The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostava is not to everybody's taste I am sure. As the title states, it is about a historian, or several historians, and much of the book takes place in dusty libraries and various other repositories containing ancient texts and books. But the histories they are searching are of Vlad the Imapler...the Transylvanian prince who fought off the Ottoman Empire and whose cruelties and blood thirstiness led him to become the legend of Count Dracula.
But as we get deeper into the book, and deeper into the characters we become sure that Dracula is not just a legend, but a real vampire...and not from the past, but present now.
This is a creepy book, as much as it presents the artifice of a scholarly tome. It has some very eerie scenes, and some quite freaky. Kostova constructs this artificial history (or is it artificial?) with care...for her words, for the plot and for the art of history.
I think it may be too slow paced for some, but for me it just added layers. The only complaint was a few times she had too many alternate time lines running at once. But that is really a minor quibble.
It is not a fast-paced as say, The Da Vinci Code, and takes its time unravelling the mysteries contained in the historical texts. But it kept me turning the pages, wanting to uncover more alongside the characters.
A great debut novel. Really enjoyable!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Movie-Reign Over Me
This 2007 release did not seem to get a lot of fanfare and was a revelation in many ways.
Reign Over Me stars Adam Sandler in a dramatic role, that is the first revelation. The next revelation...he was good...really good! I mean, not like Laurence Olivier good (but I bet old Larry could never pull off The Waterboy, now could he?), but better than a lot of dramatic actors I have seen on the screen.
And Don Cheadle continues to play roles that while not outside the box, still offer new insights for his acting ability to shine a light on.
These two main characters from a friendship, unexpected and at times difficult. And there lies another revelation. A movie about male friends that is not Brokeback-like, nor a buddy road trip, or a silly frat-house flick, but a look at the bonds mature grown-up men (though troubled with faults)can and do form.
The supporting cast is good, and look for cameos by Donald Sutherland, who is great as an imperious judge, and Office cast member BJ Novak, Intern Ryan.
This is a good movie. Maybe not great, but really good. And that is unexpected because of Sandler's part in it.
Do you think he will try Hamlet next?
Reign Over Me stars Adam Sandler in a dramatic role, that is the first revelation. The next revelation...he was good...really good! I mean, not like Laurence Olivier good (but I bet old Larry could never pull off The Waterboy, now could he?), but better than a lot of dramatic actors I have seen on the screen.
And Don Cheadle continues to play roles that while not outside the box, still offer new insights for his acting ability to shine a light on.
These two main characters from a friendship, unexpected and at times difficult. And there lies another revelation. A movie about male friends that is not Brokeback-like, nor a buddy road trip, or a silly frat-house flick, but a look at the bonds mature grown-up men (though troubled with faults)can and do form.
The supporting cast is good, and look for cameos by Donald Sutherland, who is great as an imperious judge, and Office cast member BJ Novak, Intern Ryan.
This is a good movie. Maybe not great, but really good. And that is unexpected because of Sandler's part in it.
Do you think he will try Hamlet next?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Best Supporting Actor-The Andrew Awards
The nominees for this year best supporting actor are...
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, Hal Holbrook for Into the Wild, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Charlie Wilson's War and Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton.
The winner of the 2008 Andrew Award for best supporting actor is...(cue the music) Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War. (Cue applause).
If you have read my blogs, you know that I have a difficult time in the selection of the supporting roles. That helped my eliminate two nominees right away. Hal Holbrook had such a small role in Into the Wild, and Casey Affleck had such a large role in Jesse James, that I felt neither should be nominated in this category.
That left Javier Bardem, Tom Wilkinson and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Javier Bardem was the winner, but I did not think that role required much at all. It was an intense role, but did not need any range, or subtlety or empathy. Tom Wilkinson was great, and really was the only reason I can think of why Michael Clayton should have been nominated. But the role that Hoffman portrayed in Charlie Wilson's War was just out of this world. Wry, frustrated and accessible, this portrayal of a CIA operative that meets Charlies Wilson is just downright tough to play. At one moment a sidekick, at another an expert and yet another the butt of jokes, this needed super acting ability to play just right...and Hoffman pulls it off.
Philip Seymour Hoffman...best supporting actor for the Andrew Award of 2008.
If anyone else has seen all five supporting roles, tell me what you think.
And just to be clear...posting hyperlinks for the actors is not nearly as much fun as posting hyperlinks for the actresses.
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, Hal Holbrook for Into the Wild, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Charlie Wilson's War and Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton.
The winner of the 2008 Andrew Award for best supporting actor is...(cue the music) Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War. (Cue applause).
If you have read my blogs, you know that I have a difficult time in the selection of the supporting roles. That helped my eliminate two nominees right away. Hal Holbrook had such a small role in Into the Wild, and Casey Affleck had such a large role in Jesse James, that I felt neither should be nominated in this category.
That left Javier Bardem, Tom Wilkinson and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Javier Bardem was the winner, but I did not think that role required much at all. It was an intense role, but did not need any range, or subtlety or empathy. Tom Wilkinson was great, and really was the only reason I can think of why Michael Clayton should have been nominated. But the role that Hoffman portrayed in Charlie Wilson's War was just out of this world. Wry, frustrated and accessible, this portrayal of a CIA operative that meets Charlies Wilson is just downright tough to play. At one moment a sidekick, at another an expert and yet another the butt of jokes, this needed super acting ability to play just right...and Hoffman pulls it off.
Philip Seymour Hoffman...best supporting actor for the Andrew Award of 2008.
If anyone else has seen all five supporting roles, tell me what you think.
And just to be clear...posting hyperlinks for the actors is not nearly as much fun as posting hyperlinks for the actresses.
Movie-Charlie Wilson's War
Charlie Wilson's War---What a frickin' great and entertaining movie! Seriously, it should have been nominated for best picture. But I guess there is room for only one amusing film in the category, and Juno had already taken that spot.
This movie provokes so many emotions. First, it is subversively and whole heartedly funny. It also provokes drop dead amazement about how our system of government works.
It provokes sorrow in a few places, most of all in the ending.
Tom Hanks has the title role of Charlie Wilson, a congressional representative from Texas who has...let us say, a loose code of ethics. But he gets drawn into the plight of Afghanistan as the Soviet Union invades the country in 1980, and becomes a champion for throwing out the communists. hanks needs to be recognized as the greatest living actor we have today. He can handle any role, play comedy and tragedy and drama and romance...sometimes all at once. And in this, he is superb.
The supporting cast is great, headed by Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who deserves accolades of his own for the variety of roles he can play. Both are amazing in these roles. And Amy Adams demonstrates her versatility as Charlie Wilson's aid.
This movie deserves more recognition than it received. it is topical, and funny and dramatic and suspensful...OK...now I see why the Academy did not nominate it...people might want to see it. LOL LOL!
See this movie and tell me what you thought.
This movie provokes so many emotions. First, it is subversively and whole heartedly funny. It also provokes drop dead amazement about how our system of government works.
It provokes sorrow in a few places, most of all in the ending.
