Finally got to see this one now that it's out on DVD. Everyone went on and on about how wonderful it is . . . And it is pretty great. I think it's voice cast perfectly, and while I found none of the "twists" surprising, I still enjoyed it.
I'd say this one is, for me, slightly better than Big Hero 6? Which I also loved but found rather rote and predictable. So the thing that makes Zootopia just a smidge better is that it's more original in its world building. Though I do wonder what the predators eat now? Manufactured proteins? Or has everyone gone veggie?
For the maybe two people out there who haven't seen it, Zootopia is about a bunny named Judy who dreams of becoming a police officer in the big city of Zootopia. Everyone tells her she can't; there's never been a bunny cop before. But of course she proves them wrong and then must battle prejudices while also facing the realization that, for someone so proud of herself for being open minded, she has some prejudices of her own. There are additional themes of trying even when everyone tells you to quit, and of helping others once you reach the top.
It's a super cute movie, one of the few I'd be willing to sit through again with the kids if and when they want to watch it. Then again, I could listen to Idris Elba talk all day long, so . . . While I don't know that this was laugh-out-loud funny the way some people told me it was, I did very much enjoy it.
6.12.2016
6.09.2016
6.08.2016
Movies: More Gay, Please
So I was reading this Variety article about how Finding Dory isn't as gay as people might've hoped. And they talk about none of the big superheroes are gay, and James Bond isn't gay, and isn't it time for a little more gay in our movies?
Which is why I once again want to make a case for bringing The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller to the screen. He's more intellectual than Bond, but he is the next best thing to a gay Bond.
(I know a lot of people don't want gay characters in their movies. They also don't want chocolate in their peanut butter and vice versa. But not all movies are made for just those people, any more than all candies are.)
The article cites the need to be able to market to China, which has no homosexual rights. Well, okay. But if we start letting close-minded countries dictate our entertainment policies, we'll be just as censored as they are.
So I guess the rule is: No expensive movies unless we can sell them to China. Which is why we don't have gay superheroes or gay James Bond. Cuz those movies cost too much to make for them not to play in the lucrative Chinese market.
Sigh.
For the record, I don't think Peter would cost all that much . . .
Which is why I once again want to make a case for bringing The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller to the screen. He's more intellectual than Bond, but he is the next best thing to a gay Bond.
(I know a lot of people don't want gay characters in their movies. They also don't want chocolate in their peanut butter and vice versa. But not all movies are made for just those people, any more than all candies are.)
The article cites the need to be able to market to China, which has no homosexual rights. Well, okay. But if we start letting close-minded countries dictate our entertainment policies, we'll be just as censored as they are.
So I guess the rule is: No expensive movies unless we can sell them to China. Which is why we don't have gay superheroes or gay James Bond. Cuz those movies cost too much to make for them not to play in the lucrative Chinese market.
Sigh.
For the record, I don't think Peter would cost all that much . . .
6.07.2016
Books: Day for Night by Stacey Bryan
Okay, so I haven't read it. But I did interview the author! Please read all about her and her book (described as "urban paranormal comedy") here.
6.06.2016
Movies: Alice Through the Looking Glass
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen
Directed By: James Bobin
Written By: Linda Woolverton, from characters created by Lewis Carroll
Walt Disney, 2016
PG; 113 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
We only recently watched Burton's Alice in Wonderland on DVD. My daughter loved it; I did not. But when she lobbied to see the sequel, I didn't say no.
I'll say first off I've never been a Burton person. It's just not my thing. Add to that the recent Johnny Depp news (true or not, it sits in one's mind), which did definitely color my feelings about these movies, and . . . I mean, the first one just didn't make a lot of sense to me, which isn't unusual given Burton, but then also he probably felt that since it was Alice in Wonderland he didn't have to make sense anyway.
To be clear, Burton did not direct Through the Looking Glass, which may be why I enjoyed it more than Wonderland. Faint praise, I realize. Though I felt the reason for Alice's quest was weak (she's worried about the Mad Hatter and feels she must go back in time and find/rescue his family), I did like Sacha Baron Cohen as Time, and that's pretty amazing since I've never liked him in anything. And I do like the character of Alice as well. Yet in both movies I'd just as soon have watched her in the real world than bothered with all the Wonderland (or Underland) nonsense. I can't seem to find any affection for the Wonderland characters in these films, although this one did at least try to give more context for them. Points for effort.
Sum total is that Looking Glass is better than Wonderland. Neither is fantastic, but I found this one watchable in a way the first one, for me, almost is not.
Directed By: James Bobin
Written By: Linda Woolverton, from characters created by Lewis Carroll
Walt Disney, 2016
PG; 113 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
We only recently watched Burton's Alice in Wonderland on DVD. My daughter loved it; I did not. But when she lobbied to see the sequel, I didn't say no.
I'll say first off I've never been a Burton person. It's just not my thing. Add to that the recent Johnny Depp news (true or not, it sits in one's mind), which did definitely color my feelings about these movies, and . . . I mean, the first one just didn't make a lot of sense to me, which isn't unusual given Burton, but then also he probably felt that since it was Alice in Wonderland he didn't have to make sense anyway.
To be clear, Burton did not direct Through the Looking Glass, which may be why I enjoyed it more than Wonderland. Faint praise, I realize. Though I felt the reason for Alice's quest was weak (she's worried about the Mad Hatter and feels she must go back in time and find/rescue his family), I did like Sacha Baron Cohen as Time, and that's pretty amazing since I've never liked him in anything. And I do like the character of Alice as well. Yet in both movies I'd just as soon have watched her in the real world than bothered with all the Wonderland (or Underland) nonsense. I can't seem to find any affection for the Wonderland characters in these films, although this one did at least try to give more context for them. Points for effort.
Sum total is that Looking Glass is better than Wonderland. Neither is fantastic, but I found this one watchable in a way the first one, for me, almost is not.
6.05.2016
Television: Preacher, "Pilot"
Here is yet another comic book property brought to the screen, and yet . . . This one, I like. Maybe it's just the superheroes I'm sick of.
I haven't read the Preacher comics. Though I'd heard of them, had probably even had them recommended to me, I never sought them out. (My history with comics is spotty and largely informed first by what was allowed by my parents, then by the TV shows I watched that had comics tie-ins, and finally by stuff people gave me to read. But seeking anything out directly? I can't be arsed.) I find the stream difficult to wade into. You're either coming in at the middle of things, or else you start at the beginning and can never hope to catch up. The idea of something going on indefinitely does not appeal to me. And maybe Preacher is self-contained; I don't even know. I've never bothered to look.
In short: I'm coming at this show only as a show, not as an adaptation. And I enjoy it. The music choices, the Texas setting (cuz I grew up in a small church in Texas, and then we moved on to one of those mega-churches, so I connected well there), the hint of other things going on—just enough to whet the appetite and keep me interested. This show had my attention, which is harder and harder to keep these days. By the time Jesse opened his can of whoop-ass, I was like, "Yessss!"
For those who need more information, Jesse is the preacher in a small Texas town. He's "come back" based on a promise he made to his dad [insert some kind of flashback that we assume will get longer with time so that we see the full picture and get the full story eventually]. Seems his dad was a preacher, too? Jesse isn't very good at the preaching bit, but he finds new zeal by the end of the episode. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, something alien seems to be entering into preachers, priests, etc. and causing them to explode. ????
Jesse's past is hinted at in the form of one Tulip O'Hare who arrives to urge him to do "a job" with her, something he evidently used to do regularly before hanging it all up to come preach. Hence his mad fighting skills when it comes time to beat up a guy who shows every sign of being about to abuse his own son.
But something else happens, too. Jesse spends the episode trying to convince a complainer named Ted to tell his mom how he really feels. "Open your heart to her," Jesse keeps saying, but Ted would much rather complain to Jesse about his mom. And then . . . at the end of the episode, Jesse's words become infused with power, and Ted drives to his mother's nursing home in Florida, tells her how he feels, then cuts his heart out in front of her. Literal much?
So has the alien force come into Jesse but failed to make him explode like the other men of God? Maybe the others could not contain it, but Jesse is made of sterner stuff? We also have a demon of some kind name Cassidy to account for . . . And some kind of syndicate . . . All the building blocks of conspiracy and mythology.
In the end, it all comes down to the pacing. This show hands out information in the right portion sizes. There are quieter, slower moments, the stuff of character development. But this is punctuated by the action scenes to keep things moving. Preacher strikes a good balance. Let's hope it stays that way.
For now, I'll be watching.
I haven't read the Preacher comics. Though I'd heard of them, had probably even had them recommended to me, I never sought them out. (My history with comics is spotty and largely informed first by what was allowed by my parents, then by the TV shows I watched that had comics tie-ins, and finally by stuff people gave me to read. But seeking anything out directly? I can't be arsed.) I find the stream difficult to wade into. You're either coming in at the middle of things, or else you start at the beginning and can never hope to catch up. The idea of something going on indefinitely does not appeal to me. And maybe Preacher is self-contained; I don't even know. I've never bothered to look.
In short: I'm coming at this show only as a show, not as an adaptation. And I enjoy it. The music choices, the Texas setting (cuz I grew up in a small church in Texas, and then we moved on to one of those mega-churches, so I connected well there), the hint of other things going on—just enough to whet the appetite and keep me interested. This show had my attention, which is harder and harder to keep these days. By the time Jesse opened his can of whoop-ass, I was like, "Yessss!"
For those who need more information, Jesse is the preacher in a small Texas town. He's "come back" based on a promise he made to his dad [insert some kind of flashback that we assume will get longer with time so that we see the full picture and get the full story eventually]. Seems his dad was a preacher, too? Jesse isn't very good at the preaching bit, but he finds new zeal by the end of the episode. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, something alien seems to be entering into preachers, priests, etc. and causing them to explode. ????
Jesse's past is hinted at in the form of one Tulip O'Hare who arrives to urge him to do "a job" with her, something he evidently used to do regularly before hanging it all up to come preach. Hence his mad fighting skills when it comes time to beat up a guy who shows every sign of being about to abuse his own son.
But something else happens, too. Jesse spends the episode trying to convince a complainer named Ted to tell his mom how he really feels. "Open your heart to her," Jesse keeps saying, but Ted would much rather complain to Jesse about his mom. And then . . . at the end of the episode, Jesse's words become infused with power, and Ted drives to his mother's nursing home in Florida, tells her how he feels, then cuts his heart out in front of her. Literal much?
So has the alien force come into Jesse but failed to make him explode like the other men of God? Maybe the others could not contain it, but Jesse is made of sterner stuff? We also have a demon of some kind name Cassidy to account for . . . And some kind of syndicate . . . All the building blocks of conspiracy and mythology.
In the end, it all comes down to the pacing. This show hands out information in the right portion sizes. There are quieter, slower moments, the stuff of character development. But this is punctuated by the action scenes to keep things moving. Preacher strikes a good balance. Let's hope it stays that way.
For now, I'll be watching.
6.04.2016
Movies: 10 Cloverfield Lane
I didn't enjoy it as much as Cloverfield, but part of that may be because I saw that one in a cinema full of people and this one at home.
10 Cloverfield Lane also does not have the conceit of "found footage." Instead, its the story of Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who leaves her fiancé after an unspecified argument, packing her things and driving off only to get in a terrible car crash. She wakes up in a bunker where Howard (John Goodman) tells her he saved her from some kind of terrible attack. Howard used to be in the Navy and has evidently worked for years on building this bunker for just this purpose. Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) helped him build it and demanded admission when the attack occurred. So the three of them live there amidst questions of whether there really has been any kind of attack, or if maybe Howard is crazy. The story tilts one way then another, and the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but I won't give it away.
There was definitely some tension, and no one but John Goodman could have pulled off the part of Howard. But aside from the tension and the questions hanging over everything, I can't say I was as entertained with this one as with Cloverfield. It was clever and interesting but not, somehow, actually as engaging. Again, that might be the difference between a darkened cinema and my living room, but that is what I walked away feeling.
That said, still definitely worth watching.
10 Cloverfield Lane also does not have the conceit of "found footage." Instead, its the story of Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who leaves her fiancé after an unspecified argument, packing her things and driving off only to get in a terrible car crash. She wakes up in a bunker where Howard (John Goodman) tells her he saved her from some kind of terrible attack. Howard used to be in the Navy and has evidently worked for years on building this bunker for just this purpose. Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) helped him build it and demanded admission when the attack occurred. So the three of them live there amidst questions of whether there really has been any kind of attack, or if maybe Howard is crazy. The story tilts one way then another, and the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but I won't give it away.
There was definitely some tension, and no one but John Goodman could have pulled off the part of Howard. But aside from the tension and the questions hanging over everything, I can't say I was as entertained with this one as with Cloverfield. It was clever and interesting but not, somehow, actually as engaging. Again, that might be the difference between a darkened cinema and my living room, but that is what I walked away feeling.
That said, still definitely worth watching.
6.02.2016
Television: The Night Manager 1.6
Okay, so the whole thing wraps up with a decent amount of tension and a satisfying ending. I'll give it that.
Jonathan, Roper, et al are in Cairo to complete the deal. I'm not sure why Jonathan would tell such a stupid lie when Roper asks whether he's ever been to Cairo. (For the record, Jonathan says no, but since he worked at a hotel in Cairo in the first episode . . .) So of course it's only a matter of time before he's recognized, but at the same time he also has access to human resources that help him set bombs on trucks or whatever.
Angela and Martian Manhunter (seriously, can't even be arsed to go look up the character name) are also in Cairo after their respective assignments are scorched after the last mishap. You know, the one where they had the wrong trucks. Jonathan had managed to get a call through to let them know where he—and everyone—was.
And then of course Roper continues to sound Jonathan out about his loyalty, and it's clear Roper isn't sure, though it's the wife thing that tips him rather than any of the other bazillion red flags. Roper even ends up admitting he'd gotten Jonathan wrong, and that just plays false for a man we're supposed to believe is so cunning and careful. The whole thing hinges on Roper being played, after all. By the time he unmasks Jonathan, we're trying to decide if Roper is that stupid (despite everything we've been told to the contrary) or else wondering why he took so long to make his move against such an obvious threat.
Then again, the case is made for Roper to be simply too arrogant to believe he can't squash anyone or anything that tries to work against him. And yet . . . Why not squash sooner? Why, in the last moments, as he's pulling out his trump cards only to be holding Jokers . . . I dunno. There's a disconnect in there somewhere between all the lead up and the end. Yet the end is actually quite good, so I'm willing to forgive a lot.
Makes me wonder about the book, which I have not read. And as I've said, I'd love to see The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller get similar treatment. Though I think it would have to stay set in the 60s . . . Or not. Might be something worth exploring.
Jonathan, Roper, et al are in Cairo to complete the deal. I'm not sure why Jonathan would tell such a stupid lie when Roper asks whether he's ever been to Cairo. (For the record, Jonathan says no, but since he worked at a hotel in Cairo in the first episode . . .) So of course it's only a matter of time before he's recognized, but at the same time he also has access to human resources that help him set bombs on trucks or whatever.
Angela and Martian Manhunter (seriously, can't even be arsed to go look up the character name) are also in Cairo after their respective assignments are scorched after the last mishap. You know, the one where they had the wrong trucks. Jonathan had managed to get a call through to let them know where he—and everyone—was.
And then of course Roper continues to sound Jonathan out about his loyalty, and it's clear Roper isn't sure, though it's the wife thing that tips him rather than any of the other bazillion red flags. Roper even ends up admitting he'd gotten Jonathan wrong, and that just plays false for a man we're supposed to believe is so cunning and careful. The whole thing hinges on Roper being played, after all. By the time he unmasks Jonathan, we're trying to decide if Roper is that stupid (despite everything we've been told to the contrary) or else wondering why he took so long to make his move against such an obvious threat.
Then again, the case is made for Roper to be simply too arrogant to believe he can't squash anyone or anything that tries to work against him. And yet . . . Why not squash sooner? Why, in the last moments, as he's pulling out his trump cards only to be holding Jokers . . . I dunno. There's a disconnect in there somewhere between all the lead up and the end. Yet the end is actually quite good, so I'm willing to forgive a lot.
Makes me wonder about the book, which I have not read. And as I've said, I'd love to see The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller get similar treatment. Though I think it would have to stay set in the 60s . . . Or not. Might be something worth exploring.
