H and I decided to go see this based solely on one joke that happens in the first twenty minutes of the movie. As far as I was concerned, the movie had little else to recommend it. I am not a fan of Steve Carell's work in general and reviews of the first film were pretty like warm.
It turns out that the sequel is better than the original. It must be because they ramped up the minion count. The adult characters are forgettable. The children are cute, but forgettable. The story is sweet, but predictable and forgettable.
What keeps things interesting is the comedy of the minions. I laughed enough to not feel like we wasted our money. I can imagine watching with wee child on Netflix and enjoying it.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Monday, August 12, 2013
The Avengers
The Avengers finally made it to Netflix! It is not that I wouldn't have paid to see it in the theaters; I just didn't want to expend precious escape points on it last summer and couldn't get H to go with me on date night.
It was probably for the best. It is one of the best super hero movies I've seen, but it wasn't special enough to trade for a day of kayaking or a bike ride. Whedon is a master of the small screen and that removed the things that make a movie a must see in the theater. Some movies need a huge screen, The Avengers did just fine on my 36" screen.
The things that made the movie standout were all in the interplay of the characters. Sure most of the characters are pretty stock super hero types, but watching them interact and learn to form a team is interesting. The least interesting characters were Hawkeye and Scarlet Johansen. I'm hoping they ditch them in favor of some actual super heroes or give them personalities in the sequel.
Marvel has gotten the super hero movie figured out. They brought in serious acting talent and focused on the characters. The even found a way to make the Hulk interesting. I still don't think the new Hulk could support a standalone movie, but he does make a nice addition to the ensemble.
I'm hoping they stick to the formula for at least a few more movies.
It was probably for the best. It is one of the best super hero movies I've seen, but it wasn't special enough to trade for a day of kayaking or a bike ride. Whedon is a master of the small screen and that removed the things that make a movie a must see in the theater. Some movies need a huge screen, The Avengers did just fine on my 36" screen.
The things that made the movie standout were all in the interplay of the characters. Sure most of the characters are pretty stock super hero types, but watching them interact and learn to form a team is interesting. The least interesting characters were Hawkeye and Scarlet Johansen. I'm hoping they ditch them in favor of some actual super heroes or give them personalities in the sequel.
Marvel has gotten the super hero movie figured out. They brought in serious acting talent and focused on the characters. The even found a way to make the Hulk interesting. I still don't think the new Hulk could support a standalone movie, but he does make a nice addition to the ensemble.
I'm hoping they stick to the formula for at least a few more movies.
Pacific Rim
The first thing to know about Pacific Rim is that it exactly what it looks like: a 21st century remake of an old Japanese monster movie. It is giant robots fighting giant monsters with all of the standard tropes that goes along with the genre. The acting is over the top, the characters are archetypal, the dialog is stilted, and the plot is predictable. If you grew up, as I did, watching Godzilla, Gamara, Monster X, and Mega Man, you know what to expect. If not, it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out.
That is not a criticism. In fact, it is high praise the del Toro can make a serious block buster out of a genre that has been nearly destroyed by the likes of Transformers, Cloverfield, and re-imaginings of Godzilla.
del Toro clearly understands and loves the genre. He is also a true artisan. Pacific Rim is beautiful, exciting, and engaging. The monsters and robots have a weight and scale that is rarely seen in movies today. It is not that the robots in Transformers and the monster from Cloverfield are not big, it is that they don't have any weight. In Pacific Rim, they feel big and solid. When they hit, you feel the amount of damage being done. They also have a realism about them that adds to the sense of awe. Each robot has characteristics that align it with its country of origin. They are not just generic robots. The monster also have an organic quality and vague similarity to living creatures makes them feel alive.
The characters are archetypes, but del Toro adds just enough depth to make them interesting. You actually care about their fates. His oriental wonder girl is more than just a sexual force to guide the lost hero back to the world. She has her own issues. The stock mad scientists are goofy comic relief, but they also serve a point in the story.
That the characters are engaging is a vital strength because the plot is entirely predictable. You know how things are going to end up, but you still get caught up. The tension points work because you care enough to not want bad things to happen. Enough bad things do happen that you believe just enough that the really bad things will happen.
I saw Pacific Rim in IMAX 3-d. The 3-d was cool in some parts, but in others it was actually a distraction. There were also some spots where the projection was blotchy. If I were going to see it again, I would see it in regular IMAX. The scale of IMAX is perfect for Pacific Rim. It is a big film and makes the most out the big screen.
