The Dark Knight Rises was good and satisfying. I am not going to lie, it has some problems I won't go into here (as did the first two films). The issues I had didn't ultimately deter my overall liking of the film. It was certainly the best iteration of Catwoman I've seen (with apologies to Eartha Kitt and Julie Newmar). I'll give it a solid B+.
I may write more later, this is just raw early thoughts.
I may write more later, this is just raw early thoughts.
I like to think I am a exceedingly polite person. I don't brag about many things about myself, but that's one I feel like I am an example-setter on. Sometimes being polite in a world of impolite people can be a detriment. Last week, in the parking lot of Wegmanns (a supermarket which has the rudest shoppers by far) a woman in a minivan nearly ran me over while she was backing out of her space (while on her cell phone, mind). After I dodged her car, I shook my head slightly, more out of surprise than anything else. Well. She decided it was the right thing to do (after breaking at least two NJ driving laws--no cell phone, pedestrians having the right of way) to yell something at me ("asshole" was at the end of it). I thought about pointing out that she was in the wrong, but I didn't (it was close to 100 degrees out, so I had even less fight than normal in me). Now, that woman was probably more negligent than rude (though I will file it there), but I now wish I had called her out on it (though I doubt it would have accomplished anything--I doubt she would have seen the errors of her ways).
Today, I was at a different supermarket (Stop N Shop, if you must know--and I assume you do) checking out at one of those checkout lanes where you do all the work, sans clerk. I was trying to put my stuff in bags so I could pay when a gentleman started trying to use the same lane I was in. I politely told him I was not done yet (a lot of people would have gone right to snotty anger, but I am not that way). He then "harrumphed" as if I was somehow impeding upon him. As I went to pay the man decided it prudent to stand less than a foot away from me. Again, I should have told him to back off, but I didn't. What is the matter with me? Or, is it, what is the matter with him? Did his parents not raise him right? Was/is he not raising his own kids right? Or am I overthinking this?
I don't ask nor expect people on this planet to leave a positive mark on the world (leaving it better than we find it), but I do sorta think people should at least not make things worse. I truly think if people would try harder to not invade people's personal space and just try to do the right thing most of the time Earth would be a better place (though what options do we really have?)
Saw Squeeze and the B52s last night in Atlantic City (ending on a happier note). Both were great. It was a good idea that they each played for about 70 minutes or so (concerts, to me, are almost never too short and are often too long--look at me bitching and moaning). Both bands were really tight and, since both have been around for closing in on 40 years(!) the amount of energy they still have is inspirational.
Today, I was at a different supermarket (Stop N Shop, if you must know--and I assume you do) checking out at one of those checkout lanes where you do all the work, sans clerk. I was trying to put my stuff in bags so I could pay when a gentleman started trying to use the same lane I was in. I politely told him I was not done yet (a lot of people would have gone right to snotty anger, but I am not that way). He then "harrumphed" as if I was somehow impeding upon him. As I went to pay the man decided it prudent to stand less than a foot away from me. Again, I should have told him to back off, but I didn't. What is the matter with me? Or, is it, what is the matter with him? Did his parents not raise him right? Was/is he not raising his own kids right? Or am I overthinking this?
I don't ask nor expect people on this planet to leave a positive mark on the world (leaving it better than we find it), but I do sorta think people should at least not make things worse. I truly think if people would try harder to not invade people's personal space and just try to do the right thing most of the time Earth would be a better place (though what options do we really have?)
Saw Squeeze and the B52s last night in Atlantic City (ending on a happier note). Both were great. It was a good idea that they each played for about 70 minutes or so (concerts, to me, are almost never too short and are often too long--look at me bitching and moaning). Both bands were really tight and, since both have been around for closing in on 40 years(!) the amount of energy they still have is inspirational.
Just finished the first season of The Wire. Man, good show. I have the whole series boxset and finally got around to starting it. If you like police procedural shows give it a shot. It has a very authentic feel to it, and is not loaded with dumb one-liners and action for action's sake.
I have decided I need to see Kiss and Motley Crue this September at the Garden State Arts Center (which, any NJ folks will know, is now named PNC Bank Center--but I refuse to give in to corporations, man). I try to see eclectic shows, and pride myself on diversity. I am seeing Neil Diamond, Steve Miller, and Ringo Starr all in the same week, which probably isn't so diverse, come to think of it. I need to see more shows with emerging bands/artists.
Prometheus was terrific. A true science fiction movie that actually raises interesting philosophical questions while still having intense scary parts. It is a film that will, I am sure, be even better once I have time to let the ideas in it wash over me some more. A second viewing is essential. Without spoiling, it definitely connects nicely to the first Alien movie. How many summer movies actually allow for intelligent debate over its meaning?
