Stardust by Neil Gaiman (1998)

I finally got to read Stardust after having watched and loved the movie. Unfortunately for me, I didn't get to read the one with Charles Vess's illustrations, which vexes me and I am determined to eventually get ahold of a copy of that. Those illustrations are there for a reason, I feel, but, as this book was just left in my basement by an old housemate, I couldn't hardly pass it up.

And indeed, I read it in one sitting. Interrupted by sleeping, but it was still really one sitting. After having read sciency books and environmental stewardship tales (neither of which I am completely through with, though the first is also a very good book) my hunger for a real Book, a Story. Fiction. was insatiable. It may have happened with anything, but Stardust is still a very good story. Very pretty, somewhat simple, enjoyable, but it is a faery tale and it is Neil Gaiman and I have come to expect that.

The book is, here's a shocker, not exactly what the movie was. The movie has some conventions that movies must follow (it has more action, for example) but having watched it first, I suppose it is only natural that the film is my favorite version. Even though I usually don't like movies half as much. It was such an enjoyable movie with such fun characters. The book has a lot of fun as well, but there are less characters and my favorite characters (the pirates) and arcs from the movie aren't really here. Usually it is the other way around, but usually I read the book first as well.

Stardust is unashamedly a romance story. It advertises itself as such and you know it to be one by the end of the first chapter. Thus, you know where this is all going. But like any good romance, there is much more going on than just two people falling in love. There is adventure here and talking trees (Tori Amos, apparently) and the witchcraft of the land of faery. And there is good and humorful prose. As I expected from the first hints of Vess's illustrations, the book is more of a "Faery Story" than the "fairy story" the movie was. I hope this attracts some readers.

One thing I find interesting about the reception of Stardust is how hung up people get on some short sex scene. It is a romance, after all, which leads to The Act. I am not sure Neil was trying to be "daring" with its inclusion, or "dumb". It is no more or less graphic than the violence which inhabits this story, but no one seems to care about that. The story is advertised as a "Faery Story for Adults", but I would give this to a child of 10. They'd love it.

Stardust builds itself up for a picturesque, almost Disneyesque, conclusion and then ends with an almost out-of-place realism. The movie, not written by Gaiman, has an ironically more mythological end and is one of the things I like about it more. But I appreciate the wisdom espoused by the book. It does mean more in a more literary sense.

8 Crazy Nights (2002 movie)

Adam Sandler has a certain sense of humor which takes some acclimatizing. Like beer, I hear. I have listened to it since I was a wee lad on CDs, so I am somewhat used to it and 8 Crazy Nights was almost nostalgic in the reminiscence to his old talking goat skits.

8 Crazy Nights is a Hanukah-themed version of Charles Dicken's classic A Christmas Carol. There is the story of Hanukah past, showing up as golden memories; there is the Hanukah present, most of the movie; and the threat of the Hanukah which will be... Instead of ghosts, there are advertisements (which says something about out overall culture, I suppose...) And instead of Tiny Tim, there is a disabled old basketball coach. His role is actually a little larger than Tiny Tim's, but he is still a pretty close allegory.

If you do not like fart-humor and poop jokes (or just the word 'poop'), then this might not be a movie you should watch. I liked it, however. It is funny, maybe debasingly so, but it still made me laugh. Especially the songs, some of which I am still singing from time to time. It could have been called "Mr. Hankie's Hanukah" as it is "Crass", animated, musical, about the holidays, and full of poop humor.

8 Crazy Nights does have some emotional moments. One. Or rather, one attempt at such. The character growth is in someways more profound than that of Ebenezer Scrooge, but it is flat and unmoving despite how sad it is. When the movie tries be something besides crass, it falters and fails and is probably why so many people don't like it.

But at least it is light-hearted. In this it succeeds. Though it may not really be appropriate for small children, it is a rather fun movie.

Dumbo (1941 movie)

I haven't seen Dumbo in over a decade, probably close to two. The most amazing thing about the movie was how short it is. Just over an hour long, it could have just been a Silly Symphonies episode. It is very surprising. The ending just happens about a minute after the climax. If you happen to yawn, you may just miss it. But there are a great many more amazing things about this movie.

Of course, because it is a Disney movie from the forties, music plays a very import role. Like Lady and The Tramp or Snow White, this movie is a choreographed dance. But unlike my natural assumption for Disney movies, this movie doesn't hide from a dark and tormented storyline. There are some rather distressing emotional moments in this film that Micky (not really, but yeah, it's Micky.) smooths over quickly. And it does end very peachily. It has stereotyped a lot of different people and seems to have an aversion to showing that black people do, indeed, have faces.

I am not sure who this movie was marketed to. It doesn't seem to be something that children would really get. Besides the colors and the face on the train (and a flying elephant), there is little here for them. But it is also a little squeaky for have much marketability to an older audience. Maybe it was different back then; perhaps Walt was trying to gauge how much a feature-length cartoon could get away with. I think the best thing to call it is a "Silly Symphony" of a movie. Which is definitely not a bad thing, but not at all what I remembered it being from when I was 2.

Now I just need to go back and watch Bambi.

What is Wrong with WikiLeaks

I am a hopeless idealist. In my little head, I inhabit a world filled with considerate people who work and ply their trade because it is needed (or at least wanted) by their neighbors, not for money. So there is none. The god of this world doesn't even exist.

But of course, I can't actually live there any more than I could travel to Middle Earth, which would be just as awesome, but for a very different reason. No, I live here, in the real world where the concept of Greed has somehow become sanctimonious and the economy and market are believed omniscient. Physically, I have to interact with reality more often than I would like to and that drags my mind along into this screaming, fiery, tormented world that we have created. The comparison makes me want to do something about the horrors that exist here.

...I am also a cynic.

Because I am an idealist first, the idea of WikiLeaks is compelling to me. I sorta like it and I like the disestablishmentarians who maintain and support it. I laugh at their audacity to take down Visa's website for a few hours and cheer on the effort happily. In my ideal world WikiLeaks would be valued and would be as energetically plied by those people who currently oversee it as it is in the real world. But in this ideal world, they would have very little to do. In my ideal world, everyone has absolute freedom because they are wise enough not to use it; and that is the true key. The secrete. Freedom is something that shouldn't actually be used. We (people) do not have absolute freedom anywhere on this earth anymore. Instead we have a disturbingly labyrinthine, casted, multi-layered, endlessly faceted legal system which we have been designing and refining for the last 4 to 10 thousand years. Since the days of Urukagina and Hammurabi at the least.

We maintain it because we know that it is needed. "Freedom" is a nice word and a fine idea, but there is and should be a limit to everything; otherwise it is called "anarchy", which is not such a nice word. Only the worst parent in the world would give to their toddler the same liberties they afforded their teenager and we could only hope the toddler (and the teen) would be confiscated from their parents by Social Services before they got killed by a passing truck or methamphetamine needle.

That is how WikiLeaks treats information: like a toy. They profess to know the power of information, which is the entire reason they do what they do. But complete freedom of information can be far more damaging in the hands of the wrong people than the freedom to cross the street is to a toddler. We, as a species, are not ready for such a power. Unlike Spiderman, we can't just can't handle that kind of responsibility. No, we cannot handle the truth!

Not that it is beyond the realm of our minds. There are people on this planet I would trust with this information. I think there are very many people with the maturity to deal rationally with this level of power. And all of them are far too rational to have gained any 'power' for themselves. They are not congressmen or CEOs; they are not dictators or heads of state. They are sometimes business owners, often activists, but not much more.

However, even then, the main thing is that this information doesn't concern them directly. That can change something. I wouldn't tell everyone of my friends all the mean, nasty, ugly things I hear about them, said behind their backs. If I did, not only would I shortly have no friends at all, but few of them would have any friends either. And if we were playmates on the scale of Israel and Palestine, our scuffles might leave some holes in the ozone layer and maybe even the earth's crust.

