24 is back . . . without Bauer. But that's okay! We'll still have fun. Maybe.
So U.S. Army Sergeant Eric Carter (Corey Hawkins) is in a witness protection program after taking part in a big raid against terrorist leader Bin Khalid. And now some of Khalid's men are tracking down the raiders. They're searching for a "lockbox" [that Al Gore didn't have?]. Turns out some guy named Ben has it; he took it during the raid because he felt he was "owed" for his work. But this lockbox has more than money and passports in it. A quick look—that Ben never took, apparently—shows a false bottom that hides a flash drive full of information about terrorists and sleeper cells, etc.
Now Ben wants to sell the information to the government—or to Khalid's men. Cuz, you know, he's "owed."
There's some other stuff going on, of course. Like, it wouldn't be 24 without random teen drama, and since Jack Bauer's daughter isn't there to supply it, we're having to make do with some foreign high school student and her teacher, and the fact that another student has seen some texts that have clued him in to the fact that this girl is a terrorist. He doesn't know about the teacher, though. That's going to come as a surprise.
Meanwhile, Carter has dropped his wife? girlfriend? off with his thug brother because there's no one else to protect her while he (Carter) tries to help CTU with the Khalid thing.
Also Eowyn is married to Jimmy Smits. And he's running for office and she's supposed to be handing over the reins of CTU to someone but she can't let go. Especially not now with this Khalid problem because she's one of only a couple people who has inside knowledge of what went down. So she's trying to contain things, but we all know how that goes. (BANG. It goes BANG.)
So, yeah, this is an okay start. The situations are somewhat interesting, but so far I'm not seeing the spark of action hero personality that I so enjoyed in Jack Bauer. Like, I'm already missing the kick-assedness of JB. So let's hope they step things up a bit and quickly.
reviews and cultural criticism of books, movies, music, and television by M Pepper Langlinais
2.06.2017
2.04.2017
Movies: Arrival
Well, that was interesting.
I mean, I didn't hate it or anything. But after all the hype . . . I don't know what I expected, really. I haven't read the story it was based on. I like language stuff. I thought the aliens were interesting. But I found Amy Adams singularly uninteresting. And maybe that was intentional. Maybe she's supposed to be this just completely normal person. Except she's not really normal, is she? We're supposed to think she's exceptional because the government comes and gets her when they need someone to learn an alien language. So . . . She's brilliant but in a boring kind of way???
Seriously, I don't know. I wasn't blown away by this. I did find it intriguing. Visually, it's quite lovely. I can see why they chose Villeneuve for the Dune remake. But I also see—contrary to so many—why Adams didn't make the Oscar list. It's a perfectly good performance, but there's no energy in it. This whole movie—there's no energy in any of it. It's muted in every possible way. And that's fine; it works for the story they're telling. But it's not the kind of performance that gets Oscar attention.
Still, Arrival received what? Eight nods? And they're all earned. It's a thoughtful movie and a nice change from all the loud spectacles. But don't watch it if you're at all sleepy because it will lull you.
As for the twist, I saw it coming pretty early. And at the end, they draw it out quite a bit as though to hit you over the head with it. "Do you get it?!" the movie seems to be asking. Shouting, in a way. Uh, yeah, we get it. You can wrap up whenever you're ready.
In short, I liked it. Wasn't wowed, but ::shrug:: It posed an interesting scenario, very different from the usual take on aliens. Just for that, it's worth seeing.
I mean, I didn't hate it or anything. But after all the hype . . . I don't know what I expected, really. I haven't read the story it was based on. I like language stuff. I thought the aliens were interesting. But I found Amy Adams singularly uninteresting. And maybe that was intentional. Maybe she's supposed to be this just completely normal person. Except she's not really normal, is she? We're supposed to think she's exceptional because the government comes and gets her when they need someone to learn an alien language. So . . . She's brilliant but in a boring kind of way???
Seriously, I don't know. I wasn't blown away by this. I did find it intriguing. Visually, it's quite lovely. I can see why they chose Villeneuve for the Dune remake. But I also see—contrary to so many—why Adams didn't make the Oscar list. It's a perfectly good performance, but there's no energy in it. This whole movie—there's no energy in any of it. It's muted in every possible way. And that's fine; it works for the story they're telling. But it's not the kind of performance that gets Oscar attention.
Still, Arrival received what? Eight nods? And they're all earned. It's a thoughtful movie and a nice change from all the loud spectacles. But don't watch it if you're at all sleepy because it will lull you.
As for the twist, I saw it coming pretty early. And at the end, they draw it out quite a bit as though to hit you over the head with it. "Do you get it?!" the movie seems to be asking. Shouting, in a way. Uh, yeah, we get it. You can wrap up whenever you're ready.
In short, I liked it. Wasn't wowed, but ::shrug:: It posed an interesting scenario, very different from the usual take on aliens. Just for that, it's worth seeing.
Television: Powerless, "Wayne or Lose"
Um . . . okay. I really like the idea behind this show. It's about people living in Charm City (part of the DC Universe) and dealing with the day-to-day realities of having superheroes constantly fighting all around them. The main characters work for Wayne Enterprises, in particular in the R&D or something like that. Their job is to create cool gadgets and gear for WE to manufacture and sell.
All well and good, but . . . The execution was a little too . . . twee? saccharine? In short, it didn't work for me.
This first episode has the kind of plot line that feels old-fashioned in this day and age: new girl (Vanessa Hudgens) starts her first day at work, and her job is to supervise this motley crew of geeks. Same day, Bruce Wayne calls and says he's shutting them all down because they're obsolete and haven't come up with anything good in a long time. But of course the new girl whips her team into shape and they invent something amazing on the spot and everyone's jobs are saved.
I liked Danny Pudi in Community, and he's kind of doing the same thing here, so . . . I guess that's okay? And I can't help but enjoy Alan Tudyk as Van Wayne, Bruce's cousin who runs the Charm City office but aspires to be relocated to Gotham. But collectively, this is such a strange amalgam. It's like they weren't sure how over-the-top, cartoony to get. The result is, it's too cartoony to take seriously but not cartoony enough to be actually funny.
I don't know. I wonder whether Powerless will find its footing as the characters develop? I remember I didn't love Community or Parks and Rec the first time I watched them but those shows grew on me. Might this one, too? As the characters become more clearly defined and the writers get into the groove? I'll give it another one or two episodes.
All well and good, but . . . The execution was a little too . . . twee? saccharine? In short, it didn't work for me.
This first episode has the kind of plot line that feels old-fashioned in this day and age: new girl (Vanessa Hudgens) starts her first day at work, and her job is to supervise this motley crew of geeks. Same day, Bruce Wayne calls and says he's shutting them all down because they're obsolete and haven't come up with anything good in a long time. But of course the new girl whips her team into shape and they invent something amazing on the spot and everyone's jobs are saved.
I liked Danny Pudi in Community, and he's kind of doing the same thing here, so . . . I guess that's okay? And I can't help but enjoy Alan Tudyk as Van Wayne, Bruce's cousin who runs the Charm City office but aspires to be relocated to Gotham. But collectively, this is such a strange amalgam. It's like they weren't sure how over-the-top, cartoony to get. The result is, it's too cartoony to take seriously but not cartoony enough to be actually funny.
I don't know. I wonder whether Powerless will find its footing as the characters develop? I remember I didn't love Community or Parks and Rec the first time I watched them but those shows grew on me. Might this one, too? As the characters become more clearly defined and the writers get into the groove? I'll give it another one or two episodes.
Labels:
comedy,
sitcoms,
superheroes,
television
2.02.2017
Television: Elementary, "Over a Barrel"
Okay, so this was a pretty interesting entrance point: a man named Jack Burnelle keeps trying to get Holmes and Watson to investigate his son's assault that resulted in his son being in a coma and dying. But despite repeated requests, Holmes and Watson were always too busy to take his case. With the statue of limitations running out, Burnelle gets desperate. He takes a diner full of people hostage and demands Holmes solve his son's assault-turned-murder before midnight. Watson remains at the diner as collateral/increased motivation.
So Holmes and Bell dive in. Of course the whole thing goes back to gangs. This show is really into gangs lately, which for me is just another take on Mafia/organized crime; in short, I don't find it very interesting. At least not usually. But (many plot turns later) this gang happens to be smuggling maple syrup. Now that's pretty entertaining.
Meanwhile, Watson's attempts to forge a connection with Burnelle are textbook and not terribly engaging. At no point do we really believe she or the hostages are in much danger. Even the one hostage Burnelle is truly angry with—a police detective who Burnelle feels did nothing to solve his son's case—doesn't bring much emotional impact to the story. I feel like there could have been more here, but maybe it was all edited out for time?
Still, overall this was one of the better episodes.
So Holmes and Bell dive in. Of course the whole thing goes back to gangs. This show is really into gangs lately, which for me is just another take on Mafia/organized crime; in short, I don't find it very interesting. At least not usually. But (many plot turns later) this gang happens to be smuggling maple syrup. Now that's pretty entertaining.
Meanwhile, Watson's attempts to forge a connection with Burnelle are textbook and not terribly engaging. At no point do we really believe she or the hostages are in much danger. Even the one hostage Burnelle is truly angry with—a police detective who Burnelle feels did nothing to solve his son's case—doesn't bring much emotional impact to the story. I feel like there could have been more here, but maybe it was all edited out for time?
Still, overall this was one of the better episodes.
Brynnde: Chapter 1
So my new book comes out in exactly one week. But if you're too excited to wait that long, you can at least read the first chapter, which is posted here. And then be sure to pre-order so you get the best price!
2.01.2017
Brynnde up for cover recognition
So you may have heard my latest book Brynnde is about to be released (Feb 9). And now it's getting a little cover love, too! I can't take the credit; Lila Mijailovic designed the cover, and I think she did a fabulous job. I hope you do, too, and would like to reward her with a vote on the Books & Benches cover contest.
(And while you're at it, go ahead a pre-order the ebook for just 99 cents. Goes up to $2.99 at release.)
(And while you're at it, go ahead a pre-order the ebook for just 99 cents. Goes up to $2.99 at release.)
1.29.2017
Book: Brynnde Now Up for Pre-Order
You can now pre-order my Regency romance novel Brynnde on Amazon! Release date is February 9. The price goes up after release, so pre-order and save!
Brynnde Archambault needs to find someone to marry, else she'll be stuck with dull Mr. Dallweather. The answer to her problem arrives in the form of handsome and witty Viscount Burbridge, but just when everything seems to be going smoothly, scandal strikes and the engagement ends.
Meanwhile, Brynnde has no trouble matchmaking her friends and even her own brother. But while she breezily finds suitors for everyone else, for her time is running out. Must she resign herself to becoming Mrs. Dallweather? Or will Brynnde yet succeed in making a match for herself?
Brynnde is a light, bubbly, and sweet Regency romance in the vintage style of Zebra and Signet.
Brynnde Archambault needs to find someone to marry, else she'll be stuck with dull Mr. Dallweather. The answer to her problem arrives in the form of handsome and witty Viscount Burbridge, but just when everything seems to be going smoothly, scandal strikes and the engagement ends.
Meanwhile, Brynnde has no trouble matchmaking her friends and even her own brother. But while she breezily finds suitors for everyone else, for her time is running out. Must she resign herself to becoming Mrs. Dallweather? Or will Brynnde yet succeed in making a match for herself?
Brynnde is a light, bubbly, and sweet Regency romance in the vintage style of Zebra and Signet.
Labels:
books,
fiction,
historical fiction,
romance
1.26.2017
The other day my iPod tried to tell me one of its stories. It played the following:
Um . . .
As for me, I'm having a difficult time focusing on my work these days. There is a lot going on, a lot of noise, and it's frankly terrifying. This is how dictatorship begins: censorship and pulling the rights out from under people. Threats of torture to keep people quiet and scared. Is this wall meant to keep people out or in? We've been such a fat, sassy country for so long . . . It was only a matter of time before we'd become complacent enough that someone could waltz in and take advantage. Now more than ever we must be vigilant and informed. They will try to throw lies at us, confuse us, but we can't let that happen. They will try to divide and conquer, get us chasing our own tails, but we can't let that happen. They will try to scatter our energies by doing so many bad things at once that we don't know where to look, but we can't let that happen. We must have our eyes everywhere. And we must act before they take away our ability to act.
- "I Will Wait" by Mumford and Sons
- "Just a Memory" by Train
- "Through with You" by Maroon 5
- "Wave Bye Bye" by Gin Blossoms
Um . . .
As for me, I'm having a difficult time focusing on my work these days. There is a lot going on, a lot of noise, and it's frankly terrifying. This is how dictatorship begins: censorship and pulling the rights out from under people. Threats of torture to keep people quiet and scared. Is this wall meant to keep people out or in? We've been such a fat, sassy country for so long . . . It was only a matter of time before we'd become complacent enough that someone could waltz in and take advantage. Now more than ever we must be vigilant and informed. They will try to throw lies at us, confuse us, but we can't let that happen. They will try to divide and conquer, get us chasing our own tails, but we can't let that happen. They will try to scatter our energies by doing so many bad things at once that we don't know where to look, but we can't let that happen. We must have our eyes everywhere. And we must act before they take away our ability to act.
1.23.2017
Books: The Face of a Stranger by Anne Perry
I met Ms. Perry at a writing conference where we were both guest authors. Can you imagine? Anyway, she's just lovely, and I felt bad for never having read any of her books; I'd always meant to, but there are so many I didn't know where to start. So I asked her, and she handed me The Face of a Stranger.
I really liked it.
It's the first in the William Monk series of books, and in this story Monk—a police detective in Victorian London—wakes up after a carriage crash and can't remember anything. Like, anything. Not even his own name. And so he must piece together his life while also trying to solve a murder and hide the fact that he kind of doesn't know what he's doing.
The book breaks a lot of rules, at least the rules that are in place for writers now; maybe when Ms. Perry was writing this those rules hadn't been set yet. For one, it begins with the protagonist waking up. Also, amnesia. And the book also jumps from one character's perspective to another, which I think nowadays is called "head hopping." But Perry is far from the only one to do this; I noticed it when re-reading Dune recently, too. So clearly it used to be no big deal.
So I will say I noticed all these "flaws" while reading. (Maybe it says something about the way we pound the "rules" into writers' heads that they can detract from reading a good book.) And there were parts that were a tad repetitive. Monk constantly thinks about who he must be, what kind of man he must have been before the accident, etc. I suppose it's realistic that he would go over the same ground a few times, but that doesn't mean the reader has to.
Still. I really enjoyed the book overall, and I'd pick up the next one.
I really liked it.
It's the first in the William Monk series of books, and in this story Monk—a police detective in Victorian London—wakes up after a carriage crash and can't remember anything. Like, anything. Not even his own name. And so he must piece together his life while also trying to solve a murder and hide the fact that he kind of doesn't know what he's doing.
The book breaks a lot of rules, at least the rules that are in place for writers now; maybe when Ms. Perry was writing this those rules hadn't been set yet. For one, it begins with the protagonist waking up. Also, amnesia. And the book also jumps from one character's perspective to another, which I think nowadays is called "head hopping." But Perry is far from the only one to do this; I noticed it when re-reading Dune recently, too. So clearly it used to be no big deal.
So I will say I noticed all these "flaws" while reading. (Maybe it says something about the way we pound the "rules" into writers' heads that they can detract from reading a good book.) And there were parts that were a tad repetitive. Monk constantly thinks about who he must be, what kind of man he must have been before the accident, etc. I suppose it's realistic that he would go over the same ground a few times, but that doesn't mean the reader has to.
Still. I really enjoyed the book overall, and I'd pick up the next one.
Labels:
books,
fiction,
historical fiction,
mystery
1.22.2017
Movies: The Girl on the Train
It seems like unreliable narrators and whole casts of unlikable characters are the in thing these days.
I haven't read the book. Maybe it's better? But I really disliked the Gone Girl book and still thought the movie was okay . . . So if I didn't like this movie, is the book worse? Or is this one just the flip of Gone Girl? Is it because David Fincher directed Gone Girl and he's plain awesome? I don't think I've seen anything Tate Taylor has done (didn't see The Help but loved that book, so . . .) I guess what I'm saying, not very well, is that I have to wonder how much of this is the source material and how much of it is the filter that is the director.
