I chose Opposites Flower because this post has two reviews. Both star Jeff Bridges and the movies are both quite similar and yet quite different. So--on with the reviews!
-
This past weekend I caught two movies, True Grit and Tron. As I said in the previous paragraph--both star Jeff Bridges and there are both big similarities and big differences. First I'll deal with True Grit.
-
I had seen the first True Grit way back in 1969 and, although not a big Western OR John Wayne fan, I really enjoyed the movie. This new version has been completely re-concieved and it is just as good as the original. This True Grit is frankly grittier than the first version. The older movie was bathed in bright colors altogether cleaner. The new version was washed in sepia tones (rather like a faded color photograph. The cowboys aren't nearly as handsome (although both Rooster Cogburns have clearly seen better days). The new version sticks closer to the book in plot and language but there is plenty of quirkiness as you'd expect in any Coen brothers film.
-
Jeff Bridges is morally ambiguous as Rooster but he still makes you root for him. The single-biggest standout in the cast though is relative newcommer Hailee Steinfeld: her Maddy Ross is stubborn and single-minded and she too is entirely believeable. Matt Damon has some of his good looks toned down but his texas accent is flawless. Josh Brolin is hardly recognizable as Tom Chaney but he is creepy and does "bad guy" to perfection. The rest of the cast handles the difficult script with aplomb: they never distract from the tone and character of the movie.
-
If there is any justice in the world True Grit will nominated for multiiple Oscars. A "Best Picture" nod is certain (but with ten slots to fill how could it not? Still--this is a highly worthy contender.) Best Actor/Actress nominations are also a lock for Bridges and Steinmetz and I expect a Directorial nod for the Coen brothers. There should also be a slew of other awards for writing, set and costume design, cinematography and other categories. True Grit is well worth the trip to your local cineplex (just leave the kiddies at home).
-
FINAL GRADE: A+
-
Tron was a critical and financial flop way back in 1982 although it spawned a large and deeply-devoted cult following. (I wasn't quite a "Tron" Cultist but I really enjoyed it.) When I heard they were making a sequel I had high hopes. Sadly, I went to see the movie...
-
I so wanted Tron Legacy to work: if it wasn't for the script I'd really have enjoyed the movie. The "light cycle" "I.D. Disk" Gladiator battles are back and the visual effects have been ramped out so they are truly a thing of beauty to behold. Male lead Garrett Hedlund needs a thorough ass kicking (at least his character does). He gives it the old college try but it would take an actor of more talent and experience to rise above the drek that is this script. Jeff Bridges' character from the original has discovered (in the words of my young friend Eris Young) "Zen and shit" but it just doesn't work here. His philosophising just drags an already weighty movie into the toilet.
-
I could spent literally hours cataloging the faults of this movie but why prolog the pain? Suffice it to say this movie is just, plain, BAD. It is a pretty movie but, like a dumb, blonde, there's nothing inside. It's nice to look at but ultimately unengaging. If you MUST see Tron Legacy park your brain (and any higher expectattions) at the door. Sneak in after watching a better movie or, better yet, wait to this comes out and rent it. Even waiting for the network TV debut wouldn't be a bad idea.
-
FINAL GRADE: C- (and that's being kind)
It's that time of year--the time where I talk about the latest additons to my ever-growing Christmas Album collection. Thus I chose Christmas Bells as today's fractal cookie. Now that's out of the way--lets get on with the review!
-
Faithful readers of this blog will know I really like my Christmas music. (I know, you're still surprised--deal with it.) Once upon I said I'd have one Christmas Album for each year I'm alive--but that ship sailed long ago. (Of course, I have been weeding out my collection--but I'm not going to talk about that.) This year I found myself going toward popular artists. The results were--interesting (to say the least!) So, here are the reviews...
-
A Christmas Corncucopia by Annie Lennox
Annie Lennox, the female half of the Eurythmics, has released an album of mostly traditional material. There is a decided Eurythmics "vibe" to the music and arrangements (although Dave Stewart is nowhere in evidence). She's never had the world's best voice and the years haven't been kind to her vocal cords and a lot of the songs seem more shouted than sung. Still, somehow she manages to make it work: combining techno and world music elements with these familiar (and a few not-so-familiar) old carols makes for an excellent listen. There's nary a mention of Santa or anything else secular--and I found that rather refreshing. The one original song, Universal Child, isn't holiday-themed at all--but rather talks about suffering children. All the procedes of this song are going to charity so I can't really knock (even though the sentiment has been expressed many times before--and better). If you were a fan of the Eurythmics, "synth-pop" or even just holiday music that isn't a carbon copy of evertyhing else you've heard done to death A Christmas Cornucopia is a worthy choice.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
-
A Cherry Cherry Christmas by Neil Diamond
In a lot of ways this album is the polar opposite of the one reviewed above: with two exceptions (Joy To The World and Amazing Grace) this is a decidedly secular outing. A lot of the songs are lushly orchestrated and you have deal with Diamond's often cheesey (which sometimes seems to veery way too close to self parody) that send some of the songs that threaten to send the album into the land of Utter Crapdom. (His version of White Christmas needs to be taken out in the alley and shot and Jingle Bell Rock couldn't be saved by Jesus Christ himself.) The three new songs included here are nice but nothing special: there are no new Christmas Classics here Still, there are a few songs that save the album from the toilet. The self-referential title track is chock-full of shout outs to Neil Diamond songs and albums: it's pure fun (but, like, any novelty song might grow tiresome after a few hearings) His gospel-drenched Joy To The World harkens back to Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show and there seems to be some real emotion and sentiment here. The strangest song on the closer--The Chanukah Song (yes, the one by Adam Sandler!). I didn't think he could pull it off but somehow he makes it work (and it's one of the better cuts on the whole album). Neil Diamond fans will eat this up like candy and fans of mainstream music will probablhy enjoy it more than I did. This is one of those times I really wanted to cherry pick the best cuts on i-Tunes and ignore the rest.
-
FINAL GRADE: B-
-
Joy by Jim Brickman
New Age Pianist Jim Brickman is back with his third Christmas Album featuring more gooey goodness for the holidays. This has a nice mix of traditional carols and one or two new pieces done mostly with solo piano (with the occasional instrumental or vocal added in for spice). Unless you are a serious piano fan you don't actually need to listen to anything on here--but it makes for great background music. (This is perfect music for a holiday party or to read a book by the fire.) The original songs are more forgetable than those on the previous two albums but that's OK. All in all, this album isn't bad for what it is--if you don't expect a lot.