Most people with their eyes open can see that there are a lot of problems abound in our world. The question of what to do about it can be tormenting and sometimes lead to rather egregious decisions. WikiLeaks, while a nice idea, I don't think is really sustainable. It could be more dangerous to the world's ecosystem than excess carbon if the wrong person reads the wrong thing.

Joe Dirt (2001 movie)

Joe Dirt is just as campy, corny, cheesy, and funny as you would expect a movie with David Spade in a mullet to be. I like it. It doesn't fail to be entertaining and it even manages to be somewhat poignant. There is nothing in our culture more vilified than a mullet (besides maybe a turban right now). This movie acknowledges that and bullies back against those who trash talk the hairdo. Then it waxes philosophical about being positive.

It has a lot of "Fun" doing it. Watch Joe Dirt if you like hicky humor, some sex jokes, and a completely impossible story line. This is a movie about being fun and about entertainment. It is not about the story, it is about the jokes; it is not meticulous; it doesn't employ it's soundtrack; it doesn't really care about its acting, as long as the delivery is good. It is no wonder critics don't like it, but most people should have a good time with it.

Blast from the Past (1999 movie)

My first thought was that the writers of Blast from the Past would glorify the 50's as if it was our undisputed golden age. While there is a little of that, the movie also makes light of the stupidities of the age. It also does a decent job of depicting what a hapless man would be like if he were released into society without any previous social contact. Though it is more funny then that would actually be. The movie is not realistic, thankfully, but the characters in this film are more stable than most movie citizens and the plot stays true to the world that it created rather than pander to genre contentions.

I really like Brendan Frasier romantic comedies for this very reason. Conventions are boring and most romantic comedies are so suffocated under the pile that's accumulated that they are rarely different stories. Seen one, seen 'em all; just like a car explosion. While Blast from the Past isn't quite as unique as Bedazzled in this regard, it is still new enough to be "Very Fun".

Aside from that, there is little spectacular about the movie. It is pretty standard fare as far as production values are concerned and Frasier's acting is... um, appropriate for the character, I suppose, but it feels like an excuse. The makers have a lot to say on the subject of religion, but it's abstract enough that I am not sure exactly what it is. They do have fun with this most ingrained and fascinating feature of human societies.

Tangled (2010 movie)

Disney's new Tangled starts off a little slow, and finishes a overly predictably, and has pretty much exactly the plot you would expect. But it is told so very, very well. This movie has mastered the running gag. There are several and they are all very funny. But this is only the beginning of Tangled's brilliance.

All of its brilliance is in the humor. It is filled with dry wit and physical humor to satisfy anyone but the grouchy lady who sat in front of me and demanded that I shut up my laughter. She was funny too. If the movie had stuck there, it would have been straight through brilliant. But, it doesn't. It falters once or twice when it tries to be sincerely romantic. It fails worse than a pick-up line on a park bench.

Tangled is a movie designed to resurrect the Disney princess in the age of computer animation and pre-teen puberty. It takes a little from Shrek, a little from How to Train Your Dragon, and doesn't quite measure up to either. Though it is a little funnier than Mike Myers' movie, it wont have the replay value. It's linage, while supplying some very choice jokes, is the greatest detraction from an otherwise wonderful film. It holds it back. Rapunzel will join Belle and Cinderella among Disney's best, but will likewise be remembered as just a princess with scarily large eyes.

But it is very, very Funny. "Hilarious". If that is what you are here for, you will not be disappointed.




Short Analysis:



In the very end, they had a good joke. It wasn't a great joke. It is a somewhat old joke. But I was disappointed that they killed it. It ends with the same narration that begins the movie, that of the hero-man Eugene. And he says that, after asking and asking him to marry her, he finally says yes to Rapunzel.   Ha ha. But immediately re-establishes the expected norm by saying, no, he did actually ask her.

What a pisser.

Lilo and Stitch (2002 movie)

Lilo and Stitch looked to me, through the last 8 years, to be a fairly basic movie with an odd little alien gremlin thing in it. So a Disney movie with a gremlin. Disney does make a lot of good movies, always has, but rarely are their movies very spectacular. This particular movie does unique visual style, and I did hear a lot of good things about it, but Disney is best at presentation so that didn't mean much.

My skepticism wasn't unfounded, but I should have seen it a long time ago. Lilo and Stitch is a "Very Good" movie. I would go so far as to say it is one of the best movies Disney has ever made. It does suffer from some of the problems inherent in being a Disney movie (enough sap to sting my cavities) but the film is still new enough and deep enough to stand on its own as a pretty brilliant flick. It has it's own style, a good starting point, but what really sells the movie is the sense of humor. It reminded me a little of The Iron Giant.

The humor is just the beginning and the end of what makes this a great movie. The characters which populate the environment are dynamic and engaging with some realistic problems to deal with. And they navigate these problems as they should. But despite being a little dismal in plot, Lilo and Stitch manages to tell the story in a very fun and engaging way. The plot is tightly woven with patterns that re-enforce each other but aren't just echos rebounding off of each other. The film is done an injustice by its ending, but it's hard to blame anyone for that. No one can get a good ending now-a-days, not even the famous Harry Potter (epilogues suck). But it ties up well enough that I am very disappointed there are sequels.

The final bow on this package is the music. Unfortunately, it is a little peripheral. No one bothered to integrate it, as music was in much older movies. But it makes a beautiful bow. It is worth unwrapping this package just to listen to it.

Bug (2006 movie)

As the director points out, one doesn't really know where the plot of Bug is going if they haven't seen it before. It is creepy, dark, twisted, sometimes humorous, sick, demented, erotic, paranoid, and schizophrenic film. And it raises more questions than it ever answers. Stuff happens, and you never can quite tell why or exactly what it was, even by the end.

As impressive as that is, I didn't enjoy my time with it, per se; but I sorta almost like it. It is a good movie, I suppose it would be hard to dispute that. Despite the fact that I thought I was watching some amateur, low-brow horror in the beginning. That sense gradually disappears into something else. Very else.

To give you a sense of what you are getting into if you decide to try out the trip that is Bug, this is the same well-respected Hollywood director who created The Exorcist and The French Connection. I haven't seen the latter, but there are some similarities to the former that I can see now that I know. He is an older director and this movie doesn't really fit it with the current film-making style in Hollywood; especially featuring big name actors like Ashley Judd and Harry Connick Jr.. It has more similarities with contemporary plays or '70s film making.

The acting in the film is very good. I can appreciate that now. In the beginning, I thought it was some cheese-ball movie, as I said, but the characters flesh out into something quite dynamic. Almost too dynamic. But as everyone is bleeding crazy, it all still makes sense. This could be seen as a cop-out, crazy people are easy. Generally. In drama, it is probably a little more difficult. There is still a thin line to straddle, the character shouldn't be so extreme they turn the audience away, but still be unique. Considering Bug's usual review, they seem to have done that, however.

The sound in the movie is requisitely creepy to keep a very paranoid movie "Paranoid". If you like a good psycological thriller, Bug may be your bag.

Life of Brian (1979, rewatched)

I love Monty Python. I find them hilarious. And while the Life of Brian isn't as out-loud laughably funny as their Quest for the Holy Grail, it has some very funny scenes and the best ending of a Monty Python feature! Hell, most any movie.

 Life of Brian almost stands as one continuous story, it's less sketchy than their other films (and their show, of course) and the 'sketches' more like actual 'scenes'. This is unique for Monty Python and I like it. But the troupe is obviously not very used to the idea. It's a great movie, with wonderful quotable moments, but less of them than the Holy Grail.

At Work

Today at work, we had a problem.

I work at a nursing home serving people food. We try to keep track of how much everyone eats ('try' being used about as loosely as possible. We actually just inconvenience ourselves with utterly useless data collection. The only thing it really tells us is if someone was in the dining room that day.) using a little hand-held touch screen device.

That runs Windows.

