Voices By: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Taraji P. Henson, Alan Tudyk
Directed by: Phil Johnston, Rich Moore
Written by: Phil Johnston & Pamela Ribon (screenplay); Rich Moore, Phil Johnston, Jim Reardon, Pamela Ribon, Josie Trinidad (story)
Walt Disney, 2018
PG; 102 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Okay, so I'm going to make a big confession here: I never saw Wreck-It Ralph. I've had it explained to me, and I've seen enough scenes from it that I basically understand the story, and I've just never felt compelled to sit down and watch it (no matter how many people told me how great it is—or maybe because of that).
So maybe you have to already be a fan to 100% love this movie. I only kind of liked it. I thought the representation of the Internet was great, and there are definitely some cute moments, but either I already needed to love the main characters or... Something.
The story: Vanellope is bored. The levels in her game are all the same, nothing ever changes. So Ralph tries to make her feel better by creating a new racing track in her game. The result: the girl playing the game at the time breaks the steering wheel and Mr. Litwak can't afford to buy another one (the only one being on eBay since the game manufacturer is out of business), so he plans to scrap Sugar Rush.
Clearly, this is a problem. But thanks to Mr. Litwak also recently joining the 21st century by acquiring Wi-Fi, Ralph and Vanellope are able to jump online in search of that elusive steering wheel. Hilarity ensues? I mean, to some extent, I guess so. But none of it made me truly laugh. Maybe I'm just too hardhearted. Or am not the target audience.
The major conflict is that Ralph wants to get the steering wheel and get back to life as they know it. Meanwhile, Vanellope has now been exposed to the wider world and wants to stay in an online racing game called Slaughter Race. The theme of the movie then pursues rather predictable and tired lines: following one's dreams, friendship, "Let It Go," etc. In fact, the whole thing is a bit heavy handed for my tastes, and while I can see that much of what happens (no spoilers) is Ralph's fault, the fact that Vanellope is never called out on some of her behavior bothers me.
Largely, I enjoyed the style of the film. However, the attempts to thrust what I suppose counts as "substance" down my throat... Sure, I want substance in my movies. But there is such a thing as too much, and this movie definitely works overtime to make sure I "get it."
Bottom line: cute but a bit too pointed with its message. I don't really like Ralph or Vanellope, so again, maybe I needed to see the first one in order to appreciate the characters here. As things stand, though, I give this a slightly better than middling score. It's entertaining but—at least for me—nothing special.
11.24.2018
11.23.2018
Movies: The Bill Murray Stories: Life Lessons Learned from a Mythical Man
These stories have been around for ages, sometimes accompanied by photographic or video evidence: Bill Murray showing up at random house parties, Bill Murray stealing someone's french fries while at a fast food restaurant, Bill Murray stepping into someone's engagement photos. It boils down to the sense that Bill Murray is a pretty cool guy. I'm not sure we needed an entire documentary about that, but it's interesting to pool the stories and hear the theories on why Bill Murray does what he does.
I used to watch Saturday Night Live with my parents. Looking back, I'm surprised I was allowed to, but I'm guessing my parents were banking on a lot of the jokes going over my head. Same with National Lampoon's Radio. But the one thing I picked out right quick when listening to National Lampoon's was Bill Murray's voice. It was very distinct to me. "There's a lobster loose!" I heard the car radio say, and I looked at my dad and said, "That sounds like Bill Murray." (It was.) Yet even though I grew up in the 80s, during Murray's hey day, I don't recall seeing many of his movies. I saw Ghostbusters, but it scared me. I didn't see Groundhog Day or Scrooged until much, much later. And it wasn't until the Wes Anderson movies that I really noticed Murray on the big screen.
Okay, that's my history with Murray's work. But what about this documentary? It goes to people and asks them to recount their I-met-Bill-Murray stories. And then hypothesizes on why Murray would do these things. For fun, maybe, or to stay in touch with the world and still feel like a person rather than a star. In the end, the film goes for the easy way out: "It doesn't really matter." Which kind of makes the movie feel like it doesn't matter either? I think maybe the filmmaker (Tommy Avallone) hoped Murray might actually turn up at some point for this, but he should have known better; it's worth much more to Murray to retain his mystique.
Still, I'll hazard my own explanation for Murray's behavior. It may be subconscious on his part, but I think he's somewhat aware that his legacy is more valuable in the small moments than the large ones. Think of it this way: there is the widely consumed media (movies, television), in which everyone has the same "Bill Murray experience." We all see those movies, and those are static, fixed. But in smaller, unexpected doses... In real life, in the moment... the experience is very different and far more valuable. He's leaving little memories of himself everywhere.
And making memories for himself too. So many people focus on what they get out of these brushes with stardom that they seldom consider it from the other side. Stars are people. They remember interesting encounters and fun nights out same as anyone.
These aren't the only possible reasons for Bill Murray to wander into people's houses or baseball games or whatever. In fact, there's surely no one reason so much as a confluence of them. But these are reasons I didn't hear mentioned in the film, so I wanted to pose them.
The truth is, I've met—worked with, even—a fair number of famous people, but I've never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Murray, though I sure would like to. He reminds me of my dad, and when I looked up his birthday I understood why—he's only 10 days younger than my dad. They have a similar laid-back intensity, which is hard to understand if you haven't lived with it or dealt with it regularly. It's a weird mixture of gravitas and whimsy, an oddball humor married to an undercurrent of depression. It makes no sense, but there it is. I don't know that having near birthdays explains their similarities, but I'll pretend it does.
No one I know personally has had a run-in with Bill Murray. Maybe some day... Until then, I'll have to live vicariously. This movie is a pretty good place to start.
I used to watch Saturday Night Live with my parents. Looking back, I'm surprised I was allowed to, but I'm guessing my parents were banking on a lot of the jokes going over my head. Same with National Lampoon's Radio. But the one thing I picked out right quick when listening to National Lampoon's was Bill Murray's voice. It was very distinct to me. "There's a lobster loose!" I heard the car radio say, and I looked at my dad and said, "That sounds like Bill Murray." (It was.) Yet even though I grew up in the 80s, during Murray's hey day, I don't recall seeing many of his movies. I saw Ghostbusters, but it scared me. I didn't see Groundhog Day or Scrooged until much, much later. And it wasn't until the Wes Anderson movies that I really noticed Murray on the big screen.
Okay, that's my history with Murray's work. But what about this documentary? It goes to people and asks them to recount their I-met-Bill-Murray stories. And then hypothesizes on why Murray would do these things. For fun, maybe, or to stay in touch with the world and still feel like a person rather than a star. In the end, the film goes for the easy way out: "It doesn't really matter." Which kind of makes the movie feel like it doesn't matter either? I think maybe the filmmaker (Tommy Avallone) hoped Murray might actually turn up at some point for this, but he should have known better; it's worth much more to Murray to retain his mystique.
Still, I'll hazard my own explanation for Murray's behavior. It may be subconscious on his part, but I think he's somewhat aware that his legacy is more valuable in the small moments than the large ones. Think of it this way: there is the widely consumed media (movies, television), in which everyone has the same "Bill Murray experience." We all see those movies, and those are static, fixed. But in smaller, unexpected doses... In real life, in the moment... the experience is very different and far more valuable. He's leaving little memories of himself everywhere.
And making memories for himself too. So many people focus on what they get out of these brushes with stardom that they seldom consider it from the other side. Stars are people. They remember interesting encounters and fun nights out same as anyone.
These aren't the only possible reasons for Bill Murray to wander into people's houses or baseball games or whatever. In fact, there's surely no one reason so much as a confluence of them. But these are reasons I didn't hear mentioned in the film, so I wanted to pose them.
The truth is, I've met—worked with, even—a fair number of famous people, but I've never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Murray, though I sure would like to. He reminds me of my dad, and when I looked up his birthday I understood why—he's only 10 days younger than my dad. They have a similar laid-back intensity, which is hard to understand if you haven't lived with it or dealt with it regularly. It's a weird mixture of gravitas and whimsy, an oddball humor married to an undercurrent of depression. It makes no sense, but there it is. I don't know that having near birthdays explains their similarities, but I'll pretend it does.
No one I know personally has had a run-in with Bill Murray. Maybe some day... Until then, I'll have to live vicariously. This movie is a pretty good place to start.
