I've always like the Turtles. And I've always liked this movie. But it is not meant to be viewed critically. (Caution: might be spoilers for the people who haven't seen this movie:) Like, how can the cops not find these kids at all? There are thousands of them. If it's that easy to join, it'd be pretty easy to find. Right?
But that's OK. It's not a serious movie. If is fun for me, still, even if there isn't much substance to the movie. Jim Henson puppets are always awesome. My rating for this movie: "huh! hy-yah huff huh wahh yooo ya ka!"
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini
A Thousand Splendid Suns is, um, unique. I haven't read The Kite Runner, his debut book, and don't intend to for a little while (I'd like a rest from the depressing subject; I know about it, I don't need to lose hope, ya know...) It's design is quite effective, but there are times when it almost seems as though Khaled Hosseini is just trying to describe the most horrible things you could possibly imagine.
But I guess that's the way it is.
Though the book is fiction, it is intended to give us in the United States an idea of what it is like in Afghanistan. The author can establish his credibility because he has worked with for UN in Refugee camps around the world. So I believe it. It feels realistic, though I have never experienced life in that part of the world myself.
However, I am skeptical about how distraught so many characters would get after one death. Maybe I'm wrong to be so callous about human emotions, but when the death rate is as high as it is in Afghanistan, I wouldn't think it would quite derail your own life. You have to keep living, and helping the other survivors continue. Not dwell on deaths in the past. I would think it necessarily. But I sure hope I never have to find out. I'd much rather read this emotional train-wreck of a book.
But, before I mislead: the book is very good. "Somber and Mournful", but good. There are times when the book kept me up at night; times I put it down not because I was falling asleep, but because I didn't want it to be the last thing in my mind before slumber. I recommended it, actually urge people to read it, but I don't like it. I find it a bit weird that there is anyone who says they "like" the book. That's a little sadistic.
The book does not set out to offend, nor to depress, nor to coddle. It very patiently, dryly, very straight-forwardly describes the world, the characters, and the plot. It is forgiving writing of an unforgiving world; not embellishing atrocities for dramatic purposes, but rather softening the gaze so the reader doesn't have to see it quite so harshly as they know it is. But the writing style is a little off for me. If I read it out loud, I would not end up saying, verbatim, what is written but would, instead, move periods around and add connecting words. Also, there are changes in character that I didn't expect; especially with Mariam in the beginning.
Read the book. You might regret it, but you will be glad you did.
But I guess that's the way it is.
Though the book is fiction, it is intended to give us in the United States an idea of what it is like in Afghanistan. The author can establish his credibility because he has worked with for UN in Refugee camps around the world. So I believe it. It feels realistic, though I have never experienced life in that part of the world myself.
However, I am skeptical about how distraught so many characters would get after one death. Maybe I'm wrong to be so callous about human emotions, but when the death rate is as high as it is in Afghanistan, I wouldn't think it would quite derail your own life. You have to keep living, and helping the other survivors continue. Not dwell on deaths in the past. I would think it necessarily. But I sure hope I never have to find out. I'd much rather read this emotional train-wreck of a book.
But, before I mislead: the book is very good. "Somber and Mournful", but good. There are times when the book kept me up at night; times I put it down not because I was falling asleep, but because I didn't want it to be the last thing in my mind before slumber. I recommended it, actually urge people to read it, but I don't like it. I find it a bit weird that there is anyone who says they "like" the book. That's a little sadistic.
The book does not set out to offend, nor to depress, nor to coddle. It very patiently, dryly, very straight-forwardly describes the world, the characters, and the plot. It is forgiving writing of an unforgiving world; not embellishing atrocities for dramatic purposes, but rather softening the gaze so the reader doesn't have to see it quite so harshly as they know it is. But the writing style is a little off for me. If I read it out loud, I would not end up saying, verbatim, what is written but would, instead, move periods around and add connecting words. Also, there are changes in character that I didn't expect; especially with Mariam in the beginning.
Read the book. You might regret it, but you will be glad you did.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
American Gods by Neil Gaiman
American Gods made me want to be able to read faster because I was impatient to find out what happens! I couldn't wait. I suppose that is a good sign that the book is pretty good. It's also a good sign if you anticipate the book to be one of those that you are really sorry to finish because you'll be sad to leave the characters and the world behind to start reading some inferior story.
Both these were true reading American Gods However, I anticipated incorrectly: American Gods ends a little like The Lord of the Rings about 15 times before there are no more words. Even though I didn't read the author's preferred text version (with 12000 more words) I was pretty ready for the end by the time it really came. Wither this was good or not, I can't decide: it was drawn out and annoying, but at least I was spared the separation anxiety from finishing a great book.