Emily Blunt slurs her way through this film as alcoholic Rachel whose husband Tom left her for Anna. Rachel and Tom suffered through infertility, but Anna promptly gives Tom a baby daughter. Rachel torments herself by riding the train past her old house each day, catching glimpses of Tom's and Anna's life, the life that should have been hers. Two doors down from her old house, too, there is another woman living a seemingly perfect life. Rachel makes up stories about who this woman is and what her life might be like. Then she flips the fuck out when she sees this woman kissing a man who is definitely not her partner/husband. When the woman—whose name is Megan—goes missing, Rachel tries to "help" by bringing up what she saw to the police and Megan's husband Scott. Unfortunately, because Rachel is constantly soused, no one believes her and they even suspect she may have done it. And since Rachel blacks out a lot and can't remember things, she wonders if she did something to Megan too. But of course we all know better because then there isn't really a story.
Not much suspense or many thrills in this supposed "suspense thriller." Again, maybe the book did it better. We know we can't trust Rachel's memories/flashbacks. So there's no surprise when she unravels things and discovers she was wrong about what she remembered. The whole thing has a Gaslight vibe that could have been really cool if played up differently. As it was, it was just kind of like ::shrug::
I haven't read the book. Maybe it's better? But I really disliked the Gone Girl book and still thought the movie was okay . . . So if I didn't like this movie, is the book worse? Or is this one just the flip of Gone Girl? Is it because David Fincher directed Gone Girl and he's plain awesome? I don't think I've seen anything Tate Taylor has done (didn't see The Help but loved that book, so . . .) I guess what I'm saying, not very well, is that I have to wonder how much of this is the source material and how much of it is the filter that is the director.
Emily Blunt slurs her way through this film as alcoholic Rachel whose husband Tom left her for Anna. Rachel and Tom suffered through infertility, but Anna promptly gives Tom a baby daughter. Rachel torments herself by riding the train past her old house each day, catching glimpses of Tom's and Anna's life, the life that should have been hers. Two doors down from her old house, too, there is another woman living a seemingly perfect life. Rachel makes up stories about who this woman is and what her life might be like. Then she flips the fuck out when she sees this woman kissing a man who is definitely not her partner/husband. When the woman—whose name is Megan—goes missing, Rachel tries to "help" by bringing up what she saw to the police and Megan's husband Scott. Unfortunately, because Rachel is constantly soused, no one believes her and they even suspect she may have done it. And since Rachel blacks out a lot and can't remember things, she wonders if she did something to Megan too. But of course we all know better because then there isn't really a story.
Not much suspense or many thrills in this supposed "suspense thriller." Again, maybe the book did it better. We know we can't trust Rachel's memories/flashbacks. So there's no surprise when she unravels things and discovers she was wrong about what she remembered. The whole thing has a Gaslight vibe that could have been really cool if played up differently. As it was, it was just kind of like ::shrug::
1.21.2017
Movies: The Accountant
This had a promising premise but was bogged down by flashbacks, a long explanatory sequence (that included more flashbacks), and reveals that weren't all that surprising (except one at the very end that was pretty cool).
Ben Affleck, in an attempt to prove to Matt Damon that he can also play "smaht," is a math savant on the autism spectrum that works as—wait for it—an accountant. But also works for bad people, I guess? Because J.K. Simmons is there as a Treasury Department officer trying to track this accountant down.
Affleck—whose character is named Christian Wolff—takes a job for a company called Living Robotics, run by John Lithgow. There are some, let's say, discrepancies in the books, and then this other team of guys is going around killing people off to keep the truth from coming out. Chris and a Living Robotics accountant named Dana (Anna Kendrick) are on the hit list. Lucky for Chris, and actually also for Dana, that there are a lot of flashbacks to tell us how Chris' military father had him and his brother trained to fight and kill.
Honestly, the whole thing is a kind of mishmash mess with almost too much going on and lots of things filmed in heavy shadow. And then it grinds to a complete halt when J.K. Simmons goes into a long voiceover that explains Chris' criminal background and how he (Simmons) got pulled into the mystery of who this guy is. By that time, I'd all but lost interest. Still, I'm glad I finished it out if only for the final little reveal at the very end of the film. There's at least one other reveal before that, but it is underwhelming and not at all surprising.
I'd really had hopes for this movie. It had such potential. But oh, it really needed to be edited and tightened. As it stands, it's somewhat sloppy and periodically flat-out boring.
Ben Affleck, in an attempt to prove to Matt Damon that he can also play "smaht," is a math savant on the autism spectrum that works as—wait for it—an accountant. But also works for bad people, I guess? Because J.K. Simmons is there as a Treasury Department officer trying to track this accountant down.
Affleck—whose character is named Christian Wolff—takes a job for a company called Living Robotics, run by John Lithgow. There are some, let's say, discrepancies in the books, and then this other team of guys is going around killing people off to keep the truth from coming out. Chris and a Living Robotics accountant named Dana (Anna Kendrick) are on the hit list. Lucky for Chris, and actually also for Dana, that there are a lot of flashbacks to tell us how Chris' military father had him and his brother trained to fight and kill.
Honestly, the whole thing is a kind of mishmash mess with almost too much going on and lots of things filmed in heavy shadow. And then it grinds to a complete halt when J.K. Simmons goes into a long voiceover that explains Chris' criminal background and how he (Simmons) got pulled into the mystery of who this guy is. By that time, I'd all but lost interest. Still, I'm glad I finished it out if only for the final little reveal at the very end of the film. There's at least one other reveal before that, but it is underwhelming and not at all surprising.
I'd really had hopes for this movie. It had such potential. But oh, it really needed to be edited and tightened. As it stands, it's somewhat sloppy and periodically flat-out boring.
1.18.2017
Television: Elementary, "Crowned Clown, Downtown Brown"
So the ads made this look like a killer clown thing, but in actuality it was more Flint water stuff.
Meh.
It really couldn't manage to hold my interest.
However, they did a bit more with Detective Bell's character by throwing a lot at him at once. 1. Watson asked him to help her dad out with some of his mystery novels? Like as a consultant, I guess? 2. That ADA Bell had shown an interest in a few weeks back is now his semi-girlfriend? Like, this was their third date, so I guess it's not exclusive or anything yet, but it must be good enough to merit repeating. But it was sort of sprung on the viewers (and Watson), which feels a bit like a cheat. 3. And then Bell had to deal with the ADA's ex. And ended up blackmailing him, more or less? Good of Bell to show some backbone, but . . . You know, when someone feels cornered and threatened they're even more likely to lash out and look for a way to get rid of said threat. So I don't feel like this was the best way to handle the situation. Also, you're a cop. You shouldn't blackmail people. And I shouldn't have to remind you of that.
Clearly, though, I paid more attention to the Bell stuff than the clown-turned-water-filter story. ::rolling my eyes::
We're about halfway through the season now and ratings are dwindling (though some of that may be due to football). Maybe the whole Sherlock Holmes cycle we've been in is starting to come to a close. Let's just hope Elementary ends better than That Other Show*. Not that that would be difficult to do. Gah.
*I really disliked all but the final minute of so of That Other Show because that minute was the show we should have been watching all along.
Meh.
It really couldn't manage to hold my interest.
However, they did a bit more with Detective Bell's character by throwing a lot at him at once. 1. Watson asked him to help her dad out with some of his mystery novels? Like as a consultant, I guess? 2. That ADA Bell had shown an interest in a few weeks back is now his semi-girlfriend? Like, this was their third date, so I guess it's not exclusive or anything yet, but it must be good enough to merit repeating. But it was sort of sprung on the viewers (and Watson), which feels a bit like a cheat. 3. And then Bell had to deal with the ADA's ex. And ended up blackmailing him, more or less? Good of Bell to show some backbone, but . . . You know, when someone feels cornered and threatened they're even more likely to lash out and look for a way to get rid of said threat. So I don't feel like this was the best way to handle the situation. Also, you're a cop. You shouldn't blackmail people. And I shouldn't have to remind you of that.
Clearly, though, I paid more attention to the Bell stuff than the clown-turned-water-filter story. ::rolling my eyes::
We're about halfway through the season now and ratings are dwindling (though some of that may be due to football). Maybe the whole Sherlock Holmes cycle we've been in is starting to come to a close. Let's just hope Elementary ends better than That Other Show*. Not that that would be difficult to do. Gah.
*I really disliked all but the final minute of so of That Other Show because that minute was the show we should have been watching all along.
1.17.2017
Books: A Royal Duty by Paul Burrell
I written before about my feelings regarding Princess Diana. You know, I grew up at a time when she was the "real-life princess" every little girl could look up to.
Anyway, I stumbled across this book at our library's book shop, and I'm not entirely sure what compelled me to buy it. Curiosity, I suppose. And reading this book certainly gave a lot of insight into the way royal houses work and then also into Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, and Princess Diana specifically. Which was interesting—engrossing even—but I felt kind of sick as I read it, too. I don't know how else to describe it. I sort of hated myself for reading it because it seemed so voyeuristic.
Going into the book, I wasn't really aware of who Paul Burrell was, largely because (a) I'm not British or one of those people who obsessively follow the royals, and (b) at the time of his court case I had a lot going on in my own life and wasn't paying much attention to the news. Which sort of made for nice reading since it was really all fresh and new to me. Though I suppose even if you did follow those proceedings at the time, this book is still an interesting perspective.
Burrell makes himself very likable, but of course what else would he do? He tries to make things sound reasonable, or at least tries to explain why he did some of the things he did. For me, that was only partially successful. In some instances I was just shaking my head. Because, yeah, he sort of seems obsessed. Maybe good servants are obsessed? I dunno, I feel like there's a lot of psychology to be explored here. Stuff about deriving your self-worth from whom you serve and how important you are to them, etc.
Come the end of it all, Burrell doth protest . . . if not too much, an awful lot. The letters to Charles and William were, of course, suspect since they came after the fact of his arrest. So naturally it was only when the Queen herself said that, no, Burrell had said the same things to her prior that the case against him collapsed. I'm not sure why Burrell professes in this book to be bewildered by that. He keeps going on about the letters to Charles and William but those could easily look like attempts by Burrell to cover his a**. And it's fine if we believe he's in earnest. But one has to look at it objectively, and from the court's point of view. People are tried on facts not personality. (Or should be, though I'm sure personality must color things.)
As for personality, while Burrell does seem earnest, he also comes across as somewhat smug, and then again at times desperate, almost pleading. He definitely wants to be understood, and wants Diana to be understood as well—or maybe just viewed through his particular prism? One can never be free of the bias in this book. Burrell was simply too close to everything to be able to put forth a big picture.
But one doesn't read a book like this for the big picture. This is an intimate story, if one sided. This is a man attempting to explain his devotion and also possibly excuse himself from certain things.
Burrell writes glowingly, lovingly of the Queen, the princes Harry and William, and of course Diana. He's less effusive about Charles though seemingly strives to not be outright damning. For people wanting to get to the juicy stuff quickly, there's a bit of Burrell's family history and such first. A primer of sorts on how he became a royal butler.
On the whole, it's a good read, but as I mentioned, it also made me a tad uncomfortable. I asked myself more than once: Why am I reading this? But once I'd started, it was difficult to stop. Indeed, I didn't—until I reached the final page.
Anyway, I stumbled across this book at our library's book shop, and I'm not entirely sure what compelled me to buy it. Curiosity, I suppose. And reading this book certainly gave a lot of insight into the way royal houses work and then also into Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, and Princess Diana specifically. Which was interesting—engrossing even—but I felt kind of sick as I read it, too. I don't know how else to describe it. I sort of hated myself for reading it because it seemed so voyeuristic.
Going into the book, I wasn't really aware of who Paul Burrell was, largely because (a) I'm not British or one of those people who obsessively follow the royals, and (b) at the time of his court case I had a lot going on in my own life and wasn't paying much attention to the news. Which sort of made for nice reading since it was really all fresh and new to me. Though I suppose even if you did follow those proceedings at the time, this book is still an interesting perspective.
Burrell makes himself very likable, but of course what else would he do? He tries to make things sound reasonable, or at least tries to explain why he did some of the things he did. For me, that was only partially successful. In some instances I was just shaking my head. Because, yeah, he sort of seems obsessed. Maybe good servants are obsessed? I dunno, I feel like there's a lot of psychology to be explored here. Stuff about deriving your self-worth from whom you serve and how important you are to them, etc.
Come the end of it all, Burrell doth protest . . . if not too much, an awful lot. The letters to Charles and William were, of course, suspect since they came after the fact of his arrest. So naturally it was only when the Queen herself said that, no, Burrell had said the same things to her prior that the case against him collapsed. I'm not sure why Burrell professes in this book to be bewildered by that. He keeps going on about the letters to Charles and William but those could easily look like attempts by Burrell to cover his a**. And it's fine if we believe he's in earnest. But one has to look at it objectively, and from the court's point of view. People are tried on facts not personality. (Or should be, though I'm sure personality must color things.)
As for personality, while Burrell does seem earnest, he also comes across as somewhat smug, and then again at times desperate, almost pleading. He definitely wants to be understood, and wants Diana to be understood as well—or maybe just viewed through his particular prism? One can never be free of the bias in this book. Burrell was simply too close to everything to be able to put forth a big picture.
But one doesn't read a book like this for the big picture. This is an intimate story, if one sided. This is a man attempting to explain his devotion and also possibly excuse himself from certain things.
Burrell writes glowingly, lovingly of the Queen, the princes Harry and William, and of course Diana. He's less effusive about Charles though seemingly strives to not be outright damning. For people wanting to get to the juicy stuff quickly, there's a bit of Burrell's family history and such first. A primer of sorts on how he became a royal butler.
On the whole, it's a good read, but as I mentioned, it also made me a tad uncomfortable. I asked myself more than once: Why am I reading this? But once I'd started, it was difficult to stop. Indeed, I didn't—until I reached the final page.
1.16.2017
Presented Without Commentary
- Irene - a "strong" woman with a shady past who ultimately needs to be rescued by the hero
- Mary - a "strong" woman with a shady past who ultimately needs to be rescued by the hero (but isn't)
- Eurus - a "strong" woman with a shady past who ultimately needs to be rescued by the hero
- Molly - a weak woman whose attempts to assert herself are unconvincing and unsuccessful, and who pines for the hero and allows him to manipulate her repeatedly
- Mrs. Hudson - a strong [older] woman played for comic relief
Books: My Favorite Stephen King Novels
Okay, so one of the groups I'm a member of is currently debating whether Stephen King's Revival was great or terrible. Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, but as people started writing that it was in the "bottom 10%" of his books or whatever, I began to think about which of Uncle Stevie's books are my favorites. (BTW, you can find my review of Revival here.)
Now, I've read a lot of King but not nearly all. So I can only rank what I've read. And I also sort of see Uncle Stevie's work in two parts: pre-Bag of Bones and post-Bag of Bones. So I'm going to rank them in two "eras" accordingly. And I'm only looking at novels, not anthologies.
Pre-Bag of Bones Favorites
*I didn't actually finish this one, but I'm grateful to it for introducing me to the work of Stephen Dobyns.
You'll see I never read beyond the first Dark Tower book. And there's a lot more I haven't read, too, and might never get around to.
I used the press conference scene in The Dead Zone for a dramatic interp piece once. I had to do a lot of different voices!
Post-Bag of Bones Favorites
I really, really disliked Dreamcatcher. I started both Under the Dome and Finders Keepers but never finished either of them. Cell, meanwhile, is one I really want to read but—dare I say it—I'm a little frightened to!
'Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone, and Bag of Bones are the only Stephen King books I've read more than once. I'd definitely re-read Duma Key, though, too. In fact, there are a lot of books on this list that I find myself periodically wanting to go re-read, but then other books are stacked and waiting and I never quite get back around to old favorites.
Do you read Stephen King? If so, which of his books are your favorites?