Tom Hanks has the title role of Charlie Wilson, a congressional representative from Texas who has...let us say, a loose code of ethics. But he gets drawn into the plight of Afghanistan as the Soviet Union invades the country in 1980, and becomes a champion for throwing out the communists. hanks needs to be recognized as the greatest living actor we have today. He can handle any role, play comedy and tragedy and drama and romance...sometimes all at once. And in this, he is superb.
The supporting cast is great, headed by Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who deserves accolades of his own for the variety of roles he can play. Both are amazing in these roles. And Amy Adams demonstrates her versatility as Charlie Wilson's aid.
This movie deserves more recognition than it received. it is topical, and funny and dramatic and suspensful...OK...now I see why the Academy did not nominate it...people might want to see it. LOL LOL!
See this movie and tell me what you thought.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Best Actress-The Andrew Awards
We have now seen all five of the best actress nominated movies, and this is the toughest category so far to pick a winner. All of the performances were great, and I cannot say that any did not deserve the award. All I could do was start eliminated one by one the nominees, to try to narrow it down.
The nominees are: Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Julie Christie in Away From Her, Marion Cotillard (the Oscar winner)in La Vie En Rose, Laura Linney in The Savages and Ellen Page in Juno.
The winner for best actress in a lead role in the 2008 Andrew Awards is....
Julie Christie in Away From Her.
As I said, I had to eliminate the other actresses one by one. Cate Blanchett was great, but I thought her first portrayal of Elizabeth was better and more nuanced. Laura Linney has played this type of character before...it did not seem a great stretch for her. Ellen Page was great too, but was she acting or just playing herself more or less? Was it her acting or the great script and dialogue?
That left Marion Cotillard and Julie Christie. I can't fault the Academy for picking Marion. She was phenomenal. And her transformation throughout the movie was brilliantly played. But for me, Julie Christie was transcendent in her role of a woman stricken with Alzheimer's. I think I wrote in my blog, that she was luminescent. And she did it without the help of big sets and lots of makeup, she did it quietly, with the power of her acting. Just by a hair, that is why I chose Julie Christie.
Sharlynn actually agrees. I thought she would go with Cate or Marion, maybe even Laura.
Has anyone else seen all the movies? Who would you choose?
The nominees are: Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Julie Christie in Away From Her, Marion Cotillard (the Oscar winner)in La Vie En Rose, Laura Linney in The Savages and Ellen Page in Juno.
The winner for best actress in a lead role in the 2008 Andrew Awards is....
Julie Christie in Away From Her.
As I said, I had to eliminate the other actresses one by one. Cate Blanchett was great, but I thought her first portrayal of Elizabeth was better and more nuanced. Laura Linney has played this type of character before...it did not seem a great stretch for her. Ellen Page was great too, but was she acting or just playing herself more or less? Was it her acting or the great script and dialogue?
That left Marion Cotillard and Julie Christie. I can't fault the Academy for picking Marion. She was phenomenal. And her transformation throughout the movie was brilliantly played. But for me, Julie Christie was transcendent in her role of a woman stricken with Alzheimer's. I think I wrote in my blog, that she was luminescent. And she did it without the help of big sets and lots of makeup, she did it quietly, with the power of her acting. Just by a hair, that is why I chose Julie Christie.
Sharlynn actually agrees. I thought she would go with Cate or Marion, maybe even Laura.
Has anyone else seen all the movies? Who would you choose?
Movie-The Savages
The Savages tells the story about a family named Savage, the father who has dementia, and two grown siblings, brother and sister, who have to deal with this problem.
As we get to know the characters, we find they are not particularly close, and the father was not a good father, or a nice person. But the two younger Savages still must find a way to try and take care of him. As the brother says at one point, after putting the old man into a nursing home, "We are doing a lot better for him than he ever did for us."
That quote captures the essence of this movie. The bitterness is still there, but somehow, these two must find a way to still do the best they can for their dad.
Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman play the Savage siblings and did a great job, Linney being nominated for best actress in the Academy Awards. They both emoted confusion and bitterness, and yet they both show the struggle on how to handle this problem, a problem that is tough enough to face if the family is not extremely dysfunctional.
It is not a fun movie to watch. But at times it is very funny, at other times very sad. And always it tries to get at the truth of human relationships...how we grow, how we deal with crappy situations, how we deal with each other. And it succeeds well enough to leave the viewer with some hope that all of us can make it through the crap, and make ourselves better than we were before.
As we get to know the characters, we find they are not particularly close, and the father was not a good father, or a nice person. But the two younger Savages still must find a way to try and take care of him. As the brother says at one point, after putting the old man into a nursing home, "We are doing a lot better for him than he ever did for us."
That quote captures the essence of this movie. The bitterness is still there, but somehow, these two must find a way to still do the best they can for their dad.
Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman play the Savage siblings and did a great job, Linney being nominated for best actress in the Academy Awards. They both emoted confusion and bitterness, and yet they both show the struggle on how to handle this problem, a problem that is tough enough to face if the family is not extremely dysfunctional.
It is not a fun movie to watch. But at times it is very funny, at other times very sad. And always it tries to get at the truth of human relationships...how we grow, how we deal with crappy situations, how we deal with each other. And it succeeds well enough to leave the viewer with some hope that all of us can make it through the crap, and make ourselves better than we were before.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Movie- War Dance
War Dance, a nominee for best documentary feature was an incredible movie. It follows Northern Ugandan refugee children to a national competition for music and dance.
While the present day story of the kids competing for not only a trophy, but for the respect and recognition of their fellow-countrymen is compelling in and of itself, the back story for some of these kids is moving, terrible and tragic.
The film makers wisely choose to focus on just a few of the young people, more would have diluted the care we feel for the individuals. But it is clear from the graphics, the story of these few applies to many.
At once heart-rending and heart-lifting, War Dance is a beautiful example of the elegy documentary film-making can leave. You will remember this film, it may even haunt you a bit. But this movie should be watched.
Sharon, I think you will like it, especially in light of the paper you wrote.
I highly recommend this one.
While the present day story of the kids competing for not only a trophy, but for the respect and recognition of their fellow-countrymen is compelling in and of itself, the back story for some of these kids is moving, terrible and tragic.
The film makers wisely choose to focus on just a few of the young people, more would have diluted the care we feel for the individuals. But it is clear from the graphics, the story of these few applies to many.
At once heart-rending and heart-lifting, War Dance is a beautiful example of the elegy documentary film-making can leave. You will remember this film, it may even haunt you a bit. But this movie should be watched.
Sharon, I think you will like it, especially in light of the paper you wrote.
I highly recommend this one.
Movie-The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Yes, a long title for a long movie, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is over 2 and half hours. While excellent, the film could have been cut a bit: it would have been fine at a little over 2 hours, especially since we did know how it turned out by comments made at the beginning.
The cinematography was great, beautiful scenes of the (then) western states. The acting was great. Brad Pitt held a unpredictable menace in every scene. Casey Affleck was nominated as best supporting actor, and was very good also.
The title pretty much tells the plot.
One complaint that I have is Affleck's nomination for best supporting actor. I have mentioned before how actors with tiny roles can be nominated in this category...well, this complaint is the opposite. His role was at least a co-star role, if not the lead role in this film. I could see Pitt being in this category more than Affleck quite frankly. A quibble, I know, but it bugs me.