That is not a criticism. In fact, it is high praise the del Toro can make a serious block buster out of a genre that has been nearly destroyed by the likes of Transformers, Cloverfield, and re-imaginings of Godzilla.
del Toro clearly understands and loves the genre. He is also a true artisan. Pacific Rim is beautiful, exciting, and engaging. The monsters and robots have a weight and scale that is rarely seen in movies today. It is not that the robots in Transformers and the monster from Cloverfield are not big, it is that they don't have any weight. In Pacific Rim, they feel big and solid. When they hit, you feel the amount of damage being done. They also have a realism about them that adds to the sense of awe. Each robot has characteristics that align it with its country of origin. They are not just generic robots. The monster also have an organic quality and vague similarity to living creatures makes them feel alive.
The characters are archetypes, but del Toro adds just enough depth to make them interesting. You actually care about their fates. His oriental wonder girl is more than just a sexual force to guide the lost hero back to the world. She has her own issues. The stock mad scientists are goofy comic relief, but they also serve a point in the story.
That the characters are engaging is a vital strength because the plot is entirely predictable. You know how things are going to end up, but you still get caught up. The tension points work because you care enough to not want bad things to happen. Enough bad things do happen that you believe just enough that the really bad things will happen.
I saw Pacific Rim in IMAX 3-d. The 3-d was cool in some parts, but in others it was actually a distraction. There were also some spots where the projection was blotchy. If I were going to see it again, I would see it in regular IMAX. The scale of IMAX is perfect for Pacific Rim. It is a big film and makes the most out the big screen.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
World War Z
I must admit upfront that I am a huge fan of the book. It is one of the most compelling social commentaries I've read. By combining documentary style with first person narration and zombies, Brooks crafted a master piece that is accessible to just about anyone who can read.
I am also a firm believer that a film based on a book cannot be judged through the lens of the book. Film and literature are different mediums and require different narrative techniques.
So, when I found out that World War Z the movie was nothing like the book, I wasn't too surprised. Many of the things that make the novel great would ruin a movie. Movies do best when they have a small cast and a relatively cohesive narrative arch; Brooks' novel doesn't have either. One could have taken the infantry man's story and pieced together a good story by dropping in bits from the other narratives as news flashes or other bits.
That, however, was not the path taken. The producers instead choose to create a new plot. All in all, it is not a terrible plot for a generic action movie that has some zombies. It hits all the right notes; sensitive, reluctant hero; big set pieces; creepy hallway zombie sequence; ambiguous ending.
The acting, what little that is required, is passable. I believe the Pitt character enough to be moderately concerned when he is in peril. I don't, however, care enough not to find the maudlin stuff about his family sort of annoying.
The effects are fabulous. I saw it in 3D and liked it. I'm not sure the 3D really added anything, but it didn't hurt. In fact the visual spectacle was perhaps the best thing about the movie. The scene where Israel is overrun is almost worth the price of admission. It is way better on the big screen than on the TV screen.
In the end, the World War Z is not a bad way to spend a hot summer night. It is well made, not overtly pandering, and a little scary at times. Just do not expect anything at all like the book. The movie is not a masterwork.
I am also a firm believer that a film based on a book cannot be judged through the lens of the book. Film and literature are different mediums and require different narrative techniques.
So, when I found out that World War Z the movie was nothing like the book, I wasn't too surprised. Many of the things that make the novel great would ruin a movie. Movies do best when they have a small cast and a relatively cohesive narrative arch; Brooks' novel doesn't have either. One could have taken the infantry man's story and pieced together a good story by dropping in bits from the other narratives as news flashes or other bits.
That, however, was not the path taken. The producers instead choose to create a new plot. All in all, it is not a terrible plot for a generic action movie that has some zombies. It hits all the right notes; sensitive, reluctant hero; big set pieces; creepy hallway zombie sequence; ambiguous ending.
The acting, what little that is required, is passable. I believe the Pitt character enough to be moderately concerned when he is in peril. I don't, however, care enough not to find the maudlin stuff about his family sort of annoying.
The effects are fabulous. I saw it in 3D and liked it. I'm not sure the 3D really added anything, but it didn't hurt. In fact the visual spectacle was perhaps the best thing about the movie. The scene where Israel is overrun is almost worth the price of admission. It is way better on the big screen than on the TV screen.