Consequently, it doesn't hardly work most of the time. While all you put in is: 'they ate 100% of their meal',  one choice out of about ten, it takes a surprisingly long time from pushing a virtual button on the screen and any effect taking place. Anywhere from 2 to 10 seconds. Which may not seem like much, but imagine if it took ten seconds from when you struck the "q" key and a q actually appearing on the screen. The amount of data is incredibly small, but for some reason, this little "shit pad" (as it is affectionately known among the staff) can't quite handle it. It takes several minutes for this tiny file of around 40 residents to actually transfer to the computer. Sometimes, it doesn't.

I would wonder why it has so much trouble if it weren't for that multi-colored window logo. But as that graces the front of the device, that question is answered. A question that has not be sufficiently answered is why Windows hasn't been fired. If my performance were so dismal, they wouldn't keep me on, I am sure of it. You can only show up to work late so often, especially if you live there.

Another topic with computers:

I attend Western State College of Colorado. But I need a new computer password.

I looked, but I couldn't find the page that allows one to change this basic thing. Most commercial web-sites have it fairly close to the front where it is easy to find.

But I couldn't find it. I decided to try the web-sites search feature, even though those rarely work.

This is what I was given:

How do I change my Banner password?

You can change your BANNER password from the My Links section of General Menu. You can also change it by using the BANNER form GUAPSWD. Type your current BANNER password (leave the database box blank), then type a new password, and verify your new password.

I have to ask myself, since there isn't anyone else near, what the hell is GUAPSWDLKLEK? Looks like a bunch of pointless letters to me. It doesn't mean anything. At all.

Why oh why are so many people obsessed with acronyms! They only de-stable communication! WTF!

I still cannot find where to change my bloody password.... I see nothing labled as a "General Menu". "General Financial Aid", but not "General Menu" and I doubt it is under the "Financial Aid" tab.

...Unless they're a little more crazy than I thought...

Nor do I see "My Links". Anywhere. If you search for that phrase, the only thing that comes up that has to do with the web-site is a page called: "How do I change my Banner password?"

But we've already seen how useless that page is. These pages apparently don't exist.

Perhaps I can't change my password. It will forever be something like: Lkailn(0879eokNOJ,ljd092wnjolkdn. Which I can't remember.

Oh well. I guess I'll just cary a piece of paper around with me. Because that's really secure.

X-Men Evolution, season 3 (TV series, remote background knowledge)

X-Men Evolution is a return to the days of the X-Men when they were still young. In high school, actually. So it is a re-telling and re-envisioning. Some of the characters have change a little in their, um, character; but are still recognizable for who they are. The show is far deeper than the early comics were, are more in line with the later comics, but are a little less action oriented, which I appreciate. Though there are still scenes with Wolverine just going berserk and random, apparently pointless, fights with devastating effects on the local cityscape.

There are some characters who are new as well. Spyke is a new character in this universe and Season 3 is the first appearance of a character known as X-23 who has since spread to other X-Men universes and was even included in the recent movies.

The show is "Fun" and I'd like to see a little more of it. And compare and contrast it to the other long-running, critically acclaimed animated Superhero shows like Batman, Superman, and Marvel's own, Spiderman. And, of course, the canon X-Men: The Animated Series. Perhaps that's too geeky for a rating of 'fun'...

The series opens with the conclusion to some great conflict from the previous season, and ends with a similar (but of course greater) cliff-hanger. All very important for anything to do with action super-heroes. Or anything on television, actually. But the best episodes are more intimate and more quietly enjoyable.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009 movie)

I really expected something else from this movie. Perhaps that's the reason I didn't like it, or at least part of the reason, but Where the Wild Things Are is a bit too much of a roller-coaster for me. It reminded me (just a little, mind) of Wild Animus which annoyed me so much I didn't finish it. I try not to be judgmental, but that book isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A good summary of what I read: Oh, life sucks... Im gonna go walk in the snow; oh! life is grand! Oh, we love each other more than anyone could ever love anyone else-- Oh.. it probably wont work... But Oh! We love each other so much... Let's break up. Oh life sucks but is so awesome!

Where the Wild Things Are isn't half so annoying, but it does boil down to being dramatic for drama's sake. I like comedy for the sake of comedy, but drama is a little different. Drama isn't enjoyable without due cause and while there is some point in this film, it isn't accessible enough for my taste. This movie feels a little hashed together. A little looser than it could have been. A little more tiresome than I'd like. All of the characters are like 7 year olds having tantrums. While all the characters look cool, and are reminiscent of Maurice Sendak's drawings, they don't actually have enough character of their own. They are all just sides of the main character, Max.

The movie is too long for telling too short of an actual story. I think the best rating for it is to say that it "Doesn't Have Enough Character". Surficially, there is a lot of character, but deeper, its vapid and obnoxious.

I was disappointed.

Resilience (WSC original play, Friday, Nov 5, 2010)

The first play I saw performed at Western State College was an attempt at Amadeus. It was... pretty... bad. Not that the attempt wasn't a little admirable, but the department wasn't quite capable of pulling it off. Trying to do a play about Mozart when you don't have a good enough relationship with your own music department to have a Real soprano instead of a recording that cuts in a second after the actress begins singing isn't the greatest idea.

Western probably still isn't capable of doing Amadeus. Especially with their main stages all broken apart for remodel. But the department is getting better and better. I especially like it when they try something original. Their latest play, entitled Resilience and written by professor Paul A. Edwards (and his ensemble) at making their own stuff. Resilience, written by professor Paul A. Edwards, was impressive. It was humorful, it was artistic, it was entertaining. All the while having philosophical and political implications. "Enjoyable and Thought-Provoking". What else is there to put into a play?

Acting. Good acting. 'Tis the weakness at Western State College. The students aren't bad actors, though some of them border it from time to time, but they aren't as impressive as the writers in the Gunnison valley. Which, apparently, are them.

As this play probably will not be seen in its entierty again for a while, if ever, by anyone who wasn't involved in its production and has a DVD, I don't feel bad about Analysing the work for a bigger portion of this review:

First, Resilience is a story about a small town TV station, its employees, and their little domestic lives in a slow-moving mountain town. With characters who are, by and large, not very slow moving. Going with this theme, there were old '50s commercials shown between each scene which turn out to be the plays best joke and compositional element. The audience laughed harder at that then at anything in the play. And harder at that than I have heard most audiences laugh at anything. The advertising techniques they used back then are pretty silly.

The other simple and running gag in the play was a hyper-actively tweaked producer who doesn't have any idea how bloody crazy she is. She gets a little tiresome by the end, but is an important key in the play.

The second big plot element in the play is the romantic story between an over-worked employee of the TV station who is slowly turning into her crazy boss and a local and green t-shirt maker who's running apprehensively for County Commissioner.

Underneath all of it is a theme of "Sustainability" because Edwards wanted to write a play that has to do with WSC's "Year of Sustainability". It is faithful in its depictions of reality. I especially like the scene where some peace-loving 'hippies' (for lack of a better word) throw their recyclable cups away right after the restaurateur told them of her new recycling system! The play was full of little points like that, including the final climatic crux: for the station's "Be Local" campaign, they ordered t-shirts off line.

 ...Even though her beau is a t-shirt maker....

Ooops.

Despite how trite that sounds, the play is well woven and reminds me a little of plays by Arthur Miller. I quite enjoyed it and hope that other little theaters in little towns play it someday.

Frankenstein (1994 movie, post read a long, long time ago)

It really is the first, or most famous, Zombie story. Mary Shelley supposedly won a personal contest between Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley with Frankenstein for it being scary. However, the movie that was filmed in 1994 based, fairly closely, on the book is not a 'horror' movie. It is not filmed to be particularly scary; not in the instantaneous, creepy way that is expected in a horror movie and not to a modern audience.

Still, the concept should be more scary in todays world than in Shelley's: Science has become pretty much as arrogant as her novel predicts. We aren't re-animating people, but we do have a few wackos trying to 'cure' aging. Which could be an even scarier story. But still not in the 'horror' genre style.

