Cannonball Read #1: Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell

Greetings!

I have decided (since my life has become a stagnant spiral of crime shows and bad VH1 reality television) to attempt this. I feel like perhaps if I were reading more books, my brain would stop feeling quite so mushy and I might be able to pronounce entire coherent sentences or keep a thought in my head for more than 30 seconds. It's worth a shot, anyway.

For my first book, I read Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell. I'd been hearing about her work from various trusted sources for a while (while I do not personally listen to NPR because it makes me sleepy, I have some very intelligent and cultured insomniac friends who do) so I decided to give her a spin, although I am not always fond of essayists. And oh, what a spin it was.

The basic premise of Assassination Vacation is that Vowell is a militant history buff who is particularly attracted to locations and memorabilia related to presidential assassinations, specifically Lincoln, Arthur, and McKinley. This immediately struck a chord with me because as a child, I was totally OBSESSED with the Lincoln assassination for years. (Sidenote: In retrospect, I was a rather disturbingly morbid but strangely focused child. I would become fixated on some icky event/era in history--civil war prison camps, the Holocaust, the Lincoln assassination, Benedict Arnold, the black plague, serial killers--and then read everything I could get my hands on about the subject until my interest waned. I suppose my parents figured an interest in disturbing history was better than no interest at all.) I actually dragged my parents to some of the locations Vowell drags her bemused family and friends, so I knew more intimately than most what she was talking about. I too have sweated through the narrow hallways of "The House Where Lincoln Died." It immediately made me feel a certain kinship with the author, since she too knew the strange looks one receives after insisting that you just HAVE to go seek out an out of the way, dusty museum room because they have LINCOLN SKULL PIECES!

The book is divided into three sections (Lincoln, Arthur, McKinley) and deals with the idea of obsession, of minutiae, and of how current popular culture both entwines and crashes up against the past. Vowell has obviously done an amazing amount of research and easily weaves together her journey to find the facts and the facts themselves. She has a strong voice--she is upfront with her intense nerdiness, truthful about how much joy she gets out of history. That "historic" joy is contagious--as soon as I finished this I wanted to run out find a plaque to read somewhere. It's also a very informative book--I mean, how much do YOU really know about William McKinley?--but her humorous tone keeps the reader from getting totally bogged down in fact after fact, which in a format like this is certainly possible. I enjoyed Vowell's winding tangents, although if you're a person who is bothered by tangents I'd recommend you skip right by this book.

On the whole, this was both entertaining and informative, and I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys humor and history.

Return of the King: "The Cell" by Stephen King

In some ways, this was a welcome return to the old Stephen King. In other ways, it was still...not good.

Pros:
1. Plot more or less made sense.
2. A lot of action and some great scary bits.
3. Starts out in Boston, so the locations were wonderfully familiar.

Cons:
1. Character development almost nil.
2. None of the gymnastic wordsmithing that I count on from King.
3. In general seems kind of rushed.

The impression I got from this was that someone had made a bet with King that he couldn't write a book with no more than two paragraphs in a row of description or a limit on the number of sentences that didn't include an action verb. The book was all plot and no story, if that makes sense. I never got a clear picture in my head of any of the main characters, nor were any of them particularly compelling. It's not a bad read, but as far as zombie books go, World War Z was 100% better

Jesus Christ Superstar: Do you think you're who they say you are?

I watched Jesus Christ Superstar the other night, and I have to tell you--despite my adamant avoidance of organized religion--it actually made me want to pick up a Bible and read some of it. (Unfortunately, it turns out neither The Boyfriend nor I own one, so I had to let that desire pass.)

As a movie, it's cinematically interesting, though very obviously 70s. The idea of "framing" the production with the travelling theater troupe instead of trying to go for period realism was very smart and makes it easier to accept the costuming and set choices and enjoy the music and acting. (After all, if you spend the whole movie wondering to yourself why Judas is wearing bedazzled, fringed bellbottoms, you are probably going to miss out on the real point of the thing.) Also, I think the very minimalist set design simplifies a production that--being a rock opera with no breaks and no real "dialogue"--could quickly become overwhelming.

The performances from all the actors were great. Not only could they all rock out, but there was real ACTING going on. Ted Neely as Jesus and Carl Anderson as Judas were particularly excellent. It is not easy to do "projecting emotion" and "shrieking melodically in falsetto" at the same time, and the two of them pull it off.

My favorite thing about this movie has got to be the music. With a collaboration between such musical giants as Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, you can probably put pretty good odds on getting something amazing, but for a project as large and complicated as this, I have to tip my hat to them. As I said before, there is NO real dialogue. Everyone sings, and one song fades into another, only to circle around and return at the opportune moment. The music, once again, is very 70s, but it's still quite powerful. This is music that I intend to purchase for my iPod.

The other thing I liked was how much the movie made me think about Jesus--not Jesus the religious figure, but Jesus the guy. I mean, how totally stressful must it be to be Jesus? Everybody wants something from you--the Jewish leaders/Pharisees want you to shut up, the people want you to be louder, your apostles and followers want leadership and guidance and information, everybody wants to be healed or fixed or prayed for--"Heal me! Raise my dead child! Feed me!", and then you've got God who is telling you you have to die for these people. Neely plays Jesus as someone who desperately wants to be everything to everyone, but he's in over his head and knows that things will not end well for him. He's the first cinematic Jesus I've seen with a temper--he's not just a meek sweetheart, the scene where he throws the moneychangers out of the temple is Jesus-in-full-on-rage-mode. He's not afraid, precisely, but he seems to kind of wish he had other options.

The other interesting thing about this movie is the way Judas is presented. Growing up in the protestant church, we didn't get into Judas much. Mostly "Judas betrayed Jesus for 3o pieces of silver." Nothing much was said about who he was or why he did what he did. Basically, he was always depicted as a shady, shitty guy who turned Jesus in for money. In Jesus Christ; Superstar, Judas starts as Jesus's best friend and closest ally. However, Judas is worried about the "Jesus Movement" and afraid that Jesus is going to get them all killed by the Romans for riling up the political waters with his teachings, instead of just helping the downtrodden, which is what they started out doing. Their differences are more political than anything else--Jesus is the rising outsider superstar with the grassroots support, and Judas is afraid the established order (the Romans and the Pharisees) is going to retaliate unless Jesus cools it. But Jesus of course does not really give a shit one way or another about the established order, because after all, he's on another path completely. Judas ends up turning in Jesus--in his mind--to save him from falling victim to his own hype, not realizing he was playing into the Pharisees' hands, nor understand how quickly the mob could turn from adoration to violence.