Ween have (has?) broken up. One of my favorite current bands now has to be moved to the "defunct" column. I am starting to run out of current bands to really dig. Ween was one of those bands I could always listen to, since so many of their albums had a mixture of styles (like Zappa, The Beatles, or They Might Be Giants). I shall now listen to Ween's albums for my own personal tribute. I know there's far far worse things going on in the world and I am shallow, but this news is really bumming me out. At least I got to see them play live (in Asbury Park three years ago) and they were awesome that night (apparently they got somewhat spotty in later years due to possible personal issues).
The Grey is one of the best movies of the year. It is so much more than a simple "wolves attack people" movie. It has interesting characters (who are actually allowed depth and development), beautiful cinematography, a literate screenplay (dare I say Hemingwayesque?), and some thrilling action scenes. It's a shame it came out so early in the year, because the movie and Liam Neeson both deserve awards attention. See this movie!
I wish to lose weight. I am not trying to be overly ambitious with it (no miracle diet). Now that it is warmer out, I have no excuse to be out of doors and far more active than I have been. I think if I can get more active and avoid sugary and/or fried foods I can not only not gain weight, but can reduce my current tonnage. If only losing weight was as easy as gaining it. Stupid metabolism! When I was twenty, all I had to do was not eat excessively and weight would slide off and stay off. Now that I am nearly twice that age(!) I can only look back with fondness of them old days.
In any case, I am off now for a five mile walk. Not a jog, not a run. I am not going to be "that guy", you know, the one who works out hardcore for two days and lectures everyone about what they're doing wrong. I think a reasonable goal would be to take off somewhere in the 5-10 lbs range in a month or so. I can do this. But will I? I want to at least get down to a weight I wouldn't be embarrassed to admit to. That's not going to be for a while, though...
Right now, I am not healthy. I am also displeased with my appearance. So, vanity and a need for self-preservation should be incentive enough.
In any case, I am off now for a five mile walk. Not a jog, not a run. I am not going to be "that guy", you know, the one who works out hardcore for two days and lectures everyone about what they're doing wrong. I think a reasonable goal would be to take off somewhere in the 5-10 lbs range in a month or so. I can do this. But will I? I want to at least get down to a weight I wouldn't be embarrassed to admit to. That's not going to be for a while, though...
Right now, I am not healthy. I am also displeased with my appearance. So, vanity and a need for self-preservation should be incentive enough.
Here's a review I wrote for my website, moviepodpie.com Give it a shot!
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
Directed by Gary Ross
Written By Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray Based On A Novel By Suzanne Collins
Starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss); Josh Hutcherson (Peeta); Liam Hemsworth (Gale)
OK. Now that the "hype" has died down a bit I have decided to take a look at The Hunger Games. I'm not trying to be a "Johnny Come Lately" (I wonder who the real Johnny was who came late--does he get residuals on this? I have managed to digress in only two sentences, a new record for me--maybe I can start a new phrase "Johnny Digression"). I intentionally waited to see and review this movie because, frankly, if you are a hardcore fan of this franchise you have already seen it (more than once) and wouldn't heed my advice (whether a recommendation or a dismissal) in any case. This review is not written for teenagers. It is written for guys just like me. Let's face it--this movie wasn't made with the "Geeky Guys Approaching 40" demographic in mind. That said--
In 1924, a short story written by Richard Connell was published by Collier's Weekly. Entitled "The Most Dangerous Game", it involved the concept of Man hunting Man. I mention this fact not to show how knowledgeable I am (since I pulled that fact not out of the recesses of my mind but from Wikipedia), but to point out something crucial/critical about the supposed lack of originality in The Hunger Games. Most geek-oriented reviews of this movie point out its liberal appropriation of plot elements from sources such as Battle Royale (an insanely violent Asian film), The Running Man (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--whatever became of him?), The Long Walk (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--oh yeah, he was "killed" by Stephen King some time ago), the Star Trek episode "Breads And Circuses", and, of course, the television show "Survivor" (which to me, at least, is not a "Reality Show" so much as it is a "Game Show"). The point being, sure, The Hunger Games certainly is not "original" but then again, neither are any of the stories/movies that it takes from.