Perhaps I am being to limiting to the genre, but Frankenstein feels more like a dark, scary, and a little gory drama movie and it drops the scariest element of Shelley's book. The 'monster' is vilified far more than Victor is, though he is rather stupid. Everything is grandiose, white and clean or dirty and evil, and very "Melodramatic". There were a few movies made in this visual style in the 90's and 00's, such as Van Helsing or Underworld; but it also reminds me a little of Kill Bill, though that was at least supposed to be a parody (I hope...).

I don't really like the movie. Victor Frankenstein is a little too much of a retarded scientific genius for me. The plot moves forward mostly because of his idiocy (which I don't remember from the book, but it has been several years) or for some sort of dramatic confrontation. But, it is cheaply entertaining. I would like to see the Old One.





Analysis (spoilers will follow):


In the end of the movie, Victor wants to save his late wife because she died when he took both pistols out of the room with him to hunt his monster instead of just staying there with his weapons and protecting her. So he decides to cut off her head, with her brain in it, and sew it on to the corpse of one of their friends.

When next you see her, There are jagged scars running over her face just like his first creature. Now, I wonder, why are those there? Just to make her look horrid and deformed? Why would you need to do anything to her face? Her head had all the components you could possibly want for a head. It was just her body that was without a heart.

This is what I mean by 'melodramatic' action. Most parts of the film are done for their dramatic potential as long as the audience isn't thinking too much or completely ready to accept anything the movie offers. My own ability to suspend disbelief is pretty good, but I would like a little credit for being a thoughtful individual.

Silent Hill (2006 movie, never played the game)

Out of the three horror movies I watched around Halloween, The Exorcist, Frankenstein, and Silent Hill, the last was, by far, the most scary.

I didn't go into it expecting much from the movie. It was adapted off of a video game, after all, and those rarely go very well (I would mention Alone in the Dark, but I haven't actually seen it). But I was surprised. Not only is Silent Hill a scary movie, but it is fairly thought provoking, has some philosophical elements, and succeeds in being entertaining.

Silent Hill is almost entirely populated by women. If anyone has any feminist ideals, you could take this good or ill: on the one hand, it's a horror movie with a bunch of helpless women, no wonder everything's going wrong; on the other, these aren't weak women. Half of them are the evil powers, one or another, and the other half are the rescuing powers.

I hope that doesn't spoil anything. The eventual cruxes of the plot are reveled in a little spot of narration, which is really the biggest problem with this film. They couldn't figure out how to reveal everything without just sidetracking and telling you what happened. It's also a little weird when they use some computer-animated footage from the game. Sometimes, this is unnoticeable, but often it is a little distracting.

Silent Hill is a "Damn Creepy" movie and I found it to be really rather good. However, there don't seem to be a lot of people who share my view, so perhaps proceed with caution.

The Exorcist (1973 movie)

The first horror movie I watched this Halloween season was the famous Exorcist. The version never seen in theaters!, apparently, with extended material and whatnot.

It is a "Freaky Movie". The soundtrack, which isn't so much 'music' as horrific noise, lends itself to creepy-ness just as well as 'subliminal messages' accomplished with watermarks and flashes of satanic, demonic images. But at it's core, the Exorcist is about a child being grossly abused which makes all but the most psychotic a little uncomfortable.

The movie starts slowly enough. Setting the stage a few thousand miles from where the story actually takes place. However, this somewhat unconventional approach works well, especially when it is in the mystical and dangerous landscape of the middle east. The birth of Judeo-Christian religion as well as Western Society in general.

The movie makes me wonder, idly, if it is because of Horror movies like this that there is such a hatred of anything christian. It's been associated with the squirmy feelings of a horror movie, even if they are (usually) battling the forces of darkness. Watching Silent Hill a few days later just made this thought more prevalent in my mind.



Short Analysis (spoilers):


Especially since the Exorcist doesn't actually have the warriors of God win, really. Not through their faith. Despite all of its christian symbolism, it doesn't make a stance that Christianity is the true religion opposed to such dastardly things. The priest has to go to the point of killing himself; taking the demon into his own body and then destroying it to rid the girl of her possession.

A reappearance of Christian themes, but the demon won.

I suppose there aren't a lot of Horror movies with happy endings...

Spirited Away (2001 movie)

Another film from Hayao Miyazaki, another testament to his ardor for the environment.

Another brilliant work in its own right.

Of course Spirited Away is a good movie. Many people consider it Hayao's best movie out of a very impressive lineup. It is up there, but I still like Totoro a little more for it's quietness. Totoro is a very contented movie.

Spirited Away is halfway between the two types of movies I have seen from Miyazaki: his epic fantasy movies set in a more unearthly environment and his 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies. The 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies are more homey feeling, even though I have never been to Japan. They usually have more dynamic, less extreme personalities populating the animated landscape.

Spirited Away moves from earth to the spirit world (faery) and then back again. It has a very similar balance between fantasy and reality as one would see in a Neil Gaiman work (such as Coraline). It is very good at pulling emotion out of the viewer as Chihiro, the main character, reacts as one would expect as her world begins to be destroyed around her. That doesn't mean that this is a sad movie (throughout), for she adapts and grows and becomes much stronger.

The movie means a lot of things. Some of them blatantly, some of them not so much. It has an ideology which it pushes, but it also has characters who have purposes and motives and things just happen, like in real life. There are a lot of lessons which can be learned here.

The Little Rascals (1994 movie)

The point of The Little Rascals is almost entirely to watch cute little kids between 4 and 9 playing on your TV screen a little more large than they ever would in real life. And for what ever reason utterly without parental appearance.

They are cast as acting like grown-ups, which is the source of the humor in the movie.

That sounds a little cynical, but it isn't. That's just what the movie is. It is a "cute, funny, quick and entertaining" movie. It succeeds in everything it tries to do.

Nightcrawler (2004 comic series, 12 issues)

A normal comic is under a great weight of awful responsibility. It publishes serially but continuously, so that, in issue 65432, it must at once cater to readers who have been with it since the very first page of issue 1 but also consider people who have never read a previous issue nor heard of any of the characters.

It is a rather constraining box. Thinking within a box (of some sort) may improve one's creativity, but this one is a little tight. I like a good mini-series more. The Nightcrawler mini-ish series ("Limited Series" I suppose) isn't for someone who doesn't know that Wolverene has three claws coming out of the back of his hand (or fist, depending on your artist), or that he has friends called Cyclops and Storm because you will be introduced to a good dozen of characters really quickly. But you don't need to know all that much more. I never knew much about Nightcrawler before this escapade, nor even the X-Men in general outside the movies and 20 year old cartoons which I haven't seen in... 20 years. But the story is kind enough to go over his background and elucidate happenings within the X-Men without being too heavy on the exposition.

It is actually quite a "Fun" series and I find it stimulating to my imagination. The characters are so exaggerated and the adventures are visual and simple. The story isn't so complex, tight, and brilliant as something like Watchmen, but it is still interesting. I red the entire thing in one night.

Then read some of the old 60's comics... Oh my. Well, Marvel was a lot better than DC at the time, but it still was, uh, immature as a medium. The prose is 'the most laughable prose ever penned to paper!' (the exclamation point is important. They put 'em after everything!).

This Nightcrawler series is complete enough in itself to work as a stand-alone story. It is composed of three interconnected story arcs which don't appear to be interconnected in the beginning. The series is not consistently reiterating what each characters "super powers" are, how something was possible, what happened in the last issue. Blah, blah, blah. It shows you instead and assumes that you've read the entire series and for that I am grateful and which separates it from those 60's comics. It also isn't just a huge fight scene with a loose, crappy story holding it together like the first issue of an "X-4" cross-over comic. Which I can't even find a good link for. The art is fine, though it pails in comparison to the cover, even if there isn't a great amount of consistency with how the characters look and all the women have back-breaking busts.

To F. Scott Fitzgerald:

You are right. "An exclamation point is like laughing at your own joke." But sometimes it is nice to laugh at your own jokes. Sometimes, if you don't laugh, no one will. Sometimes, I like to just entertain myself.

And I bloody like how they look!