In the end, the World War Z is not a bad way to spend a hot summer night. It is well made, not overtly pandering, and a little scary at times. Just do not expect anything at all like the book. The movie is not a masterwork.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Paranorman
I'm a sucker for a good misfit movie and Paranorman did not disapoint. It ticks all of the right boxes. Misfit kid with specail ability, a well meaning but clueless family, the mistfit freind, the gaurdian spirit, the mission to save the world, and zombies are all there. More importantly, the movie is smart, funny, and doesn't skimp on the scary to spare the kids. Saving the world requires Norman to work through some pretty rough stuff given that the target audience for the film is 12.
The the subversive humor is what makes the movie work and keeps it from drowning in its message. The creeepy uncle is creepy but is done humorously. The zombies are also creepy in a funny way. The only truly scary character is the witch.
I highly recommend Paranorman.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Grizzly Man
One of the things I love about Werner Hertzog's documentaries, besides his voice, is the brutally unromantic lens through which he views life. In Hertzog's world there are no heroes, no villains, and no fools; there are just people. Nature is majestic, brutal, merciless, and mercurial.
Grizzly Man examines the life and death of Timothy Treadwell, a self proclaimed protector of the grizzly bears. Treadwell spent 13 summers living in close contact with the bears. Shortly before decamping from the last summer, Treadwell and a companion were eaten by one of the grizzlies. He was clearly insane in the nobel manner of fools.
In the hands of most documentarians, Treadwell would be portrayed as either a nobel fool, a hero, a lunatic, or a menace. In Hertzog's hands, though he is all of these and none of them. Hertzog doesn't allows both Treadwell's champions and Treadwell's detractors to have a voice. There is no comment on whether Treadwell's actions were beneficial or harmful to the bears. Hertzog's world view doesn't accept that the actions of a single man can have a bearing on the bears; they will be as they will be.
His focus is on examining Treadwell's soul. What made the man tick. Ultimately, Hertzog portrays Treadwell as a lost boy. He is a man who was never solidly grounded in the human world. The bears speak to him and over the course of his years with them, Treadwell crosses a line beyond which he can never really exist in the human world. Neither can he live in the bear's world.
The film uses much of Treadwell's own film. It is stunning footage. Interspersed with Treadwell's film are interviews in which Hertzog draws out his subjects. Some of the interviews are painfully raw.
Grizzly Man examines the life and death of Timothy Treadwell, a self proclaimed protector of the grizzly bears. Treadwell spent 13 summers living in close contact with the bears. Shortly before decamping from the last summer, Treadwell and a companion were eaten by one of the grizzlies. He was clearly insane in the nobel manner of fools.
In the hands of most documentarians, Treadwell would be portrayed as either a nobel fool, a hero, a lunatic, or a menace. In Hertzog's hands, though he is all of these and none of them. Hertzog doesn't allows both Treadwell's champions and Treadwell's detractors to have a voice. There is no comment on whether Treadwell's actions were beneficial or harmful to the bears. Hertzog's world view doesn't accept that the actions of a single man can have a bearing on the bears; they will be as they will be.
His focus is on examining Treadwell's soul. What made the man tick. Ultimately, Hertzog portrays Treadwell as a lost boy. He is a man who was never solidly grounded in the human world. The bears speak to him and over the course of his years with them, Treadwell crosses a line beyond which he can never really exist in the human world. Neither can he live in the bear's world.
The film uses much of Treadwell's own film. It is stunning footage. Interspersed with Treadwell's film are interviews in which Hertzog draws out his subjects. Some of the interviews are painfully raw.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Iron Man 3
The Marvel Movie Machine keeps churning out the hits. Marvel has definitely found the right formula for cranking out summer block busters that don't require a lobotomy to watch. The Machine doesn't produce anything Nolanesque, but what it does make is art when put up against most summer block busters by people like McG and the Transformers guy.
Iron Man 3 sticks to its strengths: solid performances. Downey, Jr. is a near perfect Tony Stark. He has the right blend of arrogance and vulnerability. Cheadle plays Rhodes with a nice balance of seriousness and humility. He is totally believable as War Hammer/Iron Patriot. Paltrow's Pepper Pots is strong and plays off Downey perfectly.
The strong cast takes a plot that borders on pedestrian and could easily of fallen off a cliff and creates a hit.
The first third of the movie is a little slow, but it rebuilds the bond you have with the characters. By the time, the action kicks off you want them to pull through. While there is never a real sense of threat, the audience is invested enough to root for the heroes.