A brilliant book in so many ways. I haven't referenced a novel so much in conversation, or outright read quotes to people because it was applicable to the conversation, since I read Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure. The difference between this book and that 'classic' being I actually enjoyed reading Gaiman's work. Though philosophical in nature, I never found it preachy. It has an intricate and well-woven plot skillfully told and unafraid or anything it may encounter. But didn't seem to seek offense. It is a pretty long book, but doesn't take long to read.
It seems apparent that Gaiman knows a lot about gods from a lot of different pantheons, whether he actually does or not. There were a lot of them in this text. But it also appears that he has twisted who they were (are) a little to fit his story and to fit our land, rather than their world of origin. He also put in a lot of his own gods, which I find amusing.
The work is highly "Charismatic"; as much as Mr. Wednesday. For a more full knowledge of what I mean by that, look up the etymology (Hey, it's a little clever. Maybe...) Though it is not a 'character driven' book, I found the characters believable; they didn't change dramatically or unbelievably to fit the plot. I highly recommend it and will be reading more Gaiman in the future.
Both these were true reading American Gods However, I anticipated incorrectly: American Gods ends a little like The Lord of the Rings about 15 times before there are no more words. Even though I didn't read the author's preferred text version (with 12000 more words) I was pretty ready for the end by the time it really came. Wither this was good or not, I can't decide: it was drawn out and annoying, but at least I was spared the separation anxiety from finishing a great book.
A brilliant book in so many ways. I haven't referenced a novel so much in conversation, or outright read quotes to people because it was applicable to the conversation, since I read Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure. The difference between this book and that 'classic' being I actually enjoyed reading Gaiman's work. Though philosophical in nature, I never found it preachy. It has an intricate and well-woven plot skillfully told and unafraid or anything it may encounter. But didn't seem to seek offense. It is a pretty long book, but doesn't take long to read.
It seems apparent that Gaiman knows a lot about gods from a lot of different pantheons, whether he actually does or not. There were a lot of them in this text. But it also appears that he has twisted who they were (are) a little to fit his story and to fit our land, rather than their world of origin. He also put in a lot of his own gods, which I find amusing.
The work is highly "Charismatic"; as much as Mr. Wednesday. For a more full knowledge of what I mean by that, look up the etymology (Hey, it's a little clever. Maybe...) Though it is not a 'character driven' book, I found the characters believable; they didn't change dramatically or unbelievably to fit the plot. I highly recommend it and will be reading more Gaiman in the future.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The tendancy to belive that others agree with you?
Satire. It is a great form of comedy. From the Latin "satura" which literally meant 'full dish', satire means to ridicule a vice or a folly by being an extreme example. Or "saturated" example. It can be really funny, in a somewhat horrible and mean-spirited way.
Satire can be difficult to understand. Not just for stupid people, but for anyone. If you think you understand satire and are never fooled, you are wrong because sometimes, it isn't obvious. Sarcasm, by its very nature, is ambiguous; satire is not the only form of comedy. How can you tell when someone is being sarcastic or simply pokin' fun at themselves? This is why there are countless examples of satire being misinterpreted, the target of the satire being wrongly assumed. But then, perhaps the newer analysis is wrong.
Then there is the tendency for those satirized to believe their assailant commiserates with them, rather than disagreeing with them. According to a study from Ohio State University, both liberal and conservative viewers of the Colbert Report believed Colbert was on their side in the domestic cold war called Politics.
From my point of view, it seems obvious that Colbert is anything but conservative he satirizes them so completely. But then, I'm following the pattern predicted by Ohio State, so how can I be sure? However, I'm not sure about Glenn Beck. He could be satire, he could be serious, he could be neither. Until recently, I bucked Ohio's prediction, but now... I'm just not sure. Beck is weird. He could just sort of be there.
Then there is an example from "Men Who Stare at Goats", which actually spurred the line of thinking which engendered this essay. The movie makes fun of hippies pretty completely, but at the same time, seems to promote the very 'hippy wisdom' they make fun of. Is it satire or ridicule? Which would mean that I'm believing the 'wisdom' I saw while the writers thought it dumb. Or is it a different type of humor, which could mean I'm right (but not necessarily).
Even as I think of it, analyze it, I fit into Ohio State's predictions. Which suggests, to me, that I'm not more intelligent than a pattern. That it's not my reasoning that's brought me to a 'correct' conclusion, but rather the one I want. I want to be supported, to have allies.
