The tendancy to belive that others agree with you?

Satire. It is a great form of comedy. From the Latin "satura" which literally meant 'full dish', satire means to ridicule a vice or a folly by being an extreme example. Or "saturated" example. It can be really funny, in a somewhat horrible and mean-spirited way.

Satire can be difficult to understand. Not just for stupid people, but for anyone. If you think you understand satire and are never fooled, you are wrong because sometimes, it isn't obvious. Sarcasm, by its very nature, is ambiguous; satire is not the only form of comedy. How can you tell when someone is being sarcastic or simply pokin' fun at themselves? This is why there are countless examples of satire being misinterpreted, the target of the satire being wrongly assumed. But then, perhaps the newer analysis is wrong.

Then there is the tendency for those satirized to believe their assailant commiserates with them, rather than disagreeing with them. According to a study from Ohio State University, both liberal and conservative viewers of the Colbert Report believed Colbert was on their side in the domestic cold war called Politics.

From my point of view, it seems obvious that Colbert is anything but conservative he satirizes them so completely. But then, I'm following the pattern predicted by Ohio State, so how can I be sure? However, I'm not sure about Glenn Beck. He could be satire, he could be serious, he could be neither. Until recently, I bucked Ohio's prediction, but now... I'm just not sure. Beck is weird. He could just sort of be there.

Then there is an example from "Men Who Stare at Goats", which actually spurred the line of thinking which engendered this essay. The movie makes fun of hippies pretty completely, but at the same time, seems to promote the very 'hippy wisdom' they make fun of. Is it satire or ridicule? Which would mean that I'm believing the 'wisdom' I saw while the writers thought it dumb. Or is it a different type of humor, which could mean I'm right (but not necessarily).

Even as I think of it, analyze it, I fit into Ohio State's predictions. Which suggests, to me, that I'm not more intelligent than a pattern. That it's not my reasoning that's brought me to a 'correct' conclusion, but rather the one I want. I want to be supported, to have allies.

Perhaps now that this is known to me, I can think more clearly.

Four Christmases (movie)

This movie was interesting to me because I was, somehow, able to see both sides. At once it demonizes family and demands that everyone have kids. I was able to agree, in the beginning, with the main couple who decry family and vacation obligations. Not because I don't like my family, but because they didn't really like theirs (and you get to see why!). Instead, they want to vacation on their vacation. They seem like a well adjusted, happy couple and really good together, so why not?

Because one of them is played by Vince Vaughn, so you know it can't last. Vince annoyed me more in this movie than he ever has before. There was to much screaming. Reese Witherspoon annoyed me more than she has before as well, come to think of it, but she's never been as obnoxious as Vince and couldn't match him here either.

The opposite position of this couple is that they should go to Christmas with their families. Those two are being rather selfish, lying to their families, but this is pretty normal for them. They are rather self-absorbed. And strangely easy to set off; pissed they didn't know something about the other when they already knew they knew nothing of their pasts. It's hard to believe such people could have ever been a successful couple.

The movie is all about getting to see why these two don't usually visit their families. But considering that they live in the same blessed city as their families, I don't see why their parents didn't visit them once in three years either.

That is the big problem with this movie. If you think about it for more than a few minutes, you realize that it falls apart. How in the world could these two have been happy for three years together? Why is anyone mad when nobody makes an effort? (Ok, maybe that's realistic, but you would think their parents would visit them sometime, right? They are minutes away...) How did they do so much in one day!?

That being said, it wasn't nearly as corny as I expected it to be; better than most Christmas movies; "decent".

The Ugly Truth (movie)

"The Ugly Truth" isn't really ugly, but I'd still call it "Unattractive". It had some good moments in it. Some pretty funny scenes, one good joke on the characters. But overall, I didn't laugh as much as I would want to by sitting through it.

Apart from being a pretty standard Chick-Flick, not any sort of 'battle of the sexes' as it claims to be, this movie makes me afraid that some people will believe the Ugly Truth that is espoused by the main man. They don't really debunk it, after all, and it seems to be a popular thought in our culture. One that I disagree with. A gross over-simplification of one type of person represented by the characters in the film. Reality is far more complicated then they make it out to be. There is more than one type of man and more than one type of woman.

But this is probably being a little paranoid. Who could take a chick-flick seriously?

I did like Katherine Heigl's acting. I'm not highly acquainted with her acting, but I found that her quirks of facial expression endearing in this movie. It fit the insecure, yet weirdly arrogant, control-freak she played. But this is the best thing I can say for the movie.

Perhaps I'm just tired of reviewing Chick-Flicks. Which is similar to reviewing the taste of various ketchups from fast-food joints. There isn't that much difference and, while popular and good with potatoes, not that deep or involved.

Growth is not Good and the progress of Gunnison Falling

Growth is Good. That is what we are told by our greatest economists. If you are not growing, then obviously you are shrinking and who wants that? Bigger is better. ...Unless you are a cell phone or an iPod... Or pretty much anything made of silicone and copper. This mentality, coupled by the vast acreage of land in the Americas, has lead us to build, copiously, out.

Even Gunnison has bought into this. A few months ago, I knew of hardly anyone who liked the idea of "Gunnison Rising", now it seems that many people are for it, especially our entrepreneurs. But I don't completely understand why. All kinds of arguments are put forth by the proponents (and the opponents), most of which are beside the real point I think. I know this is true for me. My real point is that I don't want to the fields shrink, but I also don't want to see Gunnison grow. I don't want to see our Main Street die. I'll give all sorts of other arguments, but I give them only in hopes that they will be important to others. I assume my opponents are fairly similar. The primary reason I have gotten, so far (besides a belief that is is the 'lesser of two evils') is that this growth will solve our economic woes. Even though it is understood that the building on the annexation will not be complete for 30 years at least.

However, I do not believe this is true. Denver is huge, but it has economic woes. Large than ours, I think. They "control their growth", but it doesn't solve any labyrinthine parking-lot issues or beautify their city. What I think will happen if Gunnison Rising passes will actually be the slow disintegration of our Main Street as more conglomerate chains have the opportunity to move in. No local business can compete with a business more powerful than the government.

Such as Super Wal-Mart. Gunnison Rising heralds their approach, and they eat small business for appetizers. Somehow, they appeal to people, though. If Gunnison's population begins to grow, they will try to build again and they will not be as easy to stop. Especially if some of our not-so-average-in-a-good-way citizens move out because they don't like the development and are not here to stop them.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we wont lose to many people and those who move it will be just as anti-corporate greed. I'm not so fatalistic to believe that everything will get worse. No matter what. Which is why I don't completely understand those who say that the alternative is a bunch of County houses springing up. For two reasons: the Brattons have stopped unplanned development so far and there isn't room for that many people. Gunnison rising has plans for a commercial district because there wouldn't be any jobs for new residents. So why would they come?

That doesn't mean we're doing all that bad now, though. For the residents here. Not relative to anyone else, anyway. Bad economy has affected big and small. Actually, small economies seem to weather it better. Such as North Dakota or Alamosa. They never had as far off the ballooning artificial economy we live in. We have that idea that growth is good, it will solve all our economic woes. But all it really is is growth. A bigger economy not so much different from ours now, just bigger and therefore less wieldy. What we need, instead, are plans to improve the economy as it stands. So that, no matter the size, it will function for all the people who live here.

There are multiple benefits, as I see it, to taking this stance instead, not the least of which are affects felt sooner than 30 years from now.

Watership Down by Richard Adams

"Watership Down" is a unique book. In the beginning, it reads very short. Conversations seem short, chapters seem short, most everything seems truncated. It feels somewhat amateurish for a book proclaimed as such a classic. However, as the book progresses, this appears the be the intentional style because his characters are rabbits. He explains the psychology of rabbits some, in the book, or at least how he imagines rabbits would think. There are some points I would contend with (rabbits would probably be hyper-specific, like horses; meaning any 'new' thing is a thing to be afraid of, even if it was the same object just approached from the other side), but that is neither here nor there. That is arguable. He did do some research on rabbits.

However, back to the style, it could be that he hadn't hit his stride with the book until mid-way and the dealings with Efrafa because he becomes more fluid here. Then again, it could have been that he was better at writing the kinds of stuff that happened in the second half. I think the latter is more likely.

Still, it is a "Fine Read" if you can get over how much he uses the term "rank and file". It is nearly as good as it could be given the limitations inherent in the format that Adams used for the book. One of these limitations is that there are simply far, far too many characters! You cannot possibly keep them all straight. At times, it seems like you are expected to keep track of them all; but you can get away with not knowing anyone. However, I still find it annoying when a character is mentioned and I have to pause and say, "Ok... who's that again?" Perhaps a character glossary would have been nice, but my copy had no such thing.