The middle of the film is the strongest part of the film. The thing I liked most about it was that it was strong without relying on big set pieces, CGI, or any super powers. It stands almost entirely on the strength of the characters.
The last third of the film is the expected CGI fueled super clash. It is a loud visual spectacular. It does not disappoint, In fact because the majority of the movie is special effects lite, it feels even better.
Is this a film that makes you think? Does it ask big questions? Not really. There is an interesting question about how to deal with terrorism. There is also an interesting reflection of the question of what makes Stark and Rhodes heroes. Does the suit make the hero?
Iron Man 3 sticks to its strengths: solid performances. Downey, Jr. is a near perfect Tony Stark. He has the right blend of arrogance and vulnerability. Cheadle plays Rhodes with a nice balance of seriousness and humility. He is totally believable as War Hammer/Iron Patriot. Paltrow's Pepper Pots is strong and plays off Downey perfectly.
The strong cast takes a plot that borders on pedestrian and could easily of fallen off a cliff and creates a hit.
The first third of the movie is a little slow, but it rebuilds the bond you have with the characters. By the time, the action kicks off you want them to pull through. While there is never a real sense of threat, the audience is invested enough to root for the heroes.
The middle of the film is the strongest part of the film. The thing I liked most about it was that it was strong without relying on big set pieces, CGI, or any super powers. It stands almost entirely on the strength of the characters.
The last third of the film is the expected CGI fueled super clash. It is a loud visual spectacular. It does not disappoint, In fact because the majority of the movie is special effects lite, it feels even better.
Is this a film that makes you think? Does it ask big questions? Not really. There is an interesting question about how to deal with terrorism. There is also an interesting reflection of the question of what makes Stark and Rhodes heroes. Does the suit make the hero?
Thursday, May 23, 2013
I've got a Byline
Despite being a full time writer, it has been a long time since I've had my own byline. The latest issue of Adoptive Families has a story I wrote in it. The story is just a little, personal reflection on first meeting our little love bug.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
ReWire
I've been on the lookout for a good meditation app for awhile. I'd used one or two that were basically just dressed up timers and was looking for something more.
I stumbled upon an app called ReWire that was getting rave reviews. It was designed to help you meditate by providing feed back. The process is that you pick some music to listen to during meditation and the app will randomly pause the music. When the music pauses, you tap the screen. If you don't the phone vibrates. If you touch the phone when the music isn't paused, the phone vibrates. The theory is that by focusing on the music and noticing the absence, you build concentration and mindfulness. It is based on real teachings.
The app also has a game/tracking element. You get points for every session. You are awarded points based on duration and accuracy. If you want, you can also hook ReWire to Facebook and see how rank amongst other users.
Ultimately, the app didn't work for me. It does what it says on the tin and does it well. For me, the way it worked was the issue. I found it distracting to always be tapping the screen and the pauses in the music were grating. I also found that if you used music with any quiet sections or natural gaps, it was hard to decide when to tap the screen. I never bothered with the social aspect, so I cannot really comment on how that helps or hurts the app.
For me, the simple timer apps work the best. They ding at the beginning and at the end. The rest of the time, they get out of the way and let you do your practice. Less is best.
I stumbled upon an app called ReWire that was getting rave reviews. It was designed to help you meditate by providing feed back. The process is that you pick some music to listen to during meditation and the app will randomly pause the music. When the music pauses, you tap the screen. If you don't the phone vibrates. If you touch the phone when the music isn't paused, the phone vibrates. The theory is that by focusing on the music and noticing the absence, you build concentration and mindfulness. It is based on real teachings.
The app also has a game/tracking element. You get points for every session. You are awarded points based on duration and accuracy. If you want, you can also hook ReWire to Facebook and see how rank amongst other users.
Ultimately, the app didn't work for me. It does what it says on the tin and does it well. For me, the way it worked was the issue. I found it distracting to always be tapping the screen and the pauses in the music were grating. I also found that if you used music with any quiet sections or natural gaps, it was hard to decide when to tap the screen. I never bothered with the social aspect, so I cannot really comment on how that helps or hurts the app.
For me, the simple timer apps work the best. They ding at the beginning and at the end. The rest of the time, they get out of the way and let you do your practice. Less is best.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Young Adult
I'm not really sure how I feel about this movie. I did like it, but I'm not sure I'd call it a good movie. It has moments of humor; the kind of humor that makes you ashamed to be human. It has moments of deep pathos. The actors all do excellent jobs with their parts. Charlize Theron is the only actor who could pull off the lead role without you completely despising her. The dialog and story are both smart and well paced. It is all eminently believable.