6.01.2016
Movies: Love & Friendship
Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Chloë Sevigny, Xavier Samuel
Directed By: Whit Stillman
Written By: Whit Stillman, from the novella Lady Susan by Jane Austen
Amazon Studios, 2016
PG; 92 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Because, honestly, I do love Jane Austen. So I was probably going to love this movie no matter what.
I haven't read Lady Susan, a sad omission on my part. But that made it all the more fun to watch this film and have no expectations aside from wanting to see some costumes and hear some witty period banter. Both of which Love & Friendship delivers.
The story is relatively simple. Lady Susan is a widow who must remove herself from the home of friends after she is accused of, let's say "unladylike conduct" with a married gentleman. She goes to her late husband's brother to stay with his family and has designs on one Mr. Reginald DeCourcy though his family does not approve. When Lady Susan's own daughter Frederica is shipped home from her boarding school wires become all the more crossed. Lady Susan wants Frederica to marry the addlepated Mr. Martin but Frederica resists.
I cannot do it justice. The whole of it has a lot of moving pieces and there are so many characters they are introduced, wink-like, with title cards. But it all adds to the fun, and the wit is definitely there. Beckinsale does remarkably well as Lady Susan, and Tom Bennett is a highlight as the the lackwit Mr. Martin.
Certainly it's worth finding a local arthouse and seeing this surrounded by others who will comprehend and laugh at all the jokes. But even if you can't find it playing near you, I'm sure Amazon will have it streaming before long. If you enjoy Austen and her ilk, and if you have no trouble keeping up with some rapid dialogue, this one is for you.
Directed By: Whit Stillman
Written By: Whit Stillman, from the novella Lady Susan by Jane Austen
Amazon Studios, 2016
PG; 92 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Because, honestly, I do love Jane Austen. So I was probably going to love this movie no matter what.
I haven't read Lady Susan, a sad omission on my part. But that made it all the more fun to watch this film and have no expectations aside from wanting to see some costumes and hear some witty period banter. Both of which Love & Friendship delivers.
The story is relatively simple. Lady Susan is a widow who must remove herself from the home of friends after she is accused of, let's say "unladylike conduct" with a married gentleman. She goes to her late husband's brother to stay with his family and has designs on one Mr. Reginald DeCourcy though his family does not approve. When Lady Susan's own daughter Frederica is shipped home from her boarding school wires become all the more crossed. Lady Susan wants Frederica to marry the addlepated Mr. Martin but Frederica resists.
I cannot do it justice. The whole of it has a lot of moving pieces and there are so many characters they are introduced, wink-like, with title cards. But it all adds to the fun, and the wit is definitely there. Beckinsale does remarkably well as Lady Susan, and Tom Bennett is a highlight as the the lackwit Mr. Martin.
Certainly it's worth finding a local arthouse and seeing this surrounded by others who will comprehend and laugh at all the jokes. But even if you can't find it playing near you, I'm sure Amazon will have it streaming before long. If you enjoy Austen and her ilk, and if you have no trouble keeping up with some rapid dialogue, this one is for you.
Short Story: "Aptera"
My short story "Aptera" has been published on Aurora Wolf. It's a contemporary tale of mythological sirens. Check it out here.
5.31.2016
Television: The Night Manager 1.5
That "so close yet so far" feeling. Jonathan manages to get info to Angela re trucks he thinks are carrying arms but . . . Nope. Just farm equipment and grain. On the plus side, Corky finally bites it. God, he was obnoxious. Not wrong, but obnoxious anyway.
Roper brings his chippy out to the mercenary camp, though it's not clear why. Corky warns Jonathan there can be no good reason for it, but the reason has yet to be revealed.
One suspects Roper can't be so stupid as to not have put two and two together, though. Everything goes to hell just when this one guy shows up in his life? Though his haste in making Jonathan one of the gang is also bizarre.
Meanwhile, Angela is having the rug pulled out from under her and her project. Her superior is shuttled off to a cushy new job, and her American counterpart (I just call him Martian Manhunter) is called home. That Game of Thrones guy (Tobias Menzies) comes to her house and threatens her, and the next night Angela finds her place ransacked and her husband suffering a blow to the head. All this + the bad info from Jonathan = not a good time.
One more episode to wrap it all up.
And if you enjoy The Night Manager or other Le Carré novels, try mine: The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller. Let's get that one made into a miniseries, shall we?
Roper brings his chippy out to the mercenary camp, though it's not clear why. Corky warns Jonathan there can be no good reason for it, but the reason has yet to be revealed.
One suspects Roper can't be so stupid as to not have put two and two together, though. Everything goes to hell just when this one guy shows up in his life? Though his haste in making Jonathan one of the gang is also bizarre.
Meanwhile, Angela is having the rug pulled out from under her and her project. Her superior is shuttled off to a cushy new job, and her American counterpart (I just call him Martian Manhunter) is called home. That Game of Thrones guy (Tobias Menzies) comes to her house and threatens her, and the next night Angela finds her place ransacked and her husband suffering a blow to the head. All this + the bad info from Jonathan = not a good time.
One more episode to wrap it all up.
And if you enjoy The Night Manager or other Le Carré novels, try mine: The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller. Let's get that one made into a miniseries, shall we?
5.30.2016
Ancient Egyptian Fortunetelling Deck
This is an oracle deck created by Paris Debono. It doesn't come with instructions, but there is a Facebook group that gives a general overview of the spread this deck uses—appropriately enough, a pyramid spread. A couple examples below:
The top card sets the tone for the reading. The two cards immediately below that one either support or hinder the top card's energy. "The heart of the matter" sits with Card #5, with #4 and #6 influencing that. Then you read the last line through to the outcome at #10. More or less.
It's all very intuitive, which is good for people who try to rely too much on keywords and concrete meanings. However, it's not for everyone, and I'd appreciate some little booklet or something. I mean, I get that Cat, Snake, and Jackal are . . . bad? That Mask and Sphinx suggest things hidden and mysterious. But I'd like a little more.
Still, it's been good practice for me (one of the aforementioned logical types). So maybe a deck like this is just what I need.
20 cards total. Shop this and other decks by Paris here.
The top card sets the tone for the reading. The two cards immediately below that one either support or hinder the top card's energy. "The heart of the matter" sits with Card #5, with #4 and #6 influencing that. Then you read the last line through to the outcome at #10. More or less.
It's all very intuitive, which is good for people who try to rely too much on keywords and concrete meanings. However, it's not for everyone, and I'd appreciate some little booklet or something. I mean, I get that Cat, Snake, and Jackal are . . . bad? That Mask and Sphinx suggest things hidden and mysterious. But I'd like a little more.
Still, it's been good practice for me (one of the aforementioned logical types). So maybe a deck like this is just what I need.
20 cards total. Shop this and other decks by Paris here.
5.29.2016
Movies: Hail, Caesar!
I really just wanted this to be a bit funnier than it was.
It's not a bad movie, but I think perhaps it tried to stuff in more than it should.
The overarching story is of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), who is a movie studio fixer in the 1950s. That is, his job is to keep the stars in line and make sure all the PR is good. He arranges for this and that star to be seen together, covers up when someone is in rehab, etc. He traffics in stress, and goes to confession daily. There's an almost throwaway subplot of his being offered another, less stressful and better paying job by Lockheed Martin, but [spoiler] of course he turns it down. He says his work "feels right." Which, being religious, he takes to mean God wants him to continue doing it.
Unfortunately, I didn't feel much empathy or sympathy for Eddie, and since a lot of the movie rests on the viewer necessarily connecting with him . . . It fell flat for me. I only found myself thinking he was stupid for not taking the Lockheed job so he could spend more time with his family. It's hard to be sympathetic toward someone so selfish, no matter what reason he thinks he has. His studio family needs him more? Pfft.
Eddie is the connective tissue, then, for a variety of story lines that include one star (George Clooney) being kidnapped by Communists, another (Scarlett Johansson) trying to hide a pregnancy because she's unmarried, and a Western star (Alden Ehrenreich) taking a turn in a drama while also being set up on a date with a fellow star in the name of PR. His was the cutest story arc, certainly, and Ralph Fiennes does a nice turn as the director of the drama struggling against Ehrenreich's thick accent. Even so, it's not enough to save Hail, Caesar! from feeling lackluster. The setting and time period are definitely worthy, the stories told here not so much.
At the end of the day, Hail, Caesar! is less than the sum of its parts.
It's not a bad movie, but I think perhaps it tried to stuff in more than it should.
The overarching story is of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), who is a movie studio fixer in the 1950s. That is, his job is to keep the stars in line and make sure all the PR is good. He arranges for this and that star to be seen together, covers up when someone is in rehab, etc. He traffics in stress, and goes to confession daily. There's an almost throwaway subplot of his being offered another, less stressful and better paying job by Lockheed Martin, but [spoiler] of course he turns it down. He says his work "feels right." Which, being religious, he takes to mean God wants him to continue doing it.
Unfortunately, I didn't feel much empathy or sympathy for Eddie, and since a lot of the movie rests on the viewer necessarily connecting with him . . . It fell flat for me. I only found myself thinking he was stupid for not taking the Lockheed job so he could spend more time with his family. It's hard to be sympathetic toward someone so selfish, no matter what reason he thinks he has. His studio family needs him more? Pfft.
Eddie is the connective tissue, then, for a variety of story lines that include one star (George Clooney) being kidnapped by Communists, another (Scarlett Johansson) trying to hide a pregnancy because she's unmarried, and a Western star (Alden Ehrenreich) taking a turn in a drama while also being set up on a date with a fellow star in the name of PR. His was the cutest story arc, certainly, and Ralph Fiennes does a nice turn as the director of the drama struggling against Ehrenreich's thick accent. Even so, it's not enough to save Hail, Caesar! from feeling lackluster. The setting and time period are definitely worthy, the stories told here not so much.
At the end of the day, Hail, Caesar! is less than the sum of its parts.
5.27.2016
Television: The Night Manager 1.4
Eh. So Roper rechristens Jonathan as Andrew Birch. (It's all about trees with this guy.) Sets up some elaborate deal with Andrew as the face of some other big corporation buying farming equipment or whatever. Truth is in shows like these, it hardly matters. You know who is bad and who is good, and you have some vague notion of how and why, and the rest makes little difference.
Corky is unhinged by Jonathan's promotion, so to speak. Corky is usually the wingman on these deals.
And of course Jonathan sleeps with Roper's wife. Ugh. This subplot, just please. It's so cliché and feels very forced and pedantic. Yet of course so much of what happens relies on it. Because it's Jonathan's involvement with Mrs. Roper that causes Angela to try and yank him from the mission.
Oh, and Angela is in trouble, too, because the higher-ups that have been working with Roper have been uncovered, and they know she's the one behind it. They've killed one informant, and it's only a matter of time before they finger Jonathan/Andrew.
Probably the best episode so far, as we finally get to the meat of things here. Anticipating a sprint to the finish line in the final two episodes.
Corky is unhinged by Jonathan's promotion, so to speak. Corky is usually the wingman on these deals.
And of course Jonathan sleeps with Roper's wife. Ugh. This subplot, just please. It's so cliché and feels very forced and pedantic. Yet of course so much of what happens relies on it. Because it's Jonathan's involvement with Mrs. Roper that causes Angela to try and yank him from the mission.
Oh, and Angela is in trouble, too, because the higher-ups that have been working with Roper have been uncovered, and they know she's the one behind it. They've killed one informant, and it's only a matter of time before they finger Jonathan/Andrew.
Probably the best episode so far, as we finally get to the meat of things here. Anticipating a sprint to the finish line in the final two episodes.
5.26.2016
Television: Documentary Now!
Stumbled across this little gem on Netflix, and it's done a good job of cheering me up when I need something funny.
In this series, Fred Armisen and Bill Hader, often accompanied by other known names (looking at you, John Slattery, among many) recreate various styles of documentaries. The first is a sendup of Grey Gardens, and they barrel roll from there. All highly amusing and oddly spot on with the way they imitate old documentaries, right down to the music.
Each is introduced in Masterpiece style by Helen Mirren.
New episodes expected in August.
In this series, Fred Armisen and Bill Hader, often accompanied by other known names (looking at you, John Slattery, among many) recreate various styles of documentaries. The first is a sendup of Grey Gardens, and they barrel roll from there. All highly amusing and oddly spot on with the way they imitate old documentaries, right down to the music.
Each is introduced in Masterpiece style by Helen Mirren.
New episodes expected in August.
5.24.2016
Incensed
I've blogged about my candle habit, but I've recently developed an incense habit, too. I guess there are worse things.
It started when I went into a little Buddhist store and saw these cool incense burners. One was shaped like a dragon, and I've just finished writing a novel (first in a trilogy) featuring a dragon, so I felt drawn to it. The coolest thing was, when you put the cone of incense in the burner, the dragon blew smoke. Wow!
I had to have it. So then I also had to have some incense for it. Because I couldn't deny my dragon his smoke.
I was such a novice that the store clerk had to show me how to light the incense and use the burner.
That was last November. Then, in December I discovered stick incense. Which I like so much more than the cones, if only because I find lighting the sticks and cleaning up after them to be a bit easier. There's also the feeling that the scent burns more evenly. BUT. Down side is that the sticks don't last as long.
Okay, so the first kind of sticks I bought were a brand known as HEM. I like them pretty well. My Dragons Blood smells great, but my Myrrh is a bit weird smelling, sometimes leaves a bad aftersmell. Those are the only ones I have by them, so it's not a very large sampling. I'd need to buy a few more by them to have any real opinion.
Next I bought a huge variety pack of Satya incense sticks. Wow. I really like most of these, though there are a couple that don't work for me. The Jasmine is way too strong. Like, headache inducing. But overall, I'd definitely buy these again.
Just recently, I also bought a few boxes of Divine incense sticks. They are somewhat different from what I guess are more traditional scents in that they are "natural flora incense." I've liked most of them, though the White Sage left a charcoal smell in my office. Since I've never burned any other white sage sticks, I don't know if this is common. These are nice for a change—scents like Lavender and Rose—but for the Patchouli I prefer the Satya ones. The Divine sticks do definitely have a sweeter smell on the whole, though, if you like that.
Okay, those of you who like incense: tell me what kind(s) and scent(s) you enjoy.
It started when I went into a little Buddhist store and saw these cool incense burners. One was shaped like a dragon, and I've just finished writing a novel (first in a trilogy) featuring a dragon, so I felt drawn to it. The coolest thing was, when you put the cone of incense in the burner, the dragon blew smoke. Wow!
I had to have it. So then I also had to have some incense for it. Because I couldn't deny my dragon his smoke.
I was such a novice that the store clerk had to show me how to light the incense and use the burner.
That was last November. Then, in December I discovered stick incense. Which I like so much more than the cones, if only because I find lighting the sticks and cleaning up after them to be a bit easier. There's also the feeling that the scent burns more evenly. BUT. Down side is that the sticks don't last as long.
Okay, so the first kind of sticks I bought were a brand known as HEM. I like them pretty well. My Dragons Blood smells great, but my Myrrh is a bit weird smelling, sometimes leaves a bad aftersmell. Those are the only ones I have by them, so it's not a very large sampling. I'd need to buy a few more by them to have any real opinion.
Next I bought a huge variety pack of Satya incense sticks. Wow. I really like most of these, though there are a couple that don't work for me. The Jasmine is way too strong. Like, headache inducing. But overall, I'd definitely buy these again.
Just recently, I also bought a few boxes of Divine incense sticks. They are somewhat different from what I guess are more traditional scents in that they are "natural flora incense." I've liked most of them, though the White Sage left a charcoal smell in my office. Since I've never burned any other white sage sticks, I don't know if this is common. These are nice for a change—scents like Lavender and Rose—but for the Patchouli I prefer the Satya ones. The Divine sticks do definitely have a sweeter smell on the whole, though, if you like that.
Okay, those of you who like incense: tell me what kind(s) and scent(s) you enjoy.
Television: The Night Manager 1.3
. . . In which Tom Hiddleston becomes a terrible "manny." He emotionally manipulates a child in order to use said child as a pawn in a potentially deadly game, and he steals the kid's phone besides.
Jonathan (Hiddleston) continues to be hounded by Roper's (Laurie) security team, so he—and from the outside Angela—work to get this particular sniffer dog by the name of Corky off the job. By planting seeds of suspicion of his own, and by making a show of bonding with young Danny, Jonathan appears to slowly win Roper to his side.