"Watership Down" glosses over a lot of topics, not addressing them specifically but mentioning them in such a way that you can get a grasp on where Adams stands himself. The worst of these is his stance on the female. Like Tolkien, his book is very highly male oriented. When I read that new warrens are, in reality, often started by females and warrens are, in reality, matriarchal, his sexism is very apparent. The book also has a very karmic overtone...

Spoiler alert:

Both of these appear to me in the same way: it is in who Adams kills. The beginning of the book tries to be all "the world's dangerous for rabbits! We're all gonna die!" without killing one character. The first character to die, that it's an enemy (they die really easily because they are bad guys) is a female. Two of them die really quickly, but none of the main male characters will ever bite it. Until they die of age, of course. But like Aragorn they live weirdly long.

Men Who Stare at Goats (movie)

I had some hopes for this movie and I was not disappointed. George Cloony is almost as entertaining as I have ever seem him (not quite as funny as "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?") in this rather bizzare movie. Ewan McGregor is likewise fun to watch. And a brilliant move to cast Obi Wan Kenobi in this movie as an 'inside joke' of sorts. Neither actor is at their best, when it comes to acting: they are very like most of their other characters I have seen them play. But this does not detract from the movie. They were fun to watch in a "fun and funny" little movie. Though it is, in the end, a little more than that.

It's also intelligent, if you watch closely enough. The wisdom always being covered up in a joke.

Most of the overt wisdom I noticed in the film came from the very same source they made the most fun of: the "hippie". Though they made fun of other groups, such as our military and our greedy corporations, "New Agers" was their primary target. And also their primary ally. I hope this is not lost on most viewers because they smothered it in jokes and impossibilities.

But it's not that important. The primary goal of this movie is as entertainment and the (not so overt) wisdom that can come from that. The fact that (spoiler alert!) only one man stares at a goat only once during the movie really illustrates the style of humor through this movie. It is irreverent, odd, and physical. If you like funny faces, then you will find them here (you will even if you don't like funny faces, assuming you watch the movie). From beginning to end, it was obvious that the writers and directors of this movie rather enjoyed putting it together. Juxtaposing military and hippie culture and creating a situation where the two attempted to co-exist. In the end, hippies aren't very good at being a clandestine military tool, however. Who'd a thunk.

I was very happy with the movie. Could hardly have been happier, really. I could watch this movie again. Which is saying a lot, coming from me. It is highly recommended.

Thank You for Smoking (movie)

I enjoyed this film far more than I expected to. I thought it'd be depressing. "Good", yes: I would begrudgingly have to admit that it was good. But I did not think I would enjoy the hour someodd I spent watching it. But I find that I did. I'm not sure how, but it was an entertaining film.

This movie is not an anti-smoking film, as one who is against smoking may think given the ironic title. Nor is this movie pro-smoking. Nor is this movie really pro or anti anything besides possibly lobbyists (bloody lobbyists!). Knowing that, I would have thought I'd like the movie even less. But the plot was engaging enough, and the dastardly characters charming enough, that I didn't get too mad. Maybe a little, but who wouldn't? It's written to excite you a little bit. Unless you really were part of the "Death Squad", you would find Nick Naylor (the main character) contemptible. But then you would just get mad at other parts of the movie.

Perhaps that is what "Thank You for Smoking" does. It manages to be balanced enough that the parts that depress me and make me angry are off-set by the funny and intelligent parts (read: parts I agree with). It stays true to its characters and its plot in such a way that it has sincerity. And though the lobbyist is a little... aggravating... he at least admits that he is aggravating; even downright evil.

All the while, the movie has expert humor. The best comedies are not written as comedies, I find, and though this doesn't actually fit that mould exactly, it's humor is reminiscent of it. A fine film for anyone to watch. Not preachy or overly-moralistic but still showing everyone just how awful lobbyists are.

The Goonies (1985 movie)

Despite the horror this may induce in many people, I have never seen the Goonies before now. This review is on my first viewing, despite the fact that I was born in the 80's. I've been told it was the quintessential 80's movie and that I had. to. see. it.

I did enjoy the movie, but I didn't find it any more 80's quintessential than "Honey I Shrunk the Kids", which I did grow up with. Not to say that means it isn't classic 80's movie-making. It is. It did have another weight-lifting, unpopular, guy who gets a girl in it (just like "The Lost Boys"!), it had the adventure and the fun, without realistic complications or Post Traumatic Stress. Simple, bumbling bad-guys (like Home Alone, although technically early 90's). Kinda like "National Treasure", which is about as close to "The Goonies" as a movie from the millennium gets.

So "The Goonies" is an "enjoyable", funny, classic movie. One of the reasons Steven Spielberg is so lauded, I suppose. I recommend it.

Up (movie)

The most impressive thing about Pixar is that they do not shy away from material which is difficult, unhappy, or adult (not like that!) but at the same time aren't offensive or crass or unsuitable for children. In this asect, Up does not disappoint. It has an impressive amount of depth to it, a simple enemy that is good for the younger audience and a more intangible enemy for the more thoughtful audience. It has dark and unhappy events, which are realistic, and happy events (which are less realistic, come to think of it...) and is consistently funny.

So I found the movie to be pretty "Good". However, it's not what I would consider the best movie, not even among the Pixar collection. Though perhaps the best in the last few years and proof that Pixar can create a quality product even if it has been acquired by Disney--after Wall-E created the fear that it may have been Disney-fied: good up until it had to have an acceptably cute and crappy ending. Up does get a little cheesy, the ending is predictable, but it is more acceptable in this piece than it was in Wall-E. The style of the story allowed for it.

It also allows for copious amounts of unrealism. One remembers that this is, in essence, a cartoon where everything is possible. Don't think about physics or time while watching this movie because it wont be considering them either. It is a cute film, meant to be entertaining and Aesopian, not real.

My biggest problem with the movie was trying to understand that crotchety old man. I do understand him much more now, but I had to think about it for a while. I was annoyed at the standard "bad guy", until I was convinced that it was necessary to make the film accessible to a wider audience, which has its merits. The style is getting... usual, so visually, I thought they could have done more with it, but I like the square-ness exhibited by the characters.

So Up is a good film: better than Wall-E, Ratatouille, and Cars, better than Finding Nemo. But is it "Liar Liar" good? ...No, not really.

Star Trek (movie, limited background knowledge)

I haven't seen much of the original Star Trek. Nor have I seen much of Next Generation or any other series, really. I've seen a few, but forgotten much. However, despite how much I don't know about Gene Roddenberry's universe, I don't remember quite so much fighting! Nor do I recall so many plot holes.

I was un-impressed. It seemed really "Fan-Servicey" to me. Full of battles, fighting and ship-to-ship combat, there's partial nudity and such... Better special effects than anyone could achieve in a poorly funded 1960's television show. Yay. But in the end, that is all it was. Special effects and spectacle. Very little, if any, true substance. The only good that came out of this Fan Service was the casting. Each of the characters is impressively reminiscent of the original cast and it was cool to see ol' Leonard Nimoy on screen. If I was more familiar with the original, I'm sure that would be even more impressive.

But there would still not be any substance outside of nostalgia. If you used to know Star Trek really well, then watch the movie and see what all the buzz is about. But without the old series to dream about, this movie is pretty unimpressive.

SAPA speaker in Gunnison

Western State
College's Sexual Assault Prevention Advocates (SAPA) group invited a speaker to
their last meeting on Tuesday. This speaker, who will be anonymously referred to
as Faye for the purposes of this article, came representing both Alamosa and
Mineral counties to speak about her work as a victims advocate. "Working with
victims is my passion", she said and talked about specific sexual assault cases
she has had to work on. Some of these involved very small children and some
involved wealthy perpetrators, respected by their community and difficult to
prosecute.

Faye went over a number of
statistics about sexual assault and left an ample supply of literature for the
SAPA program.

The group discussed how
mentally damaging it can be to have been sexually assaulted. Most of the sexual
assault victims Faye has worked with develop self-destructive behaviors such as
copious alcohol and drug use, dropping out of school, or becoming highly
promiscuous. Some develop clinical depression or post-traumatic stress
disorder.

Faye shared her own experiences
with Sexual Assault as well. Her and her brother had been attacked at nearly the
same time. She used drugs to try to run away from the problem until almost
killing herself in a car accident. He has been on
anti-depressants.

