Grandma's Boy was a pretty damn weird movie. Mainly because of the character J.P. played by Joel Moore. It was my favorite part because because I know a lot of people who are being lampooned by that character. Video game lovin', arrogant, japanophile geeks.
They can be pretty cool people. Sometimes.
But not usually in the way that Alex, played by Allen Covert. Now there may be a lot of people who think I'm woefully stupid, but I kept thinking this guy looked a little like a young (and fun) Mel Gibson. He just didn't act like him. I thought, if this is Mel, I've really underestimated him as an actor. This is the best part he's ever played. Not that the part was brilliant, but it would have been a departure for Gibson in such a way that it would be breath taking.
Since it's not, I still don't care about Gibson. And I don't know Covert enough to really judge his acting from this one part. It worked, but he wasn't my favorite character to watch. That distinction belongs to Grandma Lilly played by Doris Roberts.
This movie is a "Bit Bizarre". But it's funny, so if that's what you're lookin' for, this is a good one to see. Don't expect a lot from the ending. It doesn't end really abruptly, but it doesn't really tie up well, it just progresses down a blazé ending.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tales from Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin (limited background knowledge)
Tales from Earthsea was a remarkable book. I went into it not expecting to like it a whole lot. The last time I had tried to read Sparrowhawk's original trilogy, I only got about half way through The Tombs of Atuan before getting side tracked. Which I always consider a bad sign. I mean, I had a respect for Ursula's work, but not a great personal appriciation.
That has changed. My respect for her as a writer only increased when I read the forward. I loved where she was coming from and her ideas about writing. I was a little deterred from her writing style with the first page of he Book of the Dark which opens the story "The Finder". It was just so dry and boring and over-detailed to keep me going. I almost got side-tracked before I got started. I'm glad that I didn't, however. That opening excerpt from some old history of Earthsea was written the way it was for a reason: it's old and dusty history. Ursula has a command of many writing styles, she can use them skillfully, and she simply wrote that way because that was what was demanded from that section. Elsewhere in the story, her writing was different.
And in the next story, it was very different. By the time I completed all 5 stories, I had read five very different styles, each matched the story being told. By the time I completed all 5 stories, I had met very different characters from very different eras. They weren't defined by their roles, though that was an aspect of them. They were pretty Three-Dimensional. The collection is "like a good album", each story is autonomous, but work collectively with each other as well.
I very much want to read the five books in the central series now.
"The Finder":
"The Finder" is the first story in this collection is about the distant past. It is probably the longest and introduces many ideas in one form which you will see mutate in the culture of Earthsea as you read all five stories. It is a brilliant "introduction" to the land if you've never read a previous Earthsea novel, it establishes some senses of the land, but there's not much more to say about it. The style is the least daring and different and there are all the normal elements of fantasy such as adventure and magic and romance and stuff. It matches most closely, as far as my memory serves, the previous books about Earthsea.
"Darkrose and Diamond":
This story is the best illustration of how much Le Guin likes music. I don't know her, but I assume, from this story and from her descriptions of Magic being like Music (and from her sonic writing style) that she's pretty into that art form. This is the story where she explains that link if your not into reading A Description of Earthsea in the back of the book. The style here is a little more loose, it's more about the dialog than the narration, and it is far less serious than any of the other stories.
"The Bones of the Earth":
Though "Darkrose and Diamond" may be the least serious, the style of "The Bones of the Earth" is probably the brightest. The reader learns a little more about how magic functions in this world and a lot of background if you have read the Earthsea novels. At about this point in this collection, it would really behoove the reader to start in on the novels if they don't know them. "The Bones of the Earth" could go either way.
"On the High Marsh":
On the other hand, "On the High Marsh" may be better for readers who are not familiar with the saga of Ged. I do not know exactly how much would be known to readers of Tehanu, but I really enjoyed the surprises at the ending having not read it. In fact, "On the High Marsh" was my very favorite individual story in the entire collection. It was the most unique in terms of writing style, but it fit the character of the central wizard so well that this is the story where my opinion changed from "Good" to "Damn Good".
"Dragonfly":
If "On the High March" is the best individual story in this 'album', then "Dragonfly" is the finale which marks the work as a whole "Brilliant". The style is back to being a little like "The Finder", but with some influence by the other stories. Many themes make their way back into this story and it is where sexuality and gender differences really seem like they'll resolve in some way. Perhaps in the next book.
Which I am looking forward to reading.