Meanwhile, it's made plain that uppity-ups back in London are in with Roper. They continue to insist there is no need to take any action on Roper. So Angela, and by extension Jonathan, may have their legs cut out from under them if/when their work is brought to light. Worse still, Jonathan might (is likely to, based on previews, but then again they edit those fairly broadly) be compromised. One can only hope Angela has buried things deeply enough.
Of course things continue to be dragged down by a pseudo-romantic plot in which Jonathan can't stop thinking about Roper's wife. I'm sorry, but I just find it so difficult to believe him as a person who can't keep it in his pants. It probably doesn't help things that women always seem to be crying when he's around. He does, however, discover that Mrs. Roper (wasn't The Ropers a sitcom?) is also spying on her husband.
Minor annoyance: the On Demand feed repeated one portion of the episode. Someone should fix that.
I do wish they'd make The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller into a miniseries. I feel like more happens in that book than seems to be happening here. Tom Hiddleston would make a good Peter, too.
Jonathan (Hiddleston) continues to be hounded by Roper's (Laurie) security team, so he—and from the outside Angela—work to get this particular sniffer dog by the name of Corky off the job. By planting seeds of suspicion of his own, and by making a show of bonding with young Danny, Jonathan appears to slowly win Roper to his side.
Meanwhile, it's made plain that uppity-ups back in London are in with Roper. They continue to insist there is no need to take any action on Roper. So Angela, and by extension Jonathan, may have their legs cut out from under them if/when their work is brought to light. Worse still, Jonathan might (is likely to, based on previews, but then again they edit those fairly broadly) be compromised. One can only hope Angela has buried things deeply enough.
Of course things continue to be dragged down by a pseudo-romantic plot in which Jonathan can't stop thinking about Roper's wife. I'm sorry, but I just find it so difficult to believe him as a person who can't keep it in his pants. It probably doesn't help things that women always seem to be crying when he's around. He does, however, discover that Mrs. Roper (wasn't The Ropers a sitcom?) is also spying on her husband.
Minor annoyance: the On Demand feed repeated one portion of the episode. Someone should fix that.
I do wish they'd make The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller into a miniseries. I feel like more happens in that book than seems to be happening here. Tom Hiddleston would make a good Peter, too.
5.21.2016
Movies: Captain America: Civil War
Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan
Directed By: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written By: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (screenplay), from the comic book by Mark Millar, using characters created by Joe Simon & Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2016
PG-13; 147 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Directed By: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written By: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (screenplay), from the comic book by Mark Millar, using characters created by Joe Simon & Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2016
PG-13; 147 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Well, I mean, it's better than Age of Ultron, right?
After so many of these movies—not just the Marvel ones, but all these superhero blockbuster flicks—here are the two things that seem to be key: banter, and seeing how many new and different ways there are to break landmarks, buildings, and other big things. Even before this movie started, we sat through the X-Men: Apocalypse trailer and the Independence Day: Resurgence trailer (movies no longer come without colons, btw), and they looked almost identical. The same stuff getting demolished in pretty much the same ways.
These movies also come in two distinct flavors now. 1. Superhero or team of superheroes fights bad guy or team of bad guys. 2. Superhero or team of superheroes fights another superhero or team of superheroes. It looks pretty much the same either way.
In Civil War we get Captain America versus Iron Man while other Avengers pick sides. The rift begins when the Avengers are asked to sign the Sokovia Accord which allows the UN to decide when and where to use the strength of the Avengers. Given all the collateral damage they've wreaked, it's not an entirely outrageous request that the Avengers adhere to some basic rules and protocols. Tony, Rhodie, Natasha, Wanda, and Vision agree. Steve, Clint, and Sam do not.
Things go further south when, at the signing of the Accord, a bomb goes off and Cap's old friend Bucky Barnes is pegged as the culprit. Cap of course moves to save/help Bucky while everyone else is after him. Cap and Iron Man amass teams, and the shootout begins. At one point they literally stand on either side of a line and face one another. Well, no one ever lauded these movies for their subtlety.
The fight scenes in this one suffer from choppy, shaky action that makes it difficult to admire. The introduction of Spider-Man makes him more annoying than anything else, too. I understand what they were going for—"What would a teenaged superhero do if invited to join up?" The answer: talk too much and be mostly obnoxious. Don't get me wrong, he's perfect for Spider-Man. Just not right for this movie.
On the flip side, I actually did enjoy Black Panther. He felt integral rather than shoehorned in like Spider-Baby.
The plot itself involves a lot of moral gray areas, and while I can commend the franchise for attempting to address these things, they do so in such a glossed over way that it feels more like them trying to balm the critics than really say anything important. The chief villain here is a man who lost his family during the Sokovia fight—he wants revenge and decides the best way to get it is to instigate infighting amongst the Avengers. But he does this in such a weirdly complicated way that one can't help but think, "Surely there was a more direct route?"
The deeper allegory here is one of America's place in the world. Should we work with other countries and come to the table to forge accords, or are we better off not allowing various sanctions to choke chain our ability to act and react? Are we puppets for other countries' agendas when we agree to rule by committee? And are we tearing our own country apart via the political rift as we line up and take sides for our upcoming presidential election?
I don't know if the writers really meant anything as coherent as all that, but I was desperately searching for something to keep my brain engaged during fight scene after fight scene.
Best moment: Bucky asking Sam to move the seat up in the car. This film could have done with a few more moments like that one.
Most awkward moment(s): Vision's apparent crush on Scarlet Witch. And why does Scarlet Witch wear that pseudo-bustier as her superhero suit? Does it "bust-ier" her powers? Or is she just planning to go clubbing afterward?
All right. I'm done here. In short, it wasn't a bad movie. Telegraphed a lot of stuff, though, and didn't really do anything all that new or interesting. Except split up the team. Because, let's face it, it's getting harder and harder to fit everyone into any one movie. Better to split them into various franchises. More money that way, too.
Television: The Night Manager 1.2
So Jonathan (Hiddleston) gets tapped by Angela (Broadchurch's Olivia Colman) to go undercover and infiltrate Dickie Roper's organization.
That more or less sums it up.
Of course, all of this is way under the radar. Angela is doing it off the books because she can't get clearance from the uppity-ups. She does have some American guy helping her, though.
Then there's a lot of setup, just to get to the point where Jonathan saves Roper's son from would-be extortionist kidnappers. He's badly hurt in the process but begs for "no police," and Roper is, of course, grateful enough to take Jonathan home like a stray and nurse him back to health. Still, there are questions. Roper recognizes Jonathan from the hotel in Switzerland, for one thing. Lots of background checking that spits Jonathan out as a common thief. [To be clear, Jonathan has an assumed name at this point, but I've forgotten it. It's already taking all my energy not to think of him as Chris Pine, or even just Tom Hiddleston.]
The weakest points in the story thus far continue to be Jonathan falling into bed with women—just seems really unbelievable for some reason—and Hugh Laurie as at all threatening. He has his moments, but on the whole I'm not feeling it. Yet. Maybe this is the kind of thing that intensifies as we go along.
I do think the life insurance ads are a funny counterpoint, though.
That more or less sums it up.
Of course, all of this is way under the radar. Angela is doing it off the books because she can't get clearance from the uppity-ups. She does have some American guy helping her, though.
Then there's a lot of setup, just to get to the point where Jonathan saves Roper's son from would-be extortionist kidnappers. He's badly hurt in the process but begs for "no police," and Roper is, of course, grateful enough to take Jonathan home like a stray and nurse him back to health. Still, there are questions. Roper recognizes Jonathan from the hotel in Switzerland, for one thing. Lots of background checking that spits Jonathan out as a common thief. [To be clear, Jonathan has an assumed name at this point, but I've forgotten it. It's already taking all my energy not to think of him as Chris Pine, or even just Tom Hiddleston.]
The weakest points in the story thus far continue to be Jonathan falling into bed with women—just seems really unbelievable for some reason—and Hugh Laurie as at all threatening. He has his moments, but on the whole I'm not feeling it. Yet. Maybe this is the kind of thing that intensifies as we go along.
I do think the life insurance ads are a funny counterpoint, though.
5.19.2016
Haunted House Movies
On Good Friday 1999, two of my best friends and I decided to do a thematic movie night in which we rented haunted house movies. We tried to do it by decade. We went to a video store (remember those?) at picked up:
The Uninvited
The House on Haunted Hill
The Innocents
The Haunting
The Shining
. . . And one other movie. That none of us can remember.
(It also occurs to me that we didn't really have a 70s movie in there, unless there's another one we're forgetting we watched.)
It would help if we could even remember something about the final movie, but after the mind-numbing Shining, and given the late (early) hour, we simply can't. I only vaguely have the notion HBO had something to do with it. Like, we'd had to settle for some HBO movie rather than a "real" one. But I can't even remember who starred in it. A guy . . . with dark hair . . . I think there were kids?
Clearly, this movie did not leave much of an impression. I was debating whether it might have been Haunted with Aidan Quinn, but the plot doesn't sound familiar to me. So then I also watched the Beyond Darkness trailer, which has the dark-haired man and the kids, but it didn't spark any remembrances either.
Hmm.
In truth, haunted house movies are my favorite kinds of scare—so long as they stay largely psychological and don't get too gory. I even love really bad haunted house movies. So if you have any favorites, feel free to suggest them!
The Uninvited
The House on Haunted Hill
The Innocents
The Haunting
The Shining
. . . And one other movie. That none of us can remember.
(It also occurs to me that we didn't really have a 70s movie in there, unless there's another one we're forgetting we watched.)
It would help if we could even remember something about the final movie, but after the mind-numbing Shining, and given the late (early) hour, we simply can't. I only vaguely have the notion HBO had something to do with it. Like, we'd had to settle for some HBO movie rather than a "real" one. But I can't even remember who starred in it. A guy . . . with dark hair . . . I think there were kids?
Clearly, this movie did not leave much of an impression. I was debating whether it might have been Haunted with Aidan Quinn, but the plot doesn't sound familiar to me. So then I also watched the Beyond Darkness trailer, which has the dark-haired man and the kids, but it didn't spark any remembrances either.
Hmm.
In truth, haunted house movies are my favorite kinds of scare—so long as they stay largely psychological and don't get too gory. I even love really bad haunted house movies. So if you have any favorites, feel free to suggest them!
5.16.2016
Books: Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance by Angela Duckworth
This book falls under the whole "common sense" umbrella in that it mostly spells out things that, given a little thought, seem like common sense. Still, I appreciate that it prompted me to reflect on my own experiences from childhood onward. I like books that cause introspection because in order to change oneself, one first has to be self-aware and understand what and how to change.
Truth is, I don't much like the word "grit." I don't know why; maybe being female, it's a word I shy from using to describe myself. Not that I'm particularly gritty; after taking the little test, I'd say I fall square in the middle at "Somewhat Gritty." It's more that I pick my battles, but I've found (as Duckworth's research also did) that I've gotten more gritty as I've gotten older. Mostly I have to show grit when advocating or caring for others, but I've also learned when and how to do it when there's something I really want. A "top-level goal," as Duckworth puts it.
So here's what the book covers: A definition of grit and how it ends up, in the long run, being a better indicator of success and overall life satisfaction than intelligence or inherent talent; things that contribute to grit (internal and external), and how these can be leveraged to make one grittier.
As someone marked as both intelligent and talented from a young age, I definitely saw myself in this book, by which I mean I saw how, as I got older and faced increasing challenges, I struggled more. Things had always come easy, and I did not know how to deal with failure. Duckworth points out that learning how to fail is key in becoming gritty, and from experience I agree.
"Deliberate practice" versus "flow" is another interesting topic here. It makes sense that doing the same thing the same way over and over yields few, if any, results. Deliberate practice means consistently challenging and making progress. Flow, however, is that moment when it becomes effortless. This, again, is something I experienced in theatre. There came a lot of deliberate practice in the form of memorizing lines and rehearsing. But after that came flow, ideally on performance nights. In my mind flow is the result of deliberate practice; it's something you reach. In tarot, it would be the World card, which means it's time to go back to being the Fool and start another cycle of practicing on the next thing.
In writing terms, deliberate practice are the days I write even when it feels like I can't. Flow is when the dam opens and the writing comes easy. I think writing would always be difficult, though, if I didn't go through the tough days. I would never experience flow.
I could go on and on. Duckworth's chapter on hope and fixed versus growth mindsets again showed me how I'd changed. As a child I was told I was smart and talented and that was all I needed to be. Now I know better. Those attributes are great, but not if they atrophy. A friend once marveled at my IQ, and I told her, "It's what you do with it that matters." People who think they know enough and have all the answers are the scariest people in the world. And you don't have to be brilliant to be gritty. But it takes a certain amount of grit to be brilliant in any way that makes a difference.
And that's more or less Duckworth's point. She explains why grit matters, gives insight into what contributes to grit, and in doing so also points out ways to become grittier. The book is engagingly written, filled with anecdotes and interviews so that one doesn't feel snowed in by data. Definitely an interesting angle on how and why some people succeed. Gave me a lot to think about, which I enjoy doing.
Truth is, I don't much like the word "grit." I don't know why; maybe being female, it's a word I shy from using to describe myself. Not that I'm particularly gritty; after taking the little test, I'd say I fall square in the middle at "Somewhat Gritty." It's more that I pick my battles, but I've found (as Duckworth's research also did) that I've gotten more gritty as I've gotten older. Mostly I have to show grit when advocating or caring for others, but I've also learned when and how to do it when there's something I really want. A "top-level goal," as Duckworth puts it.
So here's what the book covers: A definition of grit and how it ends up, in the long run, being a better indicator of success and overall life satisfaction than intelligence or inherent talent; things that contribute to grit (internal and external), and how these can be leveraged to make one grittier.
As someone marked as both intelligent and talented from a young age, I definitely saw myself in this book, by which I mean I saw how, as I got older and faced increasing challenges, I struggled more. Things had always come easy, and I did not know how to deal with failure. Duckworth points out that learning how to fail is key in becoming gritty, and from experience I agree.
"Deliberate practice" versus "flow" is another interesting topic here. It makes sense that doing the same thing the same way over and over yields few, if any, results. Deliberate practice means consistently challenging and making progress. Flow, however, is that moment when it becomes effortless. This, again, is something I experienced in theatre. There came a lot of deliberate practice in the form of memorizing lines and rehearsing. But after that came flow, ideally on performance nights. In my mind flow is the result of deliberate practice; it's something you reach. In tarot, it would be the World card, which means it's time to go back to being the Fool and start another cycle of practicing on the next thing.
In writing terms, deliberate practice are the days I write even when it feels like I can't. Flow is when the dam opens and the writing comes easy. I think writing would always be difficult, though, if I didn't go through the tough days. I would never experience flow.
I could go on and on. Duckworth's chapter on hope and fixed versus growth mindsets again showed me how I'd changed. As a child I was told I was smart and talented and that was all I needed to be. Now I know better. Those attributes are great, but not if they atrophy. A friend once marveled at my IQ, and I told her, "It's what you do with it that matters." People who think they know enough and have all the answers are the scariest people in the world. And you don't have to be brilliant to be gritty. But it takes a certain amount of grit to be brilliant in any way that makes a difference.
And that's more or less Duckworth's point. She explains why grit matters, gives insight into what contributes to grit, and in doing so also points out ways to become grittier. The book is engagingly written, filled with anecdotes and interviews so that one doesn't feel snowed in by data. Definitely an interesting angle on how and why some people succeed. Gave me a lot to think about, which I enjoy doing.
5.15.2016
Television: The Night Manager 1.1
Finally getting around to this as my usual television schedule falls away for summer break. Though I've read some John Le Carré, I am not familiar with this particular book. My understanding is that it has been repurposed for a modern-day story line.
So far the upshot of the plot is that Tom Hiddleston plays Jonathan Pine, the titular night manager of (at first) a hotel in Egypt. He's hit up by the mistress of a dangerous individual, she gives him some sensitive information which he passes on to British agents of some sort, and then she ends up first beat up by the boyfriend and—when Pine's people refuse to give her passage out of the country—eventually dead.
Pine then evidently paraphrases Davy Crockett and says, "You all can go to hell, I'm going to Switzerland," where he becomes night manager at some other fancy hotel. Like you do.