Faye also discussed what a SANE
(Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) evaluation is like. Describing it as "More
invasive than the actual rape ... I would not wish that on anybody." But if a
victim is to prosecute, the evidence from that evaluation is needed. According
to Faye, many people do not come forward with their story because of this, or
because it is taboo, or because they simply don't know if the assault was a
crime.

The main question of the night
was what could be done about sexual assault and how to prevent
it.

At Adams State College in
Alamosa, they have installed "blue phones" which are immediately connected to
911 when the receiver is picked up and blast light all around the phone. Adams
State is also trying to "silence the night" by lighting up every
corner.

However, the biggest thing we
can do, according to Faye, is to educate people. "The fact of the matter is, a
woman should be able to walk around naked without being assaulted."

Lars and the Real Girl (rewatched)

This is one of the most "Beautiful" movies I have ever seen. It is intricately woven and very carefully planned. From the very first scene, there are symbols and foreshadowing for what is going on throughout the movie. But it is subtle enough that you probably wont catch it (much of it you can't) until you are watching in for a second time. I was impressed with the acting; Ryan Gosling has a decent depth as an actor and Kelli Garner was good as well. Perhaps it is largely because I don't know any of the actors from any other project (besides Gosling), but I don't see any actor behind any of the characters.

But the technical aspects of the movie are the least of what I like. The story is what captivates me. I love this movie because of its morality. Now, I agree with those 'literatureists' who insist that the best stories were not written for a specific purpose, but instead stay true to the characters. These stories have depth and mean something different to every viewer or reader. Much of the time, this is true. The problem with a movie like "Lars and the Real Girl" is that it will sound preachy to somebody, especially if they disagree. To me, it wasn't preachy at all. It just portrayed an example of how we should treat each other. And I like that message.

The tone of the movie is pretty melancholy. Though funny at times, the comedy is cynical and dry. It doesn't avoid humor, but doesn't ever really crack a joke. The color palate is largely brown, and the setting in the bleak north (where it is more likely for something like this to be possible). I know one person who hasn't been able to stay awake for the entire movie, and others who find it hard to achieve the level of disbelief suspension the movie requires. It is not that it needs a high level of suspension, like a fantasy, but that it doesn't need a lot. The movie is set in "our world", basically, and for the most part is realistic. But there is this small level of idealism which would be difficult if not impossible to find in our world as it stands now. However, that is the point, I feel. The movie is idealistic. It proposes an alternative from what we usually see.

What is Science

There are some crazy people who think "Intelligent Design" and Religion should be taught in public school. To which I say:

Okay. Good idea, actually. Because whether you are an Atheist, or a Deist (of whatever variety), or believe in Science! you must realize that religion is a fact of life. It exists in the minds of most people in one way or another. There are a million varieties of it. It is also very complicated and therefore it is a subject that can, and probably should, be discussed in school. However: like politics, religion can be a sticky thing to get into. You can't preach one side, nor one denomination. You can't overtly tell someone that one is right and one is wrong. But, like politics, we should be confident that an intelligent, well educated student can make an intelligent, well educated decision of their own which, if it is intelligent, should be a viable opinion.

Right?

However, that does not mean "Intelligent Design" should be taught in a science class. Because it isn't science. Philosophy? Sure. History? Definitely. Current Events? Yep. Science. No, not really. Nothing about it is "scientific".

Though I can see why some people believe that it is. "Scientists" have gotten into the habit of proposing all sorts of ideas of their own which aren't actually science either. They are just ideas. Philosophies. Supported by logic and reason, but not by any real evidence, besides (perhaps) a small kernel. But evidence is what is needed for a theory to be a "scientific theory". Eleven dimension unifying string theory is a good example of this. There is precious little physical evidence for eleven dimension unifying string theory. Especially from the perspective of a person who isn't a doctor in paranormal (quantum) physics. But, of course, that's because we can't see in eleven dimensions; we only see in three.

Uh huh.

This has led people to believe the "watchmaker argument" is scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design". If you find a watch, you assume it was made by someone; why not assume that the awesome complexity of life and the universe were made by someone as well. That's logical and it makes so much sense that people have used it (in one form or another) for thousands of years at least to point to the existence of God. But it isn't evidence. It's just logic, and it's just a metaphor. Metaphors are great at explaining things, but they are not evidence and they are never, Never Ever, a perfect explanation for anything.

That is why they are "metaphors". Like a parable, they are not literal.

The other thing about metaphors is, you can also punch a hole in them with another metaphor, or another line of logic. Unlike a watch, life can change and adapt, like water to fill a glass perfectly. The watch is like a block. If you find a block to fit a glass perfectly, then it makes sense to assume it was built to fit a glass; however, water always fits the glass and it wasn't tailored to fit the glass. Now, excusing the fact the above is more of a simile than a metaphor, it serves the same purpose of explanation. Also like the "watchmaker argument", it can have a hole punched through it just as easily.

But, as only a kernel of evidence, a case study, my disbelief in metaphors is not scientifically supported. It's only based in logic.

Inkheart (movie)

When I first looked at "Inkheart", I had two hypotheses. One: that the movie would be pretty good; a fantasy where one could pull a story into reality is one which I have a particular affinity for (I love my books). Two: it'd be some awful 'family movie' with a thin, nauseating plot.

I was happy that it leaned more toward the former. It was "enjoyable" fantasy. However, there were some... holes. It doesn't really suffer from 'Family Movie Syndrome', but it's continuity errors are mostly because it is trying to be happy in spite of rather dire tragedy.

The major problem with the movie is lack of explanation for the "silvertongue" power. From here, since the major problem is plot related, it's going to be hard to discuss this movie without a few small spoilers. I'll try to keep it small.

There are multiple characters with this power, this is known from the beginning. One of them isn't very good at it and brings damaged things out of books. Another is considered better, however, they always transfer: when something is brought from the book, something else goes in. The last doesn't appear to have any limitations whatsoever. That's the most annoying part.

There are parts in the ending which don't make sense. Most of it can be explained, but you have to explain it yourself. The film makers don't help you. But there is also one glaring error which doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to add a little unnecessary drama to the end with Dustfinger. And I can't explain it in any other way.

So it's good, but the ending will annoy a thoughtful viewer.

Gears of War 2 (XBox 360)

All I played of this game was an online "hoard" match with three people. I didn't play the story and I didn't play very long. I never got used to the controls, really, though I did get to the point where I could survive for a little while. I don't have a very deep knowledge of this game, but I will still give a review of what I did experience:

This game is really, really "Slow". Your character is a hulking creature with an automatic weapon. You spend all your time crouching behind something and then shooting out from behind it. Then hiding again. Then shooting again. Then something gets close to you and dismembers you. Yay. Then you do it again. You can punch things really hard, and you can sorta stand up against an enemy for a little while... But for the most part, you're shooting from behind cover. And then run your massive bulk to a new piece of cover. With all the turning radius of a rocket ship.

The people I played with thought the game was great. They had the first one as well. They had played a lot and were pretty good at it, so there must be something for FPS fans (even though it's not really First Person...), but it wasn't my cup of tea.

The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (musical movie)

"The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" was better than I thought it would be. I was fearing that it would be one of those movies where I always want to look off or beyond what the camera is showing. "Look over there! Gaa!" But It wasn't.

The movie advertises itself as funny, but I didn't find such, per se.... I didn't laugh too often. Once in a while, but not often. However, it wasn't highly dramatic, either. Most of the time... I did choke up at the end a bit. Good music helps that.

The music was really enjoyable. Better than the music in most musicals, I feel. It didn't always have that "This is the song that goes like this!" (-Spamalot) feel to it which many musicals follow. The infusion of some of Dolly Parton's own songs was fairly seemless and added some depth to the soundtrack.

The movie is "Entertaining", foremost, but also has some depth to it as well. There's a lot of opinion and philosophy which the film discusses such as honesty, television, morality... that last one is the biggest. Is it good or bad to have a whorehouse in your town? It's really a cultural judgment. However, I never felt like the characters in the movie behaved like people who made regular use of a whorehouse. They had sexual values which I would believe are more consistent with our culture's, which villainizes them. If partial nudity throws you into a tizzy, then be warned that there is some, along with some drug usage, but no real violence besides a punch to the face.

Which is worst?

