"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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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).
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).
Monday, October 19, 2009
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?
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.
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.
Friday, October 16, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 5, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)