How We Read

An excerpt from an email I wrote to a friend about my reading habits, and partially a review of Fight Club:

I started reading Fight Club. It reminded me of a conversation we used to have frequently—when can you let something go? I'm about a third into it, maybe a bit more, but not quite half. And I am just not into it. I'm not excited at the prospect of reading it. I do not care what the outcome of any of the characters are and I don't care for the style. I should apologize if you love this book. I know a lot of people do. The person who loaned it to me did so under the guise that it was his favorite book and was responsible for him being literate or something. But I'm not into it and it's a chore to read and often while reading it I think of the other things I could be doing that I would enjoy more—napping on the train, napping on the couch, napping at my desk. And of course it doesn't take me long to think there might be something wrong with me if I'm so incredibly bored by this book that a whole bunch of people love and that was revered enough to be made into a movie that a lot of people also love. I'm bored by a fight club. Am I dead inside? Isn't that actually the theme of the book? Shouldn't it speak to me more? Am I more dead inside than the guy who started a fight club to try to feel something? DOWNWARD SPIRAL!

If I recall, you were usually on the side of sticking with it. It was some sort of blend of tenacity, hope, and giving the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it would pull through in the end. I was wondering if this was right and if so if you've ever reconsidered? I lean towards giving up because there's so much more out there. At the same time, giving up makes me feel like a quitter. But if carrying this book around with me for months and reading like 2 pages at a time and in turn denying myself the joy of books I do enjoy is what tenacity looks like, then call me quitter!!

The Fault In Our Stars: A Review.

     I am the only person on the planet who did not like this book. It's been months since I've read it. I put off reviewing it because I knew I was the only person who didn't like it. I'm not saying it was all bad; it just wasn't for me. There was terminal cancer and love and teenagers. Only one of these things interests me, and even then terminal cancer can only hold my attention for so long. Eventually I need it to hold up to its name and end. 
    It was sweet, but dumb. I may be the only one who thinks this, but I'm not backing down from it. Too many things were coincidences and too many things could only happen in a fantasy world. Sure, a fantasy world filled with terminal cancer, but still. Fake make-a-wish foundations and trips to meet reclusive authors are part of a fantasy world. Also, really sweet teenage boys are part of a fantasy world.  
     There were parts of it I liked. Mostly the words John Green uses and the way in which he uses them. It is a nice, easy, pleasant read. I didn't have to flip to an index or keep a dictionary next to me to understand it. It's very accessible. Oh, that's because it's for teenagers. Right. I'm not its target audience so I should stop shitting all over it. It was fine.
     I know we were supposed to care about all of these people so much. It was a book full of empathetic characters; we're supposed to root for all of them and hope beyond all hope that a cure for everything is found and they all get to survive forever. Of course, they can't. They just can't and I think we're supposed to be completely devastated at this realization, but we're naive if we are. It's not a support group for the common cold and sore throats. It's a support group for kids with terminal cancer. We're being setup for heartbreak; you have to really deliver serious heartbreak.
     I just didn't care for it. Also, I'm a bit of a cynic. I do like its title though. It's fun to say.


Also, this exact same review can be found here: http://cannonballread4.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/banannerpantss-cbr4-review-7-the-fault-in-our-stars-by-john-green/

And hopefully, more reviews will be coming!

Thoughts on Smash

     I like about half of Smash. The other half is overwrought and makes me yell at my TV.
     I don't much care for Ivy, her breathless voice, and her premature divalation. As much as I understand how she exudes sex and practically already is Marilyn, I still want her to fall and break her ankle. And for that to somehow cause her vocal chords to sift into puberty or whatever it is that allow the sounds to come out as words and not the faint whispers of a breeze through a sexy haunted house. Even her tantrums aren't very tantrum-y. Her "we're not football players" speech was just plain childish. You might not be football players, but you are adults, so suck it up and do your job. Your singing job, by the way. You sing for a living. You didn't lose a big case and endure the judge raking you across the coals for an improper defense on CourtTV. You fell on a couch and were laughing when the director said "don't do that." He's right.
     I would guess I'm not supposed to like the director, but as far as I can tell, he's the closest to being a human being. Yes, he is a jerk. But so are most people, so it works. Again, he's trying to put on a Broadway musical so yes, he just cares about your voice. And that you can stand and dance. He doesn't care that you have to cry yourself to sleep or that you require the care of two grown men to sing you to sleep because you're too goddamned frail. You're not handling your downward spiral well. Take his terseness to mean that. As far as I can tell, he's the only one on the production staff who really cares about making the show good and not about everyone's feelings.
     Oh Julia. For fuck sake, Julia, what the hell are you doing? And where did you get those pants? And why did you just put pants on over your pajama top and then go outside in Manhattan. Even at 10pm, people will see you. I really hate this affair story line. I get that audiences might find it intriguing, but I think it's pretty gross. The only good that could come out of it is that maybe Michael knocked something loose and Julia can get over her writer's block. Of course, the affair is most likely the cause of the block. Oh, messiness. I get it from a dramatic point of view, it just doesn't do much for me. Also, while we're talking about Julia, what is the deal with her family? They all seem to land somewhere on the autistic spectrum. They're lifeless. It's like the producers built an extra set and needed to fill it with people and said "we'll just call this her family." And again, the director is right to tell the writer he doesn't care about her family problems because Julia needs to do her job--write the damn show.
     And speaking of writing the show, the original numbers written for this mythical Marilyn musical are quite nice. They're a really fun part of the show. Bringing them from the rehearsal space to the pretend theater will fill stage numbers is fun and exciting to watch. Watching Katharine McPhee sing a Florence + The Machine song at a bar mitsvah? That's time to use the bathroom and maybe do some household chores. I love the song. Florence + The Machine are great. But it has nothing to do with the show and Katharine McPhee beings nothing new to it. Also, those kids who were "into it" were clearly not. I would guess it was the end of the day and the director was yelling at them "pretend you really like this song. Put your hands in the air and sway like people used to do for hip hop songs. COME ON! Fine, fine, just wave around listless for 10 minutes, that's fine too. I want to go."
     Angelica Huston is great, but I'm losing interest in her character. She's becoming too cartoonish for me. And hanging out with Tom's assistant irks me. Tom's assistant needs to fall down a sewer drain or slip and fall on the A train tracks. He's a little bitch and I can't believe adults aren't putting a stop to it. Parents don't let toddlers get away with that level of tattling.
     Also, when Karen drops all of her crap behind the piano and then overhears the entire conversation between Tom, Derick, Julia, et al, how long did she have to stay hidden before she could leave? She's already been hiding. She can't get up! She has to stay there until every person has left the building. And then still wait 30 minutes after that to make sure nobody comes back to sex their boss. It must have ruined her afternoon. That's why she was late to the bar mitzvah. 