11.17.2018
Movies: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Zoë Kravitz, Ezra Miller, Callum Turner
Directed by: David Yates
Written by: J.K. Rowling
Warner Bros., 2018
PG-13; 134 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Well, I liked it more than the first one. But... There are still a lot of problems here. At least for me.
This film picks up six months after the last one ended. Grindelwald escapes during his extradition from New York's Ministry of Magic to London's. Three months after that, we discover Newt has been confined to the UK, his... travel pass or whatever the Ministry of Magic gives out... revoked. He's given the chance to travel again if he'll join his brother Theseus, the auror, in his work to find Grindelwald. Newt says no.
But then Dumbledore asks Newt to go to Paris to search for Grindelwald anyway. Um... I dunno. All the motivations in this film crisscross into knots. People want to find Grindelwald, they want to find Credence (remember him?), they want to find their girlfriends and sisters and... 🙄 There are a lot of unnecessary flashbacks and subplots, a lot of hitting the audience over the head with information, and not a lot of actual tension. Plus the action scenes are so heavily edited that one can't follow them; you just sort of sit and wait for them to play out. Very little sense of wonder here, or amazement at what we're seeing. And the big reveal can be spotted miles away—and contains some revisionist history so heavy handed that I just couldn't swallow it.
All this and yet, as I mentioned, I did actually like it more than the first one. Which isn't saying a ton, since I found the first one pretty meh. This one is meh, too, in other ways, and a bit irritating (again, with that revisionist history), but the story overall was more interesting. Though it had almost nothing at all to do with "The Crimes of Grindelwald."
And if you were one of those people who anticipated that Jude Law would only be on screen for about ten minutes... You were right. Pick up your prize at the door.
What did I like, then? Leta LeStrange. I think her story would be fascinating. And I like Theseus Scamander, too (what little I've seen of him). I think younger Dumbledore is cool and wouldn't mind more of that, either. Even Nagini's story might be interesting to read or watch.
But. Newt + Tina does nothing for me. Jacob + Queenie does nothing for me either. ::shrug:: I'm not sold on either of those relationships or plot lines. Not feeling the chemistry there.
So. I know I'll be in the minority. But I'm no huge Harry Potter fan to begin with; I only ever thought the series was okay. So this movie isn't aimed at me, and my lukewarm feelings toward it won't douse the fire of all the fans who are sure to love it.
Directed by: David Yates
Written by: J.K. Rowling
Warner Bros., 2018
PG-13; 134 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Well, I liked it more than the first one. But... There are still a lot of problems here. At least for me.
This film picks up six months after the last one ended. Grindelwald escapes during his extradition from New York's Ministry of Magic to London's. Three months after that, we discover Newt has been confined to the UK, his... travel pass or whatever the Ministry of Magic gives out... revoked. He's given the chance to travel again if he'll join his brother Theseus, the auror, in his work to find Grindelwald. Newt says no.
But then Dumbledore asks Newt to go to Paris to search for Grindelwald anyway. Um... I dunno. All the motivations in this film crisscross into knots. People want to find Grindelwald, they want to find Credence (remember him?), they want to find their girlfriends and sisters and... 🙄 There are a lot of unnecessary flashbacks and subplots, a lot of hitting the audience over the head with information, and not a lot of actual tension. Plus the action scenes are so heavily edited that one can't follow them; you just sort of sit and wait for them to play out. Very little sense of wonder here, or amazement at what we're seeing. And the big reveal can be spotted miles away—and contains some revisionist history so heavy handed that I just couldn't swallow it.
All this and yet, as I mentioned, I did actually like it more than the first one. Which isn't saying a ton, since I found the first one pretty meh. This one is meh, too, in other ways, and a bit irritating (again, with that revisionist history), but the story overall was more interesting. Though it had almost nothing at all to do with "The Crimes of Grindelwald."
And if you were one of those people who anticipated that Jude Law would only be on screen for about ten minutes... You were right. Pick up your prize at the door.
What did I like, then? Leta LeStrange. I think her story would be fascinating. And I like Theseus Scamander, too (what little I've seen of him). I think younger Dumbledore is cool and wouldn't mind more of that, either. Even Nagini's story might be interesting to read or watch.
But. Newt + Tina does nothing for me. Jacob + Queenie does nothing for me either. ::shrug:: I'm not sold on either of those relationships or plot lines. Not feeling the chemistry there.
So. I know I'll be in the minority. But I'm no huge Harry Potter fan to begin with; I only ever thought the series was okay. So this movie isn't aimed at me, and my lukewarm feelings toward it won't douse the fire of all the fans who are sure to love it.
11.13.2018
Vote for Faebourne!
11.11.2018
Movies: Crazy Rich Asians
I was really excited for this movie. The book has been on my TBR list for a long time, and at first I thought I'd try and read it before seeing the adaptation, but last night I gave in and watched. And... I was a little disappointed. Like so many things these days, I think it might have been overhyped.
This isn't to discount the fact that a film with an all-Asian cast made money. I'm so, so glad to see new faces, new cultures on screen. And I'm equally enthused that the film did well. Hopefully that will open doors to more of these kinds of movies.
And by "these kids" I also mean good, old-fashioned rom-coms of the type they really don't make any more. Ultimately, that's what Crazy Rich Asians is, and I guess that might be where it fell down for me. Because I do love rom-coms. But this one was so predictable, so rote... And I think maybe the book has more depth? The film hits all the typical beats, and in some cases developments seem to come out of nowhere (the dad thing), or get semi-lost in the shuffle (the affair subplot). Everything is really slick here—it's actually a gorgeous film to look at—but it loses something in introducing so many characters that none of them gets enough screen time to make much of an impression. (Peik and Oliver excepted, of course.) Like, we're introduced to Amanda as a "threat" in the form of an ex, and then she just drops off the face of the film. Bernard and Alistair are jerks, and that's their only defining qualities. The grandma switches sides on a dime. And we're supposed to feel bad for Astrid, but he hardly know her either. Meaning a lot of what should have had tension... didn't.
At least for me. But I think the casting and acting was spot on. It was the script or the editing that failed. Perhaps it presupposed that viewers had read the book and already knew the characters? That we'd walk in with the background info we needed to fully enjoy what we were about to watch?
I think what I'm getting at is: I should have waited and read the book first. I still want to. And, to be clear, this isn't a bad movie. The hype just didn't do it any favors because it made me expect more. Still, I enjoyed it. In a sea of action flicks and... whatever else they're making these days (horror?)... this was a nice change.
This isn't to discount the fact that a film with an all-Asian cast made money. I'm so, so glad to see new faces, new cultures on screen. And I'm equally enthused that the film did well. Hopefully that will open doors to more of these kinds of movies.
And by "these kids" I also mean good, old-fashioned rom-coms of the type they really don't make any more. Ultimately, that's what Crazy Rich Asians is, and I guess that might be where it fell down for me. Because I do love rom-coms. But this one was so predictable, so rote... And I think maybe the book has more depth? The film hits all the typical beats, and in some cases developments seem to come out of nowhere (the dad thing), or get semi-lost in the shuffle (the affair subplot). Everything is really slick here—it's actually a gorgeous film to look at—but it loses something in introducing so many characters that none of them gets enough screen time to make much of an impression. (Peik and Oliver excepted, of course.) Like, we're introduced to Amanda as a "threat" in the form of an ex, and then she just drops off the face of the film. Bernard and Alistair are jerks, and that's their only defining qualities. The grandma switches sides on a dime. And we're supposed to feel bad for Astrid, but he hardly know her either. Meaning a lot of what should have had tension... didn't.
At least for me. But I think the casting and acting was spot on. It was the script or the editing that failed. Perhaps it presupposed that viewers had read the book and already knew the characters? That we'd walk in with the background info we needed to fully enjoy what we were about to watch?
I think what I'm getting at is: I should have waited and read the book first. I still want to. And, to be clear, this isn't a bad movie. The hype just didn't do it any favors because it made me expect more. Still, I enjoyed it. In a sea of action flicks and... whatever else they're making these days (horror?)... this was a nice change.
10.31.2018
Like every teen, I went through a phase where I wrote [really, really bad] poetry. And today, as I was cleaning my office, I found this tidbit. Please don't judge.
By the way, this isn't the entire poem. So you're starting kind of in the middle here. The first part of the poem is about the Archangel Gabriel growing impatient for Judgement Day. In the bit below, Gabriel has just blown his horn and God comes bursting out of His throne room and...
One fanfare bringing lightning,
One blare forcing tears,
And Heaven's gate was trembling;
The Rapture Day was here.