The information the mistress gave Pine hinges on a famous British businessman named Richard Roper, played by Hugh Laurie. He's clearly set up as a villain, someone peddling napalm and other such things to nasty governments and/or insurgents. But the way he announces, "I'm Dickie Roper!" when he arrives at the hotel in Switzerland is laugh-out-loud funny. He becomes very serious and dark rather quickly, but that moment is going to stick with me.
My fundamental problem with this so far is that I'm somehow supposed to believe . . . at least, I think I'm supposed to believe? . . . that Pine fell for this mistress lady in short order. He'd been the night manager for some time, it seems, and she'd been in the Egyptian hotel for a while, too, but it was only when she decided to hit on him . . . And then they had, like, one night together and it was immediate love? Maybe the timeline has been compressed, or maybe I'm not actually meant to believe it was love so much as Pine feeling bad for having compromised her and eventually caused her death, but the way it's done plays false in some basic way. As a motivator for everything that is surely set to come, I find this particular device weak.
Still, it's an interesting story so far, and beautifully shot. I'll watch more.
Meanwhile, if you like The Night Manager, or Le Carré in general, I hope you'll consider giving my novel The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller a read. It's in the same vein and available on Amazon (as linked) and a variety of other outlets (linked by my publisher here).
So far the upshot of the plot is that Tom Hiddleston plays Jonathan Pine, the titular night manager of (at first) a hotel in Egypt. He's hit up by the mistress of a dangerous individual, she gives him some sensitive information which he passes on to British agents of some sort, and then she ends up first beat up by the boyfriend and—when Pine's people refuse to give her passage out of the country—eventually dead.
Pine then evidently paraphrases Davy Crockett and says, "You all can go to hell, I'm going to Switzerland," where he becomes night manager at some other fancy hotel. Like you do.
The information the mistress gave Pine hinges on a famous British businessman named Richard Roper, played by Hugh Laurie. He's clearly set up as a villain, someone peddling napalm and other such things to nasty governments and/or insurgents. But the way he announces, "I'm Dickie Roper!" when he arrives at the hotel in Switzerland is laugh-out-loud funny. He becomes very serious and dark rather quickly, but that moment is going to stick with me.
My fundamental problem with this so far is that I'm somehow supposed to believe . . . at least, I think I'm supposed to believe? . . . that Pine fell for this mistress lady in short order. He'd been the night manager for some time, it seems, and she'd been in the Egyptian hotel for a while, too, but it was only when she decided to hit on him . . . And then they had, like, one night together and it was immediate love? Maybe the timeline has been compressed, or maybe I'm not actually meant to believe it was love so much as Pine feeling bad for having compromised her and eventually caused her death, but the way it's done plays false in some basic way. As a motivator for everything that is surely set to come, I find this particular device weak.
Still, it's an interesting story so far, and beautifully shot. I'll watch more.
Meanwhile, if you like The Night Manager, or Le Carré in general, I hope you'll consider giving my novel The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller a read. It's in the same vein and available on Amazon (as linked) and a variety of other outlets (linked by my publisher here).
5.14.2016
Movies: Gambit (2012)
No, it's not an X-Men movie.
It's actually a loose remake of a 1966 film starring Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine.
We stumbled onto this one while once again searching for something beyond the top layer of new releases and junk food films that rise to the top of the "suggested" list like so much scum on a pond. And though it has something like 18% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, the cast sold us on giving it a try.
And we really enjoyed it.
For one thing, the script for this rehash was written by the Coen brothers, and it shows. There were some laugh-out-loud moments that played quite well.
Colin Firth (and I've said before I'll watch him in just about anything) plays Harry Deane, art curator to the wealthy and obnoxious Lord Shabandar (Alan Rickman, who I'll also watch in just about anything). Though his personal motivations are not plumbed all that deeply—it seems the writers believe it's enough that Shabandar is a terrible person—Deane decides to dupe his employer out of several million pounds. To do so, he needs the help of PJ Puznowski (Cameron Diaz), a Texan cowgirl who happens to have the right last name for the job.
I won't go into the details, but things play out in amusing fashion. Firth is a good sport throughout, and while I could complain about the portrayal of Texan women and the stereotypes therein . . . In the service of comedy, I'll let this one go.
The overall effect was of a heist film nicely blended with a screwball comedy. Just the right thing to watch while sipping some wine on a Friday night.
It's actually a loose remake of a 1966 film starring Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine.
We stumbled onto this one while once again searching for something beyond the top layer of new releases and junk food films that rise to the top of the "suggested" list like so much scum on a pond. And though it has something like 18% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, the cast sold us on giving it a try.
And we really enjoyed it.
For one thing, the script for this rehash was written by the Coen brothers, and it shows. There were some laugh-out-loud moments that played quite well.
Colin Firth (and I've said before I'll watch him in just about anything) plays Harry Deane, art curator to the wealthy and obnoxious Lord Shabandar (Alan Rickman, who I'll also watch in just about anything). Though his personal motivations are not plumbed all that deeply—it seems the writers believe it's enough that Shabandar is a terrible person—Deane decides to dupe his employer out of several million pounds. To do so, he needs the help of PJ Puznowski (Cameron Diaz), a Texan cowgirl who happens to have the right last name for the job.
I won't go into the details, but things play out in amusing fashion. Firth is a good sport throughout, and while I could complain about the portrayal of Texan women and the stereotypes therein . . . In the service of comedy, I'll let this one go.
The overall effect was of a heist film nicely blended with a screwball comedy. Just the right thing to watch while sipping some wine on a Friday night.
Television: Danger Mouse (2015)
It almost goes without saying that when one grows up with something, that person is predisposed to like any "new" version of that thing less than the original. And so it goes with Danger Mouse and me.
I used to watch the original series on Nickelodeon, and I loved it. Sometimes my best friend and I would play Danger Mouse, and I would be DM and she would be Penfold. I was even thinking of being Danger Mouse for Hallowe'en a few years back; it would be such an easy costume to manage.
My kids are now quite familiar with the original series as well, having watched it extensively first on YouTube then on Netflix. So they were keen to see what the reboot would be like.
They didn't like it either.
Even my 6-year-old can tell when animation is cheap. He told me flat out he didn't like "the way they did the pictures." Though the pilot attempted to hang a lampshade on that by having Colonel K go on about not having enough money. Hmm.
The voice acting bothered me a bit. They tried to more or less replicate the original voices, but it's just off enough that I'd almost rather they had done something completely new and different rather than imitate. And Baron Greenback is now Baron Von Greenback and inexplicably German. His famous rasp, meanwhile, is not all that . . . raspy.
Overall, the whole thing gives those of us who love the original Danger Mouse a sense of having been thrust into a bizarro version of it.
To be fair, however, we've only tried the first episode. I will give the show a couple more tries before dismissing it completely.
I used to watch the original series on Nickelodeon, and I loved it. Sometimes my best friend and I would play Danger Mouse, and I would be DM and she would be Penfold. I was even thinking of being Danger Mouse for Hallowe'en a few years back; it would be such an easy costume to manage.
My kids are now quite familiar with the original series as well, having watched it extensively first on YouTube then on Netflix. So they were keen to see what the reboot would be like.
They didn't like it either.
Even my 6-year-old can tell when animation is cheap. He told me flat out he didn't like "the way they did the pictures." Though the pilot attempted to hang a lampshade on that by having Colonel K go on about not having enough money. Hmm.
The voice acting bothered me a bit. They tried to more or less replicate the original voices, but it's just off enough that I'd almost rather they had done something completely new and different rather than imitate. And Baron Greenback is now Baron Von Greenback and inexplicably German. His famous rasp, meanwhile, is not all that . . . raspy.
Overall, the whole thing gives those of us who love the original Danger Mouse a sense of having been thrust into a bizarro version of it.
To be fair, however, we've only tried the first episode. I will give the show a couple more tries before dismissing it completely.
5.13.2016
Free Sherlock Holmes Story!
Today through the 17th, my Sherlock Holmes story "The Adventure of Ichabod Reed" is free on Amazon. It's an e-book, but remember that you don't need an actual Kindle to read Kindle books. Amazon has apps for your phone or tablet, and you can even just read it on your computer. Click here to grab a copy. And thanks for being readers!
5.10.2016
Television: Elementary, "A Difference in Kind"
The season finalé devolves into a complicated game of villainy politics. The short answer seems to be that Vikner wanted Morland Holmes dead because others in the organization were lobbying to tap Morland as their new leader in Moriarty's absence. Vikner had the attempt made on Morland's life, which sidelined him as he was too wrapped up in Sabine's death. But now it seems Morland might again be able (and willing?) to step in.
Which he does. After swimming through a bunch of relative nonsense, the upshot becomes Morland having Vikner killed and accepting the role of head of Moriarty's Web of Intrigue (TM). One can't help but wonder what Moriarty would think, given she knows how much Sherlock dislikes his father. Also, if Vikner was the father of Moriarty's daughter and is now dead . . . Where is this child? Who is caring for her? (In truth, we have no reason to believe Vikner was taking care of her either. In fact, Moriarty hadn't wanted him involved if I remember correctly? But it's still a worthy question.)
Sherlock is naturally put off by the idea of his father as evil mastermind, though isn't that how he always thought of him? So maybe it's the association with Moriarty in particular that turns his stomach. But Morland tells him the plan is to destroy the organization from the inside out. Do we believe that? Does it really matter?
Morland also says they will no longer operate in New York, but that seems ridiculous. New York must be very fertile ground for that kind of work. Saying your son is off limits is one thing, saying an entire major city is? I'd question that leadership.
In the end, Morland leaves Sherlock his safe house, and Sherlock in turn tries to give it to Watson. Morland pricked Sherlock's conscience by suggesting Watson was not safe in his company, that she was made vulnerable by association with him, so he was seeking to distance her. She didn't go for it. But in an astounding show of lack of forethought, she also suggested setting Marcus up with her sister.
The episode felt very tidy, and so I have to think they weren't sure whether they'd be getting another season at the time they wrote and filmed it. I'm actually still a little surprised they did given the move to Sunday and the slump in viewership. This would have been a fine place to end it, but there's room for more story too. See you (and them) again in the fall.
Which he does. After swimming through a bunch of relative nonsense, the upshot becomes Morland having Vikner killed and accepting the role of head of Moriarty's Web of Intrigue (TM). One can't help but wonder what Moriarty would think, given she knows how much Sherlock dislikes his father. Also, if Vikner was the father of Moriarty's daughter and is now dead . . . Where is this child? Who is caring for her? (In truth, we have no reason to believe Vikner was taking care of her either. In fact, Moriarty hadn't wanted him involved if I remember correctly? But it's still a worthy question.)
Sherlock is naturally put off by the idea of his father as evil mastermind, though isn't that how he always thought of him? So maybe it's the association with Moriarty in particular that turns his stomach. But Morland tells him the plan is to destroy the organization from the inside out. Do we believe that? Does it really matter?
Morland also says they will no longer operate in New York, but that seems ridiculous. New York must be very fertile ground for that kind of work. Saying your son is off limits is one thing, saying an entire major city is? I'd question that leadership.
In the end, Morland leaves Sherlock his safe house, and Sherlock in turn tries to give it to Watson. Morland pricked Sherlock's conscience by suggesting Watson was not safe in his company, that she was made vulnerable by association with him, so he was seeking to distance her. She didn't go for it. But in an astounding show of lack of forethought, she also suggested setting Marcus up with her sister.
The episode felt very tidy, and so I have to think they weren't sure whether they'd be getting another season at the time they wrote and filmed it. I'm actually still a little surprised they did given the move to Sunday and the slump in viewership. This would have been a fine place to end it, but there's room for more story too. See you (and them) again in the fall.
5.08.2016
Movies: Tumbledown
A sweet gem of a movie that we stumbled upon while searching for something that wasn't, well, all the usually hyped crap we're so sick of.
Tumbledown stars Jason Sudeikis and Rebecca Hall, and also puts Blythe Danner to good supportive use, though I feel like there was a lot more story to the supporting cast and characters—as if maybe this could be a series of books, really, set in this small Maine town. But that's probably just the writer in me getting fanciful.
Hall plays Hannah, widow of an obscure folk musician, and Sudeikis plays Andrew, a professor who wants to write a book about Hannah's deceased husband. Hannah herself is trying to write her husband's biography but can't seem to organize her thoughts and feelings in any useful way, so she taps Andrew to help her pull the manuscript together.
Though things progress in a very predictable fashion, this is a cute-sweet film with good performances. I enjoy Hall as an actress in general; she's shown fine range in a variety of projects. And Sudeikis is still funny here, but he also proves he can do more than broad comedy.
I do wonder at Hollywood's being so convinced that any time two people [of the opposite sex] get together to work on something, it will unavoidably become a romance. I think I'll write a screenplay in which two people work together and are just friends despite all the pressure from people around them to become romantically involved. That, in my experience, is far more realistic.
Then again, I guess we don't go to movies for the realism.
This movie also reminds me of why I no longer live in the Northeast. Because it's fucking cold is why.
In short, a cute film well worth a look when you're tired of all the usual popcorn fare.
Tumbledown stars Jason Sudeikis and Rebecca Hall, and also puts Blythe Danner to good supportive use, though I feel like there was a lot more story to the supporting cast and characters—as if maybe this could be a series of books, really, set in this small Maine town. But that's probably just the writer in me getting fanciful.
Hall plays Hannah, widow of an obscure folk musician, and Sudeikis plays Andrew, a professor who wants to write a book about Hannah's deceased husband. Hannah herself is trying to write her husband's biography but can't seem to organize her thoughts and feelings in any useful way, so she taps Andrew to help her pull the manuscript together.
Though things progress in a very predictable fashion, this is a cute-sweet film with good performances. I enjoy Hall as an actress in general; she's shown fine range in a variety of projects. And Sudeikis is still funny here, but he also proves he can do more than broad comedy.
I do wonder at Hollywood's being so convinced that any time two people [of the opposite sex] get together to work on something, it will unavoidably become a romance. I think I'll write a screenplay in which two people work together and are just friends despite all the pressure from people around them to become romantically involved. That, in my experience, is far more realistic.
Then again, I guess we don't go to movies for the realism.
This movie also reminds me of why I no longer live in the Northeast. Because it's fucking cold is why.
In short, a cute film well worth a look when you're tired of all the usual popcorn fare.
5.04.2016
'Merica!
The latest Cracked podcast is about how people from other countries view Americans. This kind of thing always interests me. As I've said before, when I travel abroad most people tell me I "can't" be American because I'm not loud enough, don't complain enough, etc. So I'm sort of embarrassed at this reputation my country has garnered.
There are things about America even I don't understand or subscribe to. For example, I've always had a lot of guy friends. On the podcast they go on and on about how that's normal for people in other countries but not here, and it's true that a lot of my female friends don't understand about my male friends. "Like, ex-boyfriends?" they ask. And I'm like, "No. Just friends. Like, you know? Friends?" We had a whole show about that, didn't we? It was a hit. But then again the natural progression of that show was that all the guy and girl friends would eventually get together, so . . . Yeah, Americans are weird about that. (Are my guy friends secretly hoping I'm into them? And no, they're not all gay. Only about half of them are.) Thanks, Cracked, for undermining my confidence and making me second-guess my healthy, happy friendships. You jackasses.
Another thing the podcast talks about is how even different parts of America are like different countries. And I can attest to this because I've lived in three very different parts of America myself. I grew up in the South (Louisiana and Texas), lived for 12 years in Massachusetts, and am now on the West Coast. So let's break that down.
Growing up in the South, we did that thing where people were Miss or Mister and then their first name. We were polite and usually warm, but even when we're giving someone the cold shoulder we sound friendly. We're the birthplace of backhanded compliments. We chat with people we don't know as if they're lifelong friends. We smile a lot.
Okay, so it was quite a shock when I then moved to Massachusetts. People do not smile there. They don't talk to you unless they absolutely have to. They're very tight knit and not welcoming. I lived there 12 years and was always an outsider. Between that and the snow, I really disliked it.
Visits home were tricky, too, because I'd forget I was back in the South and so I'd be thinking, Why the hell is that person smiling at me like that? before remembering where I was and relaxing.
So now I'm on the West Coast in California. It's more like the South in that it's friendlier, at least on the surface. But a lot of it is superficial. People here make promises they don't keep, which is something you can't get away with in the South or even in the Northeast (unless you're a politician). In California, though, everyone seems to be a politician of one kind or another. It's a game of who's who and personal leverage. And there's a simultaneous sense of being insanely busy and very laid back at the same time. Leisure is work and vice versa. It's so weird.