Friends With Kids. A Review.

     I really liked the movie Friends with Kids. Its strength was its writing—it had a clear voice and a clear point of view. It wasn't trying to be an Everyman movie and I applaud that. It had its piece to say and it said it so well. It was great.
     Of course the cast was also wonderful. Basically I think you could put Maya Rudolf, Chris O'Dowd, Kristin Wiig, Jon Hamm, Adam Scott, and Jennifer Westfeldt in a blank room for 2 hours, and it would be great. Their performances were pitch perfect. You'd want to be friends with these people and go on ski weekends with them and even be in the room during their most awkward moments.
     There was a moment I thought it seemed long. But I get like that because really, there was nothing you could cut out. In fact, there were things I wanted to see more of. In the end I retract it and say it wasn't too long. I think the feeling just happened because there was no clear, obvious place for the movie to go. There was no hit us over the head conclusion and that's a good thing.
     (This is cause for debate among other viewers. Some say that because it's a RomCom the ending is obvious. Or because it's a movie its ending is obvious. Well, sure, the nature of the story leads us to expect something in the realm of happiness. We know we're watching a film of the romantic and comedic variety so I suppose we expect the leads to get together. But based on the story itself, we really couldn't be sure of it. I stand by my statement.)
     The story spanned six years but we had no idea that was the case going in. The film played with its time jumps in nice seamless ways, only using the text-on-screen device once. We jumped from conception to birth and then hit birthdays and holidays. Time was passing, as it does, and we were ok with that. The ride felt natural. It's also what led me to that unsettling "when will it end" feeling. And I don't mean that in a mean oh-my-god-it's-taking-forever way. I mean really, at what point in their story does the film end?
     That makes it sound like I'm complaining about the structure or the end in some way. I'm not. Or I don't mean to. I think they ended it perfectly. I was surprised the end was THE END, but in a good way. I'm glad I didn't know that was the end.
     I would love to get into Jennifer Westfeldt's head. That was good writing. I barely have the words to say how good it was, which is unfortunate since I'm trying to write about it. She did what we all want to do. She had a point of view. Her characters were all grounded. They weren't caricatures of people. Maybe Megan Fox was (because she's Megan Fox and I don't care about her), and there was a moment later in the movie when I wanted Jason to stop being obsessed with tits. But then I realized he just took longer to get there. That's all that was happening. He just didn't realize it until late an that actually turned out great.
     This was that rare blend of comedy and heart. We laughed and we cried. Genuinely. And sometimes the laugh would come when we thought it'd be a tear. It was just so goddamn well done. That's a script that should be studied in school, I think. Jennifer Westfeldt should be nominated for an Oscar. Perhaps I'm gushing too mush. (This is very possibly overstated based on the high of just seeing the film and meeting the star. I swooned. So what.) Maybe it's too fresh in my mind. I already want to see it again. The ensemble cast was so very good. Gush gush.
     It's definitely an adult comedy. It deals with adult themes and things that really affect peoples lives. It's kinda big but also nice and small. It's about the families we make. And when we're grown ups we choose our families except we still kinda don't because we can realize after 20 years our family isn't the perfect guy we've been searching for but instead a giant ball of mess that's been with us all along. 
     My friends are having kids and talking about having kids and our conversations sometimes echo the ones in the film. Except my friends aren't as forthright, honest, or amusing as the folks in the movie. Friends With Kids is a movie that would make my one friend who gets uncomfortable watching movies that hit too close to home feel uncomfortable. And I love it!

Betty White: If You Ask Me. A Review

     This is basically a picture book. The page count comes in at 258, but the margins are wide and the lines spaced far apart, like a burn-out's term paper. The book doesn't offer anything new. If you're not already a Betty White fan, there would be no reason to read this book--it's not an autobiography or historical fiction or even a call to decency. However, if you are a Betty White fan, you already know everything she talks about. So really, it's just a picture book.

     I should be more lenient considering she's a 90-year-old woman trying to write a book that isn't just full or sounds a drool stains. It's a valiant effort and it is her 5th book, and it only covers the past 15 years. Really, it offers what it promises. It's just a collection of short anecdotes. 

     She loves the business she's in, she doesn't like walking the Red Carpet, she talks about Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds more than necessary, and she loves animals, even sexual-harassing gorillas. Also, she was in a movie with Jennifer Love Hewitt and played off-type. I suppose that may have been new information because nobody saw that movie. Also, she promotes the hell out of Hot In Cleveland. That, in a nut-shell, is Betty White: If You Ask Me (And of course you won't).

     I'm being extra harsh because it's really late (or really early) and that's what I do when I'm not in my 7-minute window of kindness. Really, it's sweet that she likes to write books and that she's allowed to do it. I know there's a decent amount of Betty White backlash out there. People are tired of her--they say enough is enough. But I'm glad she still gets work and that she's still good at it. She wrote a little book to say she just likes it when people are nice to each other and to animals. (So maybe it is kind of a call to decency.) It takes about 2 hours to read, so it's not really a waste of time. And again, there are pictures.

Will Grayson, Will Grayson. A Review.

I really wanted to like Will Grayson, Will Grayson. I've heard such wonderful things about it and its authors. This may just be another case of not being its target audience; I'm no longer a YA after all. I didn't hate it and I can see the potential for others to like it. It does have a lovely fun gay message, surely we can embrace that. Also, it was well written. It was decently written, at least. I didn't love the style shift between chapters, but I got used to it. I actually feel bad for not liking it, because I'm sure there are worse books that are more worth my dislike. But I can only give it 2 Stars--an OK book.

Below is my review from Cannonball Read #4: 

The praise on the cover lied to me. I waited a few days after reading it to review it to allow my feelings to settle. I have to keep reminding myself that  am not this book’s target audience and that perhaps the parts I had trouble with are the parts that were the message to its intended audience.  

