Last weekend I had a second viewing of X-Men: Days of Future Past. I first saw it in theatres, and enjoyed it. Apparently not everyone did?
Anyway, my only problem with the film was the opening exposition from Patrick Stewart / Professor X. It felt very clunky and put in solely for the movie watching audience - doesn't it seem funny that none of the other mutants were already aware of Mystique's actions to fast forward the Sentinel program? Other than that, it was a fast-paced film that works really well. For pacing, it felt a lot faster than First Class - which I think is actually the better film of the two, so far.
Other observations
X-Files: No, not the new season. Space ran a marathon of classic X-Files episodes the weekend leading up to the new season; I didn't watch the entire marathon, but chose a few to record based solely on the episode descriptions. I picked some good ones so far!
- Squeeze I spent the bulk of this episode assuming it was actually the second episode featuring Victor Tooms, and was confused why neither Mulder nor Scully realized who they were dealing with. Good episode, but the characters were a little wooden
- Ice I really liked this episode. It was both creepy and suspenseful, and had a good sense of mystery around it.
- The Erlenmeyer Flask Really well done episode, and you can tell the writing team, director, and actors are all on their game at this point. I had seen the pilot episode months before for the first time and appreciated the nice little bookend of the season 1 pilot and finale with the Cigarette Smoking Man in the Pentagon warehouse.
- Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose The most recent episode, I just watched this one last night. This episode was most representative of the bulk of the X-Files episodes I have seen - more monster of the week, scale tipping a little bit to the comedic side. I really liked this one as well.
Weight loss
I've been trying an 8/16 fast - eat for 8 hours, fast for 16. It's been going alright; there are times I feel very hungry, but I've been able to work through it. Usually with water. I'm into my second week of it now and I'd say I'm not feeling as hungry as I was when I first started it. When I do eat, I feel full. So far, it seems to be helping!
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Friday, July 3, 2015
A Round-Up
Not this kind of round-up.
I thought I'd check in based on my post last week, and make Thursdays my official day for posting here. Or maybe Fridays. I wrote all of this on Thursday but didn't finish editing (to add links).
I guess technically Im in my second weekdoing this new plan. I think it's going petty well! As I write this, Im watching some episodes of ReBoot (yes, I'm re-watching the show). My schedule was thrown for a loop this week, but that's what happens when you get a day off work in the middle of the week.
I've found the hardest day to stay intrested is Magazine Monday. I guess I'm just not that into magazines. But I did and some new TV Shows to follow! On Thursdays only of course.
- Dark Matter - I first leared of this show via Wil Wheaton. The basic premise of the show is 6 people wake up from stasis to discover they know basic skills but don't remember who they are. Already that's a great premise that hooked me. The series is created by the same people behind the Stargate TV shows.
It's interesting to think of them as "auteurs" because you can certainly pick up on the Stargate-like aspects. It's hard to define, but it's definitely noticeable and can make it easier to predict plot points. Overall, I like it. The title text makes me think of the N64 game Perfect Dark. TIL it's based on a comic book series!
- Killjoys - It's about bounty hunters, set in the future. A killjoy is a hunter with clearance to go after kill contracts. I don't want to give too much away, because it is a great show. It's visually stunning as well. I actually like this show better than Dark Matter.
Other things going on? We got a new camera, and I'm photographing anything and everything.
I've been a lot more productive these last two weeks as well. I released a podcast last weekend, the second in two weeks. That's really good for me! Usually I don't get more than one done in a month.
Good start for now!
Thursday, June 18, 2015
I'm Back (not to be confused with Bach)
I haven't posted in a while. In that last post, I mentioned a few things I had on the go in 2015. I'll address those topics shortly; first though, I had to get an idea out of my head that was generated while on my lunch time walk (which is the worst time for ideas - I can't write them down, and they compete for my attention against podcasts. Unfair to the podcasts, because then I don't listen to them).
I have an ever-growing list of media I wish to consume, coupled with an ever-growing list of media I wish to produce. To that end, I think I need to structure my weeks. You see, I'm on my own for the summer (inquire further in the comments if interested in the full story), and it's been that way since May 25th. I had all these grandiose plans to catch up on PVR recordings (movies & TV shows), get podcasts recorded, etc. etc. to fill my time between softball games.
I've watched some TV, but mostly have sucked my time with playing video games and not being very productive, aside from some household chores. This is why I need structure. The last couple of days, I actually accomplished some to-do list items because I actually made a to-do list and followed it. So obviously, I need to tighten my schedule. Here it is.
