I really really wanted to like Christopher Moore's A Dirty Job. Nearly everyone I know has told me I just MUST read Moore...he's so quirky and funny and hilarious and quirky and I will LOVE HIM!
I'm not sure what my friends think of me to try and get me to read this book.
I'm not saying the story of Charlie Asher--a neurotic recent widower and single dad who discovers he is a part of the machinery of death--is bad, or that I didn't enjoy it. I just felt like the author was...trying too hard. I guess I can relate, because--and perhaps this is why my friends thought of me when they read this--when I was writing, I had the very same problem Moore seems to have: a raft of "quirky" side characters who totally overwhelm the relatively dull main character. I liked the side characters, particularly Goth assistant clerk Lily and fellow "Death Merchant" Minty Fresh. Their descriptions were clear and vibrant. I wanted to know more about them and watch them go about their lives. However, I found Charlie himself kind of whiny and annoying. I was rather disappointed when we had to leave some of the other viewpoints and go back to Charlie and his fussing. Plus Moore's constant return to the them of the neurotic, overprotective, ultra-worried "Beta Male" also seemed kind of like a cop-out to explain why Charlie was such a freak.
The plot in itself is not bad. There were many things I like and parts that I found funny. Moore is clearly a writer who knows how to cleverly turn a phrase. However, on the whole I found the book more or less forgettable. In fact, although I just finished it yesterday, it has left no particular dent on my memory--I know I read it, I remember what it was about, but I am left with nothing except the basic knowledge of what happened and a vague feeling of irritation.
I will probably give Moore another shot if only because I am tired of being asked if I have read that one about Biff, Christ's childhood pal yet. As far as recommendations go, I guess it's not bad as something to read on a bus trip or while stranded in an airport, but otherwise, there are probably a lot of better books out there.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Cannonball Read #2: The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
As I may have mentioned before, I spent much of my childhood as a history buff. My parents--being the sort of people who prided themselves on limiting my television consumption and seeing that I learned to read before I turned four--were happy to oblige my desire to see everything historical within reasonable driving distance. Since I grew up north-central Pennsylvania, Gettysburg was an obvious destination. It was my first battlefield, and I ran around reading every single monument, trying to take in as much as possible. My interest piqued, I went on to spend three weeks one summer at nerd camp studying the Civil War. Our class took a trip to Gettysburg, where we marched along the route of Pickett's charge, climbed through Devil's Den, and attempted to charge up Little Round Top. The feeling of interacting with such an intensely historic place was dizzying.
Which brings me to The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, a book detailing the events of the Battle of Gettysburg. I expected to enjoy the book for its subject matter alone--I did NOT expect to be totally blown away by the story, the writing, and the detail. I have to say that it may have unexpectedly been vaulted into my "Top 5 Books of All-Time" list, it is so good.
1. The story is told from the perspectives of several of the major players on both sides of the conflict, including Robert E. Lee and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. There does seem to be more chapters from the Confederate side than the Union side, but that may be only Shaara found more primary sources (letters, diaries, etc.) from the Confederate side. (Shaara based nearly all dialogue and events on those documented by witnesses or the players themselves at the time.) It seems to be a pretty fair depiction of both sides--neither is shown as "right" or "wrong" but simply as opposing. In fact, men on both sides are shown as being conflicted about their motivation--why are they there and what are they hoping to accomplish?
2. The book has a number of page-sized maps to show landscape and troop movements, which was extremely helpful to me. Being able to see exactly where each group was in relation to the others and to the geographic markers made it much easier to see the battle in my head.
3. The characters have very distinct voices and are all separate and interesting. In a book like this, there is the danger of having characters all blend into one another--after all, many of them are career military men, all of a similar age and from similar backgrounds. However, Shaara does a great job of giving each man his own voice, his own internal voice and conflicts. He describes each one in depth, so you can really get a mental picture of what the character looks like, how he interacts with the others. And I found myself feeling deeply for each and every character, whether I agreed with him or not.
4. The descriptions of the battles are amazing. He details the sights, the sounds, the smells, the physical feelings of being in battle. Some of the scenes, particularly the fight for Little Round Top and Pickett's charge left me breathless. Even though I knew the outcome, I couldn't help getting totally drawn in and rooting for everyone to win. Actually, the details of everything were pretty great. The book was a pleasure to read--I never once found myself bogged down in a long description or confused about what was going on.
5. I appreciated the in-depth explanations of what occurred at Gettysburg. I had not realized what a tactical disaster the battle had been for the Confederacy. Nor did I understand why the actions that were taken had occurred until I read this. The book illustrates simply and clearly WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY.