Will Grayson, Will Grayson is a YA novel written by John Green and David Levithan. They each wrote half the book, alternating the chapters. Each had their own Will Grayson. With that, they each had their own style. On one hand the separate styles further distinguish the Wills from each other—their personalities come through in the way they’re telling their stories. On the other hand, it feels gimmicky; it’s an obvious way to show perspective shift hidden in a clever style-choice. 

There are two Will Graysons. Will Grayson doesn’t seem to be that uncommon of a name, however, I imagine when you meet someone with your exact name, you’re taken aback regardless. The book’s back cover would have us believe that the Will Graysons meeting each other has forever and drastically changed the course of each boy’s life. I find this hard to believe. 

First of all, we know they’re going to meet because 1. it’s almost the title, and 2. it’s the hook printed on the book to draw you in. However, this inciting incident doesn’t actually happen until Chapter 7, on page 110. If this were a David Foster Wallace magnum opus of 1200 pages, page 110 might be early for an inciting incident. This is not the case. 110-pages is almost halfway through the book. Therefore, I believe their meeting wasn’t really the inciting incident to the story at all; it’s a coincidence, an anecdote, a path to a catchy title. Of course, it didn’t do nothing, but it didn’t create cold fusion either. 

The praise on the front cover reads “Funny, rude and original.” I didn’t laugh and I wasn’t very put-off. As far as originality goes, it may be, but not always in the best possible ways. It seems original that Will Grayson #1 is obsessed with Neutral Milk Hotel. They’re a very original band. They released one 11-song album in 1998 that Will Grayson spends hours listening to and parsing apart, even though he doesn’t like all of it, but still, it’s his favorite band. That just seems sad. 

Perhaps it’s the antagonist of the story who is original—Tiny Cooper. He’s really less of an antagonist and more of just an anti-protagonist. In an attempt to not stereotype him, the authors failed to ground him in anything. I failed to connect with him; he remained an amorphous blob to me the entire time.  He is the biggest link between the two Will Graysons.  He’s the best friend and the boyfriend and his presence and subsequent absence in each of their lives is the engine of the story. 

The book isn’t bad, I just found a few parts hard to believe. I’m attempting to suspend my disbelief since I am not a YA, but I still have a hard time believing teenage boys talk to each other that much. Also, I don’t believe the musical described in the pages could have been produced in 9 days for $1000. I was originally critical of the musical itself—it was schmaltzy and over-the-top, and not realistic. At the same time, if I wasn’t such a cynic, I would have thought it was lovely, and its message was actually quite nice. It was about love and appreciating the people who are around you, so I guess I can’t shit all over a YA novel trying to teach that hard-learned lesson. 

Will Grayson, Will Grayson is an easy read and might be really enjoyable for an actual 17-year-old. Rumor has it, however, John Green’s newest—The Fault In Our Stars—is his real triumph. 

Bird by Bird. Not Quite a Review.

     I read Bird by Bird years ago. I think it was 2005; my life was changing in weird ways and a friend gave it to me, insisting it was good advice for writing and for life. And that's what I remember best about it. I remember the anecdote that inspired the title, and I remember the story about what inspired the book itself. Seven years later though, I doubt I could really tell you what it was about, except to say "well, it's a guide to writing and life."
     I'm not much of a re-reader. I recognize that I've read the sentences before, and then I skim over them, in search for something new. I've kept Bird by Bird next to my bed for reference for a while though. I often intend on re-reading, but it of course never happens. However, sometimes I feel like just flipping through it can retransmit the good advice it contained through me, through osmosis.
     I remember that I really liked Bird by Bird. I've recommended it to many friends. I also use it as an answer to interview questions. Some people like to hear that you can multi-task, but I believe the research that posits multi-tasking produces substandard work, and therefore I tackle my work bird by bird--one task at a time. Also, multi-tasking can mean different things to different people, and the right kind of person appreciates the bird by bird approach to multiple tasks.
     I remember that Bird by Bird was sad and funny. In 2005, I was also sad and funny, so it was right up my alley. The friend who gave it to me was neither sad nor funny, and it was up his alley too, so I think it's safe to say it can speak to anyone. It had good advice for being a writer. It also had good advice for running power plants and making movies, things I continue to waft between.
     It's a National Bestseller and it's not very long, so I recommend it. It gets five stars (out of five) in my mind. It's also a book I know a lot of my friends have. I've accused them of stealing my copy. Apparently all of us aspiring writers, moviemakers, and power plant runners read the same book--that must be how it became a bestseller. Also, multi-tasking is not always a virtue. Sometimes it produces shitty work. Just think about it.

happythankyoumoreplease. A Review.