Now, I've read a lot of King but not nearly all. So I can only rank what I've read. And I also sort of see Uncle Stevie's work in two parts: pre-Bag of Bones and post-Bag of Bones. So I'm going to rank them in two "eras" accordingly. And I'm only looking at novels, not anthologies.
Pre-Bag of Bones Favorites
- 'Salem's Lot
- The Dead Zone
- The Dark Half
- Misery
- The Shining
- Pet Sematary
- It
- Needful Things
- The Green Mile
- The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger
- The Stand
- The Tommyknockers
- Insomnia*
*I didn't actually finish this one, but I'm grateful to it for introducing me to the work of Stephen Dobyns.
You'll see I never read beyond the first Dark Tower book. And there's a lot more I haven't read, too, and might never get around to.
I used the press conference scene in The Dead Zone for a dramatic interp piece once. I had to do a lot of different voices!
Post-Bag of Bones Favorites
- Duma Key
- Bag of Bones
- Lisey's Story
- Revival
- Dreamcatcher
I really, really disliked Dreamcatcher. I started both Under the Dome and Finders Keepers but never finished either of them. Cell, meanwhile, is one I really want to read but—dare I say it—I'm a little frightened to!
'Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone, and Bag of Bones are the only Stephen King books I've read more than once. I'd definitely re-read Duma Key, though, too. In fact, there are a lot of books on this list that I find myself periodically wanting to go re-read, but then other books are stacked and waiting and I never quite get back around to old favorites.
Do you read Stephen King? If so, which of his books are your favorites?
1.15.2017
Television: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
Finally tried this one out. Well, actually, I tried a random episode some months ago but didn't find it all that funny. Over time, however, I wondered if maybe I just needed more context. So I went back to the pilot and started from there.
Now I'm bingeing.
This show is incredibly funny though at times also truly cringe-worthy. What I really appreciate, though, is that none of the characters is perfect and almost none are caricatures. For example, the main character Rebecca (played by Rachel Bloom) is socially inept but very good at her job. I'm so glad they didn't go with her being an all-out mess. She has facets, as do almost every other character. (So far—and I'm only a few episodes in, mind—Valencia is the one character that seems to be from cardboard stock.)
You can't always like Rebecca, but that's okay. They even call out the fact that she's sometimes terrible in an episode in which she tries to prove otherwise. (Remember, kids, if you're doing good things for the wrong reasons, you're still a terrible person.) But the genuineness of the characters makes them ultimately relatable. And yet they're just over the top enough to be hilarious in a way real life almost never is.
Also: musical numbers. That are amazing.
I think I've been starved for comedy, so I'm really, really glad to have this to watch. I'm trying not to eat it up too fast because then I won't have anything left.
I'd say if you like, oh, Kimmy Schmidt, you'd probably enjoy this too. Rebecca isn't quite as alien as Kimmy but they come from neighboring petrie dishes, I think. As the straight man, Greg is my favorite character and probably the most sympathetic.
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend can be bought On Demand or streamed via Netflix.
Now I'm bingeing.
This show is incredibly funny though at times also truly cringe-worthy. What I really appreciate, though, is that none of the characters is perfect and almost none are caricatures. For example, the main character Rebecca (played by Rachel Bloom) is socially inept but very good at her job. I'm so glad they didn't go with her being an all-out mess. She has facets, as do almost every other character. (So far—and I'm only a few episodes in, mind—Valencia is the one character that seems to be from cardboard stock.)
You can't always like Rebecca, but that's okay. They even call out the fact that she's sometimes terrible in an episode in which she tries to prove otherwise. (Remember, kids, if you're doing good things for the wrong reasons, you're still a terrible person.) But the genuineness of the characters makes them ultimately relatable. And yet they're just over the top enough to be hilarious in a way real life almost never is.
Also: musical numbers. That are amazing.
I think I've been starved for comedy, so I'm really, really glad to have this to watch. I'm trying not to eat it up too fast because then I won't have anything left.
I'd say if you like, oh, Kimmy Schmidt, you'd probably enjoy this too. Rebecca isn't quite as alien as Kimmy but they come from neighboring petrie dishes, I think. As the straight man, Greg is my favorite character and probably the most sympathetic.
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend can be bought On Demand or streamed via Netflix.
1.11.2017
Television: Elementary, "Be My Guest"
In a moment of spectacular coincidence (or possibly we're supposed to believe it's Providence?), Holmes stumbles into a case regarding a woman being held captive that is likely to be killed soon if he, Watson, and the police cannot find her first.
Because I was having to deal with my cat, I missed the exact scenario. Holmes either overheard a conversation about "take care of her" and assumed the man was arranging to have someone murdered, or he saw the video on the man's phone . . . Well, both, but I'm not clear about the order of events. It hardly matters. Sum total was that he turned his sights on said man—Decker—and from there it's a race against time and a matter of outwitting the baddie.
The missing woman proves to be an immigrant named Preeda who'd been working on a cruise ship but disappeared on her day off . . . five years before. Instead of being helpful, law enforcement had apparently chalked it up to "another illegal burying herself in the home soil and hiding to avoid being deported." Go, 'Merica.
I won't give away the ending, but I will say this was one of the better episodes I've seen in a while. Elementary seems to be upping its game in the second half of the season. All we've ever really wanted was Holmes + Watson doing their thing, and here they do just that.
There is some Shinwell. Sigh. It's not terrible, though. He tries to set up a drug deal so he can snag some better intel or something, but thanks to the training he's been getting, he notices right away when things start to go south and is able to bail before getting in too deep. Also, he learns to pick locks? But sucks at Spanish? ::shrug::
All in all, a solid episode.
1.07.2017
Movies: Moana
I really liked this movie. Like, really.
The story is fairly simple: Moana, daughter of the chieftain, is chosen by the ocean to be the one to find the demigod Maui and take him to return the Heart of Te Fiti, a kind of earth goddess. The idyllic life of Moana's people is on the line.
The movie isn't perfect. The two encounters—one with coconut pirates, one with a crab that collects shiny things—were not particularly tense and felt like minor speed bumps rather than major conflicts. And the twist (I won't give it away) was obvious to me from the start. I didn't even think Maui was all that funny or clever.
So . . . If all that . . . Why did I like this movie so much?
I'm not entirely sure. I can tell you it's gorgeous to look at. I can tell you the music is the best a Disney movie has had in a long, long time. But in the end, the movie simply spoke to something in me. I found myself tearing up at the weirdest moments. And I'm steadfastly not a cryer.
So maybe this is a very personal kind of connection. Your mileage may vary. But, despite minor points, I think this is a fabulous movie.
P.S. The short before the film was also cute. It wasn't saying anything new, but it did get across its message in a fun way.
The story is fairly simple: Moana, daughter of the chieftain, is chosen by the ocean to be the one to find the demigod Maui and take him to return the Heart of Te Fiti, a kind of earth goddess. The idyllic life of Moana's people is on the line.
The movie isn't perfect. The two encounters—one with coconut pirates, one with a crab that collects shiny things—were not particularly tense and felt like minor speed bumps rather than major conflicts. And the twist (I won't give it away) was obvious to me from the start. I didn't even think Maui was all that funny or clever.
So . . . If all that . . . Why did I like this movie so much?
I'm not entirely sure. I can tell you it's gorgeous to look at. I can tell you the music is the best a Disney movie has had in a long, long time. But in the end, the movie simply spoke to something in me. I found myself tearing up at the weirdest moments. And I'm steadfastly not a cryer.
So maybe this is a very personal kind of connection. Your mileage may vary. But, despite minor points, I think this is a fabulous movie.
P.S. The short before the film was also cute. It wasn't saying anything new, but it did get across its message in a fun way.
1.05.2017
Movies: The Brothers Bloom
This 2008 offering from Rian Johnson is some parts Wes Anderson and some parts Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Which is to say it's cute and bears little to no weight.
Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo are the titular brothers (named Bloom and Stephen respectively). They're con men doing the usual "last job," which in this case is to mark lonely but extremely wealthy Penelope (Rachel Weisz). They script an adventure for her that, given her isolated existence, amounts to the time of her life. Of course Bloom falls in love with Penelope and things get complicated. Except not really because this is a fairly straight forward little movie that moves quickly from location to location, plot point to plot point. The romance was inevitable.
I enjoyed The Brothers Bloom for what it was though it did not command all of my attention and I ended up spending a fair amount of time playing on my iPhone. The cast does a fine job and the production design is somewhat whimsical, which is the overall tone of the film as well. There is a suggestion of having tried for something meaningful—talk of the "unscripted life" and hints of childhood trauma and abuse—but the movie overall leans away from that, away from darkness and toward light. It's as though they wanted you to be able to watch on two levels: just for fun, or fun + deep. But the "deep" here isn't plumbed very far.
In the end, a cute little gem of a film if you like that sort of thing.
Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo are the titular brothers (named Bloom and Stephen respectively). They're con men doing the usual "last job," which in this case is to mark lonely but extremely wealthy Penelope (Rachel Weisz). They script an adventure for her that, given her isolated existence, amounts to the time of her life. Of course Bloom falls in love with Penelope and things get complicated. Except not really because this is a fairly straight forward little movie that moves quickly from location to location, plot point to plot point. The romance was inevitable.
I enjoyed The Brothers Bloom for what it was though it did not command all of my attention and I ended up spending a fair amount of time playing on my iPhone. The cast does a fine job and the production design is somewhat whimsical, which is the overall tone of the film as well. There is a suggestion of having tried for something meaningful—talk of the "unscripted life" and hints of childhood trauma and abuse—but the movie overall leans away from that, away from darkness and toward light. It's as though they wanted you to be able to watch on two levels: just for fun, or fun + deep. But the "deep" here isn't plumbed very far.
In the end, a cute little gem of a film if you like that sort of thing.
1.04.2017
IWSG
A reminder that I post my monthly IWSG on PepperWords. If you were pushed here by a link, I'm giving you another shove. Sorry.
1.02.2017
Television: Elementary, "Pick Your Poison"
I watched this one a while back then promptly forgot about it. Television has just not been a huge part of my world lately.
So in this episode, Watson is accused of writing illegal prescriptions, which of course prompts her and Holmes to investigate who is really doing this. Yeah, she no longer practices medicine, but she keeps her license current, so she could technically be writing prescriptions? Anyway, the trail leads back to a doctor she used to work with way back when . . . This part of the story was actually kind of interesting, and I wouldn't have minded getting some insight and background into that part of Watson's life, but it was not to be. Said medical colleague is found murdered along with a patient and we get a story about Munchausen by proxy. It becomes immediately clear who the murderer is the moment we meet him, so the rest of the episode feels inevitable.
And then there's some more Shinwell stuff. OMG, come on. We weren't done with that? But okay, I will admit it's more tolerable now that we've got his gang thing out of the way and are moving into training him as a pseudo Irregular. That's a story arc that has potential.
In all, it wasn't a bad episode. I only worry it comes a bit late in the season to help the show overall. There's been an uneven start to things that makes it difficult to stay interested, and the ratings reflect as much. Unless something astounding happens, it seems likely this will be the final season. Let's hope the second half is stellar, if only to give us something good to remember it by.
So in this episode, Watson is accused of writing illegal prescriptions, which of course prompts her and Holmes to investigate who is really doing this. Yeah, she no longer practices medicine, but she keeps her license current, so she could technically be writing prescriptions? Anyway, the trail leads back to a doctor she used to work with way back when . . . This part of the story was actually kind of interesting, and I wouldn't have minded getting some insight and background into that part of Watson's life, but it was not to be. Said medical colleague is found murdered along with a patient and we get a story about Munchausen by proxy. It becomes immediately clear who the murderer is the moment we meet him, so the rest of the episode feels inevitable.
And then there's some more Shinwell stuff. OMG, come on. We weren't done with that? But okay, I will admit it's more tolerable now that we've got his gang thing out of the way and are moving into training him as a pseudo Irregular. That's a story arc that has potential.
In all, it wasn't a bad episode. I only worry it comes a bit late in the season to help the show overall. There's been an uneven start to things that makes it difficult to stay interested, and the ratings reflect as much. Unless something astounding happens, it seems likely this will be the final season. Let's hope the second half is stellar, if only to give us something good to remember it by.
1.01.2017
Television: Doctor Who, "The Return of Doctor Mysterio"
I finally watched this. Kind of.
Ever think you care about something only to realize you really just don't? At all?
Thing about this particular Christmas special is that there was a perfectly cute story going on about a superhero masquerading as a nanny (or "manny") for the reporter whose infant daughter hecriminally neglected cared for satisfactorily except when saving other people.
But then there was some other, stupid, confusing, boring story about brains in jars. Do. Not. Care.
This just didn't really need to be a Doctor Who special. It would have been fine as its own thing. Or maybe we could retrofit my original TV pilot to be a Doctor Who, too. I mean, we could just make everything DW, right?
Whatever. I don't even care enough to be angry or annoyed, except at their version of New York, which was just ridiculous.
I guess when you can still be bothered, it means you still care. When you're indifferent, it means you've given up on something.
I'm indifferent to Doctor Who now.
Ever think you care about something only to realize you really just don't? At all?
Thing about this particular Christmas special is that there was a perfectly cute story going on about a superhero masquerading as a nanny (or "manny") for the reporter whose infant daughter he
But then there was some other, stupid, confusing, boring story about brains in jars. Do. Not. Care.
This just didn't really need to be a Doctor Who special. It would have been fine as its own thing. Or maybe we could retrofit my original TV pilot to be a Doctor Who, too. I mean, we could just make everything DW, right?
Whatever. I don't even care enough to be angry or annoyed, except at their version of New York, which was just ridiculous.
I guess when you can still be bothered, it means you still care. When you're indifferent, it means you've given up on something.
I'm indifferent to Doctor Who now.
Labels:
fantasy,
sci-fi,
science fiction,
superheroes,
television,
UK TV
12.30.2016
Movies: Don't Think Twice
Don't Think Twice is an indie film about a group of improv actors called The Commune. Their venue is being sold out to Urban Outfitters, and they're struggling collectively over a number of issues. When one of them gets picked up by the equivalent of Saturday Night Live (here called Weekend Live, but not fooling anybody), things further unravel.
While this is an ensemble, some characters definitely get more attention than others. In particular, Jack (Keegan-Michael Key) and Samantha (Gillian Jacobs) are the resident couple in the group, and they are both invited to audition for Weekend Live. Jack gets the job, and Sam . . . Well, she doesn't go to the audition. Because she's not into doing things alone. To her, the best thing in life is improv with The Commune. The underlying theme here is: What is success? What if what you want is not what everyone thinks you should want? It's similar to what I explore in 20 August, though at the quarter-life crisis rather than mid-life.
Meanwhile, Mike Birbiglia (who also wrote and directed this) is featured as Miles, a guy who feels like he's constantly on the verge of making it only to see everyone else move up without him. He's finally told, "You've never been inches away. You don't have it." Harsh. But this allows him to accept what he does have and turn his attention toward other fulfilling things. Would you rather be told flat out that you're never going to get any further in your aspirations? Would you at least see this as a way of no longer wasting your time and energy? I do feel like hollow encouragement can be far worse than honesty. I've seen it in writing workshops; no one wants to crush anyone else, and that's fair—I wouldn't want to either. But what is the way to tell someone they're barking up the wrong tree?
As someone who has lived in a house full of actors and then also been a writer, I found Don't Think Twice thought-provoking on the levels mentioned above. It's overall a movie about finding your place and maximizing it, rather than trying to fit in somewhere you don't belong. That's important for anyone to consider, even if they aren't "creatives." The ultimate goal in life is learning what to hold on to and what to let go.
While this is an ensemble, some characters definitely get more attention than others. In particular, Jack (Keegan-Michael Key) and Samantha (Gillian Jacobs) are the resident couple in the group, and they are both invited to audition for Weekend Live. Jack gets the job, and Sam . . . Well, she doesn't go to the audition. Because she's not into doing things alone. To her, the best thing in life is improv with The Commune. The underlying theme here is: What is success? What if what you want is not what everyone thinks you should want? It's similar to what I explore in 20 August, though at the quarter-life crisis rather than mid-life.