One of the best parts in the movie is Judas's slowly dawning understanding of what he's done--and the fact that Jesus knew all along and let him do it anyway. Jesus knew very well how everything would turn out--that Juda's actions would lead to the cross, of how the guilt of what he'd done would eat away at Judas--but he just let it play out as he knew it must. Judas's realization of how he's been used and what his future holds is heartwrenching.

Rock operas are clearly not for everyone, and there are one or two songs that go on a bit too long or have a bit too much shrieking, but on the whole it's an interesting movie, particularly for those who are maybe a little jaded on religion. I recommend it.

A Rant: Hellboy II

Hellboy II: I didn't think this movie was nearly as terrible as some of those I saw it with did. It is not even in the same building, let alone on the same level, as Iron Man or Batman Begins or even The Incredible Hulk. Ron Perlman was good again as Hellboy--despite the pounds of effects make-up and the character's surface wise-assery, Perlman is able to get it across that really, Hellboy is a big old softie. The rest of the returning cast were competent; Jeffrey Tambor was funny, the main villain was sufficiently creepy, and Selma Blair was not terribly annoying, though I did miss David Hyde Pierce as Abe the fish guy. Overall, it was entertaining. The fight scenes were pretty cool, the visuals were impressive to look at, and I got some laughs--that's all I really ask from a movie like this.

I guess this is one of the beefs I sometimes have with people who complain about action, sci-fi, horror, or comic movies. I mean, I am not a "fanboy" who gets riled about the difference between the movie and the original comic. I am not expecting Oscar-caliber dialogue. The acting doesn't have to be fantastic (although if it's VERY bad I do find it annoying--the woman who played the underworld princess in HBII was TERRIBLE, and I did find that somewhat distracting) and my suspension of disbelief can ignore a lot that others can't. Frankly, when I watch a movie like this, I want to laugh, maybe gasp a few times, shovel popcorn in my mouth and be fucking entertained. Not every movie has to have historical significance or a social message or be cinamatically stunning. Sometimes I just want to watch Bruce Willis blow stuff up or Nicolas Cage punch some dude in the face or John Wayne shoot some guys. I think movies should be FUN. I dislike the idea that movies should be like cod liver oil--that some you should just shut up and swallow because they're "good" for you. Not me! You know, I have seen Citizen Kane, okay? And you know what? It's totally fucking dull. I realize that cinamatically it's very impressive for its time, and that in a historical context it's very very important. I know all that because it's not like it's a secret. Talk to any first-year film student and he or she will probably fill you in. However--and this is of course only my opinion--it's no fun at all to watch. The characters are all horrible and I couldn't connect with any of them. It was not funny. It was not exciting. It had no suspense. It merely plodded on for what seemed to me like an eternity, and that right there is NO FUN. I spend enough of my life having NO FUN at work--I have no interest in torturing myself with films that are a chore to watch when I'm on my own time.

Perhaps I just better than most at lowering my expectations?

Movie Bonanza!

It has been a very long time since I've posted, but that doesn't mean that I haven't been watching movies...oh no, it just means I haven't been WRITING about watching movies. Therefore, I am going to wallop you in the face with several mini-reviews. Lucky you, right?



1. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull: Personally, I liked this movie. It's certainly no Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade but it's a fun movie. Admittedly, it had its flaws. For one thing, the plot was kind of weak. I think this may have something to do with the fact that while the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are commonly known artifacts, no one (or at least no one who doesn't read Weekly World News) has heard of the Crystal Skulls, and also that there was no cool "I have to put this stick in the exact right spot at the right time and then follow the sunbeam on the map to find the location of the door..." kind of thing. Basically it was like "Here's where we're going. Let's go there, everyone!" Also, Cate Blanchett's Russian accent was rather terrible. On the upside, there were some fun fight scenes, Shia LaBouf was significantly less annoying than I had suspected he would be (in fact, I found his character to be a pleasant surprise) and it was GREAT to see Karen Allen back again as Marion Ravenwood (my very favorite of the Indy heroines.) On the fence was the issue of "over-the-topness." For me, it wasn't a problem--I expected the movie to be cartoony or comic-bookish. In my opinion, that's fun. However some of those I saw the movie with, including The Boyfriend, were put off by the ridiculousness. I said "Oh, and his running away from that giant stone ball in the previous movie wasn't ridiculous?" but apparently they are not the same. *Shrug*

2. The Incredible Hulk: I don't know who is running the Marvel Comics production studio, but whomever it is, I hope he or she is being paid well. While this movie pales in the face of Iron Man, it is still a good solid superhero movie. The special effects were pretty good, the plot was reasonable, and the fight scenes were cool. Thumbs down, though, to casting Liv Tyler (who is not only a poor actress but also distractingly cross-eyed), and also to Edward Norton, who kind of looked for most of the movie like he didn't want to be there. On the whole, though, an entertaining way to kill few hours on a hot summer day.

3. The Golden Compass: This was okay, but so very VERY obvious that there were going to be sequels. Way to not finish A SINGLE STORYLINE, stupid director. Also, I would really have liked to see more armed polar bear warrior fights.

4. Mongol: This is a subtitled Chinese movie we went to see at the local second-run movie house. It's about the early life of Genghis Khan, and it was all right. I thought some of the cinematography was breathtaking, and on the whole it was very interesting, since I know NOTHING about Genghis Khan and almost nothing about current Chinese culture, let alone ancient Chinese culture. The performances from the two leads were powerful, but not overbearing--it's difficult to express so much power with a characters who almost never raise their voices. Unfortunately, the first half of the movie draaaaags for quite a while before things start getting exciting. It's a bit repetitive, and there are times when very confusing time-jumps occur. It's like, one minute the main character is escaping from being locked in a cage for more than a decade, and the next moment it's ten years later and he has an army thousands of men strong, with no real explanation of how things arrived at that point. It's like, "I'm sure whatever happened during that ten years that took him from prisoner to leading thousands of men into battle was probably interesting too...", and it's particularly annoying when the film then spends 10 or 15 minutes on something seemingly minor. I imagine there may be a sequel to this at some point, since it was critically acclaimed (nominated for best foreign film in the 2008 Oscars) and ends right at the point when Khan actually comes into control of the mongol hordes.