Then everything grew quiet.
Everything got still.
And Earth was left with nothing
But one tiny, grassy hill.
Gabriel frowned down on it;
Something had gone wrong,
And God folded his arms, saying,
"Well, what a lovely song—
But, Gabriel, that's not your trumpet."
The angel peered down at the
Instrument in his hand,
Saw Lucifer engraved on it
And began to understand.
"My Lord, can you forgive me?"
"Yes, of course I can.
But my world is now left empty,
And I'll have to start again.
"You've done me quite a favor,"
The Lord added with a wink.
"The men I create this time
Will be much improved, I think."
"Sure," said Gabriel, rising
To help Peter with the gate,
"But it's all the more million years
I'm going to have to wait."
😂 I still thought you had to capitalize every line! And that poems had to rhyme!
It's so weird to stumble across old work. I haven't written poetry since 2004, and this is a fair example of why.
By the way, this isn't the entire poem. So you're starting kind of in the middle here. The first part of the poem is about the Archangel Gabriel growing impatient for Judgement Day. In the bit below, Gabriel has just blown his horn and God comes bursting out of His throne room and...
One fanfare bringing lightning,
One blare forcing tears,
And Heaven's gate was trembling;
The Rapture Day was here.
Then everything grew quiet.
Everything got still.
And Earth was left with nothing
But one tiny, grassy hill.
Gabriel frowned down on it;
Something had gone wrong,
And God folded his arms, saying,
"Well, what a lovely song—
But, Gabriel, that's not your trumpet."
The angel peered down at the
Instrument in his hand,
Saw Lucifer engraved on it
And began to understand.
"My Lord, can you forgive me?"
"Yes, of course I can.
But my world is now left empty,
And I'll have to start again.
"You've done me quite a favor,"
The Lord added with a wink.
"The men I create this time
Will be much improved, I think."
"Sure," said Gabriel, rising
To help Peter with the gate,
"But it's all the more million years
I'm going to have to wait."
😂 I still thought you had to capitalize every line! And that poems had to rhyme!
It's so weird to stumble across old work. I haven't written poetry since 2004, and this is a fair example of why.
10.27.2018
Movies: BlacKkKlansman
Time for me to make an embarrassing confession: the only other Spike Lee "joint" I've ever seen is The 25th Hour. But I did really like that movie. And I really liked this one, too.
For those not in the know, BlacKkKlansman is an adaptation of the true story of Colorado Springs' first black police officer Ron Stallworth (played by John David Washington). In the early 70s, Stallworth infiltrated the KKK with the help of a white narcotics officer named "Flip" Zimmerman (portrayed here by Adam Driver). There is, as one might expect, a fair amount of tension in the situation. But it's been well tempered by lighter moments. In all, it's just a really good and engaging movie: well acted and thoughtfully composed.
Lee is a weensy bit heavy handed in the parallels to today's political climate, but the comparisons are justified. Unfortunately, a movie is unlikely to make a difference in people's ways of thinking or behaviors. The kinds of people Lee is preaching against are the kinds that won't be watching BlacKkKlansman anyway.
Then again, the movie also touches on the militancy of the other side, at least at that time. Stallworth attempts to reason with his activist girlfriend who insists all cops are racist pigs (without knowing that her boyfriend is a cop). She rejects his diplomacy with a very "for or against, no middle ground" kind of attitude. So maybe the message here is that neither side is correct, and that the truth and the good in the world lies in the middle, in the gray areas.
Still, the sides are not equivalent. There is a difference between sexual assault, shooting, and bombing and peaceful (if loud) marching and protests.
In all, the movie made me want to read Stallworth's book. And it was a really entertaining film in its own right.
For those not in the know, BlacKkKlansman is an adaptation of the true story of Colorado Springs' first black police officer Ron Stallworth (played by John David Washington). In the early 70s, Stallworth infiltrated the KKK with the help of a white narcotics officer named "Flip" Zimmerman (portrayed here by Adam Driver). There is, as one might expect, a fair amount of tension in the situation. But it's been well tempered by lighter moments. In all, it's just a really good and engaging movie: well acted and thoughtfully composed.
Lee is a weensy bit heavy handed in the parallels to today's political climate, but the comparisons are justified. Unfortunately, a movie is unlikely to make a difference in people's ways of thinking or behaviors. The kinds of people Lee is preaching against are the kinds that won't be watching BlacKkKlansman anyway.
Then again, the movie also touches on the militancy of the other side, at least at that time. Stallworth attempts to reason with his activist girlfriend who insists all cops are racist pigs (without knowing that her boyfriend is a cop). She rejects his diplomacy with a very "for or against, no middle ground" kind of attitude. So maybe the message here is that neither side is correct, and that the truth and the good in the world lies in the middle, in the gray areas.
Still, the sides are not equivalent. There is a difference between sexual assault, shooting, and bombing and peaceful (if loud) marching and protests.
In all, the movie made me want to read Stallworth's book. And it was a really entertaining film in its own right.
10.19.2018
Theatre: Miss Saigon
I finally saw this . . . I went in only knowing, er, Saigon, I guess? And that there was a helicopter. So I didn't really have any preconceived notions or expectations. And . . .
I didn't enjoy it at all.
It was bombastic and melodramatic. I could tell it had been written by the guys who did Les Mis (which I've only ever seen the film of). There was just . . . so much wrong with it, I can't even.
Okay, okay, I get that this play is nearly 30 years old. So sensibilities have changed. Even so, gah. The songs weren't catchy, and they repeated the same handful of information over and over again. The Engineer would sing about girls/whores and wanting to go to America. Kim would sing about being in love with Chris, and then about missing Chris and still being in love with Chris. Chris got to sing about being in love with Kim a few times, but then he was relegated to wallpaper status. We were told he tried to find Kim, but we don't see it. We never see his struggles except, like, one nightmare maybe? I couldn't tell if he was supposed to be a sympathetic character or not. I suspect not given that two French guys wrote this about America taking over Vietnam after they had it.
I cringed my way through most of the show. The actors we saw were amazing and had great voices. The dancers were terrific. But the show is just . . . It's not good. I kept wondering what my uncle who served in 'Nam would have made of it. While I understand they do (kind of?) show the horrors of war, the writers also romanticize it quite a bit. If most of the songs had not been about love and longing, and if they'd shown more of Chris' PTSD or his frantic attempts to go back to Vietnam/Kim only to be told he couldn't, maybe it would have been better? Who can say? I don't think those changes would have made it any worse anyway.
Ugh. I'm sure a lot of people love this musical. But let's face it, "You're sunlight and I'm moonlight" is super cliché. Like, were the writers even trying? Or did they look at each other after the success of Les Mis and say, "Let's expand on the prostitute character and just pick a different setting"? That's what it felt like to me. I couldn't stop rolling my eyes through a lot of it.
Oh! And the thing where she kills her betrothed? That really went a whole lotta nowhere. There's a plot thread that someone dropped for sure. I guess they felt we needed more songs about her loving Chris and loving her son and stuff.
Sigh. Just . . . not a fan. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm cold hearted. I dunno. But this show did nothing but irritate me.
I didn't enjoy it at all.
It was bombastic and melodramatic. I could tell it had been written by the guys who did Les Mis (which I've only ever seen the film of). There was just . . . so much wrong with it, I can't even.
Okay, okay, I get that this play is nearly 30 years old. So sensibilities have changed. Even so, gah. The songs weren't catchy, and they repeated the same handful of information over and over again. The Engineer would sing about girls/whores and wanting to go to America. Kim would sing about being in love with Chris, and then about missing Chris and still being in love with Chris. Chris got to sing about being in love with Kim a few times, but then he was relegated to wallpaper status. We were told he tried to find Kim, but we don't see it. We never see his struggles except, like, one nightmare maybe? I couldn't tell if he was supposed to be a sympathetic character or not. I suspect not given that two French guys wrote this about America taking over Vietnam after they had it.
I cringed my way through most of the show. The actors we saw were amazing and had great voices. The dancers were terrific. But the show is just . . . It's not good. I kept wondering what my uncle who served in 'Nam would have made of it. While I understand they do (kind of?) show the horrors of war, the writers also romanticize it quite a bit. If most of the songs had not been about love and longing, and if they'd shown more of Chris' PTSD or his frantic attempts to go back to Vietnam/Kim only to be told he couldn't, maybe it would have been better? Who can say? I don't think those changes would have made it any worse anyway.