I knew I'd become sufficiently Cali when I got on a plane from SFO to LAX one day and I and everyone else on board kept our sunglasses on.
The Cracked podcast only touched on this, but I remember my friend Marieke from The Netherlands being amazed at the portion sizes in America. The Big Gulp in particular just astounded her.
And I thought it was interesting that one Cracked guest from Japan was perplexed by how we treat our pets like family members.
In all it was an interesting perspective.
There are things about America even I don't understand or subscribe to. For example, I've always had a lot of guy friends. On the podcast they go on and on about how that's normal for people in other countries but not here, and it's true that a lot of my female friends don't understand about my male friends. "Like, ex-boyfriends?" they ask. And I'm like, "No. Just friends. Like, you know? Friends?" We had a whole show about that, didn't we? It was a hit. But then again the natural progression of that show was that all the guy and girl friends would eventually get together, so . . . Yeah, Americans are weird about that. (Are my guy friends secretly hoping I'm into them? And no, they're not all gay. Only about half of them are.) Thanks, Cracked, for undermining my confidence and making me second-guess my healthy, happy friendships. You jackasses.
Another thing the podcast talks about is how even different parts of America are like different countries. And I can attest to this because I've lived in three very different parts of America myself. I grew up in the South (Louisiana and Texas), lived for 12 years in Massachusetts, and am now on the West Coast. So let's break that down.
Growing up in the South, we did that thing where people were Miss or Mister and then their first name. We were polite and usually warm, but even when we're giving someone the cold shoulder we sound friendly. We're the birthplace of backhanded compliments. We chat with people we don't know as if they're lifelong friends. We smile a lot.
Okay, so it was quite a shock when I then moved to Massachusetts. People do not smile there. They don't talk to you unless they absolutely have to. They're very tight knit and not welcoming. I lived there 12 years and was always an outsider. Between that and the snow, I really disliked it.
Visits home were tricky, too, because I'd forget I was back in the South and so I'd be thinking, Why the hell is that person smiling at me like that? before remembering where I was and relaxing.
So now I'm on the West Coast in California. It's more like the South in that it's friendlier, at least on the surface. But a lot of it is superficial. People here make promises they don't keep, which is something you can't get away with in the South or even in the Northeast (unless you're a politician). In California, though, everyone seems to be a politician of one kind or another. It's a game of who's who and personal leverage. And there's a simultaneous sense of being insanely busy and very laid back at the same time. Leisure is work and vice versa. It's so weird.
I knew I'd become sufficiently Cali when I got on a plane from SFO to LAX one day and I and everyone else on board kept our sunglasses on.
The Cracked podcast only touched on this, but I remember my friend Marieke from The Netherlands being amazed at the portion sizes in America. The Big Gulp in particular just astounded her.
And I thought it was interesting that one Cracked guest from Japan was perplexed by how we treat our pets like family members.
In all it was an interesting perspective.
5.03.2016
Television: Elementary, "The Invisible Hand"
Last week hinted at the return of Moriarty, or at least her syndicate as she is currently incarcerated (on at least two shows, no less, if you happen to also watch Game of Thrones). So when a guard and one of Morland's underlings are murdered at his building and then a bomb goes off, Sherlock and Watson swing into action in search of whomever has taken over Moriarty's dealings. Turns out it's a professor with business connections to rival Morland's—and also the father of Moriarty's daughter.
Joshua Vikner is his name, and he tells Sherlock and Watson they are "untouchable" because Moriarty has strictly forbidden any harm come to them. This does not seemingly extend to Papa Holmes however, and the reason for these assassination attempts remain a mystery. Is it really just business? Why so long ago and then now? Is it only because Sherlock is just now beginning to investigate the attempt on his father, the one that killed Sabine? Is he (or Morland) getting too close to something?
Meanwhile, Morland is moved to a safe house but not out of the city. I suppose he insisted on staying close to see what came of it all. He's keen to find who did it and put the screws to him despite Sherlock insisting his father allow the justice system to do its work.
The on-site murderer is our Russian friend, the one who'd skipped out of the gulag or whatever he'd been in. He gets captured then murdered before he can tell anyone anything of value. But is Vikner (the professor) behind that? It's all pretty convoluted.
Vikner, in fact, attempts to sue for peace between his organization and Morland's. But Sherlock—the would-be intermediary—doesn't bite on the offer. He's not interested in anything under the table; he wants old-fashioned justice in the form of police and courts. Seems he should know better than to believe that can be had when dealing with people who function so entirely outside the law and by their own rules. Is there an odd streak of naiveté in him, some weird optimism? Or is he that confident in himself versus these others?
The episode ends, however, with Sherlock and Watson walking into the brownstone and being faced with a bomb, so . . . Pride goeth and all that.
Season finale next week.
Joshua Vikner is his name, and he tells Sherlock and Watson they are "untouchable" because Moriarty has strictly forbidden any harm come to them. This does not seemingly extend to Papa Holmes however, and the reason for these assassination attempts remain a mystery. Is it really just business? Why so long ago and then now? Is it only because Sherlock is just now beginning to investigate the attempt on his father, the one that killed Sabine? Is he (or Morland) getting too close to something?
Meanwhile, Morland is moved to a safe house but not out of the city. I suppose he insisted on staying close to see what came of it all. He's keen to find who did it and put the screws to him despite Sherlock insisting his father allow the justice system to do its work.
The on-site murderer is our Russian friend, the one who'd skipped out of the gulag or whatever he'd been in. He gets captured then murdered before he can tell anyone anything of value. But is Vikner (the professor) behind that? It's all pretty convoluted.
Vikner, in fact, attempts to sue for peace between his organization and Morland's. But Sherlock—the would-be intermediary—doesn't bite on the offer. He's not interested in anything under the table; he wants old-fashioned justice in the form of police and courts. Seems he should know better than to believe that can be had when dealing with people who function so entirely outside the law and by their own rules. Is there an odd streak of naiveté in him, some weird optimism? Or is he that confident in himself versus these others?
The episode ends, however, with Sherlock and Watson walking into the brownstone and being faced with a bomb, so . . . Pride goeth and all that.
Season finale next week.
5.01.2016
Books: The Rejected Writers' Book Club by Suzanne Kelman
For me, this book is the epitome of average. It's got a cute story, is populated with colorful characters, yet somehow fails to rise. I didn't hate it, but there were plenty of places where Kelman slid past things that should have had more dramatic heft. Case in point: A character chains herself to a toilet in a publishing office and the others forget and leave her there. By the time they remember and go back, police and firemen are on the scene. But all we get is, "After a stern talking to by the police officer . . ." Here's a moment that should totally be shown not told.
There is a lot crammed into this book; it almost tries to do too much work. The story—more like stories, plural—is told from the point of view of Janet, librarian of Southlea Bay, which is a tiny island in the Pacific Northwest. She gets roped into a road trip with a bunch of would-be writers who actually seek to be rejected and the adventures roll on from there. Car problems, landslides, bad weather . . . It all gets heaped on.
Truth is, I may not be the target audience for this book. As a writer myself, I thought this might be more about a group of writers attempting to get published. Instead it's possibly more a book for my mother, who might identify with Janet's problematic relationship with her adult daughter (a strong-willed only child like me). All the women in the group are seemingly a generation older than me, and while I can enjoy books that feature such characters, I definitely did not get the sense of connection that one wants between a reader and the characters.
Also, there are almost too many characters, and though each is fun in her own right, overall some streamlining might've lightened the weight of all this story. Because there's a lot of it. This book is densely packed, but maybe not in the best ways.
On the plus side, Janet has a definite voice. She isn't bland. That's what kept me from putting the book down entirely.
Would I read another in this series? I honestly don't know. I'd have to be in a very particular mood, I think. But I will recommend this book to my mom.
There is a lot crammed into this book; it almost tries to do too much work. The story—more like stories, plural—is told from the point of view of Janet, librarian of Southlea Bay, which is a tiny island in the Pacific Northwest. She gets roped into a road trip with a bunch of would-be writers who actually seek to be rejected and the adventures roll on from there. Car problems, landslides, bad weather . . . It all gets heaped on.
Truth is, I may not be the target audience for this book. As a writer myself, I thought this might be more about a group of writers attempting to get published. Instead it's possibly more a book for my mother, who might identify with Janet's problematic relationship with her adult daughter (a strong-willed only child like me). All the women in the group are seemingly a generation older than me, and while I can enjoy books that feature such characters, I definitely did not get the sense of connection that one wants between a reader and the characters.
Also, there are almost too many characters, and though each is fun in her own right, overall some streamlining might've lightened the weight of all this story. Because there's a lot of it. This book is densely packed, but maybe not in the best ways.
On the plus side, Janet has a definite voice. She isn't bland. That's what kept me from putting the book down entirely.
Would I read another in this series? I honestly don't know. I'd have to be in a very particular mood, I think. But I will recommend this book to my mom.
4.30.2016
Movies: Deadpool
Alas, any movie that gets hyped has a mountain to climb once it comes time to actually sit down and watch it.
After hearing how great Deadpool was, I was eager to give it a try. Maybe, I thought, there was such a thing as a Marvel movie that wasn't the same old, same old. Maybe, I hoped, we could get something more from our popcorn flicks.
Okay, a couple considerations: (a) I didn't see this in a cinema full of people. I'm sure crowd mentality makes a big difference in how one views a film. (b) I haven't read the comics. But I firmly believe a good movie shouldn't require a viewer to already be familiar with the characters anyway. It should stand on its own.
The pros: I enjoyed the snark. And the movie is, in parts at least, visually arresting. Violent, but not gory. More Kingsmen/comic book violent, which I can stomach. Also, interesting music choices.
The cons: Some of the snark was a little too on the nose, too self-aware. And the plot was so damn pedantic. The villain was not at all interesting either. Plus, I don't think they established his abilities well enough. If things are going to come down to a fight (and they are, they always are), we need to know what everyone is capable of. And then we do a girlfriend-in-distress thing? Gag me. I don't care if that's how the story goes in the "source material" (see above); change it.
Also, the X-Men felt shoehorned in there.
And after the fabulousness of the scene on the highway, the final climax felt bland. And Deadpool's stupidity in believing the baddie could really fix his face . . . Also, what was the whole, "What's my name?" thing? That's the best catchphrase they could give the bad guy? Yawn.
Marvel seems to have a couple tiers of heroes/movies. A-list: Avengers and all their singular characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. B-list: Ant-Man and now Deadpool. And sure these characters can (and will) show up in each other's films, but really, there is a definite hierarchy. Which is why no one thought Deadpool would make as much money as it did and why they dropped it in the "off season." Next time, after having done so well, he might get pushed closer to the summer circus, moved to the Big Tent. But can it do well against real competition? After all, maybe it only did well this time because it had no rivals.
I won't bother to go again into how tired I am of these movies. But they're putting them out almost as regularly as the comic books they're based on. Gah.
And in the end, was Deadpool different enough? It was different, but . . . It [He] was trying too hard to be anti-hero. He doth protest too much, attempting to make his case, claiming to be so different, so outside the lines. When you have to argue it that hard, it usually means the evidence doesn't support it. Otherwise you'd simply show rather than tell.
At the end of the day, Deadpool is just another in a growing stack of these films. And—dare I say it?—this one is more cute than hefty, its box office boom notwithstanding.
After hearing how great Deadpool was, I was eager to give it a try. Maybe, I thought, there was such a thing as a Marvel movie that wasn't the same old, same old. Maybe, I hoped, we could get something more from our popcorn flicks.
Okay, a couple considerations: (a) I didn't see this in a cinema full of people. I'm sure crowd mentality makes a big difference in how one views a film. (b) I haven't read the comics. But I firmly believe a good movie shouldn't require a viewer to already be familiar with the characters anyway. It should stand on its own.
The pros: I enjoyed the snark. And the movie is, in parts at least, visually arresting. Violent, but not gory. More Kingsmen/comic book violent, which I can stomach. Also, interesting music choices.
The cons: Some of the snark was a little too on the nose, too self-aware. And the plot was so damn pedantic. The villain was not at all interesting either. Plus, I don't think they established his abilities well enough. If things are going to come down to a fight (and they are, they always are), we need to know what everyone is capable of. And then we do a girlfriend-in-distress thing? Gag me. I don't care if that's how the story goes in the "source material" (see above); change it.
Also, the X-Men felt shoehorned in there.
And after the fabulousness of the scene on the highway, the final climax felt bland. And Deadpool's stupidity in believing the baddie could really fix his face . . . Also, what was the whole, "What's my name?" thing? That's the best catchphrase they could give the bad guy? Yawn.
Marvel seems to have a couple tiers of heroes/movies. A-list: Avengers and all their singular characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. B-list: Ant-Man and now Deadpool. And sure these characters can (and will) show up in each other's films, but really, there is a definite hierarchy. Which is why no one thought Deadpool would make as much money as it did and why they dropped it in the "off season." Next time, after having done so well, he might get pushed closer to the summer circus, moved to the Big Tent. But can it do well against real competition? After all, maybe it only did well this time because it had no rivals.
I won't bother to go again into how tired I am of these movies. But they're putting them out almost as regularly as the comic books they're based on. Gah.
And in the end, was Deadpool different enough? It was different, but . . . It [He] was trying too hard to be anti-hero. He doth protest too much, attempting to make his case, claiming to be so different, so outside the lines. When you have to argue it that hard, it usually means the evidence doesn't support it. Otherwise you'd simply show rather than tell.
At the end of the day, Deadpool is just another in a growing stack of these films. And—dare I say it?—this one is more cute than hefty, its box office boom notwithstanding.
4.28.2016
Television: Limitless, "Finale: Part Two!"
So, fellow viewers, are we satisfied with this ending?
I'd say I am.
Skipping all the padding, it comes down to a shoot-out in the lab that was manufacturing NZT. Sands is killed (we think, but in shows like this it's never a given). Piper gets away and turned up at Brian's parents' house (now also his house) and revealed she'd created a permanent immunity shot but didn't want the government to have it. She gives it to Brian—he's been taking NZT as he tries to find her, and the side effects have been increasing—and then leaves. So . . . are they still girlfriend/boyfriend, or . . . I mean, is this a LDR now? Do we care?
I suppose the point was to have her as a character who can pop in whenever. If the show gets renewed.
Meanwhile, Brian gets to form a fresh new team at the FBI. This sort of resets the show to its beginning thesis: Brian + FBI friends, yet he's also harboring a secret. So if there's a second season, we can start from the top.
I did have one question, though. The FBI said that Sands and his people couldn't be making enough money just from sales of NZT. Really? I mean, even if it sells for $20 a pill, and you consider the dealer is taking a cut of the profits, if Sands' guy is the creator/distributor, the money all funnels back to Sands. (Which begs the question of where and how Morra makes and gets the drug?) And as widespread as this drug supposedly was, that's a lot of money. But whatever. I don't watch the show to debate economics or supply and demand.
Anyway, here's hoping Limitless gets a shot at another season. If not, though, it ended well and has been a fun ride.
I'd say I am.
Skipping all the padding, it comes down to a shoot-out in the lab that was manufacturing NZT. Sands is killed (we think, but in shows like this it's never a given). Piper gets away and turned up at Brian's parents' house (now also his house) and revealed she'd created a permanent immunity shot but didn't want the government to have it. She gives it to Brian—he's been taking NZT as he tries to find her, and the side effects have been increasing—and then leaves. So . . . are they still girlfriend/boyfriend, or . . . I mean, is this a LDR now? Do we care?
I suppose the point was to have her as a character who can pop in whenever. If the show gets renewed.
Meanwhile, Brian gets to form a fresh new team at the FBI. This sort of resets the show to its beginning thesis: Brian + FBI friends, yet he's also harboring a secret. So if there's a second season, we can start from the top.
I did have one question, though. The FBI said that Sands and his people couldn't be making enough money just from sales of NZT. Really? I mean, even if it sells for $20 a pill, and you consider the dealer is taking a cut of the profits, if Sands' guy is the creator/distributor, the money all funnels back to Sands. (Which begs the question of where and how Morra makes and gets the drug?) And as widespread as this drug supposedly was, that's a lot of money. But whatever. I don't watch the show to debate economics or supply and demand.
