Last Saturday, I went to my local Blockbuster (yes, we still have one of those) and rented three movies: Batman: Under the Red Hood, Clue, and Men Who Stare at Goats. I didn't actually get to watching them until today, which was when they were due, so I had a nice marathon.
Batman: Under the Red Hood
I'm not too crazy about the animation design of this one. It reminds me too much of the bland, dead-eyed, Canadian-animated cartoons that plague German kids' networks (like this for example). Actually, it probably resembles the Young Justice TV show a bit more; a little more stylized and shaded, and having slightly more expression in the eyes.
What I do like about this is the voice acting. Bruce Greenwood (Thirteen Days), Jensen Ackles (Supernatural), John DiMaggio (Futurama, Adventure Time), Jason Isaacs (Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Harry Potter series), and Neil Patrick Harris (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, How I met Your Mother) all give good performances. And really, just the fact that THIS is our cast still floors me.
Very well done. Short and sweet.
Clue
Long story short (too late), someone made a movie based off of a board game, and it didn't suck. It's hilarious, and I want more movies with multiple endings.
Men Who Stare at Goats
So this is loosely based off of a non-fictional book written by a guy who interviewed to former members of the "First Earth Battalion". It's a weird one. What I find odd is that it seems as if everyone here is type-casted. George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey basically play the kind of roles you would expect them to. Ewan McGregor is the audience avatar. And Robert Patrick was in here somewhere, but I'm still not sure who he played.
It's pretty bizarre.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
More Morose Bitching
I'm writing this at 2-something AM. I have no idea why I can't sleep. Maybe my mind is actually racing with thoughts and I just haven't been paying attention.
As for the status of anything at this point, I have started editing the Rugrats in Paris review. This might be like editing the first Rugrats review, where I grow more and more reluctant and irritable the closer the review gets to completion. As for any other review ideas, I've had a few, but none that compelled me to actually write something out.
While that's sort of going on, I'm also making progress on fanfics. They seem to be the things I actually enjoy writing. I've finished and posted a one-shot on DeviantArt and FanFiction.net and quite a few people (two) have asked me to write a continuation. I may be up to that once I finish this other fanfic that I haven't updated since September. Irritating how time flies by.
This is my third month back home, and I still don't have a job nor am I taking any classes. I have been applying though. Granted, I haven't been putting all that much energy into it. I've also been told to apply for scholarships.
When I'm not wasting away my days on Tumblr, I tend to do a lot of thinking. The sort of thinking that would get me into a somber mood, guaranteed. I'm not sure how long this has been going on. I wanna say that it started while I was in Germany. That much alone time, especially in an awkward school setting, can be used for existential quandary. Though I'm not sure if I did this same sort of thing back when I was in school, even before my first relationship. Perhaps I was too busy to notice back then.
Whatever the case, I get into these slumps filled with nagging thoughts about the future and how I will view what will eventually be the past at that point. I'm not sure what my deal is. And part of me wonders if I should see someone about this. I can't really go to my friends, most of them are too busy to hang out with me. I don't want to worry my parents too much. Then again, how else could I get an appointment with a therapist?
I don't know anymore.
As for the status of anything at this point, I have started editing the Rugrats in Paris review. This might be like editing the first Rugrats review, where I grow more and more reluctant and irritable the closer the review gets to completion. As for any other review ideas, I've had a few, but none that compelled me to actually write something out.
While that's sort of going on, I'm also making progress on fanfics. They seem to be the things I actually enjoy writing. I've finished and posted a one-shot on DeviantArt and FanFiction.net and quite a few people (two) have asked me to write a continuation. I may be up to that once I finish this other fanfic that I haven't updated since September. Irritating how time flies by.
This is my third month back home, and I still don't have a job nor am I taking any classes. I have been applying though. Granted, I haven't been putting all that much energy into it. I've also been told to apply for scholarships.