     happythankyoumoreplease was written and directed by Josh Radnor.  Josh Radnor is best knows as Ted from How I Met Your Mother. I bring this up because I suppose if you're the one person who enjoys Ted on HIMYM, you might enjoy Radnor's character in happythankyoumoreplease; he's basically Ted who says fuck and has a beard. (Yes, there was an episode of HIMYM where Ted had a beard. Not the point.) Radnor offers nothing new, in fact, I would say he offers much less.
     Studio descriptions of the movie call it "generational." It's about 20-somethings on the verge. I suppose every generation needs their 20-somethings on the verge movie. This ain't it. It's possible I'm just too outside the generation this movie is speaking to; perhaps I'm too much of an adult to relate to this rag-tag group of friends just trying to figure things out. I may not be the film's target audience. Except I'm only barely outside that generation so no, that can't be it.
     The main character, Sam (Radnor), is a writer. He's a writer because that's what Radnor knows and romanticizes. There seems no other great reason for this character to be a writer. He could have done anything else. Based on the fact that he is not homeless, he must be a successful writer, even though he spends a lot of time pondering his prospects as a novelist. Dear Sam, you're 29--nobody feels sorry for you.
     Very early in the film Sam becomes linked to, or saddled with, a child who got left on the subway. At one point the kid runs and Sam chases him and says "hey, can we stop running? I'm 29." Wakka wakka. Because 29 is old! People start dying at 29! It's all over at 29! Shut up, Josh Radnor.
    The film felt like Josh Radnor read Screenwriting for Dummies, watched a few episodes of his show, and then just went to work. Had this script been handed in by any other 29-year-old indy writer, it most likely would have been rejected. Even when the stakes got big, they were still small. Really bad things should have happened, but I suppose because Radnor is a white guy, nothing too terrible does.
     There are very few original lines of dialogue. How many times in real life do people actually ask each other "What are you afraid of?" It must be tons, because it keeps coming up. The cliched dialogue and situations were abundant. I was bored. I did not care what happened to any of the people on the screen. Within the first 5 minutes of the film I "got it." I could see where Radnor was trying to be funny, and trying to be cute, trying to be edgy, and trying to be original. Of course, when you can see where he's trying to do those things, it usually means he's failed at them. He sat down to write some quirky instead of something true that turned out to be quirky.
     Kate Mara is in it, and she's nice, but mostly I just wanted her to get out. Her character made bad decisions. Josh Radnor flatters himself believing women like Kate Mara would fall for indecisive ass-messes like him. Kate Mara's character was named Mississippi. Also dumb. Not quirky, just dumb.
     Also, I reject the premise that Tony Hale is an ugly man. That's just unfair and not true. Sure, he can make himself look goofy at times. And maybe he started kinda balding a little bit early. But of the cast you've assembled, he is not the ugly guy. I was very put off by the story line that involved Tony Hale's character as the ugly guy who eventually wins over Malin Akerman's bald heart with his words. Her description of suddenly seeing him as an attractive man were more insulting that enlightened. He is an attractive man, you're just a shallow bitch. This may be another area where I'm too old to understand the new definition of attractive, though.
     The tag line for happythankyoumoreplease is "Go Get Yourself Loved." That's dumb. I was going to put a picture of it at the top of the post, but I didn't want it mistaken for an endorsement. I do not endorse this film. happythankyoumoreplease was Josh Radnor's masturbatory pet project. It was boring and predictable.

The Switch. A Review.

  This is a RomCom that has something most of them don't--grit. I really liked this movie.  And immediately after making that assessment I was concerned that I was about to start my period.  But I wasn't, so I must have actually like it.  Who'da thought?
     It had grit and heart, in the perfect amounts.  Jason Bateman is a delight as the neurotic lead man.  And damn it all, Jennifer Aniston is good.  Somehow she pulls off being beautiful and perfect without making me hate her.  Also, that damn kid.  I'm not a kid person, but the kid who plays the kid is adorable; melt all of your insides with a crooked head-tilt adorable.
     I remained skeptical about the plot point that Wally (Bateman) didn't remember the whole escapade of switching the sample.  It seemed like a lot for him to not remember and then to be able to piece together 7 years later.  At the same time, somehow Bateman made it work and it made the character someone to root for.  Had he maliciously destroyed the sample and replaced it with his own and then kept the secret for 7 years, he would have been a huge asshole with no redeeming qualities.  This is even more evident when watching the deleted scenes and the directors say "when it was more malicious, it took away his sympathy."
     It took place in New York City, and I'm partial to that.  Again, we learn in the DVD extras, they actually shot it in NYC and that added to its realness.  Everything was shot on location; it was all practical with real lighting and flags and subways.  It was lit darker than most comedies--there was more pointed, almost noir light, less soft light-the-shit-out-of-everything light.  The city's grit came through in the film, and the darkness under the comedy mixed with the grit of the city quite well. I got stuck o the detail that during a subway scene they show an interior of an A train, then an interior of the 2. But really, this is minor and I should let it go.  It's not impossible that they got on a A and switched to the 2.  Maybe they were on their way home from the Cloisters. Anyway--
     There was voice-over, of which I'm usually not a fan, however, it was used correctly.  And damn it, they got the show-not-tell bits right.  The audience knew what was happening because they were showing us, not because anyone was telling us.  The voice over was mostly as a bookend anyway, and since it was Jason Bateman's voice, it was a welcome tone.
     I mentioned its heart, and I think it came from Wally and Sebastian.  They didn't change for each other, and I think that's just great. Wally talked to Sebastian just as he would talk to anyone. He wasn't a douche to Sebastian, like a lot of adults are to kids.
    As I said in the beginning, it was a RomCom.  So sure, we're pretty sure these two are going to end up together. But good for everyone involved--it was at the end, where it belonged.  And Kassie's proposal acceptance was the best I've ever heard. There weren't a lot of surprises with the film.  I bet most people wouldn't like it.  It's small and nuanced but packaged as big and hilarious.  But that doesn't mean it wasn't worth watching.  It was a RomCom for a slightly more cynical audience, which is to say, me.

Tootsie. A Review.

     During the special features Dustin Hoffman admitted this was a comedy.  That was the first it had occurred to me.  I wanted to like Tootsie a great deal; it's a classic of sorts and I wanted to be in touch with a classic.  But gosh darn it if I'm not just a little too dim to find what was so uproarious about it.
     I imagine 30 years ago, seeing Dustin Hoffman in a dress was enough to make everyone laugh.  That must be it.  All of the laughs must have come from the very premise of a man in a dress.  OH!  Now I get it.  Man in dress = hilarity.  If I have learned anything in my years of studying comedy, it should have been that.
     Except I don't actually think that's what it was.  I do think that 30 years ago, Dustin Hoffman in a dress was funnier than it is today.  We've gotten over it a bit, so I'm over reacting a tad.  And really, there was more to Dustin Hoffman in a dress then say, the asshats from Work It.  Tootsie was at least some sort of social experiment.  Dustin Hoffman seemed to take the character of Dorothy Michaels very seriously.  He was very curious about life as a woman.  Sure, he did it so he could get work (his character, not him), but he did it well and then internalized it.
     My simple initial reaction was that I didn't care for it much.  Had I seen it 30 years ago I may have felt differently.  It is definitely a tale of the changing times; being a woman in the 80s, being a man in the 80s, getting along in the 80s.  It's interesting to watch how much has changed and how much has not changed.  Perhaps the circumstances have changed, but the feelings really don't.
     I'm struck by the scene(s) where Michael Dorsey, dressed as Dorothy Michaels, watches women being treated like shit as finally sees it.  He stands up for himself and the other women and becomes a role model for them.  At first I think "that's nice" and then I think "that's sad."  There is a piece of walk-a-mile-in-someone-else's-shoes to it.  There's also a piece of it-takes-a-man.  I suppose he sums it up nicely at the end with his speech about being a woman taught him to be a better man.  And I suppose if I was a little dumb and it was 1982, I'd think that was sweet.
     It was a comedy that wasn't really very funny.  It was a comedy because it's wasn't a drama.  It was a comedy that was 2-hours long.  It wasn't a bad movie, not by any means.  It was very well done; it was well acted, well written, and well lit.  I just didn't care for it very much.

