Craig Gilner is fifteen, and he wants to kill himself.
He feels like he's under pressure from every direction, and no one--not his parents, not his teachers at his pre-professional high school, not his best friend to whom everything comes easily, not the girl he has a crush on--seems to understand. The "tentacles" of responsibility and social obligation are tangling through his life and he gets to the point where he can't even manage to sleep or keep food down. Finally, when it all gets to be too much, Craig checks himself into the psych ward to try and get some help.
I actually saw the movie version of this first, and enjoyed it quite a bit. While the film focuses
entirely on Craig's time in the mental hospital, the book adds in a lot
of the time leading up to that. It definitely shows just how Craig ended losing it, but it also expands the role of his family and friends. The first half of the book was basically a lead-up to the second half, which is the time he actually spends in the hospital.
On the whole, I liked this a lot -- the main character's voice is really likeable and seemed authentic to me. I also enjoyed the secondary characters, though I felt like some of them could have been a little more three-dimensional, particularly Noelle, the love interest. She occasionally came out with some interesting dialogue, but I didn't feel like I got a good sense of her as a person. It's
a good YA book with some interesting turns -- but I actually prefer the
movie. The character played in the film by Zach Galifianakis, Bobby, is
much less important in the book, and I missed him. Craig needed a foil, which the book doesn't necessarily provide.
Showing posts with label drama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drama. Show all posts
Friday, September 20, 2013
Thursday, February 24, 2011
CR3 # 17: Mount Misery by Samuel Shem
Mount Misery is the sequel to Samuel Shem's first book, House of God (review here). It follows Dr. Roy Basch as he leaves the House of God and moves to psychiatric hospital Mount Misery to begin his psychiatric residency. Unfortunately, it turns out that psychiatrists are just as crazy, confused, and often detrimental as medical doctors. As Dr. Basch cycles through the various sectors of the hospital (talk therapy, admissions, Freudian Analysis, drug therapy) he is horrified to discover that it seems everything he is being taught is not only wrong, but potentially dangerous. He begins to fall into terrible patterns of behavior, mirroring the problems his patients are having. Each area is worse than the last, with one doctor who thinks the best way to treat is to be aggressively hostile, one who cares only about insurance premiums and efficiency, one who treats with silence and "regression," and one who thinks the only viable treatment is to pump every patient full of experimental drugs. Ray has few personal connections, and those he does have with fellow residents, patients, and his inexplicably supportive girlfriend Berry suffer unbearably before he finally surfaces and figures out what is going on. He loses several patients, and is forced to come to terms with what he's been able to accomplish, and what mistakes he has made.
In my opinion, this book is not nearly as good as House of God for several reasons. First, it is basically a rehash of the first book: Roy enters enthusiastic, loses confidence, meets a mentor, becomes disillusioned, is pulled nearly to the edge of a complete nervous breakdown, at his lowest point manages to turn things around with the help of his mentor, happy ending. The story--and even some of the characters--was surprisingly close. There was an attempt at the end to add in some kind of resolution--of Roy trying to fix some of the problems he sees--but it feels a bit tacked on.
Another issue is that the first book was written in the 1970s during the Nixon administration, and the feeling of that era permeated the story. This one--although allegedly taking place only a year or two later--clearly takes place in the 1990s. It mentions the Clinton administration at one point, and the doctors are all prescribing Zoloft and Paxil and ritalin. However, it's never explicitly explained that this is so much later, and it's just a very odd feeling. I was pulled out of the story by this several times, because on one hand, the characters and some of the situations are very 70s, but then the doctors start diagnosing ADD. I feel like the author started this directly after House of God, then put it aside for 20 years, until he finally decided he wanted to release the sequel.
My third issue is that this book got extremely dull for a while. The third quarter of the book is Roy's stay in the Freudian analysis area, and he spends an awful lot of time explaining and contemplating Freudian theory. This is the point at which his mental state really begins to fall apart, so it's all very jumbled. I had to reread bits of the section because I'd get to the end of the page and have no idea what I just read or how it connected to anything that came before. I was interested in Roy's interactions with his patients and colleagues, not in his masturbatory theories about his own Freudian progression.
The last thing that bothered me about this was it was not nearly as entertaining. House of God had its moments of cynicism and darkness, but there was also a lot humor. Even in the worst situations, Roy had something amusing--if cynical--to say. I felt this book was considerably darker, and didn't have the same underlying sense of humor and hope.
On the whole, I would probably not recommend this book, except perhaps to those who are in the psychiatry field and might have a better perspective on it.
In my opinion, this book is not nearly as good as House of God for several reasons. First, it is basically a rehash of the first book: Roy enters enthusiastic, loses confidence, meets a mentor, becomes disillusioned, is pulled nearly to the edge of a complete nervous breakdown, at his lowest point manages to turn things around with the help of his mentor, happy ending. The story--and even some of the characters--was surprisingly close. There was an attempt at the end to add in some kind of resolution--of Roy trying to fix some of the problems he sees--but it feels a bit tacked on.
Another issue is that the first book was written in the 1970s during the Nixon administration, and the feeling of that era permeated the story. This one--although allegedly taking place only a year or two later--clearly takes place in the 1990s. It mentions the Clinton administration at one point, and the doctors are all prescribing Zoloft and Paxil and ritalin. However, it's never explicitly explained that this is so much later, and it's just a very odd feeling. I was pulled out of the story by this several times, because on one hand, the characters and some of the situations are very 70s, but then the doctors start diagnosing ADD. I feel like the author started this directly after House of God, then put it aside for 20 years, until he finally decided he wanted to release the sequel.
My third issue is that this book got extremely dull for a while. The third quarter of the book is Roy's stay in the Freudian analysis area, and he spends an awful lot of time explaining and contemplating Freudian theory. This is the point at which his mental state really begins to fall apart, so it's all very jumbled. I had to reread bits of the section because I'd get to the end of the page and have no idea what I just read or how it connected to anything that came before. I was interested in Roy's interactions with his patients and colleagues, not in his masturbatory theories about his own Freudian progression.
The last thing that bothered me about this was it was not nearly as entertaining. House of God had its moments of cynicism and darkness, but there was also a lot humor. Even in the worst situations, Roy had something amusing--if cynical--to say. I felt this book was considerably darker, and didn't have the same underlying sense of humor and hope.
On the whole, I would probably not recommend this book, except perhaps to those who are in the psychiatry field and might have a better perspective on it.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
A True Blood Post: Because I am Possibly the Biggest Dork Alive
Unfortunately, neither The Boyfriend nor Starbucks Queen are even the slightest bit interested in True Blood, and most of the people I know who are have either only read the books or only seen the show or are behind on the show because they're watching it on DVD or whatever. Therefore, I am spewing out all my opinions here because I can't keep them to myself any longer.
Reasons the Books are Better than the Show:
1. Sookie is a lot less annoying when you can't hear her. I like Anna Paquin, and think she mostly does an okay job with the character (though this season the writing for her has been weak at best) but sometimes she has a voice like a dental drill. Particularly when she is shrieking "BEEEEEEEEEELL!" every 38 seconds.
2. In the books, Alcide is a hottie and he and Sookie have crazy chemistry. On the show he has all the personality of a garden hose, and he and Sookie seem to barely like one another. He's been underused this season, but I'm not exactly sad, because the actor playing him is a significant disappointment.
3. The books are a little more focused than the show, allowing the Sookie character to be more important. They're told from her point of view, so reader can find her character more sympathetic.
4. The fairy Claudine is more awesome and interesting and involved and less "Whoo, I'm mysterious and pointy-faced in my fuzzy-filtered Stevie Nicks world!" Her character personality-wise is much more similar in the books to what Maryanne was last season. In the books, Claudine is an active and vital force for good out in the world rather than the twinkly, whimpering doom-whisperer she's been thus far on the show.
5. There is a lot less Arlene in the books. I find Arlene and her storyline sort of annoying this season, though I think the actress is doing the best she can with the little she's been given. She's a shrill character, and I wish she'd been improved instead of turned into a whiny stereotype and easy doorway for witchcraft to enter the show.
6. Calvin Norris is an interesting and complicated character, instead of a deranged meth head who shouldn't have even showed up until season 4. I was extremely disappointed at how he's been used in the show, since his character in the books is another option for Sookie--a slightly more "normal" guy who wants to give her a more "normal" life. I mean, aside from being a panther, obviously.
7. Bubba! I know why they can't use him on the show, but I do miss him.
Reasons the Show is Better Than the Books:
1. Lafayette doesn't die! In the books, he's a throwaway character who gets murdered at the end of book one. In the show, he is just a huge bowl of awesome and Nelsan Ellis should get an award or a big check or something. He's an effeminate-looking gay tough guy, who has a lot of great lines, and I'm happy that he finally has someone to appreciate him, though I'm not sure I like where this Jesus thing is going.
2. Jason is a better character. In the books he's kind of a selfish jerk, whereas in the show he is sometimes self-involved, but sweet...though not very bright. Often, watching Jason try to puzzle out what's going on around him and figure out what the appropriate response should be is the funniest part of the episode. I am admittedly rather unimpressed with him and his whole wannabe-cop, dating the meth-girl story line this season. He's a much better brother than he is in the books, though, and I have liked his interactions with Sookie.
3. Although this season the side characters have gotten a little out of control, in the past I have enjoyed how some of the very minor book characters have developed their own lives and personalities and story lines. Terry Bellefleur is a great example of this--he's mentioned in the books in passing, but I have liked his character and become invested in what happens to him (frankly, his relationship with Arlene and falling out with Sam has me very concerned at the moment). Sam is another character that is not nearly as important in the books as he is in the show. It's interesting to see him have his own life, though I could have happily done without his creepy white-trash family. (Also, the dude who plays him is adorable and apparently not shy about getting naked a lot.)
4. Jessica! She's a completely new invention from Alan Ball, and she's great -- a young vampire, a counterpoint to Bill, Eric, Pam, and all the other vamps we know who are centuries old. She's a modern girl trying to figure out how to behave and where her place in the world might be. The interactions between her and Bill (her unwilling surrogate dad, who--we're led to believe--is nicer to her than her real dad ever was), her and Sookie (both a surrogate mom and an older sister, helping Jessica see how a nice--but not stiflingly sheltered--girl behaves), her and Hoyt (one of the cutest relationships on the show), and her and Pam (who shows her how a BAD girl behaves) are all great and show different sides of familiar characters.
5. As many have been mentioning this season, Dennis O'Hare's Russell Edgington has been campy fun all the way around. Although his storyline is very different than it was in the books, he's been a delight to watch in every episode. He's another person who deserves an award or a large check (particularly since I think his character doesn't have much longer to live.)
Things That are Ties:
1. Tara in the books is a minor side character who is not very interesting. I really liked her character in Season One, but she all of season two and most of season three weeping around. I miss when she was feisty. I did enjoy her recent conversation with Sam, but she seriously needs to stop getting all the "victim" stories.
2. Sam's brother, a recent addition, could go either way. I'm not sure if the show is better because he's in it or the books are better because he's not. Although I like that he's kind of scrappy, and his crush on Jessica is kind of cute, he can be a pain-in-the-ass for no reason. Like, okay, you are uneducated and have daddy issues and mommy issues and class issues. Stop treating Sam like trash and let him help you out, pitbull face.
3. The Queen is not interesting to me in the books or the show. She is just dull and mostly used as a plot point rather than a real character.
4. I'd really like to see Sookie's friendship with Pam develop as it does in the books, but so far, Kristen Bauer has done a great job being icy and sarcastic and yet deeply attached to her maker on the show.
5. Eric is awesome no matter where he is. I really don't know how he could be improved. Then again, I am a sucker for a saucy viking.
Any other thoughts?
Reasons the Books are Better than the Show:
1. Sookie is a lot less annoying when you can't hear her. I like Anna Paquin, and think she mostly does an okay job with the character (though this season the writing for her has been weak at best) but sometimes she has a voice like a dental drill. Particularly when she is shrieking "BEEEEEEEEEELL!" every 38 seconds.
2. In the books, Alcide is a hottie and he and Sookie have crazy chemistry. On the show he has all the personality of a garden hose, and he and Sookie seem to barely like one another. He's been underused this season, but I'm not exactly sad, because the actor playing him is a significant disappointment.
3. The books are a little more focused than the show, allowing the Sookie character to be more important. They're told from her point of view, so reader can find her character more sympathetic.