Is it original? No. Does that instantly categorize it as bad? No. So, then, is it good? Well, sure. I suppose it is. I mean, it kept me engaged for its (to be fair overly long) 2 1/2 hour running time. It entertained me. There were actual moments of suspense and things of a gripping nature. I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment value. However--
The problems I have with the movie (and would likely have with the book were I to read it) are fairly large. The basic plot (I'll "high concept" describe this as best I can) is this: In a dystopic future, the United States (I know, I know, it's really called Panem, but to be honest, it's America) has been split into 12 sectors (districts). Every year a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) from each district are chosen by lot (I guess we can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery to this movie's origin stew, come to think of it) to battle to the death on television. The reasons for this are not all that clear, but it evidentially is to pay tribute to the evil overlord-like government (run by a ZZ Top bearded Donald Sutherland). So, the survivor rate for these Games is not very much in your favor, should your name be drawn (I would calculate it, but I am not much for math learnin'). Since the Games are televised (there are cameras EVERYWHERE), all of the killings are broadcast (presumably all 23 of them) to the bloodthirsty masses (though, when we see the masses watching the Games, they don't appear to be especially bloodthirsty). We follow the Tributes from District 12, a fierce headstrong girl named Katniss, and a likable, if dull, boy named Peeta (not sure if this is a subtle advertisement for PETA, my guess and hope would be not). Will one of them survive? Will they fall in love? I am not going to spoil it. I will say, however, that there are three books in the series, so what do you think the chances are Katniss gets offed?
So, that's basically it. This is one of those "futurey" movies where there's an occasional rocketship flying overhead and most of the characters have "future hair" (you'll know what I mean if/when yo see it). The costumes all look to be not so much futuristic as they appear to be Gaultier designs, circa 1995 or so (I can see in my mind Kate Moss wearing some of these clothes). There's stormtroopers and weird facial hair, which I would imagine means our great-grandchildren's generation will be spending lots of time with grooming.
So, if Katniss is the hero of the movie (is "heroine" considered now to be sexist the same way "actress" is?) and we have to like her and want to see her survive, we're going to have to see her actually kill people. It's here that the movie really loses me. The story wants its cake and to eat it too. If we watch Katniss kill people in a bloodthirsty fashion it will make her not sympathetic. However, if she doesn't kill anyone, she would probably be the first to go. So, the movie cheats. It keeps putting her into scenarios where she would have to make some morally shaky decisions and then almost immediately removes her from them. Had the movie really examined what its premise was, it would be glorifying a mass murderer. Since glorifications of mass murderers aren't usually fodder for PG-13 event movies, this won't do. I am treading lightly here to avoid spoilers, but there's another Tribute that Katniss teams up with, and when I saw that, I thought, "Hmm, this could get interesting if Katniss needs to eventually fight this other character to the death". A second or two later, that moral quandary was eliminated, as was the possibility of the film going into some dicey and interesting territory.
Another problem is the Hunger Games themselves (should it be plural? Not sure). The rules should be set in stone and yet they are amazingly flexible to the demands of the plot. Again, we cannot have two characters we grow to care about killing each other (not in a teen movie, apparently), so the Game Master (or whatever you want to use to describe Wes Bentley's character) makes a fundamental change that makes no sense to the world that the movie is depicting. Did someone read the screenplay?
Another major issue I have is with just how futuristic this world really is. It is a mixture of high tech and agrarian cultures, which is fine, but just how high tech is this future? The Games, as mentioned, are monitored by what must be thousands of cameras. Fine, but later in the movie, the people running the Games seem to be able to make living breathing creatures materialize out of the thin air (monster creatures that seem to be half dog, half bear, and all bad CGI). So, if this is a world that can manufacture animals from nowhere (maybe the science of this is explained in the novel better, but in the movie it is a confusing mess) it would seem hunger would not be much of a problem (I mean, just create lots of cows, pigs, and chickens, for God's sake). These creatures are a jarring addition to the proceedings and go a long way to wreck the credibility of the world that we're being asked to buy into.
In any case, I still liked the movie fine. The acting was good. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good as Katniss, a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her sibling (coming off her work in the overrated Winter's Bone, where she played a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her siblings). Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, though the script fails him (why have him betray Katniss at one point if you're never going to deal with it). As the "Adults" Woody Harrelson is decent as a former Games survivor (though his character seems to be pulled and pushed in directions that make no character sense but further the plot). Stanley Tucci, as the host of the television show, is having fun here and it is infectious (he is one of the few people in the movie, both as actor and character who seems to understand the utter ridiculousness of the premise). Liam Hemsworth is barely used (I imagine we'll have more of him in the sequels, when the movie adds Twilight to its influences by having a love triangle between a good girl, a decent boy, and another boy with a dangerous edge).
This is a pretty good movie. I'm not sure it should be closing in on $400 million domestic, but then, as mentioned, this movie doesn't necessarily consider me as a viable target for it. It has enough action to keep you watching, if not "hungry" for more (I believe all reviews should in some way pun the title of what you're reviewing--thanks Gene Shalit and Jeffrey Lyons!)