I Drink For A Reason. A Review.

     David Cross is a comedian.  Eventually, successful comedians write books.

See the rest of the review here: http://cannonballread4.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/banannerpantss-cbr4-review-1-i-drink-for-a-reason-by-david-cross/

Post Grad. A Review.

     This was an awful film.  It should tip you off that it's awful because it stars Alexis Bledel--it's an Alexis Bledel vehicle.  That's a tough thing to wrap your mind around, I know, but it's true.  And then Carol Burnett, Jane Lynch, and Michael Keaton lost a huge bet of some sort and got wrangled into the movie as well.  This is a terrible, terrible movie.
     Nothing happens.  The main character's name is Ryden.  That is a stupid name.  No, it's not even a name. The movie opens with graphics.  Ryden has a plan for her life and it has four steps in it.  This is stupid.  She has accomplished the first three things on her list and is going after the fourth. Oh gee, I wonder what will happen.  Obviously, she doesn't get the dream job she was interviewing for and then her life completely unravels.
     In this world, however, a life completely unraveling means spending a month living with your loving, caring family while your best friend professes his love for you and you hook up with an age-inappropriate hot Brazilian man.  The only thing that went wrong was that she didn't get the one job she really wanted.  The film attempted to make her look down-and-out and desperate and show her going on other interviews.  They did that quick cut truck to make it look like a lot of interviews, but I think it was three.  So there were four interviews total and she didn't get those jobs.  She kept whining about all the hard work she was doing, but I didn't see it. She sat at her computer once and printed out resumes.  And Michael Keaton was right--she was setting her sights too high.
     She finally lowered herself to working at her father's luggage store and lasted about 20 minutes.  Her "rival"-at the start of the film, Ryden calls this girl her Darth Vader, which makes no sense, but I digress--came in looking for a briefcase or suitcase and Ryden lost it and stormed out.  Sure.  Clearly, Ryden has hit rock bottom.
     This movie was all over the place, much like this review.  The best moments were the ones without Alexis Bledel in them.  Jane Lynch and Carol Burnett are delightful.  Even the kid who played the younger brother was pretty entertaining.  Actually, the family minus Alexis Bledel might have made a nice story.  I did actually laugh a few times, at Lynch and Burnett.  There was practically a different movie about the family, but it didn't get explored.  
     Early on in the film, a timeline is set up.  The younger brother, Hunter, runs up to the father yelling about a boxcar derby race that happens in a month.  Being a young boy, he wants to participate.  To prove to the audience that the daughter is more important and that this will come back later, the father says he doesn't have time and pushes him away.  The boxcar derby race happens at the end of the movie.  That means this whole life unraveling bit happens over the course of four weeks.  That's ridiculous.  It takes longer than four weeks for an entire life to unravel, and even longer to get anyone to care that your life has unraveled.
     In four weeks' time, this bitch went on four interviews, whined, went to a party, worked at a luggage store, whined, went shopping, made out with a hot Brazilian guy, worked as a PA, whined, had a day-of-fun at the beach, argued with her father about a buckle business, got her dream job, "worked her ass off," had pool sex with the hot Brazilian guy, and stole an ice cream truck.  Then she watched the derby race where her brother probably almost died but because it was a comedy he just landed in a lake, she realized everything she wanted, she quit her job, and moved to New York to find that best friend who was in love her and with whom she now realizes she's in love.  They even tried to top it off with a dramatic girl-in-the-room-after-love-professing confusion, but it was short and stupid.
     There are so many problems with this movie, it's hard to nail down.  The idea of not being able to find a job 2009 is not surprising, so hanging an entire film around it is pretty boring to watch.  Descriptions of the movie state the family as being eccentric, but it wasn't really that eccentric.  Also, it was never obvious that Ryden was a member of that family.  And there was no struggle and no real pain.  She was a whiner who didn't get her way immediately.  I agree with every bad review it received on Rotten Tomatoes.  It's awful.

Hot In Cleveland / American Horror Story: My Mash Up Review.

SPOILER ALERT!  I talk about what happens on Hot In Cleveland and American Horror Story. You have been warned.  Also, this post is ridiculously long.    


