"The Ugly Truth" isn't really ugly, but I'd still call it "Unattractive". It had some good moments in it. Some pretty funny scenes, one good joke on the characters. But overall, I didn't laugh as much as I would want to by sitting through it.
Apart from being a pretty standard Chick-Flick, not any sort of 'battle of the sexes' as it claims to be, this movie makes me afraid that some people will believe the Ugly Truth that is espoused by the main man. They don't really debunk it, after all, and it seems to be a popular thought in our culture. One that I disagree with. A gross over-simplification of one type of person represented by the characters in the film. Reality is far more complicated then they make it out to be. There is more than one type of man and more than one type of woman.
But this is probably being a little paranoid. Who could take a chick-flick seriously?
I did like Katherine Heigl's acting. I'm not highly acquainted with her acting, but I found that her quirks of facial expression endearing in this movie. It fit the insecure, yet weirdly arrogant, control-freak she played. But this is the best thing I can say for the movie.
Perhaps I'm just tired of reviewing Chick-Flicks. Which is similar to reviewing the taste of various ketchups from fast-food joints. There isn't that much difference and, while popular and good with potatoes, not that deep or involved.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Growth is not Good and the progress of Gunnison Falling
Growth is Good. That is what we are told by our greatest economists. If you are not growing, then obviously you are shrinking and who wants that? Bigger is better. ...Unless you are a cell phone or an iPod... Or pretty much anything made of silicone and copper. This mentality, coupled by the vast acreage of land in the Americas, has lead us to build, copiously, out.
Even Gunnison has bought into this. A few months ago, I knew of hardly anyone who liked the idea of "Gunnison Rising", now it seems that many people are for it, especially our entrepreneurs. But I don't completely understand why. All kinds of arguments are put forth by the proponents (and the opponents), most of which are beside the real point I think. I know this is true for me. My real point is that I don't want to the fields shrink, but I also don't want to see Gunnison grow. I don't want to see our Main Street die. I'll give all sorts of other arguments, but I give them only in hopes that they will be important to others. I assume my opponents are fairly similar. The primary reason I have gotten, so far (besides a belief that is is the 'lesser of two evils') is that this growth will solve our economic woes. Even though it is understood that the building on the annexation will not be complete for 30 years at least.
However, I do not believe this is true. Denver is huge, but it has economic woes. Large than ours, I think. They "control their growth", but it doesn't solve any labyrinthine parking-lot issues or beautify their city. What I think will happen if Gunnison Rising passes will actually be the slow disintegration of our Main Street as more conglomerate chains have the opportunity to move in. No local business can compete with a business more powerful than the government.
Such as Super Wal-Mart. Gunnison Rising heralds their approach, and they eat small business for appetizers. Somehow, they appeal to people, though. If Gunnison's population begins to grow, they will try to build again and they will not be as easy to stop. Especially if some of our not-so-average-in-a-good-way citizens move out because they don't like the development and are not here to stop them.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we wont lose to many people and those who move it will be just as anti-corporate greed. I'm not so fatalistic to believe that everything will get worse. No matter what. Which is why I don't completely understand those who say that the alternative is a bunch of County houses springing up. For two reasons: the Brattons have stopped unplanned development so far and there isn't room for that many people. Gunnison rising has plans for a commercial district because there wouldn't be any jobs for new residents. So why would they come?
That doesn't mean we're doing all that bad now, though. For the residents here. Not relative to anyone else, anyway. Bad economy has affected big and small. Actually, small economies seem to weather it better. Such as North Dakota or Alamosa. They never had as far off the ballooning artificial economy we live in. We have that idea that growth is good, it will solve all our economic woes. But all it really is is growth. A bigger economy not so much different from ours now, just bigger and therefore less wieldy. What we need, instead, are plans to improve the economy as it stands. So that, no matter the size, it will function for all the people who live here.
There are multiple benefits, as I see it, to taking this stance instead, not the least of which are affects felt sooner than 30 years from now.
Even Gunnison has bought into this. A few months ago, I knew of hardly anyone who liked the idea of "Gunnison Rising", now it seems that many people are for it, especially our entrepreneurs. But I don't completely understand why. All kinds of arguments are put forth by the proponents (and the opponents), most of which are beside the real point I think. I know this is true for me. My real point is that I don't want to the fields shrink, but I also don't want to see Gunnison grow. I don't want to see our Main Street die. I'll give all sorts of other arguments, but I give them only in hopes that they will be important to others. I assume my opponents are fairly similar. The primary reason I have gotten, so far (besides a belief that is is the 'lesser of two evils') is that this growth will solve our economic woes. Even though it is understood that the building on the annexation will not be complete for 30 years at least.
However, I do not believe this is true. Denver is huge, but it has economic woes. Large than ours, I think. They "control their growth", but it doesn't solve any labyrinthine parking-lot issues or beautify their city. What I think will happen if Gunnison Rising passes will actually be the slow disintegration of our Main Street as more conglomerate chains have the opportunity to move in. No local business can compete with a business more powerful than the government.