-
Final Grade: C+
-
Christmas Wishes by Aureole
Technically, this isn't a "new" Christmas album at all (although it is new to me). It was released back in 2004 but I didn't know of its existance until a few days ago while listening to Holiday Pops on satelite radio. That got me curious enough to search my usual musical haunts: I found it only at Amazon.com but it was cheap so I bought a copy. Three hot babes playing flute, viola and harp travel through mostly traditional, and quite familiar, music: some of the arrangements a very traditional and some have a decidely jazzy, very modern-day vibe. The mix makes for an interesting combination you can actually listen to or simply put on as background music for a holiday party. There aren't any "oh my gawd that song is awesome!" moments on the album--but neither are there any "Jeez--that song sucks major!" moments either. For those who like their holiday music out of the mainstream this album is well worth tracking down.
-
FINAL GRADE: A-
-
Holly Happy Days by the Indigo Girls
And now for something completely different--starting with the packaging! This album doesn't ship in the usual plastic "jewel case" but instead comes with inside a cardboard "present" along with three free-standing "ornaments" (so they could include the liner notes). This is a fairly low-fi, folksy album with a decidely country flair. Unlike the other albums I've reviewed today, seven of the eleven tunes are originals (that vary from the pretty darn good to merely OK). Songs like the rollicking I Feel The Christmas Spirit and the joyful Your Holiday Song are the stand-outs in the bunch although there's much to recommend the hauting lullaby Peace Child. The traditonal songs are where the album falls down a bit: their version of O Holy Night isn't quite a howler but their bawling version doesn't do justice to one of the most beautiful Christmas songs ever written and there cheesed-up version of I'll Be Home For Christmas is a total groaner. In The Bleak Midwinter is entirely too spritely for my taste but the harmonies and instrumentation at least make it interesting to listen to. Not sure why they felt the need to include Happy Joyous Hanukah but their version is loaded with fun and good cheer and fits right in with the tone of the other songs. It is an altogether worthy additon to the collection. At least they follow it up and end the album with a pretty good Angels We Have Heard On High. Again, this is an album out of the mainstream but this is something more than just background music. Holly Happy Days has its flaws but the highs well outnumber the lows: all in all it is well worth the listen.
-
FINAL GRADE: A-
Any post that deals with a religious theme (even peripherally) gets a "Stained Glass" fractal. This post deals with a matter that is purely "black and white" (in my mind at least) so I chose Stained Glass 13 as today's cookie: I'm just sorry the image is so pretty because what I'll be talking about is frankly ugly.
-
CNN reports those "delightful people" (SARCASM ON) at the Westboro Baptist Church have announced they will be picketing the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards. These are the same people who used to picked funerals of those who died of AIDS then decided they could get more coverage picketing funerals of American soldiers killed in action. If you need to read the story here's a link you can check out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/elizabeth-edwards-funeral-westboro-baptist-church_n_794333.html . (WARNING: this is disgusting--and it's me who's saying that!!!)
-
I have a good vocabulary yet I find I can't find the words to sufficiently condem such utter and complete NONSENSE!!! Forget the fact that these fools have obvious never cracked the New Testament of the Holy Bible or that they have never heard of the words "Christian forgiveness." How can people who presume to call themselves a Christian Church have the NERVE to claim they know the mind of God? (Come on people--confining someone to HELL??? I thought only God could do that...) These people give Christians a bad name throughout the entire world.
-
Normally, there's no greater advocate of Free Speech then me. Honestly, I believe they have a right to put this (pardon my French) utter shit out there: I just wonder who keeps feeling the need to continually bring these people (and folks like them) back to the national spotlight. What possible good does the Media feel can be done by giving them coverage? They are a tiny, fringe group that even many Fundamentalist Christians find hard to take: they add nothing to the national dialog and frankly don't deserve coverage.
-
Therefor I have a suggestion that should be given serious consideration: lets introduce the Amish concept of "Shunning" to american society--and lets begin with the Westboro Baptist Church. When someone in the Amish community commits a serious offense they are completely ignored by the community as a whole. The offender is not spoken TO or OF: the community does there best to pretend the shunned individual never existed.
-
Since I suggested the idea I'm going to be the first one to put it into practice: henceforward I promise that those people will never again be mentioned by me in this blog--or anywhere else. Let them say what they want and DO what they want: I won't comment and will pretend they don't exist. Never again will I waste metephorical ink or even a though on those people. Won't you join me?
-
Think about it.
I chose Openwork 4 as today's fractal "cookie" because it is a tangled, candy-colored image and Tangled is a candy-colored movie! (I was desperate to find something--anything--worked and was too lazy to try and create a new image.) So--on with the review!
-
The Disney marketing machine has a habit of milking the proverbial cow until it's dry--and they've done it no more than with the (in)famous "Disney Princesses" we know and love (?) so well. It seems the "Princess Cow" is coming to an end--not with a bang but a whimper. All that being said, Tangled isn't a BAD movie--it's just not all that good...
-
Generally, I go into a movie hoping for the best but I went into Tangled hoping it just wouldn't be too bad. And, as I said in the previous paragraph--it's not bad. You have a familiar plot (if you know Rapunzel you know the story) jazzed up a bit for a modern audience. The all-too familiar characters are ably voiced by a cadre of well-know talents and seasoned professionals but there are no particularly standout performances in the whole lot. Most of the music is forgetable (even as you're listening to it). The animation is solid, craftsman-like work (pretty and well-rendered without being particularly memorable). Being Disney's 50th animated movie, I hoped for more but Tangled simply doesn't deliver.
-
Tangled is perfect for young Princesses and their parents will probably be able to tolerate the movie--even if they don't love it. It's a toss up whether you bring the Princess's brothers to the movie (there's some action and a cute horse they're sure to love but a lot of gooshy romantic stuff to wade through. Animation fans need not go since there's nothing new and exciting for them and it will play just as well (maybe better) on DVD. Adults don't need to go unless they're mad Disney fans.
-
FINAL GRADE: C+
A review of any "Harry Potter" movie requires a fractal cookie with something do to with magic. Hence I chose Magic Syne--and the coloor palette even goes with the film.