Meanwhile, Mike Birbiglia (who also wrote and directed this) is featured as Miles, a guy who feels like he's constantly on the verge of making it only to see everyone else move up without him. He's finally told, "You've never been inches away. You don't have it." Harsh. But this allows him to accept what he does have and turn his attention toward other fulfilling things. Would you rather be told flat out that you're never going to get any further in your aspirations? Would you at least see this as a way of no longer wasting your time and energy? I do feel like hollow encouragement can be far worse than honesty. I've seen it in writing workshops; no one wants to crush anyone else, and that's fair—I wouldn't want to either. But what is the way to tell someone they're barking up the wrong tree?
As someone who has lived in a house full of actors and then also been a writer, I found Don't Think Twice thought-provoking on the levels mentioned above. It's overall a movie about finding your place and maximizing it, rather than trying to fit in somewhere you don't belong. That's important for anyone to consider, even if they aren't "creatives." The ultimate goal in life is learning what to hold on to and what to let go.
12.26.2016
12.25.2016
Crabtree & Evelyn
When I was six or seven years old—definitely not more than eight—one of my mother's friends (she had a lot of strange friends) came back from a trip and brought me a little square box inside which was a shell-shaped soap. It was the kind of thing that came from a hotel, or at least that is what I assumed at the time. But I found it endearing and enchanting, and it smelled amazing. Almost too good to use, but certainly too good not to use.
Years later, as a preteen, my friend Emily and I were at the mall and we went into a store called Crabtree & Evelyn. It was filled with soaps and lotions, and somehow to us it felt like the height of elegance and luxury. And then I saw it: the shell-shaped soap of my childhood! Only much larger. I learned the name of the soap was "jojoba," and I absolutely had to have it. I used my bit of allowance to buy a bar, and after that I only ever wanted soap and lotion from Crabtree & Evelyn.
Until . . . By the time I was in high school Bath and Body Works had become the gold standard for soaps and lotions. And B&BW were in almost every mall, unlike C&E, which was harder to find. I abandoned C&E and forgot about it, later only occasionally buying their products if I happened to stumble across a store.
I realize that now I can buy these things online. But for soaps and lotions, I like to be on site, smelling the product. While jojoba remains one of my favorites, I also am easily bored and don't like to have the same thing all the time. And I like to have options.
Before long, I became tired of B&BW too. Disenchanted with it. In our local mall, we have LUSH, and so I frequently buy my soaps there. And I discovered Molton Brown and often use their lotions and body washes.
BUT. The other day—my birthday, in fact—I came across a Crabtree & Evelyn. Hadn't seen or been in one for years. So I had to go. And they had so many great soaps! Some I remembered from before, some were new to me, but I had such a wonderful time picking them out. And when I came home and used one, oh! I'd forgotten that, besides the fragrance, C&E soaps are so soft and moisturizing. Heavenly.
All this is to say, I'm so glad I rediscovered C&E. I'm particularly enjoying my Summer Hill soap at the moment, but can also recommend Nantucket Briar, La Source, and of course Jojoba. I used to use their Lily of the Valley a lot, too. (I'm really curious about Somerset Meadow, but they had no tester at the store and I only found it as part of a set, at least at that store.) As someone who dislikes soaps and lotions that smell like food, I'm happy C&E has an abundance of floral scents. And for the gentlemen, Moroccan Myrrh and Sandalwood are fine options as well. (Though I use them myself, too, because I love those scents!)
Do you have favorite soaps and lotions? Favorite scents? Let me hear about them!
Years later, as a preteen, my friend Emily and I were at the mall and we went into a store called Crabtree & Evelyn. It was filled with soaps and lotions, and somehow to us it felt like the height of elegance and luxury. And then I saw it: the shell-shaped soap of my childhood! Only much larger. I learned the name of the soap was "jojoba," and I absolutely had to have it. I used my bit of allowance to buy a bar, and after that I only ever wanted soap and lotion from Crabtree & Evelyn.
Until . . . By the time I was in high school Bath and Body Works had become the gold standard for soaps and lotions. And B&BW were in almost every mall, unlike C&E, which was harder to find. I abandoned C&E and forgot about it, later only occasionally buying their products if I happened to stumble across a store.
I realize that now I can buy these things online. But for soaps and lotions, I like to be on site, smelling the product. While jojoba remains one of my favorites, I also am easily bored and don't like to have the same thing all the time. And I like to have options.
Before long, I became tired of B&BW too. Disenchanted with it. In our local mall, we have LUSH, and so I frequently buy my soaps there. And I discovered Molton Brown and often use their lotions and body washes.
BUT. The other day—my birthday, in fact—I came across a Crabtree & Evelyn. Hadn't seen or been in one for years. So I had to go. And they had so many great soaps! Some I remembered from before, some were new to me, but I had such a wonderful time picking them out. And when I came home and used one, oh! I'd forgotten that, besides the fragrance, C&E soaps are so soft and moisturizing. Heavenly.
All this is to say, I'm so glad I rediscovered C&E. I'm particularly enjoying my Summer Hill soap at the moment, but can also recommend Nantucket Briar, La Source, and of course Jojoba. I used to use their Lily of the Valley a lot, too. (I'm really curious about Somerset Meadow, but they had no tester at the store and I only found it as part of a set, at least at that store.) As someone who dislikes soaps and lotions that smell like food, I'm happy C&E has an abundance of floral scents. And for the gentlemen, Moroccan Myrrh and Sandalwood are fine options as well. (Though I use them myself, too, because I love those scents!)
Do you have favorite soaps and lotions? Favorite scents? Let me hear about them!
12.20.2016
Television: Elementary, "It Serves You Right to Suffer"
This one is all about Shinwell. But at least it isn't about Watson trying to convince Shinwell of anything.
A gang member is murdered and Shinwell is a suspect. His prints are on the gun—or will be once the prints are run. But as it turns out Shinwell is actually an FBI informant? Except the agent he reports to isn't authorized to run informants so he refuses to help Shinwell because that would get himself in trouble?
Um, yeah, okay. Whatever.
Long story short (spoiler follows), the FBI agent and a couple cronies were the one to kill the gang member who, as it turned out, was also an informant and was putting said FBI agent at risk. But when Watson confronts the agent, he chooses to blow his own brains out rather than admit to everything. Which leaves Shinwell still in the lurch as the gun goes to be processed.
But Holmes does Shinwell a solid by pulling a few strings that allow him to get access to the gun and wipe the prints from it. So, you know, nice tidy finish there.
Can we be done with Shinwell now? And done with Watson trying to help stray criminals or whatever it is she's doing? Because it's totally not interesting and detracts from the show. She's interesting when trying to help Holmes. But Holmes helping people (Alfredo) and Watson helping other people (Shinwell) = not interesting, just annoying. The focus really needs to be on Holmes and Watson, their bond and them working together. That's the core strength here.
A gang member is murdered and Shinwell is a suspect. His prints are on the gun—or will be once the prints are run. But as it turns out Shinwell is actually an FBI informant? Except the agent he reports to isn't authorized to run informants so he refuses to help Shinwell because that would get himself in trouble?
Um, yeah, okay. Whatever.
Long story short (spoiler follows), the FBI agent and a couple cronies were the one to kill the gang member who, as it turned out, was also an informant and was putting said FBI agent at risk. But when Watson confronts the agent, he chooses to blow his own brains out rather than admit to everything. Which leaves Shinwell still in the lurch as the gun goes to be processed.
But Holmes does Shinwell a solid by pulling a few strings that allow him to get access to the gun and wipe the prints from it. So, you know, nice tidy finish there.
Can we be done with Shinwell now? And done with Watson trying to help stray criminals or whatever it is she's doing? Because it's totally not interesting and detracts from the show. She's interesting when trying to help Holmes. But Holmes helping people (Alfredo) and Watson helping other people (Shinwell) = not interesting, just annoying. The focus really needs to be on Holmes and Watson, their bond and them working together. That's the core strength here.
12.18.2016
Movies: Florence Foster Jenkins
Um . . . This was cute, I guess?
For those of you who only know about the big movies, this one is an Oscar bait flick starring Meryl Streep as the titular Florence Foster Jenkins, best known for being a terrible singer in the 1940s. In particular, the film focuses on Jenkins' desire to give concerts and sing at Carnegie Hall. After being moved to tears by seeing a young opera singer there, Jenkins—who evidently had more money than talent—hires a voice coach and pianist and begins to practice in earnest. And she is earnest. And easily taken advantage of by said voice coach.
It falls to Jenkins' life partner St. Clair Bayfield (Hugh Grant) to do things like make sure the concert audience will only be kind and hide any bad reviews from the fragile Jenkins. It turns out that Jenkins is ill with syphilis, which she contracted from her first husband. So not only her ego is fragile, but her body too. She does not have a physical relationship with Bayfield, but they are devoted to one another. Except that he also has a girlfriend on the side. Facebook status: It's Complicated.
This film carefully treads a line between comedy and drama, and while it does so nicely, the end result is flat. I found it less than engaging. It wasn't funny enough, but also failed to pull my heartstrings so to speak. Grant does a marvelous job here, and Simon Helberg as the pianist is likewise really good. But on the whole, the movie did nothing for me.
I did wonder at some of the biographical changes that were made. For instance, Jenkins suffered her heart attack five days after the Carnegie Hall concert, not the day after, as suggested by the film. She died a month later. Also, though the movie shows Kathleen leaving St. Clair, in reality they married after Jenkins died. The end notes of the film made no mention of that. I suppose it's all in the service of story, but if you're going to do a biopic of sorts . . . ::shrug::
tl;dr: Meh. Needed to be funnier.
For those of you who only know about the big movies, this one is an Oscar bait flick starring Meryl Streep as the titular Florence Foster Jenkins, best known for being a terrible singer in the 1940s. In particular, the film focuses on Jenkins' desire to give concerts and sing at Carnegie Hall. After being moved to tears by seeing a young opera singer there, Jenkins—who evidently had more money than talent—hires a voice coach and pianist and begins to practice in earnest. And she is earnest. And easily taken advantage of by said voice coach.
It falls to Jenkins' life partner St. Clair Bayfield (Hugh Grant) to do things like make sure the concert audience will only be kind and hide any bad reviews from the fragile Jenkins. It turns out that Jenkins is ill with syphilis, which she contracted from her first husband. So not only her ego is fragile, but her body too. She does not have a physical relationship with Bayfield, but they are devoted to one another. Except that he also has a girlfriend on the side. Facebook status: It's Complicated.
This film carefully treads a line between comedy and drama, and while it does so nicely, the end result is flat. I found it less than engaging. It wasn't funny enough, but also failed to pull my heartstrings so to speak. Grant does a marvelous job here, and Simon Helberg as the pianist is likewise really good. But on the whole, the movie did nothing for me.
I did wonder at some of the biographical changes that were made. For instance, Jenkins suffered her heart attack five days after the Carnegie Hall concert, not the day after, as suggested by the film. She died a month later. Also, though the movie shows Kathleen leaving St. Clair, in reality they married after Jenkins died. The end notes of the film made no mention of that. I suppose it's all in the service of story, but if you're going to do a biopic of sorts . . . ::shrug::
tl;dr: Meh. Needed to be funnier.
12.16.2016
Movies: Rogue One
Starring: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk
Directed By: Gareth Edwards
Written By: Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy (screenplay), John Knoll and Gary Whitta (story), based on characters created by George Lucas
LucasFilm, 2016
PG-13; 134 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
It's not Force Awakens, and Disney (now owner of LucasFilm) insists it's not meant to be, but...
This is a story taken from a single line in Star Wars, you know, the one about how many people died to get the plans of the Death Star? So, taking that into consideration, it's no wonder a movie based on a line of dialogue is a bit flimsy.
PLOT DETAILS FOLLOW
(skip to next header if you'd rather not know)
Galen Erso helped design the Death Star but then "retired" or something as a farmer because he no longer wanted to be part of the Empire's big plans. So when he's recalled to complete the job, he sends his daughter Jyn into hiding and she ends up raised by Saw Gerrera, who in turn becomes an extremist against the Empire. Jyn wants nothing to do with that life, but of course gets dragged into the Rebel's efforts because of her ties to the Death Star.
There are some problems. Like the fact that Galen sends a message to Saw but the message is mostly aimed at Jyn even though Galen acknowledges in the message that he doesn't know if Jyn is alive, nor does he assume she is with Saw. Like, what? Why send Saw a message and then talk to Jyn the whole time?
Then there are things like the semi-reanimation of Peter Cushing so that Governor Tarkin can live again. Yes, I know they also used Guy Henry, but there are still some issues that become increasingly obvious the longer he's on screen. It's like they were so proud of themselves for this technology—and it's very good, no question—that they wanted to parade it a bit. Problem being that the more it's paraded the less wonderful it appears. The skin over the cheeks in particular did not move correctly, and once I'd seen that I couldn't stop seeing it.
The story then devolves into an overlong bad-day-in-IT in which servers and networks and communications break down and need to be put back online or something. Yes, I'm oversimplifying. But the movie really did not need to be as long as it was.
SAFE ZONE BELOW
I will say that I really liked a lot of these characters. Donnie Yen did a nice, gentle job with a role that could have leaned toward corny. Alan Tudyk is, as ever, one of the best things about the film. (And hey, I've worked with Forest Whitaker, which puts me two degrees from the Star Wars universe now! Woohoo!) I guess I just wish there had been a bit of a stronger story for all these great characters and actors. It's not a terrible movie, and I didn't go in with any big expectations, yet I still walked away a wee bit underwhelmed.
ETA: Upon second viewing, I did like it a bit more. However, I still find the last part of the movie too long. And I realized part of my problem with the reanimation of Tarkin is the way he turns his head and the way his eyes move . . . There are just a combination of elements that make him a little too animatronic.
Directed By: Gareth Edwards
Written By: Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy (screenplay), John Knoll and Gary Whitta (story), based on characters created by George Lucas
LucasFilm, 2016
PG-13; 134 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
It's not Force Awakens, and Disney (now owner of LucasFilm) insists it's not meant to be, but...
This is a story taken from a single line in Star Wars, you know, the one about how many people died to get the plans of the Death Star? So, taking that into consideration, it's no wonder a movie based on a line of dialogue is a bit flimsy.
PLOT DETAILS FOLLOW
(skip to next header if you'd rather not know)
Galen Erso helped design the Death Star but then "retired" or something as a farmer because he no longer wanted to be part of the Empire's big plans. So when he's recalled to complete the job, he sends his daughter Jyn into hiding and she ends up raised by Saw Gerrera, who in turn becomes an extremist against the Empire. Jyn wants nothing to do with that life, but of course gets dragged into the Rebel's efforts because of her ties to the Death Star.
There are some problems. Like the fact that Galen sends a message to Saw but the message is mostly aimed at Jyn even though Galen acknowledges in the message that he doesn't know if Jyn is alive, nor does he assume she is with Saw. Like, what? Why send Saw a message and then talk to Jyn the whole time?
Then there are things like the semi-reanimation of Peter Cushing so that Governor Tarkin can live again. Yes, I know they also used Guy Henry, but there are still some issues that become increasingly obvious the longer he's on screen. It's like they were so proud of themselves for this technology—and it's very good, no question—that they wanted to parade it a bit. Problem being that the more it's paraded the less wonderful it appears. The skin over the cheeks in particular did not move correctly, and once I'd seen that I couldn't stop seeing it.
The story then devolves into an overlong bad-day-in-IT in which servers and networks and communications break down and need to be put back online or something. Yes, I'm oversimplifying. But the movie really did not need to be as long as it was.
SAFE ZONE BELOW
I will say that I really liked a lot of these characters. Donnie Yen did a nice, gentle job with a role that could have leaned toward corny. Alan Tudyk is, as ever, one of the best things about the film. (And hey, I've worked with Forest Whitaker, which puts me two degrees from the Star Wars universe now! Woohoo!) I guess I just wish there had been a bit of a stronger story for all these great characters and actors. It's not a terrible movie, and I didn't go in with any big expectations, yet I still walked away a wee bit underwhelmed.