4. The fairy Claudine is more awesome and interesting and involved and less "Whoo, I'm mysterious and pointy-faced in my fuzzy-filtered Stevie Nicks world!" Her character personality-wise is much more similar in the books to what Maryanne was last season. In the books, Claudine is an active and vital force for good out in the world rather than the twinkly, whimpering doom-whisperer she's been thus far on the show.
5. There is a lot less Arlene in the books. I find Arlene and her storyline sort of annoying this season, though I think the actress is doing the best she can with the little she's been given. She's a shrill character, and I wish she'd been improved instead of turned into a whiny stereotype and easy doorway for witchcraft to enter the show.
6. Calvin Norris is an interesting and complicated character, instead of a deranged meth head who shouldn't have even showed up until season 4. I was extremely disappointed at how he's been used in the show, since his character in the books is another option for Sookie--a slightly more "normal" guy who wants to give her a more "normal" life. I mean, aside from being a panther, obviously.
7. Bubba! I know why they can't use him on the show, but I do miss him.
Reasons the Show is Better Than the Books:
1. Lafayette doesn't die! In the books, he's a throwaway character who gets murdered at the end of book one. In the show, he is just a huge bowl of awesome and Nelsan Ellis should get an award or a big check or something. He's an effeminate-looking gay tough guy, who has a lot of great lines, and I'm happy that he finally has someone to appreciate him, though I'm not sure I like where this Jesus thing is going.
2. Jason is a better character. In the books he's kind of a selfish jerk, whereas in the show he is sometimes self-involved, but sweet...though not very bright. Often, watching Jason try to puzzle out what's going on around him and figure out what the appropriate response should be is the funniest part of the episode. I am admittedly rather unimpressed with him and his whole wannabe-cop, dating the meth-girl story line this season. He's a much better brother than he is in the books, though, and I have liked his interactions with Sookie.
3. Although this season the side characters have gotten a little out of control, in the past I have enjoyed how some of the very minor book characters have developed their own lives and personalities and story lines. Terry Bellefleur is a great example of this--he's mentioned in the books in passing, but I have liked his character and become invested in what happens to him (frankly, his relationship with Arlene and falling out with Sam has me very concerned at the moment). Sam is another character that is not nearly as important in the books as he is in the show. It's interesting to see him have his own life, though I could have happily done without his creepy white-trash family. (Also, the dude who plays him is adorable and apparently not shy about getting naked a lot.)
4. Jessica! She's a completely new invention from Alan Ball, and she's great -- a young vampire, a counterpoint to Bill, Eric, Pam, and all the other vamps we know who are centuries old. She's a modern girl trying to figure out how to behave and where her place in the world might be. The interactions between her and Bill (her unwilling surrogate dad, who--we're led to believe--is nicer to her than her real dad ever was), her and Sookie (both a surrogate mom and an older sister, helping Jessica see how a nice--but not stiflingly sheltered--girl behaves), her and Hoyt (one of the cutest relationships on the show), and her and Pam (who shows her how a BAD girl behaves) are all great and show different sides of familiar characters.
5. As many have been mentioning this season, Dennis O'Hare's Russell Edgington has been campy fun all the way around. Although his storyline is very different than it was in the books, he's been a delight to watch in every episode. He's another person who deserves an award or a large check (particularly since I think his character doesn't have much longer to live.)
Things That are Ties:
1. Tara in the books is a minor side character who is not very interesting. I really liked her character in Season One, but she all of season two and most of season three weeping around. I miss when she was feisty. I did enjoy her recent conversation with Sam, but she seriously needs to stop getting all the "victim" stories.
2. Sam's brother, a recent addition, could go either way. I'm not sure if the show is better because he's in it or the books are better because he's not. Although I like that he's kind of scrappy, and his crush on Jessica is kind of cute, he can be a pain-in-the-ass for no reason. Like, okay, you are uneducated and have daddy issues and mommy issues and class issues. Stop treating Sam like trash and let him help you out, pitbull face.
3. The Queen is not interesting to me in the books or the show. She is just dull and mostly used as a plot point rather than a real character.
4. I'd really like to see Sookie's friendship with Pam develop as it does in the books, but so far, Kristen Bauer has done a great job being icy and sarcastic and yet deeply attached to her maker on the show.
5. Eric is awesome no matter where he is. I really don't know how he could be improved. Then again, I am a sucker for a saucy viking.
Any other thoughts?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Cannonball Read 2 #49: Bringing Out the Dead by Joe Connolly
I saw the movie based on this book a few weeks ago and immediately purchased the book to see if it was equally interesting. To be honest, I was surprised how closely the movie resembled the book -- it's a good adaptation, and for the most part, the things that were left out or changed were an improvement.
The plot is the same as the film -- Frank Pierce, a NYC ambulance driver/EMT is in the middle of a breakdown. His past is haunting him constantly, and the madness that surrounds him is starting to be more than he can handle. The book spans about five days in Frank's life, starting with the night he and his partner save an elderly man named Mr. Burke from cardiac arrest. This brings the patient's daughter, Mary, into Frank's life. Mary is the one thing that seems to make sense to Frank, and they continue to run into each other for the next few days as Mr. Burke lingers in the hospital. Frank careens through the night with various partners, answering a variety of calls. However, the circles of his life keep getting smaller and smaller, until he can't help but run into his own past.
On the whole, this is an interesting, dark, and often funny book. I recommend it to anyone who likes edgy fiction narrated by an unreliable anti-hero.
The plot is the same as the film -- Frank Pierce, a NYC ambulance driver/EMT is in the middle of a breakdown. His past is haunting him constantly, and the madness that surrounds him is starting to be more than he can handle. The book spans about five days in Frank's life, starting with the night he and his partner save an elderly man named Mr. Burke from cardiac arrest. This brings the patient's daughter, Mary, into Frank's life. Mary is the one thing that seems to make sense to Frank, and they continue to run into each other for the next few days as Mr. Burke lingers in the hospital. Frank careens through the night with various partners, answering a variety of calls. However, the circles of his life keep getting smaller and smaller, until he can't help but run into his own past.
On the whole, this is an interesting, dark, and often funny book. I recommend it to anyone who likes edgy fiction narrated by an unreliable anti-hero.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Summer TV: 2010
It's that time of year again, when I tell you what's great to watch if you are a couch potato like me. The summer shows are surprisingly good this year, and I have also found that reality TV is playing almost no part in my summer. Which is good--I think supporting scripted television is totally the way to go.
Rizzoli & Isles (TNT Mondays 10pm): This isn't anything particularly special, but it's a competent procedural, and it's nice to see a show with females as the leads in this genre. I always liked Angie Harmon when she was on Law & Order, and Sasha Alexander was great during her stint on NCIS. The two of them are believable as friends, though they're only a few episodes in to the series and are still finding the characters' rhythm. I'm pleased to see Donnie Wahlberg working, since I think he is the less attractive but more talented of the Wahlberg brothers. Main distraction: every time Bruce McGill comes on screen I find myself squealing "D-Day!"
Memphis Beat (TNT Tuesdays 10pm): I'm still not sold on this one yet, but I'm giving it a chance. I like Jason Lee (despite the fact that he's a scientologist) and Alfre Woodard (remember when they played a couple in Mumford?). The cases are not particularly complicated, but they're enough to keep me watching. The side characters are funny, but I think may of them are under-utilized. Also, while I get the whole "Memphis" emphasis, sometimes the constant music cues get to be a little much. I'm not sure if this one is going to improve, since it could very well become extremely monotonous. It's not a "can't miss" but it's serviceable.
White Collar (USA Tuesdays 9pm): Con-man extraordinaire Neal Caffrey is back, and he is just as charming as ever. This season, the mystery of the music box continues, as well as Neal and Peter trying to figure out who killed Kate at the end of season one. The weekly cases are interesting and clever. Matt Bomer is really excellent in the role, and the interplay between him and Tim McKay (as FBI agent Peter Burke) continues to improve. Willie Garson is also still very funny as Neal's underworld friend Mozzie. I give this one a definite thumbs up.
Warehouse 13 (SyFy Tuesdays 9pm): Warehouse agents Myka and Pete are back, trying to keep society safe from the mysterious artifacts that belong in the Warehouse (think the place where the Ark of the Covenant went at the end of Indiana Jones...) Eccentric boss Artie, the mysterious Mrs. Frederic, and computer genius Claudia track artifacts all over the world. It's hard to explain, but for those who are into sci-fi, it's a fun little show. Not a "can't miss" but totally watchable. I just hope the show ends before they finally hook up Myka and Pete, since their current relationship is great to watch.
Psych (USA Wednesdays 10pm): This show has probably "jumped the shark" but I still watch it for the characters. The cases are really sort of lame, but as long as you acknowledge that they're just excuses for the characters to be doing things, they're all right. James Roday--who has written, directed, and produced a surprising number of episodes--and Dule Hill (as "psychic" Shawn and his sidekick, nervous and uptight Gus) make me laugh every single episode. The screenwriters may be struggling for plots, but their dialogue never fails me. Carlton Omundson as the tightly-wound Detective Lassiter is also a treat. As long as you don't expect too much from this, it can be a highly entertaining hour of TV.
Hot in Cleveland (TVLand Wednesdays 10pm): This is an old-school sitcom, "Taped in front of a live studio audience" and all. It has all the typical sitcom cliches, but I have really been enjoying it. Valerie Bertinelli, Jane Leeves, and Wendie Malick star as three women from L.A. who decide to move to Cleveland on a whim. They rent a house that comes with a cantankerous caretaker (Betty White.) They suffer the usual travails of single women in their late 30s-early 40s as well as making the cultural adjustment from Hollywood to the Midwest. The women have good chemistry, and as cheesy as the situations are (blind dates, visiting parents, fashion disasters) it's still fun. Sort of Golden Girls for the new millennium.
Burn Notice (USA Thursdays 9pm): Burn Notice is back once again. This is another show that isn't nearly as innovative as it was in its early seasons, but it's still worth watching, if only for the performances of Jeffrey Donovan (whom I saw throw out the first pitch at a Red Sox game! Whoo!) and Bruce Campbell. Anything Bruce Campbell does is okay with me, really. This season, Michael is trying to chase down another giant dangerous conspiracy, with the help of Fiona and young spy Jesse (Coby Bell) whom--unbeknownst to him--Michael accidentally got burned. The question of course being how long Michael can keep his secret from Jesse while ostensibly helping him get his revenge. There hasn't been nearly enough of Sharon Gless as Michael's mother this season, but hopefully that will change.
Royal Pains (USA Thursdays 10pm): I am not sure why I watch this 'private doctor in the Hamptons serving quirky rich people' show, to be honest. I am generally not a fan of medical shows, but for some reason I enjoy this one. I think--as with most USA shows--I'm a fan of the characters, despite the slightly stupid situations they're often subjected to. USA really takes seriously their "Characters Welcome" slogan. While the plots of their shows aren't the greatest, I think as a channel the characters on their original programming are very enticing.
Project Runway (Lifetime Thursdays 8pm): Project Runway starts this Thursday and I am really excited, though not sure that expanding the episodes to 1.5 hours is a good idea. While I like to think we'll get more discussion of the process of designing and watching the designers struggle in the workroom with making their ideas into reality, then defending them on the runway, I have a sneaking suspicion it just means more time for cattiness and crying. They can cry...as long as they cut and cry.
Haven (SyFy Fridays 10pm): This one is not really very good. It's supposedly based on Stephen King's novel The Colorado Kid except it seems to have very little if anything to do with the book as I remember it. FBI agent Audrey Parker comes to small town of Haven for an investigation and decides to stay once she sees a photograph of a mysterious woman who could be her mother. Haven is a weird place full of very quirky locals where people can control the weather and music can drive sane people crazy and crazy people sane, and Audrey kind of digs the weird. She joins the local police force and is partnered with native son Nathan (son of the sheriff) who has a medical condition that doesn't allow him to feel pain. The two of them run around investigating weird happenings (according to locals, it's the return of "The Troubles") while Audrey tries to find out about her past. To be honest, I kind of only watch this for Eric Balfour--who plays town bad boy Duke Crocker--because as it turns out, at some point he got insanely skankiliciously hot. (When did that happen? Last I remember he was gawky and his head was too big and he sort of reminded me of Lurch with a bad goatee.) Anyway, it's another show that people who like sci-fi might like. Or people who like hot guys--Lucas Bryant, who plays Nathan, is fairly attractive as well--might like it too.
