens Crusade is a very, very "Remarkable" book, but the best remarks about it is to read it. It is a woefully unique story.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006 Gamecube game)

2011-01-25T11:53:00.000-08:00

The Legends of Zelda are games made for video gamers. They try not to be, it seems, but are so filled with inside jokes and self-references that it is inescapable. If you have played one Zelda game you have played... not all, but about half of them. Which is like fantasy in other genres. Once you start into fantasy, you find out quickly that most of them are very similar to each other. A fantasy writer is an artist with cliches so common they cease to be cliche, at least within the genre.

There are, of course, several sub-genres. American fantasy tends to be filled with gleaming castles while British fantasy has gritty, more realistically dark-age castles. Japanese fantasy, however, has flying castles. Everything is more epic in Japan.

My favorite is the British type. It is for this reason that Twilight Princess was so appealing to me. The graphical approach, at least, leaned more heavily toward British fantasy than anything inside the video gaming universe. Which can be oppressively narrow at times. There still is one true flying castle in Twilight Princess and many other points which rather detract from the experience (one of them being your primary weapon: The Master Sword, it looks like something a Power Ranger would use.) but it manages it better than anything else I have come across.

Zelda is the only game wich really attempts to be an "Epic Fantasy Video Game" story which isn't a rather dull RPG where one spends 90% of their time in tit-for-tat battles. And it is the most successful at creating this atmosphere. Even more so than Ocarina of Time, which has an even more Quintessential story line, Twilight Princess achieves this. The Zelda enthusiasts like Ocarina more, partially, I believe, because they find Twilight Princess to be less unique. The story is more unique. But it is true that this new game borrows about half its ideas straight out of ol' Ocarina of Time sometimes without even the slightest modification. If you have played Ocarina of Time, than this one may not really be worth the hours you'll spend playing it. If you've never played a Zelda game, this is a good place to start.

But beware: Zelda games can be outrageously annoying. The story is very linear and it keeps you on track by simply not allowing you, the player, to do certain things if it would interfere with the plot. Even if Link would otherwise be able to do it. Like jumping over a wall, climbing over a grate. Sometimes you will see your destination, and think of a very cleaver way to achieve it, but it isn't the one you are supposed to use, so it will not ever work. Quit trying now. There seem to be more of these you-are-not-allowed-to-do-that moments in this game than in others I have played. For people who like a lot of modern epicly sized games like Morrowind, you will find Zelda to be oppresivly one-dimensioned.

Having some little creature follow you around and tell you what to do is obnoxious as well; as is Link's amazing level of courtesy. There is one puzzle in the game which is only necessary because Link always, always, shuts the door behind him. If he left it open, it would be easy to carry cannon balls everywhere you'd need to go. He always obeys the oppressive thing that follows him and has since Ocarina.

I am impressed that Twilight Princess tries to be more cinematic, and tries to be emotional, but video games don't have enough practice it seems and the game fails. It also suffers from Disney Syndrome where nothing really bad can ever happen.

Spore (2008 Computer Game, Playing on Windows Vista Laptop)

2011-01-25T11:34:00.000-08:00

Spore is a good idea and a fun game at times. But the execution is rather amateur. Actually, the execution is excruciatingly, unplayably amateur. I have come to expect that out of EA, but it is still disappointing.

I have a very high standard for a video game to look up to. If I ever finish playing a video game, then it is usually rated at least 9/10 by most sources. The worst part of Spore, and what renders it worthless, is the control which the player has. If it weren't for the difficulty in doing such simple things as walking forward, then I may have gotten a little farther.

Supposably, this game was retooled before it was released, making it less realistic, more cartoony, less to do with evolution and more casual; I find this a royal disappointment. I would have loved to see Spore developed by Maxis before they were swallowed by the piteousness that is EA

The Secret of Kells (2009 movie)

2011-01-25T11:29:00.002-08:00

The Secret of Kells is a movie that not very many people know about. It was released to small fanfare in America and a very limited theater base. But if anyone has the chance to watch it, you will not be disappointed.

I hope. There isn't very much to be disappointed with in this movie. I would have liked to see more of the forest faery in the story, because I liked her a lot, but the limits put upon her make her more active in your own imagination. Unlike most movies I watch, The Secret of Kells works within the constraints of its length. It manages to move steadily, rather than quickly changing character as it was needed (like the new Alice in Wonderland...) The movie is a work of art, done completely in hand-worked animation without a computer. It is original and very "Beautiful" in more than just its graphics.

The Princess and the Frog (2009 movie)

2011-01-25T11:21:00.000-08:00

Disney's latest for Princesses (in more traditional-looking 2D art style) is the "Best Princess Movie" they have made. It has a prince with his own character and role in the story besides a if-you-marry-him-then-your-life-wont-suck-anymore object; the princess as well has a character more dynamic than ol' belle. I find it, as a whole, to be a little better than their absolute latest princess movie, Tangled. Tangled definitely wasn't a horrible movie, but its vision of proper gender roles is more in line with it's aged brethren and its never-tangled plot disperses whenever the jokes slow down.Its life is in its humor and its running joke potential. It has good characters, but poor character relationships; a dynamic villain, who is not used. The Princess and the Frog doesn't fare much better in plot and romantic development (and even less in romantic development), but it leaves a lot less to be desired than its more expensive antecessor. There are more fun characters, and much better relationships and their villain was never so interesting that I wanted a more unique role for him.

Though, in all honesty, I'm not sure which one is funnier. Tangled was hilarious as long as it stuck to its jokes. It also has a dogish horse as their best character while The Princess and the Frog has a living shadow that would give Peter Pan's a villain on par with Hook.

Porco Rosso (1992 movie)

2011-01-18T12:57:00.000-08:00

If I was more prone to calling anything a "favorite", I would say that Porco Rosso is my favorite Miyazaki movies. Or at least one of my favorites; it is a "Soaring" film. But as Miyazaki can easily be seen as one of the greatest imaginations in film history this would make Porco Rosso (if you accept it as the crown of his body of work) one of the greatest films of all time. But it isn't. If you can navigate your way through this paradox: though Miyazaki is one of my favorite movie makers, and Porco Rosso one of is best accomplishments, it is not, like Totoro and Spirited Away, one of the movies that makes Miyazaki so great.

Which is why I avoid "favorites".

I think what I appreciate about the movie so much is its ending. There are so few movies made today with a working ending. An ending that actually adds something to the story, that doesn't just happen to be when they ran out of tape or time. This is why I am so disheartened to hear that there is a sequel planned. I'd rather see a sequel to Ponyo which I found not more than average. I have no need to ruin a good thing with too much of it, which is what a sequel would do to Porco Rosso (a prequel is concieveable, but it could never match what makes the original good).

But we will see how Miyazaki handles it. He does tend to do things well.

Despite my gravitation to fantasy, what I like about Porco Rosso is its lack of fantasy. Porco Rosso is a good "anime" to show people who do not like anime. It has one fantastical concept, but it isn't actually all that important to the plot. It is just a humorful metaphor (and device. There are many good points about how Porco Rosso isn't really much of a 'pig') And a good one (except that bloody kiss....). Without it, the movie might be a little heavier that would be pleasant. But it doesn't actually affect the way the movie plays out, really. The historical relevance of the movie is also impressive.

Stardust by Neil Gaiman (1998)

2010-12-15T13:10:00.000-08:00

I finally got to read Stardust after having watched and loved the movie. Unfortunately for me, I didn't get to read the one with Charles Vess's illustrations, which vexes me and I am determined to eventually get ahold of a copy of that. Those illustrations are there for a reason, I feel, but, as this book was just left in my basement by an old housemate, I couldn't hardly pass it up.

And indeed, I read it in one sitting. Interrupted by sleeping, but it was still really one sitting. After having read sciency books and environmental stewardship tales (neither of which I am completely through with, though the first is also a very good book) my hunger for a real Book, a Story. Fiction. was insatiable. It may have happened with anything, but Stardust is still a very good story. Very pretty, somewhat simple, enjoyable, but it is a faery tale and it is Neil Gaiman and I have come to expect that.

The book is, here's a shocker, not exactly what the movie was. The movie has some conventions that movies must follow (it has more action, for example) but having watched it first, I suppose it is only natural that the film is my favorite version. Even though I usually don't like movies half as much. It was such an enjoyable movie with such fun characters. The book has a lot of fun as well, but there are less characters and my favorite characters (the pirates) and arcs from the movie aren't really here. Usually it is the other way around, but usually I read the book first as well.

Stardust is unashamedly a romance story. It advertises itself as such and you know it to be one by the end of the first chapter. Thus, you know where this is all going. But like any good romance, there is much more going on than just two people falling in love. There is adventure here and talking trees (Tori Amos, apparently) and the witchcraft of the land of faery. And there is good and humorful prose. As I expected from the first hints of Vess's illustrations, the book is more of a "Faery Story" than the "fairy story" the movie was. I hope this attracts some readers.

One thing I find interesting about the reception of Stardust is how hung up people get on some short sex scene. It is a romance, after all, which leads to The Act. I am not sure Neil was trying to be "daring" with its inclusion, or "dumb". It is no more or less graphic than the violence which inhabits this story, but no one seems to care about that. The story is advertised as a "Faery Story for Adults", but I would give this to a child of 10. They'd love it.

Stardust builds itself up for a picturesque, almost Disneyesque, conclusion and then ends with an almost out-of-place realism. The movie, not written by Gaiman, has an ironically more mythological end and is one of the things I like about it more. But I appreciate the wisdom espoused by the book. It does mean more in a more literary sense.

8 Crazy Nights (2002 movie)

2010-12-14T11:51:00.000-08:00

Adam Sandler has a certain sense of humor which takes some acclimatizing. Like beer, I hear. I have listened to it since I was a wee lad on CDs, so I am somewhat used to it and 8 Crazy Nights was almost nostalgic in the reminiscence to his old talking goat skits.

8 Crazy Nights is a Hanukah-themed version of Charles Dicken's classic A Christmas Carol. There is the story of Hanukah past, showing up as golden memories; there is the Hanukah present, most of the movie; and the threat of the Hanukah which will be... Instead of ghosts, there are advertisements (which says something about out overall culture, I suppose...) And instead of Tiny Tim, there is a disabled old basketball coach. His role is actually a little larger than Tiny Tim's, but he is still a pretty close allegory.

If you do not like fart-humor and poop jokes (or just the word 'poop'), then this might not be a movie you should watch. I liked it, however. It is funny, maybe debasingly so, but it still made me laugh. Especially the songs, some of which I am still singing from time to time. It could have been called "Mr. Hankie's Hanukah" as it is "Crass", animated, musical, about the holidays, and full of poop humor.

8 Crazy Nights does have some emotional moments. One. Or rather, one attempt at such. The character growth is in someways more profound than that of Ebenezer Scrooge, but it is flat and unmoving despite how sad it is. When the movie tries be something besides crass, it falters and fails and is probably why so many people don't like it.

But at least it is light-hearted. In this it succeeds. Though it may not really be appropriate for small children, it is a rather fun movie.

Dumbo (1941 movie)

2010-12-09T14:49:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen Dumbo in over a decade, probably close to two. The most amazing thing about the movie was how short it is. Just over an hour long, it could have just been a Silly Symphonies episode. It is very surprising. The ending just happens about a minute after the climax. If you happen to yawn, you may just miss it. But there are a great many more amazing things about this movie.

Of course, because it is a Disney movie from the forties, music plays a very import role. Like Lady and The Tramp or Snow White, this movie is a choreographed dance. But unlike my natural assumption for Disney movies, this movie doesn't hide from a dark and tormented storyline. There are some rather distressing emotional moments in this film that Micky (not really, but yeah, it's Micky.) smooths over quickly. And it does end very peachily. It has stereotyped a lot of different people and seems to have an aversion to showing that black people do, indeed, have faces.

I am not sure who this movie was marketed to. It doesn't seem to be something that children would really get. Besides the colors and the face on the train (and a flying elephant), there is little here for them. But it is also a little squeaky for have much marketability to an older audience. Maybe it was different back then; perhaps Walt was trying to gauge how much a feature-length cartoon could get away with. I think the best thing to call it is a "Silly Symphony" of a movie. Which is definitely not a bad thing, but not at all what I remembered it being from when I was 2.

Now I just need to go back and watch Bambi.

Joe Dirt (2001 movie)

2010-12-08T14:33:00.000-08:00

Joe Dirt is just as campy, corny, cheesy, and funny as you would expect a movie with David Spade in a mullet to be. I like it. It doesn't fail to be entertaining and it even manages to be somewhat poignant. There is nothing in our culture more vilified than a mullet (besides maybe a turban right now). This movie acknowledges that and bullies back against those who trash talk the hairdo. Then it waxes philosophical about being positive.

It has a lot of "Fun" doing it. Watch Joe Dirt if you like hicky humor, some sex jokes, and a completely impossible story line. This is a movie about being fun and about entertainment. It is not about the story, it is about the jokes; it is not meticulous; it doesn't employ it's soundtrack; it doesn't really care about its acting, as long as the delivery is good. It is no wonder critics don't like it, but most people should have a good time with it.

Blast from the Past (1999 movie)

2010-12-02T09:53:00.000-08:00

My first thought was that the writers of Blast from the Past would glorify the 50's as if it was our undisputed golden age. While there is a little of that, the movie also makes light of the stupidities of the age. It also does a decent job of depicting what a hapless man would be like if he were released into society without any previous social contact. Though it is more funny then that would actually be. The movie is not realistic, thankfully, but the characters in this film are more stable than most movie citizens and the plot stays true to the world that it created rather than pander to genre contentions.