That has changed. My respect for her as a writer only increased when I read the forward. I loved where she was coming from and her ideas about writing. I was a little deterred from her writing style with the first page of he Book of the Dark which opens the story "The Finder". It was just so dry and boring and over-detailed to keep me going. I almost got side-tracked before I got started. I'm glad that I didn't, however. That opening excerpt from some old history of Earthsea was written the way it was for a reason: it's old and dusty history. Ursula has a command of many writing styles, she can use them skillfully, and she simply wrote that way because that was what was demanded from that section. Elsewhere in the story, her writing was different.
And in the next story, it was very different. By the time I completed all 5 stories, I had read five very different styles, each matched the story being told. By the time I completed all 5 stories, I had met very different characters from very different eras. They weren't defined by their roles, though that was an aspect of them. They were pretty Three-Dimensional. The collection is "like a good album", each story is autonomous, but work collectively with each other as well.
I very much want to read the five books in the central series now.
"The Finder":
"The Finder" is the first story in this collection is about the distant past. It is probably the longest and introduces many ideas in one form which you will see mutate in the culture of Earthsea as you read all five stories. It is a brilliant "introduction" to the land if you've never read a previous Earthsea novel, it establishes some senses of the land, but there's not much more to say about it. The style is the least daring and different and there are all the normal elements of fantasy such as adventure and magic and romance and stuff. It matches most closely, as far as my memory serves, the previous books about Earthsea.
"Darkrose and Diamond":
This story is the best illustration of how much Le Guin likes music. I don't know her, but I assume, from this story and from her descriptions of Magic being like Music (and from her sonic writing style) that she's pretty into that art form. This is the story where she explains that link if your not into reading A Description of Earthsea in the back of the book. The style here is a little more loose, it's more about the dialog than the narration, and it is far less serious than any of the other stories.
"The Bones of the Earth":
Though "Darkrose and Diamond" may be the least serious, the style of "The Bones of the Earth" is probably the brightest. The reader learns a little more about how magic functions in this world and a lot of background if you have read the Earthsea novels. At about this point in this collection, it would really behoove the reader to start in on the novels if they don't know them. "The Bones of the Earth" could go either way.
"On the High Marsh":
On the other hand, "On the High Marsh" may be better for readers who are not familiar with the saga of Ged. I do not know exactly how much would be known to readers of Tehanu, but I really enjoyed the surprises at the ending having not read it. In fact, "On the High Marsh" was my very favorite individual story in the entire collection. It was the most unique in terms of writing style, but it fit the character of the central wizard so well that this is the story where my opinion changed from "Good" to "Damn Good".
"Dragonfly":
If "On the High March" is the best individual story in this 'album', then "Dragonfly" is the finale which marks the work as a whole "Brilliant". The style is back to being a little like "The Finder", but with some influence by the other stories. Many themes make their way back into this story and it is where sexuality and gender differences really seem like they'll resolve in some way. Perhaps in the next book.
Which I am looking forward to reading.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Bismarck's United Church of Christ
I recently went to church (United Church of Christ) and had some fun. In some ways, this should go in my critic blog, but... That just seems... not its place. It's also something of an essay.
The sermon was pretty good with a lot of good ideas and morals espoused, but it got me thinking on a lot of things. One was my previous post, but there were some other less developed thoughts that went though my head.
The sermon was on the Prodigal Son. It is a nice little story with some good lessons. I don't want to seem like I don't like this story. I do. And I appreciate it's message.
But it's a bit simplified from reality. If you look at it another way, a very clinical way, the Father in the story positively reinforced his wayward son's poor behavior. He might just go be an idiot again because now he knows he can always come back home and be immediately and completely forgiven. In the version of the story I heard, the son was very apologetic, so I am not advocating not to forgive. On the contrary, even if he did it multiple times, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be forgiven. It should just be harder and harder to come by. Perhaps his father should, eventually, make it clear that he hasn't forgotten (completely).
Anyway... just a thought. Little simplified from reality, it doesn't tell what happened later. It shows how fiction can be incomplete. But if you read other thoughts I have, I believe that fiction can be more than fact as well.
The preacher also talked about Jesus being a new way and that we should not live in the past. However... Jesus is pretty far in the past.
I was also struck wondering how many in the congregation agreed, or pretended to agree, in church, but not back out in the rest of the world. You can't really argue in church, can you. The setting creates a certain constraint which you may not even be aware of. Meaning that you don't realize that you disagree, just because of the way it is phrased and the setting.
The sermon was pretty good with a lot of good ideas and morals espoused, but it got me thinking on a lot of things. One was my previous post, but there were some other less developed thoughts that went though my head.