Two more books to adapt into movies. How much you wanna bet the last book Mockingjay is made into two separate movies?
Letter Grade: B
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
Directed by Gary Ross
Written By Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray Based On A Novel By Suzanne Collins
Starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss); Josh Hutcherson (Peeta); Liam Hemsworth (Gale)
OK. Now that the "hype" has died down a bit I have decided to take a look at The Hunger Games. I'm not trying to be a "Johnny Come Lately" (I wonder who the real Johnny was who came late--does he get residuals on this? I have managed to digress in only two sentences, a new record for me--maybe I can start a new phrase "Johnny Digression"). I intentionally waited to see and review this movie because, frankly, if you are a hardcore fan of this franchise you have already seen it (more than once) and wouldn't heed my advice (whether a recommendation or a dismissal) in any case. This review is not written for teenagers. It is written for guys just like me. Let's face it--this movie wasn't made with the "Geeky Guys Approaching 40" demographic in mind. That said--
In 1924, a short story written by Richard Connell was published by Collier's Weekly. Entitled "The Most Dangerous Game", it involved the concept of Man hunting Man. I mention this fact not to show how knowledgeable I am (since I pulled that fact not out of the recesses of my mind but from Wikipedia), but to point out something crucial/critical about the supposed lack of originality in The Hunger Games. Most geek-oriented reviews of this movie point out its liberal appropriation of plot elements from sources such as Battle Royale (an insanely violent Asian film), The Running Man (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--whatever became of him?), The Long Walk (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--oh yeah, he was "killed" by Stephen King some time ago), the Star Trek episode "Breads And Circuses", and, of course, the television show "Survivor" (which to me, at least, is not a "Reality Show" so much as it is a "Game Show"). The point being, sure, The Hunger Games certainly is not "original" but then again, neither are any of the stories/movies that it takes from.
Is it original? No. Does that instantly categorize it as bad? No. So, then, is it good? Well, sure. I suppose it is. I mean, it kept me engaged for its (to be fair overly long) 2 1/2 hour running time. It entertained me. There were actual moments of suspense and things of a gripping nature. I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment value. However--
The problems I have with the movie (and would likely have with the book were I to read it) are fairly large. The basic plot (I'll "high concept" describe this as best I can) is this: In a dystopic future, the United States (I know, I know, it's really called Panem, but to be honest, it's America) has been split into 12 sectors (districts). Every year a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) from each district are chosen by lot (I guess we can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery to this movie's origin stew, come to think of it) to battle to the death on television. The reasons for this are not all that clear, but it evidentially is to pay tribute to the evil overlord-like government (run by a ZZ Top bearded Donald Sutherland). So, the survivor rate for these Games is not very much in your favor, should your name be drawn (I would calculate it, but I am not much for math learnin'). Since the Games are televised (there are cameras EVERYWHERE), all of the killings are broadcast (presumably all 23 of them) to the bloodthirsty masses (though, when we see the masses watching the Games, they don't appear to be especially bloodthirsty). We follow the Tributes from District 12, a fierce headstrong girl named Katniss, and a likable, if dull, boy named Peeta (not sure if this is a subtle advertisement for PETA, my guess and hope would be not). Will one of them survive? Will they fall in love? I am not going to spoil it. I will say, however, that there are three books in the series, so what do you think the chances are Katniss gets offed?
So, that's basically it. This is one of those "futurey" movies where there's an occasional rocketship flying overhead and most of the characters have "future hair" (you'll know what I mean if/when yo see it). The costumes all look to be not so much futuristic as they appear to be Gaultier designs, circa 1995 or so (I can see in my mind Kate Moss wearing some of these clothes). There's stormtroopers and weird facial hair, which I would imagine means our great-grandchildren's generation will be spending lots of time with grooming.
So, if Katniss is the hero of the movie (is "heroine" considered now to be sexist the same way "actress" is?) and we have to like her and want to see her survive, we're going to have to see her actually kill people. It's here that the movie really loses me. The story wants its cake and to eat it too. If we watch Katniss kill people in a bloodthirsty fashion it will make her not sympathetic. However, if she doesn't kill anyone, she would probably be the first to go. So, the movie cheats. It keeps putting her into scenarios where she would have to make some morally shaky decisions and then almost immediately removes her from them. Had the movie really examined what its premise was, it would be glorifying a mass murderer. Since glorifications of mass murderers aren't usually fodder for PG-13 event movies, this won't do. I am treading lightly here to avoid spoilers, but there's another Tribute that Katniss teams up with, and when I saw that, I thought, "Hmm, this could get interesting if Katniss needs to eventually fight this other character to the death". A second or two later, that moral quandary was eliminated, as was the possibility of the film going into some dicey and interesting territory.