When I'm not wasting away my days on Tumblr, I tend to do a lot of thinking. The sort of thinking that would get me into a somber mood, guaranteed. I'm not sure how long this has been going on. I wanna say that it started while I was in Germany. That much alone time, especially in an awkward school setting, can be used for existential quandary. Though I'm not sure if I did this same sort of thing back when I was in school, even before my first relationship. Perhaps I was too busy to notice back then.
Whatever the case, I get into these slumps filled with nagging thoughts about the future and how I will view what will eventually be the past at that point. I'm not sure what my deal is. And part of me wonders if I should see someone about this. I can't really go to my friends, most of them are too busy to hang out with me. I don't want to worry my parents too much. Then again, how else could I get an appointment with a therapist?
I don't know anymore.
Monday, April 15, 2013
The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
This is the sort of novel I think that everyone should read at some point. It certainly was a novel I needed to read, especially at this point in my life.
The novel, later adapted to the screen by it's own author, is a collection of fictional letters written by a teenaged boy who refers to himself as "Charlie". These letters detail "Charlie's" freshman year of high school as well as certain events of his past. Whom the letters are adressed to is never really explained beyond "a person who didn't have sex with this other person at a party, whom some girl was talking about being very trustworthy and stuff".
The identity of the person he writes to isn't really that important, because really, I think the point of the book is that "Charlie" could be anyone (YOU, for example) and could be writing to anyone (YOU, for example). Granted, my life isn't as fucked up as "Charlie's", but there are still things I could identify with.
I seem to remember at some point, way back when I had to read Breathing Underwater by Alex Flinn for school (twice), that I was pretty annoyed at the fact that there were so many books, TV shows, and movies about high school kids with such depressing/interesting lives (self-harm, abuse, sex, drugs, wild partying, et cetera) and almost none about high school kids with lives similar to mine (i.e. boring, would not make good television). The thing is, I was more passive back in junior high and high school. I wasn't even the person with the "normal" life who had friends with "depressing" ones; I was the person who had the "normal" life who had friends with "different but not sad" lives. And I was very much aware of this. So at the time, I regarded this sort of material with a slight animosity (though, I haven't heard of Perks of Being a Wallflower until years later).
I remember when a production of the musical Spring Awakening came to Yakima's Capitol Theater. My family, being theater goers, went to see it. And I remember being angry at how needlessly depressing that show was. It had everything. A scene about masturbation, a scene where a girl tells her friends about her father abusing her, a scene where the female lead asks the male lead to hit her with a riding crop so that she could know what it's like to be abused, a scene where the male lead has sex with the female lead even though she doesn't know that that's where babies come from because her mother wouldn't tell at the beginning of the show, a scene where a kid is driven to suicide by his own sexual frustration, a scene where the male lead is held responsible for the kid's suicide because he gave him a book about sex, a scene where the male lead is thrown in jail while the female lead's mother takes her to get a back alley abortion, and a scene where the male lead breaks out of jail only to find the tombstone of the female lead. Fuck. This. Noise.
So why would I like Wallflower, even though it has such content, and write off Spring Awakening as a waste of time? Really, it's because Wallflower is a book. It takes me a while to read books, meaning that I have more time to spend with the characters, and more time for me to get attached to them. A musical is a story concentrated to 2-3 hours, giving me less time to give a shit about characters that are essentially recycled archetypes anyway. So in musicals, I focus more on the plot and goings-on than I do the characters. And when all I have to focus on is depressing shit piling on like that when I'm not invested in who it's happening to, I get irritated.
That being said, Wallflower also has a few choice quotes, which I'm sure some of you have seen repeated endlessly. This is where "I swear we were infinite" comes from. But there is certainly more beyond that.
So by all means, read this book.
The novel, later adapted to the screen by it's own author, is a collection of fictional letters written by a teenaged boy who refers to himself as "Charlie". These letters detail "Charlie's" freshman year of high school as well as certain events of his past. Whom the letters are adressed to is never really explained beyond "a person who didn't have sex with this other person at a party, whom some girl was talking about being very trustworthy and stuff".