-
Harry Potter films have grown longer and more complex with each film but really that's no surprise considering the books grew longer with each offering. Still, the long, thickly-stuffed films couldn't include nearly all the details in the books and the films came close to incomprehensible for non-fans. That's partly why the last film was divided into two parts: like the book.
-
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a dark and complex offering. Fans will find the film satisfying: non-fans might find it a bit confusing with so many characters you need a playbook to figure out who's who and how they are related. Still, dividing the movie into two parts helps clear up details left unexplalined in earlier offerings (although there is still a lot of details left out). The movie's dark and brooding tone matches the book. As always, the acting is fine and the special effects are first-rate. Still, there are a few things missing from this film: Hogwarts never appears and there is, of course, no spectacular Quidditch scenes to dazzle. Likewise missing are the humor and sense of cammeraderie that made the earlier books and movie such a wonderful experience. Even so, this fits with the book and, somber as it was, I found myself being sorry the I'll have to wait until July to see the rest.
-
Fans and those who have read the books are sure to enjoy Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One. It deserves to be seen on a big screen with good sound. Others may well find the movie confusing, long and a bit dull (but they probably wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon at this late date). You know which group you belong to and that will determine whether you see the film.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
Why is Kudzu an appropriate fractal cookie for a review of Little Shop Of Horrors? If you've seen the movie or the show you can probably figure it out: if you haven't check it out and the similarities should become clear. (If it's not clear after that you probably shouldn't be reading this blog. So--on with the review!
-
Little Shop Of Horrors has made a long journey from the begining as a "Grade Z" black and white film directed by "Schlockmeister" Roger Corman way back in 1960. (These days the film is noted for the performance of a then-unknow Jack Nicholson.) The film quickly came and went leaving little impression but somebody got the bright idea to turn the property into a musical send-up of Sci Fi and Broadway musicals. Thanks largely to a clever script and awesome songs by Howard Ashman and Alan Mencken (who later went on to major fame as the musical force behind such hits as Disney's Litle Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and many others). The show ran Off-Broadway for five years and spawned a second movie (staring Rick Moranis). Since then the show has surfaced periodically in regional theaters throughout the nation.
-
Little Shop of Horrors is a perfect show for a group like Performance Riverside: the cast is small and doesn't require a big band or major effects (with the exception of the puppetry required to manipulate Audrey 2). Still, the show DOES require everyone involved to be high-caliber talent--and this Performance Riverside has in plenty and they miss few opportunities to milk the show for all its worth. Seymour (Morgan Reynolds) is does "loveable nebbish" and he can seriously belt when he needs to (and that's pretty often in the show). Alyssa Marie has the big voice, great face and fine figure required for Audrey (but her outifts are way to understated for the character). Isaac James comes off as a bit to flamingly gay in his myriad roles (Orin the Dentist and several other minor parts) but his manic energy is effective and charming. (If they ever do Batman as a Broadway musical he'd be a magnificent Joker.) The "Urchins" are as fine a girl-group as the Crystals, Chiffons or Ronettes: they keep the show rolling along. Audrey 2 is given voice by M. Darnell Suttles and movement by Jason Graham. It wouoldn't be a show at the Landis without techncal problems and Audrey 2 gets the worst of it. Still, everything works (at least mostly) and they soldiered on no matter what.
-
I need to give the cast exceptional "props": we show the show as a Sunday Matinee with an audience that was thoroughly uninvolved. Still, the cast gave 100% in spite of everything and a good time was had by all. The script and songs are clever and almost never let the pace flag: they never let the technical issues get the best of them. Little Shop Of Horros (at least this production is well worth the price of admission.
-
FINAL GRADE: A-
A review of the Star Trek Exhibition requires a star-themed fractal--or so it seems to me. I chose Starcircle mainly because the colors reminded me of that odd mustard shirt Captain Kirk used to wear in the original series.
-
I'm no "Trekker" (and certainly not a "Trekkie") but I've been a pretty big fan of Star Trek since Day One. I only got to see a few first run episodes in my youth but I devoured the reruns from the moment we got cable (and to this day tune in when to some of my favorite episodes when they're broadcast). I was there through all of Star Trek: the Next Generation and caught up with ruruns of DS-9 and Voyager. I wasn't a huge fan of Enterprise (the last/first Star Trek show but I was over-the-moon for the re-boot a couple of years ago. Needless to say I'd been wanting to see the Star Trek Exhibiton since it was first created but circumstances always conspired against me and wasn't able to make it. I missed the show in Long Beach, I missed it in Vegas and I missed it in Los Angeles. Today I finally got to see it.
-
What a letdown...
-
Maybe it was the fact that we parked four blocks away (there being nothing closer) or maybe it was because I went hiking in dress shoes. (It rained here last night and I didn't want to risk my nice suede causual shoes in puddles--of which there were many). Maybe it was the early lunch in a crowded, noisy (not to mention expensive) little restaurant or maybe I was just in a pissy mood. Still, tickets to the show was what I asked for as my birthday gift and I was bound and determined to enjoy myself.
-
The exhibition offerings were pretty slim--nothing from the pilot episodes and only a few costumes from the original series. (William Shatner is a TINY man BTW...) Like any costume you don't want to get too close because then you can see all the little imperfectsions (of which there were many in the first show). Still, it was good to get a look at the old stuff. "TNG" was much better represented (having run for seven years and by then Paramount knew this stuff would be valueable one day) and "Voyager" gets a brief mention. There were re-constructions of the "Enterprise D" Medical Bay and Engineering Section which was kind of cool as well.
-
Still, the show is notable for what it leaves out. There are no models of any of the ships (they've long been sold off to collectors) and the assembly of costumes seems frankly random. Kirk gets a lot of coverage but Spock barely gets a mention and the rest of the crew gets mentioned not at all. There are several Picard costumes and a few Troi ensembles but not much from the other characters in TNG. Katherine Janeway has one ensemble but that's about it for Voyager. Enterprise and the re-boot don't even get mentioned.
-
Trekkers have seen this stuff before (and probably better examples) at conventions and those not utterly devoted to the series won't find a lot to inspire them. Mind you--the Star Trek Exhiition isn't all that BAD (particcularly considering it only cost $15.00 to get in) but it's really not all that good either. See it if you have a few extra bucks and nothing better to do...