* by "a billion years" I mean 6 months.
I have an ever-growing list of media I wish to consume, coupled with an ever-growing list of media I wish to produce. To that end, I think I need to structure my weeks. You see, I'm on my own for the summer (inquire further in the comments if interested in the full story), and it's been that way since May 25th. I had all these grandiose plans to catch up on PVR recordings (movies & TV shows), get podcasts recorded, etc. etc. to fill my time between softball games.
I've watched some TV, but mostly have sucked my time with playing video games and not being very productive, aside from some household chores. This is why I need structure. The last couple of days, I actually accomplished some to-do list items because I actually made a to-do list and followed it. So obviously, I need to tighten my schedule. Here it is.
- Magazine Mondays - Something I've been meaning to start for a while. I subscribe digitally to a bunch of magazines from the Ottawa Public Library via Zinio, and I have a backlog.
- Book Tuesdays - The alliteration stops at Mondays. I will find time to read books outside of Tuesdays, but some weeks I find I don't read at all. So at least once a week my evenings will be spent behind the pages (digital or analog) of a book.
- Comic Book Wednesdays - I have some comic books backlogged, plus a few older ones I wouldn't mind re-visiting. Also, there is a specific purpose to this day - will get to that.
- Television Thursdays - Yay, alliteration is back! Thursdays are for catching up on recorded items on my PVR, YouTube series (think: TitansGrave, RCVR, other stuff)
- Free Music Fridays - Because I needed more alliteration; specifically though I need to stay on top of Creative Commons music for Alternative Airwaves.
- The Weekend - The weekend is multi-purpose. Record a podcast (or two), listen to music, read, whatever.
What is all of this for? Why give titles for everything? I'll answer the second question first: because I can. As to what it's all for - and why the title of this post is, "I'm Back" - because I want to flex my writing muscles a bit more, and get more use out of this silly blog. I'm going to try to get back into the swing of weekly writing over here, using any one of those days as a starting block. Which day I'll post I haven't decided yet - but that's not important.
The other purpose is for the media I wish to produce, as I alluded to above. I already have Alternative Airwaves to work on - hence the music listening on Fridays - but I'm trying to finish working on Star Trek: The "X" Generation and turn that into a podcast. I recorded an "Episode 0" for it to get feedback (ask for it in the comments, if you like!), but I need to do more writing first. It's a project where I can easily record episodes ahead of time and keep up with a consistent schedule, but if I get too far ahead recording, I won't have any material to work with anymore!
That ties in to the whole comic book Wednesdays - the new podcast idea will involve comic books as well, and I want to release it when comic books are released - Wednesdays. I guess that's the only tie-in. Carry on.
Alright, back to my 2015 Update post - here's where I am as of today...
- Podcasts / 2015 comeback: I'm doing...OK with this. I've got updates coming mostly monthly. I missed the month of April only, so that means for 2015 I've released an episode in Jan/Feb/Mar/May/June - that's much better than I thought! Working with my friend Mike for the Futurama Podcast...we at least released a mini episode in May!
- TV Shows: I have too many shows to "catch up" with. I think I may binge watch a bunch of things. Or I may not.
- Project 365/52/26 - I started this...and then stopped. Not my cup of tea.
- Weight Loss - I have not yet lost 38 pounds, and in fact missed my goal for May. But since the end of May, I've gotten back on track with things and the weight's going down. Work in progress.
That's it! Sorry for the length of the post, but that's my fault for not writing anything in a billion years.*
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
What's going on?
It's 2015 and also has been a long time since I updated anything on this blog. The short version for why I haven't: I haven't felt the urge to write / haven't thought of any topics. So you get this catch-all post for what's going on in 2015 so far.
- Serial Podcast - Yes I know, everyone and their mother has already consumed the first season. This is why I've started to listen, because it's so highly recommended. I've listened to the first 6 episodes and am enjoying it. However, I find that host Sarah Koenig seems to be very intent on proving Adnan's innocence. I've seen similar comments that say the same thing. It doesn't bother me too much, but I'd like to see a bit more objectivity while examining the facts of the case.
- Podcasts, you say? - I hope that 2015 will prove to be my "comeback" to podcasts. I've been very lax in updates and would like to get back to regular updates. So far I'm committing myself to monthly updates with the goal of returning to a bi-weekly show.