Ugh. I'm sure a lot of people love this musical. But let's face it, "You're sunlight and I'm moonlight" is super cliché. Like, were the writers even trying? Or did they look at each other after the success of Les Mis and say, "Let's expand on the prostitute character and just pick a different setting"? That's what it felt like to me. I couldn't stop rolling my eyes through a lot of it.
Oh! And the thing where she kills her betrothed? That really went a whole lotta nowhere. There's a plot thread that someone dropped for sure. I guess they felt we needed more songs about her loving Chris and loving her son and stuff.
Sigh. Just . . . not a fan. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm cold hearted. I dunno. But this show did nothing but irritate me.
10.17.2018
Television: Doctor Who, "The Woman Who Fell to Earth"
I really agonized over whether to suck it up and watch the remaining Capaldi episodes or just pick up with this one. In the end, I wasn't interested enough to finish out Capaldi's season. I couldn't muster the enthusiasm, or even the basic sluggish energy, to pull it up on my DVR (where it has been sitting... and sitting... and sitting...) But people kept asking me what I thought of Whittaker as the Doctor, so I decided to fire this one up and dive in fresh.
Long story short, I don't have the Capaldi backstory, though based on this it hardly seems necessary?
In the interest of playing fairly, let me acknowledge that I'm one of the people who find Moffat to be a terrible show runner. And I really like Chris Chibnall's work. Well, I adored Broadchurch anyway. And Torchwood. So I was primed to really like this, too, because (a) sweet release from the Moffat era, and (b) Chibnall has shown to be competent and compelling in his work.
So, yeah, as expected, I really liked it.
Spoilers Ahead, Sweeties
Not just Whittaker's Doctor, but the entire supporting cast. And even though we'd only just met Grace, I felt the impact of losing her because she'd already left such an impression. This is what Chibnall does so well—characterization. And really good, tight stories.
What was this story about? Well, Ryan Sinclair is... I don't know how old he's supposed to be, actually, but seems like 20s? And he lives with his nan Grace and her second husband Graham. When Ryan discovers something strange, he phones in to the police, and they send Yasmin, who just happens to be someone Ryan went to school with way back when. Meanwhile, an alien attacks the train Grace and Graham are on, and the Doctor shows up, and things pretty much go from there at a fair clip.
Whittaker's Doctor is a tad manic, but many of them have been to some extent. And sometimes they start off that way after regeneration and then calm down a bit. We'll see what happens, but I don't mind this take on the character. It's fun. And she has a depth of compassion that we haven't seen in recent Doctors.
Mostly I'm just glad to be excited about Doctor Who again. To be enjoying it again because I honestly haven't liked it in years. It became more of a chore than something to look forward to, which is why I eventually quit watching at all.
Now I'm back, fresh, and it seems like I needn't worry too much about what I missed, which is good. It will allow new viewers to catch on, too, so that's a smart move. Looking forward to seeing more.
Long story short, I don't have the Capaldi backstory, though based on this it hardly seems necessary?
In the interest of playing fairly, let me acknowledge that I'm one of the people who find Moffat to be a terrible show runner. And I really like Chris Chibnall's work. Well, I adored Broadchurch anyway. And Torchwood. So I was primed to really like this, too, because (a) sweet release from the Moffat era, and (b) Chibnall has shown to be competent and compelling in his work.
So, yeah, as expected, I really liked it.
Spoilers Ahead, Sweeties
Not just Whittaker's Doctor, but the entire supporting cast. And even though we'd only just met Grace, I felt the impact of losing her because she'd already left such an impression. This is what Chibnall does so well—characterization. And really good, tight stories.
What was this story about? Well, Ryan Sinclair is... I don't know how old he's supposed to be, actually, but seems like 20s? And he lives with his nan Grace and her second husband Graham. When Ryan discovers something strange, he phones in to the police, and they send Yasmin, who just happens to be someone Ryan went to school with way back when. Meanwhile, an alien attacks the train Grace and Graham are on, and the Doctor shows up, and things pretty much go from there at a fair clip.
Whittaker's Doctor is a tad manic, but many of them have been to some extent. And sometimes they start off that way after regeneration and then calm down a bit. We'll see what happens, but I don't mind this take on the character. It's fun. And she has a depth of compassion that we haven't seen in recent Doctors.
Mostly I'm just glad to be excited about Doctor Who again. To be enjoying it again because I honestly haven't liked it in years. It became more of a chore than something to look forward to, which is why I eventually quit watching at all.
Now I'm back, fresh, and it seems like I needn't worry too much about what I missed, which is good. It will allow new viewers to catch on, too, so that's a smart move. Looking forward to seeing more.
10.14.2018
Books: Faebourne
Those who enjoyed Brynnde will, I hope, enjoy this book as well. However, this one is less typical of the Regency romance genre. I call it a "Regency fairy tale" because there are fantasy elements to the story. Also, more conservative readers should know there is a homosexual relationship in this book. If that makes you uncomfortable, you might want to skip this one.
Blurb:
Duncan Oliver was in every respect an unremarkable gentleman.
When mild-mannered Duncan Oliver is abducted by the Milne brothers and taken to their legendary home of Faebourne, his unexciting life becomes much more interesting. Adelia Milne has been cursed, and Duncan is her chosen champion to break the spell. Duncan may not be a hero, but he is a gentleman, and he refuses to leave a lady in distress. He becomes determined to take on the quest on Miss Milne's behalf.
Meanwhile, an unlikely rescue team forms in the pairing of Duncan's best friend George and valet Davies. As they set out for Faebourne—and also perchance to learn more about Davies' obscured family history—what begins as an unequal partnership quickly blooms into friendship... and possibly something more.
10.12.2018
The Dream Cages: Update
I haven't forgotten you! (The, like, 11 of you who might even care.) I'm on a deadline with my current novel and will come back to TDC when it's done. Should be another week maybe? Thanks for your patience!
Television: FBI & The Good Cop
Tried the first episodes of both these new procedurals. Here are my thoughts:
FBI was incredibly generic. The characters were all so monotone, with no personalities whatsoever. I mean, maybe the show is written and directed by A.I. robots? I also had the sense that the episode I was watching was not the first one—like maybe they'd aired them out of order. (Too lazy to go look it up and see if that might be true.) Because there was no real introduction to the characters or anything. When done well, that can be fine. When you slowly show the characters' personalities, when the characters bloom open as it were. But that didn't happen here. Or if they're trying to do that, it's too slow for anyone to find it interesting. The difference between watching an actual flower grow in real time vs. time lapse. (Hint: people watch time lapse videos; they don't sit and watch flowers actually open.)
The storyline itself was fine. ::shrug:: Nothing very different from any other procedural, really.
Verdict: I took the series recording off my DVR. But the show got a full season pick-up, I think, so there must be some people who like it.
The Good Cop was . . . not as funny as I thought it would be? This show seems to be very self-aware of the fact that it's dragging up some old tropes. But it also doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows up. Like, the title sequence is riffing on old 80s shows (and when you have Tony Danza, what else are you going to do, really?), and the music cues are over-the-top sitcom stuff. In fact, a lot of the show is over the top. The characters are all extreme versions of their types: the straight-laced, by-the-book cop; the ex-con cop; the buffoon sidekick; the dorky science guy, etc. They all seemed to be overacting a bit, and I couldn't tell whether that was intentional and, if so, why. Like, what effect the show was going for. A lot of it looks and feels very tongue in cheek, but it wasn't actually funny, so I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be or???
The plot was very basic, too. The titular good cop is framed for a murder that his ex-con cop dad may have committed. But there's an absolutely throwaway plot spur in which said dad confesses and goes back to prison. Something like that should add weight or tension, and here it didn't seem to have any impact on the story or the characters whatsoever.
Verdict: I'm still a little intrigued to see if this show finds its feet. So I'll probably try another one or two episodes.
FBI was incredibly generic. The characters were all so monotone, with no personalities whatsoever. I mean, maybe the show is written and directed by A.I. robots? I also had the sense that the episode I was watching was not the first one—like maybe they'd aired them out of order. (Too lazy to go look it up and see if that might be true.) Because there was no real introduction to the characters or anything. When done well, that can be fine. When you slowly show the characters' personalities, when the characters bloom open as it were. But that didn't happen here. Or if they're trying to do that, it's too slow for anyone to find it interesting. The difference between watching an actual flower grow in real time vs. time lapse. (Hint: people watch time lapse videos; they don't sit and watch flowers actually open.)
