Things one will learn while watching New Moon:
a) Bella is coming.
b) Edward does not want her to come.
c) Melissa Rosenberg is just as lazy as the McMurtry & Ossana duo. (Not as lazy, I suppose... there was just that one scene where there were only a few sentences for a five minute sequence and a lack of.... story... for the director to focus on).
d) Seeing Bella from every angle does not make you feel bad for her... and seeing all of her angles three consecutive times will only make you realize how strangely fat, yet bony, her body is.
I got a good laugh.
... this is all I have to say about this film.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
I should have played a video game....
Book Review - "The Lovely Bones" - Alice Sebold - 2.5 stars
I'd like to start out by apologizing to any poor soul who may come across this review and read it, as I have never written a book review before and this will turn out to be a pointless waste of your time - just as reading "The Lovely Bones" was to me.
Now onto my next apology; I apologize to any person who was encouraged to read this book and was influenced with phrases such as "good writing" and "touching story" because I found this book to be far from genius literature. I would put a Gossip Girl novel in the literary time capsule to represent this period of time before I put in "The Lovely Bones."
The book doesn't try to deceive you at any point in time; Alice tells you everything straight-up so you never have anything to ponder in regards to "what will happen next!?" The problem with books like this is that they have no ending, but creative writing classes encourage modern writers to struggle their way through writing these stories so they get practice, despite having no satisfying way to end the story. These classes should also be addressing that the writers should not /publish/ these stories.
The first chapter is interesting. This is purely because the overall idea of the story (having a dead girl look down on family and friends while in her own little heaven) is a fairly brilliant concept. The writing is not exceptional in my opinion until the end of chapter nine or chapter ten. There were two sentences that pulled at my heart strings and, therefore, kept me glued to the book until the last five or six chapters. It seems as though those first nine or ten and last five or six chapters were not edited. I felt as if they were so poorly written in comparison the body of the book that they must have been written by another person.
The middle of the book was amazing - and that is where the 2.5 stars that I have awarded this book come from. Now we come to the end and this is where I will avoid spoiling the book.
The end of the book, stated simply, was an insult to my intelligence and my interests. There is an ending part involving Susie/Ruth/Ray that absolutely disgusted me for three reasons: it completely contradicted the idea that Susie was powerless; Susie, being a rape victim, would not have reacted the way she did; and I felt as if Alice Sebold had no idea how to end the story so she just went and threw in this twist because she felt it would melt the hearts of her pathetic female readers - which would be better than having a regular crap ending.
All in all, I would say you should read the book. However, I would recommend you to stop reading when people are starting to grow up a little too quickly. You'll know what I mean.
I'd like to start out by apologizing to any poor soul who may come across this review and read it, as I have never written a book review before and this will turn out to be a pointless waste of your time - just as reading "The Lovely Bones" was to me.
Now onto my next apology; I apologize to any person who was encouraged to read this book and was influenced with phrases such as "good writing" and "touching story" because I found this book to be far from genius literature. I would put a Gossip Girl novel in the literary time capsule to represent this period of time before I put in "The Lovely Bones."
The book doesn't try to deceive you at any point in time; Alice tells you everything straight-up so you never have anything to ponder in regards to "what will happen next!?" The problem with books like this is that they have no ending, but creative writing classes encourage modern writers to struggle their way through writing these stories so they get practice, despite having no satisfying way to end the story. These classes should also be addressing that the writers should not /publish/ these stories.
The first chapter is interesting. This is purely because the overall idea of the story (having a dead girl look down on family and friends while in her own little heaven) is a fairly brilliant concept. The writing is not exceptional in my opinion until the end of chapter nine or chapter ten. There were two sentences that pulled at my heart strings and, therefore, kept me glued to the book until the last five or six chapters. It seems as though those first nine or ten and last five or six chapters were not edited. I felt as if they were so poorly written in comparison the body of the book that they must have been written by another person.
The middle of the book was amazing - and that is where the 2.5 stars that I have awarded this book come from. Now we come to the end and this is where I will avoid spoiling the book.