I really like Brendan Frasier romantic comedies for this very reason. Conventions are boring and most romantic comedies are so suffocated under the pile that's accumulated that they are rarely different stories. Seen one, seen 'em all; just like a car explosion. While Blast from the Past isn't quite as unique as Bedazzled in this regard, it is still new enough to be "Very Fun".

Aside from that, there is little spectacular about the movie. It is pretty standard fare as far as production values are concerned and Frasier's acting is... um, appropriate for the character, I suppose, but it feels like an excuse. The makers have a lot to say on the subject of religion, but it's abstract enough that I am not sure exactly what it is. They do have fun with this most ingrained and fascinating feature of human societies.

Tangled (2010 movie)

2010-11-30T16:25:00.000-08:00

Disney's new Tangled starts off a little slow, and finishes a overly predictably, and has pretty much exactly the plot you would expect. But it is told so very, very well. This movie has mastered the running gag. There are several and they are all very funny. But this is only the beginning of Tangled's brilliance.

All of its brilliance is in the humor. It is filled with dry wit and physical humor to satisfy anyone but the grouchy lady who sat in front of me and demanded that I shut up my laughter. She was funny too. If the movie had stuck there, it would have been straight through brilliant. But, it doesn't. It falters once or twice when it tries to be sincerely romantic. It fails worse than a pick-up line on a park bench.

Tangled is a movie designed to resurrect the Disney princess in the age of computer animation and pre-teen puberty. It takes a little from Shrek, a little from How to Train Your Dragon, and doesn't quite measure up to either. Though it is a little funnier than Mike Myers' movie, it wont have the replay value. It's linage, while supplying some very choice jokes, is the greatest detraction from an otherwise wonderful film. It holds it back. Rapunzel will join Belle and Cinderella among Disney's best, but will likewise be remembered as just a princess with scarily large eyes.

But it is very, very Funny. "Hilarious". If that is what you are here for, you will not be disappointed.

Short Analysis:

In the very end, they had a good joke. It wasn't a great joke. It is a somewhat old joke. But I was disappointed that they killed it. It ends with the same narration that begins the movie, that of the hero-man Eugene. And he says that, after asking and asking him to marry her, he finally says yes to Rapunzel. Ha ha. But immediately re-establishes the expected norm by saying, no, he did actually ask her.

What a pisser.

Lilo and Stitch (2002 movie)

2010-11-30T15:39:00.000-08:00

Lilo and Stitch looked to me, through the last 8 years, to be a fairly basic movie with an odd little alien gremlin thing in it. So a Disney movie with a gremlin. Disney does make a lot of good movies, always has, but rarely are their movies very spectacular. This particular movie does unique visual style, and I did hear a lot of good things about it, but Disney is best at presentation so that didn't mean much.

My skepticism wasn't unfounded, but I should have seen it a long time ago. Lilo and Stitch is a "Very Good" movie. I would go so far as to say it is one of the best movies Disney has ever made. It does suffer from some of the problems inherent in being a Disney movie (enough sap to sting my cavities) but the film is still new enough and deep enough to stand on its own as a pretty brilliant flick. It has it's own style, a good starting point, but what really sells the movie is the sense of humor. It reminded me a little of The Iron Giant.

The humor is just the beginning and the end of what makes this a great movie. The characters which populate the environment are dynamic and engaging with some realistic problems to deal with. And they navigate these problems as they should. But despite being a little dismal in plot, Lilo and Stitch manages to tell the story in a very fun and engaging way. The plot is tightly woven with patterns that re-enforce each other but aren't just echos rebounding off of each other. The film is done an injustice by its ending, but it's hard to blame anyone for that. No one can get a good ending now-a-days, not even the famous Harry Potter (epilogues suck). But it ties up well enough that I am very disappointed there are sequels.

The final bow on this package is the music. Unfortunately, it is a little peripheral. No one bothered to integrate it, as music was in much older movies. But it makes a beautiful bow. It is worth unwrapping this package just to listen to it.

Bug (2006 movie)

2010-11-24T07:31:00.000-08:00

As the director points out, one doesn't really know where the plot of Bug is going if they haven't seen it before. It is creepy, dark, twisted, sometimes humorous, sick, demented, erotic, paranoid, and schizophrenic film. And it raises more questions than it ever answers. Stuff happens, and you never can quite tell why or exactly what it was, even by the end.

As impressive as that is, I didn't enjoy my time with it, per se; but I sorta almost like it. It is a good movie, I suppose it would be hard to dispute that. Despite the fact that I thought I was watching some amateur, low-brow horror in the beginning. That sense gradually disappears into something else. Very else.

To give you a sense of what you are getting into if you decide to try out the trip that is Bug, this is the same well-respected Hollywood director who created The Exorcist and The French Connection. I haven't seen the latter, but there are some similarities to the former that I can see now that I know. He is an older director and this movie doesn't really fit it with the current film-making style in Hollywood; especially featuring big name actors like Ashley Judd and Harry Connick Jr.. It has more similarities with contemporary plays or '70s film making.

The acting in the film is very good. I can appreciate that now. In the beginning, I thought it was some cheese-ball movie, as I said, but the characters flesh out into something quite dynamic. Almost too dynamic. But as everyone is bleeding crazy, it all still makes sense. This could be seen as a cop-out, crazy people are easy. Generally. In drama, it is probably a little more difficult. There is still a thin line to straddle, the character shouldn't be so extreme they turn the audience away, but still be unique. Considering Bug's usual review, they seem to have done that, however.

The sound in the movie is requisitely creepy to keep a very paranoid movie "Paranoid". If you like a good psycological thriller, Bug may be your bag.

Life of Brian (1979, rewatched)

2010-11-22T07:41:00.000-08:00

I love Monty Python. I find them hilarious. And while the Life of Brian isn't as out-loud laughably funny as their Quest for the Holy Grail, it has some very funny scenes and the best ending of a Monty Python feature! Hell, most any movie.

Life of Brian almost stands as one continuous story, it's less sketchy than their other films (and their show, of course) and the 'sketches' more like actual 'scenes'. This is unique for Monty Python and I like it. But the troupe is obviously not very used to the idea. It's a great movie, with wonderful quotable moments, but less of them than the Holy Grail.

X-Men Evolution, season 3 (TV series, remote background knowledge)

2010-11-15T09:31:00.000-08:00

X-Men Evolution is a return to the days of the X-Men when they were still young. In high school, actually. So it is a re-telling and re-envisioning. Some of the characters have change a little in their, um, character; but are still recognizable for who they are. The show is far deeper than the early comics were, are more in line with the later comics, but are a little less action oriented, which I appreciate. Though there are still scenes with Wolverine just going berserk and random, apparently pointless, fights with devastating effects on the local cityscape.

There are some characters who are new as well. Spyke is a new character in this universe and Season 3 is the first appearance of a character known as X-23 who has since spread to other X-Men universes and was even included in the recent movies.

The show is "Fun" and I'd like to see a little more of it. And compare and contrast it to the other long-running, critically acclaimed animated Superhero shows like Batman, Superman, and Marvel's own, Spiderman. And, of course, the canon X-Men: The Animated Series. Perhaps that's too geeky for a rating of 'fun'...

The series opens with the conclusion to some great conflict from the previous season, and ends with a similar (but of course greater) cliff-hanger. All very important for anything to do with action super-heroes. Or anything on television, actually. But the best episodes are more intimate and more quietly enjoyable.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009 movie)

2010-11-08T19:41:00.000-08:00

I really expected something else from this movie. Perhaps that's the reason I didn't like it, or at least part of the reason, but Where the Wild Things Are is a bit too much of a roller-coaster for me. It reminded me (just a little, mind) of Wild Animus which annoyed me so much I didn't finish it. I try not to be judgmental, but that book isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A good summary of what I read: Oh, life sucks... Im gonna go walk in the snow; oh! life is grand! Oh, we love each other more than anyone could ever love anyone else-- Oh.. it probably wont work... But Oh! We love each other so much... Let's break up. Oh life sucks but is so awesome!

Where the Wild Things Are isn't half so annoying, but it does boil down to being dramatic for drama's sake. I like comedy for the sake of comedy, but drama is a little different. Drama isn't enjoyable without due cause and while there is some point in this film, it isn't accessible enough for my taste. This movie feels a little hashed together. A little looser than it could have been. A little more tiresome than I'd like. All of the characters are like 7 year olds having tantrums. While all the characters look cool, and are reminiscent of Maurice Sendak's drawings, they don't actually have enough character of their own. They are all just sides of the main character, Max.

The movie is too long for telling too short of an actual story. I think the best rating for it is to say that it "Doesn't Have Enough Character". Surficially, there is a lot of character, but deeper, its vapid and obnoxious.

I was disappointed.

Resilience (WSC original play, Friday, Nov 5, 2010)

2010-11-08T19:12:00.000-08:00

The first play I saw performed at Western State College was an attempt at Amadeus. It was... pretty... bad. Not that the attempt wasn't a little admirable, but the department wasn't quite capable of pulling it off. Trying to do a play about Mozart when you don't have a good enough relationship with your own music department to have a Real soprano instead of a recording that cuts in a second after the actress begins singing isn't the greatest idea.

Western probably still isn't capable of doing Amadeus. Especially with their main stages all broken apart for remodel. But the department is getting better and better. I especially like it when they try something original. Their latest play, entitled Resilience and written by professor Paul A. Edwards (and his ensemble) at making their own stuff. Resilience, written by professor Paul A. Edwards, was impressive. It was humorful, it was artistic, it was entertaining. All the while having philosophical and political implications. "Enjoyable and Thought-Provoking". What else is there to put into a play?

Acting. Good acting. 'Tis the weakness at Western State College. The students aren't bad actors, though some of them border it from time to time, but they aren't as impressive as the writers in the Gunnison valley. Which, apparently, are them.

As this play probably will not be seen in its entierty again for a while, if ever, by anyone who wasn't involved in its production and has a DVD, I don't feel bad about Analysing the work for a bigger portion of this review:

First, Resilience is a story about a small town TV station, its employees, and their little domestic lives in a slow-moving mountain town. With characters who are, by and large, not very slow moving. Going with this theme, there were old '50s commercials shown between each scene which turn out to be the plays best joke and compositional element. The audience laughed harder at that then at anything in the play. And harder at that than I have heard most audiences laugh at anything. The advertising techniques they used back then are pretty silly.

The other simple and running gag in the play was a hyper-actively tweaked producer who doesn't have any idea how bloody crazy she is. She gets a little tiresome by the end, but is an important key in the play.

The second big plot element in the play is the romantic story between an over-worked employee of the TV station who is slowly turning into her crazy boss and a local and green t-shirt maker who's running apprehensively for County Commissioner.

Underneath all of it is a theme of "Sustainability" because Edwards wanted to write a play that has to do with WSC's "Year of Sustainability". It is faithful in its depictions of reality. I especially like the scene where some peace-loving 'hippies' (for lack of a better word) throw their recyclable cups away right after the restaurateur told them of her new recycling system! The play was full of little points like that, including the final climatic crux: for the station's "Be Local" campaign, they ordered t-shirts off line.

...Even though her beau is a t-shirt maker....

Ooops.

Despite how trite that sounds, the play is well woven and reminds me a little of plays by Arthur Miller. I quite enjoyed it and hope that other little theaters in little towns play it someday.

Frankenstein (1994 movie, post read a long, long time ago)

2010-11-04T18:45:00.000-07:00

It really is the first, or most famous, Zombie story. Mary Shelley supposedly won a personal contest between Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley with Frankenstein for it being scary. However, the movie that was filmed in 1994 based, fairly closely, on the book is not a 'horror' movie. It is not filmed to be particularly scary; not in the instantaneous, creepy way that is expected in a horror movie and not to a modern audience.

Still, the concept should be more scary in todays world than in Shelley's: Science has become pretty much as arrogant as her novel predicts. We aren't re-animating people, but we do have a few wackos trying to 'cure' aging. Which could be an even scarier story. But still not in the 'horror' genre style.

Perhaps I am being to limiting to the genre, but Frankenstein feels more like a dark, scary, and a little gory drama movie and it drops the scariest element of Shelley's book. The 'monster' is vilified far more than Victor is, though he is rather stupid. Everything is grandiose, white and clean or dirty and evil, and very "Melodramatic". There were a few movies made in this visual style in the 90's and 00's, such as Van Helsing or Underworld; but it also reminds me a little of Kill Bill, though that was at least supposed to be a parody (I hope...).

I don't really like the movie. Victor Frankenstein is a little too much of a retarded scientific genius for me. The plot moves forward mostly because of his idiocy (which I don't remember from the book, but it has been several years) or for some sort of dramatic confrontation. But, it is cheaply entertaining. I would like to see the Old One.

Analysis (spoilers will follow):

In the end of the movie, Victor wants to save his late wife because she died when he took both pistols out of the room with him to hunt his monster instead of just staying there with his weapons and protecting her. So he decides to cut off her head, with her brain in it, and sew it on to the corpse of one of their friends.

When next you see her, There are jagged scars running over her face just like his first creature. Now, I wonder, why are those there? Just to make her look horrid and deformed? Why would you need to do anything to her face? Her head had all the components you could possibly want for a head. It was just her body that was without a heart.