The storyline itself was fine. ::shrug:: Nothing very different from any other procedural, really.
Verdict: I took the series recording off my DVR. But the show got a full season pick-up, I think, so there must be some people who like it.
The Good Cop was . . . not as funny as I thought it would be? This show seems to be very self-aware of the fact that it's dragging up some old tropes. But it also doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows up. Like, the title sequence is riffing on old 80s shows (and when you have Tony Danza, what else are you going to do, really?), and the music cues are over-the-top sitcom stuff. In fact, a lot of the show is over the top. The characters are all extreme versions of their types: the straight-laced, by-the-book cop; the ex-con cop; the buffoon sidekick; the dorky science guy, etc. They all seemed to be overacting a bit, and I couldn't tell whether that was intentional and, if so, why. Like, what effect the show was going for. A lot of it looks and feels very tongue in cheek, but it wasn't actually funny, so I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be or???
The plot was very basic, too. The titular good cop is framed for a murder that his ex-con cop dad may have committed. But there's an absolutely throwaway plot spur in which said dad confesses and goes back to prison. Something like that should add weight or tension, and here it didn't seem to have any impact on the story or the characters whatsoever.
Verdict: I'm still a little intrigued to see if this show finds its feet. So I'll probably try another one or two episodes.
10.06.2018
Movies: Won't You Be My Neighbor?
Oh, man. It's difficult to make me cry (unless there are animals involved), but I bawled through a lot of this documentary about Fred Rogers' efforts to reach children with his message of how they all have value. Like many kids growing up in the late 70s and early 80s, I spent my fair share of time in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. I'm very sorry my kids were born just a wee bit too late to learn from him, too. Mr. Rogers was soothing, comforting, understanding. I believe his methods inform the way I speak to my children even today. Why, just yesterday I spoke to my youngest about how it's okay to be angry—normal, in fact—but the important thing is what we do with that anger. Mr. Rogers taught us that it's okay to make mistakes, something I think our society forgets far too easily.
WYBMN? focuses specifically on Rogers' mission, his television work. It's very well done and interviews a number of family members, cast and crew, and friends. It also makes extensive use of archival footage so that Rogers speaks for himself via old interviews as well.
That said, I'm not sure I learned anything about Rogers that I didn't already know or suspect. That he was more or less exactly how he came across on television, a good and caring person—that's nice to know, I think, because it allows me to maintain my faith in him and every lesson he instilled in me as a child. Still, I might've liked to hear about his childhood or family life, but that was beyond the purvey of this documentary.
The world could use a few more Fred Rogers, but alas, he was sui generis. He knew we had it in us to be better, but I fear we've let him down.
WYBMN? focuses specifically on Rogers' mission, his television work. It's very well done and interviews a number of family members, cast and crew, and friends. It also makes extensive use of archival footage so that Rogers speaks for himself via old interviews as well.
That said, I'm not sure I learned anything about Rogers that I didn't already know or suspect. That he was more or less exactly how he came across on television, a good and caring person—that's nice to know, I think, because it allows me to maintain my faith in him and every lesson he instilled in me as a child. Still, I might've liked to hear about his childhood or family life, but that was beyond the purvey of this documentary.
The world could use a few more Fred Rogers, but alas, he was sui generis. He knew we had it in us to be better, but I fear we've let him down.
9.21.2018
Movies: Ocean's Eight
I just . . . didn't care. About any of these characters. None of them charmed me* or made me want to cheer them on. And there was a noted lack of witty banter, which is usually the backbone of these kinds of films.
Between this and the all-female Ghostbusters, I feel like scripts are really giving female-driven movies the short end of the stick. Instead of playing to strengths, they just try to take male characters and plug women into them. The result is a mismatch, something that comes off as vaguely discordant.
I worked with Sandy Bullock, and she can be so funny and charming. This movie just didn't do her justice. Nor did it do much for any of the other wonderfully talented women involved.
For anyone who might not know, this girly version of the heist franchise centers on Bullock as Debbie Ocean, Danny's (you remember him as George Clooney) sister. Apparently the entire family are unrepentant criminals. Make a family reunion movie, guys. It'd probably be way more entertaining than this was.
Anyway, Ocean gets out of prison and immediately puts together a big job—stealing a famous necklace during a Met Gala. Because we all know women like jewelry, I guess.
The writers tried to shoehorn in some revenge-on-the-lover-who-put-her-away story, but though hinted at early on, it wasn't brought forward until much later, which gave the whole thing the feeling of, "Oh, we need something to thicken this plot soup." By then, we didn't care and it was too late to get us to start.
The short answer is, the movie took itself too seriously. Even in the moments I think it was trying to be lighthearted. There needed to be greater ease between the characters, a more relaxed atmosphere over all. Instead, everyone was stiff. Dour. It wasn't fun to watch, and these movie need to be fun. That's the point of them.
And we need to care. About the characters, and about whether or not they succeed. That's where tension comes from, and here there just was none. The whole thing was flat and uninteresting. Meh.
* I did kind of like Helena Bonham Carter's character?
Between this and the all-female Ghostbusters, I feel like scripts are really giving female-driven movies the short end of the stick. Instead of playing to strengths, they just try to take male characters and plug women into them. The result is a mismatch, something that comes off as vaguely discordant.
I worked with Sandy Bullock, and she can be so funny and charming. This movie just didn't do her justice. Nor did it do much for any of the other wonderfully talented women involved.
For anyone who might not know, this girly version of the heist franchise centers on Bullock as Debbie Ocean, Danny's (you remember him as George Clooney) sister. Apparently the entire family are unrepentant criminals. Make a family reunion movie, guys. It'd probably be way more entertaining than this was.
Anyway, Ocean gets out of prison and immediately puts together a big job—stealing a famous necklace during a Met Gala. Because we all know women like jewelry, I guess.
The writers tried to shoehorn in some revenge-on-the-lover-who-put-her-away story, but though hinted at early on, it wasn't brought forward until much later, which gave the whole thing the feeling of, "Oh, we need something to thicken this plot soup." By then, we didn't care and it was too late to get us to start.
The short answer is, the movie took itself too seriously. Even in the moments I think it was trying to be lighthearted. There needed to be greater ease between the characters, a more relaxed atmosphere over all. Instead, everyone was stiff. Dour. It wasn't fun to watch, and these movie need to be fun. That's the point of them.
And we need to care. About the characters, and about whether or not they succeed. That's where tension comes from, and here there just was none. The whole thing was flat and uninteresting. Meh.
* I did kind of like Helena Bonham Carter's character?
9.16.2018
My YouTube
So, I started putting videos on YouTube. Nothing major, and it was not really planned as a "channel." Thing was, when I uploaded my videos to Facebook, the audio sync kept getting messed up. So I started shelving my videos on YouTube instead.
There are only four there atm. But it's where I'll be putting all my videos from now on, so if you want to keep up with me talking about books and writing subscribe here. Or just look up M Pepper on YouTube. You'll get a lot of Dr Pepper ad videos, I think, but I'm in there somewhere.
I'm not very techie. I don't have cool graphics or edits or whatever. Maybe I'll learn more of that as I go along. In the meantime, ICYMI, here is my most recent video:
There are only four there atm. But it's where I'll be putting all my videos from now on, so if you want to keep up with me talking about books and writing subscribe here. Or just look up M Pepper on YouTube. You'll get a lot of Dr Pepper ad videos, I think, but I'm in there somewhere.
I'm not very techie. I don't have cool graphics or edits or whatever. Maybe I'll learn more of that as I go along. In the meantime, ICYMI, here is my most recent video:
Minchiate Etruria
I was meant to have these cards, and here's how I know:
When I ordered them, I didn't realize they were limited edition and numbered. So I was surprised when I opened the box and found this:
All my life, the numbers 1, 8, and 0 have continually turned up in myriad ways and combinations: addresses, phone numbers, dates, and even the style number on my wedding dress (I'd picked the dress before seeing the style number and was floored). Later in life I learned that 18 is a significant number in Judaism, meaning in an alpha-numeric shorthand "life." In short, this number and variations thereof have followed me my entire life. So when I opened the Minchiate box and saw this, I took it as a sign.