The Triplets of Belleville (animatied silent film, 2003)

This is a very unique movie. If you are a dialog driven individual, you should be warned that there ain't much in here. The movie is entirely crafted from visual style, sounds, and music. It becomes quite the "artistic" film. Like the ballet, but I can understand animation more than dance: I'm more familiar with it. Or like the beginning of Wall-E, but not quite so magnificent (however, Triplets sustains better than Wall-E, which I only found so magnificent for the first part).

The advantage of this style is that it creates a film that can really be understood by any language group because "language" isn't important. There is no need for subtitles. But it does require an attention of a different sort than usual and it is a different culture (by a little) than what the average American knows. If you aren't ready for that, then this may not be the movie for you. It is undeniable that the film is "good". But it is very particular and probably could not be enjoyed (at all) by many people. But for those who are adventurous and looking for something new and different, it is a good lead. The movie is very, very well polished, that much is clear.

I kinda like the visual style. It is reminiscent of cartoons such as old Popeye in how they moved, but there was much more detail and the same level of exaggeration in what everyone looked like. Its like one of those old "find things" books in how much is going on in the background (and the foreground) and I doubt anyone sees it all the first four times they watch the movie. I've only seen it once, so I feel like I've barely seen the surface.

The tone of the movie is pretty melancholy, even if it is filled with visual jokes. The movie makes me feel sad so that, when the jokes come, I'm not really in the mood to laugh. But if your sense of humor is really cynical and dry, the movie is probably better to you.

It was an interesting adventure, and I recommend it to those who are ready for that.

Update:

I watched Triplets of Belleville again, and found it to be very re-watchable. I also watched it with a cycling fanatic who was amazed at the brilliant level of detail. Whoever made this movie knows as much about biking as they do about animating.

This is a very detailed and finely tuned film. I still find it to be "Artistic" but in a very entertaining way. If you can get past the lack of dialog, it is a very good movie.

However,

The ending is almost too laughable. Too unreal for a movie with so much background detail.

The Lost Boys (movie)

"The Lost Boys" is a pretty intriguing movie. The main family is interesting, at least, in their particular brand of dysfunction. Yet despite how strange they all are, they kinda stick together as they are pushed through this 80's movie plot. This movie positively bleeds 80's. In a way that few movies can. You can see it in the cinematography, the way everyone dresses, and the progression of the obligatory romance (it is a vampire movie, after all...)

It's all relatively predictable. I guessed who the true "antagonist" was fairly early.

That's not to say the movie is bad. I'd say it's "Okay". It's a 'horror film', but with humorous moments; which is a fairly nice format. There are not many movies that I can place into this 'genre'. "Scary Movie" doesn't fit at all, neither does "Evil Dead", really. The only other film that I can think of which could fit is "Sean of the Dead". I liked "Sean of the Dead". Best bloody zombie movie ever. Likewise, "The Lost Boys" is probably the best vampire movie I've ever seen. Unfortunately (for both of them), this isn't actually saying a whole lot.

I do kinda like this 'genre'; 'format' may be a better word. It's far less hackish than a straight 'horror film'. Humor adds spice to everything. It gives me a reason to watch it. Without humor, this movie wouldn't have been good at all. At all. But since it was comedic, it was pretty entertaining. Far more so than "UltraViolet" which we watched later (I didn't even finish that movie, so it get's no review. But here's a mini-one: I got so disinterested in it's pitiful lack of plot and awful characters and pissish morals and crappy action scenes which made no sense at all ("We're not superhuman" my ass) That I went to sleep. Now, movies keep me up, for whatever reason. Even if I'm tired. But I decided to take my glasses off and ignore it because it's Bloody Awful! Not "District 9" awful, or anything. But "Worthless" none the less.) The movie is a little like "Sean of the Dead", but from the 80's.

The characters were the best part of the movie. They are all so weird. Especially "Grandpa". He's a hoot.

The Evolution of Shadows by Jason Quinn Malott

First off, I must admit that I am a biased reviewer. I've been looking forward to reading this book, and critiquing this book, for a while. But I didn't know exactly what to expect from Jason Quinn Malott just from his 'online literary column'. I knew the book would be 'literary', but I was skeptical as to its entertainment value. Even if he has stated that entertainment should be a high priority for a writer.

I am happy to say I wasn't bored. So he's better than Willa Cather.

The Evolution of Shadows is not going to be exactly what you expect when you first pick it up. It's about the Bosnian War; but in the end, it's not really about the Bosnian War. Even if you read the little inside cover 'about the book' thing, you'll be surprised at what you get. There are those who complain that the plot in the book is weak. But it's not really about the plot; it is a very character driven story, pretty melancholy, and pretty good.

Jason Malott is obsessed with tense, though, which may get in the way for some people. The control he puts on tense does facilitates his obsession with flashbacks. Which are a little overdone in the beginning, but mellow out in the second half. The book takes place in about 5 different times and if you pay attention to the tense, you know where you are by that alone. Which is actually kinda nice once you get used to it. It is uncommon (really uncommon), but once you get over that, it can be quite nice.

That being said, I find I hope his next book doesn't have the same style. Similar to how I felt about "Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" but to a lesser degree. Susanna Clarke's writing style fit her book in a rarely perfect way so that if she wrote another like that, it would probably be awful. At the least, I would no longer be as impressed with how Victorian-esque she could be because that'd be all she could be. The Evolution of Shadows isn't quite such a stylistic match, but it is so unique in its stylistic choice that... if it is just how Jason writes, I'll be disappointed. I am hoping he has the depth to tell a strikingly different story.

The biggest problem I have with the book is that, most of the time (at least in the beginning for me...) I could tell it was written by a person who has never been through a war, but just as a keen sense of empathy. I don't know how or why this is, because I have never been through a war either. But somehow it just seems like it was written by, well, a writer. Perhaps this is my bias because I happen to know that the writer has never been to war. But if it was, this bias was slowly eroded by my progress through the book and it was considerably lessened by the time I was done reading. Some of the more graphic and horrible scenes make me swear that Jason was a war photographer. So in the end, the biggest complaint I have with the book isn't that big.

Even if it is "written by a writer", the book is still really "hard to read": it is grittily attached to its subject which is simply unpalatable. War sucks. It is not 'fun'. If you pick up this book, you probably already know that. It takes a lot of attention, it's not quick, and it deserves your thought. The writing reminds me of Anil's Ghost (though I only listened to half of it on tape) but with less humor thrown in the mix. The Evolution of Shadows is perhaps not crafted with quite the excellency of Michael Ondaatje's book (on tape), but it isn't that far behind. For a first book, it's pretty impressive. Much better than most of the schlock that you can pick up at the supermarket. It reminded me that there are better books being written today. They aren't just a relic of the past.

Speaking of humor brings me to my biggest piece of constructive criticism: Humor rocks. Humor is a way to vault someone's barriers without them even knowing you've gotten behind their defenses. Then, it allows you to talk to them about something they would otherwise ignore. Some of the greatest philosophers of our day are comedians. Look at Bill Watterson. Humor doesn't have to cheapen a dramatic work, but can make it more accessible to a wider range of people. Some of the "best" authors used it ubiquitously. Shakespeare doesn't have one play that doesn't have some sort of humor in it.

City Slickers (movie, rewatched)

I really like the little cartoon at the beginning of this movie. That used to be popular, but isn't anymore and I'm not sure why. If was funny. Perhaps the guy's just not doing it anymore...

That's one of the best things to recommend this movie.

I used to like City Slickers. It's still OK, but it's not something that entertains me a lot. It happened to be on television when I was making myself a new wallet, so I kinda watched it, but if I hadn't have been otherwise engaged, I would have turned it off.

Curly's still a cool bad-ass guy. But Billy Crystal's character (Mitch Robbins) is annoying. It's nice that he grows up a little by the end of the movie, but he's so angstie! I couldn't stand it! Even when he's 'grown up', he's fixated on one thing (just like Curly told him): Curly.

Also, I think I'm being too harsh on the movie. It's got a decent composition. The plot moves seamlessly even though there are a few major seams. The characters are well defined. I'm just depressed by Mitch's weird dysfunctional family. It makes me feel... "trapped". Which, I suppose, they were going for, so they hit what they are aiming for. I just don't like it.

"Meh". It's ok. For the late 80's. Unfortunately, it's a movie from the early 90's.

Don Quixote (Colorado Ballet, mid-read)

Don Quixote is the first ballet I have ever been to. So I didn't really know exactly what to expect. Dancing, of course, but as as I have no experience with this style, you'll have to take this review with a few grains of salt. Perhaps some pepper. I'm sure I could critique it better if I had that to rely on.