Yet, I found it hard to really get involved in the movie. Partially this has to do with the fact that for most of the movie you really think you have seen it before. Deeply flawed character finds redemption through the love of a person they would normally scorn. The fact that the roles are reversed should be a glaring sign that you are not in standard Hollywood tropes, but that is easy to misinterpret as just a nod towards modern gender equality. It isn't until the very end of the movie, that you realize how far from the tropes you have wandered. By then it is a little too late to reclaim a home audience that is easily distracted by e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook.
In final analysis, I applaud the darkness and subversiveness of the film. I just wish it had placed the hook a little more firmly from the get go. When the plot heads off into the woods, I wouldn't have been checking to see if my friends had tweeted anything over the interweb.
Yet, I found it hard to really get involved in the movie. Partially this has to do with the fact that for most of the movie you really think you have seen it before. Deeply flawed character finds redemption through the love of a person they would normally scorn. The fact that the roles are reversed should be a glaring sign that you are not in standard Hollywood tropes, but that is easy to misinterpret as just a nod towards modern gender equality. It isn't until the very end of the movie, that you realize how far from the tropes you have wandered. By then it is a little too late to reclaim a home audience that is easily distracted by e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook.
In final analysis, I applaud the darkness and subversiveness of the film. I just wish it had placed the hook a little more firmly from the get go. When the plot heads off into the woods, I wouldn't have been checking to see if my friends had tweeted anything over the interweb.
Monday, February 25, 2013
2012
I like to let my year in review posts marinate for a while before writing them. It provides me some space to process the year as a whole. When I start writing them in January, the holidays haven't had enough time to integrate into the totality. The danger is that life will get in the way of writing, and before I can sit down and write the year in review, I've forgotten half of the year I'm reviewing....
I almost fell into that trap this year, but here it goes.
2012 was a rough year professionally. I didn't lose my job or need to take a pay cut or even live through yet another round of pay cuts. In fact, I got a nice raise and a healthy bonus and my job got more secure. What did happen was that for the first half of the year my company lived under the shadow of an impending sale. The second half of the year was spent adjusting to working for a much bigger company. Both situations made it hard to stay focused and motivated. Before the sale it was a little easier because there was hope that our company would survive as a standalone entity; we would continue to be able to do things our way. After the sale, it was much more difficult. The new parent is a good company, but it is huge and has its own way of doing things. It was particularly hard for me, because in many ways it was a step backwards professionally. I went from essentially running a doc team, to being little more than a cog in a sea of cogs.
Personally 2012 was complicated. My anxiety continued to be an issue. In the early part of the year it was fairly acute. I expended far too much energy worrying that every ache and pain was terminal. Fortunately, I'm pretty good at hiding the anxiety and, hopefully, am not scaring Kenzie for life with it. Amping up the exercise, meditation, and nightly journalling have helped reign the anxiety in, although I do wash my hands way too much.
Aside from the shadow of anxiety, my personal life is excellent. (I think that perversely fuels some of the anxiety... My shrink tends to agree) Heather and I, aside from the normal tensions married couples face around money, chores, and child rearing have a great relationship. We work our way through the issues without yelling, saying things we'd regret, or harboring any lingering anger. It is actually pretty cool to have a partner who accepts your crazy and whose crazy fits nicely with your own.
Kenzie is growing like a weed. She is super tall and pretty coordinated for a two year old. She climbs all over her play yard like a champ and before it started getting to cold was trying to climb on the tree in our yard. Watching her personality develop is fascinating. She is a pretty cautious child; she takes her time checking out new situations; she will explore every part of a new toy. Once she is comfortable, she is all in. I can sit for hours and watch her make cookies, talk on her phone, feed and change her babies. The things she remembers are crazy too. She will mention things from week previous with no context and it will take me a while to figure out exactly what she is talking about. She is usually a pretty good sport when it happens (usually).
One of the most amazing things to me is how as she grows, I need to grow as well. I am constantly faced with situations where I must consider my own biases. Whether it is explaining something to her, teaching her how to do something, or managing her behaviors, I find myself asking myself questions. Explaining things to a 2 year forces my to rethink and distill my understanding of them. When deciding to set a limit, I am always asking myself who is this limit intended to help: is it to make me feel better (or my life easier) or is it for her? I don't always change my mind if it is for me, but at least I'm clear about it.