Rio Bravo: I like old westerns, and even I found this a little bit stupid. That feeling was not helped any by the part in the middle when Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson randomly stop defending the town from outlaws to sing a lovely ditty about someone named Cindy.

The Grand: This mockumentary about a poker tournament is only recommended for people who are into poker. If you watch poker on TV and follow it as closely as The Boyfriend and our friends (and by osmosis, I) do, then this movie will probably be hilarious because you will recognize all the references, player cameos, and cliches. It's in the Christopher Guest style (and his old friend Michael McKean actually shows up in a small part) which means most of the dialogue was improv, and in fact the final table of the tournament was really played by the actors...so no one knew how the movie was going to end, including the director. There are some great performances, including Woody Harrelson as a lovable loser, Dennis Farina as the old pro, Cheryl Hines as the female pro, and David Cross as the loony attention whore. Seriously though, if you don't know who Doyle Brunson is or are unaware what Phil Helmuth's famous for, don't even bother with this one.

Glory: This is a really good movie. However it makes me miss the days when Denzel Washington acted instead of just chewing scenery and baring his teeth a lot for no reason.


Whew! And now I'm spent.

A Letter to Nicolas Cage

Dear Mr. Cage,

I know you can act. I have seen you do it. You have put out some performances that have been extraordinary--for example, The Weatherman, Lord of War, Guarding Tess, Adaptation, and apparently Leaving Las Vegas (though that one I have never seen.) And I have certainly enjoyed some of your movies that were...well, let's say they are not going to be contenders in the "Top 10 Films of the Century" contest. I mean, I enjoyed The Rock and Trapped in Paradise a lot , but they are not winning you any Oscars. However, I think you could do even better if you'd take a few pieces of advice from me.

1. YOU CANNOT DO ACCENTS. PLEASE STOP TRYING. I don't care what accent it is, don't do it. You are not fooling anybody. New York, deep South--no. Just no no no. You suck at them and it's time you admitted that and stopped trying. I think Moonstruck, Ghostrider, and Con Air would all have benefited from this advice. Weak or stupid dialogue is easier to camouflage if it's not delivered in a shitty fake accent.

2. YOU NEED TO HIRE A GOOD STYLIST. You are balding, okay? You know it, we all know it. Putting a long, scraggly wig on is NOT going to fool anyone (see Con Air and Next). Showing off your muscles is not going to distract anyone. You need to get in touch with someone who get you a really good hairpiece, or you need to take the Bruce Willis route and just stop trying.

3. YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE PICKIER ABOUT YOUR MOVIE CHOICES. Do you really expect me to believe that you thought The Wicker Man was going to be good? That you read the script of The Family Man and were like "Hey, this is really great!" If that does happen to be the case, you need to get a much MUCH better agent. Even Ghostrider (which I enjoyed despite myself) should have set off some alarms with its occasionally horrible dialogue. I mean, yes, it IS cool to play a bad-ass flame-headed guy, but perhaps you should look for more than that in your search for scripts. I sometimes think you just throw darts at script to choose what you do, because some of your movies are spectacular and some are pig vomit. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, either.

4. DON'T OVERDO IT ON THE TEETH-BARING, CRAZY-EYED, "LOOK AT ME, I'M LOOOOOSING IT!" FACE. This is a minor peeve, but you sometimes overact quite a bit. I'm a fan of campy (What else can explain my love for some of your work?) but there's only so much a girl can take. Your best roles tend to be the more subtle ones.

Please don't think that my bluntness indicates that I dislike you; on the contrary, I think you're usually pretty entertaining. I am a sucker for Valley Girl and Moonstruck, and I totally LOVE Con Air, even though you commit every sin I've listed here (and a few I've neglected to mention.) You are not untalented, you are just misguided. You can turn it around--I believe in you :)

I hope your upcoming films are good.
Yours,
The Caustic Critic

"Yeah, I can fly now." : Iron Man

On Friday night, The Boyfriend and I (as well as a few of the usual suspects) ventured out into the wilds of Boston proper to go see Iron Man. I will admit that I was not originally stoked about the idea, seeing as it was a chilly, drizzly, graduation weekend in Boston which leads to larger than usual movie-going crowds, and when combined with it being opening weekend of the first of the summer superhero blockbusters, I was sure there would be far too many of "the humans" to allow me any cinematic entertainment. And at first, I was right. We were herded into a little corral for the 25 minutes leading up to the theater opening (though it seems kind of extreme, I think Loews's management of the crowd was pretty reasonable) with the rest of the deranged and slavering fanboys. But as we were standing there waiting, the previous showing of the movie let out, and everyone looked...happy. I mean REALLY happy. They were all talking and gesturing and a couple people were actually leaping up in the air with joy.

Hmmm, I thought to myself.

The previews were pretty exciting in themselves: The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones VI in particular (I like to pretend that I never saw the one for Love Guru...that is like three minutes of my life I can never have back.) There was also one for the new M. Night Shaymalan picture, The Happening. I very seriously question his casting of Marky Mark (I know, I know, he's "Mark Whalberg, the very serious actor" now, but he will ALWAYS be "Marky Mark, the rapper in his underpants" to me) as the lead. I'm actually not really sure what it's about, but I'd be willing to bet there is some kind of craaaazy twist at the end.

As for Iron Man...let me make a list so I can talk about this without babbling.

Things I Liked About Iron Man:

1. Robert Downey Jr. I have always liked Robert Downey Jr., and I think he's probably one of the better actors of his generation. I particuarly enjoyed his performance in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and had been looking forward to seeing him again in a bigger movie. He manages to do the superhero thing without going down the "I'm Batman, oooh, I'm so brooooody" road, and he studiously avoids the "I'm Spiderman/Superman, and I'm just so gosh-darn wholesome" trap, too. I mean, the character of Tony Stark is...well, obnoxious. But he's obnoxious like that friend you have (and everybody has one...if you don't, then you ARE that guy) that is kind of a douchebag, but he's such a hilarious, charming, self-deprecating, FUN douchebag you just kind of forgive his jerky behavior in exchange for the good stuff. In all, Stark is a character I liked played by a massively talented actor. Score 1 for Iron Man!