True Blood (HBO Sundays at 9): GODDAMN THIS SHOW IS EXCITING! LAFAYETTE HAS A BOYFRIEND AND WHO KNOWS WHAT HIS DEAL IS AND TARA GOT KIDNAPPED BY AN INSANE VAMPIRE BUT SHE ESCAPED AFTER CLUBBING HIM OVER THE HEAD AND I THINK HE IS GOING TO BE REALLY PISSED WHEN HE WAKES UP AND THE KING OF MISSISSIPPI KILLED ERIC'S FAMILY AND HAS HIS FATHER'S CROWN ON DISPLAY WHICH IS KIND OF TACKY NOW ERIC'S OUT FOR REVENGE AND LORENA'S GOT BILL ALL TIED DOWN AND TORTURED AND SOOKIE IS STILL...WELL, VERY WHINY BUT I'M SURE SHE'LL GET IT TOGETHER SOON AND THE QUEEN IS IN A TIGHT SPOT AND SAM'S WHITE TRASH FAMILY ARE FIGHTING HIS BROTHER IN DOGFIGHTS AND JESSICA AND ARLENE SHOULD HAVE A SITCOM AND OKAY SO I TOTALLY FAST FORWARD THROUGH ALL THE JASON PARTS BECAUSE HE BORES ME AND THAT STORYLINE SHOULDN'T EVEN SHOW UP UNTIL BOOK FOUR AND NAZI WEREWOLVES WHAT MORE DO I HAVE TO SAY?!?! *pantpantpantpant* It's not something that everyone will enjoy because really it's just a soap opera with vampires and werewolves and whatnot. However, I am simply mad for it because I am a goob. You should hear me yammering away at The Boyfriend when each episode ends. He tends to nod his head and back away slowly.
We also watch a rather stunning number of cooking shows--particularly Diners, Drive-ins, and & Dives (shout out to Minnesota Missy, who works on the show) and really anything else Guy Fieri is on, and several considerably nerdier cooking shows on PBS. Plus there's an endless parade of sports, plus new Futuramas.
On the whole, it's not a bad summer for TV. I'll be excited to see what's new in the fall but I'm not suffering any withdrawal so far!
Rizzoli & Isles (TNT Mondays 10pm): This isn't anything particularly special, but it's a competent procedural, and it's nice to see a show with females as the leads in this genre. I always liked Angie Harmon when she was on Law & Order, and Sasha Alexander was great during her stint on NCIS. The two of them are believable as friends, though they're only a few episodes in to the series and are still finding the characters' rhythm. I'm pleased to see Donnie Wahlberg working, since I think he is the less attractive but more talented of the Wahlberg brothers. Main distraction: every time Bruce McGill comes on screen I find myself squealing "D-Day!"
Memphis Beat (TNT Tuesdays 10pm): I'm still not sold on this one yet, but I'm giving it a chance. I like Jason Lee (despite the fact that he's a scientologist) and Alfre Woodard (remember when they played a couple in Mumford?). The cases are not particularly complicated, but they're enough to keep me watching. The side characters are funny, but I think may of them are under-utilized. Also, while I get the whole "Memphis" emphasis, sometimes the constant music cues get to be a little much. I'm not sure if this one is going to improve, since it could very well become extremely monotonous. It's not a "can't miss" but it's serviceable.
White Collar (USA Tuesdays 9pm): Con-man extraordinaire Neal Caffrey is back, and he is just as charming as ever. This season, the mystery of the music box continues, as well as Neal and Peter trying to figure out who killed Kate at the end of season one. The weekly cases are interesting and clever. Matt Bomer is really excellent in the role, and the interplay between him and Tim McKay (as FBI agent Peter Burke) continues to improve. Willie Garson is also still very funny as Neal's underworld friend Mozzie. I give this one a definite thumbs up.
Warehouse 13 (SyFy Tuesdays 9pm): Warehouse agents Myka and Pete are back, trying to keep society safe from the mysterious artifacts that belong in the Warehouse (think the place where the Ark of the Covenant went at the end of Indiana Jones...) Eccentric boss Artie, the mysterious Mrs. Frederic, and computer genius Claudia track artifacts all over the world. It's hard to explain, but for those who are into sci-fi, it's a fun little show. Not a "can't miss" but totally watchable. I just hope the show ends before they finally hook up Myka and Pete, since their current relationship is great to watch.
Psych (USA Wednesdays 10pm): This show has probably "jumped the shark" but I still watch it for the characters. The cases are really sort of lame, but as long as you acknowledge that they're just excuses for the characters to be doing things, they're all right. James Roday--who has written, directed, and produced a surprising number of episodes--and Dule Hill (as "psychic" Shawn and his sidekick, nervous and uptight Gus) make me laugh every single episode. The screenwriters may be struggling for plots, but their dialogue never fails me. Carlton Omundson as the tightly-wound Detective Lassiter is also a treat. As long as you don't expect too much from this, it can be a highly entertaining hour of TV.
Hot in Cleveland (TVLand Wednesdays 10pm): This is an old-school sitcom, "Taped in front of a live studio audience" and all. It has all the typical sitcom cliches, but I have really been enjoying it. Valerie Bertinelli, Jane Leeves, and Wendie Malick star as three women from L.A. who decide to move to Cleveland on a whim. They rent a house that comes with a cantankerous caretaker (Betty White.) They suffer the usual travails of single women in their late 30s-early 40s as well as making the cultural adjustment from Hollywood to the Midwest. The women have good chemistry, and as cheesy as the situations are (blind dates, visiting parents, fashion disasters) it's still fun. Sort of Golden Girls for the new millennium.
Burn Notice (USA Thursdays 9pm): Burn Notice is back once again. This is another show that isn't nearly as innovative as it was in its early seasons, but it's still worth watching, if only for the performances of Jeffrey Donovan (whom I saw throw out the first pitch at a Red Sox game! Whoo!) and Bruce Campbell. Anything Bruce Campbell does is okay with me, really. This season, Michael is trying to chase down another giant dangerous conspiracy, with the help of Fiona and young spy Jesse (Coby Bell) whom--unbeknownst to him--Michael accidentally got burned. The question of course being how long Michael can keep his secret from Jesse while ostensibly helping him get his revenge. There hasn't been nearly enough of Sharon Gless as Michael's mother this season, but hopefully that will change.
Royal Pains (USA Thursdays 10pm): I am not sure why I watch this 'private doctor in the Hamptons serving quirky rich people' show, to be honest. I am generally not a fan of medical shows, but for some reason I enjoy this one. I think--as with most USA shows--I'm a fan of the characters, despite the slightly stupid situations they're often subjected to. USA really takes seriously their "Characters Welcome" slogan. While the plots of their shows aren't the greatest, I think as a channel the characters on their original programming are very enticing.
Project Runway (Lifetime Thursdays 8pm): Project Runway starts this Thursday and I am really excited, though not sure that expanding the episodes to 1.5 hours is a good idea. While I like to think we'll get more discussion of the process of designing and watching the designers struggle in the workroom with making their ideas into reality, then defending them on the runway, I have a sneaking suspicion it just means more time for cattiness and crying. They can cry...as long as they cut and cry.
Haven (SyFy Fridays 10pm): This one is not really very good. It's supposedly based on Stephen King's novel The Colorado Kid except it seems to have very little if anything to do with the book as I remember it. FBI agent Audrey Parker comes to small town of Haven for an investigation and decides to stay once she sees a photograph of a mysterious woman who could be her mother. Haven is a weird place full of very quirky locals where people can control the weather and music can drive sane people crazy and crazy people sane, and Audrey kind of digs the weird. She joins the local police force and is partnered with native son Nathan (son of the sheriff) who has a medical condition that doesn't allow him to feel pain. The two of them run around investigating weird happenings (according to locals, it's the return of "The Troubles") while Audrey tries to find out about her past. To be honest, I kind of only watch this for Eric Balfour--who plays town bad boy Duke Crocker--because as it turns out, at some point he got insanely skankiliciously hot. (When did that happen? Last I remember he was gawky and his head was too big and he sort of reminded me of Lurch with a bad goatee.) Anyway, it's another show that people who like sci-fi might like. Or people who like hot guys--Lucas Bryant, who plays Nathan, is fairly attractive as well--might like it too.
True Blood (HBO Sundays at 9): GODDAMN THIS SHOW IS EXCITING! LAFAYETTE HAS A BOYFRIEND AND WHO KNOWS WHAT HIS DEAL IS AND TARA GOT KIDNAPPED BY AN INSANE VAMPIRE BUT SHE ESCAPED AFTER CLUBBING HIM OVER THE HEAD AND I THINK HE IS GOING TO BE REALLY PISSED WHEN HE WAKES UP AND THE KING OF MISSISSIPPI KILLED ERIC'S FAMILY AND HAS HIS FATHER'S CROWN ON DISPLAY WHICH IS KIND OF TACKY NOW ERIC'S OUT FOR REVENGE AND LORENA'S GOT BILL ALL TIED DOWN AND TORTURED AND SOOKIE IS STILL...WELL, VERY WHINY BUT I'M SURE SHE'LL GET IT TOGETHER SOON AND THE QUEEN IS IN A TIGHT SPOT AND SAM'S WHITE TRASH FAMILY ARE FIGHTING HIS BROTHER IN DOGFIGHTS AND JESSICA AND ARLENE SHOULD HAVE A SITCOM AND OKAY SO I TOTALLY FAST FORWARD THROUGH ALL THE JASON PARTS BECAUSE HE BORES ME AND THAT STORYLINE SHOULDN'T EVEN SHOW UP UNTIL BOOK FOUR AND NAZI WEREWOLVES WHAT MORE DO I HAVE TO SAY?!?! *pantpantpantpant* It's not something that everyone will enjoy because really it's just a soap opera with vampires and werewolves and whatnot. However, I am simply mad for it because I am a goob. You should hear me yammering away at The Boyfriend when each episode ends. He tends to nod his head and back away slowly.
We also watch a rather stunning number of cooking shows--particularly Diners, Drive-ins, and & Dives (shout out to Minnesota Missy, who works on the show) and really anything else Guy Fieri is on, and several considerably nerdier cooking shows on PBS. Plus there's an endless parade of sports, plus new Futuramas.
On the whole, it's not a bad summer for TV. I'll be excited to see what's new in the fall but I'm not suffering any withdrawal so far!
Monday, July 26, 2010
"The streets are not like the ER. There's no walls, no controls." - Bringing Out the Dead
I know it's not cool, but anyone who knows me (or has read this blog at least twice) knows I have a totally irrational love for Nicolas Cage. I don't know what it is--his insanely rolling eyes, his slightly over-large teeth, his totally inexplicable and rapidly-worsening hair? Maybe it's the sense that he's probably a douchebag in real life...but one of those hilariously entertaining douchebags, the kind who are just self-aware enough to to be in on the joke of their douchebaggery. I really don't know, but I find him irresistible. Bringing Out the Dead is Nicolas Cage as I love him best--with echoes of the style of The Weatherman or Lord of War--a character who is calmly voicing-over totally chaotic events as they unravel around him, despite the fact that somewhere along the line he himself has gone mad.
In Bringing Out the Dead, he plays EMT Frank Pierce in events that span the course of three nights. Pierce is living in a strange nightmare life--existing on alcohol and coffee, almost never sleeping, literally haunted by the ghosts of people he couldn't save. He works at night with a variety of partners (played with gleeful abandon by John Goodman, Ving Rhames, and Tom Sizemore) who all have different ideas about "the job" and how to handle it. Frank's world is New York at night--all neon signs and traffic lights and tail-lights reflecting off wet pavement and going by too fast to distinguish--and the people he meets are all night people. However, at the beginning of the film (on the first night) he and his partner arrive to revive an elderly man who's had a heart attack, and Frank meets the man's daughter, Mary (played by Patricia Arquette with that hard-edged fragility that she's so good at [side note: she and Cage were married at the time this was made]). He keeps returning to her throughout the film as her father lies dying in the hospital and the world keeps unraveling around him.
It's definitely one of Cage's niche movies. It is not a "plot" movie; things happen, but it's not a "From A to B to get to C" kind of film. It's more a series of episodes, tied together by Frank's exhaustion and guilt stemming from a patient he lost and Mary's quiet strength. There's a lot of humor and also several very depressing parts. There's commentary on the inner-city health system, but but also the acknowledgement that everyone is doing the best they can (whatever that may be.)
I don't think I will ever want to watch Bringing Out the Dead again, but I'm glad that I watched it--it's an entertaining and thought provoking movie with some really excellent performances from a surprisingly star-studded cast. I do intend to get Joe Connelly's book (upon which the film is based) and will let you know how that is.