The end of the book, stated simply, was an insult to my intelligence and my interests. There is an ending part involving Susie/Ruth/Ray that absolutely disgusted me for three reasons: it completely contradicted the idea that Susie was powerless; Susie, being a rape victim, would not have reacted the way she did; and I felt as if Alice Sebold had no idea how to end the story so she just went and threw in this twist because she felt it would melt the hearts of her pathetic female readers - which would be better than having a regular crap ending.
All in all, I would say you should read the book. However, I would recommend you to stop reading when people are starting to grow up a little too quickly. You'll know what I mean.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
World's Greatest Dad
World's Greatest Dad is a movie about a good writer, but failed writer (Robin Williams) who is the father of a perverse, disgusting young teen (Daryl Sabara). This, "great dad" Lance Clayton, writes his son's suicide note and "journal" after his son's (Kyle) unexpected death. The note and journal soon circulate through school and causes everyone in the school to feel bad about hating Kyle (the perverse son) and change their entire opinion of them.
Read on, this will be a spoiler review
A movie like this [SPOILERS-->] can only end one of two ways. Either Lance gets discovered by everyone and gets thrown down from the pedestal he built on his son's shiny, new image. Or he discovers that lying about who his son really was is not what he wants and so he tears himself off of the pedestal. The movie spends the first half just building up the characters of Father and Son in a non-directional way, but this is okay as you assume that once the characters are established the movie will find its story. While dealing with the subject of death, and in such darkly-mature/immature situation as this death was, the movie feels as though it will solemnly, and sarcastically lead you down the path of dark truth, leave you at the other side realizing that the world is not a better place from this new perspective, laugh at your stupidity, and then dance away like the Pied Piper: Singing happily as you retch from distress.
No. This movie actually ends (unrealistically) pretty positively. After he is realized as a fraud, and after he takes a contrived, uneccesary, and in-a-real-world-would-totally-get-arrested-for bath in the school's swimming pool (naked, of course), he settles down with Kyle's only real friend and the good, quirky old woman next door to watch movies and reflect on what he has learned about life and being decent to true memories.
Robin Williams is a comedian. I find that comedians (because they are over-the-top so often) are not afraid to reach certain emotional levels which other people are afraid reach because they look stupid out of context, though great within. As such, he can be "over-the-top" when he needs to be, which actually can be "spot on" when other actors would miss that mark. However, Robin Williams is over the top only when he does NOT need to be and makes some scenes rather obnoxious to watch.
Daryl Sabara is the reason why you think the movie may be heading somewhere. And I think if someone else had been given the script they would have played Kyle much differently. However, Daryl plays Kyle as a disgusting person, and you do not like him very much for that. Though without showing any sympathetic back story (such as a mother dying, or something), or any personal sympathy, Daryl causes you to be interested in Kyle because of his mannerisms and the way he talks/acts. You are never hate him, and actually feel bad for him, though you hate what he does/says. His performance was stellar, but half way through he dies, and when the non-direction of the film should be taking direction, it doesn't.
I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It is rather funny, especially in the first half. But because of inconsistancys in the directing (I.E. The man who is jealous of Lance's fame is seen looking up the coroner's reports [I wonder how he got them], and in the next scene they are playing golf together happily and there is no script/acting/or directional hint to that coroner report again in the entire movie. [I wonder if they edited out half of the original story]) the movie is without purpose or direction.
If I had to number it, it gets a 65/100
Read on, this will be a spoiler review
A movie like this [SPOILERS-->] can only end one of two ways. Either Lance gets discovered by everyone and gets thrown down from the pedestal he built on his son's shiny, new image. Or he discovers that lying about who his son really was is not what he wants and so he tears himself off of the pedestal. The movie spends the first half just building up the characters of Father and Son in a non-directional way, but this is okay as you assume that once the characters are established the movie will find its story. While dealing with the subject of death, and in such darkly-mature/immature situation as this death was, the movie feels as though it will solemnly, and sarcastically lead you down the path of dark truth, leave you at the other side realizing that the world is not a better place from this new perspective, laugh at your stupidity, and then dance away like the Pied Piper: Singing happily as you retch from distress.