This movie is not rushed at all, and you can't be tired and watch it well. But it is a good piece of story telling about an American legend, that in his time was as known as any media darling today.
The cinematography was great, beautiful scenes of the (then) western states. The acting was great. Brad Pitt held a unpredictable menace in every scene. Casey Affleck was nominated as best supporting actor, and was very good also.
The title pretty much tells the plot.
One complaint that I have is Affleck's nomination for best supporting actor. I have mentioned before how actors with tiny roles can be nominated in this category...well, this complaint is the opposite. His role was at least a co-star role, if not the lead role in this film. I could see Pitt being in this category more than Affleck quite frankly. A quibble, I know, but it bugs me.
This movie is not rushed at all, and you can't be tired and watch it well. But it is a good piece of story telling about an American legend, that in his time was as known as any media darling today.
TV Returns- Samantha Who?
Samantha Who? stars Christina Applegate as a formerly bitchy lawyer, who, due to an accident, has lost her memory. She tries to regain a life, but is shocked as she learns about who she was, and wants to be a better person.
I liked this show a lot initially, but I am starting to get a Little tired of the role of little girl that the writer's have Samantha acting like. It has become a little bit overdone...I would rather see her have lapses into her little girl confused persona as she deals with who she once was, and act like a confused adult more.
Aside from that, Applegate has comedic chops. She does a really nice job, and the supporting cast is great, including Jean Smart as her mother and Jennifer Esposito as her bitchy, narcissistic best friend.
The writer's have a chance to fall into the ridiculous if they don't watch out, and I hope they keep from going over that line. For now, Samantha Who? is fun.
I liked this show a lot initially, but I am starting to get a Little tired of the role of little girl that the writer's have Samantha acting like. It has become a little bit overdone...I would rather see her have lapses into her little girl confused persona as she deals with who she once was, and act like a confused adult more.
Aside from that, Applegate has comedic chops. She does a really nice job, and the supporting cast is great, including Jean Smart as her mother and Jennifer Esposito as her bitchy, narcissistic best friend.
The writer's have a chance to fall into the ridiculous if they don't watch out, and I hope they keep from going over that line. For now, Samantha Who? is fun.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Congratulations are in Order
Big huge life-changing congratulations are in order for our dear friends, Emily and Seth. They are pregnant!!! We have actually known for a little while, but they wanted me to keep it under wraps until she had her first ultra-sound and knew things were going well. Well, today that happened, and the heartbeat was good, and she saw fingers. And baby Hill is doing fine. So, everybody send their best wishes to them both!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Movie-Spiderman 3
This was pretty bad. Spiderman 3 was the worst of the three movies. It had too much of everything, too many super-villains, too many emotional scenes where Toby Maguire cries, too many cool fight scenes, too many plots and it was too damn long!
I liked the other Spiderman movies, but this was really not good. All the actors and characters were back. But it seemed like the writers and director did not feel like they could carry the movie, and just kept adding more more more. I am surprised the kitchen sink did not make a cameo as a reformed super-villain.
Skip this movie. Unless (like me) you once loved comic books. Then you kinda have to see it.
I liked the other Spiderman movies, but this was really not good. All the actors and characters were back. But it seemed like the writers and director did not feel like they could carry the movie, and just kept adding more more more. I am surprised the kitchen sink did not make a cameo as a reformed super-villain.
Skip this movie. Unless (like me) you once loved comic books. Then you kinda have to see it.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Best Actor-the Andrew Awards
Now I have seen all 5 nominees for best actor. They are George Clooney in Michael Clayton, Daniel Day Lewis (the winner of the Oscar) in There Will Be Blood, Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd, Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah and Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises.
The winner of the Andrew Awards for Best Actor (again a drum roll of the mind) is...
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd!
OK...yes, Daniel Day Lewis played an intense role. But how many times have we seen play intense, smoldering, emotionally unstable. That is his bread and butter. But Depp played a role no one even knew if he could do. And he pulled it off fantastically. His singing was very good, and he projected his emotions with song and made me care about this character. Not always agree with his choices, but care about what happens to him...and again, I will say, all in song.
All the actors did great. Viggo Mortensen blew me away and I have posted here about Jones and Clooney.
Sharlynn agrees in this category too.
Anyone else seen all 5 performances? What do you think?
The winner of the Andrew Awards for Best Actor (again a drum roll of the mind) is...
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd!
OK...yes, Daniel Day Lewis played an intense role. But how many times have we seen play intense, smoldering, emotionally unstable. That is his bread and butter. But Depp played a role no one even knew if he could do. And he pulled it off fantastically. His singing was very good, and he projected his emotions with song and made me care about this character. Not always agree with his choices, but care about what happens to him...and again, I will say, all in song.
All the actors did great. Viggo Mortensen blew me away and I have posted here about Jones and Clooney.
Sharlynn agrees in this category too.
Anyone else seen all 5 performances? What do you think?
Movie-In the Valley of Elah
In the Valley of Elah is a film that could have easily been bad. It could have been hysterical where it decides to go quiet. It could have been heroic where it decides to go grim. It could have been a rant instead of a still study. And the decisions were chosen wisely.
Some right-wingers derided it as an anti-Iraq war film. And if had made other choices, it could have been (not that there is anything wrong with that). But this movie is not just about Iraq, it is about war, and the effects of war long after the fighting is done.
Tommy Lee Jones is right for this role, his craggy features registering determination and an aching world-weary sadness. He hurts, deep inside, but also has a pride as he searches for the truth of what happened to his son who had just returned from Iraq. The pain seeps from his pores.
It is a sad tale. And there is little to brighten it, except for the pride. The pride of the father in finding the truth. The pride of the detective, masterfully underplayed by Charlize Theron, in overcoming the beligerence within her own department.
Somehow these subdued performances (with Theron not being sexy at all, but just normal) capture the script perfectly. It is a very well made film. Anti-Iraq? No. Anti war? Yes, I think it does speak out against the traumas that we put people through in this abomination called war.
Some right-wingers derided it as an anti-Iraq war film. And if had made other choices, it could have been (not that there is anything wrong with that). But this movie is not just about Iraq, it is about war, and the effects of war long after the fighting is done.
Tommy Lee Jones is right for this role, his craggy features registering determination and an aching world-weary sadness. He hurts, deep inside, but also has a pride as he searches for the truth of what happened to his son who had just returned from Iraq. The pain seeps from his pores.
It is a sad tale. And there is little to brighten it, except for the pride. The pride of the father in finding the truth. The pride of the detective, masterfully underplayed by Charlize Theron, in overcoming the beligerence within her own department.
Somehow these subdued performances (with Theron not being sexy at all, but just normal) capture the script perfectly. It is a very well made film. Anti-Iraq? No. Anti war? Yes, I think it does speak out against the traumas that we put people through in this abomination called war.
Best Picture-Andrew Awards
As I am getting through all the Oscar nominated films I will post my awards here.
I have now seen all the films nominated for Best Film. They are Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. The Academy picked No Country For Old Men.
The annual Andrew Award goes to...(a little imaginary drum role here please!) Juno!