Perhaps now that this is known to me, I can think more clearly.
Satire can be difficult to understand. Not just for stupid people, but for anyone. If you think you understand satire and are never fooled, you are wrong because sometimes, it isn't obvious. Sarcasm, by its very nature, is ambiguous; satire is not the only form of comedy. How can you tell when someone is being sarcastic or simply pokin' fun at themselves? This is why there are countless examples of satire being misinterpreted, the target of the satire being wrongly assumed. But then, perhaps the newer analysis is wrong.
Then there is the tendency for those satirized to believe their assailant commiserates with them, rather than disagreeing with them. According to a study from Ohio State University, both liberal and conservative viewers of the Colbert Report believed Colbert was on their side in the domestic cold war called Politics.
From my point of view, it seems obvious that Colbert is anything but conservative he satirizes them so completely. But then, I'm following the pattern predicted by Ohio State, so how can I be sure? However, I'm not sure about Glenn Beck. He could be satire, he could be serious, he could be neither. Until recently, I bucked Ohio's prediction, but now... I'm just not sure. Beck is weird. He could just sort of be there.
Then there is an example from "Men Who Stare at Goats", which actually spurred the line of thinking which engendered this essay. The movie makes fun of hippies pretty completely, but at the same time, seems to promote the very 'hippy wisdom' they make fun of. Is it satire or ridicule? Which would mean that I'm believing the 'wisdom' I saw while the writers thought it dumb. Or is it a different type of humor, which could mean I'm right (but not necessarily).
Even as I think of it, analyze it, I fit into Ohio State's predictions. Which suggests, to me, that I'm not more intelligent than a pattern. That it's not my reasoning that's brought me to a 'correct' conclusion, but rather the one I want. I want to be supported, to have allies.
Perhaps now that this is known to me, I can think more clearly.
Four Christmases (movie)
This movie was interesting to me because I was, somehow, able to see both sides. At once it demonizes family and demands that everyone have kids. I was able to agree, in the beginning, with the main couple who decry family and vacation obligations. Not because I don't like my family, but because they didn't really like theirs (and you get to see why!). Instead, they want to vacation on their vacation. They seem like a well adjusted, happy couple and really good together, so why not?
Because one of them is played by Vince Vaughn, so you know it can't last. Vince annoyed me more in this movie than he ever has before. There was to much screaming. Reese Witherspoon annoyed me more than she has before as well, come to think of it, but she's never been as obnoxious as Vince and couldn't match him here either.
The opposite position of this couple is that they should go to Christmas with their families. Those two are being rather selfish, lying to their families, but this is pretty normal for them. They are rather self-absorbed. And strangely easy to set off; pissed they didn't know something about the other when they already knew they knew nothing of their pasts. It's hard to believe such people could have ever been a successful couple.
The movie is all about getting to see why these two don't usually visit their families. But considering that they live in the same blessed city as their families, I don't see why their parents didn't visit them once in three years either.
That is the big problem with this movie. If you think about it for more than a few minutes, you realize that it falls apart. How in the world could these two have been happy for three years together? Why is anyone mad when nobody makes an effort? (Ok, maybe that's realistic, but you would think their parents would visit them sometime, right? They are minutes away...) How did they do so much in one day!?
That being said, it wasn't nearly as corny as I expected it to be; better than most Christmas movies; "decent".
Because one of them is played by Vince Vaughn, so you know it can't last. Vince annoyed me more in this movie than he ever has before. There was to much screaming. Reese Witherspoon annoyed me more than she has before as well, come to think of it, but she's never been as obnoxious as Vince and couldn't match him here either.
The opposite position of this couple is that they should go to Christmas with their families. Those two are being rather selfish, lying to their families, but this is pretty normal for them. They are rather self-absorbed. And strangely easy to set off; pissed they didn't know something about the other when they already knew they knew nothing of their pasts. It's hard to believe such people could have ever been a successful couple.
The movie is all about getting to see why these two don't usually visit their families. But considering that they live in the same blessed city as their families, I don't see why their parents didn't visit them once in three years either.
That is the big problem with this movie. If you think about it for more than a few minutes, you realize that it falls apart. How in the world could these two have been happy for three years together? Why is anyone mad when nobody makes an effort? (Ok, maybe that's realistic, but you would think their parents would visit them sometime, right? They are minutes away...) How did they do so much in one day!?
That being said, it wasn't nearly as corny as I expected it to be; better than most Christmas movies; "decent".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)