2. Jon Favreau. I am not entirely sure how Jon Favreau lucked into this gig--up until this point, the only major movie he'd directed was Elf--but thank goodness he did. The script for this was pretty great, the casting was pretty much great, the effects choices were excellent, and best of all, the fight scenes were COOL. None of that "flashy flashy ultra close up flash flash blurry close up POV shot flash flash explosion!" thing that directors seem to be favoring in action movies. You could actually SEE the fight! It was amazing! Who knew that the guy who played Gutter in PCU would go on to do this?

3. Dialogue. Most action movies have some issues with dialogue. There is usually at least that one scene when you kind of slap yourself in the forehead like "Oh, jeez, ow, that was lame." Even Batman Begins--which I LOVED--was blighted with a few of those moments (all courtesy of the robotic Kat(i)e Holmes). Iron Man didn't seem to have any of those moments. Partly, I suppose, because the romantic subplot was kept pretty aggressively "sub," and partly because RDJ managed to keep his character from really saying any soppy out-of-character bunk.

4. Comedy. The scenes with Stark in his lab with his robots were PRICELESS. I laughed until the tears rolled down my face.

5. Villain. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to buy Jeff Bridges as a villain. As a commenter on a review site I read (Pajiba.com) mentioned, "Every time he and RDJ were arguing, I just kept waiting for him to say 'That's just, like, your opinion...man.' like the Dude." As someone who lives with a Big Lebowski addict, I'm kind of ruined on Jeff Bridges. However, he did the best he could to be menacing with a smile (which is muc more disturbing than outright menacing.) As a sidenote, though, the guy who runs the superhero's company while he is away is ALWAYS evil.

6. Special Effects. Incredible. Come on, the suit? The sexiness is overwhelming.


I was not particularly thrilled with the casting of Gwenyth Paltrow as the lead female/possible romatic interest Pepper Potts. However, she was not terrible (once again, I bring up Ms. Holmes in Batman Begins--in my opinion, that woman ruined every single scene she appeared in...not even the hot sexiness of Christian Bale could help her...it was like watching a nervous kid doing Shakespeare with Olivier) and in her favor did have really excellent shoes. I think they would have better off casting someone a little more snarky and less pretty (something along the lines of a young Janeane Garofalo, maybe?) but on the whole it could have been so so so much worse.

Overall, I give two thumbs up--it was just really really fun, and that is something I look for in my blockbuster films.

"I love you too, but I'm going to mace you in the face!"

This weekend, The Boyfriend and I ordered up some Indian food and settled in to watch The Darjeeling Limited. As a fan of Wes Anderson, but also a person who can admit that I find some of his work very uneven, I wasn't sure to expect.

The film follows the meandering story of the Whitman brothers (played by Owen Wilson [my favorite Wilson!], Adrien Brody, and Jason Schwartzman) who travel across India in a train on a reluctant spiritual journey. I was pleased with the casting--obviously Wilson and Schwartzman are Anderson favorites, but Brody fit in rather nicely to the Anderson asthetic and was perfect as neurotic, kleptomaniacal middle brother Peter. Owen Wilson, usually known for his wacky stoner-type characters pulled back a little to play the bossy but fragile oldest brother Francis. Schwartzman was also good as youngest brother and peace-maker Jack. The brotherly dynamic was great, and it was interesting to watch the three of them play off one another. It was also sort of fascinating to try and figure out what had led their relationships to the current point and to wonder where they where headed.

The movie is definitely a character study, since really almost nothing actually "happens." It's basically 90 minutes of watching the Whitman brothers haul around their monogrammed baggage while trying to connect with each other and themselves. Anderson has let up on the precociously whimsical aspect that I felt sort of dragged down The Life Aquatic and this time allows his characters to interact a little more naturally.

Another thing that was particularly interesting to me was the way he almost made India a character in the movie. Having all three main characters in a place where they were uncomfortable and out-of-place created a situation that led to more conflict. I know that feeling of being the only white person in a place, wondering what people are thinking yet unable to find out because no one is speaking your language. It definitely makes you both extremely self-conscious and at the same time sort of uninhibited--self-conscious because you're completely different from everyone around you and you don't know what they're saying, yet uninhibited because none of these people know anything about you and most probably don't know know what you're saying about them, either. It's a set of circumstances that allow the Whitman brothers to put down a certain number of their defenses under the guise of trying to have a spiritual experience.

I definitely liked the movie, although I think I'd probably have to watch it again to even start to get everything. Like Anderson's other films, it's got a lot of visual depth and an astounding number of details that will require multiple viewings. I found it both funny and moving, closer probably to Tennenbaums and Bottle Rocket than to Rushmore or Life Aquatic. I recommend it to anyone who is willing to sit down and really WATCH it (it's not a movie you can put on as background--it will need you to devote your full attention).

Sidenote: Wes Anderson really has a thing about absentee parents. There is at least one in every one of his movies, except maybe Bottle Rocket. In Tennenbaums, Royal has been absent for most of his children's lives, and Chaz's wife is dead, leaving his two sons to deal with missing a parent. In Rushmore, Max's mother is dead. In Life Aquatic, Steve Zissou IS the absent parent, and Ned is the child learning to deal with that absence. And in Darjeeling, the Whitman brothers lost their father a year previous, and their mother has disappeared on them too. I don't know what it means, except that maybe ol' Wes has some parental issues.

Accidental Double Feature: True Romance and The Langoliers

This weekend I ended up with an accidental double feature--didn't even realize that the two movies had anything in common until we started watching the second one. Can you guess what the common thread is between True Romance and The Langoliers?

Give up?

Bronson Pinchot!

Yeah, okay, so that's not actually exciting. As a matter of fact, I have often said I find Mr. Pinchot (or as The Boyfriend calls him, "Hey-it's-Balky!") brain-splinteringly annoying. The mere sound of his voice is kind of obnoxious and gives me headaches. However, what we have here is one good solid performance from him wherein he did NOT annoy me.