(And Sharlynn agrees too)
I actually liked this movie. It had great performances, great underlying themes, and was all round a fine piece of movie making. I also do not have the prejudice the Academy does against first time nominees. And I liked that the film was not screechingly long like a lot of the other films. So what that is was contemporary and hip. So what that the lead was a teenager.
Both No Country and Blood were also pretty boring at times. Juno was not. It was better edited and scripted. If not as "deep" as the others, it was also not as dark, and these days, I could go for some light.
Who else has seen all five movies and which would you pick for best picture?
I have now seen all the films nominated for Best Film. They are Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. The Academy picked No Country For Old Men.
The annual Andrew Award goes to...(a little imaginary drum role here please!) Juno!
(And Sharlynn agrees too)
I actually liked this movie. It had great performances, great underlying themes, and was all round a fine piece of movie making. I also do not have the prejudice the Academy does against first time nominees. And I liked that the film was not screechingly long like a lot of the other films. So what that is was contemporary and hip. So what that the lead was a teenager.
Both No Country and Blood were also pretty boring at times. Juno was not. It was better edited and scripted. If not as "deep" as the others, it was also not as dark, and these days, I could go for some light.
Who else has seen all five movies and which would you pick for best picture?
Movie-There Will Be Blood
I had heard quite a bit about There Will Be Blood from friends who had seen the movie and from reviews of it. It was nominated for best picture and best director, and Daniel Day Lewis won for best actor for his role as Daniel Plainview.
Now some friends loved it, thought it was a great movie. Stella and I just talked about it this morning and she liked the contrast between the two evils of religion and capitalism. Seth liked the thought (and I hope I got this right) that asked the question, is the man evil or was he made evil by the pursuit of money or the economic system. And I can see both those views about the movie.
Alex and Sharon saw it, and conceded it was a very well made movie, with lots of interesting subplots and subtexts as mentioned above. They said Daniel Day Lewis earned his Oscar. But, they said, they would not watch this movie again. Alex said that even if it was on free TV, he would purposefully turn the channel.
I agree that it was well made, and all I agree with all the other interesting points made about the movie. But the fact is, I did not like it. I wish I had. I would feel more among the elite if I did, but I did not. And I agree, that I do not think I would watch this film again.
And the point Stella brought up made me think. There is no alternative to evil in this film. Everybody is either evil for due to greed or religion. there seems to be no good in any of them. And if there is one good character, the son, then he is both dead and mute. And maybe that is why I did not like it. For as much as I recognize the shit that is in the world, I also have an intrinsic optimism, the idea that there is SOME good, some where.
Daniel Day Lewis did a fine job. But I do think he overdid it a bit at the end, and seemed more like his character in "The Gangs of New York City." I did not care about him, did not root for him even against him. The film and the role failed to draw me into caring, either hating or loving. I have heard it said the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. I think for a film to work, it cannot create apathy, and that is what this film did for me.
Now some friends loved it, thought it was a great movie. Stella and I just talked about it this morning and she liked the contrast between the two evils of religion and capitalism. Seth liked the thought (and I hope I got this right) that asked the question, is the man evil or was he made evil by the pursuit of money or the economic system. And I can see both those views about the movie.
Alex and Sharon saw it, and conceded it was a very well made movie, with lots of interesting subplots and subtexts as mentioned above. They said Daniel Day Lewis earned his Oscar. But, they said, they would not watch this movie again. Alex said that even if it was on free TV, he would purposefully turn the channel.
I agree that it was well made, and all I agree with all the other interesting points made about the movie. But the fact is, I did not like it. I wish I had. I would feel more among the elite if I did, but I did not. And I agree, that I do not think I would watch this film again.
And the point Stella brought up made me think. There is no alternative to evil in this film. Everybody is either evil for due to greed or religion. there seems to be no good in any of them. And if there is one good character, the son, then he is both dead and mute. And maybe that is why I did not like it. For as much as I recognize the shit that is in the world, I also have an intrinsic optimism, the idea that there is SOME good, some where.
Daniel Day Lewis did a fine job. But I do think he overdid it a bit at the end, and seemed more like his character in "The Gangs of New York City." I did not care about him, did not root for him even against him. The film and the role failed to draw me into caring, either hating or loving. I have heard it said the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. I think for a film to work, it cannot create apathy, and that is what this film did for me.
Congratulations are in Order
Congratulations to my friend Mr. Alex Yates, the new director of communications for the Inland Press Association! Good going Alex!!! He starts on Monday, and his days as house husband have ended to his relief. It took him a bit longer than he expected to find a job after the Chi-Town move, but it sounds like he found a good one!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Movie-Juno
I really liked this movie. I am inordinately fond of this movie. This is a really good movie.
OK, I could go on, but I think get the idea. Juno is an offbeat, slightly skewed look at teenage pregnancy, and somehow it carries an authenticity that is lakcing in many movies.
The performances are what stand out the most. Ellen Page as the main character Juno was fantastic...and different. And I thought Jennifer Garner deserved a Oscar nod in best supporting actress I think, especially for her scene with Juno in the mall...incredible! I think she deserved a nomination over Tilda Swinton (who won the category) and Ruby Dee.
The dialogue too was great; edgy but did not overplay, like making it too much teen jargon that would make us older folk not understand. And it sustained underplayed emotion.
This was just a really really good movie. I give a lot of kudos for originality, and if the subject matter was not entirely original (how many Lifetime movies have been about teen pregnancy) the way it was delivered was, and that counts for much.
Should it have won Best Picture in the Oscars? I don't know...but is sure earned its nomination.
OK, I could go on, but I think get the idea. Juno is an offbeat, slightly skewed look at teenage pregnancy, and somehow it carries an authenticity that is lakcing in many movies.
The performances are what stand out the most. Ellen Page as the main character Juno was fantastic...and different. And I thought Jennifer Garner deserved a Oscar nod in best supporting actress I think, especially for her scene with Juno in the mall...incredible! I think she deserved a nomination over Tilda Swinton (who won the category) and Ruby Dee.
The dialogue too was great; edgy but did not overplay, like making it too much teen jargon that would make us older folk not understand. And it sustained underplayed emotion.
This was just a really really good movie. I give a lot of kudos for originality, and if the subject matter was not entirely original (how many Lifetime movies have been about teen pregnancy) the way it was delivered was, and that counts for much.
Should it have won Best Picture in the Oscars? I don't know...but is sure earned its nomination.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Movie-The Manchurian Candidate
This 2004 remake of the 1962 original film was interesting and as good as the original. Starring Denzel, it tells a story of political intrigue, brainwashing and corporations controlling politicians. The original starred Frank Sinatra in one his best movie roles.
Updated nicely for technological advances, it still is a startling film and not so very far-fetched in many ways, especially with the technological advances.
A thriller and a morality tale, this film (both the films) work well on both levels. A great supporting cast, especially Meryl Streep give very nice back up to Denzel who is still expanding his oeuvre. And doing it very well.
Once in awhile just a tad overdone in the dream sequences, otherwise very good.
Updated nicely for technological advances, it still is a startling film and not so very far-fetched in many ways, especially with the technological advances.
A thriller and a morality tale, this film (both the films) work well on both levels. A great supporting cast, especially Meryl Streep give very nice back up to Denzel who is still expanding his oeuvre. And doing it very well.