Lady and the Tramp (1955 movie, rewatched)

Like many movies from the fifties, but especially all of Walt Disney's "Masterpieces", Lady and the Tramp has an impressive focus on its score. Far more so than what one sees now-a-days, which is one of my repeating, repeating and constant laments. It is nice to see an old movie where not only the atmosphere, but individual character movements are choreographed with music. Where the sounds that they make are integrated with the score. The music is built around what is said, what is done, integral sound effects, and everything, really, so that it acts as the major supporting framework of the movie.

It is not a bad way to make a movie. Some people are visual, some are auditory. Disney was probably both. But even visual people (most visual people) like music. It has this weird quality to it: utterly abstracted from normal reality. It 'mimics' less that you'd find in the outside world than a Pollock paining, and yet it is not only instantly accessible to most everyone, it is also powerfully moving. Directly connected to the emotions; so predictable, it can create a mood more quickly and easily than anything else. It is somewhat bizarre that it works, if ya think about it, but in the end, it does. Which is neat.

But it can overshadow a script. If you get over the brainwashing done on you by the score, you might notice that Lady and the Tramp's script is a little... strange. If you go back over it, there are many instances where something doesn't quite make sense. As if they changed it a little, but not all the way. Well, that's exactly what they did to much of this movie.

It isn't all that noticeable. What is more noticeable is the layers of depth that were part of it for such a simply story in essence. As the title implies, Lady and the Tramp is a 'Beauty-and-the-Beast Story' (as opposed to a Cinderella Story). It comes off remarkably well. But it was one of my favorite movies when I was young, so perhaps I'm a little biased. Still, it's a pretty "Good" movie if you ignore some of the implications of a Beauty-and-the-Beast Tale...




Analysis (spoilers will probably follow):



All our childerens cartoons come up against some pretty unfair scrutiny sometimes. But then, you always end up wondering what someone'll get out of a story. The Little Mermaid has a girl gettin' the guy because she shows up naked and mute. "Kiss the Girl 'cuz she shore can't say no right now". Hm. The Lion King vilifies the only Lion willing to bridge inter-species gaps with the Hyenas. Doesn't help that he's the only "black" lion. What's this say about tolerance. Cinderella stories reinforce the very untrue myth that you can become a ruler from meek servitude and poverty, even though that is despicably unlikely. "Beauty-and-the-Beast" stories tell girls that they can tame that tramp. Change the man into who they want them to be.

But as our conventional wisdom tell's us, you can't expect to change anyone. Guy or girl, it's better to find someone you like for who they are.

Which sounds so simple, yet it obviously isn't.

How good of a house pet would Tramp really make? He did knock over that baby-carriage, no matter how mean that little rat looked. And he plays it up, too, making his paw look broken. This guy fought off three vicious dogs without breakin' a sweat and one little rat's gonna break his foot?

It takes a horse carriage to do that to Trusty.

But I really don't want to bash the movie all that much. My rant is though.

Stress: Portrait of a Killer (National Geographic Documentary Film, )

What's fascinating about Stress: Portrait of a Killer is how it 'paints a portrait' of what stress is and what causes it as though it is sympathetic and interested in lowering the overall stress found in modern society, yet the film is very good at giving you more. It doesn't really offer solutions to how stressed you may be, other than: "get ahead already! Being subordinate is killing you!" which isn't really all that helpful. Most people would already like to 'get ahead' if they knew how.

But the documentary is enlightening and provides a few de-stressing details such as: if you help people, you gan decrease the symptoms of aging and over-stressing.

Yay! Saved? No? Well, you're probably not very different from anyone else. We live with a lotta stress. Perhaps we should think about that and begin to impose some societal changes. Make the world a little better place, eh?

The Muppet Movie (1979)

How did Sweetums arrive at the screening of the movie late when he was already there "taking chairs" in the beginning?

Not that this matters in The Muppet Movie, a film which uses it's own script as a plot device. This is Jim Henson humor, using the opportunity to tell whatever joke comes to mind. Plays on words such as 'Fork in the Road' and 'Hopping Mad'. A lot of people call it 'corny', but I love my puns. I like the muppets and their surrealistic humor!

But who can hate the muppets? They are so "Innocent and Funny"! Sure they teach kids to slack off in school by the end, but it's not Sesame Street. Just because it's 'innocent' doesn't mean it's completely benign. It was always an adult variety show; it just casts colorful puppet with even more brightly colored personalities. Muppets are not subtle in who they are and who they parody. From the hippy chick guitar playing Janice (who really was ahead of her time; she's probably funnier to people outside Hollywood now) to Piggy the Diva. One can usually tell that everyone's dialog was written by the same people because everyone has the same sense of humor. Which is enjoyable.

Another thing they do well is music. Like Disney but very different. Henson inspires less criticism, has less controversy, about his creations. Muppets inspire a warm-fuzzy feeling which is hard to say anything unfriendly about. There is a reason they persist so strongly even though their creator has long since met his demise. Kermit is almost older than Jim ever got. More's the pity.

Plus it's got about a thousand guest appearances from Richard Pryor to Bob Hope.

Night Kite Revival (slam poetry at Western State College, Sept 27, 2010)

This years version of the Elephant Engine High Dive Revival: The Night Kite Revival. Buddy Wakefield, Derrick Brown and Anis Mojgani are the "core members" of  The Poetry Revival, which changes its name every year. This year, at Western State College, there was a little starker cast: only three poets; but they did have a musician: Timmy Straw. Timmy didn't have as many performances as the three poets, but added background music to nearly every poem that was always spot-on appropriate. Timmy seems to prefer the piano to all the instruments s/he can play, and is so impressively gender-neutral I am unsure of what descriptor to use. Her singing has a soft, unarticulated quality which makes more of the music than the lyrics. However, from what little I could catch of the lyrics in one listen, they aren't empty songs.

The show was a very well spent two hours, but I still missed Robbie Q. Telfer and Shira Erlichman. They were some of my favorite performers. They mix humor with wisdom very skillfully and effectively. I take my humor very seriously, and The Poetry Revival does as well, but only Buddy Wakefield is as humorful as young Robbie. This night, less humor came out than on previous shows I have seen, and less power came as well. At least for me. It wasn't my favorite reading. Partly because of how much actual reading was done during performances. It limits what the performer can do; the best works are ones unencumbered by a page.

The show's still a tear-jerker; not because it's sad, but because it is so uplifting. That is what their poetry is about.

Buddy Wakefiled has a style which is oft copied. It is no wonder he gets so mad at people posting "you-tubes" of his performances. There was a slew of them from this night (which I'm grateful for because they helped me get Timmy's name! I had forgotten and it was surprisingly difficult to find) and they have already vanished. He is an accessible performer, usually telling a story with vibrant imagery. But it's easy to tell where he is and what he's talking about.

Which isn't always true for either Derrick or Anis. Derrick's first poem, about being a weather man (he was an awesome one, by the way), was very accessible, and one of my favorites, but he read from a page more than any other performer. Aw well. He can obviously have fun wherever and whatever he was doing and was a thusly fun on the stage.

Anis has a unique delivery that is far from all his own. It is the sound of every mystical, feel-good delivery ever. I kinda like it. With Timmy backing him up, he sounds a little like that Baz Luhrmann advice thing that's so ever popular. But he has my favorite delivery. For his style of poetry.

If you've never seen a Poetry Revival, they are better than most stand-up comedy shows, funnier than most concerts, sexier than most trombones, and smarter than any lecture. Definitely a "Must See", if there is any such thing.

Ponyo (2008 movie)

What an interesting version of The Little Mermaid Ponyo makes. It is so much truer to the original than the good ol' Disney Version. Consequently, really, it is far from my favorite Studio Ghibli film. It avoids all those thorny issues brought up by Anderson and Disney Studios (highlighted by some skits by Adam Grabowski) such as: she just became human and can't talk, and how much younger than that guy is she? Wrong on so many levels. At least to our current society.

In Ponyo, the 'prince' and the 'mermaid' are at least both, like, four (or "five", whatever). But that is pretty young to be making "big decisions" that will, of course, save the entire freaking world, man!