Such as Super Wal-Mart. Gunnison Rising heralds their approach, and they eat small business for appetizers. Somehow, they appeal to people, though. If Gunnison's population begins to grow, they will try to build again and they will not be as easy to stop. Especially if some of our not-so-average-in-a-good-way citizens move out because they don't like the development and are not here to stop them.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we wont lose to many people and those who move it will be just as anti-corporate greed. I'm not so fatalistic to believe that everything will get worse. No matter what. Which is why I don't completely understand those who say that the alternative is a bunch of County houses springing up. For two reasons: the Brattons have stopped unplanned development so far and there isn't room for that many people. Gunnison rising has plans for a commercial district because there wouldn't be any jobs for new residents. So why would they come?
That doesn't mean we're doing all that bad now, though. For the residents here. Not relative to anyone else, anyway. Bad economy has affected big and small. Actually, small economies seem to weather it better. Such as North Dakota or Alamosa. They never had as far off the ballooning artificial economy we live in. We have that idea that growth is good, it will solve all our economic woes. But all it really is is growth. A bigger economy not so much different from ours now, just bigger and therefore less wieldy. What we need, instead, are plans to improve the economy as it stands. So that, no matter the size, it will function for all the people who live here.
There are multiple benefits, as I see it, to taking this stance instead, not the least of which are affects felt sooner than 30 years from now.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Watership Down by Richard Adams
"Watership Down" is a unique book. In the beginning, it reads very short. Conversations seem short, chapters seem short, most everything seems truncated. It feels somewhat amateurish for a book proclaimed as such a classic. However, as the book progresses, this appears the be the intentional style because his characters are rabbits. He explains the psychology of rabbits some, in the book, or at least how he imagines rabbits would think. There are some points I would contend with (rabbits would probably be hyper-specific, like horses; meaning any 'new' thing is a thing to be afraid of, even if it was the same object just approached from the other side), but that is neither here nor there. That is arguable. He did do some research on rabbits.
However, back to the style, it could be that he hadn't hit his stride with the book until mid-way and the dealings with Efrafa because he becomes more fluid here. Then again, it could have been that he was better at writing the kinds of stuff that happened in the second half. I think the latter is more likely.
Still, it is a "Fine Read" if you can get over how much he uses the term "rank and file". It is nearly as good as it could be given the limitations inherent in the format that Adams used for the book. One of these limitations is that there are simply far, far too many characters! You cannot possibly keep them all straight. At times, it seems like you are expected to keep track of them all; but you can get away with not knowing anyone. However, I still find it annoying when a character is mentioned and I have to pause and say, "Ok... who's that again?" Perhaps a character glossary would have been nice, but my copy had no such thing.
"Watership Down" glosses over a lot of topics, not addressing them specifically but mentioning them in such a way that you can get a grasp on where Adams stands himself. The worst of these is his stance on the female. Like Tolkien, his book is very highly male oriented. When I read that new warrens are, in reality, often started by females and warrens are, in reality, matriarchal, his sexism is very apparent. The book also has a very karmic overtone...
Spoiler alert:
Both of these appear to me in the same way: it is in who Adams kills. The beginning of the book tries to be all "the world's dangerous for rabbits! We're all gonna die!" without killing one character. The first character to die, that it's an enemy (they die really easily because they are bad guys) is a female. Two of them die really quickly, but none of the main male characters will ever bite it. Until they die of age, of course. But like Aragorn they live weirdly long.
However, back to the style, it could be that he hadn't hit his stride with the book until mid-way and the dealings with Efrafa because he becomes more fluid here. Then again, it could have been that he was better at writing the kinds of stuff that happened in the second half. I think the latter is more likely.
Still, it is a "Fine Read" if you can get over how much he uses the term "rank and file". It is nearly as good as it could be given the limitations inherent in the format that Adams used for the book. One of these limitations is that there are simply far, far too many characters! You cannot possibly keep them all straight. At times, it seems like you are expected to keep track of them all; but you can get away with not knowing anyone. However, I still find it annoying when a character is mentioned and I have to pause and say, "Ok... who's that again?" Perhaps a character glossary would have been nice, but my copy had no such thing.
"Watership Down" glosses over a lot of topics, not addressing them specifically but mentioning them in such a way that you can get a grasp on where Adams stands himself. The worst of these is his stance on the female. Like Tolkien, his book is very highly male oriented. When I read that new warrens are, in reality, often started by females and warrens are, in reality, matriarchal, his sexism is very apparent. The book also has a very karmic overtone...
Spoiler alert:
Both of these appear to me in the same way: it is in who Adams kills. The beginning of the book tries to be all "the world's dangerous for rabbits! We're all gonna die!" without killing one character. The first character to die, that it's an enemy (they die really easily because they are bad guys) is a female. Two of them die really quickly, but none of the main male characters will ever bite it. Until they die of age, of course. But like Aragorn they live weirdly long.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Men Who Stare at Goats (movie)
I had some hopes for this movie and I was not disappointed. George Cloony is almost as entertaining as I have ever seem him (not quite as funny as "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?") in this rather bizzare movie. Ewan McGregor is likewise fun to watch. And a brilliant move to cast Obi Wan Kenobi in this movie as an 'inside joke' of sorts. Neither actor is at their best, when it comes to acting: they are very like most of their other characters I have seen them play. But this does not detract from the movie. They were fun to watch in a "fun and funny" little movie. Though it is, in the end, a little more than that.