The identity of the person he writes to isn't really that important, because really, I think the point of the book is that "Charlie" could be anyone (YOU, for example) and could be writing to anyone (YOU, for example). Granted, my life isn't as fucked up as "Charlie's", but there are still things I could identify with.
I seem to remember at some point, way back when I had to read Breathing Underwater by Alex Flinn for school (twice), that I was pretty annoyed at the fact that there were so many books, TV shows, and movies about high school kids with such depressing/interesting lives (self-harm, abuse, sex, drugs, wild partying, et cetera) and almost none about high school kids with lives similar to mine (i.e. boring, would not make good television). The thing is, I was more passive back in junior high and high school. I wasn't even the person with the "normal" life who had friends with "depressing" ones; I was the person who had the "normal" life who had friends with "different but not sad" lives. And I was very much aware of this. So at the time, I regarded this sort of material with a slight animosity (though, I haven't heard of Perks of Being a Wallflower until years later).
I remember when a production of the musical Spring Awakening came to Yakima's Capitol Theater. My family, being theater goers, went to see it. And I remember being angry at how needlessly depressing that show was. It had everything. A scene about masturbation, a scene where a girl tells her friends about her father abusing her, a scene where the female lead asks the male lead to hit her with a riding crop so that she could know what it's like to be abused, a scene where the male lead has sex with the female lead even though she doesn't know that that's where babies come from because her mother wouldn't tell at the beginning of the show, a scene where a kid is driven to suicide by his own sexual frustration, a scene where the male lead is held responsible for the kid's suicide because he gave him a book about sex, a scene where the male lead is thrown in jail while the female lead's mother takes her to get a back alley abortion, and a scene where the male lead breaks out of jail only to find the tombstone of the female lead. Fuck. This. Noise.
So why would I like Wallflower, even though it has such content, and write off Spring Awakening as a waste of time? Really, it's because Wallflower is a book. It takes me a while to read books, meaning that I have more time to spend with the characters, and more time for me to get attached to them. A musical is a story concentrated to 2-3 hours, giving me less time to give a shit about characters that are essentially recycled archetypes anyway. So in musicals, I focus more on the plot and goings-on than I do the characters. And when all I have to focus on is depressing shit piling on like that when I'm not invested in who it's happening to, I get irritated.
That being said, Wallflower also has a few choice quotes, which I'm sure some of you have seen repeated endlessly. This is where "I swear we were infinite" comes from. But there is certainly more beyond that.
So by all means, read this book.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
It's Kind of a Funny Story
I started writing this review about a week ago, and even now I have no idea what to say about this film, or rather how to express my feelings in words that people would understand.
But I could still try.
So the movie is about a high school kid who has anxiety induced suicidal thoughts. He decides to remedy this by checking himself into a psychiatric ward for a few days. He spends most of his time in the movie narrating backstory like he's Ned Bigby reading from the Declassified Psych Ward Survival Guide. Now that I think of it, it's sort of like Ferris Bueller, except where Ferris just addressed the audience and nothing much further, Craig narrates quick flashbacks whenever some important information needs to be dropped in.
And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that the film itself has a very pseudo-indie sort of feel, ridiculous fantasy scene set to Queen's "Under Pressure" not withstanding.
On the one hand, its quirkiness is very endearing, but on the other, that may be why it feels so empty and heartless. Relying on and reveling in its quirkiness in order to not work on anything else.
That's probably where the problem lies. This film is marketed toward troubled teens, so it tries desperately to appeal to troubled teens by way of its subject matter, the way information is conveyed, and its recognizable cast (Emma Roberts, Zach Galifianakis, Jim Gaffigan, Viola Davis, Lauren Graham, Aasif Mandvi for about two minutes).