Once in awhile just a tad overdone in the dream sequences, otherwise very good.
Movie-Two Brothers
This 2004 movie, Two Brothers is billed as a kids movie. I have trouble seeing it as a kids movie, it was disturbing to us with its indications of animal abuse.
It is about 2 tiger cubs taken into captivity, one with a mean owner and one with a slightly less mean owner. And the cubs are cute and the adult tigers majestic. But in some of the scenes they show a circus man breaking a tiger to get it to jump through a hoop of fire. And they show the tiger doing it.
I had to wonder, how about the tiger actors? Were they all presented with positive reinforcement training? Was there no animal harmed in this film, even when they are pushing the tiger cubs around with sticks...it sure looked scared, or was that method acting?
I am not sure the point of this film, but it was, to use a technical term, icky. It left me feeling like these tigers have it almost as bad as the tigers they are depicting. And it made me dislike animals in entertainment more. Not a kids movie at the very least, unless you want to talk to your kids about animal abuse.
It is about 2 tiger cubs taken into captivity, one with a mean owner and one with a slightly less mean owner. And the cubs are cute and the adult tigers majestic. But in some of the scenes they show a circus man breaking a tiger to get it to jump through a hoop of fire. And they show the tiger doing it.
I had to wonder, how about the tiger actors? Were they all presented with positive reinforcement training? Was there no animal harmed in this film, even when they are pushing the tiger cubs around with sticks...it sure looked scared, or was that method acting?
I am not sure the point of this film, but it was, to use a technical term, icky. It left me feeling like these tigers have it almost as bad as the tigers they are depicting. And it made me dislike animals in entertainment more. Not a kids movie at the very least, unless you want to talk to your kids about animal abuse.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Baja Betty's and Beyond
I did not feel like cooking on Saturday, so we went out for dinner to Baja Betty's on University. This is a fun place, with good food and drinks and a light-hearted atmosphere. I hate to keep harping on Ortegas, but this place was MUCH better. The guacomole was not made fresh at the table, but it was more plentiful and better than Ortegas. I got the rock lobster tacos and Sharlynn had the carnitas. The food was plentiful and really good.
After, we did something we have not done for ages...we went to a strip club. We decided on not goign to Cheetahs, because we wanted to be able to have a drink, so went instead to the former Pacer's, now Larry Flynt's Hustler Club. It is a topless venue, and they have remodeled it nicely.
There were many girls, and one thing we noticed, most of the girls did not have fake boobs. That was pretty refreshing. We enjoyed the show and both got some lap dances. We really had fun and enjoyed the whole evening. Got home about midnight tired but happy!
After, we did something we have not done for ages...we went to a strip club. We decided on not goign to Cheetahs, because we wanted to be able to have a drink, so went instead to the former Pacer's, now Larry Flynt's Hustler Club. It is a topless venue, and they have remodeled it nicely.
There were many girls, and one thing we noticed, most of the girls did not have fake boobs. That was pretty refreshing. We enjoyed the show and both got some lap dances. We really had fun and enjoyed the whole evening. Got home about midnight tired but happy!
Magazines
The March issue of Nat Geo was great. The cover story on animal communication was insightful and the images were out of this world. I also enjoyed the article on looking for the "god particle." Using particle accelerators to smash particles together to discover how the universe was created is a bit mind blowing, but fascinating reading. And the article on Bhutan makes you just hope they can work it out, mingling economic progress while maintaining social traditions is tough, but you end up rooting for it to work here.
The April issue of Playboy was a really good one. The Playboy Forum had great short pieces on the lack of literacy in America and the consequences that brings, and a great piece on the NSA and ATT basically rooming together to catch every work we say in cell phones and online. Scary stuff that. It also had a excerpt from Kurt Vonnegut's last work, about the fire bombing of Dresden at the end of WWII. That incident gave rise to his Slaughterhouse-5. But here he talks about what it was to be there. And an interesting article about bionics...so many body parts can already be replaced, and very soon, many more will be available. And the fiction by Robert Stone was amazing.
The March issue of Zoonooz was so-so frankly. Except for the article about the conservation work being done with palms...very ho-hum.
The April issue of Playboy was a really good one. The Playboy Forum had great short pieces on the lack of literacy in America and the consequences that brings, and a great piece on the NSA and ATT basically rooming together to catch every work we say in cell phones and online. Scary stuff that. It also had a excerpt from Kurt Vonnegut's last work, about the fire bombing of Dresden at the end of WWII. That incident gave rise to his Slaughterhouse-5. But here he talks about what it was to be there. And an interesting article about bionics...so many body parts can already be replaced, and very soon, many more will be available. And the fiction by Robert Stone was amazing.
The March issue of Zoonooz was so-so frankly. Except for the article about the conservation work being done with palms...very ho-hum.
TV Returns- Scrubs
Though maybe not as good as it was a couple of years ago, Scrubs is one of those shows that has my enduring affection.
It is an ensemble cast with Zach Braff as JD in the lead. But the performances around him are great, from Sarah Chalke (candidate for top 5) to John McGinely, all the actors are funny and yet can have truly touching performances too.
And that is one great thing about this show, it can transport you to the funniest of places, and then sober you up showing you death and injury and the pain coming form that.
Scrubs is the godfather to all the single camera quirky comedies that have come after, Arrested Development, 30 Rock and the The Office. It led the way and allowed for comedies to be oout of the norm. I will be looking forward to its final season on ABC where it will go out with a plan...as it should.
It is an ensemble cast with Zach Braff as JD in the lead. But the performances around him are great, from Sarah Chalke (candidate for top 5) to John McGinely, all the actors are funny and yet can have truly touching performances too.
And that is one great thing about this show, it can transport you to the funniest of places, and then sober you up showing you death and injury and the pain coming form that.
Scrubs is the godfather to all the single camera quirky comedies that have come after, Arrested Development, 30 Rock and the The Office. It led the way and allowed for comedies to be oout of the norm. I will be looking forward to its final season on ABC where it will go out with a plan...as it should.
TV Returns-The Office
When this show is right, it is among the funniest on TV. Its return showed when it hits the right notes. Michael and Jan (is there a more dysfunctional couple on TV right now?) invite Jim and Pam and Andy and Angela for a dinner party. Dwight also shows up with a date. And from that simple set-up, it just was laugh out loud funny, if a tad uncomfortable at some points.
When the show goes over the top is when they start putting Michael and Dwight over the top...then the show becomes stupid and almost unwatchable. They should stay with simple and let the laughs ensue from that, rather than complicated situations, which just become so unrealistic.
The Office is best as a half-hour, and the super-sized episodes dilute from the comedy.
I am happy that Pam and Jim remain funny even as a couple. It is a tough thing to pull off, but it is working.
When the show goes over the top is when they start putting Michael and Dwight over the top...then the show becomes stupid and almost unwatchable. They should stay with simple and let the laughs ensue from that, rather than complicated situations, which just become so unrealistic.
The Office is best as a half-hour, and the super-sized episodes dilute from the comedy.
I am happy that Pam and Jim remain funny even as a couple. It is a tough thing to pull off, but it is working.