The sermon was on the Prodigal Son. It is a nice little story with some good lessons. I don't want to seem like I don't like this story. I do. And I appreciate it's message.
But it's a bit simplified from reality. If you look at it another way, a very clinical way, the Father in the story positively reinforced his wayward son's poor behavior. He might just go be an idiot again because now he knows he can always come back home and be immediately and completely forgiven. In the version of the story I heard, the son was very apologetic, so I am not advocating not to forgive. On the contrary, even if he did it multiple times, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be forgiven. It should just be harder and harder to come by. Perhaps his father should, eventually, make it clear that he hasn't forgotten (completely).
Anyway... just a thought. Little simplified from reality, it doesn't tell what happened later. It shows how fiction can be incomplete. But if you read other thoughts I have, I believe that fiction can be more than fact as well.
The preacher also talked about Jesus being a new way and that we should not live in the past. However... Jesus is pretty far in the past.
I was also struck wondering how many in the congregation agreed, or pretended to agree, in church, but not back out in the rest of the world. You can't really argue in church, can you. The setting creates a certain constraint which you may not even be aware of. Meaning that you don't realize that you disagree, just because of the way it is phrased and the setting.
Haiti and "Acts of God"
I am not a particularly religious person myself, though I see the need and the use of it for many, many, many people. Perhaps nearly every, or even absolutely every, person. Yet despite my own lack of religion, I ain't got no quarrel with God.
I don't see how war could be "evidence that God does not exist" because their is evil in the world, nor do I see how famine could be evidence of the same thing, nor murder or rape or thievery, crime in general, poverty, or even suicide. Because all of this is what people do to each other. They are our sins and our fault. Not the fault of any God.
What could be the fault of God, are often called "acts of God" are things such as Earthquakes, volcanoes, avalanches (sometimes), hurricanes, tornadoes, et cetera.
But, as I said, I ain't got no quarrel with God. These things happen. Even in churches, people point to Haiti's earthquake as something to help those people with. And they are right, to a degree. Haiti needs help. But the earthquake is the least of the problem. That is just one symptom of a greater problem that's been perpetuated by people. Corporations and greedy powers the world over have been taking advantage of Haiti and helping keep their economy in the shitter. That is what should have gotten international attention decades ago. That is what needs to change. Before that does, any earthquake relief is being squandered and simply going into the pockets of the wealthy. Haiti ain't gettin' much of it.
I ain't got no quarrel with God, and I hope I'll be strong enough to maintain that position after a horrible natural disaster affects my life more intimately. What I do have a quarrel with are people hurtin' people and animals and plants and life in general. Even though it hasn't affected me very intimately. We are cruel to each other.
Why?
I don't see how war could be "evidence that God does not exist" because their is evil in the world, nor do I see how famine could be evidence of the same thing, nor murder or rape or thievery, crime in general, poverty, or even suicide. Because all of this is what people do to each other. They are our sins and our fault. Not the fault of any God.
What could be the fault of God, are often called "acts of God" are things such as Earthquakes, volcanoes, avalanches (sometimes), hurricanes, tornadoes, et cetera.
But, as I said, I ain't got no quarrel with God. These things happen. Even in churches, people point to Haiti's earthquake as something to help those people with. And they are right, to a degree. Haiti needs help. But the earthquake is the least of the problem. That is just one symptom of a greater problem that's been perpetuated by people. Corporations and greedy powers the world over have been taking advantage of Haiti and helping keep their economy in the shitter. That is what should have gotten international attention decades ago. That is what needs to change. Before that does, any earthquake relief is being squandered and simply going into the pockets of the wealthy. Haiti ain't gettin' much of it.
I ain't got no quarrel with God, and I hope I'll be strong enough to maintain that position after a horrible natural disaster affects my life more intimately. What I do have a quarrel with are people hurtin' people and animals and plants and life in general. Even though it hasn't affected me very intimately. We are cruel to each other.
Why?
The Prince of Egypt (movie, little background)
The Prince of Egypt is a fun movie. The animation style is very reminiscent (or, rather, antecedent) of The Road to El Dorado. They are both Dreamworks animation adventures, after all, but it is a pretty style.
Unfortuneately, the animation style is the best thing I can say about The Prince of Egypt. It was "Fun but Flawed". Since I have fairly limited experience with any older story of Moses, wether orignial or in the English translated versions of the Bible, I am unsure how much of my crtisism is toward that or this. It was kind of Dreamworks (Disney could learn a thing or two here) to put a little disclaimer in the beginning that admitted to using artistic lisense. Disney, however, if they used such a thing, would rarely be able to say that they tried to remain true to the spirit of the original tale. The only movie of theirs I can think of which could claim to have much similar with any "original spirit" was The Lion King with Hamlet.