-
FINAL GRADE: C-
I couldn't really come up with a perfect fit for today's fractal cookie so I decided to go the "free association" route. Here's the chain: South Pacific is part of an ocean, oceans have waves--thus Wave On Wave becomes today's cookie. Now--on with the review!
-
What can you say about an endearing and enduring classic like South Pacific? From start to finish the show is literally stuffed with memorable (and, more importantly, humable) tunes. Yes, there are some plot issues, chief among them Nellie being able to get past Emile's killing a man and the age difference but not being able to get past the fact that he had two "colored" children. Still, the show is a product of its time and way back then it was an issue. Looking at it from a "relativeist" point-of-view South Pacific made some valid points that resonate even today.
-
The new National Tour of South Pacific has decided to re-create (as best they can) what the original Broadway production looked like. A massive (by touring standards) Orchestra (25 touring players augmented by local musicians) lays out a fantastic foundation for the able cast. The large cast doesn't skimp on talent and the Producers don't skimp on the details--whether it be Navy uniforms or the fact that black servicemen are pretty much always segregated. One thing the Producers did (which IMHO wasn't necessary) was add back in deleted music that hasn't been heard on stage since nearly the begining. Sadly, these are mostly reprises and only serve to make a long show even longer: they don't add anything but they don't really take anything away from the show either.
-
Much of the credit for the tour's success goes to leads David Pittsinger and Carmen Cusak. Pittsinger (Emille Dubeque) is an Oera-trained Basso Profundo and literally everything stops each time this guy opens his mouth. (Yes, he's THAT good!) Sadly, his French accent sometimes wanders toward Transylvania but that is a minor quibble. Cusak (Nellie) is a more-than-suitable match for him in the pipes department: her put-on "country" accent was a bit off-putting (to me at least) when she is obviously so highly trained. Still, there's no denying her vocal chops, her acting ability or the fact that she's as cute as can be--everything a Nellie Forbush needs to be!
-
Anderson Davis as Lt. Joe Cable doesn't fare quite so well: yes, he has the all-American good looks of a leading man but he blew "big notes" in TWO different songs! (In a cast this good, that's pretty much an unforgivealbe sin.) I also found his affair with Liat a tad creepy: Liat is played by Sume Maeda and she is a tiny little thing who looks, maybe, fourteen. I'd have much rather seen Cable getting it on with a lush Polynesia beauty than what looks distressingly like child molestation. The rest of the cast acquits themselves well and there's not a loser in the bunch.
-
South Pacific is just about a perfect show: the plot is completely accessable and the music is perfectly crafted the singing and acting are first rate and there's nothing like a show with a full orchestra. Theater "Virgins" will have an experience like few others and only the most jaded "Veteran" won't find a lot to appreciate here. Tours like this don't come around very often so go see it while you can. GO SEE THIS SHOW!!!
-
FINAL GRADE: A+
Sometimes choosing a fractal for these posts is virtually impossible. Other times it's as easy as falling off a long. For RED it was the latter: all I had to do was pick out an image that was mostly red. That's Why I chose Satin Arabesque 66(B) for today's image. Now--on with the review!
-
There are few things better (at least at the movies) than a "really good" Action Comedy: likewise, there are few things harder to pull off. Lucky for me Red manages to work on both levels--action AND comedy. Yes, the plot has more holes than a thousand-pound wheel of premium Swiss Cheese but you don't go to these movies for the plot intracies: you go for the big battle scenes and witty banter--and this RED has in plenty. The action moves along so quickly you don't get a chance to worry over the sketchy plot unttil well after you've left the theater (and maybe not even then). Sadly, anybody with half a brain can figure out the details of tthe entire plot--but that's OK (unless maybe you have the soul of a Critic).
-
Leading man Bruce Willis actually shows up to perform in this movie rather than phoning in his performance (and that's a refreshing change). His "Sad Sack" character with a hunger for love and bullets comes off as completely believeable and he's actually fun to watch for a change. Morgan Freeman is always reliable but doesn't get as much screen time as he deserves. You pretty much know going in that he won't survive: (the "oldster" never gets to see the end of an action movie--even in a movie filled with oldsters.) John Malkovich has turned crazy into his own personal franchise and he excels here. Aristocratic Helen Mirren is all class and deliciously murderous in her part and she can show "wannabes" like Angelina Jolie how it's donee. (Her mowing down the bad guys in an evening gown and combat boots is almost worth the price of admission.) Mary Louise Parker gets stuck as a "damsel in distress" for the first 2/3 of the movie but she finally gets to break out and go beyond the bonds of the conventional. Brian Cox plays a Russian but his accent wanders but he has a certain bearish charm in his cardboard character. Richard Dreyfuss shows up breifly and he does "weasel" quite well.
-
RED is based on a DC Comics Graphic Novel (that I'd never heard of) but it doesn't translate as comic book at all. Makers of action movies (be they comedic or not) should have this movie as required viewing before they release on of their own. For the "ordinary" person Red is a wonderful fun outing in the theater. It's a great "date night" and fun for older folks who seldeom get to see characters like them portrayed in a positive light.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
I was looking for a particular image to go with this blog but thanks to "improvements" made to Webshots I couldn't find it: I did blunder across an image titled Double Ring which seemed suitable for a review of a movie with a wedding theme. So sit back and enjoy the review of You Again--unless of course you've made other plans...
-
I found I identified with Marni (played by cutie-bie Kristin Bell) at the start of You Again. She was an "ugly duckling" looking in on the High School experience as an outsider who made a tranformation in college. No, I didn't become a successful Press Agent with desginer clothes and a $300 haircut but I did manage to re-invent myself (a bit) and learned how to make peace with my inner geek. That's why it was so easy for me to spot the fakery and outright dishonesty of this movie. For those of you wise enough to avoid this movie here's a brief plot synopsis.
-
After a tormented High School experience Marni re-invents herself in college and moves on to a wonderful, successful life. All that changes though when she returns to her small hometown to attend her "perfect" older brother's wedding to Joamma (Odette Justman) who was Marni's chief tormentor. Arriving at home she discovers her entire family has fallen under Joanna's spell and, worst of all, Joanna doesn't seem to even REMEMBER her: once again Marni finds herself on the outside looking in and things just get worse as the movie goes along.