TV Returns-30 Rock
30 Rock is consistently one of the best comedies on TV. And I was happy to see it back. Tina Fey does such a great job as Liz Lemon (need I say a candidate for the #5 spot in my top 5). But she has not been nearly the revelation that Alec Baldwin is, playing her boss, Jack. He hits every note just right. That growl he has as he says her name, "Lemon." His sleazy TV executive persona, creating shows like MILF Island. C'mon, that seems like it should already be on-air! Paul and I admit we would watch that! LOL! Not that I have any ideas who to cast among my friends! I'll keep that my little secret!
Everyone else in the supporting cast is great too. Just a funny funny show.
MILF Island! I'm still laughing!
Everyone else in the supporting cast is great too. Just a funny funny show.
MILF Island! I'm still laughing!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Movie-Sweeney Todd
Honestly, I was not sure I would like this movie. I like musicals, but the subject matter was so...odd and disturbing that I was not sure I would like this musical.
I was wrong, really wrong. Sweeney Todd is really good. It is strange, as you would expect from a Tim Burton and Johnny Depp collaboration. But the strangeness has a point. I won't give too much of the plot away, but some of the songs lyrics are so full of irony that it made me laugh out loud. And Helena Bonham Carter is fantastic. She also, just as a general rule, is smokin'!
The music by Stephen Sondheim is great and the orchestration for the movie is first rate. Johnny's voice is surprisingly rich and full of emotion as this tortured soul Sweeney Todd should be.
Expect some gore, but it is so make believe gore that you can't get too upset about it.
Really a nice surprise and great entertainment.
I am adding a few more hyper links with Johnny for my dear friend Sharon...Johnny Johnny Johnny
I would not do this for just anyone Sharon!!! LOL!
I was wrong, really wrong. Sweeney Todd is really good. It is strange, as you would expect from a Tim Burton and Johnny Depp collaboration. But the strangeness has a point. I won't give too much of the plot away, but some of the songs lyrics are so full of irony that it made me laugh out loud. And Helena Bonham Carter is fantastic. She also, just as a general rule, is smokin'!
The music by Stephen Sondheim is great and the orchestration for the movie is first rate. Johnny's voice is surprisingly rich and full of emotion as this tortured soul Sweeney Todd should be.
Expect some gore, but it is so make believe gore that you can't get too upset about it.
Really a nice surprise and great entertainment.
I am adding a few more hyper links with Johnny for my dear friend Sharon...Johnny Johnny Johnny
I would not do this for just anyone Sharon!!! LOL!
Monday, April 7, 2008
Movie-De-Lovely
De-Lovely is the 2004 movie about the life of Cole Porter, a musical icon whose theatrical productions are still the envy of any would be Broadway composers. He was one of the best all time.
Now I got this movie after reading a good review, and thought I would like it OK. But I really enjoyed it. Porter is played by Kevin Klein, who does a great job, as does Ashley Judd who plays his wife.
They have an exciting life, but a complicated marriage. And that is very well portrayed in the script and by the two actors. The music is wonderful (for someone who likes golden oldies like me). Everything is top notch in the film, and I can't see one place where it has a glaring weakness. From sets to cinematography, all production values are high, as befits Cole Porter.
Also guest appearances by singers like Elvis Costello, Diana Krall, Sheryl Crow and Alanis Morissette singing Porter's songs was fantastic.
Some of Porter's best known songs are: Let's Do It, Let's Fall In Love" "Night And Day" "I Get a Kick Out of You", "I've Got You Under My Skin" among dozens of others that became standards for Sinatra, Martin and many other great crooners.
And at its heart, it is a love story...a bit unconventional, but still, very much a true love story.
Very good film.
Now I got this movie after reading a good review, and thought I would like it OK. But I really enjoyed it. Porter is played by Kevin Klein, who does a great job, as does Ashley Judd who plays his wife.
They have an exciting life, but a complicated marriage. And that is very well portrayed in the script and by the two actors. The music is wonderful (for someone who likes golden oldies like me). Everything is top notch in the film, and I can't see one place where it has a glaring weakness. From sets to cinematography, all production values are high, as befits Cole Porter.
Also guest appearances by singers like Elvis Costello, Diana Krall, Sheryl Crow and Alanis Morissette singing Porter's songs was fantastic.
Some of Porter's best known songs are: Let's Do It, Let's Fall In Love" "Night And Day" "I Get a Kick Out of You", "I've Got You Under My Skin" among dozens of others that became standards for Sinatra, Martin and many other great crooners.
And at its heart, it is a love story...a bit unconventional, but still, very much a true love story.
Very good film.
TV Returns-Without A Trace
Without A Trace is easily my favorite procedural. The stories many times make me tear up, and that is due to the great acting of Anthony LaPaglia. I cannot believe he has never been nominated for an Emmy.
He plays Jack Malone, the head an FBI missing person bureau. To say Jack is a bit of a rebel, and that he sometimes bends the law is being kind. When Jack gets pissed off, or obsessed about a person that is missing, watch out. But, he does it out a need to help the missing person, especially if it is a child.
The rest of the cast is fine, and two are candidates for the 5th spot in my top 5 list, Poppy Montgomery and Roselyn Sanchez.
But without Anthony Lapaglia, this would just be another procedural.
He plays Jack Malone, the head an FBI missing person bureau. To say Jack is a bit of a rebel, and that he sometimes bends the law is being kind. When Jack gets pissed off, or obsessed about a person that is missing, watch out. But, he does it out a need to help the missing person, especially if it is a child.
The rest of the cast is fine, and two are candidates for the 5th spot in my top 5 list, Poppy Montgomery and Roselyn Sanchez.
But without Anthony Lapaglia, this would just be another procedural.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
TV Returns-CSI
I was an early admirer of this show. When it first came out, it went against a critical fave of critics, The Fugitive on NBC I think. Well, I never watched the fugitive, and watched CSI from the first episode.
It is back, and it is now an old stand by. Not always super original, but you can rely on it. I never have liked the other tow CSI shows, they seemd to much like cop shows. But the original, was about (TV) scientists. And William Petersen has always led the team based on scientific evidence.
It helped me tune in knowing Marg Helgenberger was in it. I admired her work in China Beach, and she was better in every sense in CSI---Hooooootttt! And I actually got a chance to meet her during the second season of CSI when she was at the Super Bowl party hosted by my place of employment. My buddy Paul called me, and said, "I need your assistance now." As he was my boss then, I ran over, and got to meet Marg! Did I mention Hoooootttt! Also a candidate for the 5th spot in my top 5 list.
Anyway, I am happy to see the show back.
It is back, and it is now an old stand by. Not always super original, but you can rely on it. I never have liked the other tow CSI shows, they seemd to much like cop shows. But the original, was about (TV) scientists. And William Petersen has always led the team based on scientific evidence.
It helped me tune in knowing Marg Helgenberger was in it. I admired her work in China Beach, and she was better in every sense in CSI---Hooooootttt! And I actually got a chance to meet her during the second season of CSI when she was at the Super Bowl party hosted by my place of employment. My buddy Paul called me, and said, "I need your assistance now." As he was my boss then, I ran over, and got to meet Marg! Did I mention Hoooootttt! Also a candidate for the 5th spot in my top 5 list.