I assume the ballet was pretty good. The people who sat in front of me cheered a lot and they seemed to know what they were cheering about. With their experience, they found it impressive and entertaining. They appeared especially impressed with the egregious spinning. While this is probably difficult, it wasn't what ever impressed me, however. To me, it's one of the most conservative parts of the performance, a quintessential aspect of the style but therefore somewhat boring. I was more impressed when they were working outside of the format. When they were telling the story.

I like stories. I liked Act 1, and the end of Act 2, because this was when the most story was being told. I felt "The Dream" sequence (scene 2 of Act 2) was far, far too long. This was the 'let's showoff our dancin' skillz' section. It was the 'Hmm. I have no basis to think about this with' section for me. The 'Look! They're spinnin' around in lines and squares!' section. Meh. The last act was a little like this, but more like the 'Solo time!' or 'My god I hope that some people don't have a solo...' section.

Perhaps I lack culture and refinement, but I was a little bored at times. I would have fallen asleep, I think, if I didn't start paying more attention to the orchestra. They were really good. Very enjoyable. Once I started moving with the music, I could get a little more into the showoff scenes.

I was also highly impressed with the scene design. The 17th century Spain look was pretty good and they had two full and different sets like this. I was amazed at how high those dancer people can jump. I was stunned by what they wear (like male butt? Go to the ballet). I really liked the foppish Gamache and all the other humor they placed into the voice-less acting. Humor is the way one should tell a Don Quixote story: it's inane, "foppish and funny".

However, I wasn't fully sure why this ballet is named after the deranged knight errant. He was a very unimportant part of the whole play. He was just sorta there. Another comic looking character, but overall pointless. The story is out of the book, right at a part where the Don is being more or less ignored by his creator. But, I haven't actually finished reading the arc in the book, yet. This was the part of the story where I got distracted.

If you are expecting something like the Man of La Mancha, then that is not what you are going to get. As far as I have read in the book (1/2 way though volume 1), I don't know where that story came from. What you will get (I assume another company would do this similarly) is a humorous dance routine with a small semblance of a story. If you have never been to a ballet, this might be a good one to start with, to see if you can get into it, but if you've never been to the ballet, it's probably not something you'll enjoy a lot. Ballet, I think, is one of those things which is more enjoyable if you have, at one time, been an actual dancer yourself. Kinda like Mexican Folklorico, which I have done and enjoy immensely.

All Dogs go to Heaven (1989 movie, rewatched)

I have always loved All Dogs go to Heaven. Since I was a little bitty boy living under the stairs. Like the Land Before Time, it has a lot of merit as a movie. I still see that today.

Don Bluth is one hell of an animator and film maker. His films aren't always necessarily aimed at kids though they are animations featuring talking animals and don't have the 'potty humor' exhibited by Shrek and the like. All Dogs go to Heaven has many parts which are more adult in their content and ideas, which would probably go overlooked by a child watching the movie. But the pretty colors will keep a kid interested anyway.

It also has enough strange things to keep a kid interested. There is one scene, in particular, that stands out as a very misplaced scene. It exists in marked contrast to everything else in the movie. If you've seen this movie, you will probably know what I'm talking about. It is used, exclusively, to bring about the requisite happy ending. In some ways, this is disappointing, but it is the most memorable scene from my childhood.

The music in All Dogs go to Heaven is also a nice addition. It is used fluidly, doesn't stand out overly much, even though there isn't much of it. Its not as good, musically, as most of the classic Disney films, but it was able to keep the normal voice actors in the singing parts. Which I like.

If you've never watched it, it is as "classic" as any "Disney Masterpiece" and better in many respects (it ain't nearly so cutesy and compromising).

The Proposal (movie)

What is there to say about "The Proposal"...

Well, my cousin thought it was really funny. My sister liked it. I found that it has its moments... but it wasn't as funny as some chick-flicks I've seen in the past. Overall, it didn't really impress me much. I find that I have really very little to say for or against it because it did outline the standard.

It's "standard". That's all.

There was a little growth of Sandra Bullock's character through the movie. She ends up someone who could be understood rather than the "heinous bitch" she starts the movie as, but that is also the standard. It had to happen, really, right?

This movie is like an entire film devoted to that part in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" where they go to see his parents. But the part in "How to Lose a Guy" is done better, in my opinion.

Damn it's disgusting how many chick-flicks I watch, ain't it?

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (movie)

I went into this movie knowing nothing about it besides that it had a kinda strange title written in a kinda strange way with some kinda strange looking people standing next to it.

Altogether, the 'look' was "kinda strange" and the plot kinda went along with it.

I did not expect the movie that I actually saw when I first started watching it. I mean, I did expect a basic chick-flick, but it actually has a fair amount of deviation from the standard formula. This is really because it follows another formula at the same time: Charles Dickens. When I first realized this, I thought, "Well, at least this is a little different." Then I remembered that using this story outline, on of the most copied outlines ever, is basically the definition of cliche.

If we are comparing "A-Christmas-Carol-Stories" (as a genre), then this is one of the better Christmas-Carol-Stories I've seen. This time, it wasn't about Christmas. The transition from realistic to fantasy ghost realm is really, really subtle, and surprised me at first, I admit.

The movie is OK, but didn't really impress me in any direction overly much.

The Neverending Story (rewatched, post-read)

This movie used to be my favorite movie. And when I got to a point where I couldn't, really, honestly, say it was, I still put it down when people asked that question because I hadn't actually replaced it with anything.

I still haven't. I don't have a favorite movie. So this movie still stands as the only movie ever to have the privilege of being my Favourite.

But I can't sit here and tell you it is a spectacular movie. It's "Fanstastical": The acting is pretty B, sometimes in the low Cs; the cinematography is less than artistic; the directing, at least, is strange (why is "The Nothing!" something?); the characters are cool; the plot is still awesome to me in my elder years.

But I would love to re-make this movie along the lines of the book. Still using puppets because I like that. Old Yoda kicks New Yoda's ass and those things in Corpse Bride and Nightmare before Christmas also kick New Yoda's flying trapesius ass!

I just like the grit that comes with the puppet-level things. There's more attention and time spent polishing everything that wasn't spent in front of a soul-sucking monitor and it truly shows.

Even in The Neverending Story, though it's many years old now. The Rock Giant may not be real looking, but he looks the better for it. It's fantasy for Christ sake.

The Neverending Story is quintessential fantasy. Like Tolkien, it will always have a good place in my mind. If you haven't watched this movie, or read the book by Michael Ende, just do so. Make fun of it as you go if you please. Especially in the case of this movie, it's utterly understandable.

Beauty and the Beast (disney's, rewatched)

I recently realized that I've re-watched two movies recently which I had not reviewed. One of these was the "Disney Masterpiece" Beauty and the Beast.

Of course this movie is "Good". How could one really argue that it wasn't. It's withstood the test of time, not to become a classic, but to remain mainstream for almost two decades.

Pretty impressive.




Analysis (some spoilers):


Tere are some things in this movie that are... paradoxical. Such as: just how far away is this enchanted castle anyway? Sometimes it takes two days to get there when you're lost, then it's on top of a hill visible from town... And: how long is Belle prisoner in the Beast's castle. And just what is "Beast's" name? He really prefers "Beast"

But, it is a strange little kiddie movie with a little moral; not really meant to be picked apart for its consistency. However, in actual fact, I feel that it was deliberate to make time less understandable. Because if Belle was with the Beast for only the four days or so it seems, she really jumped head first into a rather volatile pool. The Beast isn't actually all that much better a person as Gaston, right? Not if it's only been four days. That's not enough time to know if he's turned over a new leaf and he started just as vain as Gaston but with a much bigger temper (and perhaps a little less homicidal). In any case, the wise figure Belle is made out to be shouldn't be jumping into this with only four days thought and the first three being negative.

Death Comes for the Archbishop by Willa Cather

Finally! I've finished another book! That took a while. Which is the most telling thing about Death Comes for the Archbishop. It isn't extraordinarily bad, such books I actually finish relatively quickly because... I guess I'm interested to know how bad it can get (Patricia Cornwall is the record keeper thus far). But I definitely do not consider this a good book. I was "Bored to Hell", quite frankly. Which is not a place an Archbishop should be sending me.

The first thing that struck me about this book was how hard it was to follow initially. It got a lot better, whether this was because I was acclimated to her 1927 writing style or whether it just takes that long to figure out who she's talking about. She references nearly everyone as "father", because they are fathers in the church. But I couldn't tell what father she was talking about. Especially in the initial prologue.