It's also intelligent, if you watch closely enough. The wisdom always being covered up in a joke.
Most of the overt wisdom I noticed in the film came from the very same source they made the most fun of: the "hippie". Though they made fun of other groups, such as our military and our greedy corporations, "New Agers" was their primary target. And also their primary ally. I hope this is not lost on most viewers because they smothered it in jokes and impossibilities.
But it's not that important. The primary goal of this movie is as entertainment and the (not so overt) wisdom that can come from that. The fact that (spoiler alert!) only one man stares at a goat only once during the movie really illustrates the style of humor through this movie. It is irreverent, odd, and physical. If you like funny faces, then you will find them here (you will even if you don't like funny faces, assuming you watch the movie). From beginning to end, it was obvious that the writers and directors of this movie rather enjoyed putting it together. Juxtaposing military and hippie culture and creating a situation where the two attempted to co-exist. In the end, hippies aren't very good at being a clandestine military tool, however. Who'd a thunk.
I was very happy with the movie. Could hardly have been happier, really. I could watch this movie again. Which is saying a lot, coming from me. It is highly recommended.
It's also intelligent, if you watch closely enough. The wisdom always being covered up in a joke.
Most of the overt wisdom I noticed in the film came from the very same source they made the most fun of: the "hippie". Though they made fun of other groups, such as our military and our greedy corporations, "New Agers" was their primary target. And also their primary ally. I hope this is not lost on most viewers because they smothered it in jokes and impossibilities.
But it's not that important. The primary goal of this movie is as entertainment and the (not so overt) wisdom that can come from that. The fact that (spoiler alert!) only one man stares at a goat only once during the movie really illustrates the style of humor through this movie. It is irreverent, odd, and physical. If you like funny faces, then you will find them here (you will even if you don't like funny faces, assuming you watch the movie). From beginning to end, it was obvious that the writers and directors of this movie rather enjoyed putting it together. Juxtaposing military and hippie culture and creating a situation where the two attempted to co-exist. In the end, hippies aren't very good at being a clandestine military tool, however. Who'd a thunk.
I was very happy with the movie. Could hardly have been happier, really. I could watch this movie again. Which is saying a lot, coming from me. It is highly recommended.
Thank You for Smoking (movie)
I enjoyed this film far more than I expected to. I thought it'd be depressing. "Good", yes: I would begrudgingly have to admit that it was good. But I did not think I would enjoy the hour someodd I spent watching it. But I find that I did. I'm not sure how, but it was an entertaining film.
This movie is not an anti-smoking film, as one who is against smoking may think given the ironic title. Nor is this movie pro-smoking. Nor is this movie really pro or anti anything besides possibly lobbyists (bloody lobbyists!). Knowing that, I would have thought I'd like the movie even less. But the plot was engaging enough, and the dastardly characters charming enough, that I didn't get too mad. Maybe a little, but who wouldn't? It's written to excite you a little bit. Unless you really were part of the "Death Squad", you would find Nick Naylor (the main character) contemptible. But then you would just get mad at other parts of the movie.
Perhaps that is what "Thank You for Smoking" does. It manages to be balanced enough that the parts that depress me and make me angry are off-set by the funny and intelligent parts (read: parts I agree with). It stays true to its characters and its plot in such a way that it has sincerity. And though the lobbyist is a little... aggravating... he at least admits that he is aggravating; even downright evil.
All the while, the movie has expert humor. The best comedies are not written as comedies, I find, and though this doesn't actually fit that mould exactly, it's humor is reminiscent of it. A fine film for anyone to watch. Not preachy or overly-moralistic but still showing everyone just how awful lobbyists are.
This movie is not an anti-smoking film, as one who is against smoking may think given the ironic title. Nor is this movie pro-smoking. Nor is this movie really pro or anti anything besides possibly lobbyists (bloody lobbyists!). Knowing that, I would have thought I'd like the movie even less. But the plot was engaging enough, and the dastardly characters charming enough, that I didn't get too mad. Maybe a little, but who wouldn't? It's written to excite you a little bit. Unless you really were part of the "Death Squad", you would find Nick Naylor (the main character) contemptible. But then you would just get mad at other parts of the movie.
Perhaps that is what "Thank You for Smoking" does. It manages to be balanced enough that the parts that depress me and make me angry are off-set by the funny and intelligent parts (read: parts I agree with). It stays true to its characters and its plot in such a way that it has sincerity. And though the lobbyist is a little... aggravating... he at least admits that he is aggravating; even downright evil.
All the while, the movie has expert humor. The best comedies are not written as comedies, I find, and though this doesn't actually fit that mould exactly, it's humor is reminiscent of it. A fine film for anyone to watch. Not preachy or overly-moralistic but still showing everyone just how awful lobbyists are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)