Anyway, I am happy to see the show back.
TV Returns-My Name is Earl
This show just amuses me. Not always laugh out loud funny, many times just smiling and amused funny, but it never is just bad. That is a rarity for sitcoms.
The show has a strong moral center, despite the trailer park exterior of the characters. And it is thoughtful, which is why it sometimes is not laugh out loud funny. It has a quiet mustachioed strength to it.
"My Name is Earl" is one of the Thursday night comedies on NBC. And while not flashy and over the top like The Office, and not ground breaking like Scrubs and 30 Rock, I think it is the heart of the lineup, because it has so much heart.
And Nadine Velezquez is a candidate for my top 5 list, so that helps the show too!
I really enjoy this show, and look forward to it every week.
The show has a strong moral center, despite the trailer park exterior of the characters. And it is thoughtful, which is why it sometimes is not laugh out loud funny. It has a quiet mustachioed strength to it.
"My Name is Earl" is one of the Thursday night comedies on NBC. And while not flashy and over the top like The Office, and not ground breaking like Scrubs and 30 Rock, I think it is the heart of the lineup, because it has so much heart.
And Nadine Velezquez is a candidate for my top 5 list, so that helps the show too!
I really enjoy this show, and look forward to it every week.
Movie-"Into the Wild"
This film got pretty good reviews, and I hate to go against the crowd and all, but I did not think it was that great.
Into the Wild (and this is my take) is about a spoiled rich kids whose family life has some dysfunction. So he decides he is going to leave the consumer rat race and be alone in nature. He becomes single minded in his quest to do so, leaving hurting people behind, and not giving a crap. He says to another character, and I paraphrase, "Your problem is that you think happiness lies in relationships between people, and that is not true."
Oh what pretentious BS! At the end he realizes that he was wrong, that he had become so egotistical in the pursuit of his own philosophy, that he missed all the chances for actually being happy WITH people. What an ass!
The acting was good. You have to give some props to Emile Hirsch for taking his part so seriously he looks like he is starving to death, as the character did. But Sean Penn's direction is heavy handed here. A few things just stood out so badly to me: When he is on the road and eating an apple and talking to the apple, and looks into the camera as if it is another character, his glee in inventing a shower and the shower scene that goes in slow-mo as he is shaking his wet hair and and water is spraying off, and last, the skinniness itself. Sean Penn works way too hard to show us how skinny he is, almost like saying, wow, look at this actor and his commitment to the role, he looks like a cadaver! Way too heavy handed.
Hal Holbrook received a nomination as best supporting actor for his role in the film. And he did a fine job. I believed in his character. But I did not believe in the relationship between him and the main character.
I just saw this character as egotistical and spoiled, self centered and hurtful. And I saw his journey as plain stupid. I did not feel sympathy for him, did not believe he was like Thoreau at all in his reasons for wanting to get to nature, and actively disliked his unrepentant hurtfulness to other people.
I guess it would be hard to like the movie if I feel that way, huh?
Into the Wild (and this is my take) is about a spoiled rich kids whose family life has some dysfunction. So he decides he is going to leave the consumer rat race and be alone in nature. He becomes single minded in his quest to do so, leaving hurting people behind, and not giving a crap. He says to another character, and I paraphrase, "Your problem is that you think happiness lies in relationships between people, and that is not true."
Oh what pretentious BS! At the end he realizes that he was wrong, that he had become so egotistical in the pursuit of his own philosophy, that he missed all the chances for actually being happy WITH people. What an ass!
The acting was good. You have to give some props to Emile Hirsch for taking his part so seriously he looks like he is starving to death, as the character did. But Sean Penn's direction is heavy handed here. A few things just stood out so badly to me: When he is on the road and eating an apple and talking to the apple, and looks into the camera as if it is another character, his glee in inventing a shower and the shower scene that goes in slow-mo as he is shaking his wet hair and and water is spraying off, and last, the skinniness itself. Sean Penn works way too hard to show us how skinny he is, almost like saying, wow, look at this actor and his commitment to the role, he looks like a cadaver! Way too heavy handed.
Hal Holbrook received a nomination as best supporting actor for his role in the film. And he did a fine job. I believed in his character. But I did not believe in the relationship between him and the main character.
I just saw this character as egotistical and spoiled, self centered and hurtful. And I saw his journey as plain stupid. I did not feel sympathy for him, did not believe he was like Thoreau at all in his reasons for wanting to get to nature, and actively disliked his unrepentant hurtfulness to other people.
I guess it would be hard to like the movie if I feel that way, huh?
Book-"Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell"
First off, this is a big book. I had it in my backpack and dropped the pack on my toe...I felt like it almost broke it. So, I am glad I finished it so I can get my bicep back down to its normal size!
This book is had to classify. About magicians in 19th century England, who can call on fairies, and do other magical work to protect England from France, it seems to fit into the fantasy genre. But it is written like a 19th century novel. Reading many other reviews of the book, many mention a similarity to Dickens. I think the writing is more akin to Anthony Trollope, who I read quite a it of last year, BB (before blog).
And that similarity makes action much slower, and character development much longer, than in modern fiction, and particularly, in fantasy. There were times were I would grow a bit aggravated, because while I enjoyed Trollope, I knew he wrote in the 19th century, and did not think the style was needed in this one.
However, it was rich book, and despite some slower parts, kept me reading. The relationship between the two title characters, the two magicians, is intriguing, and the secrets that are the basis of the magic kept the pages turning.
I do think that the melding of the two genres was original, and I give creds for that. But I hope the author, Susanna Clarke does not rely on that for her whole career, because it could get tiresome. One large book like that is fine, but more would most likely lose my readership.
I would say I enjoyed the read, but at the same time, kept wanting it to be over, or get to the denouement faster.
This book is had to classify. About magicians in 19th century England, who can call on fairies, and do other magical work to protect England from France, it seems to fit into the fantasy genre. But it is written like a 19th century novel. Reading many other reviews of the book, many mention a similarity to Dickens. I think the writing is more akin to Anthony Trollope, who I read quite a it of last year, BB (before blog).
And that similarity makes action much slower, and character development much longer, than in modern fiction, and particularly, in fantasy. There were times were I would grow a bit aggravated, because while I enjoyed Trollope, I knew he wrote in the 19th century, and did not think the style was needed in this one.
However, it was rich book, and despite some slower parts, kept me reading. The relationship between the two title characters, the two magicians, is intriguing, and the secrets that are the basis of the magic kept the pages turning.
I do think that the melding of the two genres was original, and I give creds for that. But I hope the author, Susanna Clarke does not rely on that for her whole career, because it could get tiresome. One large book like that is fine, but more would most likely lose my readership.
I would say I enjoyed the read, but at the same time, kept wanting it to be over, or get to the denouement faster.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Work
I don't plan to talk about work very often in this blog. I am trying to not think about it when I away from it. But I have to say, it has become a soul sucking monster. Another valued co-worker is leaving because he is just being treated like a piece of crap. How many have we lost, due to this terrible management? Too many, that is for sure. It is difficult to be there, and see it all going on, and I feel like I am targeted now too. I won't go into any more, but, it stinks right now.