     American Horror Story is a new, popular drama.  I've never seen it.  Hot In Cleveland is a TVLand original sitcom in its third season, starring Betty White, Valerie Bertinelli, Wendie Malick, and Jane Leeves.  I enjoy this show.  When it was first advertised I made fun of it.  I watched the pilot; I wasn't too impressed really.  Then I didn't get the channel it aired on and I assumed it would go away.  It did not.  Luckily, it was available on Hulu, so I caught up.  It's amazing that the show is still on the air and that it is being nominated for awards.
     My very dear friend Mary enjoys the show American Horror Story.  She and I spend a lot of time talking about various television shows and movies.  We get along pretty well, but really, we don't watch a lot of the same shows, so sometimes these conversations get pretty one sided.  I go on and on about Up All Night and Hot In Cleveland while she does the chat equivalent of smiling and nodding.  The same is true when she discusses shows about vampires and American Horror Story.  Today, she extended an amusing challenge to me, and I really wanted to accept it.  Her challenge--to watch just the season finale of American Horror Story and review it.  The problem--American Horror Story is on at the same time as Hot In Cleveland.  The compromise--watch Hot In Cleveland, then then last 40 minutes of the extended season finale of American Horror Story.  The overlap was uncanny.
     The ladies in Cleveland were up to their same old (pun!) shenanigans.  Elka (Betty White) is currently dating the guy who played the dad on Frasier.  The other three ladies are being hot whilst living in Cleveland.  This is something that should irritate the hell out of me, but I'm amused.  Joy runs in the house, hiding from someone.  She's running from a woman with pruning sheers who is tired of Joy bending over and picking up the mail, because Joy is hot and the woman's husband stares.  The woman unleashes a little bit and points out the ladies' attributes.  And that's where I kind of liked what was happening.  The hot older women were proud of being older and hot.  Wendie Malick has the most amazing arms of any woman over the age of 43 (she's 61), and she fucking show them off.  It's actually pretty damn endearing.
     Elka's story line in this episode is that the old man she's dating is still about 10-15 years younger than she is, so she lies about her age (and weight on some forms about sky diving).  She takes the advice of the girls, who dole out all the life lessons they learned in LA.  Of course, all these life lessons are wrong.  That's a big part of the point.  They seem to learn this a lot.  For their story, they give "LA makeovers" to several housewives in the neighborhood.  At the end of the episode, the husbands come after their wives and say they prefer their wives the way they were, not all LA'd up.  The ladies then have a moment about embracing Cleveland.  It lasts about one minute.  Then they go back to feeling special because they're the hottest things on the block.
     It would be obvious to compare Hot In Cleveland to Golden Girls; I've done it.  I recently made the joke that it would be funny if the HiC cast just read a GG script.  Sure, it has its parallels--any show about 4 older women when one of them is Betty White will--but it's actually not the same.  Hot In Cleveland is no Community, but I still like it.  I laugh out loud at it.  Betty White it still hilarious; she has impeccable comedic timing.  The other ladies are also funny.  The writing is pretty strong.  There are so many shows that are on the air that are so much worse.  I realize that doesn't sound like a glowing recommendation, but it is.  It's a nice little show.  I'm glad it worked out its problems from the pilot.
     Then I switched the channel over to FX.  Jessica Lange was there, and then Kate Mara was holding a baby, and then a corpse was on the ground with spiders crawling from its mouth, and then a guy slits Kate Mara's throat and took the baby she was holding, and Jessica Lange was talking to police-like people.
     I watched the rest of the episode trying to figure out what the show was about.   I still have quite a few questions, but I didn't want to look it up on the internet and ruin the intrigue.  I did ask Mary how many time lines were happening and she said one.  Ok.  So, here's what I think happened:  There's this house, called the death house.  Some people call it the murder house.  Everyone who lives there is a ghost.  There is a servant / maid ghost who is generally kind.  Or at least not malicious.  Also, I think Jessica Lange lives in the house but is not a ghost.  There is a blond boy named Tate.  Tate is a psychopath.  He has killed so many people.  He raped the lady ghost who lives in the house, probably when she was alive.  She had a baby and probably died while giving birth to it.  The ghost family did not all die at the same time. In fact, the ghost lady's husband was originally going to raise the rape-baby on his own, but then he got hanged by the ghosts.  (I learned this when FX replayed the finale immediately following the finale and I watched the beginning.)  At some point a new family moved into the death house.  The new family makes an incredibly rash decision to make a baby on the butcher block table in the kitchen because their 17-year-old kid will be graduating next year and they worry the house will be too empty.  While they're making it in the kitchen, the ghosts are watching and decide that they need to teach these sex fiends a lesson about bringing a baby into the death house, the hard way.
     The best way for ghosts to teach a lesson is to attack people and confuse them in their dreams and fake kill each other.  The scene where man ghost and woman ghost kill each other for the benefit of creeping out the living people reminded me of the X-Files episode with Ed Asner and Lilly Tomlin.  They do a similar stunt to scare Mulder and Scully.  But I digress.  While the adult ghosts are scaring the adults, the ghost kids are scaring the real kid.  Apparently, Tate is hopelessly in love with Violet, the ghost girl.  I assumed she was a ghost because she was in alive kid's room and he didn't know how she got there.  That's how you know the person who you are talking to is a ghost--they never explain how they inexplicably got into your room.
     This Tate kid always has tears in his eyes.  He's a psychopath, but apparently he's also really emotional about it.  He's in love with Violet and I think maybe this affects him a lot.  He was going to kill Gabe so he could be a ghost and be with Violet to make her happy.  Then Tate got all wimpy and couldn't do it and Violet was all "I didn't say good-bye" and they made out.  I don't know the purpose of ghosts making out. They're ghosts.  They're dead.  How do they feel the magic?
     At one point Tate started to confess what he's done to the ghost dad.  (Ghost Dad!  Remember that Bill Cosby movie?  Good times.)  It was a lot of pretty bad shit.  It made me laugh; I realize this is an inappropriate response. It wasn't what he did that elicited the laughter, but he fact that he just started confessing it all as though that would redeem him some how; the way the words just poured from his mouth caused me to guffaw.  
     Have I mentioned the baby?  I wasn't sure at first if the baby was a ghost baby or not.  It's not; I also decided that a television show would have a really hard time getting a ghost baby on the air.  Stuff happens with the baby.  Over the course of the 40 minutes the ghost family decides it should raise this baby.  It is ghost lady's baby after all.  And then they decorate a Christmas tree, because now ghost families raising psycho babies celebrate Christmas--the day the savior was born.  Sure.  There probably wasn't actually that subtext to that at all, actually.  But then Tate and Kate Mara are watching the ghost family decorate the Christmas tree and Kate Mara says something menacing to Tate.  Dun-dun-dun.  CUT TO:  Three years later.
     I imagine this is a bit that fans of the show are excited about.  Jessica Lange is in a hair dresser and goes on about how she's a mother now.  By now I'm pretty sure that Jessica Lange is Tate's mother, so she's obviously rape-baby's grandmother. She's raising the ghost family's baby.  She goes home, there's blood, and this little blond three-year-old has murdered his nanny.  She says "what will I do with you?" and smiles at him.  Now, I don't know what this means, but I bet it's a huge set up for the next season.

Also, a few extra side notes--thoughts I said to the TV as I was watching:

-No, that doesn't answer the question.
-It's Joe! From Ellen!
-Is there a "shit" quotient you're trying to reach?
-You just told him you raped his wife, so I don't think he wants to hang.
-I have to pee.
-Oh, COME ON!
-Someone's dead.  Are they all dead?  Well, at least someone is newly dead now.
-Bwawawa <<maniacal laughter>>.

Now Mary can tell me what was really happening.  And I'll tell her all about Hot In Cleveland.

Unaccompanied Minors. A Review.