In Bringing Out the Dead, he plays EMT Frank Pierce in events that span the course of three nights. Pierce is living in a strange nightmare life--existing on alcohol and coffee, almost never sleeping, literally haunted by the ghosts of people he couldn't save. He works at night with a variety of partners (played with gleeful abandon by John Goodman, Ving Rhames, and Tom Sizemore) who all have different ideas about "the job" and how to handle it. Frank's world is New York at night--all neon signs and traffic lights and tail-lights reflecting off wet pavement and going by too fast to distinguish--and the people he meets are all night people. However, at the beginning of the film (on the first night) he and his partner arrive to revive an elderly man who's had a heart attack, and Frank meets the man's daughter, Mary (played by Patricia Arquette with that hard-edged fragility that she's so good at [side note: she and Cage were married at the time this was made]). He keeps returning to her throughout the film as her father lies dying in the hospital and the world keeps unraveling around him.
It's definitely one of Cage's niche movies. It is not a "plot" movie; things happen, but it's not a "From A to B to get to C" kind of film. It's more a series of episodes, tied together by Frank's exhaustion and guilt stemming from a patient he lost and Mary's quiet strength. There's a lot of humor and also several very depressing parts. There's commentary on the inner-city health system, but but also the acknowledgement that everyone is doing the best they can (whatever that may be.)
I don't think I will ever want to watch Bringing Out the Dead again, but I'm glad that I watched it--it's an entertaining and thought provoking movie with some really excellent performances from a surprisingly star-studded cast. I do intend to get Joe Connelly's book (upon which the film is based) and will let you know how that is.
Monday, April 26, 2010
"Fuckin' iguana." : The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans
Yesterday afternoon, just as I started watching this movie, my roommate--Starbucks Queen--arrived home from work and joined me in the living room. "What are you watching?" she asked. "Nicolas Cage movie," I said, "You know I can't resist Nic." "Who can?" she replied.
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans is the story of Lieutenant Terence McDonagh, an officer with the New Orleans police department. We find out in the first two minutes that he's not a very nice guy to start with, and a debilitating injury does not improve him any. He is completely immoral--shaking down teenagers for drugs, threatening people, and generally behaving like a out-of-control crazy person (lots of that good old fashioned "bug-eyed and screaming" Cage here, of course. Then again, when you're playing a crackhead, maybe that's finally justified?) As he investigates the murder of five Senegalese immigrants, his world begins to unravel at frightening speed. He is juggling as fast as he can, but it's beginning to look like Terence isn't going to be able to keep all the balls in the air.
The film was an "A-List of the B-List" with appearances by Eva Mendes as Terence's girlfriend, Val Kilmer and Shawn Hatosy as his coworkers, Xzibit as a feared drug dealer, Brad Dourif as a bookie, Jennifer Coolidge as Terence's drunken step-mother, Fairuza Balk as a highway officer, and Michael Shannon as a nervous property clerk. All the performances were reasonably decent, though I thought Jennifer Coolidge's was particularly good, since she was playing fiercely against type. Nicolas Cage over-acted as usual, but at the same time his manic shrieking and morose sulking were in character of a man spiraling out-of-control. Also, his hair didn't make me want to cry, which with him is always a victory.
The thing I guess I found most odd were the strange "reptile POV" shots for no reason, or some of the strange choices the director made. I realize that if your main character is whacked out on drugs you can get away with some things (the break dancing dead guy, for one) but the loooooong shot from the POV of a hallucinated iguana? I just don't know.
After the movie was over, SQ looked at me and said "What was the point of that? Was it supposed to be funny? Or dramatic? Or what?" and I said, "It's a Herzog movie. I think it's supposed to be weird." "Well, they succeeded admirably with that, then," she said as she left the room.
I can't say I exactly liked the movie, but it was significantly less terrible than I expected before I watched it.
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans is the story of Lieutenant Terence McDonagh, an officer with the New Orleans police department. We find out in the first two minutes that he's not a very nice guy to start with, and a debilitating injury does not improve him any. He is completely immoral--shaking down teenagers for drugs, threatening people, and generally behaving like a out-of-control crazy person (lots of that good old fashioned "bug-eyed and screaming" Cage here, of course. Then again, when you're playing a crackhead, maybe that's finally justified?) As he investigates the murder of five Senegalese immigrants, his world begins to unravel at frightening speed. He is juggling as fast as he can, but it's beginning to look like Terence isn't going to be able to keep all the balls in the air.
The film was an "A-List of the B-List" with appearances by Eva Mendes as Terence's girlfriend, Val Kilmer and Shawn Hatosy as his coworkers, Xzibit as a feared drug dealer, Brad Dourif as a bookie, Jennifer Coolidge as Terence's drunken step-mother, Fairuza Balk as a highway officer, and Michael Shannon as a nervous property clerk. All the performances were reasonably decent, though I thought Jennifer Coolidge's was particularly good, since she was playing fiercely against type. Nicolas Cage over-acted as usual, but at the same time his manic shrieking and morose sulking were in character of a man spiraling out-of-control. Also, his hair didn't make me want to cry, which with him is always a victory.
The thing I guess I found most odd were the strange "reptile POV" shots for no reason, or some of the strange choices the director made. I realize that if your main character is whacked out on drugs you can get away with some things (the break dancing dead guy, for one) but the loooooong shot from the POV of a hallucinated iguana? I just don't know.
After the movie was over, SQ looked at me and said "What was the point of that? Was it supposed to be funny? Or dramatic? Or what?" and I said, "It's a Herzog movie. I think it's supposed to be weird." "Well, they succeeded admirably with that, then," she said as she left the room.
I can't say I exactly liked the movie, but it was significantly less terrible than I expected before I watched it.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Random Thoughts & Cannonball Read #25
So it's been a while, huh? It's not that I haven't been reading, it's just that I got really tired of blogging about what I'm reading...particularly since so much of it is so very similar. Instead of talking about books, I think I'm going to talk a little about TV and other miscellaneous stuff. 'Cause I love TV.
1. Band of Brothers: I watched the entire mini-series when they replayed it on HBO, and I have to say it's one of the best things I've seen on television since Deadwood. The acting, the scripting, the effects, the cinematography, the pacing--everything about it was completely gripping. Damian Lewis (whom I have liked a lot ever since the prematurely cancelled Life) was perfect, and every other actor in the series was spot-on. There wasn't a single person involved that I could point to and say "Oh, he was overacting" or "He seemed like he wasn't on the same level as everyone else." The whole thing was so well put together. It actually drove me to see out the book Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose (Cannonball Read 2 #25)--which showed me just how great the adaptation was. The testimony from the actual soldiers was clearly the main source of material, which is probably why the show felt so authentic. It was amazing to me that anyone at all managed to survive in those kinds of circumstances, let alone thrive and come back to their regular lives in the States to function as normal parts of society. Flabbergasting, really. I highly recommend that anyone who hasn't seen this show go out and get hold of a copy immediately--it's only 10 episodes, and well worth the 10 hours of your time.
2. The Pacific: On a related note, I've started watching HBO's new WWII show. I'm only one episode in, and frankly thus far I'm a little disappointed. Instead of beginning with training, we're given a short and somewhat cliched exposure to a few of the main characters and then are thrown directly into battle. There's been almost no chance to learn the characters' names or anything about them, which I don't like. However, I also understand that due to the nature of the historical fact--the Marines were basically thrown into battle in short time because they were the only group ready for immediate deployment--this is an accurate portrayal. I'm hoping that as time goes by I'll be able to enjoy the show on its own merits rather than constantly comparing it to Band of Brothers.
3. Boardwalk Empire: This one hasn't started yet, and isn't due until fall, but I'm already really excited. HBO seems to have a knack for period dramas, and when you combine the 20s and gangsters and Steve Buscemi, I feel like it will be very difficult to go wrong. I'm also pleased to see Michael Pitt getting some work, since he's put in great performances everywhere I've seen him, even if the movie itself was crap (i.e. Murder by Numbers).
4. Life: This new Discovery Channel mini-series is what HD was designed for. To be honest, they should have just called it "Look at This Neat Nature Shit We Filmed" since the show isn't really composed all that well and I could certainly live without the Oprah narration. Still, nature's amazing and really, I'm all for watching animals do weird things or be adorable or whatever.
5. Justified: I'm not sure how I feel about this new FX show yet. I am always happy to see Timothy Olyphant, particularly if he's wearing a cowboy hat and shooting people. However, I'm not entirely sure whether I actually buy the premise or the characters. I think the neo-Nazi leader and his hapless sidekicks have potential, and I also like slightly-wacky-husband-shooter chick. I think this show may take a little time to find its groove. Luckily, as long as they continue to give me some Olyphant every week, I'll keep watching.
6. USA Network: I am not sure who is handling programming at USA, but whomever it is deserves a bonus and a hot fudge sundae. For the past few years, they have been putting out some really great new shows--Psych, Burn Notice, and most recently White Collar) and putting them on television during those times during the year when all other new programming is on hiatus (summer and December/January). They've done some great work, and their whole "Characters Welcome" advertising campaign is pretty great. If you don't watch any of these shows, you should check them out. They're fun, not too serious, and completely entertaining.
7. Jeopardy!: It's still on, and I still kick ass at it.
Miscellany A: I got some little bongo drums and have been rocking the hell out of them. Nothing relieves the stress of a long day at the salt mine like pulling out the drums, cranking the iTunes to 11 and banging away along with the Village People's "Go West" or The Band's "Get Up Jake".
Miscellany B: My dear friend Bundt Cake had her baby this past weekend. I'm not sure I like the fact that my college friends are now doing the whole "baby" thing (it seems this whole marriage adulthood thing is not going away any time soon) but I also find that it's really really fun to buy baby clothes. This could become a bad habit...
Miscellany C: I now have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 Stephen King books. Luckily, I think I'm finally going to be in a position to get to Ikea and buy a nice new shelf. Then I'll have space to organize all my King books and all my Sookie books instead of having them piled everywhere like some kind of tornado-stricken lending library.
Miscellany D: My mother and I have been working on tracking some of the family genealogy. Turns out we have a relative we can track all the way back to 1700. His grandson was a member of George Washington's personal guard. Also, it turns out I'm part Welsh/Cornish, which I didn't know. We're tracking Pop's service record to try and figure out which ships he served on during WWII. (See above for recent interest in WWII.) Apparently Pop didn't talk about the war at all, though my great uncle told us a story about how the ship Pop was on got sunk, and the Navy sent Pop's seabag they'd fished out of the wreckage home to great-grandma--implying he'd been killed in the sinking--only to discover like 2 weeks later that he'd be evacuated to Australia for a ruptured appendix and hadn't even been on the ship when it sank. I'd be very interested to know which ship that was, since fewer ships than you'd think actually were sunk during the war. Maybe I'm missing a disaster book!
1. Band of Brothers: I watched the entire mini-series when they replayed it on HBO, and I have to say it's one of the best things I've seen on television since Deadwood. The acting, the scripting, the effects, the cinematography, the pacing--everything about it was completely gripping. Damian Lewis (whom I have liked a lot ever since the prematurely cancelled Life) was perfect, and every other actor in the series was spot-on. There wasn't a single person involved that I could point to and say "Oh, he was overacting" or "He seemed like he wasn't on the same level as everyone else." The whole thing was so well put together. It actually drove me to see out the book Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose (Cannonball Read 2 #25)--which showed me just how great the adaptation was. The testimony from the actual soldiers was clearly the main source of material, which is probably why the show felt so authentic. It was amazing to me that anyone at all managed to survive in those kinds of circumstances, let alone thrive and come back to their regular lives in the States to function as normal parts of society. Flabbergasting, really. I highly recommend that anyone who hasn't seen this show go out and get hold of a copy immediately--it's only 10 episodes, and well worth the 10 hours of your time.
2. The Pacific: On a related note, I've started watching HBO's new WWII show. I'm only one episode in, and frankly thus far I'm a little disappointed. Instead of beginning with training, we're given a short and somewhat cliched exposure to a few of the main characters and then are thrown directly into battle. There's been almost no chance to learn the characters' names or anything about them, which I don't like. However, I also understand that due to the nature of the historical fact--the Marines were basically thrown into battle in short time because they were the only group ready for immediate deployment--this is an accurate portrayal. I'm hoping that as time goes by I'll be able to enjoy the show on its own merits rather than constantly comparing it to Band of Brothers.
3. Boardwalk Empire: This one hasn't started yet, and isn't due until fall, but I'm already really excited. HBO seems to have a knack for period dramas, and when you combine the 20s and gangsters and Steve Buscemi, I feel like it will be very difficult to go wrong. I'm also pleased to see Michael Pitt getting some work, since he's put in great performances everywhere I've seen him, even if the movie itself was crap (i.e. Murder by Numbers).