ETA: Upon second viewing, I did like it a bit more. However, I still find the last part of the movie too long. And I realized part of my problem with the reanimation of Tarkin is the way he turns his head and the way his eyes move . . . There are just a combination of elements that make him a little too animatronic.
12.11.2016
Movies: Jason Bourne
Oh my God, you guys. This movie was so f***ing boring. I tuned out pretty early on, glancing up now and then, and still knew exactly what was going on because nothing much happened. Even the action scenes weren't that fun.
Part of the trouble may be that all these movies now look and sound alike, and there's just nothing new under the sun. Here's a car chase, here's a crowd scene, here's someone hanging off the side of a building . . . *yawn*
But part of the trouble also had to do with the very flimsy plot. Bourne suddenly cares about whether and how his father was involved in Treadstone? Whaaaa? That's fine, but none of us care, nor does this movie make us care. We hardly care about Bourne any more, much less his dad.
Like, they didn't try to make Bourne sympathetic at all. We're just supposed to care about him because we saw those other movies or read some books? Nope. We don't. Sorry, but you do actually have to put some character development in your movies, even when they're part of a series.
Then there was some side plot about using a big tech company to mine data for the government. You know, the CIA was going to buy all the data off them, I guess? I mean, it wasn't a very well-developed plot, so . . . Whatever.
Other things that distracted and bothered me: Tommy Lee Jones' lips—were they, like, really chapped or something?—and Alicia Vikander struggling to mask her natural accent.
So yeah, this movie is NOT worth wasting your time. It's SO BORING. Go do something fun instead, like making a big stack of toast or clipping your toenails. Seriously, those would be way more entertaining.
Part of the trouble may be that all these movies now look and sound alike, and there's just nothing new under the sun. Here's a car chase, here's a crowd scene, here's someone hanging off the side of a building . . . *yawn*
But part of the trouble also had to do with the very flimsy plot. Bourne suddenly cares about whether and how his father was involved in Treadstone? Whaaaa? That's fine, but none of us care, nor does this movie make us care. We hardly care about Bourne any more, much less his dad.
Like, they didn't try to make Bourne sympathetic at all. We're just supposed to care about him because we saw those other movies or read some books? Nope. We don't. Sorry, but you do actually have to put some character development in your movies, even when they're part of a series.
Then there was some side plot about using a big tech company to mine data for the government. You know, the CIA was going to buy all the data off them, I guess? I mean, it wasn't a very well-developed plot, so . . . Whatever.
Other things that distracted and bothered me: Tommy Lee Jones' lips—were they, like, really chapped or something?—and Alicia Vikander struggling to mask her natural accent.
So yeah, this movie is NOT worth wasting your time. It's SO BORING. Go do something fun instead, like making a big stack of toast or clipping your toenails. Seriously, those would be way more entertaining.
Labels:
action/adventure,
movies,
spies
12.09.2016
The Wild Unknown Tarot
I'd been eying this deck for a while, but I also felt for the longest time that it was not meant for me. I actually sent it to a friend for whom it did feel right. But then I just kept coming back to it.
It wasn't until I'd more or less given up tarot that I suddenly felt like it might be okay for me to own this deck. So I used my birthday/holiday money and bought it.
And I love it.
It comes nicely boxed, though I'll say that I had a dickens of a time getting the paper sleeve off the box. Yow. But the packaging under the sleeve is just lovely, very sturdy, good quality.
The guidebook is likewise very nice. Each card has its own two-page spread with the card on the left and the write-up on the right. The book also contains a few spreads to try if you're a beginner.
I feel very intuitively connected to these cards, which is pretty amazing for me because I struggle with intuition, at least when reading for myself. I can read for others quite easily, so the test of a deck (for me) is whether it makes sense when I'm talking to myself. This one answers me clearly. It resonates with me.
It's a very calm deck. Soothing. Deep, like a still pond. Use it in quiet surroundings and really listen. The Wild Unknown Tarot is meant for serious readings, nothing quick or on the fly. This is a deck that demands commitment. If you give it that, I think it will give back one hundred fold.
It wasn't until I'd more or less given up tarot that I suddenly felt like it might be okay for me to own this deck. So I used my birthday/holiday money and bought it.
And I love it.
It comes nicely boxed, though I'll say that I had a dickens of a time getting the paper sleeve off the box. Yow. But the packaging under the sleeve is just lovely, very sturdy, good quality.
The guidebook is likewise very nice. Each card has its own two-page spread with the card on the left and the write-up on the right. The book also contains a few spreads to try if you're a beginner.
I feel very intuitively connected to these cards, which is pretty amazing for me because I struggle with intuition, at least when reading for myself. I can read for others quite easily, so the test of a deck (for me) is whether it makes sense when I'm talking to myself. This one answers me clearly. It resonates with me.
It's a very calm deck. Soothing. Deep, like a still pond. Use it in quiet surroundings and really listen. The Wild Unknown Tarot is meant for serious readings, nothing quick or on the fly. This is a deck that demands commitment. If you give it that, I think it will give back one hundred fold.
12.07.2016
Reminder: IWSG is on PepperWords
If you've skated over here in search of my IWSG post, it's on PepperWords.
12.06.2016
Television: Elementary, "Bang Bang Shoot Chute"
Look! I caught up! (But only because there was no episode this past Sunday.) Guess I also watched them out of order? Whatever. It doesn't seem to make a difference.
There comes a time in every long-running show's life when the characters become static. They're established and don't change much if at all. The relationships between them are likewise set. At that point, a show becomes all about story, and the stories get increasingly . . . convoluted, bizarre, whatever. Each episode becomes a series of narrative hoops to be jumped through. I remember this happening with Bones, and it's now happening with Elementary too.
This doesn't mean a show is no longer good, only that it has changed. Whether a viewer sticks with it depends on whether they're okay with that change. I'm a character person. That's always going to interest me more than the story of the week. So yeah, I did eventually drop Bones (the baby in the manger was my breaking point), and if I weren't relatively sure Elementary was on its way out anyway, I'd probably blow it off, too. But that's just me. (As it is, I'll stick out the season.)
In this particular episode, um . . . A guy and his friend go base jumping off a skyscraper and the guy gets shot twice on the way down. Besides that, his chute was sabotaged. So even if he hadn't been shot, he'd have died. Which leaves one really simple question: What kind of f***ing idiot doesn't check his equipment before jumping?
Narrative hoops in this plot include the pregnant wife, the other dead friend who used to jump with the victim (and whose family may or may not blame the victim for the dead friend's death), connections with the military, connections with terrorists . . . You see the way things are going. Increasingly unlikely scenarios presented as twists and turns in the story until we eventually complete the circle by coming back to the pregnant wife, her father, and a secret girlfriend whose brother felt the guy was dishonoring his family.
Oh, and then there was also Shinwell stuff. He gets caught talking to an old friend who is/was a member of his gang from before he went to prison—a parole violation. Watson talks to both Shinwell and the friend and is told by Shinwell to buzz off. It's pretty clear that the friend has made some kind of threat and Shinwell is trying to protect Watson by pushing her away. But the amount we don't care is staggering. We're talking negative numbers here.
The Watson-Shinwell story line is maybe meant to sub for actual character development, but no characters are developing. Everyone is just doing what they do, and it's not even interesting. Characters are really only interesting when they do something unusual, or are put in situations that force them to act differently. Which is what I mean about stagnation in these shows. The main characters just do what they do, and watching them do it can sometimes be interesting, but . . . It's like watching a person put together a puzzle. It's more fun to help, and barring that, it's more fun to watch a brilliant person flounder than do their job well. More awkward, please!
There comes a time in every long-running show's life when the characters become static. They're established and don't change much if at all. The relationships between them are likewise set. At that point, a show becomes all about story, and the stories get increasingly . . . convoluted, bizarre, whatever. Each episode becomes a series of narrative hoops to be jumped through. I remember this happening with Bones, and it's now happening with Elementary too.
This doesn't mean a show is no longer good, only that it has changed. Whether a viewer sticks with it depends on whether they're okay with that change. I'm a character person. That's always going to interest me more than the story of the week. So yeah, I did eventually drop Bones (the baby in the manger was my breaking point), and if I weren't relatively sure Elementary was on its way out anyway, I'd probably blow it off, too. But that's just me. (As it is, I'll stick out the season.)
In this particular episode, um . . . A guy and his friend go base jumping off a skyscraper and the guy gets shot twice on the way down. Besides that, his chute was sabotaged. So even if he hadn't been shot, he'd have died. Which leaves one really simple question: What kind of f***ing idiot doesn't check his equipment before jumping?
Narrative hoops in this plot include the pregnant wife, the other dead friend who used to jump with the victim (and whose family may or may not blame the victim for the dead friend's death), connections with the military, connections with terrorists . . . You see the way things are going. Increasingly unlikely scenarios presented as twists and turns in the story until we eventually complete the circle by coming back to the pregnant wife, her father, and a secret girlfriend whose brother felt the guy was dishonoring his family.
Oh, and then there was also Shinwell stuff. He gets caught talking to an old friend who is/was a member of his gang from before he went to prison—a parole violation. Watson talks to both Shinwell and the friend and is told by Shinwell to buzz off. It's pretty clear that the friend has made some kind of threat and Shinwell is trying to protect Watson by pushing her away. But the amount we don't care is staggering. We're talking negative numbers here.
The Watson-Shinwell story line is maybe meant to sub for actual character development, but no characters are developing. Everyone is just doing what they do, and it's not even interesting. Characters are really only interesting when they do something unusual, or are put in situations that force them to act differently. Which is what I mean about stagnation in these shows. The main characters just do what they do, and watching them do it can sometimes be interesting, but . . . It's like watching a person put together a puzzle. It's more fun to help, and barring that, it's more fun to watch a brilliant person flounder than do their job well. More awkward, please!
12.05.2016
Books: Moriarty by Anthony Horowitz
I'm not going to say very much about this. I will start by saying I tried a few times to read House of Silk and could never get into it. So at least I finished this one?
This is a Sherlock Holmes book without Sherlock Holmes in it. So, you know, be aware of that. It approximates a Sherlock Holmes adventure but uses two other characters as the would-be Holmes and Watson.
It's an okay book. I saw pretty early on what the twist was going to be, and ended up skimming the rehash at the end that basically retold the story from a new perspective. (Trying not to give anything away here.) Just pay attention and you'll get it. Start with the cover. I mean, seriously.
I give Moriarty 3.5 stars overall. It's fairly short and a quick read. Really violent, though, so if that bothers you beware. And in the end, despite the twist and supposed cleverness of it all, I found the book just a tad unsatisfying. I can't put my finger on it, but . . . ::shrug:: It's all subjective. A book can be technically well written and fabulous, but if it does not fulfill the reader emotionally . . . Well, I guess it depends on why we read in the first place. For a good story? But also for something unsubstantial that has no name? A feeling we're left with when it's over?
I'm getting philosophical. Long story short, this is a solid book that is slightly better than average and a nice addition to my Holmes library. Probably wouldn't read it again but not sorry I did.
This is a Sherlock Holmes book without Sherlock Holmes in it. So, you know, be aware of that. It approximates a Sherlock Holmes adventure but uses two other characters as the would-be Holmes and Watson.
It's an okay book. I saw pretty early on what the twist was going to be, and ended up skimming the rehash at the end that basically retold the story from a new perspective. (Trying not to give anything away here.) Just pay attention and you'll get it. Start with the cover. I mean, seriously.
I give Moriarty 3.5 stars overall. It's fairly short and a quick read. Really violent, though, so if that bothers you beware. And in the end, despite the twist and supposed cleverness of it all, I found the book just a tad unsatisfying. I can't put my finger on it, but . . . ::shrug:: It's all subjective. A book can be technically well written and fabulous, but if it does not fulfill the reader emotionally . . . Well, I guess it depends on why we read in the first place. For a good story? But also for something unsubstantial that has no name? A feeling we're left with when it's over?
I'm getting philosophical. Long story short, this is a solid book that is slightly better than average and a nice addition to my Holmes library. Probably wouldn't read it again but not sorry I did.
12.04.2016
Television: Elementary, "How the Sausage Is Made"
We've come to the point where the show is just kind of silly at times. This episode starts with someone having died, and then it's discovered that the guy had eaten another person . . . Or at least part of one that had been in the sausage or hot dog or whatever he'd eaten. Turns out the victim of this cannibalism is a guy working for a company trying to create meat in a lab. So, you know, it's meat—like, it's grown from animal cells and the properties are all the same—but no animals are harmed in the process, so the animal activists can feel okay about eating it. Not a bad idea, really, and probably worth a fortune. Hence the murder.
It goes on from there. Interesting side discussion about whether such meat would be parve (kosher to eat with dairy since it's not exactly from a dead animal). I was less impressed with Holmes' insistence on using the term "shmeat."
Side plot was about Holmes lying to Watson about going to sobriety meetings. Turns out he's bored with them because all those other junkies are so stupid. Cuz, you know, only brilliant people have any legitimate reason to turn to drugs. Or . . . Maybe you're not so brilliant if you turn to drugs? There's a lost opportunity here for Holmes to come up against another brilliant person who does drugs out of mental boredom (or to slow down his/her mind). As it stands in this episode, Watson calls Holmes out on being a condescending prick, so that was good.
And again, no Shinwell. Also good.
Thing is, I have no problem with Shinwell as a character. But as a plot point he drags so much of the show down. And makes Watson somewhat monotonous. She's fallen into being this droning noise of . . . I don't even know what, but it isn't working for her character or the show as a whole.
Elementary started out strong with good character development, but it has plateaued. The arcs are now clichéd and forced, and we've lost facets of personality in all the polishing. Ah well. All good things.
It goes on from there. Interesting side discussion about whether such meat would be parve (kosher to eat with dairy since it's not exactly from a dead animal). I was less impressed with Holmes' insistence on using the term "shmeat."
Side plot was about Holmes lying to Watson about going to sobriety meetings. Turns out he's bored with them because all those other junkies are so stupid. Cuz, you know, only brilliant people have any legitimate reason to turn to drugs. Or . . . Maybe you're not so brilliant if you turn to drugs? There's a lost opportunity here for Holmes to come up against another brilliant person who does drugs out of mental boredom (or to slow down his/her mind). As it stands in this episode, Watson calls Holmes out on being a condescending prick, so that was good.
And again, no Shinwell. Also good.
Thing is, I have no problem with Shinwell as a character. But as a plot point he drags so much of the show down. And makes Watson somewhat monotonous. She's fallen into being this droning noise of . . . I don't even know what, but it isn't working for her character or the show as a whole.
Elementary started out strong with good character development, but it has plateaued. The arcs are now clichéd and forced, and we've lost facets of personality in all the polishing. Ah well. All good things.
12.02.2016
"Tea Time" on Red River Radio
Mark your calendars! On December 12, I'll be part of the "Tea Time" crowd on Red River Radio! Come listen to me and my fellow authors yak about writing. Well, probably about writing. Maybe also about other things. We're an easily distracted lot.
Link to the show is here. Starts at 1:00 pm PST, 4:00 pm EST. Hope you'll tune in!
12.01.2016
Book Reviews: Uncaged Books
So I'm not reviewing a book here, I'm pointing you to a book reviews outlet that just happens to be featuring me this month. You can read the magazine free online here. They didn't get quite all the details about Manifesting Destiny correct (it's Dracona, not dragona), but they still rated it 4.5 stars, so I call that a win. And there's a little interview with me in there, too. Enjoy!
11.30.2016
Television: Elementary, "Ill Tidings"
So... People die from snake venom being put in some foie gras at a restaurant, and it turns out these people are big in the Internet security world, but then the whole thing turns out to be about someone trying to steal priceless art from Wall Street? I think?
Also, we see Holmes' girlfriend again only to have him break up with her (because she's not as awesome as the criminal mastermind who once held—and broke—his heart). It's as though the writers suddenly remembered they'd given Holmes a girlfriend and said to each other, "We'd better do something with that..." Then looked for a quick way to end that plot point.
Speaking of girlfriends, Holmes pokes Bell in the ribs over his attraction to an assistant district attorney.
On the plus side, no Shinwell in this episode.
I think maybe I'm past being invested in this show. I'll see it through, but only because I'm pretty sure this will be the last season anyway.