This is what I mean by 'melodramatic' action. Most parts of the film are done for their dramatic potential as long as the audience isn't thinking too much or completely ready to accept anything the movie offers. My own ability to suspend disbelief is pretty good, but I would like a little credit for being a thoughtful individual.

Silent Hill (2006 movie, never played the game)

2010-11-04T18:23:00.000-07:00

Out of the three horror movies I watched around Halloween, The Exorcist, Frankenstein, and Silent Hill, the last was, by far, the most scary.

I didn't go into it expecting much from the movie. It was adapted off of a video game, after all, and those rarely go very well (I would mention Alone in the Dark, but I haven't actually seen it). But I was surprised. Not only is Silent Hill a scary movie, but it is fairly thought provoking, has some philosophical elements, and succeeds in being entertaining.

Silent Hill is almost entirely populated by women. If anyone has any feminist ideals, you could take this good or ill: on the one hand, it's a horror movie with a bunch of helpless women, no wonder everything's going wrong; on the other, these aren't weak women. Half of them are the evil powers, one or another, and the other half are the rescuing powers.

I hope that doesn't spoil anything. The eventual cruxes of the plot are reveled in a little spot of narration, which is really the biggest problem with this film. They couldn't figure out how to reveal everything without just sidetracking and telling you what happened. It's also a little weird when they use some computer-animated footage from the game. Sometimes, this is unnoticeable, but often it is a little distracting.

Silent Hill is a "Damn Creepy" movie and I found it to be really rather good. However, there don't seem to be a lot of people who share my view, so perhaps proceed with caution.

The Exorcist (1973 movie)

2010-11-02T12:45:00.000-07:00

The first horror movie I watched this Halloween season was the famous Exorcist. The version never seen in theaters!, apparently, with extended material and whatnot.

It is a "Freaky Movie". The soundtrack, which isn't so much 'music' as horrific noise, lends itself to creepy-ness just as well as 'subliminal messages' accomplished with watermarks and flashes of satanic, demonic images. But at it's core, the Exorcist is about a child being grossly abused which makes all but the most psychotic a little uncomfortable.

The movie starts slowly enough. Setting the stage a few thousand miles from where the story actually takes place. However, this somewhat unconventional approach works well, especially when it is in the mystical and dangerous landscape of the middle east. The birth of Judeo-Christian religion as well as Western Society in general.

The movie makes me wonder, idly, if it is because of Horror movies like this that there is such a hatred of anything christian. It's been associated with the squirmy feelings of a horror movie, even if they are (usually) battling the forces of darkness. Watching Silent Hill a few days later just made this thought more prevalent in my mind.

Short Analysis (spoilers):

Especially since the Exorcist doesn't actually have the warriors of God win, really. Not through their faith. Despite all of its christian symbolism, it doesn't make a stance that Christianity is the true religion opposed to such dastardly things. The priest has to go to the point of killing himself; taking the demon into his own body and then destroying it to rid the girl of her possession.

A reappearance of Christian themes, but the demon won.

I suppose there aren't a lot of Horror movies with happy endings...

Spirited Away (2001 movie)

2010-11-01T18:47:00.000-07:00

Another film from Hayao Miyazaki, another testament to his ardor for the environment.

Another brilliant work in its own right.

Of course Spirited Away is a good movie. Many people consider it Hayao's best movie out of a very impressive lineup. It is up there, but I still like Totoro a little more for it's quietness. Totoro is a very contented movie.

Spirited Away is halfway between the two types of movies I have seen from Miyazaki: his epic fantasy movies set in a more unearthly environment and his 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies. The 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies are more homey feeling, even though I have never been to Japan. They usually have more dynamic, less extreme personalities populating the animated landscape.

Spirited Away moves from earth to the spirit world (faery) and then back again. It has a very similar balance between fantasy and reality as one would see in a Neil Gaiman work (such as Coraline). It is very good at pulling emotion out of the viewer as Chihiro, the main character, reacts as one would expect as her world begins to be destroyed around her. That doesn't mean that this is a sad movie (throughout), for she adapts and grows and becomes much stronger.

The movie means a lot of things. Some of them blatantly, some of them not so much. It has an ideology which it pushes, but it also has characters who have purposes and motives and things just happen, like in real life. There are a lot of lessons which can be learned here.

The Little Rascals (1994 movie)

2010-10-27T09:44:00.000-07:00

The point of The Little Rascals is almost entirely to watch cute little kids between 4 and 9 playing on your TV screen a little more large than they ever would in real life. And for what ever reason utterly without parental appearance.

They are cast as acting like grown-ups, which is the source of the humor in the movie.

That sounds a little cynical, but it isn't. That's just what the movie is. It is a "cute, funny, quick and entertaining" movie. It succeeds in everything it tries to do.

Nightcrawler (2004 comic series, 12 issues)

2010-10-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

A normal comic is under a great weight of awful responsibility. It publishes serially but continuously, so that, in issue 65432, it must at once cater to readers who have been with it since the very first page of issue 1 but also consider people who have never read a previous issue nor heard of any of the characters.

It is a rather constraining box. Thinking within a box (of some sort) may improve one's creativity, but this one is a little tight. I like a good mini-series more. The Nightcrawler mini-ish series ("Limited Series" I suppose) isn't for someone who doesn't know that Wolverene has three claws coming out of the back of his hand (or fist, depending on your artist), or that he has friends called Cyclops and Storm because you will be introduced to a good dozen of characters really quickly. But you don't need to know all that much more. I never knew much about Nightcrawler before this escapade, nor even the X-Men in general outside the movies and 20 year old cartoons which I haven't seen in... 20 years. But the story is kind enough to go over his background and elucidate happenings within the X-Men without being too heavy on the exposition.

It is actually quite a "Fun" series and I find it stimulating to my imagination. The characters are so exaggerated and the adventures are visual and simple. The story isn't so complex, tight, and brilliant as something like Watchmen, but it is still interesting. I red the entire thing in one night.

Then read some of the old 60's comics... Oh my. Well, Marvel was a lot better than DC at the time, but it still was, uh, immature as a medium. The prose is 'the most laughable prose ever penned to paper!' (the exclamation point is important. They put 'em after everything!).

This Nightcrawler series is complete enough in itself to work as a stand-alone story. It is composed of three interconnected story arcs which don't appear to be interconnected in the beginning. The series is not consistently reiterating what each characters "super powers" are, how something was possible, what happened in the last issue. Blah, blah, blah. It shows you instead and assumes that you've read the entire series and for that I am grateful and which separates it from those 60's comics. It also isn't just a huge fight scene with a loose, crappy story holding it together like the first issue of an "X-4" cross-over comic. Which I can't even find a good link for. The art is fine, though it pails in comparison to the cover, even if there isn't a great amount of consistency with how the characters look and all the women have back-breaking busts.

Lady and the Tramp (1955 movie, rewatched)

2010-10-18T17:33:00.000-07:00

Like many movies from the fifties, but especially all of Walt Disney's "Masterpieces", Lady and the Tramp has an impressive focus on its score. Far more so than what one sees now-a-days, which is one of my repeating, repeating and constant laments. It is nice to see an old movie where not only the atmosphere, but individual character movements are choreographed with music. Where the sounds that they make are integrated with the score. The music is built around what is said, what is done, integral sound effects, and everything, really, so that it acts as the major supporting framework of the movie.

It is not a bad way to make a movie. Some people are visual, some are auditory. Disney was probably both. But even visual people (most visual people) like music. It has this weird quality to it: utterly abstracted from normal reality. It 'mimics' less that you'd find in the outside world than a Pollock paining, and yet it is not only instantly accessible to most everyone, it is also powerfully moving. Directly connected to the emotions; so predictable, it can create a mood more quickly and easily than anything else. It is somewhat bizarre that it works, if ya think about it, but in the end, it does. Which is neat.

But it can overshadow a script. If you get over the brainwashing done on you by the score, you might notice that Lady and the Tramp's script is a little... strange. If you go back over it, there are many instances where something doesn't quite make sense. As if they changed it a little, but not all the way. Well, that's exactly what they did to much of this movie.

It isn't all that noticeable. What is more noticeable is the layers of depth that were part of it for such a simply story in essence. As the title implies, Lady and the Tramp is a 'Beauty-and-the-Beast Story' (as opposed to a Cinderella Story). It comes off remarkably well. But it was one of my favorite movies when I was young, so perhaps I'm a little biased. Still, it's a pretty "Good" movie if you ignore some of the implications of a Beauty-and-the-Beast Tale...

Analysis (spoilers will probably follow):

All our childerens cartoons come up against some pretty unfair scrutiny sometimes. But then, you always end up wondering what someone'll get out of a story. The Little Mermaid has a girl gettin' the guy because she shows up naked and mute. "Kiss the Girl 'cuz she shore can't say no right now". Hm. The Lion King vilifies the only Lion willing to bridge inter-species gaps with the Hyenas. Doesn't help that he's the only "black" lion. What's this say about tolerance. Cinderella stories reinforce the very untrue myth that you can become a ruler from meek servitude and poverty, even though that is despicably unlikely. "Beauty-and-the-Beast" stories tell girls that they can tame that tramp. Change the man into who they want them to be.

But as our conventional wisdom tell's us, you can't expect to change anyone. Guy or girl, it's better to find someone you like for who they are.

Which sounds so simple, yet it obviously isn't.

How good of a house pet would Tramp really make? He did knock over that baby-carriage, no matter how mean that little rat looked. And he plays it up, too, making his paw look broken. This guy fought off three vicious dogs without breakin' a sweat and one little rat's gonna break his foot?

It takes a horse carriage to do that to Trusty.

But I really don't want to bash the movie all that much. My rant is though.

Stress: Portrait of a Killer (National Geographic Documentary Film, )

2010-10-18T16:53:00.000-07:00

What's fascinating about Stress: Portrait of a Killer is how it 'paints a portrait' of what stress is and what causes it as though it is sympathetic and interested in lowering the overall stress found in modern society, yet the film is very good at giving you more. It doesn't really offer solutions to how stressed you may be, other than: "get ahead already! Being subordinate is killing you!" which isn't really all that helpful. Most people would already like to 'get ahead' if they knew how.

But the documentary is enlightening and provides a few de-stressing details such as: if you help people, you gan decrease the symptoms of aging and over-stressing.

Yay! Saved? No? Well, you're probably not very different from anyone else. We live with a lotta stress. Perhaps we should think about that and begin to impose some societal changes. Make the world a little better place, eh?

The Muppet Movie (1979)

2010-10-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

How did Sweetums arrive at the screening of the movie late when he was already there "taking chairs" in the beginning?

Not that this matters in The Muppet Movie, a film which uses it's own script as a plot device. This is Jim Henson humor, using the opportunity to tell whatever joke comes to mind. Plays on words such as 'Fork in the Road' and 'Hopping Mad'. A lot of people call it 'corny', but I love my puns. I like the muppets and their surrealistic humor!

But who can hate the muppets? They are so "Innocent and Funny"! Sure they teach kids to slack off in school by the end, but it's not Sesame Street. Just because it's 'innocent' doesn't mean it's completely benign. It was always an adult variety show; it just casts colorful puppet with even more brightly colored personalities. Muppets are not subtle in who they are and who they parody. From the hippy chick guitar playing Janice (who really was ahead of her time; she's probably funnier to people outside Hollywood now) to Piggy the Diva. One can usually tell that everyone's dialog was written by the same people because everyone has the same sense of humor. Which is enjoyable.

Another thing they do well is music. Like Disney but very different. Henson inspires less criticism, has less controversy, about his creations. Muppets inspire a warm-fuzzy feeling which is hard to say anything unfriendly about. There is a reason they persist so strongly even though their creator has long since met his demise. Kermit is almost older than Jim ever got. More's the pity.

Plus it's got about a thousand guest appearances from Richard Pryor to Bob Hope.

Night Kite Revival (slam poetry at Western State College, Sept 27, 2010)

2010-09-30T11:03:00.000-07:00

This years version of the Elephant Engine High Dive Revival: The Night Kite Revival. Buddy Wakefield, Derrick Brown and Anis Mojgani are the "core members" of The Poetry Revival, which changes its name every year. This year, at Western State College, there was a little starker cast: only three poets; but they did have a musician: Timmy Straw. Timmy didn't have as many performances as the three poets, but added background music to nearly every poem that was always spot-on appropriate. Timmy seems to prefer the piano to all the instruments s/he can play, and is so impressively gender-neutral I am unsure of what descriptor to use. Her singing has a soft, unarticulated quality which makes more of the music than the lyrics. However, from what little I could catch of the lyrics in one listen, they aren't empty songs.

The show was a very well spent two hours, but I still missed Robbie Q. Telfer and Shira Erlichman. They were some of my favorite performers. They mix humor with wisdom very skillfully and effectively. I take my humor very seriously, and The Poetry Revival does as well, but only Buddy Wakefield is as humorful as young Robbie. This night, less humor came out than on previous shows I have seen, and less power came as well. At least for me. It wasn't my favorite reading. Partly because of how much actual reading was done during performances. It limits what the performer can do; the best works are ones unencumbered by a page.

The show's still a tear-jerker; not because it's sad, but because it is so uplifting. That is what their poetry is about.

Buddy Wakefiled has a style which is oft copied. It is no wonder he gets so mad at people posting "you-tubes" of his performances. There was a slew of them from this night (which I'm grateful for because they helped me get Timmy's name! I had forgotten and it was surprisingly difficult to find) and they have already vanished. He is an accessible performer, usually telling a story with vibrant imagery. But it's easy to tell where he is and what he's talking about.