4. Life: This new Discovery Channel mini-series is what HD was designed for. To be honest, they should have just called it "Look at This Neat Nature Shit We Filmed" since the show isn't really composed all that well and I could certainly live without the Oprah narration. Still, nature's amazing and really, I'm all for watching animals do weird things or be adorable or whatever.
5. Justified: I'm not sure how I feel about this new FX show yet. I am always happy to see Timothy Olyphant, particularly if he's wearing a cowboy hat and shooting people. However, I'm not entirely sure whether I actually buy the premise or the characters. I think the neo-Nazi leader and his hapless sidekicks have potential, and I also like slightly-wacky-husband-shooter chick. I think this show may take a little time to find its groove. Luckily, as long as they continue to give me some Olyphant every week, I'll keep watching.
6. USA Network: I am not sure who is handling programming at USA, but whomever it is deserves a bonus and a hot fudge sundae. For the past few years, they have been putting out some really great new shows--Psych, Burn Notice, and most recently White Collar) and putting them on television during those times during the year when all other new programming is on hiatus (summer and December/January). They've done some great work, and their whole "Characters Welcome" advertising campaign is pretty great. If you don't watch any of these shows, you should check them out. They're fun, not too serious, and completely entertaining.
7. Jeopardy!: It's still on, and I still kick ass at it.
Miscellany A: I got some little bongo drums and have been rocking the hell out of them. Nothing relieves the stress of a long day at the salt mine like pulling out the drums, cranking the iTunes to 11 and banging away along with the Village People's "Go West" or The Band's "Get Up Jake".
Miscellany B: My dear friend Bundt Cake had her baby this past weekend. I'm not sure I like the fact that my college friends are now doing the whole "baby" thing (it seems this whole marriage adulthood thing is not going away any time soon) but I also find that it's really really fun to buy baby clothes. This could become a bad habit...
Miscellany C: I now have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 Stephen King books. Luckily, I think I'm finally going to be in a position to get to Ikea and buy a nice new shelf. Then I'll have space to organize all my King books and all my Sookie books instead of having them piled everywhere like some kind of tornado-stricken lending library.
Miscellany D: My mother and I have been working on tracking some of the family genealogy. Turns out we have a relative we can track all the way back to 1700. His grandson was a member of George Washington's personal guard. Also, it turns out I'm part Welsh/Cornish, which I didn't know. We're tracking Pop's service record to try and figure out which ships he served on during WWII. (See above for recent interest in WWII.) Apparently Pop didn't talk about the war at all, though my great uncle told us a story about how the ship Pop was on got sunk, and the Navy sent Pop's seabag they'd fished out of the wreckage home to great-grandma--implying he'd been killed in the sinking--only to discover like 2 weeks later that he'd be evacuated to Australia for a ruptured appendix and hadn't even been on the ship when it sank. I'd be very interested to know which ship that was, since fewer ships than you'd think actually were sunk during the war. Maybe I'm missing a disaster book!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Cannonball Read 2 #21: Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris
In short, Silence of the Lambs is the story of a young, ambitious FBI agent-in-training who teams up with a dangerous and psychopathic incarcerated genius in order to stop a serial killer. The book is mostly from the perspective of Clarice Starling, a young woman in the Quantico training program who wants to become a profiler with the FBI. She is sent by Jack Crawford--head of Quantico's profiling program--to speak with famed serial killing psychologist Hannibal Lector, ostensibly to try and persuade him to fill out a survey for research purposes. Dr. Lector quickly begins a cat and mouse game with Starling, and hints to her that he knows the identity of the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" who is plaguing the FBI by kidnapping and skinning young women. The story continues as Clarice tries to balance using Dr. Lector with being used by him for his own purposes. It also follows the hunt for "Buffalo Bill" and the struggles of his latest hostage.
The book is quite captivating, and the character of Clarice is very well drawn. However, the star of the novel is definitely "Hannibal the Cannibal," arguably the most fascinating fictional psychopath in literary history. His interactions with Clarice are very much a highlight of the book--in fact, at several points I found myself longing to skip ahead (past the procedural hunt for the at-large killer) to their next meeting. Although Lector is not "on-stage" at all times, his presence is felt at all times. The relationship between the two main characters is much more fascinating than the question of whether or not "Bill" will be captured before he kills his hostage.
I have read Harris's follow-ups (both sequel and prequel) and frankly compared to Silence of the Lambs they are both okay, but nothing particularly special.
It's difficult to read this book without considering the Oscar-sweeping film version starring Jodie Foster and Sir Anthony Hopkins. It is amazing to me how closely the film follows the novel--though some small changes have been made and a few minor things left out, the movie doesn't suffer in the slightest. The performances (particularly Foster and Hopkins) are stunning and deserving of the accolades they received. Foster is excellent as Starling, a hard-nosed young woman desperate to make something more of herself than her white-trash small town past. And Hopkins is stunning as Lector; he is the epitome of courtly menace, of a brilliant mind corrupted yet still sharp. The entire supporting cast are equally good in their parts, particularly Ted Levine as the totally disturbing "Buffalo Bill."
I'd highly recommend both the novel and the film to anyone, though those who are delicate about violence should probably skip them.
The book is quite captivating, and the character of Clarice is very well drawn. However, the star of the novel is definitely "Hannibal the Cannibal," arguably the most fascinating fictional psychopath in literary history. His interactions with Clarice are very much a highlight of the book--in fact, at several points I found myself longing to skip ahead (past the procedural hunt for the at-large killer) to their next meeting. Although Lector is not "on-stage" at all times, his presence is felt at all times. The relationship between the two main characters is much more fascinating than the question of whether or not "Bill" will be captured before he kills his hostage.
I have read Harris's follow-ups (both sequel and prequel) and frankly compared to Silence of the Lambs they are both okay, but nothing particularly special.
It's difficult to read this book without considering the Oscar-sweeping film version starring Jodie Foster and Sir Anthony Hopkins. It is amazing to me how closely the film follows the novel--though some small changes have been made and a few minor things left out, the movie doesn't suffer in the slightest. The performances (particularly Foster and Hopkins) are stunning and deserving of the accolades they received. Foster is excellent as Starling, a hard-nosed young woman desperate to make something more of herself than her white-trash small town past. And Hopkins is stunning as Lector; he is the epitome of courtly menace, of a brilliant mind corrupted yet still sharp. The entire supporting cast are equally good in their parts, particularly Ted Levine as the totally disturbing "Buffalo Bill."
I'd highly recommend both the novel and the film to anyone, though those who are delicate about violence should probably skip them.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Movies Movies Movies!
It was kind of a big movie weekend, because after the party Friday night, I was sort of blah for the whole weekend. I watched a couple movies, and figured I'd talk about them here for my post of the day.
Kung Fu Panda: I'm a sucker for movies like this, but the darn thing really WAS hilarious. The Boyfriend and I laughed until the tears ran down our faces, then laughed more. The animation was amazing, and Jack Black was really perfect for the role of hapless panda Po. Sometimes Black can overshadow the character he's playing, but here he was just awesome. I was also happy to spot the ever-delicioso Ian McShane as the voice of the villain. (I kind of wish I could get Ian McShane's voice as hold music--I am on hold a lot, and I'd happily sit patiently if I could listen to him talk about whatever. He could read the phonebook and I'd be delighted.) The story of a fat panda becoming a mighty warrior worked well, and the humor was good for kids, but adults will have no problem enjoying it either. Two thumbs up.
This Filthy World: John Waters's one-man show was also hilarious. He talks a lot about the making of his movies, his opinions on the state of the world, and general observations on life. It's probably not for the right-wing crowd (discussions of gay life, drugs, and rampant, deliberate moral corruption would probably give those people immediate aneurysms) but I thought it was funny all the way through.
An Evening With Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder: I have not seen the first Evening With Kevin Smith, though I have heard a lot of good things. I think he probably used his best material there, but this was still very funny if you're a fan. (If you're not a fan, you might as well just skip it.) This nearly two-hour show in Toronto gives Smith a chance to answer more audience questions and generally digress into various funny tangents. Although there were moments where it dragged a bit, or got a little uncomfortable, I mostly enjoyed it. His rambling explanation of watching Dora the Explorer made me laugh until I snorted. Jay Mewes also makes a cameo appearance, which made me squee. I wouldn't pay to watch it, but if it's free OnDemand or Netflix InstantWatch it's a good way to waste some time and have a few laughs.
Constantine: First of all, I have to point out that while The Boyfriend has a VIOLENT dislike of Keanu Reeves and all of his performances, I don't mind the guy. I think Keanu is very pretty, and while he isn't the best actor out there, it's not like he's casting himself in these movies, a la Kevin Costner. If he's miscast, it is NOT his fault. Also, the guy has had a kind of tough life (best friend ODs right in front of him, baby dies, fiance is killed shortly after in a car wreck) and I figure the fact that he mostly keeps to himself and behaves instead of being a giant Hollywood douchebag says a lot for him. That said, while this performance was not the best ever committed to film, and while there are probably several actors who could have done a better job, it was not awful. I liked the premise, and the climactic ending was pretty awesome. Peter Stormare is fantastic as the devil, and any time THE SWINTON appears I am always intrigued. Rachel Weisz was all right (though I am biased because I LOVED her in the Mummy movies) though when I saw Gavin Rossdale I was like "Really? There were no REAL actors available that day? Not a single lowly SAG member could be found to play the part?" On the whole, it's kind of a stupid movie, but no stupider than Max Payne, and at least Keanu Reeves doesn't come off as a tremendous asshole.
Smoke Signals: This is a movie about two young Native American men in the Pacific Northwest who go on a journey together when the father of one of them dies. It's a quiet little story. The acting isn't perfect, although the guy who plays Thomas Builds-the-Fire--the oddball of the pairing-- was excellent. Adam Beach, who played the more socially normal of the two, displayed considerably more range and talent than he did during his brief stint on SVU...which isn't a whole lot, to be honest. (At least he's pretty...) The story and dialogue are interesting, funny, and touching in places. It's the first film I've seen about modern day Native Americans, teenagers in particular. It's apparently based on a story by famed Native American author Sherman Alexie called "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven." Although it's not entertaining as much as thought provoking, and the indie-ness of the movie is more obvious than I'd prefer, I'd definitely recommend this one.
Also, the new show on USA--White Collar--is pretty good. I don't know who is running USA, but they seem to have figured out the perfect formula for light, fun, entertaining television. I mean, I love crime shows, but lately SVU seems to be gunning for some kind of "most miserable and depression show on television" award (along with giving Richard Belzer and Ice-T a criminally teensy amount of screen time), CSI is kind of a scattered mess, Bones is constantly being bumped for stupid baseball (it is ridiculous to me that ALL FOUR major sports are in season at the same time), and NCIS (which is a GOOD SHOW, PAJIBA OVERLORDS! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO DEFEND IT! Well, not the new one with LL Cool J--that one sucks sweaty monkey balls) can't do it all alone. In the same vein as Psych and Burn Notice, USA has managed to make White Collar a pleasant, serviceable, and entertaining hour of TV.
For anyone who was wondering, I ended up going with Miss Piggy for Halloween. Although I wasn't entirely sure when I put it on, the photos are fantastic, and judging from the reactions of others at the party, I think it was a very good choice. :)
Kung Fu Panda: I'm a sucker for movies like this, but the darn thing really WAS hilarious. The Boyfriend and I laughed until the tears ran down our faces, then laughed more. The animation was amazing, and Jack Black was really perfect for the role of hapless panda Po. Sometimes Black can overshadow the character he's playing, but here he was just awesome. I was also happy to spot the ever-delicioso Ian McShane as the voice of the villain. (I kind of wish I could get Ian McShane's voice as hold music--I am on hold a lot, and I'd happily sit patiently if I could listen to him talk about whatever. He could read the phonebook and I'd be delighted.) The story of a fat panda becoming a mighty warrior worked well, and the humor was good for kids, but adults will have no problem enjoying it either. Two thumbs up.
This Filthy World: John Waters's one-man show was also hilarious. He talks a lot about the making of his movies, his opinions on the state of the world, and general observations on life. It's probably not for the right-wing crowd (discussions of gay life, drugs, and rampant, deliberate moral corruption would probably give those people immediate aneurysms) but I thought it was funny all the way through.