To clarify, my problem isn't the subject matter or the fact that it markets itself to its audience. My problem is that it expends so much energy on trying to be a noteworthy teen movie and not enough energy on being genuine, almost as if the movie itself is an uncertain teenager......well, there you have it.
The film isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, it's cute for what it is and what it's trying to be. Give it a watch and see what you get out of it. And if it becomes one of your favorites, fantastic.
But I could still try.
So the movie is about a high school kid who has anxiety induced suicidal thoughts. He decides to remedy this by checking himself into a psychiatric ward for a few days. He spends most of his time in the movie narrating backstory like he's Ned Bigby reading from the Declassified Psych Ward Survival Guide. Now that I think of it, it's sort of like Ferris Bueller, except where Ferris just addressed the audience and nothing much further, Craig narrates quick flashbacks whenever some important information needs to be dropped in.
And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that the film itself has a very pseudo-indie sort of feel, ridiculous fantasy scene set to Queen's "Under Pressure" not withstanding.
On the one hand, its quirkiness is very endearing, but on the other, that may be why it feels so empty and heartless. Relying on and reveling in its quirkiness in order to not work on anything else.
That's probably where the problem lies. This film is marketed toward troubled teens, so it tries desperately to appeal to troubled teens by way of its subject matter, the way information is conveyed, and its recognizable cast (Emma Roberts, Zach Galifianakis, Jim Gaffigan, Viola Davis, Lauren Graham, Aasif Mandvi for about two minutes).
To clarify, my problem isn't the subject matter or the fact that it markets itself to its audience. My problem is that it expends so much energy on trying to be a noteworthy teen movie and not enough energy on being genuine, almost as if the movie itself is an uncertain teenager......well, there you have it.
The film isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, it's cute for what it is and what it's trying to be. Give it a watch and see what you get out of it. And if it becomes one of your favorites, fantastic.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Me and Orson Welles
One of my problems when it comes to watching movies and writing reviews is that I have difficulty putting down exactly how I feel about a film. Sure, in the video reviews I hide this under generic critical adjectives and mountains of referencial humor, but when doing a straight "what-do-I-think-of-this" sort of review, I at times struggle for words to describe my experience, unless of course the film gives me material to work with, even if the material is just me pointing out idiotic little moments and not looking at the big picture.
That's the sort of feeling I have with Me and Orson Welles, it is not terrible (far from it) enough for me to point out flaws so obvious even an inexperienced moviegoer would find them laughable, and not life-changing enough for me to whip out every clichéd positive adjective imaginable.
The main selling point for Me and Orson Welles, aside from the dramatization of Welles' 1937 production of Julies Caesar, as well as one of the only reasons I was even remotely interested in it, was Disney Channel survivor Zac Efron in the lead role. I have always been interested in actors and actresses who break from their initial successes and branch out to other works. I like watching them evolve in their craft. While I still haven't seen much of Efron's work outside of High School Musical (Charlie St. Cloud, The Lucky One, 17 Again, to name a few), I can say that he gives a believable performance as young high schooler Richard, who easily works his way into a role in Orson's (Christian McKay) play.
Most of the film is Richard's experience in working with the controlling and arrogent Welles, conversing with fellow actors in the production, and smoothly operating with nearly all of the young females in the cast. Admittedly, that last bit is slight exaggeration, but really, the 'plot' is eighteen-year-old Richard's relationship with Clair Danes' character, as well as with a young writer named Greta. We meet with Greta three times in the movie, once in the beginning, once in the middle, and once in the end. Basically, she's the checkpoint.
Perhaps this film is the story of an ambitious young man who makes his way into the world of glamor and fame, even for just a moment, but realizes the hard way how harsh that world can be, so at the end he decides that a simpler reality is for him, not this dictatorship under Welles. He had his fling with the production assistant who spent most of her time trying to get in touch with the director of Gone With the Wind (Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film), and he is ready to try a more naturalistic relationship with the young writer.