Which isn't always true for either Derrick or Anis. Derrick's first poem, about being a weather man (he was an awesome one, by the way), was very accessible, and one of my favorites, but he read from a page more than any other performer. Aw well. He can obviously have fun wherever and whatever he was doing and was a thusly fun on the stage.

Anis has a unique delivery that is far from all his own. It is the sound of every mystical, feel-good delivery ever. I kinda like it. With Timmy backing him up, he sounds a little like that Baz Luhrmann advice thing that's so ever popular. But he has my favorite delivery. For his style of poetry.

If you've never seen a Poetry Revival, they are better than most stand-up comedy shows, funnier than most concerts, sexier than most trombones, and smarter than any lecture. Definitely a "Must See", if there is any such thing.

Ponyo (2008 movie)

2010-09-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

What an interesting version of The Little Mermaid Ponyo makes. It is so much truer to the original than the good ol' Disney Version. Consequently, really, it is far from my favorite Studio Ghibli film. It avoids all those thorny issues brought up by Anderson and Disney Studios (highlighted by some skits by Adam Grabowski) such as: she just became human and can't talk, and how much younger than that guy is she? Wrong on so many levels. At least to our current society.

In Ponyo, the 'prince' and the 'mermaid' are at least both, like, four (or "five", whatever). But that is pretty young to be making "big decisions" that will, of course, save the entire freaking world, man!

Other than that, Ponyo suffers from a consistent problem with a lot of literature that comes out of japan: there's a ton of exposition. Perhaps people just talk like that in Japan, there are some cultural differences, but I've never heard it. It always breaks me out of the story to hear a character telling another something like, "you're my daughter, because I'm your father; I was there when you were born on the 13 of December, 2005 which makes you five years old! Did you know you were 5 years old?"

As with any Hayao Miyazaki movie, there are some environmental overtones which I always appreciate. But none of it makes sense here. Love is cool and all, but it isn't going to save the world from a bizarre release of Devonian creatures. It was kinda spiffy to see them animated out, and watch a five year old swimming with them, but just because it was "the age of fish", doesn't mean an explosion of aquatic life will lead to some sort of necessary 'devolution'.

Ponyo is a fun movie, it's about as good as it can be, but it is itself something of a "Devolution" from Hayao's older movies. I would rather see Howl's Moving Castle.

Adam Grabowski (comedian, September 23 at Western State College)

2010-09-25T22:14:00.000-07:00

"Like, really? I don't know. Really. I have no idea."

That's what you will hear at an Adam Grabowski show. About 277 times. "Life is harder of me" was a segment he did, along with a short beg to believe that these things actually happen to him.

Apart from that, he has some good jokes. Adam can be very funny when he isn't pleading with his audience or humbling himself with his favorite phrase ("I really don't know. I have No. I. Dea."). A lot of people have built in humbling phrases or actions (mine, actually, is "I don't know", along with "I think this might just could maybe be possible but I could be wrong"), but they should be weeded from performances or any kind. I hope he doesn't say that so often when he's substitute teaching.

Adam tells a lot of jokes about men and women, and about picking up women, which are unpalatable to a great many people. Like any comedian, he can offend. Also, like most comedians, he has good points about stupid stuff that people do. He doesn't touch on really "important" issues, he isn't one of those comedians who makes you laugh and then leaves you with some deep thoughts, which disappoints me (especially when his tag line was "Comedian and Life Commentator"), but he elicits laughs.

he seems very personable, and a nice person in his post-show demeanor. He just needs to work on his delivery. Stop saying "I don't know", I understand he

He can be "Funny", but he is little more than that.

Aliens of the Deep (2005 documentary, extended version)

2010-09-25T22:11:00.000-07:00

You might expect Aliens of the Deep to be about underwater animals. It is, but that is not it's all about. Not even what it is mostly about. Mostly, it is about science and the scientists who believe in it. Then, it's about space (the final frontier!) and how cool it would be to find life on Europa. Only then it is about underwater exploration and the life that is down there. That provides eye-candy, tangible mystery, and a story. But it is James Cameron's metaphor because he hasn't successfully taken his cameras to space.

Yet.

If you want to see a documentary that's more about sea creatures, look for them by the Nature Channel, Discovery, or National Geographic. It wont have the cinematography, the Hollywood flare, or the human angle, and it wont have the budget that Cameron and Disney can bring to a documentary. It may have more science explained, but it also, actually, wont be as thoroughly explained.

Aliens of the Deep is a very informative movie and it can also be entertaining. Cameron made the movie so that you get to see it as if you were there. On a scientific expedition funded by the entertainment industry--which has so much more to give than any science foundation in existence.

In the process, it showcases the brilliance of humanity, what we can achieve, what we have achieved, and our total lack of wisdom. "Unwise Intelligence". After countless hours developing the technology, building the submarines, taking them out onto the ocean, cutting out the wall of the ship because the A-frame crane broke, we venture into an alien world, untouched by humanity! And it is beautiful. And like a child on the beach, we say, "Wow. Let's take it home!" So we cut it out and put it in a jar. Sometimes, we remember the air holes, sometimes we don't even bother and would just like the carcass to dissect.

How else'll we learn! We have to learn about these animals on earth before we do this somewhere else in the universe. Before we can go invade another world to study it's citizens... It's the same frustrating arrogance which is attacked by the makers of the blockbuster Avatar.

Which was, uh, James Cameron....

Crazy.

This is how we learn. And knowledge is valuable. And it is valuable for people to know what goes into our knowledge. Facts which are conveniently ignored by most animal documentaries. But there is a time to ask when the knowledge is worth it. Animal testing teaches us many things, but none of it helps dogs. Perhaps we should leave them alone. I cannot shake the feeling that exploring another world for life is as misguided as trying to "cure" aging.

What if we accidentally poison it with our presence?

The Education of Little Tree (1997 movie)

2010-09-24T08:02:00.000-07:00

It is immediately apparent, after finishing the movie The Education of Little Tree, that there was a book. It is "Inexpertly Abridged" in it's movie which glosses though everything so quickly and with such fleeting or nonexistent transitions that it feels like five, or so, independent stories -- and could have been so many short films instead of one feature. It was originally intended as a made-for-TV movie. Things go so quickly that "The Education of" could have been scratched from the title without missing anything. It's supposed original title is "Me and Granpa" and could have worked better for Granpa is the most developed, or at lest interesting, character. He's like Crocodile Dundee but he likes his knife more. And drinks whiskey. And lived in the 20's.

There are some very good parts to The Education of Little Tree, and some good things to say, but it is also hyper-romantic about Native Americans. Which in itself can be good and bad. The author of the book, Asa Earl "Forrest" Carter, convinced himself that he was part Indian and the grown-up Little Tree when in reality he used to be a segregationist politician and member of the KKK. It is good that he (apparently) learned that white people aren't the "Master Race", a little ironic that he now (apparently) believes that Cherokees are, and good that he learned the value of living frugally. But he never did live in the mountains, he lived in Texas and Alabama. This does a disservice to the Cherokees, this over-romantic view, but it also does a service. Forrest himself is the proof of that--even if he lied about his past and claimed this story as a memoir. This attitude can garner respect, but a cheapened, unreal respect based on falsities. Likewise, if his memoir is fake, then perhaps his kernels of wisdom about frugal mountain living are just as fictional.

Who wants that?

Well, a lot of people. But it is not as nice as respect based on who you actually are. And I believe in his living ideals, not in those he held as Asa Carter. His transformation was positive, if not perfect, and his story is largely wise, if not perfect. Besides, there's a hilarious scene with a frog, some funny stuff about politics (especially interesting considering his background as a speech writer) and shoes. And some stark truth to the Carlisle-esque Indian re-education schools. The movie just isn't told with the greatest degree of skill.

The Theif Lord by Cornelia Funke (2000 - 2002, English translation)

2010-09-22T08:23:00.000-07:00

I began reading The Thief Lord after I had gotten to page 52 in Good News by Edward Abbey. After page 52, it skipped to page 85... so I decided to get another copy. Unlike Plane and Normal, Good News is worth finding a new copy and finishing. Abbey was a brilliant and concientious writer. Entertaining and literarily unique. He could string sentences almost like Poe.

The Thief Lord was up against that competition. One thing that can be said for it is that the ending is different. Very un-American. But it was originally published in German, a fact well concealed by the publisher, doing a disservice to Cornelia, the translator Oliver Latsch, and the reader. I will always wonder how good the original is, but the translation is not nearly impressive enough for me to read it in another language. This book is largely unimpressive and it is an easy book to find errors in. Descriptions can be "Nonsensical" at best, often distracting, and it is a mystery why so many people in Italy, or who grew up in Germany, are constantly speaking in English. The plot is lusterless, the characters drab. Interactions are sparse. Unlike the renown Harry Potter, which is appealing far outside it's original age group, this book can't stand under scrutiny from an elder audience.

And though it could be interesting and a good read for a 12 year old, there may be some messages they can get which would be unfavorable. Such as: being a runaway street rat is fun!

The general problem with this book is that Cornelia tells you one thing (Victor Getz is a great detective) and shows you something else (a bumbling fool - but that's only one example). The plot is standard and predictable, even though characters aren't well developed, you can easily assume where things are going. And yet the setting is difficult to nail down. Though the book is set in "modern" Venice, I felt like I was somewhere between the 21st and the 19th century. Until they start pulling out cell-phones and motor boats.

Movie theaters don't stand out like a "child among grown ups", but this book certainly does. I wanted to read Inkheart, after watching the movie, but this book, by the same author, makes me much less enthusiastic (but I suppose there could be a better translator).

Analysis (spoilers will follow):

The Thief Lord starts out stronger than it ends. Cornelia takes her time, character interact a little better, it hasn't devolved into clichéd relationships yet. There is unique imagery, sometimes, but often because it doesn't really work.

She talks about the "magic" of Venice. So I suppose there was some foreshadowing for the Magical Merry Go-Round which shows up 2/3 of the way through the book. That is hardly enough. The sudden appearance of this 'Narnian Wardrobe' so late in the story makes it feel like a cop out. Like it was just inserted because she couldn't think of anything better.

When Scipio is first introduced, it is hard to tell wheather he is really a thief or not. But it is hard to imagine that he isn't, really. It's unbelievable, but the kids seem to think they've seen him stealing. Then he's not and one must wonder why the other children ever believed him so throughly. Similarly, when the idea of the Magical Merry Go-Round is first introduced, one thinks: it cannot be real, though.... There's no way. She wouldn't make it... Oh. She did. Wow.

Sling Blade (1996 movie, director's cut)

2010-09-20T13:29:00.000-07:00

If you study film, I reckon Sling Blade would be good to see. Mm Hmm. The acting is really impressive, Thornton especially pays close attention to everything for his very specific and unique character: ticks, posture, voice, accent, expression, vernacular. They are all consistent. In some ways, it's an easy role, the ticks and voice aren't subtle, but he still never seems like he's acting, or is an actor. So much so that the acting becomes quite noticeable... which is bad, right? Good acting fosters disbelief suspension so that you don't think you are watching anything. But this performance opens the door to intense scrutiny. I still don't see Bill Bob in there, so I remain impressed.

The cinematography is uncommon as well. Most scenes are long, individual pieces. They aren't cut up into little ribbons like most modern films, but actually resemble 30's film-making, or even stage theatre, more. There are a lot of walking shots, as if you are a character, or some guy on the street, wandering around with them. Accompanying these shots is music that is not only noticeable, but laughable. The most distracting part of the film. The music makes some scenes that were supposed (I think) to be sentimental into pretty funny gags (but perhaps that was what they were going for).

Unless the musical choices were meant to be comedic reprieve, they were poor choices. I was entertained by this, but whenever the movie is going for sentimental, it misses the mark. I have no doubt that the producers believed in what they were making, and were "Heartfelt" in their work, but it doesn't show through the score. It can be tense, and it can be funny (a little), and it can promote itself as a heartfelt, sentimental movie, but it still misses the mark.

This is the minority opinion. You may not agree. It is still very dramatic and, unlike Rat Race which was obviously playtime for everyone involved, Sling Blade was made to be intelligent and "important" and "serious". It is technically brilliant spit shined to perfection.

And simply fails to feel sentimental. By just the hair on Billy Bob's head.

The plot is very character driven, but it is hard to nail down just who Karl Childers is. It seems almost that they change him into who they want him to be for each scene, but I will not accuse them of such heresy! It has enough good and legitimate heresy to offer. Still, considering how carefully Karl is portrayed, it makes for a rather odd feeling. Especially for such an impressive movie which can mean a great many different things to even just one person. And a great many more other things to the people watching with them.

In the end, however, I found myself bored. It was a long, slow-paced movie! I am a little ashamed that I was so bored, but I still was. Long, slow-paced, character developing movies are rare, and I appriciate it's existance, but I like character stories more as books, apparently. I do have my biases against television.

Mm Hmm.

Rat Race (2001 movie)

2010-09-15T06:52:00.000-07:00

What a cast. Rat Race really is a 'remake' of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World: it's a race, in the desert, for money, and it seems to deliberately cast some of the best names in comedy for no other reason than to assemble the best names in comedy.

Which isn't a bad idea. It makes for a jolly movie.

Rat Race is a random, non-nonsensical movie, but it is very funny. Besides having a much easier name than it's predecessor, I find it funnier. That could be the generational gap. Rowan Atkinson is very funny, as usual, and Cuba Gooding Jr. also plays a highly entertaining character. Seth Green and Vince Vieluf's segments are the most slap-stickish of a very slap-stick movie and always accompanied by a cleverly appropriate musical score.