     I've only seen about 20 minutes of it so far, but it seems pretty terrible.  Also, I'm not listening to it--I put my headphones on to block out the sound of the construction in the apartments all around me--but the soundless pictures pretty much tell me what's going on.  A group of child actors who were popular about 5 years ago got left in an airport and are acting their faces off.  And that's how they act too--with their faces.  

     Rob Corddry is in this too.  He filled up a container labeled "bio fuel," laughed maniacally, pulled a Santa suit from a shelf in his garage, and drove away in an old Mercedes.  Clearly, he's the bad guy.  So far, that's all I know about this movie.  Still, I think it's probably going to be terrible.  Rob Corddry's character is probably a bio-terrorist and the kids will probably thwart his plans.  It's probably a classic tale of a group of misfits overcoming their differences and adversity and defeating the terrible man trying to defeat Christmas.  

      There will be prat falls, but no one will be really hurt.  Adults will be viliianized even when they're just trying to do their jobs and the children will be heroized even when they're breaking the damn rules.  I don't know why these kids are stuck in an airport, but I would guess they did something stupid and didn't do what an airport employee told them to do.  They'll spend most of the movie being bratty scamps, right up to the end when they apologize to their parents with big doe eyes and their parents forgive them, just being thankful they're alive and dismiss all the collateral damage with "kids will be kids."

     I just turned around to catch a scene where the misfit kids are sledding down a hill in a canoe.  Oh, what scamps.  Why are they outside?  I don't know, but I bet it's a stupid reason.  It may seem like I'm not giving this movie a fair shake.  But really, I've already spent more time thinking about it than I ever really wanted to.  This is a film that was made with the intent of it falling into the modern Christmas canon, and it failed miserably.  

      Oh, Lewis Black is in it.  Maybe he's the bad guy.  Maybe I have no idea what's happening in this film at all.  Still, it's probably terrible.  Grade F.  

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. A Review.

     This film is about 4 years old; I think it's been in my queue for about 3 1/2.  It's a movie I always meant to watch, but then it would get pushed down the list in favor of a comedy or something not in French.  Oh, what a mistake.
     The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is the story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, based on the book of the same title.  Jean-Do wrote the book whilst in the hospital after suffering a massive stroke.  In France, his story was very well known; he was famous as the editor of Elle so people really cared about his story.  
     The filmmakers brought us into Jean-Do's world immediately.  Eventually it became uncomfortable.  And just when the uncomfortableness was about to reach fever pitch, they pulled us out and started showing us the rest of his world--his memories and his imagination.  
     The word most commonly associated with this film is beautiful.  I agree.  It was really very beautiful.  Janusz Kaminski is a cinematographic genius.  Everything was done in-camera, as is the term, and it's pretty darn remarkable.  All of this information is included on the special features of the DVD; I recommend watching those as well.
     It's definitely not a comedy, but there were a few moments of humor in the film.  It's about the indomitable human spirit, and often the human spirit is funny.  The film is in French, because Jean-Dominique Bauby was French.  The book was in French and everything happens in France, so the director, Julian Schnabel, wanted to maintain that realness and that frenchiness.  He succeeded.  It's very French.
     The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is a very fine film.  If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.   

The Muppets. A Review.

     Adorable.  Fantastic.  Play it again, projectionist!  It was the perfect blend of hope for the future and nostalgia.
     Of course they live in their own world.  And if you're not familiar with the world going in, they do a pretty good job of setting it up for you in the first minute.  Walter (for intents and purposes--a muppet) and Jason Segal (as Gary) are brothers.  They live in the happiest (and smallest) town you could imagine and everyone is ok with that.
     It's in the trailer so I'm not spoiling anything by saying this--Walter, Gary, and Mary (Amy Adams) take a vacation to LA to meet the Muppets.  Hijinks ensue.  They continue to be irreverent and irresistible, and they work their way into our hearts.  I laughed and I cried.  I laughed that hearty belly laugh that eventually brings tears to me eyes.  Man, it was a good time.
     At times they were a little meta, but it wasn't overdone.  Mary references the length of the movie.  They point out plot points.  But it's the Muppets so it works.
     Also, The Muppets was basically celebrity cameo central.  Technically, a few sightings were cameos and a few were actually credited.  But still, it was jam packed full of stars in little parts all around the film.  Keep an eye peeled for Dave Grohl!  I won't ruin it by listing the others, because the true stars are the Muppets themselves, of course.
     The Muppets is also a great story.  Sure, it's about the Muppets putting on a telethon to raise money to buy back their theater so evil oil tycoon Chris Cooper doesn't destroy it.  But really that's just the mask on the real story of learning who you really are, finding your people, and then being really happy with your people whilst being your self.
     There are also a lot of fun songs in The Muppets.  That's not a surprise, I know.  I'm not usually a musical fan, but I love the music in The Muppets.  Save for that one Chris Cooper number.  I just pretend that didn't happen.  I also think Jason Segal deserves a huge kudos for this film.  I think he made it happen, and he was a delight to watch.  He could be a muppet.
     For all my accolades, I must bring up one area for improvement--more Muppets!  
     To quote Kermit, "...being a Muppet meant you're one of a kind...being a Muppet means you will follow your dreams where ever they take you, and have a high tolerance for explosions." I would also like to be a Muppet. 

 

Who Does Matthew Gilbert Think He Is?

     Apparently, Matthew Gilbert has a thing or two to say about Dexter.  And he just doesn't know what he's talking about.  Matthew Gilbert is a TV reviewer who watches TV with a blindfold on.  He's stupid and doesn't know a damn thing about Dexter.
     I don't know a damn thing about Dexter either.  I am also not a television reviewer.  At least, I'm not paid to be a television reviewer.  There are only about three people who listen to what I have to say about television, and they think I'm wrong a lot.   Or slightly misguided.  But really, I know what I'm talking about. I usually  watch the shows I'm reviewing.  I make informed assessments of what is before me.  Matthew Gilbert seemingly does not.
     If I were to review Dexter, I think it would go like this:  Dexter centers around the titular character who happens to be a serial killer, but he tends to be pretty clean about it.  He wears Henley-style shirts when he does his killing, so if he comes to visit and he's wearing that, you're probably done for.  But he kills for the greater good, so you also probably deserve it.  And it's probably the heart of the character than keeps the series going.
     That's really just a first attempt, having only seen one episode.  When Matthew Gilbert reviews Dexter, it goes like this:  blurp blorp bloop blop bloopity bloop bloop blah. Because Matthew Gilbert is stupid and knows nothing about Dexter.