An Evening With Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder: I have not seen the first Evening With Kevin Smith, though I have heard a lot of good things. I think he probably used his best material there, but this was still very funny if you're a fan. (If you're not a fan, you might as well just skip it.) This nearly two-hour show in Toronto gives Smith a chance to answer more audience questions and generally digress into various funny tangents. Although there were moments where it dragged a bit, or got a little uncomfortable, I mostly enjoyed it. His rambling explanation of watching Dora the Explorer made me laugh until I snorted. Jay Mewes also makes a cameo appearance, which made me squee. I wouldn't pay to watch it, but if it's free OnDemand or Netflix InstantWatch it's a good way to waste some time and have a few laughs.
Constantine: First of all, I have to point out that while The Boyfriend has a VIOLENT dislike of Keanu Reeves and all of his performances, I don't mind the guy. I think Keanu is very pretty, and while he isn't the best actor out there, it's not like he's casting himself in these movies, a la Kevin Costner. If he's miscast, it is NOT his fault. Also, the guy has had a kind of tough life (best friend ODs right in front of him, baby dies, fiance is killed shortly after in a car wreck) and I figure the fact that he mostly keeps to himself and behaves instead of being a giant Hollywood douchebag says a lot for him. That said, while this performance was not the best ever committed to film, and while there are probably several actors who could have done a better job, it was not awful. I liked the premise, and the climactic ending was pretty awesome. Peter Stormare is fantastic as the devil, and any time THE SWINTON appears I am always intrigued. Rachel Weisz was all right (though I am biased because I LOVED her in the Mummy movies) though when I saw Gavin Rossdale I was like "Really? There were no REAL actors available that day? Not a single lowly SAG member could be found to play the part?" On the whole, it's kind of a stupid movie, but no stupider than Max Payne, and at least Keanu Reeves doesn't come off as a tremendous asshole.
Smoke Signals: This is a movie about two young Native American men in the Pacific Northwest who go on a journey together when the father of one of them dies. It's a quiet little story. The acting isn't perfect, although the guy who plays Thomas Builds-the-Fire--the oddball of the pairing-- was excellent. Adam Beach, who played the more socially normal of the two, displayed considerably more range and talent than he did during his brief stint on SVU...which isn't a whole lot, to be honest. (At least he's pretty...) The story and dialogue are interesting, funny, and touching in places. It's the first film I've seen about modern day Native Americans, teenagers in particular. It's apparently based on a story by famed Native American author Sherman Alexie called "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven." Although it's not entertaining as much as thought provoking, and the indie-ness of the movie is more obvious than I'd prefer, I'd definitely recommend this one.
Also, the new show on USA--White Collar--is pretty good. I don't know who is running USA, but they seem to have figured out the perfect formula for light, fun, entertaining television. I mean, I love crime shows, but lately SVU seems to be gunning for some kind of "most miserable and depression show on television" award (along with giving Richard Belzer and Ice-T a criminally teensy amount of screen time), CSI is kind of a scattered mess, Bones is constantly being bumped for stupid baseball (it is ridiculous to me that ALL FOUR major sports are in season at the same time), and NCIS (which is a GOOD SHOW, PAJIBA OVERLORDS! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO DEFEND IT! Well, not the new one with LL Cool J--that one sucks sweaty monkey balls) can't do it all alone. In the same vein as Psych and Burn Notice, USA has managed to make White Collar a pleasant, serviceable, and entertaining hour of TV.
For anyone who was wondering, I ended up going with Miss Piggy for Halloween. Although I wasn't entirely sure when I put it on, the photos are fantastic, and judging from the reactions of others at the party, I think it was a very good choice. :)
Sunday, November 1, 2009
NaBloPoMo and Milk
So it is November 1, first day of both NaBloPoMo (National Blog Posting Month) and the first day of Cannonball Read 2. Unfortunately, I wasn't chosen to participate in the official CR2, but I'm going to do the unofficial version instead. There's a list of the unofficial participants (The Kids Who Stink and Suck at Kickball). I'm also going to try and manage NaBloPoMo, but I can't make any promises.
Friday night, I watched Milk, which I had been meaning to see for quite some time. I'd kind of been putting it off, since it's not really something The Boyfriend or Starbucks Queen would be interested in seeing. However, it was late at night, I was still too drunk from partying to go to bed, and it was on OnDemand. I'm glad I finally got to it.
The story of Harvey Milk and his rise to power in San Francisco in the 70s is an inspiring story. The man was determined to make a difference in his own way to try and help those who at the time didn't have a voice. I don't know as much about him as I feel like I should, but I'm glad I know what I do. The unfortunate thing is that people are STILL fighting for the rights he was trying to win 40 years ago. The gay rights movement today is very important to me, and it's disappointing that no leader has emerged with the kind of charisma and fighting spirit Harvey embodied. Although this week has been a good one for the movement (signing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes act and the repeal of the travel ban for those living with HIV) the Anita Bryants of the world still seem to have more power than they should.
The film itself was well done, and the director made some strong choices. The use of actual news footage at a lot of points (Anita Bryant, for example) added to the realism for me. I also thought there were a lot of very good performances, including Sean Penn, James Franco, and Josh Brolin. I did feel like some of Harvey's personal character flaws were a little glossed over--his relationships with those around him often felt forced because we didn't really see why these people cared so much for him, nor were his romantic relationships fleshed out (despite the amount of kissing involved, which almost seemed more like a ploy than character development.) Also, the point where the movie started left a lot of questions unanswered and seemed to gloss over Harvey's closeted past. Visually, I was very impressed, but sometimes felt we were getting style over substance. However, I understand that generally a biopic--like a portrait--is going to make the hero look as good as possible.
On the whole, I think it was a great movie that people ought to see, if only for the (admittedly blatant) political message.
Friday night, I watched Milk, which I had been meaning to see for quite some time. I'd kind of been putting it off, since it's not really something The Boyfriend or Starbucks Queen would be interested in seeing. However, it was late at night, I was still too drunk from partying to go to bed, and it was on OnDemand. I'm glad I finally got to it.
The story of Harvey Milk and his rise to power in San Francisco in the 70s is an inspiring story. The man was determined to make a difference in his own way to try and help those who at the time didn't have a voice. I don't know as much about him as I feel like I should, but I'm glad I know what I do. The unfortunate thing is that people are STILL fighting for the rights he was trying to win 40 years ago. The gay rights movement today is very important to me, and it's disappointing that no leader has emerged with the kind of charisma and fighting spirit Harvey embodied. Although this week has been a good one for the movement (signing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes act and the repeal of the travel ban for those living with HIV) the Anita Bryants of the world still seem to have more power than they should.
The film itself was well done, and the director made some strong choices. The use of actual news footage at a lot of points (Anita Bryant, for example) added to the realism for me. I also thought there were a lot of very good performances, including Sean Penn, James Franco, and Josh Brolin. I did feel like some of Harvey's personal character flaws were a little glossed over--his relationships with those around him often felt forced because we didn't really see why these people cared so much for him, nor were his romantic relationships fleshed out (despite the amount of kissing involved, which almost seemed more like a ploy than character development.) Also, the point where the movie started left a lot of questions unanswered and seemed to gloss over Harvey's closeted past. Visually, I was very impressed, but sometimes felt we were getting style over substance. However, I understand that generally a biopic--like a portrait--is going to make the hero look as good as possible.
On the whole, I think it was a great movie that people ought to see, if only for the (admittedly blatant) political message.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Tidbits
It may be a while until I get my next Cannonball Read done, since I have tasked myself with reading Lord of the Rings. I am more than halfway through Fellowship of the Ring right now, which--after starting off fairly slowly--has become a lot more interesting. (I can see why the Tolkien purists got all pissed off about the movie, though. I love the movies, but they're pretty different.) I figure while you wait I'd collect a few thoughts for your amusement.
1. It took me all of five minutes to realize I was going to hate National Treasure: Book of Secrets, which I subjected myself to on Saturday. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't have taken me that long to hate it, but I like to give things the benefit of the doubt. However, once they screwed up the Lincoln assassination, though, nothing they did was going to be right so it didn't matter. Probably didn't help that the plot was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen committed to film. Did they let Jon Voight write that himself or something?
2. I watched the majority of Sydney White and was far more entertained than I feel I should have been.
3. Happened to catch Steel Magnolias on the WE channel. I don't know why I watch that movie--it always makes me bawl--but I can't pass it by if I see that it's on. I think it's just that I love Dolly Parton and Shirley McClaine. I feel as though lunch with those two would be the most hilarious meal of your life.
4. We are all VERY excited that America's Best Dance Crew is back on TV. I have been driving The Boyfriend nuts with my attempts to pop, lock, dip, tut, and New Jack Swing. (In case you hadn't guessed, I am not going to be qualifying for ABDC any time soon.) Starbucks Queen (our roommate) and I watch the episodes at least twice, and pay very close attention to the critiques. Also to what host L'il Mama is wearing, because sometimes her outfits are totally worth the price of admission (i.e. last season when she showed up for one episode in a bejeweled little hat, looking like a villainous stewardess.) The Boyfriend enjoys it because although it's a reality show, it showcases people for having talent, not just for being douchebags. Speaking of having talent-- Project Runway starts this week! Yaaaaaaay! And speaking of being douchebags...the new cycle of America's Next Top Model should be starting soon as well. Wheee!
5. And now for a new feature I like to call "Bork Bork Bork: Cooking with The Caustic Critic". This time, we're going with The Boyfriend's sister's taco salad, which is strangely delicious.
Dorito Chips (I used Nacho)
1 pkg Taco Seasoning
1 pound hamburger
Head of lettuce
Two tomatoes
Shredded Cheese or a block you can cube up! (I a block of sharp cheddar, but you could Monterrey Jack, too.)
Catalina dressing
A. Fry up the hamburger. Mix in the taco seasoning based on the taco seasoning directions. Allow to completely cool.
B. Cut up the lettuce. Quarter the tomatoes and remove all the seeds then dice into small pieces. Add the cheese. Once the hamburger is completely cooled add to the salad. Once you're ready to serve the salad mix in the Catalina dressing to taste. You can add the Dorito chips right into salad or you can serve it the way we do--take a handful of chips out of the bag, crumble slightly, and put on your plate as a bed for the salad. If you don't mix the chips directly into the main salad, you don't have to worry about the leftovers being full of soggy chips.
6. This whole insane heat-wave thing has got to end. I moved to Boston because I thought being several hundred miles north and near the ocean would mean cooler summers. Apparently I was the stupid one. I am now wondering how much a summer home in Svalbard will cost. I really need to make friends with someone who has a pool if this keeps going on...
7. Is anyone else out there watching True Blood? That show is f-ing crazy! There's always something going down, and usually they throw in a hot shirtless guy to sweeten the deal. Okay, yeah, the main character can be a little annoying, but with all that's been going on around her, who's to say I wouldn't be somewhat annoying in the same circumstances?
8. My therapist disappeared. I hadn't seen her since October, admittedly, but when I called the other day I got a "This phone has been disconnected" message. It kind of freaks me out.
9. I really just don't care about Brett Favre, okay? Would everyone please stop shoving him down my throat for five minutes? He should have retired three years ago--he could have gone out totally beloved and been a HERO in Green Bay. Instead he's this whiny, weepy jackass who can't make up his damn mind. Though who cares about my opinion--as far as football players go, if he's not Wes Welker I really don't care. (He's preeeeeeeeetty...)
1. It took me all of five minutes to realize I was going to hate National Treasure: Book of Secrets, which I subjected myself to on Saturday. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't have taken me that long to hate it, but I like to give things the benefit of the doubt. However, once they screwed up the Lincoln assassination, though, nothing they did was going to be right so it didn't matter. Probably didn't help that the plot was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen committed to film. Did they let Jon Voight write that himself or something?
2. I watched the majority of Sydney White and was far more entertained than I feel I should have been.
3. Happened to catch Steel Magnolias on the WE channel. I don't know why I watch that movie--it always makes me bawl--but I can't pass it by if I see that it's on. I think it's just that I love Dolly Parton and Shirley McClaine. I feel as though lunch with those two would be the most hilarious meal of your life.
4. We are all VERY excited that America's Best Dance Crew is back on TV. I have been driving The Boyfriend nuts with my attempts to pop, lock, dip, tut, and New Jack Swing. (In case you hadn't guessed, I am not going to be qualifying for ABDC any time soon.) Starbucks Queen (our roommate) and I watch the episodes at least twice, and pay very close attention to the critiques. Also to what host L'il Mama is wearing, because sometimes her outfits are totally worth the price of admission (i.e. last season when she showed up for one episode in a bejeweled little hat, looking like a villainous stewardess.) The Boyfriend enjoys it because although it's a reality show, it showcases people for having talent, not just for being douchebags. Speaking of having talent-- Project Runway starts this week! Yaaaaaaay! And speaking of being douchebags...the new cycle of America's Next Top Model should be starting soon as well. Wheee!