The ending is great, too. Pretty intelligent, philosophical really, for a "Wacky" movie like this.

A Child Called 'It' and The Lost Boy by David Pelzer

2010-09-12T14:19:00.000-07:00

I heard of a lot of child abuse cases, but never before have I read about one in detail. What David Pelzer goes though in A Child Called 'It' is pretty remarkable. It's, uh, stunning. "Shocking", really. Almost 'unbelieveable'. It's easy to see why so many people (such as his brothers) don't believe Dave Pelzer: because they don't want to.

I don't want to fully believe him either. Knowing, as I do, how easy it is to create false memories, how difficult it is to remember anything in any sort of detail (unless your some sort of savant who can memorize a city layout after one short viewing), and how impossible it is to actually describe anything perfectly, despite what linguists would like. Also, he wrote his memoirs 20 years after he was abused. I wonder if even a savant would still remember everything perfectly after 20 years.

But essentially, I think he isn't trying to exaggerating or downplaying anything. He's trying to be faithful. He is corroborated by one brother, Richard (Russell in Dave's books) who has capitalized on Dave's venture and written a series of books himself: A Brother's Journey and A Teenager's Journey (A Man's Journey coming soon, which will probably feature the silhouette of a man with his arms raised on the front cover), about his personal abuse after David left. I don't vilify him for this, like some people do, I just criticize his covers and names, which are boring. I haven't read them, though I'd like to at least see the first.

I also did not read A Man Named Dave. I got too tired of his writing. Dave's may be better at titles than his little brother, but his writing leaves something to be desired. It's so up and down. You get to the point that your can predict how something is going to go: "I knew in my heart things would get better!..." means shit's gonna hit the fan. "But I knew in my heart it would never change" means there might be a change for a little while, if he's living with his mother, it's not to last and it really wouldn't change. His books could keep me up, though, so that's an accomplishment. It was very interesting to read the 'perspectives' chapters in the back which were written from so many different people. The last one, out of both books, written by Michael Marsh is the most skillfully written by far, but others really make Dave's writing seem brilliant.

The Lost Boy is just as remarkable as A Child Called It, and really just the second half of one book. Today, I think most people understand psychology and the reality of abuse a whole lot better than they did in the 70's. It is really hard for anyone to recover from abuse: it leaves scars on the brain so much more vivid than any on the body. That David was able to succeed in foster care at all, let alone so well, is, to use a tired cliché, nothing short of a miracle.

These books are inspirational and informative. It was a value reading them, and probably about as enjoyable as the subject matter would allow.

Bolt (2008 movie)

2010-09-08T15:48:00.000-07:00

Bolt could have been called Toy Story, it has similar themes, or it could have been called A Bugs Life, it shares themes there. It, actually, shares a lot with a wide array of Pixar's movies, which is not surprising; even if Pixar's label is not on it.

It's just Disney. And

The first, oh, 5 to 10 minutes of Bolt were slightly painful for me. I find chase scenes more and more boring every time I see them. Though there was some humor injected into this one, it was still a good 70% longer than it ever should have been.

I thought the movie would be awful. But it does pick up and is a decent, entertaining film, even if it is highly clichéd. And includes some short speeches dripping with pine sap. The truly humorous thing is that this is mentioned early, almost like foreshadowing, making fun of you if you don't like sap. Sap can be good, maple's really good, but this movie does not use it well. At least the music makes up for what the story fails at, and the movie does all right.

It is "Fun".

Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein (1961, short original version)

2010-09-06T16:22:00.000-07:00

Stranger in a Strange Land is "Good to Grok", though perhaps not in fullness. I very much like the book, and I find it wise and interesting most of the time. There are some things I disagree with, and there are parts other people will disagree with, but the story is comical and light-hearted. In essence, it is a platform for Heinlein to monologue on and on about his beliefs and philosophies, which could have been boring, but he is a good speaker. At least he is in the vicarious roll of Jubal Harshaw.

I happen to agree with him, for the most part. He has some thoughts about freedom of choice which I think are a tad unrealistic and he doesn't have the most modern understanding of sexuality and gender rolls, but he is intelligent and logical most of the time.

It is really interesting to see this future society which he envisioned in the early 60's that doesn't really have computers or CDs (books are on 'scan tape': a sort of projection of the words as you read which has completely replaced the written book somehow), they have really cool space rockets, and 'stero-vision' TV, and very important and pronounced gender rolls. Which are divided according to biological nature. Despite how much credit he gives to cultural impact on your development. I think he over-credits both: nature has more importance to your psychology than it does in this book, but gender-rolls are probably more cultural than psychological.

Can't get everything right. At least the female characters are still strong, independent and unique.

Until the end. I have read: Job: a Comedy of Justice (even if Job was funnier). But there were also a lot of similarities. A main protagonist works as a dishwasher for a short stint and it deals a lot with religion. The sense of humor is similar, and towards the end, they read very similarly; could even be mistaken for the other if it weren't for the names. The people talk very similarly, to those in the other story and to each other in the same book. In the last chapters, all the characters lose their autonomy and become anonymous copies of each other. And possibly all of Heinlein's other characters. This may have been semi-intentional, but I don't think it was supposed to be so bland. I felt bad that it happened and missed who they were.

But there is a lot in this long book. And I found out lately that I read the edited, 25% (?) shorter version! Stranger in a Strange Land has more depth.

The book is a utopia story, and as such describes a dystopia. As the former cannot even exist in a fictional literary world. There are things in the story which are obviously fantastically impossible.

It is a good book to "grok", which means that it should be savored and understood, contemplated. But drink it, you will find it refreshing if you keep your mind open. Or so I grok.

The Plague Dogs (1982 movie, pre-read)

2010-09-06T10:37:00.000-07:00

For people who think Watership Down is a dark movie for being animated, watch The Plague Dogs. It has to be one of the most depressing movies I have ever seen. "I'm Ashamed to be Human." I had to read funny things after it and it's still in my head.

It's like watching Homeward Bound, animated and without the home. Set in a barren and bleak landscape with a barren and bleak tone. It is good movie, even if the animation isn't, really. And the pacing is a little strange. But the plot and the message are important. It's good to be ashamed to be human, sometimes. So we can become better. This is gritty and desolate, but doesn't suffer from the feeling of being 'inexpertly abridged' which the Watership Down movie does.

I saw the heavily edited US edition, which is (apparently) inferior and less moving. I'm not sure I need to see the full version, honestly. I won't seek it out. Perhaps I will read the book someday. But it was enough to watch it once, I feel.

Step Brothers (2008 movie)

2010-09-01T10:09:00.000-07:00

Step Brothers is a somewhat funny movie. It stars a cast completely of adults, but everyone plays a school yard, play ground, elementary character, from bully and associates to the dorks who play in the mud on the side. Except each character is larger and more exaggerated than they could ever be in real life. It is an interesting dynamic and somewhat enjoyable, but it remains the only remarkable aspect of the movie.

Besides how often they say "Fuck" a lot. A whole lot. "Fuck" and "Shit". It's used enough for it to get a little monotonous like the "refrains" in Chuck P.'s Invisible Monsters. It's like ending every single sentence in a paragraph with three exclamation points!!! Each and every time!!! So that, really, they are just periods!!! Gaudy, over-sized periods!!!

It loses it's point!!!

It is a funny movie if you like that and yelling. It's Ferrell's style of humor. There are people who like this movie more than other Ferrell projects, and I'll admit it's better than Anchor Man. But I still find it just "Alright". It wasn't really annoying, and it wasn't boring. I guess I enjoyed it, but I didn't find it particularly funny, besides a few instances.

Cool World (1992 movie)

2010-08-23T14:43:00.000-07:00

I have rarely seen a title as dorky or lame as Cool World. But I thought, it could be a joke. It could be good. But don't let the title fool you, Cool World is really just dorky and lame. And amazingly, impressivly, surprisingly "Random"! Without even the faintest of strings holding the project together, this threadbare movie falls apart like a tee-shirt from Wal-Mart.

The boring introduction credits foreshadow this, but the first scenes don't. The first arc is actually pretty good, even if it's a little dark and sad. But it seems like the movie will have substance. Then you enter the "Cool World" which, if you consider that this movie was made four years after Who Framed Roger Rabbit, looks really flat. But don't do that because you may notice a lot of things which appear to be knocked off of that superior film. The visual effects are bad enough for me to believe that it was done on purpose as some sort of commentary on the ability of Hollywood to make a mimetic movie. But if it is trying to say anything, if it has any purpose, it doesn't come though. It is drowned in its own poor production. Everything in this movie is contrived and feels it. Especially the ending.

The visual style is a as apparently random as the plot; it is a little nice to see so many styles interacting at the same time, but it was not done very well and just feels cluttered. Especially with the random cartoons chasing around in the foreground.

This was Rough Draft Studio's rough draft movie. It has little in common with The Simpson's Movie, Ferngully, or Bevis and Butthead. There may have been something behind this movie, but it doesn't shine though and is lost in the baseless plot devices.

Maus: A Survivor's Tale by Art Spiegelman (1973-1991)

2010-08-23T08:23:00.000-07:00

The third "comic book" (/graphic novel/sequential art display) which I have the pleasure of reviewing is as brilliant as the first two. Though in very different ways. The first was a textbook (which is awesome) called Understanding Comics, the next was the fictional Watchmen. Now the bibliographic Maus: A Survivors Tale. About the holocaust. Of all of them, my least favorite is the more traditional, but brilliant, fictional story Watchmen. Which says something about the powers and abilities of the graphic novel medium. It is not just a childish medium.

There is another story going on in Maus that is not talked about as often and that is the story of Art's relationship with his aging father. This story is so intimate and human as to be impossible to ignore, yet it is not discussed like the holocaust is. But it is this layer, as much as anything, that keeps me reading. Vladek is infuriating. But then, so is Art Spiegelman himself at times. Mala is enigmatic. Sometimes, it seems as though she is being an awful person, but most of the time, I believe she is being falsely accused. The author never reveals his stance on Mala and never takes a side.

Biographies and historical or nonfictional stories are interesting because characters are instantly deep and somehow it almost always comes across. And usually better than any fictional story has managed. Even the best fictions don't quite carry the weight that real people, described in a biography, have. It is true here. You will feel like you get to know Vladek and Artie and Françoise and will probably start discussing their psychology. There is no imagination in creating these characters, for they are real.

What is there to say about the holocaust aspect of this book? Maus is a very "Powerful" story because it has to be. And it is very readable because it is. I begin adopting the accents of the characters in the story as I read, which is always fun. This book could be the best one you ever read about the holocaust. On a level with Ann Frank's diary, but also definitely in a different category.

Being John Malkovich (1999 movie)

2010-08-23T07:29:00.000-07:00

What a fantastically "Strange" movie Being John Malkovich is. Like Escanaba in da Moonlight or Drop Dead Fred but only in the level of fantastic and strange. But, because they are all fantastic and strange (and funny in their own ways) they are all very, very different. I find Being John Malkovich to be topping the level of strange possible to still be a rather good movie, but there are those who find it to have run over and be a bad movie.

One thing to know, going into it, is that the main three characters are all bastards. Straight up, weirdo bastards. Another thing to know is that it quickly departs from reality in physical ways, but not necessarily philosophical ways. The movie operates on several layers: primary plot, background plot, nature of self, aspects of obsession, and more (probably). For me, the most prevalent message is the one on obsession, which is loud throughout. It is what the movie opens and closes with, though the obsession has changed. The posters, however, seem to imply that the talk on the self is more intriguing.

Either way, the surrealistic sense of humor is my favorite part. It is a little dark, in an insidious way, but it is good if you can laugh at such things.

Master of Dragons (and the Dragonvarld Trilogy) by Margaret Weis (2007)

2010-08-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

Master of Dragons, the final book in the Dragonvarld Trilogy by Margaret Weis, is a whole lot better than The Dragon's Son, the second book. Not that this means anything. The second book was positively wretched. The First book was OK and that is just about what the third is: "OK". Not good, but not really bad. It kept me reading, which is a success; I even enjoyed some of the characters, who managed to make themselves so obnoxious in the middle of the trilogy. But I didn't feel like I gained anything from it. If there was anything sub-textual in the Dragonvarld Trilogy it is a libertarian message on the evils of government and the splendor of anarchy.

It is not a truly memorable book, but it is distinctly fantasy and thusly enjoyable as such things go. The magic which the dragons use is fun, I will admit, and I enjoyed the descriptions of their communication. But the dragon society doesn't make complete sense, and that is where the story would fall apart if it hadn't been sewn together with a very apparent seem. It does not have the intricate weave that great fantasy (and literature in general) exhibits. The best character, the dragon Draconas (what a name!) falters in this final installment, but he is the only rational voice through most of the saga. Which creates a high level of frustration.

The ending is acceptable, though utterly predictable and somewhat disappointing. But what else would happen? Weis pays much more attention to creating games than books.

Conan the Barbarian (1982 movie)

2010-08-13T10:56:00.000-07:00

Conan the Barbarian is no more nor less than a D&D game filmed. Which is fine, but it still "Reeks of Laziness" to me. Don't expect anything to be adequately explained but do expect Conan to randomly attack various mammals. Overall, the movie makes less than sense and I have to wonder how and why Conan gets to be the good guy besides that the creators hate hippies. Even though it is a "High Adventure Fantasy" (whatever people mean by that), it should have some plot, right? The best stories I know of are Fantasy; is it my favorite genre. I feel that projects such as Conan cheapen it greatly.