My extended family grew this year as well. My brother got married and had a second child. My niece also got married and had a child. This is a study in contrasts. Everyone was thrilled for my brother and his new wife. They make a good team and are pretty stable. Most of us were concerned for my niece. She is 20 and bi-polar; her husband is an unemployed high school drop out. We were supportive, because the heart wants what the heart wants. All one can do is be there when family needs help. One never can tell how a story will end....
We got to go on a bunch of good vacations. Kenzie seems to be a goodish traveller. The first night at any new place is rough for her, but I think that is true for most kids. It was definitely true for me. Even when I was staying at my grandparents house, the zillionth time, I had a hard time falling asleep the first night. Fortunately, Kenzie shares our enjoyment of the outdoors and the water. If she didn't it would make vacations much harder.
For 2013, I'm going to continue working on anxiety management. Life is too much fun to waste energy on fear. I'm also going to continue enjoying watching Kenzie grow and relish all of the opportunities it offers me to grow as well. As for work, they wouldn't call it work if it was all fun and games. I am keeping my options open. I keep trying to find ways to make positive changes and at the same time keep my eyes open for new opportunities.
I almost fell into that trap this year, but here it goes.
2012 was a rough year professionally. I didn't lose my job or need to take a pay cut or even live through yet another round of pay cuts. In fact, I got a nice raise and a healthy bonus and my job got more secure. What did happen was that for the first half of the year my company lived under the shadow of an impending sale. The second half of the year was spent adjusting to working for a much bigger company. Both situations made it hard to stay focused and motivated. Before the sale it was a little easier because there was hope that our company would survive as a standalone entity; we would continue to be able to do things our way. After the sale, it was much more difficult. The new parent is a good company, but it is huge and has its own way of doing things. It was particularly hard for me, because in many ways it was a step backwards professionally. I went from essentially running a doc team, to being little more than a cog in a sea of cogs.
Personally 2012 was complicated. My anxiety continued to be an issue. In the early part of the year it was fairly acute. I expended far too much energy worrying that every ache and pain was terminal. Fortunately, I'm pretty good at hiding the anxiety and, hopefully, am not scaring Kenzie for life with it. Amping up the exercise, meditation, and nightly journalling have helped reign the anxiety in, although I do wash my hands way too much.
Aside from the shadow of anxiety, my personal life is excellent. (I think that perversely fuels some of the anxiety... My shrink tends to agree) Heather and I, aside from the normal tensions married couples face around money, chores, and child rearing have a great relationship. We work our way through the issues without yelling, saying things we'd regret, or harboring any lingering anger. It is actually pretty cool to have a partner who accepts your crazy and whose crazy fits nicely with your own.
Kenzie is growing like a weed. She is super tall and pretty coordinated for a two year old. She climbs all over her play yard like a champ and before it started getting to cold was trying to climb on the tree in our yard. Watching her personality develop is fascinating. She is a pretty cautious child; she takes her time checking out new situations; she will explore every part of a new toy. Once she is comfortable, she is all in. I can sit for hours and watch her make cookies, talk on her phone, feed and change her babies. The things she remembers are crazy too. She will mention things from week previous with no context and it will take me a while to figure out exactly what she is talking about. She is usually a pretty good sport when it happens (usually).
One of the most amazing things to me is how as she grows, I need to grow as well. I am constantly faced with situations where I must consider my own biases. Whether it is explaining something to her, teaching her how to do something, or managing her behaviors, I find myself asking myself questions. Explaining things to a 2 year forces my to rethink and distill my understanding of them. When deciding to set a limit, I am always asking myself who is this limit intended to help: is it to make me feel better (or my life easier) or is it for her? I don't always change my mind if it is for me, but at least I'm clear about it.
My extended family grew this year as well. My brother got married and had a second child. My niece also got married and had a child. This is a study in contrasts. Everyone was thrilled for my brother and his new wife. They make a good team and are pretty stable. Most of us were concerned for my niece. She is 20 and bi-polar; her husband is an unemployed high school drop out. We were supportive, because the heart wants what the heart wants. All one can do is be there when family needs help. One never can tell how a story will end....
We got to go on a bunch of good vacations. Kenzie seems to be a goodish traveller. The first night at any new place is rough for her, but I think that is true for most kids. It was definitely true for me. Even when I was staying at my grandparents house, the zillionth time, I had a hard time falling asleep the first night. Fortunately, Kenzie shares our enjoyment of the outdoors and the water. If she didn't it would make vacations much harder.