Other than that, Ponyo suffers from a consistent problem with a lot of literature that comes out of japan: there's a ton of exposition. Perhaps people just talk like that in Japan, there are some cultural differences, but I've never heard it. It always breaks me out of the story to hear a character telling another something like, "you're my daughter, because I'm your father; I was there when you were born on the 13 of December, 2005 which makes you five years old! Did you know you were 5 years old?"

As with any Hayao Miyazaki movie, there are some environmental overtones which I always appreciate. But none of it makes sense here. Love is cool and all, but it isn't going to save the world from a bizarre release of Devonian creatures. It was kinda spiffy to see them animated out, and watch a five year old swimming with them, but just because it was "the age of fish", doesn't mean an explosion of aquatic life will lead to some sort of necessary 'devolution'.

Ponyo is a fun movie, it's about as good as it can be, but it is itself something of a "Devolution" from Hayao's older movies. I would rather see Howl's Moving Castle.

Adam Grabowski (comedian, September 23 at Western State College)

"Like, really? I don't know. Really. I have no idea."

That's what you will hear at an Adam Grabowski show. About 277 times. "Life is harder of me" was a segment he did, along with a short beg to believe that these things actually happen to him.

Apart from that, he has some good jokes. Adam can be very funny when he isn't pleading with his audience or humbling himself with his favorite phrase ("I really don't know. I have No. I. Dea."). A lot of people have built in humbling phrases or actions (mine, actually, is "I don't know", along with "I think this might just could maybe be possible but I could be wrong"), but they should be weeded from performances or any kind. I hope he doesn't say that so often when he's substitute teaching.

Adam tells a lot of jokes about men and women, and about picking up women, which are unpalatable to a great many people. Like any comedian, he can offend. Also, like most comedians, he has good points about stupid stuff that people do. He doesn't touch on really "important" issues, he isn't one of those comedians who makes you laugh and then leaves you with some deep thoughts, which disappoints me (especially when his tag line was "Comedian and Life Commentator"), but he elicits laughs.

 he seems very personable, and a nice person in his post-show demeanor. He just needs to work on his delivery. Stop saying "I don't know", I understand he

He can be "Funny", but he is little more than that.

Aliens of the Deep (2005 documentary, extended version)

You might expect Aliens of the Deep to be about underwater animals. It is, but that is not it's all about. Not even what it is mostly about. Mostly, it is about science and the scientists who believe in it. Then, it's about space (the final frontier!) and how cool it would be to find life on Europa. Only then it is about underwater exploration and the life that is down there. That provides eye-candy, tangible mystery, and a story. But it is James Cameron's metaphor because he hasn't successfully taken his cameras to space.

Yet.

If you want to see a documentary that's more about sea creatures, look for them by the Nature Channel, Discovery, or National Geographic. It wont have the cinematography, the Hollywood flare, or the human angle, and it wont have the budget that Cameron and Disney can bring to a documentary. It may have more science explained, but it also, actually, wont be as thoroughly explained.

Aliens of the Deep is a very informative movie and it can also be entertaining. Cameron made the movie so that you get to see it as if you were there. On a scientific expedition funded by the entertainment industry--which has so much more to give than any science foundation in existence.

In the process, it showcases the brilliance of humanity, what we can achieve, what we have achieved, and our total lack of wisdom. "Unwise Intelligence". After countless hours developing the technology, building the submarines, taking them out onto the ocean, cutting out the wall of the ship because the A-frame crane broke, we venture into an alien world, untouched by humanity! And it is beautiful. And like a child on the beach, we say, "Wow. Let's take it home!" So we cut it out and put it in a jar. Sometimes, we remember the air holes, sometimes we don't even bother and would just like the carcass to dissect.

How else'll we learn! We have to learn about these animals on earth before we do this somewhere else in the universe. Before we can go invade another world to study it's citizens... It's the same frustrating arrogance which is attacked by the makers of the blockbuster Avatar.

Which was, uh, James Cameron....

Crazy.

This is how we learn. And knowledge is valuable. And it is valuable for people to know what goes into our knowledge. Facts which are conveniently ignored by most animal documentaries. But there is a time to ask when the knowledge is worth it. Animal testing teaches us many things, but none of it helps dogs. Perhaps we should leave them alone. I cannot shake the feeling that exploring another world for life is as misguided as trying to "cure" aging.

What if we accidentally poison it with our presence?

The Education of Little Tree (1997 movie)

It is immediately apparent, after finishing the movie The Education of Little Tree, that there was a book. It is "Inexpertly Abridged" in it's movie which glosses though everything so quickly and with such fleeting or nonexistent transitions that it feels like five, or so, independent stories -- and could have been so many short films instead of one feature. It was originally intended as a made-for-TV movie. Things go so quickly that "The Education of" could have been scratched from the title without missing anything. It's supposed original title is "Me and Granpa" and could have worked better for Granpa is the most developed, or at lest interesting, character. He's like Crocodile Dundee but he likes his knife more. And drinks whiskey. And lived in the 20's.

There are some very good parts to The Education of Little Tree, and some good things to say, but it is also hyper-romantic about Native Americans. Which in itself can be good and bad. The author of the book, Asa Earl "Forrest" Carter, convinced himself that he was part Indian and the grown-up Little Tree when in reality he used to be a segregationist politician and member of the KKK. It is good that he (apparently) learned that white people aren't the "Master Race", a little ironic that he now (apparently) believes that Cherokees are, and good that he learned the value of living frugally. But he never did live in the mountains, he lived in Texas and Alabama. This does a disservice to the Cherokees, this over-romantic view, but it also does a service. Forrest himself is the proof of that--even if he lied about his past and claimed this story as a memoir. This attitude can garner respect, but a cheapened, unreal respect based on falsities. Likewise, if his memoir is fake, then perhaps his kernels of wisdom about frugal mountain living are just as fictional.

Who wants that?

Well, a lot of people. But it is not as nice as respect based on who you actually are. And I believe in his living ideals, not in those he held as Asa Carter. His transformation was positive, if not perfect, and his story is largely wise, if not perfect. Besides, there's a hilarious scene with a frog, some funny stuff about politics (especially interesting considering his background as a speech writer) and shoes. And some stark truth to the Carlisle-esque Indian re-education schools. The movie just isn't told with the greatest degree of skill.

The Theif Lord by Cornelia Funke (2000 - 2002, English translation)

I began reading The Thief Lord after I had gotten to page 52 in Good News by Edward Abbey. After page 52, it skipped to page 85... so I decided to get another copy. Unlike Plane and Normal, Good News is worth finding a new copy and finishing. Abbey was a brilliant and concientious writer. Entertaining and literarily unique. He could string sentences almost like Poe.

The Thief Lord was up against that competition. One thing that can be said for it is that the ending is different. Very un-American. But it was originally published in German, a fact well concealed by the publisher, doing a disservice to Cornelia, the translator Oliver Latsch, and the reader. I will always wonder how good the original is, but the translation is not nearly impressive enough for me to read it in another language. This book is largely unimpressive and it is an easy book to find errors in. Descriptions can be "Nonsensical" at best, often distracting, and it is a mystery why so many people in Italy, or who grew up in Germany, are constantly speaking in English. The plot is lusterless, the characters drab. Interactions are sparse. Unlike the renown Harry Potter, which is appealing far outside it's original age group, this book can't stand under scrutiny from an elder audience.

And though it could be interesting and a good read for a 12 year old, there may be some messages they can get which would be unfavorable. Such as: being a runaway street rat is fun!

The general problem with this book is that Cornelia tells you one thing (Victor Getz is a great detective) and shows you something else (a bumbling fool - but that's only one example). The plot is standard and predictable, even though characters aren't well developed, you can easily assume where things are going. And yet the setting is difficult to nail down. Though the book is set in "modern" Venice, I felt like I was somewhere between the 21st and the 19th century. Until they start pulling out cell-phones and motor boats.