This is a movie to watch and make fun of. Incoherent grunting, weird narrator who quits half way though, pathetic attempts and drama and suspense. The movie would be hilarious to parody with a roid monster in the Conan role and introducing more random Hulk Smash moments (of which there are surprisingly few), random pointless flexing, and feats of impossible strength. Essentially making it into what I feared it would be.

Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 movie, rewatched)

2010-08-13T10:26:00.000-07:00

I do rather like Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but I think it is primarily for the music. It is "Fun", but it is little else and I think I can see why Roald Dahl, the writer of the book (and some of the screenplay, apparently) didn't like this rendition.

It is actually relatively devoid of substance and the morals, which Dahl usually has a few of. What is there is a little watered down. Willie Wonka is sorta a prick (really arrogant) and he doesn't learn that ever. You don't think of it, really, unless you are looking for it and watching critically, which I was. The movie is a dentist's worst nightmare, which the newer one does say something about.

Still, the movie is fun and humorous. Gene Wilder is always entertaining and doesn't disappoint. I will say that this is my preferred version, though I may be biased from childhood.

PS: I have always thought it ironic that this movie, which has more to do with Charlie was called "Willie Wonka" while the newer one, which shows the growth of Willie Wonka is called "Charlie". I suppose it has something to do with marketing tie-ins with the original movie which the newer one didn't indulge in. The book's title is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Doubt (2008 movie)

2010-08-09T10:09:00.000-07:00

Doubt is "A Movie with Layers". One is an entertainment story, a mystery, what is happening in the Church and is it appropriate. It is also a character study, a contest between egos and a question as to how far someone will go, even if they are guided only by intuition. It is also a fable. And, of course, it is also an allegory of the re-arrangement and liberalization of the Catholic Church after the Vatican II council of 1962.

All at the same time. It is well done enough to foster great amounts of discussion on all three fronts. And it will. Watch Doubt with at least three people and watch it carefully for it is one of the most intelligent movies I have seen in a very long time.

To know more about it, it must be watched. I wont ruin it here.

But it is also very intriguing that it is dedicated to "Sister James"...

Analysis (Ok, I can ruin a bit here):

The Priest, Father Brendan Flynn, represents liberal change and as such is stuck with liberal stereotypes: lenient, potential child molester. Sister Aloysius Beauvier represents consistency (stagnation) and is suck with conservative stereotypes: strict disciplinarian without a sense of humor and overly confident. She pursues a course to remove Flynn from her school and church because she does, despite appearances, care for her students a great deal. And she cares for the greater good.

She's just really closed minded as to what that could be.

The movie is left open ended on all of its layers besides to say that: doubt is probably a good thing to have sometimes. It opens and closes with that. I hazard no guess as to wether Father Flynn molested anyone. I am also not sure it is such a bad thing in the case that the movie presents. I also will hazard no guess as to wether the film makes have a bias toward church structure. Are they in favor of a liberal church or not? The only allegorical resolution they offer is to say that, well, it does happen. The movie was created with the benefit of hindsight. Is it good? Well... I think so, but I'm a liberal, hippy, tree-hugging and dirt worshiping wacko who's studied enough psychology to know that everyone from insects to humans learn better though positive re-enforcement, not punishment.

Toy Story 3 (2010 movie)

2010-08-09T09:44:00.000-07:00

The first trilogy create by the lauded Pixar: Toy Story. The third installment is a welcome addition, a logical conclusion, and "A Very Good Finale". It fits into the cannon and in no way is unbecoming. Even if that means there are aspects that are rather heart wrenching.

Toy Story 3 actually gives me hope for Pixar. Before this, I didn't think they (or Disney) had the heart to deal with difficult subject matter. To have dark moments. But Toy Story 3 has more material for older audiences than it does for younger ones.

That being said, we laughed at the movie as "the worst thing to happen in Suburbia". Andy and Woody dealing with separation issues even though the true split happened a good five to ten years ago. In some ways, it is the same subject of the first movie.

The gloss on top of the substance of the movie is undeniable. Pixar is as good as Disney every was at polishing production values to a glint. Everything runs so smoothly. Measuring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and co against other voice acting roles I have heard lately, though, finds them lacking. There is nothing particularly wrong, but they are not as wondrous as Philip Seymour Hoffman as Max Jerry Horovitz (Mary and Max) shames them, as does the remarkably funny Steve Carrell as Gru (Despicable Me).

Comparing this movie to Dreamworks recent master piece, How to Train Your Dragon, is fun. I love both movie. Toy Story 3 is a little more moving, dramatically, but both movies have substance. How to Train Your Dragon is funnier, but Toy Story 3, by virtue of being a well-crafted trilogy, has characters with twice the depth.

The ending was exactly what it should be. I certainly hope they don't make another full-length movie: that'll be milking it. Having a short before Cars 2 could be a nice epilogue, and they might be able to make a few, but more than that will be milking a great thing. I hope Disney doesn't overkill this wonderful story.

The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap (2005 Game Boy Advance Game)

2010-08-06T13:28:00.000-07:00

As is the problem for me with most Zelda games, the most annoying thing about The Minish Cap is that nearly every puzzle is based on what you are allowed to do at that moment. Need to blow something up? Well, you're bombs fall though the floor here, so figure something out. Ohh look! There's something across a chasm! Jump over and get it? No. Can't jump here, for whatever reason. Can hop off the edge, yes, but I am not allowed to jump. The things that you can get around and over and the things you can't as a miniscule person are sometimes fascinating!

It frustrated the piss out of me. I think I just must come to terms: there are not good fantasy games in the video game industry. They abound as books, are up and coming as movies, are utterly ignored in video games.

Except Zelda. Which is a poor offering. And has been since the days of the Super Nintendo in the mid '90s. Back then, Final Fantasy (which is far better fantasy, but I don't like the turn-based thing. It ruins the mood) came up with the idea that you can push the meandering, horbgorbling ("to wander around aimlessly") populous if they get in your way. It was a great idea that kept you from getting trapped in corners or waiting for someone to eventually stumble out of your way that has been abandoned in the last decade.

Your hat talks way, way, way too much. And ruins the puzzles. Moving around is slow. And boring. There are games which may have been fun (such as trading figurines) if you didn't have to repeat the same numbing combination of movements over and over and over. There's too much switching out weapons and repeating stupid puzzles. Block puzzles are based on your ability to push some stones, but not others. The division between pushable and non-pushable blocks is inexplicable.

My least favorite part of this game, however, was the programmers favorite trick: the duplicating. It's just annoying. Cute and clever at first, but it quickly (very quickly) gets "Annoying. And Frustrating".

Mary & Max (2009 movie)

2010-08-06T13:18:00.000-07:00

Mary and Max is in so many ways brilliant. The movie is mostly narrated, in a drab english accent, with occasional dialog breaking it up. To get a good idea of the story-telling style, take a look at the visual style:

That pretty well sums it up. Particularly if you know what "Aspies" stands for.

It stands for "Asperger's Syndrome". A 'mild form of Autism'.

This movie speaks more intelligently about "mental disorders" than most psychology classes. The film makes understand that they aren't really "disorders". Many people who "suffer" from them don't mind that suffering. I, myself, can relate. I am an ADHD; but I don't feel that the last D should stand for "disorder". It can be quite a beneficial mental pattern if you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a problem if you don't let it. If you don't make excuses.

If you don't think of it as an "it". It isn't a disease like a virus or bacteria, where there is an actual bug. It is simply a pattern. ADD, Asperger's, 'Normal', they are all just patterns which are shared, more or less, by a few people.

Now that the rant is out of the way:

The movie has some very clever jokes and a good sense of humor among the darkness and intentional drabness of the style. It is not an uplifting movie, really, but it is very, very good and very, "very valuable".

Black, White and Jewish by Rebecca Walker (2000)

2010-08-06T13:00:00.000-07:00

Black, White and Jewish is an autobiography of Rebecca Walker. A girl who grew up with a significant amount of confusion as to her role in society, which is what the book is about.

It is a very dense book. I finished most of it in two days only because I spent ten hours on a bus in two days. Otherwise, I would still be reading it. It did not make me want to read more than about ten pages at a time because it was dry and a little depressing and really heavy. "Stark". That is not to say that it is a bad book: it is not. It is a rather enlightening book. Not only about racial bullshit that exists in all areas, stratas, and cliques of society, but about parenting.

Suggestion: don't force your children to move back and forth across the country and never make significant ties in their childhood because you aren't mature enough to deal with your ex beyond "sharing" custody.

Suggestion two: do not assume that your children don't know what they are experiencing. Talk to them as equals and dispense your wisdom and advice; you can do both at once.

Suggestion three: do not assume that your child can figure out the world with out your support, guidance, wisdom, and attention. They can get themselves in a heap-o-trouble.

Rebecca was fortunate enough to escape her troubles, but she is clear enough that she easily mightn't have. She is also very clear on all the troubles that she did have growing up.

I would have appreciated hearing about some of the good things in her life. The things that went well. But they are few and far between and colored rather darkly. Negativity can only get one so far. People learn great lessons from good things as well.

Still, I'm glad I read it. But I'm more glad that I am done.

Sleepless in Seattle (1993 movie, rewatched)

2010-08-06T12:41:00.000-07:00

Sleepless in Seattle is a funny movie, like most movies Nora Ephron has made. There are many little scenes which make the movie worth watching for their simple comedy. The plot, also, is 'comical', but not in the good way. The overall plot is not the main attraction. It's just kinda there to tie all the humorous scenes together. Still, one thing I can say in favor of the plot is that it is a fairly radical departure from the general 'chick-flick formula'. For that I am grateful.

But it is really odd-ball. "Quirky", is a good word I suppose.

Next by Michael Crichton

2010-08-06T12:07:00.000-07:00

When I was in elementary school, Michael Crichton was my favorite author. In 6th grade, I read Congo in 13 days to keep up with the time in the book. I loved Sphere and Jurassic Park, of course, and was outraged when Arby Benton, my favorite character, was cut from the movie of The Lost World. But the last book of his I read was Timeline. I liked it, actually it's one of my favorites now, but I stopped reading his work so often.

And now I picked up Next. It has the same scientific basis, but it is far less thrilling than his old science-fiction stories. But it wasn't meant to be. It isn't really much of a "science fiction" in that much of what it discusses is not only possible, but has been done (some of it is still science fiction). And it wasn't trying to be thrilling so much as... "Provoking". This book gets a little depressing because I could see a lot of the events and things happening in this book happening in reality. Some of it wouldn't be so horrible, but some of it, like considering the cells in someone's body the property of a corporation, would be awful. But it's not all that different from the separation of land and mineral rights which has happened, to the detriment of all, in the real world.

The book gets off to a really slow start. There are too many characters, too many worthless sub-plots that go nowhere and are dropped, too many interruptions by fictitionilized news stories and excerpts. It is interesting, and a style worth considering, but it doesn't make the book very enjoyable to read. Once it gets going, it is gripping. Just don't give up by page 50 or 60 (or 70) because it hasn't gotten going yet.

Robin Hood Men in Tights (1993 movie, little background)

2010-07-27T16:08:00.000-07:00

I have fond memories of Robin Hood Men in Tights, but re-watching it made me forget most of them. True, there are some really funny moments in this movie, but it's delivered so very, very stiffly.

So very, very stiffly. "I was disappointed". It is probably better if you know the other Robin Hood movies better, but I don't have that background. Still, it has some very quotable moments, as one would expect from a Mel Brooks comedy.

Stranger than Fiction (2006 movie, rewatched)

2010-07-27T16:03:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of people who are apprehensive of Will Ferrell movies. Some people love him. I am one of the people that doesn't, generally, like what he does. He's a little funny, but for the most part, I like his SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skits more than most of his movies.

Stranger than Fiction, however, is not a "Will Ferrell Movie". It is a movie that happens to have Will Ferrell in it. Will also happens to do a fantastic job. This is his Butterfly Effect, It shows that he has far more talent than his previous roles have illustrated. He keeps up with Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, and Kristin Chenoweth.

This film is a wonderful "Work of Art": entertaining all the way though, funny, engaging, unique. It is bizarre, but has very real characters in spite of that. And it is more touching than most any film I've seen. This movie is in a class with Lars and the Real Girl and Waitress.

Analysis (Spoilers to Follow):

I love this movie. Professor Jules Hilbert is just like an obsessive literature theorist, Karen Eiffel is a weird writing recluse. Probably a lot like ol' J.D. Salinger except he probably would have gone ahead and killed poor Harold Crick. (I shouldn't say that. I've only read one of his books, after all...). I am interested to see what the book Karen Eiffel wrote was because it isn't the same story as is shown in the movie. Perhaps the movie is her revision, but that doesn't make complete sense, either. There are errors.

Is that a flaw, however? In the continuity, it is, a bit, I suppose... But it allows the story to be told the way it is, which is better than Eiffel's hypothetical first draft, of that I am sure even though I haven't read it. It could be, as long as there is a non-omniscient narrator and she put herself in the book (or changed names), the story as told in her second draft. But I don't think it would have worked very well as a book. This movie is made for its format, thankfully.

Despicable Me (2010 movie)

2010-07-27T15:06:00.000-07:00

Despicable Me is just about the cutest movie there is in theaters and yet another movie for Pixar to attempt to compete with. Good luck, Pixar. This movie manages to be funny all the way though and doesn't flounder in the end like some of their recent movies have (*cofWalleff* though I admit I haven't seen Toy Story 3).