No. This movie actually ends (unrealistically) pretty positively. After he is realized as a fraud, and after he takes a contrived, uneccesary, and in-a-real-world-would-totally-get-arrested-for bath in the school's swimming pool (naked, of course), he settles down with Kyle's only real friend and the good, quirky old woman next door to watch movies and reflect on what he has learned about life and being decent to true memories.
Robin Williams is a comedian. I find that comedians (because they are over-the-top so often) are not afraid to reach certain emotional levels which other people are afraid reach because they look stupid out of context, though great within. As such, he can be "over-the-top" when he needs to be, which actually can be "spot on" when other actors would miss that mark. However, Robin Williams is over the top only when he does NOT need to be and makes some scenes rather obnoxious to watch.
Daryl Sabara is the reason why you think the movie may be heading somewhere. And I think if someone else had been given the script they would have played Kyle much differently. However, Daryl plays Kyle as a disgusting person, and you do not like him very much for that. Though without showing any sympathetic back story (such as a mother dying, or something), or any personal sympathy, Daryl causes you to be interested in Kyle because of his mannerisms and the way he talks/acts. You are never hate him, and actually feel bad for him, though you hate what he does/says. His performance was stellar, but half way through he dies, and when the non-direction of the film should be taking direction, it doesn't.
I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It is rather funny, especially in the first half. But because of inconsistancys in the directing (I.E. The man who is jealous of Lance's fame is seen looking up the coroner's reports [I wonder how he got them], and in the next scene they are playing golf together happily and there is no script/acting/or directional hint to that coroner report again in the entire movie. [I wonder if they edited out half of the original story]) the movie is without purpose or direction.
If I had to number it, it gets a 65/100
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Julie & Julia
I just finished watching Julie & Julia a short time ago.
I wish I could write an amazing review on this movie. However, I am tired and must go to bed as it is late and I need to get up in the morning. So, knowing that if I do not write the review now I probably never will, I must get it done, but quickly. And also, there really is not much that I have to say about this movie that has not been said (probably in better ways) in almost every other review on the internet. But I shall summarize my thoughts:
Meryl Streep does an excellent job. The endearing Julia Child of the world is captured perfectly in the endearing performance of Meryl Streep. Amy Adams, however, was not able to bring a striking performance out of a weak script that has little meaning or character development as Meryl Streep did.
When Julie's husband interacts with her there is some chemistry, but no development. After he complains (truthfully) that she is too self centered he leaves and does not come back until the next day; and when he does come back the only change that happens in character is he has decided (rather, the script has decided for him) that he will put up with her self centered nature, instead of fixing the problem (this is not presented in a "I will put up with you", but a "I'm sorry" type of way. He actually does not have as much to be sorry for as the movie, or [annoyingly] Julie, thinks he does).
The Julia scenes are directed is if you (the audience) are truly just an audience, and rely on the actors themselves to draw you in, which they do, very well, actually.
The Julie scenes are directed more intimately, because goodness knows Amy Adams does not have the feeling in her voice to draw you in herself. Though I feel this choice of separate directing styles may have been a reverence to Julia Child by holding her off a bit, and so a little more like an idol, or grand statue for people to look at, but not to meet. You can read about the statue of liberty, see her, and watch the effect she has on people, but you cannot converse with the lady herself.
The Julia scenes are very entertaining. So entertaining, in fact, that I enjoyed the movie even though these scenes are not as long as the Julie scenes. Those scenes being longer, boring, and without emotion. Amy Adams acts Julie's feelings out, but I do not believe.
Oh and one more thing: Director, you must not put actions in your movies that have no purpose. I realize it may be called a symbol, but usually symbols only make sense if the symbolism is consistent. However, I get the feeling it is less of a symbol, and more of just a cute ending-where-you-started gesture. In any case, butter melts, and that guest book will get extremely disgusting when it does.