Whether or not I will return to Me and Orson Welles has yet to be seen, but if you're interested in seeing Zac Efron in a role not entitled 'Troy Bolton', or Christian Mckay's impeccable Orson Welles impression, I'd suggest, at the very least, a rental.
That's the sort of feeling I have with Me and Orson Welles, it is not terrible (far from it) enough for me to point out flaws so obvious even an inexperienced moviegoer would find them laughable, and not life-changing enough for me to whip out every clichéd positive adjective imaginable.
The main selling point for Me and Orson Welles, aside from the dramatization of Welles' 1937 production of Julies Caesar, as well as one of the only reasons I was even remotely interested in it, was Disney Channel survivor Zac Efron in the lead role. I have always been interested in actors and actresses who break from their initial successes and branch out to other works. I like watching them evolve in their craft. While I still haven't seen much of Efron's work outside of High School Musical (Charlie St. Cloud, The Lucky One, 17 Again, to name a few), I can say that he gives a believable performance as young high schooler Richard, who easily works his way into a role in Orson's (Christian McKay) play.
Most of the film is Richard's experience in working with the controlling and arrogent Welles, conversing with fellow actors in the production, and smoothly operating with nearly all of the young females in the cast. Admittedly, that last bit is slight exaggeration, but really, the 'plot' is eighteen-year-old Richard's relationship with Clair Danes' character, as well as with a young writer named Greta. We meet with Greta three times in the movie, once in the beginning, once in the middle, and once in the end. Basically, she's the checkpoint.
Perhaps this film is the story of an ambitious young man who makes his way into the world of glamor and fame, even for just a moment, but realizes the hard way how harsh that world can be, so at the end he decides that a simpler reality is for him, not this dictatorship under Welles. He had his fling with the production assistant who spent most of her time trying to get in touch with the director of Gone With the Wind (Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film), and he is ready to try a more naturalistic relationship with the young writer.
Whether or not I will return to Me and Orson Welles has yet to be seen, but if you're interested in seeing Zac Efron in a role not entitled 'Troy Bolton', or Christian Mckay's impeccable Orson Welles impression, I'd suggest, at the very least, a rental.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, by Stephen King
One hobby that seems fairly easy but isn't (at least in my experience) is writing, specifically fictional writing. I have come up with a few ideas for fanfics, and I play them in my head like a cerebral cinema, but it's difficult to put it all down in words. One of my current problems with my presently unfinished fanfic is how to connect one scene with another, what should happen, what should be said, how into detail should I go, those sort of things. As a result, I haven't updated said fanfic in about five months or so.
As for Stephen King, I have definitely seen more movies based on his work than read any of his actual work. I started reading Carrie at one point, but never finished. So really, On Writing is the first Stephen King book I've read so far.
In a nutshell, On Writing is one-part memoir and other-part writing handbook. The first half covers certain moments from King's life that he wishes to share with the reader in order to give them an idea of how he formed as a writer. King then transitions into the writing advisory section, with advice about how to form a story (he often refers to the story as a fossil the writer must uncover with the right tools), how to get in touch with agents and publishers, and how to get rid of unnecessary adverbs, among other things.
This book was published in 2000, meaning that he had been working on the first draft for sometime before his near-fatal car accident (rather, he was hit by one) in 1999, so there is a part of the book that deals with this experience.
While I don't have much to say about King's fiction, I can say that he himself seems like an interesting character, from his witty observations to his precise use of the f-bomb. On Writing was a fun read, and hopefully I can figure out how to finish my stories with its help.
Up next: The Perk of Being a Wallflower. Oh joy.
As for Stephen King, I have definitely seen more movies based on his work than read any of his actual work. I started reading Carrie at one point, but never finished. So really, On Writing is the first Stephen King book I've read so far.
In a nutshell, On Writing is one-part memoir and other-part writing handbook. The first half covers certain moments from King's life that he wishes to share with the reader in order to give them an idea of how he formed as a writer. King then transitions into the writing advisory section, with advice about how to form a story (he often refers to the story as a fossil the writer must uncover with the right tools), how to get in touch with agents and publishers, and how to get rid of unnecessary adverbs, among other things.