Steve Carell is making quite a varied career. He's been very interesting to watch, but I never realized before this movie how good a voice actor he can be. Though it is a pity that real voice actors have lost their jobs to his and Robin Williams ilk, his portrayal of Gru is laughable and brilliant. Like so many real people, Gru is so serious that it is impossible not to make fun of him and, in fact, he pretty much does it for you.

And yet there are moments in this movie that are rather touching. It seamlessly becomes serious when it needs to and never gets depressing or unentertaining. It's "Cute and Funny"! How can you go wrong?

Labyrinth (1986 movie, many watches)

2010-07-09T06:17:00.000-07:00

Even though I've seen it many times, the movie Labyrinth is "Still Entertaining". I didn't like it the first time I saw it (probably mostly because my sister did like it) but it has grown on me. There are a number of quotable moments, there are songs, and there's fun fantasy everywhere. 'Fantasy' is dominant to 'reality' in this movie which it hardly even deigns to interact with.

Puppets beat computer animation every time. It is such a pity that we don't see this type of "visual effect" more often now a days. It at once looks more real and less real that computer animation. To me, they are more fun to look at.

Outside the puppets, however, the acting isn't always stellar but it isn't distracting. David Bowie makes a wonderful king of the goblins with his infamous glowing, growing crotch.

Labyrinth is a pretty popular movie that most people have seen. If you haven't, it is probably worth the view. Unless you really don't like fantastic and fun movies, of course.

Tropic of Orange by Karen Tei Yamashita (1997)

2010-07-07T11:00:00.000-07:00

Tropic of Orange is a story which could only be told with the written word. It reads like poetry in that it isn't ever really clear what on earth is going on. It is so unrealistic, not just because there are impossible events, and not at all because there are inconsistencies within the world that is created, but because the "world" that is created is... weird. Infinitely small, unconcerned of anything outside of the micro-cosmic stories that are told, and constantly changing. Events, or whatever you would call them, are hardly described or explained by the Karen resulting in an almost an 'Alice in Wonderland' feel.

But not really. It is unique. The blending of fantasy and reality in this book is more, how to say, 'adult' than in any of the other stories I have been experiencing lately. Because it affects adults who sort of ignore it. Because they, and you as the reader, have trouble understanding it and putting it to words.

This book is very complicated. I do not really feel adequate to writing a review of Tropic of Orange after having read it only once. It really must be read twice or thrice to get the whole picture. This is a book for "Bibliophiles Only". It's brilliance is in its the diversity of writing and the skill of the prose. There are thoughtful morsels of philosophy, which everyone can benefit from, and which are needed now, 13 years after it was first published, about globalization, the idiocy of NAFTA, and tolerance, but I fear that they are inaccessible to most readers who will tire of reading such a complex book. This book takes some work.

If a challange, or a unique book, are what you are after, Tropic of Orange is a very good one to pick up. It is enjoyable though there are some rather long lists, some of which go on for almost a page, which blend into the style. Still, on one or two I wondered if they were methods Karen employed simply to extend the length of the book. The weave of this book impresses me greatly and I am grateful for the character-chapter map which comes after the more standard table of contents.

Watchmen (2009 movie, post read)

2010-07-06T06:37:00.000-07:00

Adapting a work as well made as Watchmen is to any medium but its original choice is a very difficult undertaking. The original comic is written to take full advantage of its form. It was not written with any consideration to the idea that someone might want to make a movie of it. Thus, making the movie requires a certain amount of sacrifice which must be tempered by taking advantage of what a movie can do that a graphic novel cannot.

The makers of Watchmen the Movie did not do this. It stays startlingly close to the book. As a consequence, there are some parts that really did not translate well. Chapter IV, Watchmaker stands out garishly. The movie also tries to reproduce the panel to panel cutting that occurs in the book to rather disastrous effect. There is a lot cut from the book, because it would have made it too long and it wasn't important to the "superheroes", but we are still left with a 2:30 long movie. Full of exaggerated scenes that still should have been cut or reduced. Every departure from the comic stands out to one who has red it as a flaw, even if it isn't (I like the movie's ending more, actually). Adrian Ozymandias Veidt is too skinny and too full of himself, the Comedian is too small, Hooded Justice is way too small. Where'd this go, where's that? In the book he said this, not that!

It also seems that there were two directors who took turns. Some fights are randomly over-violent. Shaming the level of violence in the grisly comic. Others really aren't. At all. I don't know why. I liked the less graphic scenes more, partially considering that the "superheroes" in watchmen don't actually have super powers (besides John, o'course).

It is still a decent little movie, but I would advise: "Just Read the Book". You'll get a lot more out of it. The casing, with the afore mentioned exceptions, is very good. Especially if you want fidelity with the book. The acting is usually good, but Malin Åkerman falters in her most important moments. It has some comedic musical choices. As with the book, I disagree with most of the philosophy of it, but that doesn't say anything about the work's quality. Just that it's wrong.

Watchmen the movie isn't as deliberately confusing as the book, and it doesn't require reading. And it doesn't achieve as much. If you can stomach laughably exaggerated violence, then give the movie a view. But otherwise, just pick up the book and read it.

Analysis (spoilers to follow):

"Where's the giant alien!" many people scream at the end of this movie. Then they'll grumble that it "cheapens" the story, somehow. In fact, though, I like it much more than the ending in the comic. It is the only true improvement.

Because it has a greater chance to work. One appearance of an alien will not give us world peace for long if it isn't followed by more. It was a rather idiotic plan for the smartest man in the world. This one is a little better.

As for philosophy, people are not so inherently vile. Many of us are, especially those who have sought power and control though vile means (90% of our leaders), but most of us are good people. No one (almost no one) wakes up thinking they want to be the worst person they can be. Some just don't wake up and think. The thing is, in reality as in Watchmen, our villains are often those most hell-bent on being saviors of some sort. They want to do good and in the process do evil.

But I think it is wise to say that every individual is a miracle, including the dumbest termite. And I agree that the world would be worse if Nixon were re-elected for a third term.

And it depresses me that there are people who look up to Rorschach. Ccompromise is very, very important. He's a bleeding sociopath as unworthy of respect as Veidt.

Drop Dead Fred (1991 movie)

2010-07-02T14:30:00.000-07:00

The beginning of Drop Dead Fred reminded me of The Cat in the Hat because it was all about a comedian who was acting as bizarre as he could. I wasn't impressed. However, Drop Dead Fred becomes so much more than that. While both movies finish with morals, the Cat's has such a wishy washy, childish delivery that I don't really care. Fred finishes strong and is never so obscenely obnoxious (to the viewer) as the Cat.

The movie is still a little hard to watch. Partly because it has such a maniacal level of the "I Love Lucy syndrome" that I just want to cover my eyes. Partly because it's depressing most of the way though -odd for such a "screwball" comedy- and filled with failures to communicate.

Once the movie was over, however, I find that I really, really like it. Not because it's not playing anymore, but because the movie has a good ending and good closure. As good or better, even, than 9 to 5. And I really, really like Fred, despite all his foibles. Rik Mayall did a bloody fantastic job with that character. People have asked, what would this movie be like with Jim Carrey as Fred, and I must say, though I really like Jim Carrey, that I think the movie would have suffered.

There is a remake being planned. But it is not with Carrey. I am interested in what it will become, if only for comparison and curiosity's sake. I do not expect it to be as good of a movie as the original independent film.

This movie is much more than just "booger jokes", as some pretentious critics insinuate. Most of the humor is physical, but that's all.

Most intriguingly, for me, Drop Dead Fred has a very wonderful balance and integration of its fantasy world and its non-fantasy world, which is something I have been seeing a lot of and comparing a lot of recently (Pan's Labyrinth, Coroline, James and the Giant Peach, et cetera). It is never fully explained, but that's not the point.

Drop Dead Fred is one of the best films I have seen recently. It comes "Highly Recommended".

Billy Elliot (2000 movie)

2010-07-02T14:03:00.000-07:00

Billy Elliot is a rather "Bittersweet" movie and quite moving. It isn't very dark, but it definitely has some difficult material and portrays a difficult culture. In the end, however, you know that everyone loves each other, even if they have somewhat violent ways of showing it.

What more is there to say? I recommend the movie.

The Tale of Despereaux (2008 movie, pre read)

2010-07-02T13:55:00.000-07:00

Like Ratatouille, The Tale of Despereaux is an extravagantly quirky movie with a french word in the title. And of course rodents. There the similarities end.

Many people are fairly harsh on this movie, probably because of Pixar and their amazingly devoted following. It isn't Pixar, but on the surface, it seems to rip them off. Anger insues. In fact, The Tale of Despereaux was first a book; I like it more than Pixar's mouse movie. However, it seems to be quite watered down from the original tale which I would very much like to read.

Without having read the book, the primary flaw I find in this movie is that is is trying to say too much, trying to do too much, in too little time. It gets a little "Busy". The movie remains watchable and avoids feeling like an "inexpert abridgment". What it has to say is pretty heart-warming and would be useful for many people if they would listen to it. Like Man of Le Mancha.

Escanaba in da Moonlight (2001 movie)

2010-06-21T06:35:00.000-07:00

Escanaba in da Moonlight is an ungodly hybrid of a creepy horror movie, a slap-stick comedy, a Rocky Horror Picture Show-esque cult fantasy, a serious drama, and just about everything else. Like EvilDead met the Three Stooges and Dumb and Dumber and they all went to a Michigan theme park with It's a Wonderful Life and Fargo.

It's bloody hilarious.

There are a lot of strange movies out there, but this is "Strange and Stranger" than any I have ever seen. At least, any that have remained watchable. This movie can be a bit off putting because of its reckless style, but it is worth it to get passed that. It may be a film like Napoleon Dynamite, notorious for requiring a second viewing to appreciate it. It's ability (and tendency) to bounce straight from creep show to fart joke is simply fascinating. It shows the versatile talents and arrogance of Jeff Daniels as he casts and directs himself in the lead role of a plot he wrote.

I'm a little surprised he didn't just break out into song. It wouldn't have been outrageously out of place.

Yet despite it's brazen leap-frogging and silliness, Escanaba in da Moonlight also has some important things to say. It uses as its vehicle a metaphor and scenario I don't understand (hunting), but I was still able to appreciate what it was saying with it.

I'd like to see the other film written by Daniels and Guy Sanville, which came out just one year later, Super Sucker.

9 to 5 (1980 movie)

2010-06-21T05:50:00.000-07:00

9 to 5 only has two writers, but it seems like there were four who took turns. One would write a quarter, then hand it off. The character of the film would change pretty dramatically, but the pieces go together into a cohesive movie.

And it's a good cohesive movie. It is very funny and intelligent at the same time. Dabney Coleman, the male role, is ironically my favorite character to watch. He has to play an impressive smattering of different styles for the same character and he can make really funny faces.

This movie has an almost I Love Lucy style of humor which makes me cringe, watching in anticipation of some very bad things. It's also got some bizarrist humor and some realistic scenarios. In the end, it is a very eloquent and enjoyable film about womens rights, similar to a few other Dolly Parton movies, which everyone should see.

The movie does start out a little slow. I wasn't sure I would like it in the first ten minutes. But once the second segment began, I was hooked. The third segment was even better; the last segment was the funniest and tied it all up masterfully. I have been complaining about a lot of poor endings lately, but this movie had a good ending which matches the rest of the movie. It doesn't feel rushed, it doesn't seem like they got tired of writing, it is a planned denouement.

So even if the movie is a little fractured, it's fractured "Like Stained Glass" into a beautiful collage.

James and the Giant Peach (1996 movie)

2010-06-20T09:05:00.000-07:00

James and the Giant Peach turned out rather different from how I anticipated. I didn't anticipate so much live acting. I anticipated some fantasy realm peopled by stop-motion characters.

Instead, this film is a little in the vein of Pan's Labyrinth and Coraline as it integrates fantasy and reality. This movie has the most blatant and forward integration. Fantasy is real for everyone to see. It comes off as more of a kids movie than either of the others.

It is a decent little family movie, a Cinderella story, with music intertwined in a rather important way, but some of the songs that are song are laughably stupid. They might be entertaining to a 5 year old, but anyone else caught watching at that moment might choke. It's got several highly stereotyped characters, similar to other projects by Roald Dahl, and some architecture characteristic of Tim Burton.

James and the Giant Peach doesn't do anything particularly unique or highly interesting, but it can be a simple and entertaining movie. Watch it with young kids, older kids will just scoff at it.

I haven't read the book yet, so there is no comparison I can make. However, Burton seems to usually appreciate Dahl's vision.

Wizard People Dear Reader by Brad Neely (2004 audio movie parody)

2010-06-20T08:04:00.000-07:00

Wizard People Dear Reader is meant to be played over the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, replacing the sound. However, I like it more on its own. It allows your imagination to fill in the details rather than having to watch the rather bad acting in that film, made all the worse when you can't hear what they are saying.

There are times while listening to Wizard People Dear Reader that the style gets tiresome. When the cursing and the shouting becomes all there is and therefore boring. But there are enough funny moment, enough style, enough departures from the original story to make it a good work in its own right and an "Awesome Parody". The humor is at its best in the simple metaphors and epitaphs that the characters use. Wizard People is infinitely "Quotable" and a great piece of underground pop culture.