I guess my fascination with Gettysburg is that feeling of HISTORY, of being in a place where something devastating and ferocious and important occurred. When I went to Europe, you pretty much couldn't spit without hitting something 500 years old and stuffed with history. In the USA, we don't have all that. We have the Revolution and the Civil War and that's pretty much it on our own soil. Even now, in my current home of Boston (which has quite a bit of its own historical significance) I don't get that same guttural connection to the past. With Gettysburg, I looked out across that field knowing that 15,000 men, stretched out into lines nearly a mile wide, had marched--many without shoes--into the face of nearly certain death. Or on Little Round Top, thinking of Chamberlain and his men out at the far flank, running out of ammo, with wave after wave of Confederates climbing up to try and break the line. It's a connection that strikes me deep-down somewhere--someone did something important here...and now here I am and I am part of it. It is an awesome feeling (in the original sense of the word awesome.)
This book made me remember those feelings, besides being a good read.
I highly recommend it for anyone who is interested in US history, but it's also great on its own as a book about a battle.
P.S. This is the book that the film Gettysburg was based on. I also highly recommend that film--the performances are dazzling, the fight scenes incredible, and it was all shot on location.
Which brings me to The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, a book detailing the events of the Battle of Gettysburg. I expected to enjoy the book for its subject matter alone--I did NOT expect to be totally blown away by the story, the writing, and the detail. I have to say that it may have unexpectedly been vaulted into my "Top 5 Books of All-Time" list, it is so good.
1. The story is told from the perspectives of several of the major players on both sides of the conflict, including Robert E. Lee and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. There does seem to be more chapters from the Confederate side than the Union side, but that may be only Shaara found more primary sources (letters, diaries, etc.) from the Confederate side. (Shaara based nearly all dialogue and events on those documented by witnesses or the players themselves at the time.) It seems to be a pretty fair depiction of both sides--neither is shown as "right" or "wrong" but simply as opposing. In fact, men on both sides are shown as being conflicted about their motivation--why are they there and what are they hoping to accomplish?
2. The book has a number of page-sized maps to show landscape and troop movements, which was extremely helpful to me. Being able to see exactly where each group was in relation to the others and to the geographic markers made it much easier to see the battle in my head.
3. The characters have very distinct voices and are all separate and interesting. In a book like this, there is the danger of having characters all blend into one another--after all, many of them are career military men, all of a similar age and from similar backgrounds. However, Shaara does a great job of giving each man his own voice, his own internal voice and conflicts. He describes each one in depth, so you can really get a mental picture of what the character looks like, how he interacts with the others. And I found myself feeling deeply for each and every character, whether I agreed with him or not.
4. The descriptions of the battles are amazing. He details the sights, the sounds, the smells, the physical feelings of being in battle. Some of the scenes, particularly the fight for Little Round Top and Pickett's charge left me breathless. Even though I knew the outcome, I couldn't help getting totally drawn in and rooting for everyone to win. Actually, the details of everything were pretty great. The book was a pleasure to read--I never once found myself bogged down in a long description or confused about what was going on.
5. I appreciated the in-depth explanations of what occurred at Gettysburg. I had not realized what a tactical disaster the battle had been for the Confederacy. Nor did I understand why the actions that were taken had occurred until I read this. The book illustrates simply and clearly WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY.
I guess my fascination with Gettysburg is that feeling of HISTORY, of being in a place where something devastating and ferocious and important occurred. When I went to Europe, you pretty much couldn't spit without hitting something 500 years old and stuffed with history. In the USA, we don't have all that. We have the Revolution and the Civil War and that's pretty much it on our own soil. Even now, in my current home of Boston (which has quite a bit of its own historical significance) I don't get that same guttural connection to the past. With Gettysburg, I looked out across that field knowing that 15,000 men, stretched out into lines nearly a mile wide, had marched--many without shoes--into the face of nearly certain death. Or on Little Round Top, thinking of Chamberlain and his men out at the far flank, running out of ammo, with wave after wave of Confederates climbing up to try and break the line. It's a connection that strikes me deep-down somewhere--someone did something important here...and now here I am and I am part of it. It is an awesome feeling (in the original sense of the word awesome.)
This book made me remember those feelings, besides being a good read.
I highly recommend it for anyone who is interested in US history, but it's also great on its own as a book about a battle.
P.S. This is the book that the film Gettysburg was based on. I also highly recommend that film--the performances are dazzling, the fight scenes incredible, and it was all shot on location.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, July 14, 2008
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)