The way that The Prince of Egypt was made does make me think that the original story is a parable that has little to do with historical fact. Perhaps there's a little historical relevance, but it's probably on par with the historical relevance to the Norse Creation Myth. It is, instead, a story with a purpose, like any number of the parables in the Bible such as David and Goliath or Noah's Arc. I suppose there are too many miracles, and too little understanding of psychology on the part of God, for me to think otherwise even though I will admit the possibility of its being factual.
It is not my favorite pariable of the Bible, either. Most pariables have a lesson. And, as many writers say, fiction can be more than fact, sometimes. The pariable here seems to be: cross me and I'll KILL you, for I am a mighty and powerful God! Hu-Rah!
NOTE: I apologize if much of this sounds offensive. That is not actually my point. Though I am not religious, really, myself. I have no quarrel with any God or Gods there might be and hope they have a sense of humor. I feel I give God more credit than this story because I assume, as a creator of humans and our bizarre psychology, he would understand it far better than the entity in this movie and could have concocted a better plan for getting the Hebrews out of Egypt using the pharaoh's half-brother and brother in spirit.
Unfortuneately, the animation style is the best thing I can say about The Prince of Egypt. It was "Fun but Flawed". Since I have fairly limited experience with any older story of Moses, wether orignial or in the English translated versions of the Bible, I am unsure how much of my crtisism is toward that or this. It was kind of Dreamworks (Disney could learn a thing or two here) to put a little disclaimer in the beginning that admitted to using artistic lisense. Disney, however, if they used such a thing, would rarely be able to say that they tried to remain true to the spirit of the original tale. The only movie of theirs I can think of which could claim to have much similar with any "original spirit" was The Lion King with Hamlet.
The way that The Prince of Egypt was made does make me think that the original story is a parable that has little to do with historical fact. Perhaps there's a little historical relevance, but it's probably on par with the historical relevance to the Norse Creation Myth. It is, instead, a story with a purpose, like any number of the parables in the Bible such as David and Goliath or Noah's Arc. I suppose there are too many miracles, and too little understanding of psychology on the part of God, for me to think otherwise even though I will admit the possibility of its being factual.
It is not my favorite pariable of the Bible, either. Most pariables have a lesson. And, as many writers say, fiction can be more than fact, sometimes. The pariable here seems to be: cross me and I'll KILL you, for I am a mighty and powerful God! Hu-Rah!
NOTE: I apologize if much of this sounds offensive. That is not actually my point. Though I am not religious, really, myself. I have no quarrel with any God or Gods there might be and hope they have a sense of humor. I feel I give God more credit than this story because I assume, as a creator of humans and our bizarre psychology, he would understand it far better than the entity in this movie and could have concocted a better plan for getting the Hebrews out of Egypt using the pharaoh's half-brother and brother in spirit.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Sandlot (1993 move, rewatched)
I always wondered, as a kid, how much of the Sandlot was true. I never figured very much, but I had this notion that Benny "The Jet" was a real baseball character who they just put in the movie.
But no, it's all fake. Imagine my horrible disappointment! Mr. Mertle isn't based on anyone, either!
The movie is still very fun, though I admit I am biased. I remember the movie from my childhood so it has some intrinsic nostalgic value. For a child, it is a great movie and it constantly tells you so. As an adult, this consistent reinforcement of "We got in the biggest ___ any of us had ever been in" get's tiresome. In the first five minutes of the movie, the narrator tells the audience this twice with regard to "pickles". I wanted to make a joke about this with my word-rating of the movie, but it's not really "the [anything] anyone has ever seen". Besides, that's a really long phrase to use. Instead, I think I'll just say that this is a "sentimental" movie.
The movie is episodic with very little transition from one story to the next. A little attention to transitions could have made the movie flow a little better. The child acting detracted from the flow as well. Kids are rarely brilliant actors. Since their characters were written pretty two-dimensionally, they didn't have the material to do much better, though. Some of the character's are really funny (particularly "Squints" just because of the faces he can make), and they all have a good line here or there.
But no, it's all fake. Imagine my horrible disappointment! Mr. Mertle isn't based on anyone, either!