Understanding Comics The Invisible Art by Scott McCloud (1993)

2010-06-15T08:33:00.000-07:00

A non-fiction comic. There aren't many of those. But a comic book that could be a text book, and the most readable text book I have ever seen, that is an achievement.

An achievement aided by its chosen medium. Comics are usually easier to read than straight text.

Understanding Comics is a very "Intelligent and Entertaining" at the same time. Seeing as it was about comics, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Neil Gaimain showed up again. To anyone who doesn't yet believe that comics can compete with any other "fine art" or "literature", read this book. Then go read Watchmen.

Mr. McCloud understands comics in a rather profound way; and he understands art and creating in just as profoundly. Profound enough to end his book by saying, "This book is meant to stimulate debate, not settle it." There are some things I would argue with, which could take up quite some room*, but on whether comics are an art or not, I don't want to devote any more time right now.

Understanding Comics describes in words all the strategies that a comic artist can use that Scott knows about. But, because it is a comic itself, he can also demonstrate it and he does so in many ways (every way he knows about). It makes for a variety of texture that is rather fun. At the same time, Scott's style shows through and his little avatar ties the whole thing together into an impressive continuous work.

I learned a lot and I enjoyed myself doing so. What more could an educator ask for?

It begs the question: should more text books take this style?

*One point I have contention with is Scott's definition of "art". It is just a teensie bit too broad. It is the definition I use for "culture". This level of broadness does a disservice to art and to the word itself by rendering it next to useless ("culture" means almost nothing because the word is so bloody broad, but in so many ways that is a good thing). That being said, there is a 'wisdom' in his definition. "Art" is a broader and harder to define concept that even pornography and obscenity. Really, it's a rather fluid concept and as such quite impossible to solidify without losing most of what you are trying to define. However, I feel that an important part of what makes "Art" art is an intent or purpose. Some sort of reason for making/doing what you have just made/done, even if that reason is to be seen as an "artist" making "art".

Sometimes. It's hard to avoid some pretentiousness. But see, I don't quite consider this review a piece of "art". It's more like an essay.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1866; translated by Sidney Monas, 1968)

2010-06-14T12:08:00.000-07:00

Crime and Punisment is a "Pseudo-realistic Russian serial novel with massive philosophical and political intent written in 1866, before the USSR, World War II, or even the Franko-Prussian war which preceded World War I". How's that for a rating! Be unsurprised to find it very, very dry and a little longer than absolutely necessary.

Half of my criticism belongs to Dr. Sidney Monas, professor emeritus from the University of Texas and the translator of my copy. He looks like a decent fellow, pretty fun loving judging from his magnificent smile, however, I don't find him to be as much of a novel writer as a scholar. He didn't add anything to this work, which was probably his goal. I am very, very grateful to him for including whole names, though. Instead of saying something unilluminating like "S. Place" or "S--- Place" he uses the entire name "Stoliarny Place". Even though I don't know where that is, it is nice to have a handle. I just wish there was a glossary of names and places. Especially because everyone's got nineteen names and they look so similar to their friends to my untrained eye. By the time I finished the book, I was familiar enough with Russian naming and nicknaming that it wasn't a problem; but it took a lot of getting used to.

I admit that I am not a fan of this type of writing, if you couldn't tell. It is my bias. I am somewhat partial to our current writing style which doesn't go into quite this level of detail. I also like projects which are difficult to pull off in a serial publication style (though Watchmen is pretty good in those regards). Projects that refer back to themselves and are woven so tightly that the author almost has to edit the beginning after finishing the end.

The best part of Crime and Punishment is that it is wonderfully philosophical. There's a lot to think about and a lot to learn. This is not "empty writing". There are some brilliant discussions on topics such as justice and the nature of crime (the main subject) and human value. What makes a person a good person, and is that different than being a 'great' person? Is a man worth the same as an idea? The nature versus nurture debate comes up a few times as well.

It's just a pity there is so much dry text between the 20 or so interesting conversations.

Russian literature has this reputation for being "realistic". But in the case of Crime and Punishment, I find this not to be the case. Aspects are realistic, usually to its detriment, but over all, it is not. Most conversations are realistic, people just talk and wander off topic just as most real conversations hardly seem to even have a topic. Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov acts as a good device to keep things focused because he's so flighty and strange, constantly showing up and leaving perhaps for the sole purpose of ending conversations in a little more timely matter. Also, a lot happens which is a little hard to remember because it's hard to care about, just like reality (I have no idea what I was thinking about this time last week). What is unrealistic is how people behave. Dmitri Prokofitch Razumikhin's neive behavior can be explained away by his character, but Sonia Semionovna Marmeladov's irrational attachment to Rodia is just bizarre to me. She's known him for about five days by the end of the story (not the end of the book) and talked with him for maybe three or four hours and he's been an ass the entire time. And I have never heard anyone narrate every move they make to a person they are talking to. Too many characters are too queerly forgiving and, as is the case with a lot of literature from the industrial revolution, everyone's excessively sickly.

Perhaps that was just a true effect of all the pollution, but I've never known anyone half so sickly as the healthiest character from a 19th century novel.

I find this book to have an interesting idea, good conversations, but to be told in a boringly formulaic manner. People are very forgiving of ancient authors for if this novel were newly published by a modern author, he would be accused of underestimating his readers and for a good reason. Sidney admits himself in a preface that, well, Dostoyevsky wrote in such a hurry because it was for serial publicaion, so there are bound to be some inconsistencies. But let us admit these, and his penchant for reusing words over and over and over, as errors. It is somewhat nice that his style gradually, and sometimes starkly, changes style for it infuses a little color into the drab work.

I suppose, in the end, that the most distracting part of this book, the thing that makes it hard to pick up and continue reading, is that the main character is such a douche bag. If that's okay with you, then the book may be worth it to read.

The Invention of Lying (2009 movie)

2010-06-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

The Invention of Lying reminds me a little of Plain and Normal. Which isn't really a good thing. The humor is a little more palatable, but it is depressing, dry british humor all the way though. Occasionally, it is very, very funny. More and more so as the movie progresses. But the movie really shouldn't have been created as a romance. It's a very bad romance.

The movie also has trouble staying consistent with itself. It's 'world without lying', where everyone also blurts out everything they think without filter, is unthought out. It is an interesting concept that is poorly pulled off kinda like Avatar's hair linking system (wonderful idea with poor execution in that case).

Eh, the movie's a "Little Less than OK", but it's worth a few laughs.

Analysis (spoiling the movie!):

In the first two minutes of having begun The Invention of Lying, Ellie "Doodlepad" Fortune predicted the entire plot with impressive accuracy. Unfortunately, I don't find this to be at all movie writing. Especially because of the character she predicted.

The movie is paternalistic. The shallow ugly guy gets the shallow pretty girl after she hurdles her shallowness and doesn't reject him because of his looks. The fact that shallow ugly man is shallow himself and never has eyes for anyone but the pretty girl isn't even questioned.

When Lying Mark becomes moses and devises his own religion (seeing as there is no religion in a world without lies...) he makes his deity every race, but doesn't seem to even realize that he chose a superior sex and no one else in that world realizes it either.

This movie would have benefitted from an ending more akin to Bedazzled. Instead, it's just an average and kinda poor movie.

Metropolis (2001 movie)

2010-06-14T11:01:00.000-07:00

Like so many anime movies, the story in Metropolis is told rather poorly. It tells you everything that is happening rather than showing you. It's somewhat ironic, considering that eastern cultures (such as the Japanese) aren't quite so obsessed with the destination and can enjoy the journey, that they can't show it better. But then, perhaps it's just in the translation.

Metropolis is interesting philosophically, the plot is good, the visual style is fun. But it could have been done better, for the most part.

What could not have been done better was the jazzy musical choice and score. That was the most brilliant part of the movie and added a lot to the humor and style of the film. It is worth watching just to listen to Ray Charles singing in the end of the movie. It's hilarious and sad at the same time and infinitely appropriate.

In fact, that is what I'll rate it: "Jazzy Japanese".

Evil Dead (1981 movie)

2010-06-13T13:52:00.000-07:00

"Gooey" Evil Dead is a very, very gooey movie. I have no idea why it is nearly as popular as it is. I found it to be rather mediocre at best.

Coraline (2009 movie)

2010-06-13T13:50:00.000-07:00

Coraline is a good movie and another thing written by Neil Gaiman (at least the book was) who I've been seeing a lot of lately. I wasn't taken by the visual style in the beginning, but I got over it. It's not as pretty as The Nightmare Before Christmas or the Corpse Bride, but the story is just as good and it's told almost as well. Coraline uses less music than the other two titles, however.

It is a fun and "Imaginative" movie which explores a little of a faery land. It It balances between reality and fantasy, waiting until the end to commit to any relationship between the two. Even then, it is a vague relationship, but not so vague as Pan's Labyrinth. Nor is the land quite so far on the side of "faery" of my fairy/faery division as Pan's Labyrinth.

It is dark in places, but it isn't so horrifying that it can't be watched by most people. Plus, there are positive morals that can be extracted pretty easily. There are parts in the movie that play almost like a video game, but over all, it is a fine product.

I am interested in reading the book, for one of the major characters apparently doesn't exist.

Analysis (with Spoilers):

I was struck by how awful Coraline's parents are in the beginning of the movie. There characters change a lot by the end, but I am not sure it is justified. Sure, they are trapped by the evil dolls for a time, but they don't remember it. It could also be that we are now just seeing a different side of them and they aren't actually awful parents. They just were for a short time. However, it isn't adequately explained.

Pokemon LeafGreen (2004 Game Boy Advance Game, unfinished)

2010-06-13T11:17:00.000-07:00

I didn't finish playing Pokemon LeafGreen, a turn-based RPG, because I got too bored. The game is just a little too slow for me.

I can't see what everyone likes in it! I suppose you can collect warriors and such.... Get creature after creature. It is a somewhat unique thing for an RPG, to be able to play as any enemy you face. Still, it's not nearly enough. Every creature (at least to the point I got to: seeing about 15) are far too similar. They have their own moves, but most of their moves are shared with all the other pokemon.

"Meh". That's about all I can say about it.

Plain and Normal by James Wilcox (1998 novel, unfinished)

2010-06-13T11:03:00.000-07:00

My copy of Plain and Normal is interrupted in the last quarter by another story for 48 pages. I don't know what this story was, but it seems to be a printing error. Two books got spliced together. But, it was a happy accident for me, for it interrupted the story I was reading for one I would redoubtably like more. I only feel sorry for the poor soul who got 48 pages of Plain and Normal.

So I never finished it. I try to finish all the books I start, but I'm just not going to spend the energy to find an unbroken copy. Not when I am certain to not enjoy it. Besides which, I don't feel that it's completely necessary. I've got a pretty decent picture of the book and though I don't know the ending, I can critique the writing style.

I didn't enjoy it. What I can say in favor of the book is that it has a very divided response. Some people love this book, and others simply hate it. While I am in the latter category, I can appreciate this accomplishment. My favorite works of my own are things which garner a split review.

The book just has such a "Maudlin" sense of humor. It can bee good from time to time, but it hardly makes up for the drabness of the overall work. The wretchedness of every single character. The frustration of every situation. It was annoying to pick up the book at all. Now, perhaps it's just me, but I can't understand why anyone would be so determined to fail in everything. So hell bent on making all of their communication, with everyone, fail. It's baffling, but more importantly obnoxious to read about.

Things just sort of happen. The book willy-nilly goes here to there and everywhere but instead of being interesting, being fun, it's just tiring and boring.

Others that didn't like this book liken it to Seinfeld, others to Woody Allen. If you like them, perhaps you will like this. It has a peculiar "1950's Brooklyn" reading style to me, somewhat reminiscent of Paul Zindel, but I remember liking The Pigman.

Bedazzled (2000 movie)

2010-06-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Even though they are radically different movies, I thought of Pan's Labyrinth when I was watching Bedazzled. When I was reviewing Pan's Labyrinth, I came across a few things that pointed out the classic good and evil dichotomy in the movie. They pointed it out as a good thing, usually, but I have a different opinion. I like the portrayal that Bedazzled gives. It may be a somewhat ditsy movie, very light-hearted and humorous and downright sappy. But what's wrong with that? Pan's Labyrinth is intelligent, dark, serious, largely humorless, and yet it still doesn't quite achieve the same level of wisdom to me.

Yet is is far more popular. Ah well.

I found Bedazzled to be a really "Entertaining" movie. It may be composed of a series of short scenes, almost like a "WarioWare" movie, but each scene is a lot of fun. Like The Cat in the Hat, it's mostly a film showcasing one actor's talents. Brendan Frasier is far less obnoxious than Mike Myers when given this opportunity.

If you like to enjoy the movies you watch, but also like some substance, I feel that Bedazzled delivers.

Analysis (with Spoilers):

The wisdom which I value so highly in this movie is the view it has on good and evil. In the end of the movie, the audience is told, point blank, that good and evil really aren't that divided. It is up to you.

In the real world, good and evil are never black and white. There is always a huge swath of grey area. Those who we call "evil" are just our antagonists, but we are our enemies antagonist, so they call us evil as well. I am happy with the lack of wickedness in this movie that other critics have been disappointed in.

Another aspect of this movie that I liked is that he doesn't get "the girl" in the end. He gets "a girl", so it's got its happy ending, but the girl he obsesses over isn't it. Nor does anyone have sex in the movie. Now, it's not because I'm a 'prude' that this makes me happy, its because it's unusual. And it wouldn't have really fit with the rest of the movie.