Movie theaters don't stand out like a "child among grown ups", but this book certainly does. I wanted to read Inkheart, after watching the movie, but this book, by the same author, makes me much less enthusiastic (but I suppose there could be a better translator).




Analysis (spoilers will follow):



The Thief Lord starts out stronger than it ends. Cornelia takes her time, character interact a little better, it hasn't devolved into clichéd relationships yet. There is unique imagery, sometimes, but often because it doesn't really work.

She talks about the "magic" of Venice. So I suppose there was some foreshadowing for the Magical Merry Go-Round which shows up 2/3 of the way through the book. That is hardly enough. The sudden appearance of this 'Narnian Wardrobe' so late in the story makes it feel like a cop out. Like it was just inserted because she couldn't think of anything better.

When Scipio is first introduced, it is hard to tell wheather he is really a thief or not. But it is hard to imagine that he isn't, really. It's unbelievable, but the kids seem to think they've seen him stealing. Then he's not and one must wonder why the other children ever believed him so throughly. Similarly, when the idea of the Magical Merry Go-Round is first introduced, one thinks: it cannot be real, though.... There's no way. She wouldn't make it... Oh. She did. Wow.

Computers

Once, about five years ago, I had an "iRiver" sorta like an iPod classic, but not quite so snazzy (it had a better battery, though, and could be used as a generic drive to store anything you wanted). It was cool for a little while, then it fell off the counter.

And that was the end of that.

Yesterday, I had an external hard drive. I tried to take as good of care of the the thing as I could: it has essentially everything I have ever done on a computer that's not somewhere in the 'cloud'. The files are a little messy as I have had to move from computer to computer, from server to server, rarely having my own computer and when I did, would like a back up. Because the last computer I had lasted about 3 months. So, there was a lot of redundant files I was trying to clean up. I was making some progress too!

Then it fell off of a table about 14 inches off of the ground.

And that's the end of that.

Fuck Piss Cunt Hell Damn Shit

Sling Blade (1996 movie, director's cut)

If you study film, I reckon Sling Blade would be good to see. Mm Hmm. The acting is really impressive, Thornton especially pays close attention to everything for his very specific and unique character: ticks, posture, voice, accent, expression, vernacular. They are all consistent. In some ways, it's an easy role, the ticks and voice aren't subtle, but he still never seems like he's acting, or is an actor. So much so that the acting becomes quite noticeable... which is bad, right? Good acting fosters disbelief suspension so that you don't think you are watching anything. But this performance opens the door to intense scrutiny. I still don't see Bill Bob in there, so I remain impressed.

The cinematography is uncommon as well. Most scenes are long, individual pieces. They aren't cut up into little ribbons like most modern films, but actually resemble 30's film-making, or even stage theatre, more. There are a lot of walking shots, as if you are a character, or some guy on the street, wandering around with them. Accompanying these shots is music that is not only noticeable, but laughable. The most distracting part of the film. The music makes some scenes that were supposed (I think) to be sentimental into pretty funny gags (but perhaps that was what they were going for).

Unless the musical choices were meant to be comedic reprieve, they were poor choices. I was entertained by this, but whenever the movie is going for sentimental, it misses the mark. I have no doubt that the producers believed in what they were making, and were "Heartfelt" in their work, but it doesn't show through the score. It can be tense, and it can be funny (a little), and it can promote itself as a heartfelt, sentimental movie, but it still misses the mark.

This is the minority opinion. You may not agree. It is still very dramatic and, unlike Rat Race which was obviously playtime for everyone involved, Sling Blade was made to be intelligent and "important" and "serious". It is technically brilliant spit shined to perfection.

And simply fails to feel sentimental. By just the hair on Billy Bob's head.

The plot is very character driven, but it is hard to nail down just who Karl Childers is. It seems almost that they change him into who they want him to be for each scene, but I will not accuse them of such heresy! It has enough good and legitimate heresy to offer. Still, considering how carefully Karl is portrayed, it makes for a rather odd feeling. Especially for such an impressive movie which can mean a great many different things to even just one person. And a great many more other things to the people watching with them.

In the end, however, I found myself bored. It was a long, slow-paced movie! I am a little ashamed that I was so bored, but I still was. Long, slow-paced, character developing movies are rare, and I appriciate it's existance, but I like character stories more as books, apparently. I do have my biases against television.

Mm Hmm.

Rat Race (2001 movie)

What a cast. Rat Race really is a 'remake' of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World: it's a race, in the desert, for money, and it seems to deliberately cast some of the best names in comedy for no other reason than to assemble the best names in comedy.

Which isn't a bad idea. It makes for a jolly movie.

Rat Race is a random, non-nonsensical movie, but it is very funny. Besides having a much easier name than it's predecessor, I find it funnier. That could be the generational gap. Rowan Atkinson is very funny, as usual, and Cuba Gooding Jr. also plays a highly entertaining character. Seth Green and Vince Vieluf's segments are the most slap-stickish of a very slap-stick movie and always accompanied by a cleverly appropriate musical score.

The ending is great, too. Pretty intelligent, philosophical really, for a "Wacky" movie like this.

A Child Called 'It' and The Lost Boy by David Pelzer

I heard of a lot of child abuse cases, but never before have I read about one in detail. What David Pelzer goes though in A Child Called 'It' is pretty remarkable. It's, uh, stunning. "Shocking", really. Almost 'unbelieveable'. It's easy to see why so many people (such as his brothers) don't believe Dave Pelzer: because they don't want to.

I don't want to fully believe him either. Knowing, as I do, how easy it is to create false memories, how difficult it is to remember anything in any sort of detail (unless your some sort of savant who can memorize a city layout after one short viewing), and how impossible it is to actually describe anything perfectly, despite what linguists would like. Also, he wrote his memoirs 20 years after he was abused. I wonder if even a savant would still remember everything perfectly after 20 years.

But essentially, I think he isn't trying to exaggerating or downplaying anything. He's trying to be faithful. He is corroborated by one brother, Richard (Russell in Dave's books) who has capitalized on Dave's venture and written a series of books himself: A Brother's Journey and A Teenager's Journey (A Man's Journey coming soon, which will probably feature the silhouette of a man with his arms raised on the front cover), about his personal abuse after David left. I don't vilify him for this, like some people do, I just criticize his covers and names, which are boring. I haven't read them, though I'd like to at least see the first.

I also did not read A Man Named Dave. I got too tired of his writing. Dave's may be better at titles than his little brother, but his writing leaves something to be desired. It's so up and down. You get to the point that your can predict how something is going to go: "I knew in my heart things would get better!..." means shit's gonna hit the fan. "But I knew in my heart it would never change" means there might be a change for a little while, if he's living with his mother, it's not to last and it really wouldn't change. His books could keep me up, though, so that's an accomplishment. It was very interesting to read the 'perspectives' chapters in the back which were written from so many different people. The last one, out of both books, written by Michael Marsh is the most skillfully written by far, but others really make Dave's writing seem brilliant.

The Lost Boy is just as remarkable as A Child Called It, and really just the second half of one book. Today, I think most people understand psychology and the reality of abuse a whole lot better than they did in the 70's. It is really hard for anyone to recover from abuse: it leaves scars on the brain so much more vivid than any on the body. That David was able to succeed in foster care at all, let alone so well, is, to use a tired cliché, nothing short of a miracle.

These books are inspirational and informative. It was a value reading them, and probably about as enjoyable as the subject matter would allow.

Bolt (2008 movie)

Bolt could have been called Toy Story, it has similar themes, or it could have been called A Bugs Life, it shares themes there. It, actually, shares a lot with a wide array of Pixar's movies, which is not surprising; even if Pixar's label is not on it.

It's just Disney. And

The first, oh, 5 to 10 minutes of Bolt were slightly painful for me. I find chase scenes more and more boring every time I see them. Though there was some humor injected into this one, it was still a good 70% longer than it ever should have been.