For the life of me, I do not understand how Willa wrote so much! Because, looking back, I'm not even sure what I read about. Two guys spent time in the desert being priests? And she got a few hundred pages out of that? I guess that's impressive, fits in with older writing styles, but I guess I'm more of a fan of the newer styles where more happens. I don't feel, despite how descriptive she is of her characters, that they are really all that deep. But perhaps this is because I couldn't pay much attention to anything because I was in hell being bored.

The book doesn't really address anything. There is a lot it could be "about"... but it doesn't actually approach any of it. Such as, the affect of the Spanish on the Indians, and the Indians on the Spanish, and the effects of the Americans on the southwest, and the effect of Catholicism... It's all there, but that's it. It's there. It is not really discussed. Which, I suppose is pretty realistic. ...But also pretty boring.

I apologize to classical enthusiasts, but I'm glad that it's over and I can go on to another book.

Tank Girl (the movie, pre-read)

Tank Girl's a pretty bizarre movie. It reminds me of "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" but with a much more acceptable title length. It's not as strange as, say, "Mirror Mask", but it's definitely up there. Tank Girl's hair is continuously changing, so watch for that.

There's a lot to say for this movie, and a lot to say against it. So much that I can state with relative confidence that I will not cover it all. It's a comic-book film from a little before comic-book films seemed to really take off. And being based off such a medium, it's unsurprising that it feels it's trying to cover too much. There are a lot of instances, a whole lot, where things just don't make sense. "How did she just survive that" sort of moments. But, as the movie is fundamentally unrealistic, it doesn't really matter. This is not a movie for "serious" movie watchers, wanting to get something "profound" out of their time.

That being said, it does have a very strong female protagonist, which is rather rare and pretty profound. Two of them, in fact, which is well neigh unheard of. Actually, all of the major characters are female! Such a fact is a definite breach of the normal action/adventure genre. And one which the genre needs more often than it gets. It has such a "women power" message that my friend whom I watched it with describes it as a "chick flick". Including this movie in the "chick flick" genre elevates that one as well.

Therefore, it has a lot more going for it than one might initially give it credit for. It elevates two separate genres by its inclusion.

Male characters of some worth are eventually introduced, and they are all very interesting characters with sarcastically large personalities. Not that this is in any way different from how the movie has been progressing up until this point. The characters are all very interesting and fun and it is partly because no character is really "3-Dimensional". They are simple and exaggerated.

One of the best stylistic choices in this movie is when they decide to splice in comic art, both in still frame pages and in animation. That style is very different than the average comic. Reminding me, in a very violent way, of a picture search book. There are so many things! It advertises the comic pretty well, I can imagine the comic is pretty fun, probably significantly more so than the movie. Tank Girl fans certainly think so.

I was never a Tank Girl fan, had never heard of the comic before now, and I found the movie "enjoyable". If that is what you want, then this is a good movie to rent.

The Iron Giant (1999 movie)

My friends decided they were going to watch a movie and since I have the audacity to have never watched either The Goonies or The Lost Boys. And I was born in the 80s, so it's not like I have a 'good excuse' (besides that I don't watch a lot of TV or movies). The real purpose of these reviews was originally set up for books. ...even if I haven't finished a book in like a month. Somehow, I've been watching a lot of movies lately (for me). I guess movies are quicker to watch.

And can be as good as any book. The Iron Giant is like literature. For whatever reason, my friends didn't get either 80's movie and got this 1999 one instead. Perhaps it's just that I haven't seen The Goonies or The Lost Boys", but I couldn't really imagine either is better than The Iron Giant. This animated film was flippin' "Fantastic!" It is one of the best movies I can think of of the top of my head. It was freakin' hilarious, a very important point; the art was pretty interesting (half the jokes was just the kid's mother's facial expressions); and there was a lot of philosophy I found in the movie. What more could you want? Casablanca? That's a completely inferior movie (not that it's bad or anything). I think it'd be accessible for kids, but it definitely is accessible to adults; better than any Pixar piece I've seen and in 2D art and from WB. All at the same time!

Which might be unbelievable, but is still true.

The style of the movie is so open-ended and care free I found it refreshing. Some of the jokes were funny because I would have never expected it to have happened in a movie. The ending came on kinda quick, now that I think about it, but it fit pretty well. The ending didn't just feel like they got tired of writing, which is common in many movies that would otherwise be just as Fantastic.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else to say. If you agree with any of my other reviews, then believe me when I say: watch it if you watch anything. It's beautiful.

BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger (playstation 3, uncompleted)

Meh, I've seen better than BlazBlue. But not really for a 2D fighting game. The story is intricate and branching, which is intriguing and smashing, impressive for a fighting game... But most fighting games don't have a great story (Tournament time! All the greatest fighters are going to battle for a belt, or some such thing, against a supernaturally powerful opponent! Yay!) but the game-play isn't something I went wild over.

Then again, I'm biased. I'm not much of a fighting game fan.

The characters are all fairly different. There is a "drive" button which acts very differently for every character and its use is governed by a status bar which is different for every character, so that's impressive as well.

But the combo style is still similar for everyone. Roll from down-to-back, or forward-to-back, or wherever-to-wherever, and push a button.

So I waffle a bit. Overall, it's kinda "Blazé". I can see why everyone's goin' ape-shit over the title, but I never will. It's spiffy that you can play online with anyone, but I never will. So if you're a gamer like me, (who doesn't have a PS3), who doesn't like fighting games, and who doesn't really go online a lot, then it's not that impressive.

Watership Down (the 1978 movie, pre-read)

It is obvious that there is a large amount of source material for the movie, Watership Down; it is obvious that there is untold depth to this story. I believe that this is a powerful thing for a story: if the author knows more of his world than he lets on, then it is very complete, but you are given what is useful to the story and not burdened with what is immaterial.

However, in Watership Down ("down" as in a hill or sandy dune), you are not privy to information that should be there, that would make the movie easier to follow as it jumps from one thing to another. It moves far too fast for how much is happening. You don't have time to focus on how they got into whatever situation they are in, there is rarely even explanation, it's even hard to even learn the names of the characters because they don't have time to build them. It seems like it would be a good companion film if one had already read the book. However, if that is the case, one could just read the book, right?

Well, hopefully I will answer this question someday after having read the book. Because the movie was good enough for me to want more. I have been harsh thus far, but I do believe the movie is good and has ideas that people should listen to! All at the same time! It doesn't get overly preachy or anything, but it does wax allegorical.

It doesn't do so in a manner fit for a kid, though, even if it is animated. It would scare a toddler out of their diaper very justifiably with it's creepy disembodied heads and ebbing gore. It was creepy to me: an adult male from the US who grew up playing video games. Which, as everyone knows, are filled with non-stop violence, right? This is my caution: if you can handle the image of a poor bunny being disemboweled, then you should watch the movie; if Bambi was hard to watch, then don't even try Watership Down.

Watership Down is an "Inexpert (violent) Abridgment", in video form, of something which it does suggest is a good story. The problem with the medium: the length is just too limiting. This movie could easily have been four times as long. Broken up, of course. I am interested in the 1999 TV series.... However, based on how many episodes some of the characters are in, I suspect there were a lot of changes and that it remains unfinished.

EvilZone (Playstation 1, uncompleted)

EvilZone is "Simple and Remarkable". Easily one of the best fighting games I have every played even though it used a directional pad and two buttons.

Yep, that's it. Two whole buttons. You could port the thing to the master system if you didn't mind the grotesque loss in graphics. It does use depth of field a little.

There are a lot who wouldn't like it, I realize, but I found it rather elegant. I'm not good at it or anything, but it is surprising how many things can be done with those two buttons (block and attack) with four directions and a lot of double tapping. It's a lot like othello: "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master" concept. There are parts that are a little clunky and odd, but there is a lot to balance. Not considering so many possible moves frees your mind up to consider what moves would work best. Then you just need the skill to instantly go into that move.

Elephant Engine Highdive Revival (slam poetry)

Performance Poetry! Can be a lot of fun, and can be a whole lot of not fun. Elephant Engine High Dive Revival very accurately hits the former. I'm glad I went there instead of Vinotok at Crested Butte (suckers). They have a lot of fun on stage, and it is obvious. They are comfortable and experienced on stage, as is also obvious. They are great poets, which is the whole point.

The Elephant Engine High Dive Revival are Buddy Wakefield, Anis Mojgani, Derrick Brown, & Shira Erlichman (Joined when I saw them September 19th at Western State by Robbie Q. Telfer). The Elephant Engine is poignant. They speak about personal issues that apply to pretty much everyone. They awaken the emotion. They are serious poets! But what makes it good, is that they are also entertaining. They don't overload with hard-pressing, rather depressing issues. They make it funny, too. Which is very important, I think.