-
This is where the movie lost me: all Marni needed to do was simply say (at the first meeting around the family dinner table) was "you made my life miserable all through high school and it still hurts". Then Joanna could respond: "I know and I'm truly sorry" (but that would have ended the movie before it started). Instead Marni goes through a series of humiliations as she plots to get the truth out. When it finally DOES come out Joanna brushes her off and is quick to revert to her "mean girl" ways (which inevitably results in Joanna being exposed and a girl fight before the tacked-on reconciliation and happyily-ever-after ending required of all Disney releases.)
-
Oh, and before I forget there's a parallel story involving Marni's Mom Gail (Jamie Lee Curtis--rocking her super-short gray hair and "Activia" body) and Joanna's Aunt Mona--who were best friends until something happened. Sigurney Weaver makes it work but she labors mightly to produce little result.
-
The always-reliable Betty White prevents this movie from going completely into the toilet: her scenes are always funny even though one of them is totally cringe-worthy. Kristin Chenowith doesn't have much impact as ditzy celebrity Wedding Planner Georgia King. Kyle Bornheimer looks sad as Joanna's jilted boyfriend Tim and every scene he's in gave me severe "butt cringe". Generally, I like this guy but I find anything remotely redeemable in this performance. (Kyle--if you have a brain in your pointy little head you'll disavow this movie and find a way to delete any mention of your performance.)
-
This movie doesn't have a shred of honesty, integrity or originality. It's a badly-written sitcom masquerading as a movie. This is a "chick flick" that any "chick" with half a brain will RUN from. DON'T waste your time going to the theater to see this movie (no matter how hot it is outside) DON'T rent the movie and DEFINITELY don't buy it! If you are crazy for Betty White rent the movie (once) and fast forward through her scenes. (Then take a long shower with industrial-strength cleaner and hope you can wash the stink off.)
-
FINAL GRADE: F+
It's been a busy weekend here in the Barony. The stars aligned so we had not one but TWO shows to see. Neither of them has anything to do with the Aztecs but since there were two of them and they are virtually polar opposites I chose Aztec Calendar 2 as today's fractal cookie. Oh--you probably want to know what we saw: it was Young Frankenstein and Joesph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.
-
There's a strange balance between Young Frankenstein and "Joseph": "YF" was written at the end of Mel Brooks' long and illustrious career while "Joseph" was at the start of Andrew Lloyd Webber's career. Both musicals are adaptions of other stories and have a lot of frankly corny material. "Joseph" is so squeaky clean it could be put on at a High School but NO H.S. in their right minds would dare to mount "YF" even if they had the money. "YF" was scaled back from the Broadway original (if it this production was the first and probably last National Tour) while "Joesph" has been vastly expanded (even for a regional theater.) In the end you can see a lot of parallels.
-
First Young Frankeinstein...
-
After the runaway success of The Producers on Broadway it was only a matter of time bfefore another Mel Brooks movie got the same treatment: Young Frankenstein was an obvious choice. It was at least as well known and The Producers and had a large and devoted fan base. The resulting show became the most expensive ticket on Broadway just as the economy was crashing--which resulted in the show closing after barely a year-and-a-half. (That's short for a major Broadway show.) Realizing this was no Phantom of the Opera, the backers stripped down the show a bit for the National Tour: still, the result was a worthy effort.
-
Fans of the movie will find a lot to appreciate in the stage show: all the running gags and hoary old jokes are in place. The script closely follows the movie with a few clever expansion. (Frau Blucher's single line "he vas my boyfriend" becomes the best song in the show). The cast is fairly small for such a large-scale show but the no-name Actors all do a first-ratekb job whether they are singing, dancing or acting. The 3-person orchestra (all keyboards and synthesizers) produces a remarkably full sound. The special effects were minimal but they went off without a hitch and that's a good thing.
-
Young Frankenstein is a great choice for the theater virgin: the material is familiar and completely accessable. The show's pace never legs and jokes come along as regularly as a main-line city bus. Sophisticates who like their theater dry and serious won't enjoy this show. Neither will those with little tolerance for raunchy humor: everybody else will have a rip-roaring good time.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
-
It's hard to hate Joesph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat: the show is fast-paced and clever with infinitely-accessable music. The show is almost impossible to fatally screw up. Running time is under two hours (including a 15 minute commercial for Performance Riverside that seemed to go on for DAYS), intermission and the tacked-on "Megamix" at the end of the show (and a short running time makes it all the better). The good news is, Performance Riverside didn't fatally screw up the show--the bad news is they didn't go nearly as far as they could to make the show great. So--what went right with the show and what went wrong?
-
This production was based with a solid band and a workman chorus: the kids chorus was cute as can be and they never distracted from the show. Sadly, the chorus was often over-mic'ed to the point the band could barely be heard. Likewise, the adult "Go" Choir was a good idea but they had no amplification at all so they could barely be heard. The sets were nicely realized if not particularly sophisticated but they served their purpose. My main problem with the show was the leads.
-
Derek Klena (who I don't remember from his brief stint on American Idol) as Joseph suffered from "Idol Syndrome" (a fatal tendancy to oversing virtually every note that came out of his mouth. At least he was nice to look at and there's no denying his vocal ability. Stepnanie Burkett Gerson was a bit too "cruise ship" with a plastic smile that never left her lips as the Narrator. Still, she's got a great body and can sing and dance. Jason Webb's Pharoah was a very weak Elvis impersonation but you have to give him credit for putting it all out in the performance.
-
I've seen Joseph so many times I practically have the whole thing memorized (so it makes it easier for me to pick out the flaws) and this show has many. Amplification issues plagued the entire second act but the cast soldiered on manfully. In the end, the good outweighed the band and the show turned out to be a pleasant afternoon's entertainment. This wasn't the greatest production of the show I'd ever seen but it wasn't the worst either.
-
FINAL GRADE B-
I picked ArabDiamond 39 because I always pick something "Arab"-y for commentary on the situation in the Middle East and this particular situation makes me feel sad. Also I feel that I'm probably going to get some backwash from a lot of my loyal readers (shout out to Lance!) and I fully expect I'm going to get raked over the cold. Oh well--that being said, on with today's rant!