For 2013, I'm going to continue working on anxiety management. Life is too much fun to waste energy on fear. I'm also going to continue enjoying watching Kenzie grow and relish all of the opportunities it offers me to grow as well. As for work, they wouldn't call it work if it was all fun and games. I am keeping my options open. I keep trying to find ways to make positive changes and at the same time keep my eyes open for new opportunities.
Zero Dark Thrity
The best movies excite you while you are in the seat and then, after you are safely back in your world, keep disturbing your thoughts. Zero Dark Thirty is one of those movies.
It is engaging to watch. It feels slightly too long, but that enhances the experience by reenforcing the too long nature of the search. The cinematography is dark. Even the sound, mostly quiet, except when it needs to be loud, draw you in. Jessica Chastain's performance is subtle and does an excellent job of depicting a driven person's descent into a dark place. It is not simply that moral lines may have been crossed; it is the monomania that possesses her. There is no space left in her life for anything but the hunt. The final scene is a complex release of grief and joy and fear. The mission is complete, but now what?
During the movie you do not really have the space to consider the morality of what is happening. The movie goes out of its way to stay neutral on the subject of torture. Later though it makes you think.... I am, personally, not a believer in torture; however, I am also a cynic and understand why it happens. One does not need to be evil to torture a witness, nor does one need to morally lax to consider that it may be OK. My position is rational; I don't think it provides good information. I would certainly say anything to make pain stop regardless of its truth and believe that is how pretty much everybody works. The film, despite all the crazy media uproar to the contrary, is neutral on the subject. Torture happens and, as it was in real life, some of the characters believe that it was effective. On the flip side, it is made clear that the key piece of information does not come from torture. The film simply provides the audience a space to consider its merits.
It is engaging to watch. It feels slightly too long, but that enhances the experience by reenforcing the too long nature of the search. The cinematography is dark. Even the sound, mostly quiet, except when it needs to be loud, draw you in. Jessica Chastain's performance is subtle and does an excellent job of depicting a driven person's descent into a dark place. It is not simply that moral lines may have been crossed; it is the monomania that possesses her. There is no space left in her life for anything but the hunt. The final scene is a complex release of grief and joy and fear. The mission is complete, but now what?
During the movie you do not really have the space to consider the morality of what is happening. The movie goes out of its way to stay neutral on the subject of torture. Later though it makes you think.... I am, personally, not a believer in torture; however, I am also a cynic and understand why it happens. One does not need to be evil to torture a witness, nor does one need to morally lax to consider that it may be OK. My position is rational; I don't think it provides good information. I would certainly say anything to make pain stop regardless of its truth and believe that is how pretty much everybody works. The film, despite all the crazy media uproar to the contrary, is neutral on the subject. Torture happens and, as it was in real life, some of the characters believe that it was effective. On the flip side, it is made clear that the key piece of information does not come from torture. The film simply provides the audience a space to consider its merits.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Iron Sky
A cheap movie about Moon Nazis is either going to be terrible or terribly fun. Iron Sky was terribly fun. It had better special effects than it had the right to. The performances were over the top. The plot was predictable. Even the moralizing was expected. Still it was exactly what you would expect from a low budget movie about Moon Nazis. It was way better than the normal ScyFy movie of the week.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Sleepwalk With Me
A movie based on a This American Life skit is an interesting idea in theory. The danger in executing it is that it will feel like a fifteen minute skit dragged out for ninety minutes. The other danger is that a character who seems interesting for a brief moment will become loathsome over the long hall.
Sadly Sleepwalk With Me fell into both traps. The sleepwalking skit is one of the great TAL episodes. Mike Birbiglia's other bits are also typically funny. The problem is that he doesn't do the work to tie them together into a story that holds up for the duration. In many ways, the sleepwalking bit feels tacked on to a dull story about the end of a relationship. It doesn't add anything to the story and the humor is fleeting. The love story bit is too mixed up with the bit about becoming an adult and it doesn't seem to really mesh in anyway that is believable. It all hangs together like a ball of wet noodles. A film is too long for Birbiglia's meandering style to hold up. It works best when the audience cannot stop paying attention halfway through because they don't have time.
The other problem is that for the movie to work you have to like the central character. As he says "remember you are on my side". I was never on his side. I wanted the girl to walkout on him after the first five minutes. I wanted her to sleep with the hunky guy at the bar. I wanted him to fall asleep at the wheel. I didn't believe that any girl could have more than a passing "self loathing" moment where she would consider him suitable for anything more than a tool. I didn't even believe it when he finally figured out how to be funny.