5. And now for a new feature I like to call "Bork Bork Bork: Cooking with The Caustic Critic". This time, we're going with The Boyfriend's sister's taco salad, which is strangely delicious.
Dorito Chips (I used Nacho)
1 pkg Taco Seasoning
1 pound hamburger
Head of lettuce
Two tomatoes
Shredded Cheese or a block you can cube up! (I a block of sharp cheddar, but you could Monterrey Jack, too.)
Catalina dressing
A. Fry up the hamburger. Mix in the taco seasoning based on the taco seasoning directions. Allow to completely cool.
B. Cut up the lettuce. Quarter the tomatoes and remove all the seeds then dice into small pieces. Add the cheese. Once the hamburger is completely cooled add to the salad. Once you're ready to serve the salad mix in the Catalina dressing to taste. You can add the Dorito chips right into salad or you can serve it the way we do--take a handful of chips out of the bag, crumble slightly, and put on your plate as a bed for the salad. If you don't mix the chips directly into the main salad, you don't have to worry about the leftovers being full of soggy chips.
6. This whole insane heat-wave thing has got to end. I moved to Boston because I thought being several hundred miles north and near the ocean would mean cooler summers. Apparently I was the stupid one. I am now wondering how much a summer home in Svalbard will cost. I really need to make friends with someone who has a pool if this keeps going on...
7. Is anyone else out there watching True Blood? That show is f-ing crazy! There's always something going down, and usually they throw in a hot shirtless guy to sweeten the deal. Okay, yeah, the main character can be a little annoying, but with all that's been going on around her, who's to say I wouldn't be somewhat annoying in the same circumstances?
8. My therapist disappeared. I hadn't seen her since October, admittedly, but when I called the other day I got a "This phone has been disconnected" message. It kind of freaks me out.
9. I really just don't care about Brett Favre, okay? Would everyone please stop shoving him down my throat for five minutes? He should have retired three years ago--he could have gone out totally beloved and been a HERO in Green Bay. Instead he's this whiny, weepy jackass who can't make up his damn mind. Though who cares about my opinion--as far as football players go, if he's not Wes Welker I really don't care. (He's preeeeeeeeetty...)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Cannonball Read #18: Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe by Fannie Flagg
I have seen the film based on this novel (the theme at the moment seems to be books that have been made into films) and I will say that I really like it. I was a little concerned that the book would be more convoluted or more depressing or cheesy or something. Luckily, the book was equally delicious, though in different ways.
The frame of the story is the stories the elderly Mrs. Ninnie Threadgood tells her new friend Evelyn--a bored housewife who comes to the nursing home with her husband to visit his mother. Ninnie weaves for Evelyn the exciting, tragic, and very dramatic tale of the Threadgood family--specifically the story of Idgie, the tomboyish black sheep--and the lives around them during the Depression era in rural Whistlestop, Alabama. As Evelyn hears the story of Idgie, Idgie's best friend (and lover?) Ruth, Smokey Lonesome the hobo, Sipsy--the family's black servant--and her family, and everyone else, it gives Evelyn the strength to face up to her own life and try to change herself. The stories of the two friendships weave through the story, which is arranged in dated chapters, switching between Evelyn and Ninnie, Idgie, and various other characters' viewpoints as well as excerpts from "local newspapers." The story is not nearly as narrow and focused as the film, and in several places characters and story lines were minimized or eliminated entirely from the movie. The book is much less about just the story of Idgie, Ruth, and the Whistlestop Cafe, and more about a place and a time. At the end, there are even several pages of Sipsey's recipes for things like fried chicken and the fried green tomatoes of the title.
I enjoyed the book a lot--it was an easy read, and a welcome break from the deluge of non-fictional disasters I've been wading through lately. It's a heartwarming "chick flick" of a book that men would probably not enjoy but is a great read for a hormonal woman. ;)
The frame of the story is the stories the elderly Mrs. Ninnie Threadgood tells her new friend Evelyn--a bored housewife who comes to the nursing home with her husband to visit his mother. Ninnie weaves for Evelyn the exciting, tragic, and very dramatic tale of the Threadgood family--specifically the story of Idgie, the tomboyish black sheep--and the lives around them during the Depression era in rural Whistlestop, Alabama. As Evelyn hears the story of Idgie, Idgie's best friend (and lover?) Ruth, Smokey Lonesome the hobo, Sipsy--the family's black servant--and her family, and everyone else, it gives Evelyn the strength to face up to her own life and try to change herself. The stories of the two friendships weave through the story, which is arranged in dated chapters, switching between Evelyn and Ninnie, Idgie, and various other characters' viewpoints as well as excerpts from "local newspapers." The story is not nearly as narrow and focused as the film, and in several places characters and story lines were minimized or eliminated entirely from the movie. The book is much less about just the story of Idgie, Ruth, and the Whistlestop Cafe, and more about a place and a time. At the end, there are even several pages of Sipsey's recipes for things like fried chicken and the fried green tomatoes of the title.
I enjoyed the book a lot--it was an easy read, and a welcome break from the deluge of non-fictional disasters I've been wading through lately. It's a heartwarming "chick flick" of a book that men would probably not enjoy but is a great read for a hormonal woman. ;)
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Cannonball Read #11: Gangs of New York by Herbert Asbury (and added movie review)
So I read Gangs of New York a few weeks ago, but as I may have mentioned it was not very exciting and made me rather sleepy. Not that it was a BAD book exactly--it definitely had a lot of information in it that I didn't know--but though it may be informative it's not an easy read.
The first problem I had was the fact that the book was written in 1927, and the author takes for granted the reader's knowledge of events at the time. Although I know a certain amount about American history (probably more than the average person, I think) I had no idea about some of the people, places, and happenings the author referenced. I needed wikipedia at the ready to help me along in some spots. Also, the book's rather poorly structured. It's extremely tangential, and often meanders off-track completely. There is no narrative, and although it's marginally arranged chronologically, it's still tough to keep up. There are often spots that start off with "Googly-Eyes McGee*...who hung out with Limpy-Leg Jones...who was affiliated with this gang...who lived here but then moved here later...and which also included Kid Monkeyface...who was killed by Ulster Pete, wielding a steak knife, in 1903." And then it goes back to Googly-Eyes McGee, but you've already forgotten all about him. I just found it a little tiring.
However, here are 5 things I liked about the book:
1. The names of these people are crazy. They are almost worth reading the book just to see the kind of things people called themselves.
2. There were certain facts about America's history that I wasn't aware of. For example, the New York Conscription Riots are not something that most people seem to know about. I mean, did you know that the Union Navy FIRED ON the slums of New York City? Yeah, that's not exactly something they bring up in 8th grade Civil War History, is it?
3. Some of the facts I learned were sort of unintentionally funny. Did you know that the firemen during the late 19th century in New York City were all volunteer companies, and each company was its own little gang? Since there was a bonus awarded to the first company to arrive at the scene of a fire, often the first two companies to arrive--instead of throwing themselves into fighting the fire--would start fighting each other for the right to claim first on the scene. Meanwhile, the crowd would loot the burning building while the neighboring buildings caught fire.
4. It's a glimpse into parts of history that mostly go unmentioned in modern times.
5. I learned that a brickbat is not in fact a type of bat. It's just a chunk of brick that still has the corners on it.
Having read the book, I figured it was about time I saw that movie (Gangs of New York) that is "loosely based" on it.
Well, let me tell you, when they say "loosely based" that is about the most generous use of the word "loosely" I have ever seen. Since, as I mentioned, there is no narrative to the book, basically the only thing based on the book is the context. The parts of the film discussing what was going on with the Draft Riots, the fire companies, the police, Tammany Hall, etc. were pretty accurate. However all the personal stuff was obviously fiction--while there was a man who went by the name Bill the Butcher, and his last words were supposedly "At least I die a true American" that's about the only things he had in common with the character played by Daniel Day-Lewis.
As far as the acting went, I was pretty impressed. Daniel Day-Lewis deserved any and all accolades he received for that part--although it was in some ways quite over-the-top, that's kind of the way the character needed to be played. Liam Neeson and John C. Reilly were good in their smaller parts, and for the most part, the ensemble of the cast did very well. However, I can't say I was altogether thrilled with the casting of the leads. First of all, I am not a fan of Cameron Diaz, and I find her particularly out of place in an historical epic. (Really, I don't think she belongs in any movie that doesn't involve her discussing shoes, belching, or shaking her ass...those are the things she excels at. Emoting...not so much.) And the hair! Really? Someone thought that red mess looked natural?
As for Leonardo DiCaprio, I guess I find him distracting. I mean, I know he's a good actor, but I find it really hard to forget that it's him. I never completely accept the characters he plays (with the notable exception of Arnie in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? in which I thought he was outstanding)--it's kind of the way I feel with Tom Cruise. I don't see "Amsterdam Vallon"...I see Leonardo DiCaprio with a hat. It's not really his fault--as I said, I think he's very talented. It's probably more that he was SO FAMOUS when I was younger and that he really hasn't aged much at all--aside from getting a little of the Tom Hanks fathead, he really looks pretty much exactly the same as he did in Romeo & Juliet. I simply couldn't get behind him. Also, after he's "horribly maimed," everyone goes on like he'll be forever hideous! Horrible! Children will weep when they see him! You'd think he had his nose and eyeballs removed...and then he turns up a scene later with what appears to be a little scrape on his cheek. That's seriously the best the make-up artists could do for a permanent disfigurement? Ridiculous.
On the whole, I enjoyed both the movie and the book, though I would recommend them both with cautions. I think one should certainly read the book first, in order to to understand some of the history involved. However it's not something you can power through in one night--it's kind of heavy, slow-going reading. Then watch the movie for the cinematography, the costuming, the amazing sets, and Day-Lewis's performance.
*Names are not accurate, but they're close enough for you to get the idea.
The first problem I had was the fact that the book was written in 1927, and the author takes for granted the reader's knowledge of events at the time. Although I know a certain amount about American history (probably more than the average person, I think) I had no idea about some of the people, places, and happenings the author referenced. I needed wikipedia at the ready to help me along in some spots. Also, the book's rather poorly structured. It's extremely tangential, and often meanders off-track completely. There is no narrative, and although it's marginally arranged chronologically, it's still tough to keep up. There are often spots that start off with "Googly-Eyes McGee*...who hung out with Limpy-Leg Jones...who was affiliated with this gang...who lived here but then moved here later...and which also included Kid Monkeyface...who was killed by Ulster Pete, wielding a steak knife, in 1903." And then it goes back to Googly-Eyes McGee, but you've already forgotten all about him. I just found it a little tiring.
However, here are 5 things I liked about the book:
1. The names of these people are crazy. They are almost worth reading the book just to see the kind of things people called themselves.
2. There were certain facts about America's history that I wasn't aware of. For example, the New York Conscription Riots are not something that most people seem to know about. I mean, did you know that the Union Navy FIRED ON the slums of New York City? Yeah, that's not exactly something they bring up in 8th grade Civil War History, is it?
3. Some of the facts I learned were sort of unintentionally funny. Did you know that the firemen during the late 19th century in New York City were all volunteer companies, and each company was its own little gang? Since there was a bonus awarded to the first company to arrive at the scene of a fire, often the first two companies to arrive--instead of throwing themselves into fighting the fire--would start fighting each other for the right to claim first on the scene. Meanwhile, the crowd would loot the burning building while the neighboring buildings caught fire.
4. It's a glimpse into parts of history that mostly go unmentioned in modern times.
5. I learned that a brickbat is not in fact a type of bat. It's just a chunk of brick that still has the corners on it.
Having read the book, I figured it was about time I saw that movie (Gangs of New York) that is "loosely based" on it.
Well, let me tell you, when they say "loosely based" that is about the most generous use of the word "loosely" I have ever seen. Since, as I mentioned, there is no narrative to the book, basically the only thing based on the book is the context. The parts of the film discussing what was going on with the Draft Riots, the fire companies, the police, Tammany Hall, etc. were pretty accurate. However all the personal stuff was obviously fiction--while there was a man who went by the name Bill the Butcher, and his last words were supposedly "At least I die a true American" that's about the only things he had in common with the character played by Daniel Day-Lewis.