-
I wasn't going to comment on the "Ground Zero Mosque" but then Pastor Terry (Big-Fat-Idiot) Jones of Gainesville Florida grabbed national headlines by announcing he intends to burn copies of the Qran in remembrance of 9-11. General David Petreus urged him not to go through with it because the act would enrage Muslims world wide and put American troops in danger--particularly in Aphganistan. Just saw a bit of a news conference where Jones announced he was going through with it no matter what because "a statement needed to be made."
-
Much as it pains me to say it, I have no choice BUT to support his right to make an ass of himself. Book burning--ANY book burning makes me uncomfortable but Jones has the right to express his viewpoint (no matter how stupid or potentially dangerous his views may be). I just wish the media didn't feel the need to give this guy so much coverage (but I suppose that's a topic for another post). Still, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression are two of our most core values and I have to respect that even when I disagree with the views expressed.
-
Which brings me to the other half of today's commentary--the "Ground Zero" Mosque. Is it insensitive? Maybe--although I would hope that people would realize that they shouldn''t hold an entire religion at fault for the acts of a few crazies with their towels wound too tightly. Still, even if you don't like the Islamic faith a "real" American would defend their right to build and worship where they choose in whatever manner they wish. Freedom isn't freedom if it doesn't apply equally to all.
-
Mind you, I'm not in any way excusing the actions of the 9-11 terrorists: I'm no fan of Fundamentalists of ANY stripe (and sadly, Islam lends itself to crazy). That being said, I don't confuse the actions of a few with members of an entire faith. (Nobody condems all Christians because of the actions of someone like Timothy McVeigh or Mormos because of Warren Jeffs.) I'd love to know who is whipping up the frenzy against the Mosque--and why. (Frankly I'm more worried about somebody like them than Muslims with no connection to terrorism.
-
In the end, the situation boils down to two simple but related concepts. Freedom of Expression HAS to include the freedom to put your foot in your mouth and say something stupid. (Of course ot also means you have to accept the consequences of your actions.) Likewise Freedom of Religion has to extend to religions we don't like. If you don't support both sides of the concept you don't really support freedom at all...
-
Think about it.
-
'nuff said.
I think Bloodrose is a good image for a review of a vampire movie--even if said movie IS a parody. So--now you know why I chose it lets move on with the review!
-
If there is a genre more ripe for parody than the current fascination with Vampires I don't know what it could be. So I suppose it was inevitable that a movie like Vampires Suck would be relased. Surprisingly enough, the movie doesn't (*at least not totally).
-
Parody is simple: GOOD parody is considerably harder. A good part of the time Vampires Suck is on the good side by copying the tone of the Twilgiht franchise to perfection. This movie is aimed squarely at those who eat, sleep and breathe the Stephanie Miller vamps: the movie makers have gone out of their way to copy the style and even the movie sets of the Twilght movies. The "Twi-hards" in the theater with us (of which there were many) got all the jokes and LOVED it. Yes, there were some seriously cringeworthy moments in the movie but the good far outweighs the bad. (I particularly loved the send-up of the homoerotic elements of the werewolf culture--but I'm just sick that way.)
-
The no-name cast does at least as well as the Twilght kids: they play their parts with earnestness and just the right amount of disdain. Everyone involved throws themselves into their roles with abandon (gay and otherwise) and seems to have a good time. The FX are close to being on par with the Twilght movies (even if that's not saying much) and the script pretty much is too. This movie is hardly a classic for the ages (or even for 2010) but it's a fun little diversion to while away a long afternoon or evening. Go check it out--especially if you're a "Twi-hard!"
-
FINAL GRADE: B
A commentary on "black/white" issues seems to call for a black and white fractal. I chose Extreme because it was the blacckest and whitest fractal image I could find. So--on with the rant!
-
Last week Dr. Laura Schessinger seriously put her foot in her mouth by repeatedly spewing the "N" word over-and-over again. (For those of you who haven't heard her comment here's the entire call: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY0ccH7Hchw). Personally, I didn't find the comments overtly racist. I did find them beyond stupid: with as much media experience as she's had the woman should have known better. I found myself wondering if some of her comments showed an "anti-Obama" slant. That's not relevant to this commentary: maybe another post for another time. Still, it left me with a few questions.
-
One one level I kind of agree with Dr. Laura: honestly, I don't get why it is appropriate for blacks to use the "N" word but if a white person uses it there's going to be trouble. I've heard the "we use it to diffuse it" aguement but I just don't buy it: if a word isn't appropriate for one group it shouldn't be appropriate for any group.
-
I've also made the mistake of asking a black person what do "your people" think of this or that? (Oddly enough, I've never felt the need to ask this sort of question of an Asian or Hispanic--I don't know why.) Yes, I know there's no overarching organization that sets black social policy: I was also lucky enogh to be in a conversation with a nice person who simply said "I can't speak for 'my' people but this is how I feel about it..." (I ended up feeling a little foolish and realizing that I needed to work on my attitude.) Maybe the caller should be a little less sensitive on this issue.
-
But that's pretty much where Dr. Laura and I part ways: I don't think the caller is hypersensitive. I found Dr. Laura's comments on "complaining about racism" to be ludicrous (and unspported) not to mention the "don't NAACP me" was uncalled for. Still, I'd probably have let it go until she went on Larry King last night to announce she was quitting radio. (Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9trj0ZBa28M)
-
I'm sorry--what has this broad been smoking??? She's leaving her show because she wants to "regain" her "first ammendment rights". She wants to say what she wants without fear of reprisals. Sorry Dr. Laura--last time I looked "free speech" was a two-way street: you can say anything you want to say but you have to take the consequences. That's the beauty of the system. If you don't like it then KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!!
-
As you probably have guessed I've never been a big "Dr. Laura" fan: we disagree on so much and I question the ethics of someone whithout a psychology/sociology background setting themselves up as an advice guru. (Her advice is no more valueabl than mine--only I don't have a nationally-syndicated show). I'm glad she's moving off radio and sliding into irrelevance: her devoted fans will follow her but her voice will be muffled if not silenced. As Martha Stewart says "it's a good thing."
-
Think about it.
Today I'll be reviewing a performance of the national touring company of In The Heights. I wanted somethinhg spicy and hot (but I guess you'll have to settle for Fandango 3: it somehow conveys a "Latin flava" to me at least--so on with the review!