I thought the movie would be awful. But it does pick up and is a decent, entertaining film, even if it is highly clichéd. And includes some short speeches dripping with pine sap. The truly humorous thing is that this is mentioned early, almost like foreshadowing, making fun of you if you don't like sap. Sap can be good, maple's really good, but this movie does not use it well. At least the music makes up for what the story fails at, and the movie does all right.

It is "Fun".

Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein (1961, short original version)

Stranger in a Strange Land is "Good to Grok", though perhaps not in fullness. I very much like the book, and I find it wise and interesting most of the time. There are some things I disagree with, and there are parts other people will disagree with, but the story is comical and light-hearted. In essence, it is a platform for Heinlein to monologue on and on about his beliefs and philosophies, which could have been boring, but he is a good speaker. At least he is in the vicarious roll of Jubal Harshaw.

I happen to agree with him, for the most part. He has some thoughts about freedom of choice which I think are a tad unrealistic and he doesn't have the most modern understanding of sexuality and gender rolls, but he is intelligent and logical most of the time.

It is really interesting to see this future society which he envisioned in the early 60's that doesn't really have computers or CDs (books are on 'scan tape': a sort of projection of the words as you read which has completely replaced the written book somehow), they have really cool space rockets, and 'stero-vision' TV, and very important and pronounced gender rolls. Which are divided according to biological nature. Despite how much credit he gives to cultural impact on your development. I think he over-credits both: nature has more importance to your psychology than it does in this book, but gender-rolls are probably more cultural than psychological.

Can't get everything right. At least the female characters are still strong, independent and unique.

Until the end. I have read: Job: a Comedy of Justice (even if Job was funnier). But there were also a lot of similarities. A main protagonist works as a dishwasher for a short stint and it deals a lot with religion. The sense of humor is similar, and towards the end, they read very similarly; could even be mistaken for the other if it weren't for the names. The people talk very similarly, to those in the other story and to each other in the same book. In the last chapters, all the characters lose their autonomy and become anonymous copies of each other. And possibly all of Heinlein's other characters. This may have been semi-intentional, but I don't think it was supposed to be so bland. I felt bad that it happened and missed who they were.

But there is a lot in this long book. And I found out lately that I read the edited, 25% (?) shorter version! Stranger in a Strange Land has more depth.

The book is a utopia story, and as such describes a dystopia. As the former cannot even exist in a fictional literary world. There are things in the story which are obviously fantastically impossible.

It is a good book to "grok", which means that it should be savored and understood, contemplated. But drink it, you will find it refreshing if you keep your mind open. Or so I grok.

The Plague Dogs (1982 movie, pre-read)

For people who think Watership Down is a dark movie for being animated, watch The Plague Dogs. It has to be one of the most depressing movies I have ever seen. "I'm Ashamed to be Human." I had to read funny things after it and it's still in my head.

It's like watching Homeward Bound, animated and without the home. Set in a barren and bleak landscape with a barren and bleak tone. It is good movie, even if the animation isn't, really. And the pacing is a little strange. But the plot and the message are important. It's good to be ashamed to be human, sometimes. So we can become better. This is gritty and desolate, but doesn't suffer from the feeling of being 'inexpertly abridged' which the Watership Down movie does.

I saw the heavily edited US edition, which is (apparently) inferior and less moving. I'm not sure I need to see the full version, honestly. I won't seek it out. Perhaps I will read the book someday. But it was enough to watch it once, I feel.

Windows is:

Microsoft and Windows are the most pathetic excuses for a product ever created by anybody or anything. They suck in every way that something can suck. I get more processing capability out of a 1919 typewriter missing half its keys.

What the fuck?

Why do people still spend money on this whole-hearted piece of crap?

It's like some sadistic experiment? What will people put up with? Well, let's try and push 'em to their limits!

What trash. You would have to pay me $1000 to take a computer with any Microsoft product on it. Then I'd kill it with a sludge hammer and buy a rock with the money, maybe a stick. They are so much more valuable.

Fuck Microsoft with a sandpapery brick. They have never made anything worth more than a turd.

Step Brothers (2008 movie)

Step Brothers is a somewhat funny movie. It stars a cast completely of adults, but everyone plays a school yard, play ground, elementary character, from bully and associates to the dorks who play in the mud on the side. Except each character is larger and more exaggerated than they could ever be in real life. It is an interesting dynamic and somewhat enjoyable, but it remains the only remarkable aspect of the movie.

Besides how often they say "Fuck" a lot. A whole lot. "Fuck" and "Shit". It's used enough for it to get a little monotonous like the "refrains" in Chuck P.'s Invisible Monsters. It's like ending every single sentence in a paragraph with three exclamation points!!! Each and every time!!! So that, really, they are just periods!!! Gaudy, over-sized periods!!!

It loses it's point!!!

It is a funny movie if you like that and yelling. It's Ferrell's style of humor. There are people who like this movie more than other Ferrell projects, and I'll admit it's better than Anchor Man. But I still find it just "Alright". It wasn't really annoying, and it wasn't boring. I guess I enjoyed it, but I didn't find it particularly funny, besides a few instances.

Cool World (1992 movie)

I have rarely seen a title as dorky or lame as Cool World. But I thought, it could be a joke. It could be good. But don't let the title fool you, Cool World is really just dorky and lame. And amazingly, impressivly, surprisingly "Random"! Without even the faintest of strings holding the project together, this threadbare movie falls apart like a tee-shirt from Wal-Mart.

The boring introduction credits foreshadow this, but the first scenes don't. The first arc is actually pretty good, even if it's a little dark and sad. But it seems like the movie will have substance. Then you enter the "Cool World" which, if you consider that this movie was made four years after Who Framed Roger Rabbit, looks really flat. But don't do that because you may notice a lot of things which appear to be knocked off of that superior film. The visual effects are bad enough for me to believe that it was done on purpose as some sort of commentary on the ability of Hollywood to make a mimetic movie. But if it is trying to say anything, if it has any purpose, it doesn't come though. It is drowned in its own poor production. Everything in this movie is contrived and feels it. Especially the ending.

The visual style is a as apparently random as the plot; it is a little nice to see so many styles interacting at the same time, but it was not done very well and just feels cluttered. Especially with the random cartoons chasing around in the foreground.

This was Rough Draft Studio's rough draft movie. It has little in common with The Simpson's Movie, Ferngully, or Bevis and Butthead. There may have been something behind this movie, but it doesn't shine though and is lost in the baseless plot devices.

Maus: A Survivor's Tale by Art Spiegelman (1973-1991)

The third "comic book" (/graphic novel/sequential art display) which I have the pleasure of reviewing is as brilliant as the first two. Though in very different ways. The first was a textbook (which is awesome) called Understanding Comics, the next was the fictional Watchmen. Now the bibliographic Maus: A Survivors Tale. About the holocaust. Of all of them, my least favorite is the more traditional, but brilliant, fictional story Watchmen. Which says something about the powers and abilities of the graphic novel medium. It is not just a childish medium.

There is another story going on in Maus that is not talked about as often and that is the story of Art's relationship with his aging father. This story is so intimate and human as to be impossible to ignore, yet it is not discussed like the holocaust is. But it is this layer, as much as anything, that keeps me reading. Vladek is infuriating. But then, so is Art Spiegelman himself at times. Mala is enigmatic. Sometimes, it seems as though she is being an awful person, but most of the time, I believe she is being falsely accused. The author never reveals his stance on Mala and never takes a side.

Biographies and historical or nonfictional stories are interesting because characters are instantly deep and somehow it almost always comes across. And usually better than any fictional story has managed. Even the best fictions don't quite carry the weight that real people, described in a biography, have. It is true here. You will feel like you get to know Vladek and Artie and Françoise and will probably start discussing their psychology. There is no imagination in creating these characters, for they are real.

What is there to say about the holocaust aspect of this book? Maus is a very "Powerful" story because it has to be. And it is very readable because it is. I begin adopting the accents of the characters in the story as I read, which is always fun. This book could be the best one you ever read about the holocaust. On a level with Ann Frank's diary, but also definitely in a different category.