A Serious Man. A Review.

     It was pretty serious. 
     A Serious Man is listed as a black (or dark) comedy; I won't take that away from the filmmakers, and I could see it at parts, but it just wasn't my thing. Usually I do enjoy a good black comedy.  And I usually enjoy a tale told by The Coen Brothers.  This one just didn't do it for me.
      It is a very well done film.  The shots are beautiful.  It's put together superbly.  I trusted that the filmmakers were trying to tell me an important story.  But it fell on deaf ears, I suppose.  I'm willing to say that this may have been a very good film that just wasn't for me--I was not the target audience.  And really, that's ok.  An overly broad target audience tends to muddy the film anyway. 
      It's also a very small film.  And a very Jewish film.  And I drifted off to sleep for a few minutes in the middle, so maybe I missed something really important.  Except I read through all the plot synopses I could find and indeed, I did not miss a thing.
     What made the characters fit into the black comedy genre also made them unsympathetic.  They had virtually no redeeming qualities, so who cares when their lives fall apart around them?  And I only say virtually no because there is a chance that I'm just forgetting one or two, and I suppose by virtue of being other humans we can assume they have some sort of redeeming quality.  But I didn't see any.  As far as I could tell the main character, Larry, was surrounded by asses and dicks.  He was extremely put-upon, but also, he was put-upon by asses and dicks.  Why would he let that happen, over and over?  Because he's serious?  Nah, it's because he's a giant wuss who won't take control of anything.
     He wants to be serious, though. And I think that was a huge part of the point of the film.  It was sort of about who we want to be, and how we think something is in charge; that there's some sort of destiny leading us down a path.  And when things keep coming up shitty we look for answers, but all we get are stories.
      Overall, I did not care for A Serious Man.  Fine, I'll just say it--I did not like it.  I read a review stating simply "A film worth watching."  I disagree.  

When I Pretend

    I pretend that bus trips to other cities are not exhausting.  They are.  I'm heading back to DC for the day today.  I leave in three hours, and the prospect exhausts me.  At first, it was a fun adventure.  I had a list of reasons that a four-and-a-half-hour bus ride could be fun.  It was a chance to catch up on reading, listen to music, watch Hulu on my phone, and take a nap.  Often, all four.  But now, the luster has worn off. 
     I'm sure part of it is the quick turn around.  That always makes it even more grueling, when you're on the bus longer than you're in the city you're busing to.  Today's trip is just about even--nine hours total busing time, ten hours in the city.  Except that a lot of that in the city time will be late at night and probably spent just waiting for the bus.
     It is a pain.  All those people who make comments about it being so are right.  But when it was going the other way--from DC to NYC--it was worth it.  And really, it's still worth it.  I want to go because I want to be in DC for the thing I'm going to DC for.  But the luster of the bus ride has worn off. 
     Also, I have no idea what was going on in Mulholand Drive.  I can say I was totally there for the ride David Lynch was taking us on, but I would be pretending.  I think large portions of it were dreams or hallucinations, and frankly I don't have the patience for such story telling.  I can tolerate dream sequences when they are clearly dream sequences and they're in comedies.  But when they're the first hour of a film and there has been no real break from the supposed reality of the film, you've tricked me as a viewer and I don't trust you as a story teller anymore.  Give me Amanda Bynes trying to play soccer in a pink ball gown, and I'm on board with your dream sequence.  Crazy amnesia lesbians in the middle of a murder mystery plot?  Nope.  I've stopped caring.
     I'm going to go out on a limb her and declare I did not like Mulholland Drive.  I imagine some people will be here soon to take away my MFA, but I stand by the statement.  I'm sure film studies experts will say I'm just too stupid to understand it, and that's fine.  The fact that I didn't understand it isn't really why I didn't like it.  First of all, it wasn't very funny.  Secondly, the lead female character was a stupid woman for the first half.  I hate that.  Also, at the heart of it, it was a love story.  Ugh.  I just couldn't care about these people.  I couldn't even pretend to care.

Gnomeo & Juliet. A Review.

     Did you graduate high school?  Yes?  So you're familiar with the source material then.  And you know what a gnome is?  Then you've pretty much put together what happens in Gnomeo & Juliet.  It's the story of Romeo and Juliet, but with gnomes.  Therefore, it is adorable. 
     There's really no reason to make a version of Romeo and Juliet with gnomes, except to make Romeo and Juliet adorable.  I barely remember what happens, except whatever happens was pretty damn adorable.  And there was no double suicide at the end.  I suppose double suicides are not adorable. 
      The gnomes did not speak in traditional Shakespearean language, and I was thankful.  There were a few lines here and there, for example, Juliet was standing on a tower and started in with "Gnomeo, Gnomeo, where for out thou..." or something like that.  And then she just went on and on, in her gnome way.  Gnomeo hears this (a la the original) and responds, which makes Juliet freak out a bit.  The structure of Shakespeare was brought to a modern place, with contemporary reactions to that Olde English behavior, but with gnomes. 
     Another noticeable difference is that gnomes don't die the way people die; they don't get sick and old.  Gnomes get smashed.  It's a little bit shocking, actually.  I always tend to be surprised when a character in an animated film dies.  The could animate Patton and I'd be shocked at all the death.  I would hope they would find a way to keep cartoon Patton fighting; Gnome Patton wouldn't let a little pulmonary embolism get him down.
     Admittedly, I may have missed some of the finer points of Gnomeo & Juliet.  I was also making dinner while I was watching so I was in and out of the room.  But I'm fairly confident that mentally, I can grasp a film that's mostly about gnomes, and uses source material that's about 500 years old.  I agree with Gnomeo--the ending he made happen was much better than that pesky everybody dies ending Shakespeare wrote.  I also really enjoyed the scene where Gnomeo was talking to the statue of William Shakespeare, and the Bard was really excited about the tragic ending.
     I would watch Gnomeo & Juliet again, and pay closer attention this time.  I would also recommend it to anyone who enjoys things that are adorable.