-
In The Heights proves that you can put predictable, pretentious crap on stage and still have the audience go wild if you lay down a good beat and get it labeled social commentary. You'll get a bunch of "Tony Award" nominations and even win a few. OK, maybe this musical isn't complete crap (at least not to it's target audience) but anyone with half a brain is going to very quickly realize they've seen all this before and done better in West Side Story and countless other sources. This has all been done before and better.
-
You need a big band to cover the sound of the plot grinding along (but at least this company has a good AND large band.) The songs are clever enough: some are funny, some are touching but I can't remember a single tune. The no-name cast sings with fervor and a good deal of musical ability. A number of characters get to do some serious American Idol-style belting. I don't know my Latin musical styles but this music certainly had the flavor. While I admired the technical ability the Actors showed, the music (hell, the entire show) wasn't quie to my taste so I didn't enjoy it as much as I might have. The dancing that accompanied the music was fun to watch if not particularly spectacular.
-
Like the music, the script shone in a few spots but it nevrer held my interest. I didn't find the story to be particular revelatory (or even interesting for that matter) but a good number of people in the audience obviously felt differently. The Orange County Performing Arts Centre (their spelling not mine) usually has a predominantly white crowd. This time there was a lot of people of color in the audience (and I suspect they didn't get in to see shows very often). For them, it was probably anazing to see their stories up on stage told in ways that would interest them. They "got" the show where I didn't so I guess it has some merit.
-
For many reasons In The Heights wasn't my cup of tea (or glass of horchata.) I wasn't the target audience but Latinos and folks with a lot more multiculturalism than me (and a less critical heart) would probably really like the production.
-
FINAL GRADE: C+
I suppose I could just choose a random fractal for your "cookie" each time but, damme, I feel a certain "obligation" to have it bear at least some relation to what I post about. Today I chose Overflight because the vaguely balloonish shape reminds me that I'll be hovering "over" this particular topic. Is it a stretch? You bet your boots--but it's what I got so I'm going with it! So--on with today's commentary!
-
I found Facebook at a particularly low point in my life: I was so wrapped up in (and massively stressed out by) "Real World" issues that I was too emotionally drained to have virtually any creative outlet. I coudn't write, I didn't enjoy music and I could barely daydream. All I did was fret. Then I discovered the wonderful world of "point-and-click" fun on Facebook. Yeah, it was great to re-connect with old friends (holla "Terra" Beltran and Richard Knights! and Wayne Abraham who I met in SECOND GRADE!!!) It was fun to meet new people from strange and wonderful places and interact with them (however tangentially). But for me it quickly became all about the games.
-
First it was Pirates, Mafia Wars, Street Racing and, God help me, Fashion Wars: they were easy, colorful and mindless fun they got old pretty quickly. I dropped Fashion Wars first because I wasn't getting anywhere with that game. Then Zynga quit supporting Street Racing (which I played mainly because I'd developed a passion for "car collecting" and I got stuck in Mafia Wars needing item "A" before moving on to Task "B" (and not being able to beg, borrow or steal said item). Luckily about then I discovered Farmville and Yoville.
-
The "ville" games were different in the fact that they actually allowed you to "create" something. (Yoville is a low-rent version of The Sims and Farmville allows you to create a virtual farm. NOTE: this info is given for the benefit of my non-gaming readers.) These games required more maintainance but at least there was a minimum of creativity required to create the virtual environments.) I was mad for Yoville (until I "topped out" and couldn't advance further) and Farmville veered into the tedious and cutesey-poo with the endless tasks and cool items that required "real" money to buy. (Call me silly but I just don't feel good about spending cash on "virtual goodies." Luckily for me I disovered Social City and My Town.
-
Social City and My Town are both "city builders" (basically simpler versions of Sim City): I was hooked the moment I entered the game. As a kid I was crazy for Lego and would fill my bedroom with red-and-white cities (back at the dawn of time Lego only came in two colors) but these games gave me the ability to create the city of my dreams. Playing these games re-ignited my creative spark and I began finding my way out of my personal darkness. Still, Social City ran like molasses on my computer and after taking almost two hours to collect on my city I gave it up as a bad job. Before too long I was playing My Town exclusively.
-
I literally couldn't get enough of My Town: I was checking in on "Mastiff Manor" multiple times a day and once I found the discussion board I spent much time reading and answering posts. I started "friending" folks I met there and ended up accepting a ton of requests from folks who found me the same way. Those were halcyon days... We were getting updates regularly and often--and the stuff was completly cool. Sadly, all good things must come to an end--and the end came all too soon...
-
First Broken Bulb moved the discussion board off Facebook (with little to no notice--and, yes, I'm still annoyed with that!). Intentionally or not, this effectively torpedoed the budding social community that was growing up around the game. Next they drastically cut the number of new updates and made many new items "cash only". (Yes, I fully understand the Developers need to make money off the game but there's a fine line and they wandereed well over it--IMHO.) Last, but most certainly not least, we been getting "new" Snoop Itmems that are merely recycled stuff we don't want and can't really use. (They don't even take the time to throw up an image to go with them.)
-
Do I still love My Town? Yes,--but I don't love, Love, LOVE the game any more. I used to schedule my Mondays and Thursdays around update times but now it's no longer a priority. I keep coming back hoping that things will change for the better and end up disappointed when they don't.
-
Still, I hold on to the good times: I remember the Great "Craphole Motel" debate over Easter week with great fondness. I think of the many new Facebook friends I've made. (I'm sure I'd be great friends with Julie TwoDat Stripling, Joanne Thompson and Thom and Carolee Kaufold if we ever met.) I'd love to get the chance to know folks like Barb Duncan Castile and image I could learn a lot from Sadie Morgan. Rene Canetti always amused me and I couldn't help but smile every time poor Raed Aridi managed to cram his little foot into his mouth however unintentionally. I thought I was pretty creative--at least until I saw towns designed by people like Joel Clarine and Gloria Milam. Lastly, I will never forget the kindness shown to me by too many people to mention here. Just know that I will always appreciate your thoughtfulness. Oddly enough I even strangely appreciate the people who took offense at my humor. (I'd mention a name but the individual would probably be offended.) My Town may have tripped and fallen but it could rise again. Even if it doesn't I've made wonderful friends that I will treasure: for that reason alone I'll stick with the game.