My favorite poet of the night was the temp: Robbie Q. Telfer. In the words of Wakefield (from stage) "[he's] so fuckin' weird, man." I bought his book sale flower (first book sold! Wooo!) His style had more diversity than the other four who were on stage and he was the funniest. That's important to me. He also had the same ability as the others to get serious.

Wakefield is the most known to me. He has an incredible energy on stage. At one point during that performance, he said "excuse me" and shook out away from the mic because he got so excited. He's a funny guy.

Derrick Brown was the least interesting to me that night, though he always worked with music. His poems stayed the most similar to each other. Anis Mojgani told one poem to the most perfect possible background music. Which made the piece very moving. But my second-favorite performer had to have been Shira Erlichman. Again, because she succeeded in being very funny while being more.

Like most poets, they make a lot out of a lot of things. Some of which are just like: "The wind! It moves a hair" (paraphrased from one of my own poems) and some which are more like: "Suicide sucks" (Questionable Content theme, comics 500 to ~600). And others which are more like: "The Foam! If it were a movie, it'd be written in big bleedy letters!" (Robbie Telfer, also paraphrased).

If you ever have the chance to see any of the performers, or the entire Elephant Engine, I recommend seeing it. They are "Wonderful".

Herencia Mexicana de Vail (dance performance)

For being a rhythm and tap style of dancing, Herencia Mexicana de Vail is "Very Quiet and Sloppy". I watched their show at Western State College and was fairly disappointed. I have previously performed in Mexican Folklorico dancing, and we were sometimes pretty lost on stage, but I don't remember losing place quite so often. If we had a problem, we stomped too loudly, not too quietly. They commonly got out of step with each other (which was especially noticeable in the Nayarit set with Machetes), and barely moved their legs.

Even viejos dance was disappointing. They didn't look nearly crippled enough.

But I did enjoy it for the nostalgia. But that is pretty exclusive to someone who had once danced Folklorico and no longer does much.

The Color of Magic by Terry Pratchett

Terry Pratchett is a funny, funny, man. It is a pity, after reading his first book, to know that he has Alzheimer's and is no longer writing. The Discworld is a marvelous place to go. The first in that series, The Color of Magic was "Enlightened Episodic Entertainment".

The Color of Magic is a little different from the other three Pratchett books I have read (two of which were with Vimes in Ankh-Morpork). Pratchett's first book is very episodic. It is also a little less poignant than the other three which has a central theme he was parodying. In The Color of Magic, he pokes fun at Economics and the concept of insurance early on, but it doesn't quite follow the whole way though. He continues to make fun of tourists, and fantasy on the whole (while continuing to be one of the quintessential installments of the genre), but for the most part, it is just funny.

There are a few parts that are a bit hard, it loses the fluidity of the normal narration, such as a part near the beginning when it's a little unclear why Twoflower follows Rincewind out of the city (I'm not sure it's ever explained), but it's a pretty minor aspect. Considering the book is fundamentally zany. There are also a few paragraphs were Terry gets into the unexplainable parodoxical metaphysics of the Discworld, and it is well-neigh un-followable. But it is really part of the fun. The book doesn't stop being fun and funny. It makes fun of fantasy while being one of the most quintessential installments in the genre.

Terry Pratchett was one of the best comedians in literature. For fantasy what Douglass Adams was for Sci-Fi. Any of his books should make a real treat. The Discworld is always full of hilarity, a wit has a purpose and parodying some of the more insane ideas that keep popping up on our spherical world.

Bridget Jones's Diary (the movie, post-read)

This movie is somewhat elegantly done. Somewhat. The beginning was very true to the book, including quotes and similar, and even improves on some elements (Darcy's embarrassing shirt was a Christmas reindeer rather than just diamonds). Handwriting is placed over the screen and is always funny, and includes Bridge's obsession with her weight and how many cigarettes she's smoked, and alcohol she's consumed. As the movie progresses, it slowly parts further and further from the book, as is necessary for the change in medium. However, I was disappointed in what was dropped out of the story. As it departs the source material, it approaches the tried movie cliche that is the "chick flick". It doesn't continue to put hand-writing up on the screen and it doesn't convey Bridge's obsession with her weight and such.

The book was nice because it was not the formula. The movie disappoints. It ignores Bridget's friends, turning them into three heads who act the same character. Refusing to give any background on them at all (in better cases) and changing them into drones (poor Shazzer...) There is also very little about Bridget's mother.

In my opinion, one of these side stories should have been kept: her relationship with her friends, or her crazy mother. But neither fruits anything.

The one thing this movie has are two beaus and it can keep the viewer guessing which Bridget will fall for. (The behind-the-scene joke of Mark Darcy being the same actor as Mr. Darcy is great, too.) But in the end, it is "Only slightly more than the chick-flick formula".

You Suck by Christopher Moore

You Suck is a Laugh-out-loud funny book (at times) making fun of everything that is Goth, Emo, "Twilight" and "Vampyre" at the same bloody time. It is filled with moral ambiguity, awfulness, whores, the word "fuck" in many incarnations, and undead murderous bastards.

Make no mistake, the book is not expertly crafted. It gets better the further you are through it, but there are times in the beginning where it is just a little halting because transitions blow. At other times, he is just trying a little too hard to be funny on a tight timeline as the book seems to have been bashed out in a few days. But you can read it in about 7 or 8 hours, so you wont suffer much if you don't like it.

There is no point behind this book other than to laugh. But it does have sections which, don't promote animal cruelty, but certainly don't admonish it. The same goes with its depiction of prostitution. If these offend you, steer clear of the book.

I'm not going to personally recommend it for all of these reasons, but that being said, it's "Awful, But Not Bad", though I didn't think I would say that at chapter 10.

Amendment:
The end does have interesting things happen between the main couple. Their personalities are different and they react to vampirism differently. I don't want to ruin anything (ever), but I have come back to thinking of the problem posed to them in the end and have gained a little more respect for the book.

My rating stands: It isn't a bad book, perhaps it's even good, but it is filled with awfulness. I still like the phrase. I have been recommending it to some people, though, so take that a little be better than it was originally intended without this amendment.

Bridget Jones's Diary by Helen Fielding

I haven't read the original column, but Bridget Jones's Diary is pretty entertaining as a book. And stylish. It successfully reads like a diary even though it has extensive dialog sessions (which I don't imagine show up in most peoples' diaries) and has a few instances of irrational times Bridge is supposedly writing in it. It achieves this by adding unnecessary words such as "Humph" once in a while and taking out unnecessary words such as "I" and "it" and whatnot occasionally.

It was also interesting to me because it is from Britain and they talk differently there. Hee Hee.

Many people (mainly males) may pass up this book because they fear it is a chick-flick in book binding. There were a few times I was made fun of while reading it, because I am not a chick. If this is too much for your masculinity to handle, put a Dan Patterson jacket over it and enjoy the book anyway. It's funny, it is interesting, it is aesthetic. Thus I recommend it. It is a bit chick-flickie (just in case you simply can't stomach any of that) in that it's largely about relationships and largely about romantic relationships, but it isn't the standard tried formula. You are given a window into the schizo mind of a woman who is trying to be proud of being single, while still trying to not be single.

It is somewhat standard fare in that regard. The book has engaging characters, and interesting (sometimes larger-than-life) situations which last a month or so (half a month, mostly). It doesn't have a large sociopolitical or psychological message (besides that Bridget isn't really alone in her problems), so if you require your books to have meaning (whatever that is), pass it up. If it would annoy you that Helen Fielding is trying to be the next Jane Austen, and apparently wants this to be the next Pride and Predjudice, pass it up. But if you want a "Fun" book, read it.

Now to watch the movie...

White Noise by Don DeLillo

Don DeLillo's "break out book" White Noise is interesting if nothing else. Every character proposes their own weird, "post-modern" theory. From society, to psychology, to the nature of knowledge. Or they exhibit some behavior which is rather exaggerated from the norm, but based on some odd thing which lots of people do.

I don't really like the main character, which is to say, every character as the story is a large internal debate from the perspective of Jack Gladney. Therefore every character sounds like Jack Gladney. Thus, it was difficult for me to keep reading. It did not "keep me up at night" as many reviewers claim, but rather made me put it down over and over and over again. Yet even as it did so, it succeeded in enticing me finish it. And I am glad I did. It was "A Little Annoying, but Interesting".

