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.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
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.
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?
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?
Friday, September 24, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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
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
Monday, September 20, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
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".
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".
Monday, September 6, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)