I first heard of the Minchiate when I picked up a book called The Creative Tarot by Jessa Crispin. She described a deck that, instead of the usual 78 cards, had 97. I looked it up and it just so happened Llewellyn and Lo Scarabeo were recreating a Minchiate deck. Out of curiosity, I ordered it.
What makes the difference between these cards and a standard tarot deck? Well, there are 41 Major Arcana cards in the Minchiate. The usual suspects are there (excepting the High Priestess), though reordered somewhat. Then there are four Virtues, four Elements, and the twelve Zodiac.
How does one read these additional cards? No idea. The booklet that comes with the deck is thin and offers no information on how to use the cards. I'll be doing some online research soon, but I also think this might be a case where I study the cards for a bit and get a feel for what each wants to tell me.
The pip cards in this deck are plain, rather like the Marseilles tarot decks. They offer no extra visual input, so for those who like to read their pips by the artwork (like the woman in the walled garden on the 9 of Pentacles, say), this deck won't work for you. That said, the artwork, such as it is, is quite lovely and detailed. If you're a collector—which I am; I don't use many of the decks I own, but I keep them because I love the art—you might enjoy adding this one to your shelf. Or wherever you keep your cards.
When I ordered them, I didn't realize they were limited edition and numbered. So I was surprised when I opened the box and found this:
All my life, the numbers 1, 8, and 0 have continually turned up in myriad ways and combinations: addresses, phone numbers, dates, and even the style number on my wedding dress (I'd picked the dress before seeing the style number and was floored). Later in life I learned that 18 is a significant number in Judaism, meaning in an alpha-numeric shorthand "life." In short, this number and variations thereof have followed me my entire life. So when I opened the Minchiate box and saw this, I took it as a sign.
I first heard of the Minchiate when I picked up a book called The Creative Tarot by Jessa Crispin. She described a deck that, instead of the usual 78 cards, had 97. I looked it up and it just so happened Llewellyn and Lo Scarabeo were recreating a Minchiate deck. Out of curiosity, I ordered it.
What makes the difference between these cards and a standard tarot deck? Well, there are 41 Major Arcana cards in the Minchiate. The usual suspects are there (excepting the High Priestess), though reordered somewhat. Then there are four Virtues, four Elements, and the twelve Zodiac.
 |
| Ace of Pentacles, Sagittarius, Water cards from the Minchiate |
How does one read these additional cards? No idea. The booklet that comes with the deck is thin and offers no information on how to use the cards. I'll be doing some online research soon, but I also think this might be a case where I study the cards for a bit and get a feel for what each wants to tell me.
The pip cards in this deck are plain, rather like the Marseilles tarot decks. They offer no extra visual input, so for those who like to read their pips by the artwork (like the woman in the walled garden on the 9 of Pentacles, say), this deck won't work for you. That said, the artwork, such as it is, is quite lovely and detailed. If you're a collector—which I am; I don't use many of the decks I own, but I keep them because I love the art—you might enjoy adding this one to your shelf. Or wherever you keep your cards.
9.12.2018
The Dream Cages #16
"It's not intentional," Adam said, more to himself than to Matthew. It didn't take much to convince himself Ronan hadn't realized what he was doing, what Cabeswater was doing. After all, Ronan had come after them and had seemed as confused as they'd been.
Ronan... Adam hoped wherever Ronan had woken up, he hadn't been too bloodied. It occurred to him Ronan might try to return. They needed to get out before Ronan got back in, else the cycle might be endless. It was already vicious.
Adam extended his hand to help Matthew to his feet. Then he regarded the dragon. Some ten to twelve feet tall, but not as impeccably designed as most of Ronan's dream creatures. Because, of course, this wasn't one of Ronan's.
This one was his.
Or, rather, it had come from the spaces he frequented when he scried. Adam didn't make those things, they simply existed in the black. Spirits or demons or... He didn't know. He sometimes caught glimpses in the candlelight, but he'd never seen one so exposed.
Yet it wasn't totally bare to scrutiny. The leathery skin that was the color of dried blood, the bat-like wings, the claws, the beakish maw, the yellow eyes—Adam could discern these features, but they were were somewhat obscured, as though the creature kept a cloud of dark smoke around it that prevented it from being seen clearly. The dragon was not a fully formed idea.
"I think it can only take us one at a time," Adam said.
Matthew shrugged. "It's all right. I'm not going."
It took a moment for the words to penetrate. Even still, Adam couldn't trust what he thought he'd heard. "What?"
"I'm fine here," Matthew insisted. "I like it."
"If I don't get you home, Ronan..." Will never forgive me. Will come back here and get himself killed.
But Matthew only shrugged again. "He can visit, can't he? He was just here."
"He thinks you're dead."
"Then me staying should be a relief," Matthew reasoned. "I mean, at least I'm here."
"Matthew..."
"Look," Matthew said, and though his signature smile remained fixed, something other than his usual sparkle showed behind his blue eyes. "I'm not smart like Declan and Ronan. I never really expected to be or do much of anything in life. And the truth is, I don't really have to. I'm not saying I just want to live off the money Dad left, but..." His gaze drifted toward the cows. "I'm not really fit for anything else."
Adam swallowed the lump in his throat. It wasn't his place to tell Matthew that his flaws were not his fault. That they came from a three-year-old's inability to shape the intricacies of humanity. When Ronan had dreamt Matthew, he hadn't been looking for "smart." He'd been looking for happiness. And Matthew was that, made flesh.
Yet there was no such thing as pure happiness. Because happy didn't exist without sad as a contrast.
Could a dream be self-aware?
But even as Adam wondered, the moment passed, and Matthew returned to his uncomplicated, smiling self. "I'll stay," he said again. "You go tell Ronan that I'm all right."
It was, Adam decided, an argument for another time. And Matthew was in less immediate peril than he was anyway. Dream bodies slept. They didn't die.
"Okay," Adam said. He turned to the dragon. "Lead the way."
Ronan... Adam hoped wherever Ronan had woken up, he hadn't been too bloodied. It occurred to him Ronan might try to return. They needed to get out before Ronan got back in, else the cycle might be endless. It was already vicious.
Adam extended his hand to help Matthew to his feet. Then he regarded the dragon. Some ten to twelve feet tall, but not as impeccably designed as most of Ronan's dream creatures. Because, of course, this wasn't one of Ronan's.
This one was his.
Or, rather, it had come from the spaces he frequented when he scried. Adam didn't make those things, they simply existed in the black. Spirits or demons or... He didn't know. He sometimes caught glimpses in the candlelight, but he'd never seen one so exposed.
Yet it wasn't totally bare to scrutiny. The leathery skin that was the color of dried blood, the bat-like wings, the claws, the beakish maw, the yellow eyes—Adam could discern these features, but they were were somewhat obscured, as though the creature kept a cloud of dark smoke around it that prevented it from being seen clearly. The dragon was not a fully formed idea.
"I think it can only take us one at a time," Adam said.
Matthew shrugged. "It's all right. I'm not going."
It took a moment for the words to penetrate. Even still, Adam couldn't trust what he thought he'd heard. "What?"
"I'm fine here," Matthew insisted. "I like it."
"If I don't get you home, Ronan..." Will never forgive me. Will come back here and get himself killed.
But Matthew only shrugged again. "He can visit, can't he? He was just here."
"He thinks you're dead."
"Then me staying should be a relief," Matthew reasoned. "I mean, at least I'm here."
"Matthew..."
"Look," Matthew said, and though his signature smile remained fixed, something other than his usual sparkle showed behind his blue eyes. "I'm not smart like Declan and Ronan. I never really expected to be or do much of anything in life. And the truth is, I don't really have to. I'm not saying I just want to live off the money Dad left, but..." His gaze drifted toward the cows. "I'm not really fit for anything else."
Adam swallowed the lump in his throat. It wasn't his place to tell Matthew that his flaws were not his fault. That they came from a three-year-old's inability to shape the intricacies of humanity. When Ronan had dreamt Matthew, he hadn't been looking for "smart." He'd been looking for happiness. And Matthew was that, made flesh.
Yet there was no such thing as pure happiness. Because happy didn't exist without sad as a contrast.
Could a dream be self-aware?
But even as Adam wondered, the moment passed, and Matthew returned to his uncomplicated, smiling self. "I'll stay," he said again. "You go tell Ronan that I'm all right."
It was, Adam decided, an argument for another time. And Matthew was in less immediate peril than he was anyway. Dream bodies slept. They didn't die.
"Okay," Adam said. He turned to the dragon. "Lead the way."