Golf
In the past couple of weeks I have tried all sorts of new things; acupuncture, opera and last night, golf. We went out with Emily and Seth to Mission Bay golf course and did nine holes. Now I won't go so far as to say that I have potential but I had fun.
Those two, on the other hand, can smack that damn small ball! They know how to drive, that is for sure. Sharlynn and I had a good time, and while I don't think we will become addicted to it, I think we will go out and smack it around from time to time. It was fun to do something different and to hang around with Seth and Emily.
They are playing in a tournament today, so last nights game was just a warm up for them. They were nice enough to let us use their old clubs for awhile.
I, on the other hand, am a bit sore from using muscles in ways I don't normally use them.
Those two, on the other hand, can smack that damn small ball! They know how to drive, that is for sure. Sharlynn and I had a good time, and while I don't think we will become addicted to it, I think we will go out and smack it around from time to time. It was fun to do something different and to hang around with Seth and Emily.
They are playing in a tournament today, so last nights game was just a warm up for them. They were nice enough to let us use their old clubs for awhile.
I, on the other hand, am a bit sore from using muscles in ways I don't normally use them.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Movie- Operation Homecoming
This is one of the documentaries nominated for the Oscar, Operation Homecoming does not take political sides on the present war in Iraq. It does allow the soldiers themselves to talk about what they experience, and how they cope.
It is quiet in some ways. Relying on different visuals to add to the words of the soldiers themselves. Never shrill, or preachy, it is moving, and disturbing.
The idea for the film came a project that brought professional writers (themselves participants in wars past) to Iraq to get the soldiers to write about what they have been involved in. The results are a way for the military men to try to find expression for the horror, boredom and terror they feel and see.
While I do not think it should have won the Oscar, it did deserve its nomination.
It is quiet in some ways. Relying on different visuals to add to the words of the soldiers themselves. Never shrill, or preachy, it is moving, and disturbing.
The idea for the film came a project that brought professional writers (themselves participants in wars past) to Iraq to get the soldiers to write about what they have been involved in. The results are a way for the military men to try to find expression for the horror, boredom and terror they feel and see.
While I do not think it should have won the Oscar, it did deserve its nomination.
A Night at the Opera
We were able to attend the opera in part because HR was able to secure us half price tickets. I have been wanting to see performances but have been a bit put off by ticket prices, upwards of a hundred bucks (a little ridiculous if you ask me).
So, I was really happy when HR was able to offer this for employees. Even happier in that I had seen a really good review of the current performance in the UT just the day before the offer came out. We saw two operas, many time performed together as they are short (by opera standards). The first was Cavalleria Rusticana and the second Pagliacci. The two are commonly called Cav/Pag in their twin bill.
The first, Cav, was a bit slow. OK, moved like molasses. Maybe by operatic standards it was nicely paced, but while the performances were good, good god!, move it along a little! The tenors of both performances were touted as high caliber. And in Cav, Richard Leech was good. However, there were no outstanding arias in the performance, and again it dragged, despite the leading lady who was great.
So I was really looking forward to the second one, where the tenor was really highly praised. And Pagliacci was much better than Cav. With more action and more drama, Jose Cura really had a fantastic opportunity to shine. And he did. His aria, at the end of the first act was touching and beautiful. The sad clown laments that to the public he must put on a happy face, but he is a man, just as anyone else, suffering and prone to heartache. And don't we all feel that way sometimes? That we put on a happy face, and that no one seems to empathise with the pain we have inside of us.
These two operas are considered verismo, that is rustic operas concerned with the fates of everyday people. As opposed to grand opera, like Aida.
How did I like my first opera? I am still debating that question frankly. It is hard for me not to enjoy any live performance. And I did like Pag a lot. If I had only seen Cavalleria I may have been put off on opera. So I can say I enjoyed the experience greatly. I enjoyed the operas somewhat.
Would I go again? Yes! Emphatically yes. I would love to see a grand opera, like Carmen, that I would know some more of the music of, and has more known arias. I am glad we were able to go, that is for certain.
One thing I will say, I wish San Diego had a better opera house than the Civic Theater. It does not lend itself to opera very well.
A new experience...a new sensation...a fun night. A successful night at the opera all in all.
So, I was really happy when HR was able to offer this for employees. Even happier in that I had seen a really good review of the current performance in the UT just the day before the offer came out. We saw two operas, many time performed together as they are short (by opera standards). The first was Cavalleria Rusticana and the second Pagliacci. The two are commonly called Cav/Pag in their twin bill.
The first, Cav, was a bit slow. OK, moved like molasses. Maybe by operatic standards it was nicely paced, but while the performances were good, good god!, move it along a little! The tenors of both performances were touted as high caliber. And in Cav, Richard Leech was good. However, there were no outstanding arias in the performance, and again it dragged, despite the leading lady who was great.
So I was really looking forward to the second one, where the tenor was really highly praised. And Pagliacci was much better than Cav. With more action and more drama, Jose Cura really had a fantastic opportunity to shine. And he did. His aria, at the end of the first act was touching and beautiful. The sad clown laments that to the public he must put on a happy face, but he is a man, just as anyone else, suffering and prone to heartache. And don't we all feel that way sometimes? That we put on a happy face, and that no one seems to empathise with the pain we have inside of us.
These two operas are considered verismo, that is rustic operas concerned with the fates of everyday people. As opposed to grand opera, like Aida.
How did I like my first opera? I am still debating that question frankly. It is hard for me not to enjoy any live performance. And I did like Pag a lot. If I had only seen Cavalleria I may have been put off on opera. So I can say I enjoyed the experience greatly. I enjoyed the operas somewhat.
Would I go again? Yes! Emphatically yes. I would love to see a grand opera, like Carmen, that I would know some more of the music of, and has more known arias. I am glad we were able to go, that is for certain.
One thing I will say, I wish San Diego had a better opera house than the Civic Theater. It does not lend itself to opera very well.
A new experience...a new sensation...a fun night. A successful night at the opera all in all.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Movie-Surf's Up
Surf's Up is the second of the three movies nominated for best animation feature film. Ratatouille was the winner, and we had seen that PB (pre-blog). I like the rat movie, but still cannot really get over a bunch of rats in the kitchen. I could deal with the one sorta, but a buttload of them...sorry, not my cuisine!
Anyway, Surf's Up, about penguins in a surfing contest was cute...it was fine...it wasn't a waste of an hour and half, not completely. But it wasn't that great either. The animation of the waves was fantastic, but the story was ehhhh. There were no "Oh Wow" or LOL moments.
I am looking forward to the third nominated feature, Persepolis, which is not really a cutesy movie, even though it is animated. But as yet, there is no release date for it.
Seems like '07 was not the strongest year for animated features.
Anyway, Surf's Up, about penguins in a surfing contest was cute...it was fine...it wasn't a waste of an hour and half, not completely. But it wasn't that great either. The animation of the waves was fantastic, but the story was ehhhh. There were no "Oh Wow" or LOL moments.
I am looking forward to the third nominated feature, Persepolis, which is not really a cutesy movie, even though it is animated. But as yet, there is no release date for it.
Seems like '07 was not the strongest year for animated features.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