As far as the acting went, I was pretty impressed. Daniel Day-Lewis deserved any and all accolades he received for that part--although it was in some ways quite over-the-top, that's kind of the way the character needed to be played. Liam Neeson and John C. Reilly were good in their smaller parts, and for the most part, the ensemble of the cast did very well. However, I can't say I was altogether thrilled with the casting of the leads. First of all, I am not a fan of Cameron Diaz, and I find her particularly out of place in an historical epic. (Really, I don't think she belongs in any movie that doesn't involve her discussing shoes, belching, or shaking her ass...those are the things she excels at. Emoting...not so much.) And the hair! Really? Someone thought that red mess looked natural?
As for Leonardo DiCaprio, I guess I find him distracting. I mean, I know he's a good actor, but I find it really hard to forget that it's him. I never completely accept the characters he plays (with the notable exception of Arnie in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? in which I thought he was outstanding)--it's kind of the way I feel with Tom Cruise. I don't see "Amsterdam Vallon"...I see Leonardo DiCaprio with a hat. It's not really his fault--as I said, I think he's very talented. It's probably more that he was SO FAMOUS when I was younger and that he really hasn't aged much at all--aside from getting a little of the Tom Hanks fathead, he really looks pretty much exactly the same as he did in Romeo & Juliet. I simply couldn't get behind him. Also, after he's "horribly maimed," everyone goes on like he'll be forever hideous! Horrible! Children will weep when they see him! You'd think he had his nose and eyeballs removed...and then he turns up a scene later with what appears to be a little scrape on his cheek. That's seriously the best the make-up artists could do for a permanent disfigurement? Ridiculous.
On the whole, I enjoyed both the movie and the book, though I would recommend them both with cautions. I think one should certainly read the book first, in order to to understand some of the history involved. However it's not something you can power through in one night--it's kind of heavy, slow-going reading. Then watch the movie for the cinematography, the costuming, the amazing sets, and Day-Lewis's performance.
*Names are not accurate, but they're close enough for you to get the idea.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Dear God, Why?: Before The Devil Knows You're Dead
Tuesday was The Boyfriend's birthday, and he wanted to go to the movies. He'd been wanting to see Before the Devil Knows You're Dead since it came out, and as it was playing at the Somerville, he chose that for his birthday movie. Having read up on it, I KNEW that I wasn't going to like it, but it WAS his birthday...turned out that he hated it too. As did the other three people who came to the movies with us. I discovered the only thing worse than a relentlessly depressing movie in which none of the characters are likeable and all the decisions are bad is a relentlessly depressing movie that continually LOOPS BACK on itself, so you actually end up watching the SAME depressing scenes over and over again. Maybe I liked it less than I could have because I hate non-linear story-telling. Or, as I said, it could be because I felt about it the same way I did about Chicago, in that I found all the characters to be shitty people whom I didn't care about. OR it could be that it opened (and when I say "opened" I mean literally the very first scene in the film) with a graphic scene featuring a naked Phillip Seymour Hoffman banging Marissa Tomei doggy style. (Admittedly, everyone DID enjoy Marissa Tomei, who spent most of the movie wandering around topless and looking pouty.) Naked PSH is not something I ever felt a desire to see, and everything just spiraled downhill from there. Definitely not a good date movie, or a film to see with your parents. Not to mention that it's very long, and the first hour or so draaaaaaaaaaags on forever. Maybe I'm just not artsy enough, but the whole thing just sucked hardcore in my opinion. Everyone in the theater seemed to feel the same way--when it was over (the ending is rather abrupt) someone said aloud in the silence "Jesus Christ! Thank God THAT'S over!" and there was laughter and applause from the, like, 12 other people in there. Do yourself a favor--instead of seeing this movie, just take a meat fork and jam it into the side of your head.I told The Boyfriend that this definitely makes him even for the movie I picked out a while ago which turned out to have all the ass-raping in it.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Triple Feature!
I watched Breakfast On Pluto with Cillian Murphy. Not a terrible film, but I didn't like it as much as I'd hoped. Although Murphy does make a convincing woman (so convincing, in fact, that I'm officially revoking his name from my hottie list because now whenever I see him I'm going to think of this role) I found the character of Kitten Braden so entirely stupid and naive that I couldn't sympathize with her. I know it's supposed to sort of be a fantastical fairy-tale sort of thing, but even fairy-tale characters have more sense than that. Mostly I wanted to slap her...although some of those outfits were stunning. A+ to the costumer if not the writer.
Then I moved on to Support Your Local Sheriff, one of my favorites, starring James Garner and Joan Hackett. Although the plot and actors in the (non-)sequel, Support Your Local Gunfighter are nearly identical with the exception of the leading lady, I find Sheriff a much better film. Garner's at his best here, Hackett is hilarious as the accident-prone Prudy (much much funnier than Susanne Pleshette would prove in Gunfighter) , and there's a very funny performance by a very young Bruce Dern as stupid outlaw Joe Danby. It's kind of old, and it's goofy and a little campy, but I highly recommend it as a cheerful way to spend a dreary afternoon.
My final film of the day was Shackles, which is about a teacher trying to teach and inspire juvenile prisoners at Shackleton penitentiary. It's not a big name cast--the biggest name is D. L. Hughley, who plays the teacher--but there are some really great performances from the kids who play the prisoners. There's also some really cool slam performances (Hughley tries to inspire the kids to write by engaging them in slam poetry) which those of you who are into that sort of thing might dig. It's probably not a film you've heard of or are likely to know about, but I thought it was really good...didn't end the way I'd hoped, but perhaps the only way it could.
Then I moved on to Support Your Local Sheriff, one of my favorites, starring James Garner and Joan Hackett. Although the plot and actors in the (non-)sequel, Support Your Local Gunfighter are nearly identical with the exception of the leading lady, I find Sheriff a much better film. Garner's at his best here, Hackett is hilarious as the accident-prone Prudy (much much funnier than Susanne Pleshette would prove in Gunfighter) , and there's a very funny performance by a very young Bruce Dern as stupid outlaw Joe Danby. It's kind of old, and it's goofy and a little campy, but I highly recommend it as a cheerful way to spend a dreary afternoon.
My final film of the day was Shackles, which is about a teacher trying to teach and inspire juvenile prisoners at Shackleton penitentiary. It's not a big name cast--the biggest name is D. L. Hughley, who plays the teacher--but there are some really great performances from the kids who play the prisoners. There's also some really cool slam performances (Hughley tries to inspire the kids to write by engaging them in slam poetry) which those of you who are into that sort of thing might dig. It's probably not a film you've heard of or are likely to know about, but I thought it was really good...didn't end the way I'd hoped, but perhaps the only way it could.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The Velvet Goldmine
Velvet Goldmine: Okay, so this one is tough to give a straight out review, so I'll just lay out a few points for you.
A. I don't mind the non-linear storyline, or the sometimes bizarre ways of telling the tale, but seriously, the scene done with Ken dolls was just a little more than I could take.
B. The way the stories were told and interwoven with the story of the journalist who's listening to them was great.
C. I thought most of the acting was quite impressive, but was disappointed by the performance of Jonathon Rhys-Myers as Brian Slade--I thought he was rather flat and emotionless, and that bothered me until I realized that maybe that's the POINT...Brian Slade was never real. He was just sort of this reflection of those around him, and they all projected what they were looking for onto him. So maybe JR-M is in fact a BRILLIANT actor instead of--as I originally thought--amazingly awful.
D. Ewan McGregor was awe-inspiring. The man is never hesitant to drop trou and show off his light-saber (which, by the way, was more impressive here than we were led to believe in The Pillow Book.) His character, Curt Wild, was probably my favorite, just because that particular archetype is a soft spot of mine--the valiantly odd, secretly desperately needy punk-rock boy. I mean, Slade was so pathetic I was uninterested, but Wild? Oh yeah, I probably wouldn't kick him out of bed. Particularly during that part where he's covered in lube and glitter.
E. The make-up and costuming was stunning...with the notable exception of Christian Bale's flashback wig. My GOD, did they dig that thing out of the trash bin behind a cheap drag club or something? It was so distractingly bad that I couldn't even enjoy his masturbation scene...the first time I watched it. ;)
F. Eddie Izzard in men's clothing! The man has a knack for playing douchebags, I have to say.
G. There are not many female characters in this movie, and the few there are seem to be drawn as mostly bitches. Then again, the movie is not about women, but the relationships that exist between men, and between those men and the music. I have to say I thought Toni Collette was kind of wasted in her role, but then again, what little she has to do she does very well.
H. This movie is not for everyone. However, it's full of interesting visuals, rocking music, and hot man candy. If that's your thing, this is your film.
A. I don't mind the non-linear storyline, or the sometimes bizarre ways of telling the tale, but seriously, the scene done with Ken dolls was just a little more than I could take.
B. The way the stories were told and interwoven with the story of the journalist who's listening to them was great.
C. I thought most of the acting was quite impressive, but was disappointed by the performance of Jonathon Rhys-Myers as Brian Slade--I thought he was rather flat and emotionless, and that bothered me until I realized that maybe that's the POINT...Brian Slade was never real. He was just sort of this reflection of those around him, and they all projected what they were looking for onto him. So maybe JR-M is in fact a BRILLIANT actor instead of--as I originally thought--amazingly awful.
D. Ewan McGregor was awe-inspiring. The man is never hesitant to drop trou and show off his light-saber (which, by the way, was more impressive here than we were led to believe in The Pillow Book.) His character, Curt Wild, was probably my favorite, just because that particular archetype is a soft spot of mine--the valiantly odd, secretly desperately needy punk-rock boy. I mean, Slade was so pathetic I was uninterested, but Wild? Oh yeah, I probably wouldn't kick him out of bed. Particularly during that part where he's covered in lube and glitter.
E. The make-up and costuming was stunning...with the notable exception of Christian Bale's flashback wig. My GOD, did they dig that thing out of the trash bin behind a cheap drag club or something? It was so distractingly bad that I couldn't even enjoy his masturbation scene...the first time I watched it. ;)
F. Eddie Izzard in men's clothing! The man has a knack for playing douchebags, I have to say.
G. There are not many female characters in this movie, and the few there are seem to be drawn as mostly bitches. Then again, the movie is not about women, but the relationships that exist between men, and between those men and the music. I have to say I thought Toni Collette was kind of wasted in her role, but then again, what little she has to do she does very well.
H. This movie is not for everyone. However, it's full of interesting visuals, rocking music, and hot man candy. If that's your thing, this is your film.
The Warriors
The Warriors: For a cult film from 1979, this didn't feel nearly as dated as it should have. I'm guessing that could be because it's almost more of a fantasy than it is a "realistic" film. Part of that comes from the intro likening the story to a Greek epic, and also the use of what look like rotoscoped "comic" panels to transition between scenes. Basically, it's about this gang in New York called the Warriors who go to this big gang meeting way down in the Bronx, and after something unexpected happens, have to make their way all the way back to their home turf of Coney Island, dodging and fighting both other gangs and the cops. Each of the gangs in the movie have these wild costumes and identities, the most interesting being the Baseball Furies (whom I assume come from the part of the Bronx that's home to the baseball field.) They're these guys wearing baseball uniforms with this crazy sort of Kiss-type make-up who fight with baseball bats (using them sort of like samurai swords) and don't speak, adding to the comic-ness of the film. The acting is surprisingly good, considering that pretty much no one in it had ever been in a movie before. If I had to compare it to something, I think I'd say it's a little bit like O Brother Where Art Thou? surprisingly. I mean, there's these guys on this journey, and there's distractions and fights, and they split off, and some get lost and some get killed, and you're sitting there pulling for them to make it. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and suggest that you film nerds check it out, since it's apparently a cult classic with some pretty nifty cinematic moments to it. The making-of on the DVD is also fascinating--they talk a lot about shooting on location in New York at night, and about the difficulties of dealing with the ACTUAL gangs who inhabited the area. As a sort of odd sidenote, the way I first heard about this movie was that the video game was recently released (only, you know, 27 years later) and X-Play really liked it.
Gosford Park
Gosford Park: Yes, I know I just watched this one last weekend, but the DVD arrived and I just had to watch it again with subtitles so I could figure out what was going on. Amazing what you miss when the sound is dying! It's actually kind of better the second time, because once you know what's going on, you notice a lot of little clues earlier on in the movie. It's well-plotted, well-acted, and apparently accurate as far as the household running goes. They had a making-of on the DVD and explained that they brought in three people who'd actually worked in service during the 30s and 40s, and had them check things for accuracy. It was kind of cute how much the 80yr olds were digging working with the actors. But yeah, the movie is still entertaining and interesting and I enjoyed it immensely. This is recommeded for anyone who enjoys British period movies (Minnesota Mama and Shalom Go Bragh, I am looking at you here) or murder mysteries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)