9.07.2018
Movies: Destination Wedding
I can't . . . Like, I can't even . . .
Sigh.
I love Keanu and it's been great seeing Winona have a kind of renaissance thanks to Stranger Things. They work fairly well off one another here, but the material is a bit clunky at times.
In this film, Winona plays Lindsay and Keanu plays Frank, who find themselves thrown together at the titular destination wedding in Paso Robles. (I actually enjoy Paso Robles, so . . .) Lindsay is the ex-fiancée of the groom, and Frank is the groom's half brother (? if I understood correctly?). The "fun" starts when they meet at the airport while waiting for the same tiny plane. They argue then predictably get stuck sitting beside one another.
Things go on from there, also in expected fashion. The entire movie is Lindsay and Frank having a series of conversations in various locations during the wedding weekend. There are some genuinely funny moments, but on the whole the story is thin and every event foreseeable. Except maybe the mountain lion.
The tone is reminiscent of Woody Allen. Not sure if that's intentional, though I don't know how it couldn't be. From the stylized title treatments to the music to the very absurdness and cynicism of the discussions between Lindsay and Frank, the whole thing smacks of trademark Allen. Yet if you like that sort of thing, I don't think you'd find this a fulfilling substitute. This is the lo-cal version.
Part of me wondered as I watched whether it was maybe originally planned as a stage play? Only Keanu's and Winona's characters have any lines; everyone else are mere extras. The result is something that feels like a classic two-hander.
Bottom line is, I can't decide if I liked this movie. It's cute, but maybe tries too hard? And fails to be very original. Yet somehow, despite these flaws, I still kind of enjoyed it. Even as my rational side insisted I shouldn't. So I don't know. It's definitely not for everyone, but I wouldn't necessarily warn people away either. Your mileage in traveling to this wedding may vary. Probably depends on where you're starting from.
Sigh.
I love Keanu and it's been great seeing Winona have a kind of renaissance thanks to Stranger Things. They work fairly well off one another here, but the material is a bit clunky at times.
In this film, Winona plays Lindsay and Keanu plays Frank, who find themselves thrown together at the titular destination wedding in Paso Robles. (I actually enjoy Paso Robles, so . . .) Lindsay is the ex-fiancée of the groom, and Frank is the groom's half brother (? if I understood correctly?). The "fun" starts when they meet at the airport while waiting for the same tiny plane. They argue then predictably get stuck sitting beside one another.
Things go on from there, also in expected fashion. The entire movie is Lindsay and Frank having a series of conversations in various locations during the wedding weekend. There are some genuinely funny moments, but on the whole the story is thin and every event foreseeable. Except maybe the mountain lion.
The tone is reminiscent of Woody Allen. Not sure if that's intentional, though I don't know how it couldn't be. From the stylized title treatments to the music to the very absurdness and cynicism of the discussions between Lindsay and Frank, the whole thing smacks of trademark Allen. Yet if you like that sort of thing, I don't think you'd find this a fulfilling substitute. This is the lo-cal version.
Part of me wondered as I watched whether it was maybe originally planned as a stage play? Only Keanu's and Winona's characters have any lines; everyone else are mere extras. The result is something that feels like a classic two-hander.
Bottom line is, I can't decide if I liked this movie. It's cute, but maybe tries too hard? And fails to be very original. Yet somehow, despite these flaws, I still kind of enjoyed it. Even as my rational side insisted I shouldn't. So I don't know. It's definitely not for everyone, but I wouldn't necessarily warn people away either. Your mileage in traveling to this wedding may vary. Probably depends on where you're starting from.
9.02.2018
The Dream Cages #15
When Ronan disappeared—woke up, Adam supposed—the creature did not cease to attack. Only, as it turned out, it hadn't been attacking at all. Well, it had been attacking Ronan. Which was par for the course in Ronan's dreams; horrifying creatures assaulted him quite regularly while he slept. But the... "dragon," for lack of a better word... did not seem intent on hurting Adam. It only wanted to take him somewhere, and its method for that was to dig in its claws and drag him.
The more Adam fought its grasp, the tighter the talons became, until finally Adam yelled up at it, "Okay, I get it! I'll come with. But you're hurting me."
He could almost feel it thinking as it carried him another yard. But in the end, it relented and released him. Adam landed unceremoniously on his ass in the dirt and the dragon landed just behind him. Not with a thud or the shuddering of the earth, but silently. The only reason Adam knew it was there was because its shadow fell over him.
Adam sat looking at the farmhouse in the distance. He turned to look at the cows in the pasture. "Matthew?" he asked.
The dragon let out a low growl but then lifted off again and glided with remarkable grace to circle over the cows. The cows didn't appear bothered. Maybe dream creatures had some kind of understanding? When a dream thing meets a dream thing coming through the rye...
Am I a dream thing?
No, he wasn't. He was only a consciousness caught in a dream. Ronan's dream. Ronan's recreated Cabeswater. He thought about what Ronan had said, about creating a dream Barns to fit over the real one. Two planes meshed into one. If it worked, could the sleeping creatures be awakened? Could the Barns become an extension of Cabeswater?
Ronan had said he didn't want to make a bigger cage, but maybe he'd become that desperate. Or maybe this was a stop-gap solution until he could fix the underlying problem.
But why am I here?
Screaming brought Adam's attention back to the immediate moment. The dragon was returning, this time with Matthew in its clutches. Matthew kicked and shouted things Ronan would not have liked hearing his innocent, sweet little brother say. The dragon ignored him and dropped him beside Adam. Matthew looked at Adam, wide-eyed, then scrambled to his feet to run, but Adam said, "Don't."
Matthew sat back down. He made more of a thud than the dragon had.
"It doesn't want to hurt us. It wants to take us somewhere."
"Back to its nest to feed us to its young or something," said Matthew.
"I don't think so. Do the numbers six and twenty mean anything to you?"
Matthew's brow wrinkled but a moment later he jolted where he sat as though physically struck with a thought. "Sure, it's Ronan's favorite verse."
"Verse?" Adam asked. "Like a poem?"
Matthew laughed. "Nah. I found a book of poems by Shelley under his bed once, though." He laughed again. "He was so pissed."
"The verse, though?" Adam prompted.
"Matthew 6:20. Something like, 'Store up your treasures in heaven, where moths nor rust corrupts, and where thieves do not break in and steal.'"
Adam thought about this a moment. "Shit," he said. He looked at Matthew—a little dirty, but none the worse for wear. No wounds where the dragon had grabbed him, no blood. He looked at his own shoulders. Same. "Shit," he said again.
He stood up and turned to the dragon, which waited patiently for them to figure things out. "You're trying to take us back," he said.
"Back where?" Matthew asked.
"To the waking world," Adam told him. "We've been... imported here. Not on purpose, but still, we can't stay. We have to get back to our bodies. If we're gone too long, they'll die."
"I feel fine," Matthew said. "I feel like me. If my body dies, then can't I just stay here?"
"If your body dies, so does your consciousness." Well, mine does, anyway. But Adam could hardly tell Matthew his brother had dreamt him. "That's what's here now. If your body dies, and your consciousness dies, there won't be anything else to stay here."
"So how did our consciousness end up here? We're having the same dream?"
"Not exactly. We're part of someone else's dream. Ronan wants to keep us safe, and in some backward way, this is how Cabeswater is granting his wish." When Matthew still looked confused, Adam said, "We're Ronan's treasure."
The more Adam fought its grasp, the tighter the talons became, until finally Adam yelled up at it, "Okay, I get it! I'll come with. But you're hurting me."
He could almost feel it thinking as it carried him another yard. But in the end, it relented and released him. Adam landed unceremoniously on his ass in the dirt and the dragon landed just behind him. Not with a thud or the shuddering of the earth, but silently. The only reason Adam knew it was there was because its shadow fell over him.
Adam sat looking at the farmhouse in the distance. He turned to look at the cows in the pasture. "Matthew?" he asked.
The dragon let out a low growl but then lifted off again and glided with remarkable grace to circle over the cows. The cows didn't appear bothered. Maybe dream creatures had some kind of understanding? When a dream thing meets a dream thing coming through the rye...
Am I a dream thing?
No, he wasn't. He was only a consciousness caught in a dream. Ronan's dream. Ronan's recreated Cabeswater. He thought about what Ronan had said, about creating a dream Barns to fit over the real one. Two planes meshed into one. If it worked, could the sleeping creatures be awakened? Could the Barns become an extension of Cabeswater?