Also, we see Holmes' girlfriend again only to have him break up with her (because she's not as awesome as the criminal mastermind who once held—and broke—his heart). It's as though the writers suddenly remembered they'd given Holmes a girlfriend and said to each other, "We'd better do something with that..." Then looked for a quick way to end that plot point.
Speaking of girlfriends, Holmes pokes Bell in the ribs over his attraction to an assistant district attorney.
On the plus side, no Shinwell in this episode.
I think maybe I'm past being invested in this show. I'll see it through, but only because I'm pretty sure this will be the last season anyway.
11.29.2016
Television: The Crown, "Assassins" and "Gloriana"
"Assassins": Winston Churchill hates a painting some guy did of him so much he burns it and resigns as Prime Minister.
Also, Phillip is actually jealous of some guy named "Porchey." Just because the guy runs Elizabeth's stables and shares her love of horses. (If he didn't, he wouldn't be running the stables, one supposes.) I guess there's this idea that, once upon a time, Liz and Porchey were expected to make a match of things. Prince Porchey does have a ring to it... But anyway, if Phillip is that upset about his wife spending time at the stables, maybe he should stay home instead of haring off to party every night.
"Gloriana": Princess Margaret finally turns 25, but just as she's ready to announce her engagement to Peter Townsend, the Cabinet tells Liz that they won't agree to the match. And somehow they have that power. It's that old church hangup about divorced people getting married. And so Liz frets over a childhood promise to put family before all things versus her need to be The Crown, which includes being Defender of the Faith. A call to UncleJerk David helps her decide, and now Margaret will never forgive her. (Cuz, you know, Elizabeth told her she can't marry Townsend.)
Meanwhile, Phillip is encouraged to go to Melbourne and open the Olympics there. Alone. Cuz he needs something to do. Really, this royal family is big on sending their problems away, by which I mean people who are problems. Townsend, Phillip... Wish I could tell my family members to go cut a ribbon halfway across the world when I'm fed up with them.
And that's how the season ends. The last episode was a tad overwrought, leaning just a little into soap opera drama, but in all it's a fine show. Looking forward to more whenever that happens to be.
Also, Phillip is actually jealous of some guy named "Porchey." Just because the guy runs Elizabeth's stables and shares her love of horses. (If he didn't, he wouldn't be running the stables, one supposes.) I guess there's this idea that, once upon a time, Liz and Porchey were expected to make a match of things. Prince Porchey does have a ring to it... But anyway, if Phillip is that upset about his wife spending time at the stables, maybe he should stay home instead of haring off to party every night.
"Gloriana": Princess Margaret finally turns 25, but just as she's ready to announce her engagement to Peter Townsend, the Cabinet tells Liz that they won't agree to the match. And somehow they have that power. It's that old church hangup about divorced people getting married. And so Liz frets over a childhood promise to put family before all things versus her need to be The Crown, which includes being Defender of the Faith. A call to Uncle
Meanwhile, Phillip is encouraged to go to Melbourne and open the Olympics there. Alone. Cuz he needs something to do. Really, this royal family is big on sending their problems away, by which I mean people who are problems. Townsend, Phillip... Wish I could tell my family members to go cut a ribbon halfway across the world when I'm fed up with them.
And that's how the season ends. The last episode was a tad overwrought, leaning just a little into soap opera drama, but in all it's a fine show. Looking forward to more whenever that happens to be.
11.28.2016
Here is Where I Rail Against My iPhone 7's Headphones
[Profanity Warning]
Fuck you, Apple.
Fuck you for making the iPhone 7 just different enough that I had to buy a new case.
And fuck your podcast app that adds a bunch of crap to my playlist and then doesn't give me a way to delete them or clear the list so that I have to fast forward through every goddamn one.
Fuck your music app, too, because no matter how many times I try to delete shit from my playlist, it keeps crawling back. I ONLY WANT THE SONGS I WANT, NOT RANDOM SHIT.
But most of all, fuck your new headphones that are hard, uncomfortable plastic and don't fit in my ears.
Did it ever occur to you "brilliant" fucking idiots that there is a reason most GOOD headphones come with a variety of interchangeable buds? Different shapes and sizes? Could it possibly be that we're not all fucking clones and our ears aren't all the same? And maybe, just maybe, we want our headphones to be comfortable?
And don't you dare try to tell me to use your goddamn adapter. The one that worked for about a week before my iPhone quit recognizing it, probably because you want us to use your crap technology instead of, like, headphones that work and are comfortable and all that.
And if you try to tell me I can buy other Apple headphones in other sizes—I don't know, I haven't looked—I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself. Because I spent enough on the goddamn phone that it should come with everything I need without me having to spend more money. Did I mention I already had to buy a new case, you fuckity fucks?
I've had an iPod since they first came out, I've had an iPhone since they came out, too, but this—this is the final straw. I'm actually about to go have a gander at the Google phone because when you no longer add to my life experiences—when you, in fact, are detracting from my life by making it impossible for me to listen to music or podcasts on my daily walks—that's where I draw the line. I'll put up with a lot, but not this. No crap piece of technology is worth this aggravation. The fact that my phone can make me this angry is not healthy. So I will go find a phone that works the way I want it to work and has headphones I can actually fucking use.
So long, fuckers.
Fuck you, Apple.
Fuck you for making the iPhone 7 just different enough that I had to buy a new case.
And fuck your podcast app that adds a bunch of crap to my playlist and then doesn't give me a way to delete them or clear the list so that I have to fast forward through every goddamn one.
Fuck your music app, too, because no matter how many times I try to delete shit from my playlist, it keeps crawling back. I ONLY WANT THE SONGS I WANT, NOT RANDOM SHIT.
But most of all, fuck your new headphones that are hard, uncomfortable plastic and don't fit in my ears.
Did it ever occur to you "brilliant" fucking idiots that there is a reason most GOOD headphones come with a variety of interchangeable buds? Different shapes and sizes? Could it possibly be that we're not all fucking clones and our ears aren't all the same? And maybe, just maybe, we want our headphones to be comfortable?
And don't you dare try to tell me to use your goddamn adapter. The one that worked for about a week before my iPhone quit recognizing it, probably because you want us to use your crap technology instead of, like, headphones that work and are comfortable and all that.
And if you try to tell me I can buy other Apple headphones in other sizes—I don't know, I haven't looked—I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself. Because I spent enough on the goddamn phone that it should come with everything I need without me having to spend more money. Did I mention I already had to buy a new case, you fuckity fucks?
I've had an iPod since they first came out, I've had an iPhone since they came out, too, but this—this is the final straw. I'm actually about to go have a gander at the Google phone because when you no longer add to my life experiences—when you, in fact, are detracting from my life by making it impossible for me to listen to music or podcasts on my daily walks—that's where I draw the line. I'll put up with a lot, but not this. No crap piece of technology is worth this aggravation. The fact that my phone can make me this angry is not healthy. So I will go find a phone that works the way I want it to work and has headphones I can actually fucking use.
So long, fuckers.
11.26.2016
Television: The Crown, "Gelignite," "Scientia Potentia Est," and "Pride & Joy"
Episodes 6, 7, and 8 respectively.
In "Gelignite," we deal with the fact that Princess Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend (not that Peter Townsend) has become public knowledge/scandal depending on your point of view. The fact that Townsend is divorced is an issue because the church doesn't acknowledge remarriage if both parties are still living. The loophole: Once Margaret reaches the age of 25, she can marry without Elizabeth's permission. This also allows Elizabeth to save face because she does not have to make an unpopular decision in order to please her sister. Of course, she then goes on to upset Margaret anyway by sending Townsend to Brussels so things can cool off for a bit while Margaret literally waits to grow up.
We then move on to "Scientia Potentia Est" (it means "knowledge is power"). Elizabeth is feeling the lack of her overall education. Oh, she had a tutor as a kid and all that, but she mostly learned, uh... Decorum? And probably a lot of history and all about how Parliament works or whatever. But because there was so much focus on those things, her general curriculum suffered. So she decides to employ a new tutor to help her with things like science so that she can understand things like atomic bombs. Not a bad idea, really. Meanwhile, Churchill is practically in a sitcom as he tries to hide his illness from Elizabeth as well as that of the Foreign Secretary. Of course they get caught and dressed down for it. That's how sitcoms work. Oh, and Elizabeth really wants Martin to come be her new Personal Secretary but she's told that Martin is only a junior and she has to promote the senior to the job. Because even though she's The Queen, she's not allowed to do end runs around the proper form and order of things. Hierarchy, you know. The system—and monarchy—relies on it.
Remember way back when Liz and Phil were doing that big tour because her dad was too ill to do it? But then he died and so she had to go home and be Queen? Yeah, so in "Pride & Joy" it's decided she and Phillip should go finish that tour. They're going to be gone for three months, meaning the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret will be filling in back home. Except the Queen Mother up and leaves for Scotland and Margaret acts more like a wannabe movie star than royalty by drawing a lot of attention to herself. Liz wrestles with a certain amount of envy at how loved Margaret seems to be by the public. She also knows that the monarchy is not meant to be the spectacle Margaret is making of it, and she tells Margaret as much upon returning home. Margaret accuses Elizabeth of being too perfect. Meanwhile, the episode title is explained in that their father used to call Elizabeth his pride and Margaret his joy. Though to hear Margaret tell it, he used "but" instead of "and." Because Margaret firmly believes she was daddy's favorite and is mean enough to fling that in her sister's face.
So that's that for those three episodes. Only two more this season. It continues to be fun, though I'm waiting for Phillip to get in trouble with that club he keeps hanging out with. Nothing worse than a bunch of bored, wealthy men.
In "Gelignite," we deal with the fact that Princess Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend (not that Peter Townsend) has become public knowledge/scandal depending on your point of view. The fact that Townsend is divorced is an issue because the church doesn't acknowledge remarriage if both parties are still living. The loophole: Once Margaret reaches the age of 25, she can marry without Elizabeth's permission. This also allows Elizabeth to save face because she does not have to make an unpopular decision in order to please her sister. Of course, she then goes on to upset Margaret anyway by sending Townsend to Brussels so things can cool off for a bit while Margaret literally waits to grow up.
We then move on to "Scientia Potentia Est" (it means "knowledge is power"). Elizabeth is feeling the lack of her overall education. Oh, she had a tutor as a kid and all that, but she mostly learned, uh... Decorum? And probably a lot of history and all about how Parliament works or whatever. But because there was so much focus on those things, her general curriculum suffered. So she decides to employ a new tutor to help her with things like science so that she can understand things like atomic bombs. Not a bad idea, really. Meanwhile, Churchill is practically in a sitcom as he tries to hide his illness from Elizabeth as well as that of the Foreign Secretary. Of course they get caught and dressed down for it. That's how sitcoms work. Oh, and Elizabeth really wants Martin to come be her new Personal Secretary but she's told that Martin is only a junior and she has to promote the senior to the job. Because even though she's The Queen, she's not allowed to do end runs around the proper form and order of things. Hierarchy, you know. The system—and monarchy—relies on it.
Remember way back when Liz and Phil were doing that big tour because her dad was too ill to do it? But then he died and so she had to go home and be Queen? Yeah, so in "Pride & Joy" it's decided she and Phillip should go finish that tour. They're going to be gone for three months, meaning the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret will be filling in back home. Except the Queen Mother up and leaves for Scotland and Margaret acts more like a wannabe movie star than royalty by drawing a lot of attention to herself. Liz wrestles with a certain amount of envy at how loved Margaret seems to be by the public. She also knows that the monarchy is not meant to be the spectacle Margaret is making of it, and she tells Margaret as much upon returning home. Margaret accuses Elizabeth of being too perfect. Meanwhile, the episode title is explained in that their father used to call Elizabeth his pride and Margaret his joy. Though to hear Margaret tell it, he used "but" instead of "and." Because Margaret firmly believes she was daddy's favorite and is mean enough to fling that in her sister's face.
So that's that for those three episodes. Only two more this season. It continues to be fun, though I'm waiting for Phillip to get in trouble with that club he keeps hanging out with. Nothing worse than a bunch of bored, wealthy men.
11.20.2016
Television: Elementary, "To Catch a Predator Predator"
This Shinwell story line has got to stop. It's bogging everything down. Also, why all the ties, Watson? I've been distracted all season by her bizarre wardrobe.
Okay, but other than that, this was a fairly interesting episode. Not difficult to figure out—I managed to stay a step ahead on most things—but still pretty entertaining. A man is shot and killed at a motel, and at first it appears he may be someone who preys on underage girls, but then it's made clear he was actually the one attacking predators. So logically it's a matter of attempting to discern which of those he's attacked was the one to kill him. But of course it's never that simple or straight forward. The resolution, I would argue, was a bit of a cheat since the viewer did not have all the information necessary to come to that conclusion. Still, I saw it coming because it's usually one of those characters you only meet for a minute or two early on. At least (potential spoiler here) it wasn't some capitalist fat cat or CEO this time? That made for a nice change.
I think it's cute that they had to explain catfishing because a large swath of their audience is older and doesn't know what that means.
All told, a fair episode. If only we could punt this Shinwell stuff. Geez.
Okay, but other than that, this was a fairly interesting episode. Not difficult to figure out—I managed to stay a step ahead on most things—but still pretty entertaining. A man is shot and killed at a motel, and at first it appears he may be someone who preys on underage girls, but then it's made clear he was actually the one attacking predators. So logically it's a matter of attempting to discern which of those he's attacked was the one to kill him. But of course it's never that simple or straight forward. The resolution, I would argue, was a bit of a cheat since the viewer did not have all the information necessary to come to that conclusion. Still, I saw it coming because it's usually one of those characters you only meet for a minute or two early on. At least (potential spoiler here) it wasn't some capitalist fat cat or CEO this time? That made for a nice change.
I think it's cute that they had to explain catfishing because a large swath of their audience is older and doesn't know what that means.
All told, a fair episode. If only we could punt this Shinwell stuff. Geez.
11.19.2016
Movies: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Colin Farrell, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol
Directed By: David Yates
Written By: J.K. Rowling
Warner Bros., 2016
PG-13; 133 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Directed By: David Yates
Written By: J.K. Rowling
Warner Bros., 2016
PG-13; 133 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
In this effort to capture the Harry Potter audience, Eddie Redmayne stars as Newt Scamander, who HP readers know as the author of the textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (roll credits). Newt has come to New York to . . . something. Collect more creatures? Release a few back into their native habitats? Does it matter? What does happen is that the creatures he illegally smuggles into the U.S. get loose and wreak havoc that coincides with other problems in the American magical community. This makes Scamander a convenient scapegoat.
Astute filmgoers will not be surprised by any of the "twists" in this tale; they'll see them coming quite plainly. And not all the FX are up to snuff. However, that aside, this is still a fairly likable film. While it's difficult to warm up to Scamander, with Redmayne playing up the awkward and mostly refusing to make eye contact, the supporting characters are charming. A subplot about a movement called New Salem that wants to rid the country of witches and wizards is pretty dark but also more interesting than what amounts to a game of Pokémon as Scamander attempts to collect his creatures and stuff them back into his suitcase. Gotta catch 'em all!
Despite its flaws, which include faults in logic from time to time and at least one major continuity problem, Fantastic Beasts is on the whole a fun movie. I can't say the IMAX experience added much to it, but then again we also were only watching in 2D, so maybe 3D would have made it cooler. Still and all, I can recommend it as a good time.
Movies: Self/less
Generic and boring would-be thriller without the thrills. It probably looked good on paper, but in reality the story isn't all that compelling and the filmmakers don't do anything to make you care about the characters.
Ben Kingsley plays, for all of about 15 minutes, a dying real estate magnate whose digs looks suspiciously Trump-like. He hires an underground company called Phoenix (not the one MacGyver worked for) to transfer his consciousness into a new body (Ryan Reynolds). He's told that the bodies are lab-created, but of course it turns out they're actually "used." I think the movie should have been called Refurbished.
After becoming Ryan Reynolds, he's also given a new identity and forced to take meds that suppress the memories of the body's previous occupant. When he misses a dose, he begins to get flashes and feels driven to hunt down the woman and little girl he sees. Lucky for him, a quick Google image search shows him exactly where to go.