Was it a terrible movie? No. Do I feel like it was a waste of ninety minutes? Not really. Would I pay to watch it? No.
Sadly Sleepwalk With Me fell into both traps. The sleepwalking skit is one of the great TAL episodes. Mike Birbiglia's other bits are also typically funny. The problem is that he doesn't do the work to tie them together into a story that holds up for the duration. In many ways, the sleepwalking bit feels tacked on to a dull story about the end of a relationship. It doesn't add anything to the story and the humor is fleeting. The love story bit is too mixed up with the bit about becoming an adult and it doesn't seem to really mesh in anyway that is believable. It all hangs together like a ball of wet noodles. A film is too long for Birbiglia's meandering style to hold up. It works best when the audience cannot stop paying attention halfway through because they don't have time.
The other problem is that for the movie to work you have to like the central character. As he says "remember you are on my side". I was never on his side. I wanted the girl to walkout on him after the first five minutes. I wanted her to sleep with the hunky guy at the bar. I wanted him to fall asleep at the wheel. I didn't believe that any girl could have more than a passing "self loathing" moment where she would consider him suitable for anything more than a tool. I didn't even believe it when he finally figured out how to be funny.
Was it a terrible movie? No. Do I feel like it was a waste of ninety minutes? Not really. Would I pay to watch it? No.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Fringe
Fringe has finally ended its improbably long run. I never expected that it would make it past the first season. Each summer I would wait for the announcement that it wasn't coming back. Then it would come back and be just as good or better than the season before.
The story lines went off the rails sometimes; plot caverns cropped up; continuity was broken like a twig. The biggest violation was in the middle of season four when Peter went from avoiding Olivia to simply giving into his urges. It was like during the mid season break the characters had some rewiring. Let's also not forget how Walter supposedly wrote the book of the first people or the other book from the first two seasons. The complete rewriting of the timeline was at least telegraphed.
There was also the annoying habit the show had of never quite resolving anything. First there was the pattern, then there was the other side, and finally the future. The writers just skipped from one to the next without ever really resolving the previous. At least in the end the whole framework was put into some sort of sense. It was the Observers all along not that it really answers everything.
Despite all of the shows flaws, it was a great show. It didn't dumb things down even if it did take great liberty with science. The writing was typically sharp. The actors were typically in top form. More than any of that however, the show had great characters that I wanted to follow. They were multilayered and flawed and noble and conflicted and always aimed at doing the right thing. Walter was probably the best of the bunch. Walter was hubristic and brilliant and blind. Olivia was wounded, defensive, smart, tough, and kind. Peter was a lot like Walter. Broyles was too willing to sacrifice what he thought was right for the greater good.
As the final episode drilled home, the show, underneath all the crazy, was a story about family and friends and finding your way in the crazy world. Unlike many shows recently, Fringe went out on top with a close to perfect ending. It may have been too neat, but it was right.
The story lines went off the rails sometimes; plot caverns cropped up; continuity was broken like a twig. The biggest violation was in the middle of season four when Peter went from avoiding Olivia to simply giving into his urges. It was like during the mid season break the characters had some rewiring. Let's also not forget how Walter supposedly wrote the book of the first people or the other book from the first two seasons. The complete rewriting of the timeline was at least telegraphed.
There was also the annoying habit the show had of never quite resolving anything. First there was the pattern, then there was the other side, and finally the future. The writers just skipped from one to the next without ever really resolving the previous. At least in the end the whole framework was put into some sort of sense. It was the Observers all along not that it really answers everything.
Despite all of the shows flaws, it was a great show. It didn't dumb things down even if it did take great liberty with science. The writing was typically sharp. The actors were typically in top form. More than any of that however, the show had great characters that I wanted to follow. They were multilayered and flawed and noble and conflicted and always aimed at doing the right thing. Walter was probably the best of the bunch. Walter was hubristic and brilliant and blind. Olivia was wounded, defensive, smart, tough, and kind. Peter was a lot like Walter. Broyles was too willing to sacrifice what he thought was right for the greater good.
As the final episode drilled home, the show, underneath all the crazy, was a story about family and friends and finding your way in the crazy world. Unlike many shows recently, Fringe went out on top with a close to perfect ending. It may have been too neat, but it was right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)