Anyway, here's hoping Limitless gets a shot at another season. If not, though, it ended well and has been a fun ride.
4.26.2016
Television: Elementary, "Turn It Upside Down"
So Emil Kurtz, who was Watson's mole inside Morland Holmes' organization, was murdered in what was made to look like a café robbery gone bad. But Watson knows better, and when Sherlock confronts her with her recent bizarre behavior, she confesses to having double-crossed his father.
Everything then points to Morland having offed Emil after discovering Emil was spilling secrets [to Watson, though whether Morland knew it was Watson was still a question mark].
Still, it's a given that Morland himself didn't walk into that café and shoot anyone. So the first step is to find out who did and then trace it back to Daddy. This is achieved via a very strange coincidence (if that's the word for it)—one of the victims of the shooting wasn't shot; she had an acute allergic reaction and died from that. Her sister, who was also at the café, then tells a story of that having happened only once before, and doctors determining her sister was allergic to mountain lions. Everyone now: The fuck?
Okay, so the thought is that the murderer had been near a mountain lion. None of the zoos have mountain lions. That leaves taxidermists. And that's how they find Arthur Tetch, who readily admits to having been approached and eventually hired to murder not only Emil but some research lady some weeks before. The man who hired him called himself Mr. King, but Tetch's description places the guy as too young to be Morland (and surely Morland would keep his distance from something so distasteful anyway). One of Morland's lackeys then?
Sherlock finds surveillance equipment in Emil's apartment, too, seemingly recently installed.
Anyway, the story wends through the research lady having been doing work on having people take an online survey to discern whether they were psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. I would argue that, while it's fair to assume a wide pool of responders, they're also going to be largely self-selecting and you're going to get skewed results, but whatever. It's pretty clear that someone on this research staff was using the responses to pinpoint people like Tetch who might be willing to kill for money.
Meanwhile, Morland stands clear of wrongdoing. He admits to some more shady dealings but nothing approaching murder. And Sherlock is forced to admit, in turn, that he'd jumped to conclusions—something he usually prides himself on not doing.
As things wind down, it's the nicknames of the people doing the hiring and murdering that sparks Sherlock in another direction—he recognizes a pattern in the naming convention that leads him to believe Moriarty is back.
DUN DUN DUN
They've been teasing this for weeks, so we're less impressed than we might otherwise have been.
On a softer note, last week Morland had come to the brownstone in search of something he'd lost. Turns out it was a ring. A ring that had belonged to Sherlock's mother, in fact, that Morland planned to use as a kind of bribe to some countess. Sherlock had discovered the ring back when he'd moved in, and had secreted it in the fireplace. He doesn't tell his father that, though.
One has to wonder whether Morland was lying about Sherlock's mother being an addict. I wouldn't put it past him, really. The man manipulates, and that's a strong form of emotional manipulation right there. Maybe it doesn't matter, but it's the kind of thing that interests me—the psychology of characters and their motivations. I'm a character person first and foremost, which is pretty obvious if you read any of my books. (Peter in particular has been lauded as a great character study. Give it a whirl, eh?)
Everything then points to Morland having offed Emil after discovering Emil was spilling secrets [to Watson, though whether Morland knew it was Watson was still a question mark].
Still, it's a given that Morland himself didn't walk into that café and shoot anyone. So the first step is to find out who did and then trace it back to Daddy. This is achieved via a very strange coincidence (if that's the word for it)—one of the victims of the shooting wasn't shot; she had an acute allergic reaction and died from that. Her sister, who was also at the café, then tells a story of that having happened only once before, and doctors determining her sister was allergic to mountain lions. Everyone now: The fuck?
Okay, so the thought is that the murderer had been near a mountain lion. None of the zoos have mountain lions. That leaves taxidermists. And that's how they find Arthur Tetch, who readily admits to having been approached and eventually hired to murder not only Emil but some research lady some weeks before. The man who hired him called himself Mr. King, but Tetch's description places the guy as too young to be Morland (and surely Morland would keep his distance from something so distasteful anyway). One of Morland's lackeys then?
Sherlock finds surveillance equipment in Emil's apartment, too, seemingly recently installed.
Anyway, the story wends through the research lady having been doing work on having people take an online survey to discern whether they were psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. I would argue that, while it's fair to assume a wide pool of responders, they're also going to be largely self-selecting and you're going to get skewed results, but whatever. It's pretty clear that someone on this research staff was using the responses to pinpoint people like Tetch who might be willing to kill for money.
Meanwhile, Morland stands clear of wrongdoing. He admits to some more shady dealings but nothing approaching murder. And Sherlock is forced to admit, in turn, that he'd jumped to conclusions—something he usually prides himself on not doing.
As things wind down, it's the nicknames of the people doing the hiring and murdering that sparks Sherlock in another direction—he recognizes a pattern in the naming convention that leads him to believe Moriarty is back.
DUN DUN DUN
They've been teasing this for weeks, so we're less impressed than we might otherwise have been.
On a softer note, last week Morland had come to the brownstone in search of something he'd lost. Turns out it was a ring. A ring that had belonged to Sherlock's mother, in fact, that Morland planned to use as a kind of bribe to some countess. Sherlock had discovered the ring back when he'd moved in, and had secreted it in the fireplace. He doesn't tell his father that, though.
One has to wonder whether Morland was lying about Sherlock's mother being an addict. I wouldn't put it past him, really. The man manipulates, and that's a strong form of emotional manipulation right there. Maybe it doesn't matter, but it's the kind of thing that interests me—the psychology of characters and their motivations. I'm a character person first and foremost, which is pretty obvious if you read any of my books. (Peter in particular has been lauded as a great character study. Give it a whirl, eh?)
4.25.2016
Television: Why I Don't Cover Game of Thrones
I sometimes get asked whether I watch Game of Thrones, and if so why don't I write about it the way I do other shows? The answer to the first question is: I do watch it. Kind of. I'm not riveted the way so many other people seem to be. I get kind of annoyed with the show, actually. For a lot of reasons I won't bother to get into here.
So then why don't I write about it? Well, for one thing there's already so much out there, so many people writing about it, and they delve way deeper than I could be arsed to. And a lot of them have read the books, too. I tried. I got maybe three pages in and just couldn't be arsed on that end either.
I'm a Game of Thrones dilettante, I guess. I'm not into the books, and I'm also not into the show enough to throw theories and such around. I don't care enough to rehash every minute. I probably only care about half of the story lines at any given time. I'm curious to see how it all ends, but sometimes the getting there feels like a slog. Like I have to get through a lot of muck, but I have faith I'll be rewarded in the end.
Let's hope so, anyway.
So then why don't I write about it? Well, for one thing there's already so much out there, so many people writing about it, and they delve way deeper than I could be arsed to. And a lot of them have read the books, too. I tried. I got maybe three pages in and just couldn't be arsed on that end either.
I'm a Game of Thrones dilettante, I guess. I'm not into the books, and I'm also not into the show enough to throw theories and such around. I don't care enough to rehash every minute. I probably only care about half of the story lines at any given time. I'm curious to see how it all ends, but sometimes the getting there feels like a slog. Like I have to get through a lot of muck, but I have faith I'll be rewarded in the end.
Let's hope so, anyway.
4.22.2016
Television: Limitless, "Finale: Part One!"
Okay, so I admitted last week that I'd totally stopped paying attention to the episode, so this week I was all, "Really? That happened?" when they gave the recap. I guess that's a reason to be happy for recaps.
Sands is in custody. Brian is still desperate to find Piper. And without the immunity shots, Brian can no longer take NZT. Nor does he work for the FBI any more. Instead he works retail at some would-be Best Buy.
When another agent named Bruster comes in to join forces with the FBI, it's pretty much a given he's a bad guy. Sorry if that spoils things for anyone, but his behavior is questionable from the start. So the reveal later is hardly a reveal at all.
Meanwhile, New York is suffering under a widespread NZT outbreak as the drug hits the streets. I have to wonder that this hasn't come up sooner, and that all the while the FBI has been giving Brian NZT they didn't think to work on finding out where it comes from. I mean, where are they getting it to begin with? Maybe they answered that early on and I've forgotten, but still.
Rebecca won't give Brian any more NZT because he's no longer immune, so he and a coworker go get some of the street stuff. Brian then sorts out where the supplies are coming from, but the FBI has a different lead. Courtesy of (you guessed it) Bruster. They round up all Sands' people, or so they think. But it turns out Bruster works with Sands, and they're really out to decimate Morra's network. They discover all this too late, however; Bruster and Sands are in the wind.
The episode was slightly hobbled by Brian not being at the FBI, but by the end of it that appears to be on the verge of changing. We can only hope.
Also, Brian's fixation on Piper still doesn't ring true to me. I don't find any chemistry there, and while I can believe Brian is honestly concerned for her, and that he also would like to find out if she's been successful in replicating the immunity shot, the romance feels forced. "She's my girlfriend!" is a tad whiny and hard to take seriously when they were together for all of a week before she disappeared.
One more episode this season, and no word yet about renewal. What I love about Limitless, though, is the balance of drama and comedy. It satisfies on both sides. When I want to watch something funny, Limitless will do. It has enough humor in it for that. When I want a drama, Limitless will also do, and it has the bonus of not being too heavy to watch right before bed. (Yes, I ingest television as if it were sandwiches.) No other show on my viewing list fits this particular slot for me, so I'm very much hoping it stays on the schedule.
Sands is in custody. Brian is still desperate to find Piper. And without the immunity shots, Brian can no longer take NZT. Nor does he work for the FBI any more. Instead he works retail at some would-be Best Buy.
When another agent named Bruster comes in to join forces with the FBI, it's pretty much a given he's a bad guy. Sorry if that spoils things for anyone, but his behavior is questionable from the start. So the reveal later is hardly a reveal at all.
Meanwhile, New York is suffering under a widespread NZT outbreak as the drug hits the streets. I have to wonder that this hasn't come up sooner, and that all the while the FBI has been giving Brian NZT they didn't think to work on finding out where it comes from. I mean, where are they getting it to begin with? Maybe they answered that early on and I've forgotten, but still.
Rebecca won't give Brian any more NZT because he's no longer immune, so he and a coworker go get some of the street stuff. Brian then sorts out where the supplies are coming from, but the FBI has a different lead. Courtesy of (you guessed it) Bruster. They round up all Sands' people, or so they think. But it turns out Bruster works with Sands, and they're really out to decimate Morra's network. They discover all this too late, however; Bruster and Sands are in the wind.
The episode was slightly hobbled by Brian not being at the FBI, but by the end of it that appears to be on the verge of changing. We can only hope.
Also, Brian's fixation on Piper still doesn't ring true to me. I don't find any chemistry there, and while I can believe Brian is honestly concerned for her, and that he also would like to find out if she's been successful in replicating the immunity shot, the romance feels forced. "She's my girlfriend!" is a tad whiny and hard to take seriously when they were together for all of a week before she disappeared.
One more episode this season, and no word yet about renewal. What I love about Limitless, though, is the balance of drama and comedy. It satisfies on both sides. When I want to watch something funny, Limitless will do. It has enough humor in it for that. When I want a drama, Limitless will also do, and it has the bonus of not being too heavy to watch right before bed. (Yes, I ingest television as if it were sandwiches.) No other show on my viewing list fits this particular slot for me, so I'm very much hoping it stays on the schedule.
4.20.2016
Books: The Gates of Evangeline by Hester Young
I picked this one up off a shelf at Barnes and Noble because my daughter's name is Evangeline. After reading the book flap, it sounded intriguing enough to give it a try. And I'm glad I did.
This one was difficult for me to put down, possibly because it hit so many of my sweet spots. It's a mystery, has a paranormal element, and is set in my home stomping grounds of the Louisiana swamps and antebellum glamor.
The story is of Charlotte "Charlie" Cates, a single mother who has just lost her four-year-old son. His death has triggered prophetic dreams in which young children seek Charlie's help. When she's given the chance to go down to Louisiana to do a story on a cold case disappearance, one of these dreams prompts her to accept. [Aside: between this and The Lake House, I seem to have a cold case/child disappearance thing going. But the two books pair really nicely.]
There is the fish-out-of-water element of a New Englander navigating the South. (I myself am a Southerner who lived for years in New England, so . . .) Young does a decent job with it, and doesn't go too far with the dialect spellings, giving just enough to allow readers to hear it mentally. Meanwhile, the book is also populated with interesting characters.
Though I predicted most of the revelations early on, the twisty-turny journey of the story kept me turning pages. Things move at a good clip, yet Young doesn't sacrifice detail for plot. It's a nice balance of beautiful prose and pacing.
The only thing that felt somewhat overdone—the one thing that drew attention to itself—was the argument for faith and God and religion. Now, Charlie isn't religious, and it's true that down South one is likely to run into and deal with a lot of people who are. But this book felt the need to explore that a bit too much in that it detoured into that discussion a tad too often. It left me half wondering if the novel had originally been written for the Christian market.
But overall this is a really compelling read. It's one of those books that I'm sorry to see end, one that will be difficult to follow.
This one was difficult for me to put down, possibly because it hit so many of my sweet spots. It's a mystery, has a paranormal element, and is set in my home stomping grounds of the Louisiana swamps and antebellum glamor.
The story is of Charlotte "Charlie" Cates, a single mother who has just lost her four-year-old son. His death has triggered prophetic dreams in which young children seek Charlie's help. When she's given the chance to go down to Louisiana to do a story on a cold case disappearance, one of these dreams prompts her to accept. [Aside: between this and The Lake House, I seem to have a cold case/child disappearance thing going. But the two books pair really nicely.]
There is the fish-out-of-water element of a New Englander navigating the South. (I myself am a Southerner who lived for years in New England, so . . .) Young does a decent job with it, and doesn't go too far with the dialect spellings, giving just enough to allow readers to hear it mentally. Meanwhile, the book is also populated with interesting characters.
Though I predicted most of the revelations early on, the twisty-turny journey of the story kept me turning pages. Things move at a good clip, yet Young doesn't sacrifice detail for plot. It's a nice balance of beautiful prose and pacing.
The only thing that felt somewhat overdone—the one thing that drew attention to itself—was the argument for faith and God and religion. Now, Charlie isn't religious, and it's true that down South one is likely to run into and deal with a lot of people who are. But this book felt the need to explore that a bit too much in that it detoured into that discussion a tad too often. It left me half wondering if the novel had originally been written for the Christian market.
But overall this is a really compelling read. It's one of those books that I'm sorry to see end, one that will be difficult to follow.
4.19.2016
Television: Elementary, "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing"
An episode predicated on a ridiculous amount of happenstance. Someone is faking his murder as two other people plot to kill him. So . . . whodunnit? And is everybody happy now?
The subplot involving Watson's ongoing blackmail of one of Morland's employees as she tries to eke information about Morland's doings was far more interesting, even though hardly present. The employee begs off when he realizes he's very close to being found out, then Morland makes an abrupt visit to the townhouse—Watson discovers him there, so who knows what his lackey has dug up while she and Sherlock were out—and the employee ends up dead. The murder is meant to look like an accident, but Watson knows better.
And so, one suspects, does Sherlock. Watson has made up any number of excuses to meet this informant, but Sherlock is smarter than that, right? A couple of his comments during the episode invite Watson to 'fess up, but she doesn't.
So what has Watson received in return for all this runaround? News that Morland seems to have had a Russian assassin—the one that supposedly tried to kill him and did kill his lady friend—busted out of a gulag. But whether he's looking for revenge or has something to hide is still a big question mark. Looks like we're building to quite the finale.
The subplot involving Watson's ongoing blackmail of one of Morland's employees as she tries to eke information about Morland's doings was far more interesting, even though hardly present. The employee begs off when he realizes he's very close to being found out, then Morland makes an abrupt visit to the townhouse—Watson discovers him there, so who knows what his lackey has dug up while she and Sherlock were out—and the employee ends up dead. The murder is meant to look like an accident, but Watson knows better.
And so, one suspects, does Sherlock. Watson has made up any number of excuses to meet this informant, but Sherlock is smarter than that, right? A couple of his comments during the episode invite Watson to 'fess up, but she doesn't.
So what has Watson received in return for all this runaround? News that Morland seems to have had a Russian assassin—the one that supposedly tried to kill him and did kill his lady friend—busted out of a gulag. But whether he's looking for revenge or has something to hide is still a big question mark. Looks like we're building to quite the finale.