I wish I could write an amazing review on this movie. However, I am tired and must go to bed as it is late and I need to get up in the morning. So, knowing that if I do not write the review now I probably never will, I must get it done, but quickly. And also, there really is not much that I have to say about this movie that has not been said (probably in better ways) in almost every other review on the internet. But I shall summarize my thoughts:
Meryl Streep does an excellent job. The endearing Julia Child of the world is captured perfectly in the endearing performance of Meryl Streep. Amy Adams, however, was not able to bring a striking performance out of a weak script that has little meaning or character development as Meryl Streep did.
When Julie's husband interacts with her there is some chemistry, but no development. After he complains (truthfully) that she is too self centered he leaves and does not come back until the next day; and when he does come back the only change that happens in character is he has decided (rather, the script has decided for him) that he will put up with her self centered nature, instead of fixing the problem (this is not presented in a "I will put up with you", but a "I'm sorry" type of way. He actually does not have as much to be sorry for as the movie, or [annoyingly] Julie, thinks he does).
The Julia scenes are directed is if you (the audience) are truly just an audience, and rely on the actors themselves to draw you in, which they do, very well, actually.
The Julie scenes are directed more intimately, because goodness knows Amy Adams does not have the feeling in her voice to draw you in herself. Though I feel this choice of separate directing styles may have been a reverence to Julia Child by holding her off a bit, and so a little more like an idol, or grand statue for people to look at, but not to meet. You can read about the statue of liberty, see her, and watch the effect she has on people, but you cannot converse with the lady herself.
The Julia scenes are very entertaining. So entertaining, in fact, that I enjoyed the movie even though these scenes are not as long as the Julie scenes. Those scenes being longer, boring, and without emotion. Amy Adams acts Julie's feelings out, but I do not believe.
Oh and one more thing: Director, you must not put actions in your movies that have no purpose. I realize it may be called a symbol, but usually symbols only make sense if the symbolism is consistent. However, I get the feeling it is less of a symbol, and more of just a cute ending-where-you-started gesture. In any case, butter melts, and that guest book will get extremely disgusting when it does.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Random Musing (Thanks to Juno)
There is this one part in Juno (and you dare not diss one of my favorite movies on my blog of love) where Mr. MacGuff mentions how he couldn't believe that Paulie Bleeker could "get it up." This one line should further aide the decision of teenagers to postpone their sexual activity status.
When a woman gets married, she might get asked a very general question about her sex life by an overly obnoxious/nosy/caring (redundant much?) mother or close female family member. Once one is married, their parents just naturally assume that they have a sexually healthy relationship. However, a teenager who has sex runs the risk of a parent finding out. If the parent isn't okay with the fact, the child will be under constant scrutiny - which makes the kid contemplate all of the nasty thoughts running through the parents' minds. If the parent is extraordinary liberal and is mighty fine with the fact, the child and parent are more likely to have a "Gilmore relationship" - as I like to call it - and the conversation gets nosy again.
I can't imagine my parents saying "Oh, wow, I can't believe that kid got it up." or "Wow. They do it in the room right next to us and we didn't even hear a sound; how bad could the sex be!?" In all seriousness, a sex life is one's own business and does not need the protruding thoughts of parental figures. Once again, I thank Juno for another reinforcement in my beliefs.
When a woman gets married, she might get asked a very general question about her sex life by an overly obnoxious/nosy/caring (redundant much?) mother or close female family member. Once one is married, their parents just naturally assume that they have a sexually healthy relationship. However, a teenager who has sex runs the risk of a parent finding out. If the parent isn't okay with the fact, the child will be under constant scrutiny - which makes the kid contemplate all of the nasty thoughts running through the parents' minds. If the parent is extraordinary liberal and is mighty fine with the fact, the child and parent are more likely to have a "Gilmore relationship" - as I like to call it - and the conversation gets nosy again.
I can't imagine my parents saying "Oh, wow, I can't believe that kid got it up." or "Wow. They do it in the room right next to us and we didn't even hear a sound; how bad could the sex be!?" In all seriousness, a sex life is one's own business and does not need the protruding thoughts of parental figures. Once again, I thank Juno for another reinforcement in my beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)