I will first point out that I LOVE True Romance. It's the only movie of Quentin Tarantino's that I actually like, probably because he neither acted in nor directed it. When I first saw it several years ago, I didn't even KNOW it was a Tarantino movie (although seeing it now I can definitely point out a few spots where the Tarantino comes through: namely the conversation early on with Samuel L. Jackson talking about eating pussy, Dennis Hopper's monologue about the Sicilians and the Moors [which is an iconic scene, really--Hopper and Christopher Walken elevate that above its true content], Patricia Arquette's knock-down-drag-out with James Gandolfini, the Mexican stand-off, and the repeated use of the phrase "Bad Motherfucker.") The plot centers around Clarence and Alabama, who through a series of circumstances end up with a suitcase full of cocaine and the mob on their tails. Contrary to how it may sound, though, the movie is a romance through and through. The reasons I like it so much are as follows:

1. Christian Slater. Seriously, I will watch just about anything the guy does, even if most of it IS crap. Not only do I find him exceedingly hot, but I feel this is my way of repaying him for Heathers, Pump Up the Volume, and this.

2. Patricia Arquette's portrayal of Alabama is as both sweet and naive AND gutsy and tough is pretty great. She manages to play both vulnerable and hard as nails, sometimes within the same moment. It's an excellent performance from her, and as one of very few compelling females within the Tarantino canon (the only one who measures up in my estimation is Beatrix Kiddo, and she has the benefit of being a trained assassin--Alabama has to make do with being a former call-girl) I find her interesting. I think that is due more to Arquette's acting skills than to the script--Alabama could have come off cloying and stupid if played wrong. Which reminds me, the opening and closing monologues from her are just bad. I advise you to skip over them if possible.

3. The plot is serviceable, but doesn't necessarily dominate the movie. It just keeps things moving along in a more or less coherant way. There is never a point during the film where I find myself saying "What? What is going on? Why is this happening?" The things the characters do make sense within the context of the film, which is rarer than you'd think.

4. The acting in the movie--from Slater and Arquette all the way down to the minor roles--is top notch. There are a suprising number of recognizable faces in the film--watch for Brad Pitt's turn as a stoner, Bronson Pinchot (yes, there he is) as a nervous syncophant, and James Gandolfini (with hair!) as a mafia fixer. Also Val Kilmer (who is billed fourth in the credits, yet is only in the movie for about 5 minutes and you never actually see his face) is another bonus for me, since he's another actor I love.

5. The soundtrack--particularly Clarence and Alabama's theme, which I believe is a marimba solo--is fantastic. It adds to the movie without distracting, which should be the goal of every movie's score.

5. (SPOILER!) I am a sucker for happy endings.

I recommend True Romance for everyone--there's romance, violence, adventure, humor...everything you can ask for from a movie is here.

The Langoliers, unfortunately, did not inspire within me the same sort of devotion. There were several problems, some of which made it nearly opposite True Romance. The film is based on a Stephen King novella, the premise being that a group of ten passengers--including a pilot (David Morse), a mystery writer (Dean Stockwell), a blind--and somewhat psychic--girl, two teenagers, a school teacher, a British man of mystery, a glutton, a blue-collar gentleman, and a mad man (Bronson Pinchot! Again!)--on a cross-country flight wake up to discover they are the only people left on board the plane...or, it turns out, on earth. After landing at a rural Maine airport, they are left to try and figure out what's happened while dealing with threats they can see (the mad man) and those they can't (a mysterious munching sound from beyond the mountains).

1. The film was made as a TV mini-series in the early 90s, and it really shows. (In the words of Nina Garcia, "It looks cheap.") There are no big-name actors, and the special effects are downright TERRIBLE. Laughably terrible, in fact. Even the plane was poorly done and looked like bad CGI. Also, it's totally obvious exactly where the commercials were.

2. None of the characters were particularly memorable, except for Pinchot and his horrible HORRIBLE over-acting, which mostly consisted of a lot of eye-rolling and shrieking. The writers tried to shoehorn in subplots for everyone, but didn't bother to follow them out properly. There was no real character development at all. Characters were generally either "bravely heroic" or "gripped by hysteria and panic."

3. Contrary to True Romance, the plot in The Langoliers dominated the movie but did it very badly. Let's say that you are flexible enough to buy into the idea of the time rip, etc (after all, if you're not you should probably stay away from movies in this genre.) The problems are with the characters and their behavior. They all seem to completely ignore a man who is obviously dangerously insane. Later, the British secret agent ties up the mad man with a rope that is obviously incapble of holding him, then leaves the blind child and the school teacher (both unarmed) to keep an eye on crazy Pinchot while Mr. British Secret Service and the other good-sized men of the party go off to wander through the deserted airport. There was entirely more exposition at some points than was necessary--the audience is not stupid, you know. My ability to suspend disbelief was heartily abused.

4. Much of the acting was BAD. Morse and Stockwell did as well as they could with the material provided (they're both veterans, after all) but the rest of the cast were either over-acting or under-acting the whole way through. Half the time they were screaming, the other half mumbling miserably to themselves. As I mentioned, Pinchot was quite awful, but the woman playing the schoolteacher/love interest was quite blah, and the British apparently confused smirking with acting. In all, a rather unimpressive turnout.

It was just not very good at all, and although I'd been trying to track it down for ages (Netflix didn't have it and I was so excited to find it available OnDemand) it was a big disappointment (as many Stephen King movies tend to be...but I've posted on that subject already.) I definitely don't recommend this except to the most devoted King fan.

Careful Or You'll Be Bored to Death!: Scare Jessica to Death

This past weekend, The Boyfriend was out of town and I happily had the place all to myself. Obviously, what I did was hang out, eat pizza, and watch terrible movies OnDemand. One such movie that I found was Scare Jessica to Death. (In case you are thinking of watching this movie--which I don't know why you would, but some people are funny that way--there are going to be some spoilers. Be warned.)

First of all, there's the most important factor: 1971. Yes, this movie was made in 1971, and it was NOT a high budget blockbuster. In fact, when watching it you may suspect that the director simply rounded up a couple friends, his grandparents, and a video camera to put this thing together. Also, he may have written the entire script in two hours while he was stoned. You know the kind of stoned: the kind of stoned where you're like "Hey, let's order a pizza!" and everyone's really psyched and thinks it's a most excellent idea, and then an hour later you're all like "Hey, where's that pizza?" only to have the most sober member of the group point out that you never actually ordered it, instead you went to the 7-11 and bought 12 packages of Swedish fish and a Slim Jim. That is the kind of stoned that produced this movie, I think.

The second thing is that you keep thinking things are going to get more interesting, but they don't. For all the 'Music of Creepiness and Great Forboding' not a lot really happens. The story sort of drags along for most of the movie, with the occasional "ooh, that's sort of weird" moment. However, if you're paying attention, the movie's twist should slam you in the head about half an hour in. Then the last 15 or twenty minutes a bunch of stuff happens but none of it is particularly interesting or scary. You're mostly left wondering just how stupid this particular bunch of people are.