The meat of the book are the conversations between different characters. An early one between Jack and his son Heinrich is very interesting, Heinrich essentially taking the side that you can't really know anything. However, in the end he makes an assumption on the same par (or higher) than the ones his father had been making: anything an animal does is automatically more natural than what humans do. Supermarkets are really big and important to Jack, his family is really big, extended and complicated due to marriage, divorce, re-marriage, procreation, and divorce again.

The main issue dealt with in the book was Death, and the fear of it. But in the end, it doesn't spur a lot of thought in me, though it obviously wanted to. I am not reminded of it, or a theory in it, ever. But it has been interesting trying to decide whither or not one or another person (like my Mom, or Sister, or crazy neighbor) would like the book. I am very curious to know how correct each of my predictions are.

Post-Modern is a hard term to define, but this book is a pretty good illustration of what it is: everything, and at the same time, nothing at all, and usually a little annoying.

District 9 (movie)

Distric 9 film loosely (very, very loosely) reminiscent of Apartheid in South Africa and produced by the now infamous Peter Jackson. The Apartheid reference was the only reason we risked seeing this movie. Would it be an intelligent look at Apartheid? Using aliens as a tactic to get people to see it and learn about a unpalatably awful even in human history? Or would it take advantage of this unpalatably awful event to score a few bucks.

Well, my official rating is "I'm So Upset!", so that should answer that question. The movie was horrific. Aweful. Actually, I can't think of one film I have ever seen which is quite so bad. Even Very Bad Things (a supposed comedy) wasn't as bad as this... thing. Everything that was wrong in The Lord of the Rings, what was similar between it and King Kong, is present in this movie. Between the three projects, I have a beautiful outline of who Peter Jackson is and I don't think I need to actually see another one of his films to know everything about it.

Watching the movie was a little like watching I Love Lucy in that you sat in the chair saying, "Oh, come on. Don't do that. Don't. You'll-- You did it! Gaw!" But Lucy was more enjoyable. A little less frustrating and not so infuriating from start to finish. So that you can relax and truly notice how bad the movie is: the kid doesn't die. He gets to go home. Putting him in peril is just the gimmick used to keep you interested and not paying attention to anything else.

Actually, I am being a little over harsh. There were elements in the beginning, when the camera was still shaky documentary-ish, which were very intriguing. Frustrating, to be sure, pure debauchery, yes. But Apartheid was debauchery. It wasn't without merit. But everything that was interesting were dropped in favor of big guns and gooie explosions of human and alien body parts. It was as if the writer got some bad blockage going on and instead of working through it, he just quit, went to play Halo and that was the rest of the movie. The cinematics here aren't so much reminiscent of a documentary, but reminded me of the first time I watched Braveheart. They got so obsessed with fake blood they splashed the camera a few times; but it was quick and they changed camera so quickly, it seemed an accident. It happened very frequently here and is obviously no accident.

Then it gets all overdramatic. With the following idiotic scene: guns and bullets and explosions are everywhere. People are injured and retreating. One of them has a huge suit of armor and thinks he can stop the attack (which he could have 30 minutes ago if he was half as intelligent as a flaccid sea-creature) So the two heroes stop and turn to each other.
   "Go on without me!" says one.
   "No I won't leave you" says the other.
   "Yes you must!" says the first.
   "No!" repeats the other.

And somehow they are not killed. Pah! It was like watching Frodo make the zillionth 'I'm in pain' face by the half-way mark in the first and least pain-filled (for him) LOTR.

The movie may have had promise, but rather than delivering on it, it sadly devolves into an assortment of clichés. That's all there is to it.

American Health Care

Uncle Dave chewed into his leg with a logging-grade chain-saw just above the knee. As legs have dramatically less resilience than the average tree, this usually results in an artificial leg. But Dave was very experienced with chain-saws and, above all, lucky, fortunate, blessed, charmed, and Lucky. Instead of dismantling himself, he only cut a few centimeters into his quadricep. Pulling the saw from the gash, Dave turned to his son and said, go warm up the plane. We'll be flying to Saskatoon.

There is big debate about health care in North America. Does the US have the best health care in the world? Or is Canada's better? The United States has, without peer, the best medical technology in the world. And Canada has lines for medical service; in the US, health care is provided by the efficiency of capitalism, in Canada, and the rest of the "developed world", most of it is provided by government. Despite how one sided the issue appears, the issue is split because different people believe different sources of information, as is usually the case. Both sides find it hard to imagine why or how the other side actually believes the morons they are listing to and the sources are not making it easier to trust them. Democrats are constantly pointing their crooked fingers at Sarah Palin; she's against health care but she's a blithering idiot, say the talking donkey heads, so if you're smart you will think the opposite. The Republicans are saying that Obama is creating a socialist health care policy which includes articles about "end-of-life services" which, they recite with fear, could lead to "end-of-life orders" because the elderly are a financial burden!

In today's "information age", it is amazing how many things can be taken out of context when the context is so easy to find. The internet is omniscient. Unfortunately, it is also a pathological liar with poor language skills. "You may ask me as many questions as you like, but I always lie" it lies. But with a little work, you can find anything. Palin's comments are readable to anyone with a Facebook account. It's probably been copied and pasted into an even more public realm. Most of the article is actually rather rational. She fears what could happen with government-run health care and that it could lead to unethical financial book-keeping. Similarly, Obama's health care plan is also not a socialist health care solution with Death Panels! That was Kucinich. The bill can be found on-line,with everything else, but it's written in Leagalese .

The bill being proposed right now is already a compromise from social medicine. It is nothing more than a government insurance option. Insurance companies will still be in business, the government will just offer a competitive alternative. If it turns out to be so much better than the current options that they can't compete, then that's better for the customer. We wont be preyed on by the government like the fears of "socialism" suggest. There is nothing behind the "Death Panels" hysteria besides a small bit (starting on page 425) about end of life counseling. It is for people who want it, want information, not to be told what to do. If you want a good perspective on why this is necessary, visit a nursing home. It is supposed to improve the quality of life for the terminally ill.

Creating a competitive alternative to insurance with a budget the size of the government's does seem, at first, to be unfair. But in reality, the business is a "natural monopoly" like the post-office or the rail-road. The governmentally supported USPS does have stiff competition from UPS, FedEx, DHL. Many people point out fallacies in this argument. Postal services are not like medical services. Sure. And USPS is failing to the private providers. I will admit a bigger difference: unlike rail-roads and the post-office, health insurance is an inherently unprofitable business. Not if you are actually providing care. There's too much risk to expect any profit and these companies have made multiple trillions of dollars. This suggest to me that they have not been acting any more ethically than our banks, which is a whole new issue. If your customer has a "pre-existing condition", then they'll just be a sink on your money. The fact remains that other countries have their care supplied by the government and are healthier than we are. If we insist on calling ourselves the "greatest country on earth", then shouldn't our government be able to out-do the British and the French and the Canadians? They may have a few lines, but the people I have talked to, like Dave, attest that this isn't a problem when you need it. Perhaps the reason we don't have lines is not because we're efficient capitalist, but because there is no one going to the doctor. Instead, we refuse to take off of work even if we have tuberculosis and pink eye.

We should start considering health care as a right. Nor more or less basic than equitable treatment and universal suffrage. It shouldn't be a privilege exclusive to the filthy rich or we will be in danger of being more like victorian Britain than a modern world power. If you don't have money, we don't really want to help you, so we just stabilize your vitals without actually fixing the problem. Yet somehow the US spends more on health care than "socialist" Canada. Perhaps it is time that we ask our country what it can do for us. That is, after all, what it is there for. A country, in essence, is no different than a company, or a party, or a union, or a club: it is a group of people brought together by similar ideas or interests in order to achieve a common goal. Traditionally, government-level groups are organized around safety or cultural identity. Everyone in this group should feel as obligated as a family member to help out those less fortunate.

Clare was a thin, frail woman who had hip problems. Not uncommon in the USA. She would return to the doctors almost yearly to get her hip worked on. But, because it was too expensive and, of course, not covered, she was only ever stabilized. Fed up, she moved back to Europe where she was born and got her hip permanently fixed. Now, she is never coming back. Dave has retired, because it did not bankrupt him to go to the hospital in Saskatchewan. He was administered to immediately, there was no waiting line, was administered to immediately. His wife Mary, who was born in North Dakota, says that health care is the biggest reason she would never live in the United States; she's not an official citizen (though she does pay taxes) and she gets better health care in that foreign country.