Another problem is the Hunger Games themselves (should it be plural? Not sure). The rules should be set in stone and yet they are amazingly flexible to the demands of the plot. Again, we cannot have two characters we grow to care about killing each other (not in a teen movie, apparently), so the Game Master (or whatever you want to use to describe Wes Bentley's character) makes a fundamental change that makes no sense to the world that the movie is depicting. Did someone read the screenplay?
Another major issue I have is with just how futuristic this world really is. It is a mixture of high tech and agrarian cultures, which is fine, but just how high tech is this future? The Games, as mentioned, are monitored by what must be thousands of cameras. Fine, but later in the movie, the people running the Games seem to be able to make living breathing creatures materialize out of the thin air (monster creatures that seem to be half dog, half bear, and all bad CGI). So, if this is a world that can manufacture animals from nowhere (maybe the science of this is explained in the novel better, but in the movie it is a confusing mess) it would seem hunger would not be much of a problem (I mean, just create lots of cows, pigs, and chickens, for God's sake). These creatures are a jarring addition to the proceedings and go a long way to wreck the credibility of the world that we're being asked to buy into.
In any case, I still liked the movie fine. The acting was good. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good as Katniss, a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her sibling (coming off her work in the overrated Winter's Bone, where she played a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her siblings). Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, though the script fails him (why have him betray Katniss at one point if you're never going to deal with it). As the "Adults" Woody Harrelson is decent as a former Games survivor (though his character seems to be pulled and pushed in directions that make no character sense but further the plot). Stanley Tucci, as the host of the television show, is having fun here and it is infectious (he is one of the few people in the movie, both as actor and character who seems to understand the utter ridiculousness of the premise). Liam Hemsworth is barely used (I imagine we'll have more of him in the sequels, when the movie adds Twilight to its influences by having a love triangle between a good girl, a decent boy, and another boy with a dangerous edge).
This is a pretty good movie. I'm not sure it should be closing in on $400 million domestic, but then, as mentioned, this movie doesn't necessarily consider me as a viable target for it. It has enough action to keep you watching, if not "hungry" for more (I believe all reviews should in some way pun the title of what you're reviewing--thanks Gene Shalit and Jeffrey Lyons!)
Two more books to adapt into movies. How much you wanna bet the last book Mockingjay is made into two separate movies?
Letter Grade: B
I was going to write a whole "thing" about how I just plain don't seem to have even the most rudimentary understanding of women. I decided not to, since it would likely be a bore to read. It's doubtless true, however. I haven't often managed, in my nearly 40 years on the planet, to correctly guess when a member of the opposing sex is/is not interested in me. I have an almost flawless track record for guessing incorrectly (so, maybe it is more like I have a "very flawed" track record, come to think of it).
There's a woman in particular who I am almost certain knows of my interest in her, and yet I cannot seem to get my foot in the door (metaphorically speaking). She occasionally will do something that would, to my aforementioned poor judgment, express a reciprocation of interest, but then somehow manage to make a reversal on it. This, of course, confounds me. It is strange, and it makes me feel not unlike being back in High School (like Kurdt Cobain sang, "You're in high school again"),
I am not sure what to do, when I do something it is wrong, but when I do nothing, that also seems to be wrong. Ay yi yi. Anyhoo--
Two things. I don't know why I wrote "not unlike" earlier instead of just "like". Pretentious? I also hate when someone writes/says "anyhoo".
In two days I am seeing Barry Manilow at Radio City Music Hall. Perhaps hearing "Daybreak" live in concert will act as an oracle and unlock the mysteries that are tantalizingly outside of my grasp.
There's a woman in particular who I am almost certain knows of my interest in her, and yet I cannot seem to get my foot in the door (metaphorically speaking). She occasionally will do something that would, to my aforementioned poor judgment, express a reciprocation of interest, but then somehow manage to make a reversal on it. This, of course, confounds me. It is strange, and it makes me feel not unlike being back in High School (like Kurdt Cobain sang, "You're in high school again"),
I am not sure what to do, when I do something it is wrong, but when I do nothing, that also seems to be wrong. Ay yi yi. Anyhoo--
Two things. I don't know why I wrote "not unlike" earlier instead of just "like". Pretentious? I also hate when someone writes/says "anyhoo".
In two days I am seeing Barry Manilow at Radio City Music Hall. Perhaps hearing "Daybreak" live in concert will act as an oracle and unlock the mysteries that are tantalizingly outside of my grasp.