This book was published in 2000, meaning that he had been working on the first draft for sometime before his near-fatal car accident (rather, he was hit by one) in 1999, so there is a part of the book that deals with this experience.
While I don't have much to say about King's fiction, I can say that he himself seems like an interesting character, from his witty observations to his precise use of the f-bomb. On Writing was a fun read, and hopefully I can figure out how to finish my stories with its help.
Up next: The Perk of Being a Wallflower. Oh joy.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Giving Myself a Reading List
I have so many books that I've bought, but never read. Hell, I'm pretty sure I have more books that I haven't finished than books I haven't started. The main reason for this is that I am not much of a reader. Never really was. In school, reading was a mandated assignment that came with rewards if you over-achieved. In elementary school, I mostly stuck with the Berenstain Bears "big chapter" books. I did try to read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, however, as I recall, it took me three days to finish reading the first chapter.
In middle school, we had a reading pyramid. The assignment was to read 5 books per trimester, a total of 15 per school-year (math is hard). Simple enough. However, the next year, they switched from trimesters to 6-week terms, so students then had to read 3 books per term and write short summaries of each book. It almost seemed as if the school system was trying to make me hate reading.
It wasn't until junior high and high school that I started to warm up to reading. We had a half-hour class called 'Advisory'. It was focused on helping us figure out our post-high school life, but most of the time, it was just a study hall period, and they encouraged us to have something to read. It was at this point in my life when I got into watching The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. So for recreational reading, I read Stephen Colbert's I Am America (And So Can You), Lewis Black's Me of Little Faith and Nothing's Sacred, Alan Moore's Watchmen and V For Vendetta, H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, Michael Ende's The Neverending Story, H.P. Lovercraft's At the Mountains of Madness, Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland series, and Sakurako Kimino's Strawberry Panic series (don't look at me like that).
As of now, I have many books spanning various genres that I would like to read sometime in my nearest future, given that I actually give myself time to read.
Here's is the list (some of these books I had started but haven't yet finished):
Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke
Space Cadet by Robert Heinlein
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick
Howl's Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones
Watership Down by Richard Adams
On Writing by Stephen King
The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
Mogworld by Yahtzee Croshaw
The Cloud Roads by Martha Wells
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson
Dune by Frank Herbert
Looking For Alaska by John Green
Let the games begin.
In middle school, we had a reading pyramid. The assignment was to read 5 books per trimester, a total of 15 per school-year (math is hard). Simple enough. However, the next year, they switched from trimesters to 6-week terms, so students then had to read 3 books per term and write short summaries of each book. It almost seemed as if the school system was trying to make me hate reading.
It wasn't until junior high and high school that I started to warm up to reading. We had a half-hour class called 'Advisory'. It was focused on helping us figure out our post-high school life, but most of the time, it was just a study hall period, and they encouraged us to have something to read. It was at this point in my life when I got into watching The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. So for recreational reading, I read Stephen Colbert's I Am America (And So Can You), Lewis Black's Me of Little Faith and Nothing's Sacred, Alan Moore's Watchmen and V For Vendetta, H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, Michael Ende's The Neverending Story, H.P. Lovercraft's At the Mountains of Madness, Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland series, and Sakurako Kimino's Strawberry Panic series (don't look at me like that).
As of now, I have many books spanning various genres that I would like to read sometime in my nearest future, given that I actually give myself time to read.
Here's is the list (some of these books I had started but haven't yet finished):
Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke
Space Cadet by Robert Heinlein
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick
Howl's Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones
Watership Down by Richard Adams
Mogworld by Yahtzee Croshaw
The Cloud Roads by Martha Wells
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson
Dune by Frank Herbert
Looking For Alaska by John Green
Let the games begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