-
'nuff said.
Choosing a fractal for movie review can often be a difficult to near-impossible task. I had no idea what I was going to do for The Other Guys so in desperation I cchose Twisted Quad--mainly because the image is black and white--like most police cars. (Told you I was desperate.) Ah well, that being said--on with the review!
-
Frankly, I wasn't all that excited about seeing The Other Guys. Will Farrell movies of late have been pretty badd and the previews could, at best, be described as lame. Imagine my surprise when the movie turned out to be surprisingly good! The movie works because it is done with a wink and a nudge as it sends up the buddy-cop genre yet plays everything completely straight!
-
The movie opens up on "superstar" cops Danson and Highsmith (Dwayne "the Rock Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson in brief cameos) who do 12 million dollars damage foiling a $74,000 jewelry heist and they get away with it (in a scene that could only happen in an action movie). After the two cops die (failing to make one of those action movie rooftop jumps) tne action switches back to the station where we meet "the other guys" Detectives Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz (Farrell and Mark Wahlberg). Gamble is recently transferred from Forensic Accounting to the squad room and gets paired with Hoitz who got (in)famous for shooting Derek Jeter (playing himself) during the World Series. What follows is an action movie twisted about 90 degrees yet played straight.
-
Farrell plays his usual oblivious schmuck character (although he turns it down quite a bit for this role). Wahlberg's Hoitz is a tortured soul very typical of this sort of movie. The evolution of their relationship is fun to watch as are the revelations about both characters. Other standout characters include Michael Keaton as Captain Gene March amd Steve Coogan who plays oddly-loveable slimeball Sir David Ershon. Eva Mendes looks hot, hot, hot as Allen's wife Sheila but otherwise has a pretty thankless role. The action sequences are done as homages to famous scenes in other movies and played completely straight even though the twist makes you laugh. No expense was spared in these scenes and they are sure to satisfy any action-junkie.
-
It seems I liked The Other Guys somewhat better than the average movie-goer but I still quite recommend it. Is it a movie for the ages? No--but it is certainly a movie for the summer. Especially a summer where there is so little to entice you into the theaters...
-
FINAL GRADE: A-
I chose Tilework as today's fractal "cookie" mainly because it seemed to convey my feeling about the movie Inception: for want of a better description I can only say the movie is gray and multi-leveled. So--on with the review!
-
You can say at least one good thing about Inception--it's hardly your usual summer blockbuster. Yes, there are battle scenes aplenty and enough special effects to make even the most die-hard Fanboy weak in the knees. But there's also a truly deep plot--one that keeps you guessing to the very end (and I'm afraid that a lot of the movie-going audience won't be able to follow). If anything, that's where the movie trips up: the story begins if not in the middle than certainly well after the start. We literally jump into the action with no explanation who these characters are or how and why they do what theey do. The audience is merely expected to accept them at face value and go with that. Eventually you do get some explanation but the whole story is never fullly-revealed (as so often happens in real life).
-
Describing the plot is difficut so I will just give you the barest bones. Cobb (almost every character in the movie only gets one name) is an "Extractor"--an espionage agent who enters people's dreams to steal their secrets for profit--and that's all I can easily explain. (If you want to know more go see the movie.) ANYway--Leonardo DiCaprio--plays Cobb as a one-note character as does the rest of the cast. True, they all play their one not well but together it's not a tune I found particularly enjoyable. Worse, I found it hard to work up a lot of sympathy for any of the characters so I had nobody to root for.
-
The movie is beautifully shot: virtually every scene is shot through a gray, sepia or blue filter to give it just that extra bit of moody atmospherics. The dream sequences whey they veer away from reality are suitably spectacular and the FX are first rate. (To quote KTLA Entertainment Reporter Sam Rubin: "you see every dollar on the screen"--and you really do.) The visual style is almost enough to make it worth the price of admission (to a Matinee at least).
-
For me though, it takes more than a spectacular visuals to make a movie truly good. I've already spoken about the characters so I guess I need to talk a bit about the script. I can accept not knowing an entire character's story but knowing NO character's story is a bit hard to swallow. Likewise, the endless twist-on-a-twist-on-a-twist theme to the plot got tiresome after a while. I quit caring about an hour-and-a-half in and just waited for the movie to be over.
-
I can honestly say I'm glad I saw Inception--even though I can't say I truly enjoyed it--and I definitely don't feel the need to go back and see it again (even though I might get more out of it in a second viewing). It deserves to be seen on a big screen so all the depth and detail can be fully realized. Can I recommend it? That I don't know: the theater where we saw the movie was crowded and fans walking out seemed equally divided between "wow, what a great movie" and "geez--what a piece of crap!" I guess I fall somewhere between the two extremes. Go see Inception for yourself and tell me how you like it.
-
FINAL GRADE: B-
I chose Spinz 11 as today's fractal cookie for two reason: first--like Sherk, it's green. Second--this movie laid an egg and the imge is basically egg-shaped. (If you didn't figure that I was going to slam the movie by reading the title of this review maybe you'd better stop reading before you waste any more of your time.) Now that' we've got the intro business out of the way--on with the review!
-
Shrek began life as a 38 page children's book. Having suffered through a few "Doctor Seuss " movies I wondered if there would be enough material to pad out the material enough to make it work. Much to my surprise they did--and they made it work even better. Shrek 2 was even better than the first movie but by Shrek the Third the franchise was getting a bit tired. Shrek Forever After brings the franchise to a limping close (proving once again that if any series hangs around long enough it will eventually turn to crap).
-
Don't get me wrong: Shrek Forever After isn't completely awful. Sprinkled in among the tired old plots and characters, there are some truly cool bits. An early scene in a witch-infested Trailer Park is particularly inspired and crammed full of delightful little throw-away details. There are also several scenes that look like they came straight out of a video game: looks great but the rest of the movies pretty much comes out as "been there, done that". It's hard to get exitited about the movie whe you've seen it all befrrore and better ehsewhere. We didn't spend the extra money to see the 3D version and frankly I don't think I missed anything. How To Train Your Dragon did it altogether better--even if that movie wasn't made in 3D. Die-hard fans of the Shrek series will find what they have come to know and love in the series but for me the series has well and truly lost its lusterr.
-
FINAL GRADE: D+