4.18.2016
Television: Limitless, "Hi, My Name is Rebecca Harris"
So in this episode Rebecca confronts Brian about his ties to Sands and Morra, and Brian finally tells her the truth: that Sands killed her father. Rebecca then decides to try some NZT. Ostensibly to better figure out how to get justice/revenge? (Are those the same thing in this case? Are they ever the same thing? We could have a rockin' philosophical debate right now.)
But then we're subjected to Rebecca's narration, and we see her having the conversations with herself that Brian normally does with himself, and she's just not nearly as good at it. Or as much fun.
And while one would expect two NZTers are better than one, somehow Brian comes across and slow and stupid here. I even had to ask my husband whether Brian had taken any NZT? Because it seemed like he hadn't. Maybe the writers were worried Brian and Rebecca would sound too much alike so they scaled him back a bit. I dunno, but it was off.
Meanwhile, Sands' people are champing the bit to go take Brian out. Sands is clearly reluctant; after all, Brian has helped him in the past, and in no small way (his son, yeah?). But at some point the Rebecca-centricity of this episode lost my attention, so I don't remember how it all fell out. Not the most glowing recommendation.
Hopefully it finds its voice again this week and this was just a blip. Though I feel things have been sliding since the Russia thing. As I often point out, it's very difficult to sustain really good work, and when the bar is set high from the beginning, the writers have made it harder for themselves in the long run. Not that shows should come out of the gate limping, but a series is a marathon, not a sprint. And while episodes will be up and down, the ultimate goal is to have them average out over time so that people don't lose interest. Slumps shouldn't be allowed to go on too long.
But then we're subjected to Rebecca's narration, and we see her having the conversations with herself that Brian normally does with himself, and she's just not nearly as good at it. Or as much fun.
And while one would expect two NZTers are better than one, somehow Brian comes across and slow and stupid here. I even had to ask my husband whether Brian had taken any NZT? Because it seemed like he hadn't. Maybe the writers were worried Brian and Rebecca would sound too much alike so they scaled him back a bit. I dunno, but it was off.
Meanwhile, Sands' people are champing the bit to go take Brian out. Sands is clearly reluctant; after all, Brian has helped him in the past, and in no small way (his son, yeah?). But at some point the Rebecca-centricity of this episode lost my attention, so I don't remember how it all fell out. Not the most glowing recommendation.
Hopefully it finds its voice again this week and this was just a blip. Though I feel things have been sliding since the Russia thing. As I often point out, it's very difficult to sustain really good work, and when the bar is set high from the beginning, the writers have made it harder for themselves in the long run. Not that shows should come out of the gate limping, but a series is a marathon, not a sprint. And while episodes will be up and down, the ultimate goal is to have them average out over time so that people don't lose interest. Slumps shouldn't be allowed to go on too long.
4.15.2016
Movies: The Jungle Book
Starring: Neel Sethi
Voices By: Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong'o, Christopher Walken
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Written By: Justin Marks, from the book by Rudyard Kipling
Walt Disney, 2016
PG; 105 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
There was a time—it seems very long ago now—when I adored the animated film The Jungle Book. My favorite was always Bagheera. I wanted so badly to be raised by a panther.
With all the remakes and updates that have become so common, I had reservations about this version of the story. But the trailers made it look so good. And it really is. I highly enjoyed it, and my kids loved it. Since they're the target audience (I think, though surely there is also some thought of hitting older people in the nostalgia), I'd count that as a success. By the numbers, it certainly looks to do well.
It's not perfect. There were some moments when the way the animals moved didn't look quite right. And the kid playing Mowgli sometimes came across as too whiny. Not sure if that was the direction or what. I also didn't love ScarJo as Kaa. Not because she's a woman—I understand why they did that—but because that particular actress in the role didn't work for me. But that's a personal thing.
Nice cowbell joke for Christopher Walken, and he did the Marlon Brando thing well. A little sad to hear Garry Shandling in what must be his last role, or very nearly. Overall, just nicely done. But my kids wondered at the change to the ending, and . . . It's been a long, long time since I've read Kipling. So I don't remember how the stories end. I think my memory of it is largely informed by the early influence of the animated feature. But I also think times and sensibilities have changed quite a bit since then. Instead of a child growing up and leaving to join his "real family" or "real tribe" . . . Instead of him doing what he's told, even if it's something difficult that he doesn't want to do . . . Making a big sacrifice . . . Now the prevailing sense is that he can prove himself and then do whatever he wants once he's earned the respect of those around him. I guess? He can make his own tribe/family. Or something like that.
Then again, maybe leaving Mowgli in the jungle just makes it easier to do a sequel.
"Jungle Book 2: Back to the jungle."
"Jungle Book 2: Jungle Boogaloo."
"Jungle Book 2: The Wrath of Khan."
"You can take the boy out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the boy."
It pretty much writes itself.
Seriously, though, it was fun. Any issues I had were relatively minor.
Voices By: Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong'o, Christopher Walken
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Written By: Justin Marks, from the book by Rudyard Kipling
Walt Disney, 2016
PG; 105 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
There was a time—it seems very long ago now—when I adored the animated film The Jungle Book. My favorite was always Bagheera. I wanted so badly to be raised by a panther.
With all the remakes and updates that have become so common, I had reservations about this version of the story. But the trailers made it look so good. And it really is. I highly enjoyed it, and my kids loved it. Since they're the target audience (I think, though surely there is also some thought of hitting older people in the nostalgia), I'd count that as a success. By the numbers, it certainly looks to do well.
It's not perfect. There were some moments when the way the animals moved didn't look quite right. And the kid playing Mowgli sometimes came across as too whiny. Not sure if that was the direction or what. I also didn't love ScarJo as Kaa. Not because she's a woman—I understand why they did that—but because that particular actress in the role didn't work for me. But that's a personal thing.
Nice cowbell joke for Christopher Walken, and he did the Marlon Brando thing well. A little sad to hear Garry Shandling in what must be his last role, or very nearly. Overall, just nicely done. But my kids wondered at the change to the ending, and . . . It's been a long, long time since I've read Kipling. So I don't remember how the stories end. I think my memory of it is largely informed by the early influence of the animated feature. But I also think times and sensibilities have changed quite a bit since then. Instead of a child growing up and leaving to join his "real family" or "real tribe" . . . Instead of him doing what he's told, even if it's something difficult that he doesn't want to do . . . Making a big sacrifice . . . Now the prevailing sense is that he can prove himself and then do whatever he wants once he's earned the respect of those around him. I guess? He can make his own tribe/family. Or something like that.
Then again, maybe leaving Mowgli in the jungle just makes it easier to do a sequel.
"Jungle Book 2: Back to the jungle."
"Jungle Book 2: Jungle Boogaloo."
"Jungle Book 2: The Wrath of Khan."
"You can take the boy out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the boy."
It pretty much writes itself.
Seriously, though, it was fun. Any issues I had were relatively minor.
Television: Elementary, "Art Imitates Art"
Am I caught up now? Yes? Whew.
Um . . . So a young woman is murdered outside her gym in the Bronx. And it turns out she's one of the subjects of an art instillation in which the "artist" has blown up selfies he's found online? So there's a fleeting question of whether someone is mad at this artist for doing such a thing, but that's dropped relatively quickly. Because why murder one of his "models" if they're mad at him? Unless one intends to murder all the models, which would actually have been a really cool story. Instead, though, we get some malfeasance on the part of a crime lab (another potentially interesting story if they'd stuck with it for any length of time) and circle back around to the assistant district attorney.
It was the kind of episode that didn't quite add up to the sum of its parts really.
Meanwhile, we did get more of Watson and her newfound half-sister Lin, but it was all sappy and not all that fun or interesting either. Lin was better as annoying, less good as belligerent and forgiving. And Watson is almost too even-keeled; I'd like her to show some spark now and then.
Anyway, we're down to the last three episodes of the season. CBS has renewed Elementary for 2016-2017, so there's time to pump in a bit more dynamism. We're in need of something antic.
Um . . . So a young woman is murdered outside her gym in the Bronx. And it turns out she's one of the subjects of an art instillation in which the "artist" has blown up selfies he's found online? So there's a fleeting question of whether someone is mad at this artist for doing such a thing, but that's dropped relatively quickly. Because why murder one of his "models" if they're mad at him? Unless one intends to murder all the models, which would actually have been a really cool story. Instead, though, we get some malfeasance on the part of a crime lab (another potentially interesting story if they'd stuck with it for any length of time) and circle back around to the assistant district attorney.
It was the kind of episode that didn't quite add up to the sum of its parts really.
Meanwhile, we did get more of Watson and her newfound half-sister Lin, but it was all sappy and not all that fun or interesting either. Lin was better as annoying, less good as belligerent and forgiving. And Watson is almost too even-keeled; I'd like her to show some spark now and then.
Anyway, we're down to the last three episodes of the season. CBS has renewed Elementary for 2016-2017, so there's time to pump in a bit more dynamism. We're in need of something antic.
Movies: Romantic Comedies
So I was listening to Pop Culture Happy Hour (again) and today they discussed romantic comedies. And then things kind of veered off into romance, or romantic elements, but less comedy. So when they asked one another what romantic comedies were, I dunno, personally key to them, some of the answers were . . . not really rom-com?
I feel like romantic comedy is a very definite subset of romance (which can be dramatic, or can be a secondary element to a comedy—look at Bridesmaids or The Hangover, which are buddy comedies predicated on romance). One PCHH panelist mentioned she didn't think anyone made rom-coms any more, at least not of the kind that were so common in the 90s and early 00s. And I think that's true. I don't know why, but someone somewhere decided rom-coms don't make money. That only women go to see them and it's better to make a movie men will see and women will go with them to see. Because women, I guess, are more flexible, more willing to go see an action movie than a guy is to go see a rom-com.
Supposedly.
Then I tried to think what rom-coms ever had an impact on me. And while I've liked a lot of romantic comedies, I have to say few have actually left any kind of impression. My Best Friend's Wedding was a big one for me, and that one is interesting because [SPOILER, but God are you late to this party if you need that warning] the leads don't end up together. That probably says something about me and my outlook on the world, or at least on romance, but . . . Anyway, the other one I came up with was Enchanted. Because I am a romantic at heart, and I believe in a kind of magic that occurs when two people meet and are "meant to be." Sure, it's all just chemistry and pheromones, but a girl can dream.
Maybe I'm really just a sucker for movies in which people sing? Hmm.
These days there doesn't seem to be a call for movies about people getting together. I don't know what in our society has shifted, but there you have it. The joy of watching two people fumble awkwardly toward each other and a meaningful relationship . . . Maybe we're too cynical for that now. Instead of funny, we want people to go through real hell—diseases or wars or something.
A year or so ago, I co-wrote a romantic comedy script that was very well received. It received great studio coverage, was likened to Silver Linings Playbook (which is more like a romantic dramedy, I guess) and even briefly optioned. But no one wanted to put any money on the line for it. Because there's this idea that these movies don't sell, SLP notwithstanding. I guess if we could have gotten Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence to sign on?
The bottom line is, though, that no one seems to be asking for rom-coms. There's no clamor for more of them. No one misses them, I guess. The PCHH team made an interesting comment that they preferred to watch relationships unspool on television series because one could go deeper and further with the characters. Instead of stopping at the point where two people get together, viewers get to see the aftermath and find out if Happily Ever After really happens.
So maybe we're done with idealizing relationships. Maybe, as a society, we've come to the point where we're seeking something deeper and more meaningful than what a traditional rom-com offers.
I feel like romantic comedy is a very definite subset of romance (which can be dramatic, or can be a secondary element to a comedy—look at Bridesmaids or The Hangover, which are buddy comedies predicated on romance). One PCHH panelist mentioned she didn't think anyone made rom-coms any more, at least not of the kind that were so common in the 90s and early 00s. And I think that's true. I don't know why, but someone somewhere decided rom-coms don't make money. That only women go to see them and it's better to make a movie men will see and women will go with them to see. Because women, I guess, are more flexible, more willing to go see an action movie than a guy is to go see a rom-com.
Supposedly.
Then I tried to think what rom-coms ever had an impact on me. And while I've liked a lot of romantic comedies, I have to say few have actually left any kind of impression. My Best Friend's Wedding was a big one for me, and that one is interesting because [SPOILER, but God are you late to this party if you need that warning] the leads don't end up together. That probably says something about me and my outlook on the world, or at least on romance, but . . . Anyway, the other one I came up with was Enchanted. Because I am a romantic at heart, and I believe in a kind of magic that occurs when two people meet and are "meant to be." Sure, it's all just chemistry and pheromones, but a girl can dream.
Maybe I'm really just a sucker for movies in which people sing? Hmm.
These days there doesn't seem to be a call for movies about people getting together. I don't know what in our society has shifted, but there you have it. The joy of watching two people fumble awkwardly toward each other and a meaningful relationship . . . Maybe we're too cynical for that now. Instead of funny, we want people to go through real hell—diseases or wars or something.
A year or so ago, I co-wrote a romantic comedy script that was very well received. It received great studio coverage, was likened to Silver Linings Playbook (which is more like a romantic dramedy, I guess) and even briefly optioned. But no one wanted to put any money on the line for it. Because there's this idea that these movies don't sell, SLP notwithstanding. I guess if we could have gotten Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence to sign on?
The bottom line is, though, that no one seems to be asking for rom-coms. There's no clamor for more of them. No one misses them, I guess. The PCHH team made an interesting comment that they preferred to watch relationships unspool on television series because one could go deeper and further with the characters. Instead of stopping at the point where two people get together, viewers get to see the aftermath and find out if Happily Ever After really happens.
So maybe we're done with idealizing relationships. Maybe, as a society, we've come to the point where we're seeking something deeper and more meaningful than what a traditional rom-com offers.
4.14.2016
Television: Elementary, "All In"
So I've only watched the first of the double-header that aired last Sunday. But I called the [SPOILER ALERT] sister thing pretty much from the start since this girl Lin was acting like an annoying little sister from moment one.
Though how and why the Mycroft thing? Maybe that gets answered in the next episode, so I guess I'll find out. I can make a few educated guesses though.
Let's skim the story here. Lin is a real estate agent who uses empty properties to host illegal poker games. One of the poker games gets robbed, but Lin doesn't go to the police because, um, illegal. So this episode begins with Lin coming home to her own apartment and finding a bag of money and getting shot at, all of which sends her scurrying to Sherlock Holmes.
I have to say, more episodes should begin this way: with a client appearing. Just like in the stories. But that's a personal preference.
Since Lin's apartment is a crime scene and also probably not safe, she moves in to the brownstone and "little sistering" begins. Lin tells Watson about how Mycroft Holmes was the love of her life, and that's how she knew about Sherlock, but Watson smells a rat and discovers Lin is really her half-sister. (Lin never knew Mycroft.)
The rest of the plot is NSA involvement and something about Eastern European spies.
Points to this episode for giving Sherlock some of his funniest, driest bits of dialogue. I actually laughed aloud a couple times. More of that, please.
Meanwhile, while Lin is annoying in a sister kind of way, she has the potential to bring interesting new energy to the show . . . assuming she stays around. Elementary has a habit of introducing then releasing characters in a somewhat frustrating way.
Though how and why the Mycroft thing? Maybe that gets answered in the next episode, so I guess I'll find out. I can make a few educated guesses though.
Let's skim the story here. Lin is a real estate agent who uses empty properties to host illegal poker games. One of the poker games gets robbed, but Lin doesn't go to the police because, um, illegal. So this episode begins with Lin coming home to her own apartment and finding a bag of money and getting shot at, all of which sends her scurrying to Sherlock Holmes.
I have to say, more episodes should begin this way: with a client appearing. Just like in the stories. But that's a personal preference.
Since Lin's apartment is a crime scene and also probably not safe, she moves in to the brownstone and "little sistering" begins. Lin tells Watson about how Mycroft Holmes was the love of her life, and that's how she knew about Sherlock, but Watson smells a rat and discovers Lin is really her half-sister. (Lin never knew Mycroft.)
The rest of the plot is NSA involvement and something about Eastern European spies.
Points to this episode for giving Sherlock some of his funniest, driest bits of dialogue. I actually laughed aloud a couple times. More of that, please.