And of course he's pursued by Phoenix, etc. etc. But I wasn't interested enough in this guy's back story, nor did they make things tense and taut enough to hold my attention. While the idea of swapping bodies seems like a great premise, the rest of the film fails to honor the promise of that being an entertaining starting point. Self/less is dull, dull, dull. It stumbles from scene to scene disjointedly and without the strength to pull the viewers' interest along with it.
Ben Kingsley plays, for all of about 15 minutes, a dying real estate magnate whose digs looks suspiciously Trump-like. He hires an underground company called Phoenix (not the one MacGyver worked for) to transfer his consciousness into a new body (Ryan Reynolds). He's told that the bodies are lab-created, but of course it turns out they're actually "used." I think the movie should have been called Refurbished.
After becoming Ryan Reynolds, he's also given a new identity and forced to take meds that suppress the memories of the body's previous occupant. When he misses a dose, he begins to get flashes and feels driven to hunt down the woman and little girl he sees. Lucky for him, a quick Google image search shows him exactly where to go.
And of course he's pursued by Phoenix, etc. etc. But I wasn't interested enough in this guy's back story, nor did they make things tense and taut enough to hold my attention. While the idea of swapping bodies seems like a great premise, the rest of the film fails to honor the promise of that being an entertaining starting point. Self/less is dull, dull, dull. It stumbles from scene to scene disjointedly and without the strength to pull the viewers' interest along with it.
11.17.2016
Politics in Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Whether you write these genres or just love to read them, what role does politics play in science fiction and fantasy worlds? I participated in an online panel to discuss just that. Who does it well? Who does it less than well? (The Star Wars prequels, anyone?) Is it always necessary to have politics in a sci-fi or fantasy book? Find out what I and other SFF writers have to say about it, and feel free to let me know your thoughts on it, too.
11.16.2016
Television: The Crown, "Act of God" and "Smoke and Mirrors"
I continue to make my way through this series. In the episode "Act of God" we come close to horror story territory as a dense fog cloaks London, posing a health hazard that leaves many ill and dead. It turns out Churchill knew of the possibility of such an occurrence, had been urged to limit coal consumption because the pollutants are the major contributing factor to the fog, but dismissed it and now... The fog has come... dun-dun-DUN.
Seriously, though, keep in mind this really did happen in 1952, and Churchill nearly lost his position over it. But he's a cunning old thing. When his assistant is hit by a bus that didn't see her because, you know, fog, Churchill goes to the hospital morgue to identify her then uses that to make a public appearance that boosts his popular appeal. Just as Elizabeth is about to give him a good kick in the pants, too, because he won't let Phillip take flying lessons. (Spoiler for those who haven't been around in the last 70+ years: Phillip is allowed to fly in the end.)
"Smoke and Mirrors" then moves on to Elizabeth's coronation. Against tradition and all advice, Liz puts Phil in charge of arranging it, and he brings in TV crews. That's kind of the sum total of the episode except that Uncle David, who had been king for less than a year and never got a coronation, continues to bitch about things. I do understand his frustration, sure—his family is fairly nasty about the whole abdication and his marrying that Wallis woman. It's a wonder their relationship lasted given that, in the end, it seems neither of them were very happy. A lifetime of not getting what you really want will do that to you, I suppose.
Oh, and Queen Mary dies.
As for the coronation, there's a bit of tension between Elizabeth and Phillip when he doesn't want to have to kneel to her during the ceremony but she insists. She tries to explain to Phillip that she is his wife but also the Queen. It's complicated, but once again the show does a fine job of relaying that tension to the viewers. We feel it.
So that leaves us at the halfway mark for this season. So far so good.
Seriously, though, keep in mind this really did happen in 1952, and Churchill nearly lost his position over it. But he's a cunning old thing. When his assistant is hit by a bus that didn't see her because, you know, fog, Churchill goes to the hospital morgue to identify her then uses that to make a public appearance that boosts his popular appeal. Just as Elizabeth is about to give him a good kick in the pants, too, because he won't let Phillip take flying lessons. (Spoiler for those who haven't been around in the last 70+ years: Phillip is allowed to fly in the end.)
"Smoke and Mirrors" then moves on to Elizabeth's coronation. Against tradition and all advice, Liz puts Phil in charge of arranging it, and he brings in TV crews. That's kind of the sum total of the episode except that Uncle David, who had been king for less than a year and never got a coronation, continues to bitch about things. I do understand his frustration, sure—his family is fairly nasty about the whole abdication and his marrying that Wallis woman. It's a wonder their relationship lasted given that, in the end, it seems neither of them were very happy. A lifetime of not getting what you really want will do that to you, I suppose.
Oh, and Queen Mary dies.
As for the coronation, there's a bit of tension between Elizabeth and Phillip when he doesn't want to have to kneel to her during the ceremony but she insists. She tries to explain to Phillip that she is his wife but also the Queen. It's complicated, but once again the show does a fine job of relaying that tension to the viewers. We feel it.
So that leaves us at the halfway mark for this season. So far so good.
Theatre: Murder on the Nile by Aquila Theatre
I went in thinking this would be a staged version of Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile, which is one of my favorite of her books. Well, I was kind of right.
This take on the story is framed by the idea of it being a BBC radio play during the Blitz in London. Because of the air raids, only some of the radio cast manages to make it into the studio, leaving them to scramble to perform all the parts. You'll see from the photo that there are chairs with hats and characters' names attached to each. The three Aquila Theatre Company actors deftly and wittily swapped hats as they put on the show. The result was highly entertaining.
If you've read the book, you'll recognize many of the characters, though some names have been changed. You'll also notice the absence of one Monsieur Hercule Poirot. Many of Poirot's lines from the book, and indeed the onus of solving the murder mystery, have been given to the character of Uncle Ambrose instead. Though I was disappointed not to see Poirot, I found this version quite likable anyway. I think removing the weight of such a well-known character allowed this to be a balanced production in which the keen skills of the three actors were equally highlighted. (Note: Christie removed Poirot from the play when she adapted the book for stage.)
Additionally, the story is punctuated by fun musical numbers.
I brought my 10-year-old son and he also really enjoyed it and had no trouble following the plot. While not suitable for truly young audiences, savvy pre-teens could easily find much to like in this comedy/mystery. Mine came home and asked to borrow some of my books.
On the whole, a very enjoyable evening.
11.13.2016
Random Stats
So a couple years ago I posted the random statistics on which posts on this site had the most all-time hits. Now that it's been a while, I thought I'd check in again to see if anything has changed.
Definitely some shifting around. Five of the top ten are the same as two years ago, though in different orders (excepting R.I.P.D. continuing to rule the chart). I appear to be getting more traffic for my reviews of tarot and oracle cards now, however. (And yeah, if you have a deck you want reviewed, feel free to send it to me and I'll play with it and post my thoughts.)
Traffic is consistent at about 200 to 500 unique hits a day, up and down. I notice a slump mid-week each week and the weekends are slower, too, most likely because all of you have lives.
I guess the lesson here is: more Matchbox Twenty and more tarot? Maybe a pop/rock tarot deck would be the sweet spot. Someone should make one.
- My review of R.I.P.D. - Continues to be the most-read post. WHY???
- My coverage of the Summerland concert.
- My meandering thoughts on the movie Wreckers. - Moving up in the ranks, possibly because there's very little written about it so it comes up in online searches? I have no idea; I've never actually searched for it online.
- Matchbox Twenty's album art for North. - Such a throwaway post, not sure why it remains so popular.
- Tarot Mucha
- Book Review of The Last Queen.
- Matchbox Twenty's "Smooth" T.V. - Just a link to an online spoof, but whatever.
- The Enchanted Lenormand Oracle
- New York Lenormand & Burning Serpent Oracle
- Recap of Elementary's season one finale.
Definitely some shifting around. Five of the top ten are the same as two years ago, though in different orders (excepting R.I.P.D. continuing to rule the chart). I appear to be getting more traffic for my reviews of tarot and oracle cards now, however. (And yeah, if you have a deck you want reviewed, feel free to send it to me and I'll play with it and post my thoughts.)
Traffic is consistent at about 200 to 500 unique hits a day, up and down. I notice a slump mid-week each week and the weekends are slower, too, most likely because all of you have lives.
I guess the lesson here is: more Matchbox Twenty and more tarot? Maybe a pop/rock tarot deck would be the sweet spot. Someone should make one.
Movies: Sing Street
John Carney has made a career of basically finding a frame story to give him reasons to string would-be music videos together. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He's good at it, and I've liked two of the three movies I've seen. It's just very noticeable. By the time I got to Sing Street, as cute as the plot is, I had come to realize it was more about the music than the characters.
Feel free to argue. The story of Sing Street is that in 1980s Dublin, 15-year-old Conor wants to impress a girl he sees sitting on a stoop. She tells him she's a model, and he randomly asks if she wants to star in his band's video. Which means he needs to start a band and shoot a video. Then comes the crash course in learning to write songs, etc., and a series of music video shoots.
Sure, there's a bit more to it. The would-be romance between Conor and Raphina, the stresses of a family falling apart, the school bully—or bullies, if you count the administration as one. But none of it feels all that important. They're there because there needs to be mortar to fill the gaps between the bricks that are the musical numbers. Mortar is important to a wall, yes, but the bricks make the wall. You dig?
Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I actually really enjoyed the movie, and it's a toss up between this one and Begin Again for me. I like them about equally. (I tried to watch Once, though, and couldn't get through it. Sorry. Know it was an award-winning whatever but not for me.) Bottom line is, John Carney movies are this one thing. When you're in the mood for that one thing, you watch one. Or maybe you skip the movie and just buy the soundtrack.
Feel free to argue. The story of Sing Street is that in 1980s Dublin, 15-year-old Conor wants to impress a girl he sees sitting on a stoop. She tells him she's a model, and he randomly asks if she wants to star in his band's video. Which means he needs to start a band and shoot a video. Then comes the crash course in learning to write songs, etc., and a series of music video shoots.
Sure, there's a bit more to it. The would-be romance between Conor and Raphina, the stresses of a family falling apart, the school bully—or bullies, if you count the administration as one. But none of it feels all that important. They're there because there needs to be mortar to fill the gaps between the bricks that are the musical numbers. Mortar is important to a wall, yes, but the bricks make the wall. You dig?
Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I actually really enjoyed the movie, and it's a toss up between this one and Begin Again for me. I like them about equally. (I tried to watch Once, though, and couldn't get through it. Sorry. Know it was an award-winning whatever but not for me.) Bottom line is, John Carney movies are this one thing. When you're in the mood for that one thing, you watch one. Or maybe you skip the movie and just buy the soundtrack.
11.11.2016
Books: The Trespasser by Tana French
I always know I'm going to get a good one when I pick up a Tana French book, and this one is no exception.
In this particular volume, we get the story from Antoinette Conway's perspective. She also featured in The Secret Place, though that novel focused on things from her would-be partner Steve Moran's point of view. (Spoiler: he did become her partner and so is a big part of The Trespasser as well.)
Conway is the only woman on the Murder Squad, and she has a big martyr complex to go with the job, certain that, barring partner Steve, everyone else on the squad is out to get her. Sure enough, when she and Steve pull a big murder—a nice change from domestic violence and bar fights—Conway is convinced other detectives are trying to screw up her investigation. And . . . She may just be right.
I won't say more; wouldn't want to give anything away. Sufficient to say it's another great installment in the series, and I'd be happy to watch a television series about Conway and Steve. (Note she thinks of Steve by his first name, everyone else by their surnames. They're so close it's adorable.) I'm sure the next book will pan off these two and pick up Roche or Fleas or any number of the secondary characters introduced here. In some ways it's a little heartbreaking to have to give up characters we've come to really love in the course of a novel. On the other hand, the constant overturning of protagonists keeps things fresh.
In short, another solid one by French. Looking forward, as ever, to more.
Like Tana French? Try my novel The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller, only 99 cents on Amazon this weekend!
In this particular volume, we get the story from Antoinette Conway's perspective. She also featured in The Secret Place, though that novel focused on things from her would-be partner Steve Moran's point of view. (Spoiler: he did become her partner and so is a big part of The Trespasser as well.)
Conway is the only woman on the Murder Squad, and she has a big martyr complex to go with the job, certain that, barring partner Steve, everyone else on the squad is out to get her. Sure enough, when she and Steve pull a big murder—a nice change from domestic violence and bar fights—Conway is convinced other detectives are trying to screw up her investigation. And . . . She may just be right.
I won't say more; wouldn't want to give anything away. Sufficient to say it's another great installment in the series, and I'd be happy to watch a television series about Conway and Steve. (Note she thinks of Steve by his first name, everyone else by their surnames. They're so close it's adorable.) I'm sure the next book will pan off these two and pick up Roche or Fleas or any number of the secondary characters introduced here. In some ways it's a little heartbreaking to have to give up characters we've come to really love in the course of a novel. On the other hand, the constant overturning of protagonists keeps things fresh.
In short, another solid one by French. Looking forward, as ever, to more.
Like Tana French? Try my novel The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller, only 99 cents on Amazon this weekend!
Once More With Feeling
It really hurts me to think these kitties could end up on the street. So I'm begging—yes, that's right, begging—for you to help. If you can't donate, at least spread the word. PLEASE.
Help these kitties!
And if you'd like to get something for your troubles, I've even made this lotus t-shirt. The proceeds go toward helping these kitties, and you get a nice, super soft, meditative shirt. When people ask what the lotus stands for, you can tell them the truth or just make up something. Wouldn't that be fun? It's a simple enough shirt, nothing special, but email me your receipt and I'll send you a signed copy of Manifesting Destiny or The K-Pro if you like. THAT'S how serious I am about helping these kitties. It's breaking my heart to think they might get evicted. So help if you can!
Help these kitties!
And if you'd like to get something for your troubles, I've even made this lotus t-shirt. The proceeds go toward helping these kitties, and you get a nice, super soft, meditative shirt. When people ask what the lotus stands for, you can tell them the truth or just make up something. Wouldn't that be fun? It's a simple enough shirt, nothing special, but email me your receipt and I'll send you a signed copy of Manifesting Destiny or The K-Pro if you like. THAT'S how serious I am about helping these kitties. It's breaking my heart to think they might get evicted. So help if you can!
11.10.2016
Television: The Crown, "Windsor"
All right, so Elizabeth is now queen, though she hasn't been officially crowned yet. Churchill seeks to put off her coronation for a year, partly because he feels doing so will stall his party's attempts to unseat him.
Elizabeth—really, Phillip, though Elizabeth ostensibly supports and agrees with him—has two items on her checklist: (1) keeping her married name of Mountbatten, and (2) living at Clarence House rather than Buckingham Palace. She doesn't mind going to Buckingham to do the work, but the family would rather live at Clarence House, which Phillip has recently spent a pretty penny to renovate.
She's told "no" to both.
And she caves. Without much of a fight.
Once supposes she was young and easily led at that point, too uncertain to put her foot down, but it just seems so random that she didn't press harder on either point. Phillip is, of course, unhappy. His manhood is at stake, to a degree (and keeping in mind the time period)—his wife outranks him, and she won't even take his [adopted] name. Nor will she let him live in the house he redecorated. One can feel sorry for him under the circumstances, at least a little.
Meanwhile, Princess Margaret continues her affaire de coeur with Townsend. His wife has left him, and she urges him to get a divorce so he can remarry. But we all know what the royal family thinks of divorcés; it's made very clear in the circumstances of David, Duke of Windsor, who was briefly king before having to abdicate in order to marry a divorced American (Wallis Simpson). The bad blood lingers as David comes home for the funeral, his wife left behind in New York because she is not welcome. David's goals are to keep, if not increase, the allowance his brother Bertie (aka George VI) had given him, and to ideally have his wife given a proper royal title. The first may be possible, but the second, uh, no. It is Elizabeth who extends an olive branch to David, saying she would value his advice in the absence of her father. Meanwhile, the rest of the family blames David for Bertie's death, the logic being that if David had remained king, Bertie would not have had to be and would not have died from, er . . . stress? I don't think being king gave him cancer, but whatever.