The movie is still very fun, though I admit I am biased. I remember the movie from my childhood so it has some intrinsic nostalgic value. For a child, it is a great movie and it constantly tells you so. As an adult, this consistent reinforcement of "We got in the biggest ___ any of us had ever been in" get's tiresome. In the first five minutes of the movie, the narrator tells the audience this twice with regard to "pickles". I wanted to make a joke about this with my word-rating of the movie, but it's not really "the [anything] anyone has ever seen". Besides, that's a really long phrase to use. Instead, I think I'll just say that this is a "sentimental" movie.
The movie is episodic with very little transition from one story to the next. A little attention to transitions could have made the movie flow a little better. The child acting detracted from the flow as well. Kids are rarely brilliant actors. Since their characters were written pretty two-dimensionally, they didn't have the material to do much better, though. Some of the character's are really funny (particularly "Squints" just because of the faces he can make), and they all have a good line here or there.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Bridget Jones the Edge of Reason by Helen Fielding
I had started reading this book just after I finished the first Bridget Jones book and apparently reached my limit for listening to neurotic fictional women half way through because I put it down in favor of You Suck and Death Comes for the Arch Bishop, books I didn't particularly enjoy. Yay, me! I finally finished the damn thing.
Originally, I had some pretty harsh notes on the book. I verbally abused it pretty bad. Now that I'm through it, I'm not quite so harsh on it. However, the beginning is maddening! The ending makes up for it a bit, but I think I'm still gonna go with my original idea for the rating of "Gaaa!". Through most of this book, Bridget Jones isn't on "the Edge of Reason", she has hurled herself impressively far off that cliff. She's a bleeding psychopath!
While the first book was really like a new version of Pride and Prejudice, the second one is more like a modern version of Jane Eyre(head). 'Cause she's a bleeding airhead. I apologize to fans of that book, but if you relate to this woman, you should probably go get yourself some therapy. Perhaps take some of the moral advice that comes with the ending of this book and cease being able to relate with Bridget any longer.
Now I just need to watch the second movie and I'll have completed a study of Bridget Jones. I'm never gonna read the column, though, so I suppose I finish with a Bachelors.
Originally, I had some pretty harsh notes on the book. I verbally abused it pretty bad. Now that I'm through it, I'm not quite so harsh on it. However, the beginning is maddening! The ending makes up for it a bit, but I think I'm still gonna go with my original idea for the rating of "Gaaa!". Through most of this book, Bridget Jones isn't on "the Edge of Reason", she has hurled herself impressively far off that cliff. She's a bleeding psychopath!
While the first book was really like a new version of Pride and Prejudice, the second one is more like a modern version of Jane Eyre(head). 'Cause she's a bleeding airhead. I apologize to fans of that book, but if you relate to this woman, you should probably go get yourself some therapy. Perhaps take some of the moral advice that comes with the ending of this book and cease being able to relate with Bridget any longer.
Now I just need to watch the second movie and I'll have completed a study of Bridget Jones. I'm never gonna read the column, though, so I suppose I finish with a Bachelors.
Jerry Maguire (1996 movie)
What a fantastically popular movie this is! For being so... dull and "Unimpressive" most of the time.
Jerry Maguire is pretty predictable most of the time. It's got a real feel-good message, which could be really useful to a lot of people, and an all-star cast. But mostly it's got a lot of sweaty-faced monologues, bare butts, desperately heart-wrenching scenes. A little too desperate. They become noise and lose any of the power they could have had.
I don't understand Jerry at all. He has this epiphany, but he's still pretty gripped in befuddling behavior. He's the main source of speeches, at every occasion. He's interesting, but only for a little while.
There are some funny parts, and some unique scenes, I suppose. I was bored with Renée's performance, enjoyed Tom's, actually, even if his character was tedious, but was most impressed by Cuba's. He was the most fun and had the best character. He had his contradictions in character, but everyone in reality does, too.
That's all I can say about it, really, without using a barrage of unnecessary metaphors.
Jerry Maguire is pretty predictable most of the time. It's got a real feel-good message, which could be really useful to a lot of people, and an all-star cast. But mostly it's got a lot of sweaty-faced monologues, bare butts, desperately heart-wrenching scenes. A little too desperate. They become noise and lose any of the power they could have had.
I don't understand Jerry at all. He has this epiphany, but he's still pretty gripped in befuddling behavior. He's the main source of speeches, at every occasion. He's interesting, but only for a little while.
There are some funny parts, and some unique scenes, I suppose. I was bored with Renée's performance, enjoyed Tom's, actually, even if his character was tedious, but was most impressed by Cuba's. He was the most fun and had the best character. He had his contradictions in character, but everyone in reality does, too.
That's all I can say about it, really, without using a barrage of unnecessary metaphors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)