- TV Shows - Rogers introduced shomi late in 2014. It's basically a Netflix type service that offers movies and TV shows. The great thing is that they have The Next Generation in HD, but they also have some shows I missed like 30 Rock. There are others, most especially Black Mirror and The Booth At the End (online only) that I'd like to watch.
- Project 365/52/26 - sometime in January or February I will start a photo project wherein I will take either a daily/weekly/biweekly photo. I posted about this on my Google+ profile.
- Weight Loss - I'm trying to lose ~38 pounds by early May. It's going slowly so far, but that's why I'm aiming for early May. I'll largely be doing the same things I was doing before that worked.
Hmm, I think that's it for now. Obviously much more going on but that's all that I can force out of my head right now.
Friday, August 15, 2014
The Giver (Film)
I recently posted my thoughts on the upcoming theatrical release of The Giver. In short, I thought the trailer looked terrible - and I still think so. At least, the trailer I was referring to was terrible. Since coming up with the idea for this post, I've come around a little bit on some recent trailers and have upgraded the movie to just above terrible.
I think when I last gave my little review of the trailer, I was judging the film as an adaptation of the book. However, the problem with this is that in the past I've always tried to treat the film and book versions of a story as separate; this is completely necessary, because the two mediums provide different ways to tell the same story. I think it's reasonable for a director/writer to take some liberty with the subject matter rather than just do a scene-for-scene adaptation of a book.
The Giver (film) looks at least like a lot of focus was put on cinematography and visual effects. It also looks like the action has been ramped up quite a few notches from that seen in the books. I think I can understand why; the book is not exactly the fastest in terms of what's actually happening between the pages. If you were to just adapt the book as written, it would be a pretty short film.
Still, I have some nagging feelings about this movie. I think it's definitely unfair to judge it based on how I think it's adapted the book (and my initial reactions were that I thought it looks more like a "loosely based on" type of movie). However, from what I've seen in the trailer, I don't really like the direction they've taken - and some of the acting looks rather poor. It's unfortunate that they seem to have used the poorer takes of some scenes in the trailer.
Lastly though I was just reading an interview given by Jeff Bridges, who acts as a producer for the movie. Apparently he is a huge fan of the book, and even made his own 'fan film' years ago. It's been my experience that when an actor really loves a book, the film they push to produce tends not to be the best quality. That's not always the case (see Moneyball), but it happens often enough.
I think when I last gave my little review of the trailer, I was judging the film as an adaptation of the book. However, the problem with this is that in the past I've always tried to treat the film and book versions of a story as separate; this is completely necessary, because the two mediums provide different ways to tell the same story. I think it's reasonable for a director/writer to take some liberty with the subject matter rather than just do a scene-for-scene adaptation of a book.
The Giver (film) looks at least like a lot of focus was put on cinematography and visual effects. It also looks like the action has been ramped up quite a few notches from that seen in the books. I think I can understand why; the book is not exactly the fastest in terms of what's actually happening between the pages. If you were to just adapt the book as written, it would be a pretty short film.
Still, I have some nagging feelings about this movie. I think it's definitely unfair to judge it based on how I think it's adapted the book (and my initial reactions were that I thought it looks more like a "loosely based on" type of movie). However, from what I've seen in the trailer, I don't really like the direction they've taken - and some of the acting looks rather poor. It's unfortunate that they seem to have used the poorer takes of some scenes in the trailer.
Lastly though I was just reading an interview given by Jeff Bridges, who acts as a producer for the movie. Apparently he is a huge fan of the book, and even made his own 'fan film' years ago. It's been my experience that when an actor really loves a book, the film they push to produce tends not to be the best quality. That's not always the case (see Moneyball), but it happens often enough.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Hodgepodge
I haven't had a lot of things itching to get out of my mind lately, but I've been wanting to write something - so I thought I would throw something together. A hodgepodge, if you will. I figure a paragraph on everything will do.
- I was introduced to reddit a few weeks back; I had heard of the website before, but never really made use of it. It looked like a jumbled mess to me, and when occasionally I'd find reddit in search results, I didn't know how to navigate it. I'm still no pro at it, but I get it now and it has given me new things to read about.
- This week I've been dropping pounds like crazy. It hasn't been due to any extra exercise (that was last week...I put in some extra time due to some external pressure that ended up being unfounded). The main difference this week has been smaller dinners by using portion plates. Oh, the best part? I'm down 14.17% body fat - or, 39.3 lbs since November 2013. Crazy!