Of course, it is Uncle Jerk who tells Elizabeth to keep the name Windsor—hardly an unbiased opinion, since he's the Duke of Windsor—and to move into Buckingham. Such is the deal Jerk made with Churchill, to push Elizabeth in the direction the Council wanted. "Good Job, Uncle Jerk!"
The Crown continues to be enchanting. It's a string of small moments, nicely matched, like pearls. This is the strand of a life . . .
One last thing, however. Can I just say that every f***ing credit sequence for everything ever now looks and sounds exactly the same? I'm really, really sick of it. The sequence for The Crown looks the same as the sequence for The Night Manager which in turn looks like Westworld and the sequence for any number of other things I've seen recently. Ugh. Stop it. Get an original idea, guys. Come on.
Elizabeth—really, Phillip, though Elizabeth ostensibly supports and agrees with him—has two items on her checklist: (1) keeping her married name of Mountbatten, and (2) living at Clarence House rather than Buckingham Palace. She doesn't mind going to Buckingham to do the work, but the family would rather live at Clarence House, which Phillip has recently spent a pretty penny to renovate.
She's told "no" to both.
And she caves. Without much of a fight.
Once supposes she was young and easily led at that point, too uncertain to put her foot down, but it just seems so random that she didn't press harder on either point. Phillip is, of course, unhappy. His manhood is at stake, to a degree (and keeping in mind the time period)—his wife outranks him, and she won't even take his [adopted] name. Nor will she let him live in the house he redecorated. One can feel sorry for him under the circumstances, at least a little.
Meanwhile, Princess Margaret continues her affaire de coeur with Townsend. His wife has left him, and she urges him to get a divorce so he can remarry. But we all know what the royal family thinks of divorcés; it's made very clear in the circumstances of David, Duke of Windsor, who was briefly king before having to abdicate in order to marry a divorced American (Wallis Simpson). The bad blood lingers as David comes home for the funeral, his wife left behind in New York because she is not welcome. David's goals are to keep, if not increase, the allowance his brother Bertie (aka George VI) had given him, and to ideally have his wife given a proper royal title. The first may be possible, but the second, uh, no. It is Elizabeth who extends an olive branch to David, saying she would value his advice in the absence of her father. Meanwhile, the rest of the family blames David for Bertie's death, the logic being that if David had remained king, Bertie would not have had to be and would not have died from, er . . . stress? I don't think being king gave him cancer, but whatever.
Of course, it is Uncle Jerk who tells Elizabeth to keep the name Windsor—hardly an unbiased opinion, since he's the Duke of Windsor—and to move into Buckingham. Such is the deal Jerk made with Churchill, to push Elizabeth in the direction the Council wanted. "Good Job, Uncle Jerk!"
The Crown continues to be enchanting. It's a string of small moments, nicely matched, like pearls. This is the strand of a life . . .
One last thing, however. Can I just say that every f***ing credit sequence for everything ever now looks and sounds exactly the same? I'm really, really sick of it. The sequence for The Crown looks the same as the sequence for The Night Manager which in turn looks like Westworld and the sequence for any number of other things I've seen recently. Ugh. Stop it. Get an original idea, guys. Come on.
11.09.2016
Black Armband
Honestly, I'm devastated and horrified by the events of last night and early this morning. I don't know what else to say. Americans have long had a worldwide reputation for being loud, mean, and obnoxious, and now we'll have the president to "prove" it. I really would move overseas if I could.
And mostly I fear that the haters, the bigots, the xenophobes, homophobes, misogynists, abusers of any and all kinds will take this as license to do the things they've always wanted to do.
"He has limited power." Yes, but the Republicans will also control Congress, and if they jump on this crazy train, we're all stuck on the ride.
"It's only four years." Oh, but what a difficult four years it may be.
My heart is breaking.
And mostly I fear that the haters, the bigots, the xenophobes, homophobes, misogynists, abusers of any and all kinds will take this as license to do the things they've always wanted to do.
"He has limited power." Yes, but the Republicans will also control Congress, and if they jump on this crazy train, we're all stuck on the ride.
"It's only four years." Oh, but what a difficult four years it may be.
My heart is breaking.
11.08.2016
Television: The Crown, "Hyde Park Corner"
As predicted, some sobbing when no one is around, but Elizabeth, er, [wo]mans up relatively quickly.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. See, Elizabeth and Phillip are off in Africa because her father George VI is too ill to travel and so cannot tour the Commonwealth as planned. But while Liz and Phil (can I call them that?) watch elephants and hippos, George passes away. Then there is much tension over getting the news to Elizabeth before she can hear it broadcast on the radio somewhere. Lucky for England she was off in the bush or whatever! :thumbs up:
Other things happening include the Conservative Party attempting to unseat Churchill (who is their own man, but they're unhappy because he's fixated on foreign countries rather than helping his own), and Princess Margaret carrying on a flirt with Captain Peter Townsend, equerry to King George and a married man. *gasp!*
Again, if you know any of the history, you know how all this ends, but it's fun to watch anyway.
And oh, hey, look! Nicholas Rowe! Bonus points there in my book.
I'm actually quite impressed with Matt Smith who continues to do a very good job of walking the line as Phillip. His frustration is palpable, yet so is his real love for Elizabeth. He also gets the bluntness—sometimes bordering on seeming stupidity—just right. It's a nicely nuanced performance, so good on him.
I really am enjoying the series. Very well done.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. See, Elizabeth and Phillip are off in Africa because her father George VI is too ill to travel and so cannot tour the Commonwealth as planned. But while Liz and Phil (can I call them that?) watch elephants and hippos, George passes away. Then there is much tension over getting the news to Elizabeth before she can hear it broadcast on the radio somewhere. Lucky for England she was off in the bush or whatever! :thumbs up:
Other things happening include the Conservative Party attempting to unseat Churchill (who is their own man, but they're unhappy because he's fixated on foreign countries rather than helping his own), and Princess Margaret carrying on a flirt with Captain Peter Townsend, equerry to King George and a married man. *gasp!*
Again, if you know any of the history, you know how all this ends, but it's fun to watch anyway.
And oh, hey, look! Nicholas Rowe! Bonus points there in my book.
I'm actually quite impressed with Matt Smith who continues to do a very good job of walking the line as Phillip. His frustration is palpable, yet so is his real love for Elizabeth. He also gets the bluntness—sometimes bordering on seeming stupidity—just right. It's a nicely nuanced performance, so good on him.
I really am enjoying the series. Very well done.
11.06.2016
Books: The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller
On sale as part of the Virtual Book Fair on Facebook. Although the fair kicks off next week, you can already pick Peter up for 99 cents on Amazon.
11.05.2016
Television: The Crown, "Wolferton Splash"
This 10-part series about the life of Elizabeth II begins with her fiancé renouncing his titles in Greece and Denmark, taking the name Mountbatten and being properly naturalized as a British citizen so that he can marry Elizabeth. From there, the focus in this first episode rests largely on the ill health of Elizabeth's father King George VI.
Doctor Who's Matt Smith plays young Philip and does a fair job showing him champing the bit, being restive after his career in the Royal Navy. He's not keen to do a bunch of junkets, and father-in-law George (a puffy-looking Jared Harris) must sit him down and give him a talking to. John Lithgow as Winston Churchill is, unfortunately, just a bit too John Lithgow to be believable; while watching one is too aware it's John Lithgow to ever feel he could be Churchill. But that's the standout; the remainder of the cast is quite on point, and the production values are lavish.
Still and all, not a whole lot happens in this first installment. Aside from the wedding and some faux home movie footage, we're really only given the ominous sense of George's imminent death. Those of us who know our history know how and when it will happen (and the rest of you can go look it up if you like), so this we really only have a "dramatic re-enactment" to look forward to—that's the extent of the tension, waiting for the news and to see lots of crying or, being they're British, a lot of not crying until they're alone in a room somewhere. Then we'll be treated to a Coronation, and won't that be fun?
Yes, I'm making light, but in truth I look forward to watching more. The Crown is so well made that I can forgive its somewhat slow pace and heretofore lack of depth. It will get there, I'm sure. It's easing out of the dock like a steamliner, but soon enough we'll hit open water and there will be smooth sailing.
Doctor Who's Matt Smith plays young Philip and does a fair job showing him champing the bit, being restive after his career in the Royal Navy. He's not keen to do a bunch of junkets, and father-in-law George (a puffy-looking Jared Harris) must sit him down and give him a talking to. John Lithgow as Winston Churchill is, unfortunately, just a bit too John Lithgow to be believable; while watching one is too aware it's John Lithgow to ever feel he could be Churchill. But that's the standout; the remainder of the cast is quite on point, and the production values are lavish.
Still and all, not a whole lot happens in this first installment. Aside from the wedding and some faux home movie footage, we're really only given the ominous sense of George's imminent death. Those of us who know our history know how and when it will happen (and the rest of you can go look it up if you like), so this we really only have a "dramatic re-enactment" to look forward to—that's the extent of the tension, waiting for the news and to see lots of crying or, being they're British, a lot of not crying until they're alone in a room somewhere. Then we'll be treated to a Coronation, and won't that be fun?
Yes, I'm making light, but in truth I look forward to watching more. The Crown is so well made that I can forgive its somewhat slow pace and heretofore lack of depth. It will get there, I'm sure. It's easing out of the dock like a steamliner, but soon enough we'll hit open water and there will be smooth sailing.
Labels:
biographies,
biopics,
drama,
history,
miniseries,
queens,
streaming,
television
Movies: Side Effects
This is one of those movies that probably read well as a script but in execution—yea verily, even in the capable hands of Steven Soderbergh—ends up being soporific and monotonous. Also, the "twist" was utterly predictable.
Rooney Mara plays Emily Taylor, a young woman suffering acute depression and whose husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison for insider trading. Already this movie is boring. When Emily runs her car at a wall but survives, she starts seeing a therapist (Jude Law) and taking a hot new antidepressant. Unfortunately, the side effects (roll credits) include cooking while sleepwalking, the ultimate result being [SPOILERS, SWEETIES] she stabs her husband to death during one of these sleepwalking episodes. Because she mistook him for a tomato or something, I guess.
Yawn. This movie is meant to be tense, I think, but it just isn't. Even as Jude Law goes all Watson and begins to unravel the truth, it's just . . . I was never made to care that much about any of the characters. Maybe it's just hard to make someone depressed very interesting, but I disliked Emily more than sympathized with her. I did feel bad for Law's therapist, who suffers a lot of blowback from having his patient become a murderer while under his care, but then he sort of goes off the deep end himself and makes himself a bit unlikable, even though we as viewers are aware he's in the right. There needed to be some kind of shift in the way the movie was filmed—a slight POV change—to make it palatable. Instead it's a lot of washed-out, moody filters. It made me sleepy.
I'll watch Jude Law in just about anything, but this wasn't one of the better ones. Side Effects is one of those that makes you wonder whether the cast knew as the filming went along that it wasn't going to be equal to the sum of its parts. Or were they all really believing in that script and director only to be disappointed in the outcome? Maybe Soderbergh himself was disappointed, too, as it became his last feature film (as director; he still produces) and he announced an intention to stick to television shortly thereafter.
Rooney Mara plays Emily Taylor, a young woman suffering acute depression and whose husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison for insider trading. Already this movie is boring. When Emily runs her car at a wall but survives, she starts seeing a therapist (Jude Law) and taking a hot new antidepressant. Unfortunately, the side effects (roll credits) include cooking while sleepwalking, the ultimate result being [SPOILERS, SWEETIES] she stabs her husband to death during one of these sleepwalking episodes. Because she mistook him for a tomato or something, I guess.
Yawn. This movie is meant to be tense, I think, but it just isn't. Even as Jude Law goes all Watson and begins to unravel the truth, it's just . . . I was never made to care that much about any of the characters. Maybe it's just hard to make someone depressed very interesting, but I disliked Emily more than sympathized with her. I did feel bad for Law's therapist, who suffers a lot of blowback from having his patient become a murderer while under his care, but then he sort of goes off the deep end himself and makes himself a bit unlikable, even though we as viewers are aware he's in the right. There needed to be some kind of shift in the way the movie was filmed—a slight POV change—to make it palatable. Instead it's a lot of washed-out, moody filters. It made me sleepy.
I'll watch Jude Law in just about anything, but this wasn't one of the better ones. Side Effects is one of those that makes you wonder whether the cast knew as the filming went along that it wasn't going to be equal to the sum of its parts. Or were they all really believing in that script and director only to be disappointed in the outcome? Maybe Soderbergh himself was disappointed, too, as it became his last feature film (as director; he still produces) and he announced an intention to stick to television shortly thereafter.
11.02.2016
Television: Elementary, "Henny Penny the Sky Is Falling"
So this one was about a quantitative analyst who was murdered after publishing a paper about how scientists should better measure asteroids by taking into account what they're made of. Um . . . Yeah, okay. I actually get that. Oh, and Richard Thomas was there for all of two scenes, so that was cool. (I'm not old enough to remember him from The Waltons, but I do remember him from IT.)
The investigation goes down the usual lines. There's the fact the guy was having an affair with his boss' wife, but that doesn't really get off the ground. By the way, I think it's weird the boss had a picture of his wife with her friends in his office. My husband wouldn't keep a picture of me and a bunch of my friends in his office; he'd choose a shot of just me, or us together, or the family. If he had a picture of my friends, I'd wonder which one he was sleeping with.
Okay, but anyway, then we go into who stood to lose or gain when the paper was published. Yada, yada, yada. Nothing very exciting or surprising, but I still liked the episode. That they pulled in some canon regarding Holmes' lack of astronomical knowledge was a nice touch.
B plot was that Gregson was working to get Holmes and Watson included in a commendation the squad was set to receive. Watson was all for it, but Holmes—perverse as ever—was not. This again goes along with Holmes refusing a knighthood in the Doyle stories, I suppose. In this case, he tells Watson a commendation is worthless, the work is all that matters. Then he goes on to say that, based on his experience at Scotland Yard, accolades cause friction. He gets all the credit and attention, and the force becomes jaded. A little of his arrogance showing through there, but that's the point of the character and something the writers have blunted a bit recently (probably in a drive to make him more likable). Good to have it acknowledged again. Boils down to: "I'm really good at what I do, but then people hate me for it." Watson has an appropriate boo-hoo on you response and reminds him that the point is to share the recognition as a team.
A modestly entertaining if safe episode. This is looking more and more like a final season for Elementary, though the series low this past week may be in part due to Hallowe'en festivities taking the place of viewing.
The investigation goes down the usual lines. There's the fact the guy was having an affair with his boss' wife, but that doesn't really get off the ground. By the way, I think it's weird the boss had a picture of his wife with her friends in his office. My husband wouldn't keep a picture of me and a bunch of my friends in his office; he'd choose a shot of just me, or us together, or the family. If he had a picture of my friends, I'd wonder which one he was sleeping with.
Okay, but anyway, then we go into who stood to lose or gain when the paper was published. Yada, yada, yada. Nothing very exciting or surprising, but I still liked the episode. That they pulled in some canon regarding Holmes' lack of astronomical knowledge was a nice touch.
B plot was that Gregson was working to get Holmes and Watson included in a commendation the squad was set to receive. Watson was all for it, but Holmes—perverse as ever—was not. This again goes along with Holmes refusing a knighthood in the Doyle stories, I suppose. In this case, he tells Watson a commendation is worthless, the work is all that matters. Then he goes on to say that, based on his experience at Scotland Yard, accolades cause friction. He gets all the credit and attention, and the force becomes jaded. A little of his arrogance showing through there, but that's the point of the character and something the writers have blunted a bit recently (probably in a drive to make him more likable). Good to have it acknowledged again. Boils down to: "I'm really good at what I do, but then people hate me for it." Watson has an appropriate boo-hoo on you response and reminds him that the point is to share the recognition as a team.
A modestly entertaining if safe episode. This is looking more and more like a final season for Elementary, though the series low this past week may be in part due to Hallowe'en festivities taking the place of viewing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