Ronan had said he didn't want to make a bigger cage, but maybe he'd become that desperate. Or maybe this was a stop-gap solution until he could fix the underlying problem.
But why am I here?
Screaming brought Adam's attention back to the immediate moment. The dragon was returning, this time with Matthew in its clutches. Matthew kicked and shouted things Ronan would not have liked hearing his innocent, sweet little brother say. The dragon ignored him and dropped him beside Adam. Matthew looked at Adam, wide-eyed, then scrambled to his feet to run, but Adam said, "Don't."
Matthew sat back down. He made more of a thud than the dragon had.
"It doesn't want to hurt us. It wants to take us somewhere."
"Back to its nest to feed us to its young or something," said Matthew.
"I don't think so. Do the numbers six and twenty mean anything to you?"
Matthew's brow wrinkled but a moment later he jolted where he sat as though physically struck with a thought. "Sure, it's Ronan's favorite verse."
"Verse?" Adam asked. "Like a poem?"
Matthew laughed. "Nah. I found a book of poems by Shelley under his bed once, though." He laughed again. "He was so pissed."
"The verse, though?" Adam prompted.
"Matthew 6:20. Something like, 'Store up your treasures in heaven, where moths nor rust corrupts, and where thieves do not break in and steal.'"
Adam thought about this a moment. "Shit," he said. He looked at Matthew—a little dirty, but none the worse for wear. No wounds where the dragon had grabbed him, no blood. He looked at his own shoulders. Same. "Shit," he said again.
He stood up and turned to the dragon, which waited patiently for them to figure things out. "You're trying to take us back," he said.
"Back where?" Matthew asked.
"To the waking world," Adam told him. "We've been... imported here. Not on purpose, but still, we can't stay. We have to get back to our bodies. If we're gone too long, they'll die."
"I feel fine," Matthew said. "I feel like me. If my body dies, then can't I just stay here?"
"If your body dies, so does your consciousness." Well, mine does, anyway. But Adam could hardly tell Matthew his brother had dreamt him. "That's what's here now. If your body dies, and your consciousness dies, there won't be anything else to stay here."
"So how did our consciousness end up here? We're having the same dream?"
"Not exactly. We're part of someone else's dream. Ronan wants to keep us safe, and in some backward way, this is how Cabeswater is granting his wish." When Matthew still looked confused, Adam said, "We're Ronan's treasure."
8.31.2018
Television: Can Sherlock Be Saved?
I'm going to pause here for a second and go back to something rather old at this point. It's no secret I really, really disliked the last couple series of Sherlock. And I came off the fourth series sort of assuming that was the end of it. Like, they seemed to have wrapped it up in a bow, right? But people keep talking about how to fix the show in the next series, and I just keep thinking, Is there going to be one? Is it even worth trying to fix and keep going?
The show's stars are busy with other things now, and Moffat and Gatiss have talked about doing Dracula or Frankenstein or something, haven't they? So I don't really know that there will be more Sherlock. But for the sake of argument, let's say there will be. Someday. And that the show needs to be course corrected. Because, Jesus, that last episode in particular was just so, so awful. But honestly, it's been going downhill for a while, yeah? Starting with the third series? With the making fun of the fans while simultaneously doing random fan service that felt pulled straight from bad fan fiction?
What made Sherlock good in the beginning was the very careful amalgam of plot + character. What made it slowly go bad—like takeaway left out to spoil—was the shifting imbalance of those things. 1. Plot became less important and often less concise, which is the kiss of death when telling mystery stories in particular. 2. Character also became less well defined as the characters began to behave in odd ways that seemed not to fit the way they'd been originally established. So: viewers who had come for the plots were disappointed. And people who'd come for the characters were equally unhappy. It just all went off the rails, really.
When we left the show, where were we? Sherlock had an even smarter sister who . . . was criminally insane? And was upset, I guess, that Sherlock had forgotten her? She's apparently orchestrated his entire life, or at least the last several years of it, by injecting Moriarty (now very definitely dead?) into it. I'm surprised we weren't told she was the one who introduced John to Sherlock in some backward way.
Okay, but the sister is all safe and sound now, and the Holmes family is somehow quite fine with . . . whatever the f*** happened there, and based on the coda to that last episode, John and Sherlock are happily raising a baby together and solving crimes and teaching a baby to solve crimes.
Yeah, that feels like an end to me. I don't see a path forward there short of something really, really awful like: it was a novel John wrote that was so bad it never found a publisher. Or even a series of novels John wrote, and they did get published, but it was all fantasy. So let's reset to . . . when? How far back would we have to go to make Sherlock good again? I think we'd have to start back at series three. I think we'd have to explain how he survived the fall (and we all know that the writers don't know, which is why they didn't answer that question and instead chose to make fun of the fans for asking). I think we'd have to change Mary or remove her entirely. Because, honestly, the whole mercenary thread? It was pretty awful. I think, if we go with the idea John was writing novels, that was John writing a wish fulfillment/attempt at a James Bond thriller. I think if he's got a girlfriend or a wife, she's probably something fairly normal and not half the fun Sherlock is, which is why John wrote her as way more exciting.* Because he missed Sherlock while Sherlock was "dead."
This is a stretch, I realize. This is Dallas' "all a dream" or St. Elsewhere's snow globe to the maximum. But it's the only way back to good that I can see.
Still, it seems far more likely they'll just leave it and move on. Viewers keep hoping for "one more miracle"—that the show will come back from the dead and redeem itself—but I'm not sure it has any left.
* John's actual wife: "But, dear, why did you kill off the wife?"
John: "The readers didn't like her."
The show's stars are busy with other things now, and Moffat and Gatiss have talked about doing Dracula or Frankenstein or something, haven't they? So I don't really know that there will be more Sherlock. But for the sake of argument, let's say there will be. Someday. And that the show needs to be course corrected. Because, Jesus, that last episode in particular was just so, so awful. But honestly, it's been going downhill for a while, yeah? Starting with the third series? With the making fun of the fans while simultaneously doing random fan service that felt pulled straight from bad fan fiction?
What made Sherlock good in the beginning was the very careful amalgam of plot + character. What made it slowly go bad—like takeaway left out to spoil—was the shifting imbalance of those things. 1. Plot became less important and often less concise, which is the kiss of death when telling mystery stories in particular. 2. Character also became less well defined as the characters began to behave in odd ways that seemed not to fit the way they'd been originally established. So: viewers who had come for the plots were disappointed. And people who'd come for the characters were equally unhappy. It just all went off the rails, really.
When we left the show, where were we? Sherlock had an even smarter sister who . . . was criminally insane? And was upset, I guess, that Sherlock had forgotten her? She's apparently orchestrated his entire life, or at least the last several years of it, by injecting Moriarty (now very definitely dead?) into it. I'm surprised we weren't told she was the one who introduced John to Sherlock in some backward way.
Okay, but the sister is all safe and sound now, and the Holmes family is somehow quite fine with . . . whatever the f*** happened there, and based on the coda to that last episode, John and Sherlock are happily raising a baby together and solving crimes and teaching a baby to solve crimes.
Yeah, that feels like an end to me. I don't see a path forward there short of something really, really awful like: it was a novel John wrote that was so bad it never found a publisher. Or even a series of novels John wrote, and they did get published, but it was all fantasy. So let's reset to . . . when? How far back would we have to go to make Sherlock good again? I think we'd have to start back at series three. I think we'd have to explain how he survived the fall (and we all know that the writers don't know, which is why they didn't answer that question and instead chose to make fun of the fans for asking). I think we'd have to change Mary or remove her entirely. Because, honestly, the whole mercenary thread? It was pretty awful. I think, if we go with the idea John was writing novels, that was John writing a wish fulfillment/attempt at a James Bond thriller. I think if he's got a girlfriend or a wife, she's probably something fairly normal and not half the fun Sherlock is, which is why John wrote her as way more exciting.* Because he missed Sherlock while Sherlock was "dead."
This is a stretch, I realize. This is Dallas' "all a dream" or St. Elsewhere's snow globe to the maximum. But it's the only way back to good that I can see.
Still, it seems far more likely they'll just leave it and move on. Viewers keep hoping for "one more miracle"—that the show will come back from the dead and redeem itself—but I'm not sure it has any left.
* John's actual wife: "But, dear, why did you kill off the wife?"
John: "The readers didn't like her."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)