- 2048 is a simple yet addictive game. In short, the object is to move numbered tiles around a grid and combine them to ultimately create the number 2048. I've gotten has high as 1024, but that's about it. I'm close...I can feel it!
- A while back I watched Thor: The Dark World. It's not a perfect movie, but I found it really enjoyable - which is great for a character I've hardly related to in the past. I've never been a big Thor fan, so it's great that the movies can make the character relevant to me. Good comedic moments balanced with action set pieces.
- The Blue Jays are on a roll. Sort of. They had a spectacular month of May, which has set them up great considering the mediocre performance they've put forth in June & July. They've picked it up since the All-Star Break, but they have a long way to go if they want to do anything in the post-season. Sounds like Jays fans are excited again though, which is good...it's been too long.
- Recently read The Giver; I really liked this novel. It's really short, so it's an easy read. I gave it five stars on Goodreads, though thinking back to the book, it's not spectacular. Don't get me wrong - I'd still rate it five stars; but a book like Brave New World or 1984 are more up my alley than this was. Have you seen the trailer for the movie coming out soon? It looks terrible!
- I was introduced to reddit a few weeks back; I had heard of the website before, but never really made use of it. It looked like a jumbled mess to me, and when occasionally I'd find reddit in search results, I didn't know how to navigate it. I'm still no pro at it, but I get it now and it has given me new things to read about.
- This week I've been dropping pounds like crazy. It hasn't been due to any extra exercise (that was last week...I put in some extra time due to some external pressure that ended up being unfounded). The main difference this week has been smaller dinners by using portion plates. Oh, the best part? I'm down 14.17% body fat - or, 39.3 lbs since November 2013. Crazy!
- 2048 is a simple yet addictive game. In short, the object is to move numbered tiles around a grid and combine them to ultimately create the number 2048. I've gotten has high as 1024, but that's about it. I'm close...I can feel it!
- A while back I watched Thor: The Dark World. It's not a perfect movie, but I found it really enjoyable - which is great for a character I've hardly related to in the past. I've never been a big Thor fan, so it's great that the movies can make the character relevant to me. Good comedic moments balanced with action set pieces.
- The Blue Jays are on a roll. Sort of. They had a spectacular month of May, which has set them up great considering the mediocre performance they've put forth in June & July. They've picked it up since the All-Star Break, but they have a long way to go if they want to do anything in the post-season. Sounds like Jays fans are excited again though, which is good...it's been too long.
- Recently read The Giver; I really liked this novel. It's really short, so it's an easy read. I gave it five stars on Goodreads, though thinking back to the book, it's not spectacular. Don't get me wrong - I'd still rate it five stars; but a book like Brave New World or 1984 are more up my alley than this was. Have you seen the trailer for the movie coming out soon? It looks terrible!
Friday, June 27, 2014
Review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
A couple of weeks ago, I finally got to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011); I've been meaning to see it for some time now, especially with the next Transformers film due out this summer. Unfortunately, it's been a while since I've seen it, so it's not entirely fresh in my head; but to be honest, that doesn't really change my outlook on the film. I even missed the first 20 minutes, and I don't feel like I missed out anything. That in itself should probably give you some indication of how good (or bad) the film is.
I recently listened to a podcast reviewing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan; in it, the reviewers had the notion that maybe the producers were trying to "forget" The Motion Picture and start fresh with a new movie. Thinking about Dark of the Moon, I really get that same sort of feeling: that the producers were trying to ignore the existence of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Gone are the annoying "twins" (though replaced with equally annoying but less featured smaller Autobots) and Megan Fox. Sam has a new girlfriend - whom apparently he loves and has always loved. Some of the Decepticons are different - Megatron's form is changed, as is Soundwave's (Soundwave is definitely better this time around). I did some reading, and apparently Michael Bay did acknowledge the poorly-received Revenge of the Fallen and made some decisions to reflect that, but in my view, he didn't go far enough. Still, this movie fits the overall feel of the other two movies, so it's definitely not out of place.
Interesting to note - though I'm not sure how I feel about this - the Transformers seemed to be much more "organic" than ever before in that they bleed when injured. It's a little strange - Transformers seem like they should be completely mechanical. However, this helps to illustrate that they are alien beings from another world. I just don't know if it worked for me or not.
Thematically, the connection to NASA here mirrors the first film. I really appreciated that, and thought it added a nice touch to the film. It makes the second film seem even further out of place, which lends more support to my theory that Bay just wanted to move on from the second film.