For those of you who might still be interested, the plot is as follows: Jessica has just been released from a mental institution, and her husband and their random hippy friend Woody decide the best thing for her is to pack up and move to a creepy-ass house out in the middle of Buttfuck-Nowhereville, where they plan to live off of selling any heirlooms left in the house and Woody's doubtful farming skills. When they get to the house, they find the locals distinctly unfriendly and a beautiful squatter named Emily living in the place. Things kind of go to hell from there, with Jessica struggling to understand what's going on while not giving the impression that she's still crazy. Of course the mysterious Emily is not what she first appears (although can definitely rock the lute) and the town is even less friendly than it first seemed. Throw in a cheating husband, a mute girl in white, some drowning, a vampire (one who appears to have no problems at all with sunlight), and some elderly zombies and you have...well, I don't know exactly what you you have. You have this movie, I guess. It sounds like a lot of excitement, but trust me, that explanation was probably more exciting and enjoyable than the actual film.

I don't recommend this to anyone. There are thousands of horror movies out there, and even most of the "bad" ones will be better than this.

Did They Actually PAINT Someone?: F-Troop

I was so excited when I saw that the show F-Troop had finally been released on DVD. I remember watching it on Nick @ Nite with my grandparents, and in my memory it was a hilarious show. Why, I wondered, had it taken this long to get released? Why wasn't it still being shown on TVland or late at night on the Western Channel or something?

I ordered it from Netflix and anxiously awaited my chance to reconnect with something from my childhood.

Then, the DVD arrived, and I suddenly realized why the show had all but disappeared.

The show is about a western fort sometime during the civil war era. The commanding officer is typically clueless, and his underlings get up to all sorts of shenanagins under his nose. Nothing wrong with that, right? The first indication of a problem comes during the theme song (an infectious little ditty, written in the days when shows had theme songs that actually provided information about the show.)


The end of the Civil War was near,
When quite accidentally,
A hero who sneezed, abruptly seized
Retreat and reversed it to victory.
His medal of honor pleased and thrilled
His proud little family group.
While pinning it on, some blood was spilled,
And so it was planned he'd command...F-Troop!
Where Indian fights are colorful sights
And nobody takes a lickin',
Where paleface and redskin
Both turn chicken.

Oops...redskin? I am pretty sure they're not referring to the football team here. And once the "redskins" arrive on screen, it's apparent why this show is rarely shown: every single Native American character is a painted white guy. The first episode on the DVD featured Don Rickles painted brown, running around and screaming about scalping people. Although the Hakawi tribe are stereotypical in some ways, they often seem to get the better of their stupid white comrades at Fort Courage. However, while it may have been okay in 1965 to paint men brown and stick feathers on their heads to play Native Americans, it's pretty uncomfortable today.

The strange thing is that except for the parts involving the Heckawis, the show is still pretty funny in that slap-sticky 60s sitcom kind of way. Ken Berry's portrayal of Captain Parmenter (who was cheerful but totally oblivious and invariably clumsy) is fantastic, and Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch nail their roles as the slick Sargeant O'Roake and his bumbling sidekick Corporal Agarn. Storch in particular is hilarious--his generation's rubber-faced version of Jim Carrey, only with less screaming. Unfortunately, I just couldn't enjoy it as I used to because the Heckawi issue made me so uncomfortable. I'm not usually a person who is much concerned with political correctness and am often the one pointing out that you have to take things in their context or remember that it's only a show, but even after telling myself that it was made in the 1960s before people knew any better, it was still just a little too gross.

Very disappointing over all--I didn't even finish out the episodes on the disk.

I am going to hope that some of the other shows I remember fondly from my days watching Nick @ Nite hold up better.

Prison Football Double Feature: Gridiron Gang and The Longest Yard

Often, when I pick out what movies Netflix is going to send me, I like to set myself for a double feature. I pick out two movies that are somehow linked (at least in my mind) whether it be thematic, subject matter, genre, or even by actor. (In college, we used to arrange movie nights like this, except we'd pick out four movies and sometimes a food...for example, Tim Curry night--three Tim Curry movies...and curry.) This past weekend, the unifying factor was pretty specific: prison football.

The first one I watched was Gridiron Gang starring The Rock and Xibit. I know that doesn't sound particularly promising, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It's a story of a man (The Rock, of course) who arranges a football team in a juvenile detention center, and how being on that team effects the lives of those who participate. It's pretty much your standard sport film--there are montages, there are wins and losses, there's some pretty blatant heart-string-plucking, and everyone Learns A Valuable Lesson. The acting was not going to win any Oscars, but it was acceptable, and no one seemed especially out of his or her depth. Some of the dialogue was kind of cheesy, but that's a fault of many films in the sports genre. Plus, as I discovered as the credits rolled, much of the script was taken verbatim from the mouths of the people the movie is based on--there's clips from the documentary about this team, and some of the things they're saying are line by line what's in the movie. I'd actually be interested in seeing the original documentary, since I'll bet it's fascinating, unfortunately Netflix doesn't seem to have it. All in all, I wouldn't go overboard to recommend this movie, but if you like sports movies, it's not bad.

The second movie was the Adam Sandler remake of The Longest Yard. I wasn't really too excited about this one, since I'm kind of torn about Adam Sandler. I'm very fond of him in some things, but he often just plays Adam Sandler...and Adam Sandler is kind of annoying. However, when he's actually making an attempt to play a character, he is at the very least competant. Also, remakes are kind of tough, particularly remakes of movies as iconic as the original Longest Yard. Luckily, it seems they avoided some of the pitfalls that can make these movies disappointing, and the casting was great, maybe even inspired. The premise is that a former pro-quarterback (Sandler) goes to prison, where the sadistic warden coinvinces him to draft a con team to play against the semi-pro guard team. Sandler obviously played the Burt Reynolds part, but Burt himself showed up to play the wise older con coach (the fact that Reynolds not only agreed but WANTED to be in this movie was definitely a good sign.) Chris Rock played Caretaker, Sandler's sidekick, and he was very funny. The cast was rounded out by a crew of former pro-football players and pro-wrestlers, all of whom seemed to be having an excellent time. I think perhaps that was one of the reason I enjoyed the movie so much--everyone in it seemed to be really enjoying themselves, and in my opinion that can often prop up an otherwise mediocre comedy. Another good thing was that they didn't mess around with the story. The dialogue was updated, and some tweaking was done with the characters, but in general there was no attempt to do anything but make a loving homage to the original. Also, if you get the DVD, make sure to check out the making-of featurettes. They're all really informative, and give an added perspective to the movie that is really interesting. In all, I'd recommend this to those who enjoy football movies or slap-sticky comedies.