Meanwhile, while Lin is annoying in a sister kind of way, she has the potential to bring interesting new energy to the show . . . assuming she stays around. Elementary has a habit of introducing then releasing characters in a somewhat frustrating way.
4.13.2016
Books: Changers: Manifesting Destiny
Not a review. An announcement. My young adult fantasy novel will be published by Evernight Teen.
Okay, so there's no cover yet, but I can't wait to see what the designer comes up with!
Changers: Manifesting Destiny is planned as the first in a trilogy. I'm so excited to share it with you! More info as it becomes available. For now:
Okay, so there's no cover yet, but I can't wait to see what the designer comes up with!
Changers: Manifesting Destiny is planned as the first in a trilogy. I'm so excited to share it with you! More info as it becomes available. For now:
4.11.2016
Books: The Lake House by Kate Morton
In The Lake House, Kate Morton twists her usual frame story/historical flashback style into a head-hopping tale that spans the better part of a century. The plot is spun out from multiple points of view, some more interesting than others. This makes the book a tad uneven, though what must be counted the "main characters" are at least the most interesting and get the most pages devoted to them.
The Lake House is a mystery that balances on the fragile strands of human relationships. In Cornwall, in 1933, the young son of a wealthy family goes missing. Meanwhile, in 2003, an off-duty London police officer takes on the cold case while trying to distract herself from other problems.
The threads here are woven nicely enough that one can almost forgive the hefty coincidences that plague the solution. And one could also almost want to see these characters again in another mystery novel.
Morton has a deft way of building characters, and she does a fair job of keeping the reader guessing here. Overall, I very much enjoyed The Lake House.
The Lake House is a mystery that balances on the fragile strands of human relationships. In Cornwall, in 1933, the young son of a wealthy family goes missing. Meanwhile, in 2003, an off-duty London police officer takes on the cold case while trying to distract herself from other problems.
The threads here are woven nicely enough that one can almost forgive the hefty coincidences that plague the solution. And one could also almost want to see these characters again in another mystery novel.
Morton has a deft way of building characters, and she does a fair job of keeping the reader guessing here. Overall, I very much enjoyed The Lake House.
4.10.2016
Movies: Pawn Sacrifice
Going into this movie, I knew only a handful of things about Bobby Fischer. 1. He was a famous chess player. 2. I think he disappeared for some period of time? 3. There had been a movie called Searching for Bobby Fischer that I never saw, but the title is probably what made me think he'd disappeared.
So why watch this movie? Well, I saw the trailer back when I'd gone to see Mr. Holmes and it looked interesting. I mean, who doesn't like watching someone go crazy? That's pretty entertaining, right?
Anyway, if you take this movie as historically accurate, it turns out Bobby Fischer was kind of an asshole. A paranoid asshole, but there you have it. And Tobey Maguire does that pretty well.
I do wish there had been more of Liev Schreiber, who did a great job as Bobby's Russian nemesis Spassky. But then again, this wasn't his story.
Peter Sarsgaard, too, did a fine job as Father Lombardy, struggling to keep Bobby balanced.
And you don't have to know about chess to watch this. I used to play, haven't in years, and never competitively, but even my rusty self didn't need to dust off any old knowledge to follow the story.
In all, it was a good movie. Not thrill-a-minute or anything—I mean, it's chess, after all—but I enjoyed it more than Carol, or even Trumbo. (Maybe I just don't like one-word name movies? I should check into that.)
For what this is (and it's probably a very specific taste), it's a fine movie with solid performances by all involved.
So why watch this movie? Well, I saw the trailer back when I'd gone to see Mr. Holmes and it looked interesting. I mean, who doesn't like watching someone go crazy? That's pretty entertaining, right?
Anyway, if you take this movie as historically accurate, it turns out Bobby Fischer was kind of an asshole. A paranoid asshole, but there you have it. And Tobey Maguire does that pretty well.
I do wish there had been more of Liev Schreiber, who did a great job as Bobby's Russian nemesis Spassky. But then again, this wasn't his story.
Peter Sarsgaard, too, did a fine job as Father Lombardy, struggling to keep Bobby balanced.
And you don't have to know about chess to watch this. I used to play, haven't in years, and never competitively, but even my rusty self didn't need to dust off any old knowledge to follow the story.
In all, it was a good movie. Not thrill-a-minute or anything—I mean, it's chess, after all—but I enjoyed it more than Carol, or even Trumbo. (Maybe I just don't like one-word name movies? I should check into that.)
For what this is (and it's probably a very specific taste), it's a fine movie with solid performances by all involved.
4.08.2016
Tarot Dice
A friend of mine sent me this link on Facebook, and of course I had to try it. Tarot (which, if you know me, you know I collect) but as dice rather than cards.
You can click on the pic for a better look at the board.
There are drawbacks. For one, this comes in a tube that you are supposed to retain in order to roll the dice (kind of like Yahtzee). Except my tube arrived partially broken. It's still useable, but it doesn't look very pretty. The dice themselves are large, and there are 13 of them, so it's not easy to roll from your hands (yes, I tried).
Anyway, you're supposed to roll the dice from the tube, one at a time, and then place each dice in the appropriate square on the board in order. The board itself is cloth that rolls to go back into the tube. Like the old Pente boards. Because apparently I'm name checking all the old games today.
A die is only considered reversed if it lands reversed in front of the querent. If it lands sideways, you're to consider it upright.
Okay, so the biggest, most obvious drawback becomes the fact that some combinations will never be possible. For example, the King of Pentacles and Justice will never come up in the same reading because they are two sides of the same die. So if you want all possible combinations when doing a Tarot reading, you're better off with traditional cards.
Also, in some cases, the images on the dice are very similar, and I found myself having to carefully check the die against the booklet to make sure I knew exactly what I'd rolled.
That said, I will admit the two readings I attempted came across loud and clear and seemingly quite accurate.
Overall, despite the various issues, I enjoy this as an alternative to cards. The 13-die reading is a lot of information to absorb, but the booklet points out that one can do a Celtic Cross or other kind of reading with the dice as well. I haven't tried that yet, but I might, just out of curiosity.
You can click on the pic for a better look at the board.
There are drawbacks. For one, this comes in a tube that you are supposed to retain in order to roll the dice (kind of like Yahtzee). Except my tube arrived partially broken. It's still useable, but it doesn't look very pretty. The dice themselves are large, and there are 13 of them, so it's not easy to roll from your hands (yes, I tried).
Anyway, you're supposed to roll the dice from the tube, one at a time, and then place each dice in the appropriate square on the board in order. The board itself is cloth that rolls to go back into the tube. Like the old Pente boards. Because apparently I'm name checking all the old games today.
A die is only considered reversed if it lands reversed in front of the querent. If it lands sideways, you're to consider it upright.
Okay, so the biggest, most obvious drawback becomes the fact that some combinations will never be possible. For example, the King of Pentacles and Justice will never come up in the same reading because they are two sides of the same die. So if you want all possible combinations when doing a Tarot reading, you're better off with traditional cards.
Also, in some cases, the images on the dice are very similar, and I found myself having to carefully check the die against the booklet to make sure I knew exactly what I'd rolled.
That said, I will admit the two readings I attempted came across loud and clear and seemingly quite accurate.
Overall, despite the various issues, I enjoy this as an alternative to cards. The 13-die reading is a lot of information to absorb, but the booklet points out that one can do a Celtic Cross or other kind of reading with the dice as well. I haven't tried that yet, but I might, just out of curiosity.
4.07.2016
Books: The K-Pro
. . . is free on Amazon Kindle for a limited time. So go pick up a copy if you haven't already. And be sure to listen to the podcast too (below)!
4.06.2016
Movies: Carol
The only books by Patricia Highsmith that I've read are the Tom Ripley ones. I really like those. And maybe I'd like The Price of Salt, on which Carol is based, but . . . I don't know.
For those of you even farther behind than I am on these things, Carol is set in the 1950s and follows the titular character (played by Cate Blanchett) in a budding romance with a much younger woman (Rooney Mara). Complications arise as Carol is in the midst of a divorce and may lose custody and visitation with her young daughter.
My chief problem was a lack of tension. They didn't make me care enough about Carol to care whether she got to see her daughter. And I didn't really feel much by way of sexual tension between Carol and the shopgirl either.
Maybe it plays better in prose? Research informed me that Highsmith was in therapy to "normalize" her sexuality at the time she wrote The Price of Salt. That tidbit makes the book and movie marginally more interesting. In the film, Carol does mention seeing a therapist. I'd almost think that would have been a better story than whatever it was they were trying to tell me in this movie.
In short, I was underwhelmed. The film is slow, almost soporific. Really good musical score, but when you're noticing the music, that tells you something may be wrong with the bigger picture.
For those of you even farther behind than I am on these things, Carol is set in the 1950s and follows the titular character (played by Cate Blanchett) in a budding romance with a much younger woman (Rooney Mara). Complications arise as Carol is in the midst of a divorce and may lose custody and visitation with her young daughter.
My chief problem was a lack of tension. They didn't make me care enough about Carol to care whether she got to see her daughter. And I didn't really feel much by way of sexual tension between Carol and the shopgirl either.
Maybe it plays better in prose? Research informed me that Highsmith was in therapy to "normalize" her sexuality at the time she wrote The Price of Salt. That tidbit makes the book and movie marginally more interesting. In the film, Carol does mention seeing a therapist. I'd almost think that would have been a better story than whatever it was they were trying to tell me in this movie.
In short, I was underwhelmed. The film is slow, almost soporific. Really good musical score, but when you're noticing the music, that tells you something may be wrong with the bigger picture.
4.03.2016
Movies: The Hateful Eight
My record with Tarantino movies is spotty. The first one I ever saw was Reservoir Dogs, and I only watched it because it was required viewing in film school. I'm sure Tarantino would be pleased to hear that. It was a bloody movie, but I actually kind of liked it, which surprised me.
But then I tried to watch Pulp Fiction—I've tried dozens of times to watch that movie, and I've never been able to get through it. Not my thing. Doesn't interest or engage me. Same with Kill Bill.
I liked Inglourious Basterds when I saw it but couldn't tell you now what it was I liked about it. Was somewhat indifferent to Django Unchained, I think. In the same way of Inglourious Basterds, I only have an impression of that movie really. Hated Jackie Brown. But again, can now only vaguely recall it. Which is to say, I more remember how much I disliked it than anything about the movie.
Come to think of it, none of Tarantino's movies stay with me. For someone so dead set on leaving his mark, he fails to impress me much or deeply. (And I know what he'd say to that, too.)
So. The Hateful Eight. Set in post-Civil War Wyoming. A bunch of rough types are holed up in Minnie's Haberdashery as they wait out a blizzard. Being rough types, it's only a matter of time before tempers explode. And then there's a kind of mystery over who poisoned the coffee, and we get Samuel L. Jackson as Sherlock Holmes and Walter Goggins as his Watson. Sort of.
It's actually not a bad idea. But the film is overly long and—in the way of Tarantino movies—both talky and bloody. I suppose that's what people go to see in his movies? He's catering to a very specific crowd and I'm not of their number.
We get some very good performances here. But I must necessarily cringe at the open misogyny and abuse of the one female character. And at the ridiculous level of bloodshed.
I have a feeling this one will slide, like all the others, into a corner of my brain until it becomes nothing more than a foggy impression. For me, Tarantino movies apparently end in one big shrug. There is a failure to connect on some level. What that says about me, or his work, is up for interpretation.
But then I tried to watch Pulp Fiction—I've tried dozens of times to watch that movie, and I've never been able to get through it. Not my thing. Doesn't interest or engage me. Same with Kill Bill.
I liked Inglourious Basterds when I saw it but couldn't tell you now what it was I liked about it. Was somewhat indifferent to Django Unchained, I think. In the same way of Inglourious Basterds, I only have an impression of that movie really. Hated Jackie Brown. But again, can now only vaguely recall it. Which is to say, I more remember how much I disliked it than anything about the movie.
Come to think of it, none of Tarantino's movies stay with me. For someone so dead set on leaving his mark, he fails to impress me much or deeply. (And I know what he'd say to that, too.)
So. The Hateful Eight. Set in post-Civil War Wyoming. A bunch of rough types are holed up in Minnie's Haberdashery as they wait out a blizzard. Being rough types, it's only a matter of time before tempers explode. And then there's a kind of mystery over who poisoned the coffee, and we get Samuel L. Jackson as Sherlock Holmes and Walter Goggins as his Watson. Sort of.
It's actually not a bad idea. But the film is overly long and—in the way of Tarantino movies—both talky and bloody. I suppose that's what people go to see in his movies? He's catering to a very specific crowd and I'm not of their number.
We get some very good performances here. But I must necessarily cringe at the open misogyny and abuse of the one female character. And at the ridiculous level of bloodshed.
I have a feeling this one will slide, like all the others, into a corner of my brain until it becomes nothing more than a foggy impression. For me, Tarantino movies apparently end in one big shrug. There is a failure to connect on some level. What that says about me, or his work, is up for interpretation.
4.02.2016
Food: Big Red Float
I received something very cool in the mail yesterday. Big Red soda. And not just the regular type (though there was some of that, too), but a box of something labeled Big Red Float.
I couldn't help it; I opened one right away and poured it over some ice. And I'll be damned if it didn't taste almost exactly like Big Red poured over vanilla ice cream. This drink tastes like a Big Red float.
I've had the Dr Pepper Vanilla Float, and it didn't win me, despite my love for DP. Big Red, however, got it right. This drink tastes just like what it's supposed to be and without any weird aftertaste (well, not any weirder than any soda aftertaste anyway).
Whether or not people who don't like Big Red will like this? No idea. The chief criticism I've heard of Big Red is that it's too sweet and/or tastes too much like bubble gum (rather than cream soda). But the Big Red Float is mostly a vanilla ice cream flavor with the underlying taste of Big Red. It's the vanilla that hits first and foremost. So maybe people who aren't as fond of Big Red will tolerate the Float version.
The pros to drinking Float rather than making an actual float? No melting ice cream everywhere. No mucky glasses to clean (assuming you drink from the can, but be sure to chill it first since this absolutely should be served cold). None of that inconvenient trying to get the last of the ice cream up a straw. And I think the Float soda would actually make a great slush, too, if you were to freeze some. Might have to try it . . .
Our ability to find Big Red regularly out here on the West Coast has been spotty at best. Online searches give a list of places in the area I should be able to buy it, but the hunt often proves fruitless. So either there are a lot of Big Red drinkers stocking up or those stores aren't stocking it as much as the Internet thinks they are. I sure would love it if a few would make it a point to keep Big Red available—and Big Red Float, too, if and when it hits the market.
 |
| That unmarked silver can is the Float. |
I couldn't help it; I opened one right away and poured it over some ice. And I'll be damned if it didn't taste almost exactly like Big Red poured over vanilla ice cream. This drink tastes like a Big Red float.
I've had the Dr Pepper Vanilla Float, and it didn't win me, despite my love for DP. Big Red, however, got it right. This drink tastes just like what it's supposed to be and without any weird aftertaste (well, not any weirder than any soda aftertaste anyway).
Whether or not people who don't like Big Red will like this? No idea. The chief criticism I've heard of Big Red is that it's too sweet and/or tastes too much like bubble gum (rather than cream soda). But the Big Red Float is mostly a vanilla ice cream flavor with the underlying taste of Big Red. It's the vanilla that hits first and foremost. So maybe people who aren't as fond of Big Red will tolerate the Float version.
The pros to drinking Float rather than making an actual float? No melting ice cream everywhere. No mucky glasses to clean (assuming you drink from the can, but be sure to chill it first since this absolutely should be served cold). None of that inconvenient trying to get the last of the ice cream up a straw. And I think the Float soda would actually make a great slush, too, if you were to freeze some. Might have to try it . . .
Our ability to find Big Red regularly out here on the West Coast has been spotty at best. Online searches give a list of places in the area I should be able to buy it, but the hunt often proves fruitless. So either there are a lot of Big Red drinkers stocking up or those stores aren't stocking it as much as the Internet thinks they are. I sure would love it if a few would make it a point to keep Big Red available—and Big Red Float, too, if and when it hits the market.
Books: Peter on Blog Tour
I'm going on tour this month with my novel The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller, and I hope you'll travel with me to a few of the stops. Today's in particular is a great one. It's a Q&A about me and the book, and I had a lot of fun answering the questions. Bonus: a photo of my reclusive writing partner!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)