One of the more interesting aspects of the film's plot line was Sam's apparent existential crisis in the first half of the movie. He's graduating from college and going for his first job - but he's saved the world twice now, so understandably he feels that an entry level position has no meaning for him and is beneath him. It's a little God-complex-ish in the first two films - a coincidence almost - that he is so central to saving the world. In this movie, I feel that he has less to do, and is actually held a little bit helpless / hostage to the Decepticons and can't really do much to affect the outcome of the film. Wisely, it's the Transformers (and military-trained humans) who do the bulk of the saving the world. I honestly forget how Sam figures into the end of the story, but I think he's satisfied or something. Either way it's pretty clear that he's not important for the future of the franchise.
I liked that there were some bad humans in this movie. I don't like that it was obvious who they were, but when you think about it, it makes sense that the Decepticons would coerce some of the less scrupulous members of society to get what they want. After all, aren't the Autobots essentially doing the same thing by having the humans act as support for their fight against the Decepticons? Of course there is a difference - the Autobots feel responsible for the humans, whereas the Decepticons use them as they see fit - and they see them as disposable.
Overall, this isn't a huge thinkpiece of a movie, but Transformers: Dark of the Moon gives you a bit more to chew on than the previous two installments. I don't hold the same expectations for Age of Extinction, but come on - Dinobots!
I recently listened to a podcast reviewing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan; in it, the reviewers had the notion that maybe the producers were trying to "forget" The Motion Picture and start fresh with a new movie. Thinking about Dark of the Moon, I really get that same sort of feeling: that the producers were trying to ignore the existence of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Gone are the annoying "twins" (though replaced with equally annoying but less featured smaller Autobots) and Megan Fox. Sam has a new girlfriend - whom apparently he loves and has always loved. Some of the Decepticons are different - Megatron's form is changed, as is Soundwave's (Soundwave is definitely better this time around). I did some reading, and apparently Michael Bay did acknowledge the poorly-received Revenge of the Fallen and made some decisions to reflect that, but in my view, he didn't go far enough. Still, this movie fits the overall feel of the other two movies, so it's definitely not out of place.
Interesting to note - though I'm not sure how I feel about this - the Transformers seemed to be much more "organic" than ever before in that they bleed when injured. It's a little strange - Transformers seem like they should be completely mechanical. However, this helps to illustrate that they are alien beings from another world. I just don't know if it worked for me or not.
Thematically, the connection to NASA here mirrors the first film. I really appreciated that, and thought it added a nice touch to the film. It makes the second film seem even further out of place, which lends more support to my theory that Bay just wanted to move on from the second film.
One of the more interesting aspects of the film's plot line was Sam's apparent existential crisis in the first half of the movie. He's graduating from college and going for his first job - but he's saved the world twice now, so understandably he feels that an entry level position has no meaning for him and is beneath him. It's a little God-complex-ish in the first two films - a coincidence almost - that he is so central to saving the world. In this movie, I feel that he has less to do, and is actually held a little bit helpless / hostage to the Decepticons and can't really do much to affect the outcome of the film. Wisely, it's the Transformers (and military-trained humans) who do the bulk of the saving the world. I honestly forget how Sam figures into the end of the story, but I think he's satisfied or something. Either way it's pretty clear that he's not important for the future of the franchise.
I liked that there were some bad humans in this movie. I don't like that it was obvious who they were, but when you think about it, it makes sense that the Decepticons would coerce some of the less scrupulous members of society to get what they want. After all, aren't the Autobots essentially doing the same thing by having the humans act as support for their fight against the Decepticons? Of course there is a difference - the Autobots feel responsible for the humans, whereas the Decepticons use them as they see fit - and they see them as disposable.
Overall, this isn't a huge thinkpiece of a movie, but Transformers: Dark of the Moon gives you a bit more to chew on than the previous two installments. I don't hold the same expectations for Age of Extinction, but come on - Dinobots!
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Recently I watched the latest installment in the X-Men movie series, X-Men: Days of Future Past. You can creep my twitter profile for the short version, but where's the fun in that? Read on (sort of spoiler-y I guess)...
Let me start off with the best part of the movie: Magneto as played by Michael Fassbender. All of the sequences involving him (either taking part of the action or just in the action) are excellent. The best sequence is from the end - and I'm definitely not spoiling the contents of that scene, because it's worth experiencing. A close second would be Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. She also had some very strong scenes in the film, and without spoiling it, was very central to the plot.