Hans Grubering It Up: Die Hard & Die Hard 2

Last weekend, as part of my quest to actually see the films that everyone else in the world already saw 2-3 decades ago, I watched Die Hard and Die Hard:2.

The first thing I have to do is admit that I love Bruce Willis. I love pretty much anything Bruce Willis does. I realize that he's really not the best actor in the world, and I'm okay with that. And I am also aware that he should avoid most serious films (aka things that don't involve explosions or handguns) because his lack of acting skills can be a problem. However, he's great in Sin City, Pulp Fiction, The Fifth Element (one of my favorite movies), and passable in Sixth Sense. I'm also a big fan of the little known 1988 movie Sunset, in which Willis plays Tom Mix, James Garner plays an aging Wyatt Earp, and the two of them solve a murder mystery in 1929 Hollywood. Bruce Willis is good at that whole "tough and laconic action hero" thing, but he's also (as many macho action stars seem to) got a knack for comedy, and doesn't seem afraid to laugh at himself.

Die Hard was much better than I expected. The plot, while far-fetched, was at least marginally plausible. (What I mean here is that yes, it's a movie plot, and therefore not entirely realistic. However, it at least hung together enough that it wasn't distracting to me.) Detective John McClane is a sympathetic character, and his exchange with the limo driver at the beginning of the movie got me on board with him right away. I also really enjoyed his later interactions with the L.A. police officer played by Reginald VelJohnson (best known, of course, for his role as Carl Winslow on Family Matters), which showed a more human side to McClane--he's not played as some kind of super-hero. He's a guy whose marriage is shakey, who likes to smoke, and is not averse to playing a little dirty. Okay, yes, he takes a beating that would kill any real person, he single-handedly kills roughly 10 bad guys, and he walks across broken glass--but in the end he's still just a guy. The stunts were pretty impressive, and the special effects were reasonable for the time. Hans Gruber (played by Alan Rickman) was quite possibly a contender for my "Top 10 Awesomest Movie Villians of All Time" list--then again, can you beat Alan Rickman? I don't think he's every done anything I DIDN'T like, to be be fair. I like a villain who is calm, cool, and collected, rather than those kooky supervillains who run around shrieking manically all the time. In fact, I found myself hating the reporter, Thornberg, much more than Gruber. Which reminds me--even McClane's wife is badass--she's no damsel in distress, and is totally not afraid to punch someone in the face. In all, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. Yippee-ki-yay motherfucker, indeed.

Die Hard 2, on the other hand, was a little more difficult to appreciate. I still liked McClane a lot. He's a likeable character, and Bruce Willis gives him a real charm. Unfortunately, this movie suffered from something I mentioned earlier: the terminally stupid plot. The plot was too complicated and yet simplistic that it was clearly very difficult for the actors to hold everything together. There are rogue soldiers! And they control the airport! And none of the planes can land! And there's a drug lord! And explosions! And snowmobiles! And Dennis Franz! It was just distracting in its ridiculousness. I think one of the main flaws was that the main villian was poorly cast. William Sadler makes a decent lower-level bad guy. He also plays slimy-rich-guy pretty well (as shown by his appearance on pretty much every crime procedural show in existance), andI personally think his best showing was as the Hank Williams-loving con Heywood in The Shawshank Redemption. However, he's not cut out to be a crazy-aggressive master villian. I didn't buy it. The rogue soldier thing was done more effectively by Ed Harris in The Rock, frankly. Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying it's a terrible movie that you shouldn't watch. I'm just saying that you shouldn't go in with too many expectations. As long as you understand what you're getting into--it's an over-the-top action movie with a lot of explosions and shooting and bad puns--you should be okay. But if you go in expecting Citizen Cane (or even the original Die Hard) you're going to be disappointed.

Full disclosure: Netflix screwed me again this week: 10 minutes into Die Hard 2, the sound cut out...and never came back. Luckily for me, subtitles were available. Still, it's possible I would have been more intrigued by the movie if I'd been able to hear the dialogue, music, etc.

Dear Netflix: I love you, but sometimes you suck -- Taking Lives & Rambo

This weekend I sat down with my anxiously anticipated Netflix movies, Taking Lives and Rambo. I started with Taking Lives because I have what might be an unhealthy fixation on Angelina Jolie. Besides, as we are all aware, I loves me some crime movie. Unfortunately, I missed the entire first two scenes (the ones I imagine must have set up the whole plot and would have given me vital clues to the mystery) due to a scratch on the DVD. That was okay though, because I actually often prefer to start a movie after the intial exposition--I'm just as happy to leap in at about the 10 minute mark and figure out what's going on, rather than having it all spoon-fed to me. Anyway, the movie was not terrible, though I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know. Angelina was all right in her part, but it's not anything that challenged her in any way, thus I don't think she was all that interested. I will admit that I don't like Ethan Hawke, so that was another strike against the movie. The plot was interesting enough, although I think they showed their hand a little bit early. Maybe it's just because I'm so clever, but I knew what was going on long before they decided to officially announce it, and by then the characters didn't even look surprised. There were some good thriller moments, particularly one in a basement bedroom that actually had me leaping off the couch shrieking. Of course, right at the bloody climax we hit another field of scratches, so I didn't get to see the end of the damn thing. I checked out the ending on http://www.moviepooper.com/ though and discovered that I didn't really miss anything. If you want to see Angelina in a crime thriller, I think you're much better off with The Bone Collector, wherein she plays the headstrong rookie cop assistant to Denzel Washington's quadriplegic profiling pro.

I also finally got around to watching Rambo. It's one of those movies that gets a lot of references (any time anyone at a party puts his tie around his head, there is bound to be at least one Rambo joke) but that very few people I know have actually SEEN. The problem with Rambo in this day and age (in my opinion) is that it's very seriously dated. I'm sure in the late 70s/early 80s when it was made, the idea of a soldier gone berzerk with PTSD was a novel idea. However now PTSD is so commonly referred to (though I'd hesitate to say better understood) in our culture that it's not nearly as shocking. The other issue is that people of my age don't really understand what life was like for returning soldiers in that era. We are used to there being a surplus of "support" (sure, they have trouble finding jobs and getting the medical care they need, but think how many magnetic yellow ribbons you've seen on cars) for returning troops--the idea that servicemen at the time were spit on and protested when they returned from Vietnam is unthinkable to us. We may know intellectually that it happened, but we are unfamiliar with a world where it could. Plus, as Rambo ran through the woods impaling people and threatening them with knives and blowing stuff up, I kind of sided with the police in the idea that he was quite a danger to himself and others who needed catching. I never really identified with him as an anti-hero, and rather thought to myself "Hey, that guy belongs in a mental hospital." I will say it was a pretty good role for Stallone, since except for his final monologue he only utters about 5 sentences in the entire movie. The final monologue, though, with all the crying, came dangerously close to cheesy territory. I think it's lucky the guy who played the Colonel was so good, otherwise that scene could have been a disaster. The villains were played pretty well--Brian Dennehy is no slouch. Seeing David Caruso as the young, idealistic cop who wasn't sure about their treatment of Rambo gave me a chuckle--I kept waiting for him to dramatically pause to put on/take off his sunglasses...sadly, it rained the whole time so no need for sunglasses. Over all, I'd recommend this, if only so that you can understand the references in things like The Simpsons.

Did You Miss Me?

So we've been watching some movies lately, and since I haven't given you a good solid review post in a while, I figured I'd oblige for all one of you who actually cares:

1. Cube, Cube 2: Hypercube, and Cube Zero: Those who know me will realize that I am not in general a fan of the sci-fi genre. However, these were (with exceptions) pretty good movies. Cube is okay, and for the first movie in the series, the premise is cool and kind of interesting. Plus, it twists and turns all over the place to keep you interested. However, there's not a lot to the characters--the movie is pretty much totally plot-driven. Cube 2: Hypercube was in my opinion the best of the three. The characters (though there was not a ton of character development) were a little more fleshed out and at no point during the movie did I find myself bored. The premise of the first movie is definitely amped up in the second, and the twists are even more aggressive. The special effects were also pretty awesome. And then there's poor Cube Zero which is meant to be a prequal to the first movie. What can I say about it? It starts with a guy getting his face melted off and just goes on to get worse from there. The dialogue is stupid, there's too much focus on what's going on outside the cube, and the whole thing just makes no sense. Not to mention that even though it's a prequal it really has NOTHING to do with the other two movies. Watch the other two, skip the last one.

2. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End You know, I was really pretty disappointed with this one. I of course LOVED the first movie. Then the second movie I was kind of m'eh about. This one...could they have shoe-horned in ANYTHING else? I mean, jeez, every single person from every movie showed up, often for no reason at all. The plot was totally convoluted to a point where I almost couldn't keep up. Johnny Depp was fine, but he can't carry the movie by himself. Kiera Knightley was also okay, but Orlando Bloom looked bored/annoyed throughout the whole thing. (Maybe he's finally realized that almost no one cares at all about him or his character?) There was just too much going on for no apparent reason. AND I hated the ending. As much as I wanted to like it, this gets a thumbs down.

3. Dexter In light of the dwindling amount of interesting new programming due to the writers' strike, The Boyfriend and I decided to combine our Netflix powers and rent the entire first season of Dexter. I'd seen a few of the first episodes during a free-Showtime weekend, and we'd both heard really good things, so we decided to give it a try. GO RENT IT RIGHT NOW! This show is damn close to perfect. The lead character and his narration are funny, profound, and creepy by turns, and the rest of cast does a fantastic job with making their characters more than just stereotypes. The show begins tightly focused on Dexter, but then it starts to expand as everyone else is drawn into Dexter's great mystery (whether they know that's what it is or not.) On the whole, I'd say that this is one of the better TV show I've ever seen, with great acting and a compelling plot. Surprisingly, The Boyfriend liked it just as much as I did, and that's very, very rare.

4. Resident Evil: Extinction I will admit that I really like Milla Jovovich. I thought she was adorable in The Fifth Element and competant in the first two Resident Evil movies. However, this third one (as is oftent he case) kind of stinks. I think my main problem with it had to be that's it's boring. Like "I'm just going to go ahead and fast forward a little bit and see if anything exciting is going to happen anytime soon" kind of boring. There was nothing to compare to the tension and the claustrophobia of the first film, or the kick-ass fights of the second one. Plus, there were a ton on of side characters with almost no personlity--most of them didn't even have names! It's hard to care about characters you don't know. In the first movie (and somewhat in the second) the characters were people, not just cannon fodder. Even Milla Jovovich looked like she was dragging herself through the whole thing. This is another one I don't really recommend unless you are very dedicated to the franchise.

5. Bowling for Columbine I have now seen 3 of Michael Moore's movies: this, Roger & Me, and Fahrenheit 9/11. This one is not quite as good as 9/11, but it's still not bad. I really wish he'd stick more to the heartfelt interviews than the cheap stunts--they are what turns off people who might be on the fence to his opinions. It's hard to take seriously someone who's running around K-Mart with a mega-phone. Also, some of the connections drawn in this one seemed a little shakey to me. In Roger & Me, the connections were obvious: this factory shut down, and this is what happened to the people in the town. In Bowling for Columbine, I think Moore overreaches a little bit, trying to tie too many strings together, and ends up sounding a bit like a conspiracy nut. Some of his interviews were very hard-hitting, and that's where I think Moore excels--sitting down and talking with ordinary people about what's going on in their worlds. He manages to turn off his schtick and just listen to what they're saying, thus making the viewers listern to people they might otherwise ignore. Admittedly, I also really enjoyed the animated short by the creators of South Park and the interview with them that followed it. I recommend this one as long as you know what you're getting into.

6. Book Bonus: I just finished reading a book Captain Obvious sent me for Christmas called Apathy and Other Small Victories by Paul Neilan which is totally and completely hilarious. It's surreal and bizarre and the narrator's voice and attitude had me laughing alound on the train, which I hardly ever do. It's difficult to really explain what it's about, but suffice to say that it's so good I've been reading bits alound to The Boyfriend and he laughs aloud as well. It's a pretty short but highly entertaining read--you should definitely pick it up.