Now then...there were some weaker moments, as I alluded to on Twitter. The worst moments: Wolverine piping in with "...but I know someone who can help us!" when they run into a road block. To be fair, I think this only happens twice, but the overall characterization of Wolverine is actually not very strong. To me, he comes across as much more emotional than we've seen in any of the previous movies. Yes, he's shown some strong emotions (other than "GRR! I'm angry!") in the other movies, but in this one he almost seems sentimental.
That's not the character we know; however one could argue that this decades-long war against the sentinels with deaths of all his friends has changed him. I would buy that argument if maybe we'd seen a movie set completely in the future (or the present? I know it's supposed to be the future in the comic book, but it's a little muddy in the movie). It does help that we see some of the mutants get killed in horrible ways in the opening sequence - it helps cement the idea that this is a terrible state of affairs for mutants.
I also feel that James McAvoy's Professor Xavier recovers a little too quickly from his depression. I feel like this should have been a more important part of the plot, but it's not handled with much grace. On the other hand, I think this is a third strong point I found in the movie - James McAvoy. I won't say too much - I just liked his performance in the movie.
I would definitely watch this movie again and anticipate the day it arrives on home media. One thing to note if you were let down by X-Men 3 - this movie pretty much wipes its events out of the movie series canon. I liked parts of X-Men 3 but I feel like that was a good move; unfortunately the movie also undoes some of X2, but it's unclear exactly how much of that has been undone.
The next X-Men movie should be pretty good - it's supposed to be set in the '80s, so none of the "old" trilogy actors should be appearing in it (though wouldn't you think that James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are still a little too young-looking in the '80s to pass as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen?).
Let me start off with the best part of the movie: Magneto as played by Michael Fassbender. All of the sequences involving him (either taking part of the action or just in the action) are excellent. The best sequence is from the end - and I'm definitely not spoiling the contents of that scene, because it's worth experiencing. A close second would be Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. She also had some very strong scenes in the film, and without spoiling it, was very central to the plot.
Now then...there were some weaker moments, as I alluded to on Twitter. The worst moments: Wolverine piping in with "...but I know someone who can help us!" when they run into a road block. To be fair, I think this only happens twice, but the overall characterization of Wolverine is actually not very strong. To me, he comes across as much more emotional than we've seen in any of the previous movies. Yes, he's shown some strong emotions (other than "GRR! I'm angry!") in the other movies, but in this one he almost seems sentimental.
That's not the character we know; however one could argue that this decades-long war against the sentinels with deaths of all his friends has changed him. I would buy that argument if maybe we'd seen a movie set completely in the future (or the present? I know it's supposed to be the future in the comic book, but it's a little muddy in the movie). It does help that we see some of the mutants get killed in horrible ways in the opening sequence - it helps cement the idea that this is a terrible state of affairs for mutants.
I also feel that James McAvoy's Professor Xavier recovers a little too quickly from his depression. I feel like this should have been a more important part of the plot, but it's not handled with much grace. On the other hand, I think this is a third strong point I found in the movie - James McAvoy. I won't say too much - I just liked his performance in the movie.
I would definitely watch this movie again and anticipate the day it arrives on home media. One thing to note if you were let down by X-Men 3 - this movie pretty much wipes its events out of the movie series canon. I liked parts of X-Men 3 but I feel like that was a good move; unfortunately the movie also undoes some of X2, but it's unclear exactly how much of that has been undone.
The next X-Men movie should be pretty good - it's supposed to be set in the '80s, so none of the "old" trilogy actors should be appearing in it (though wouldn't you think that James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are still a little too young-looking in the '80s to pass as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen?).
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Good Night And Good Luck (Review)
Project 52: 3/52
Easily the best movie from 2005 that I own - and it turns out I own a lot of movies released in that year - this is the black-and-white movie portraying Ed Murrow's fight against Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950's. I say this now without watching George Clooney's other 2005 feature, Syriana, but I'm confident it will hold up.
The movie is beautifully shot - can you imagine if it was released in colour? It would be even more visually striking. As it is, it works even better mixed with the historical footage from actual McCarthy hearings.
What I especially like about this film is that it portrays the people actually acting like real people. I think some might find that distracting and consider the film boring, but it adds a level of realism to a fantastic biopic.
I really don't have much more to write about it than that...but I just had to get it out there. If you haven't seen it before, go check it out now!
Easily the best movie from 2005 that I own - and it turns out I own a lot of movies released in that year - this is the black-and-white movie portraying Ed Murrow's fight against Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950's. I say this now without watching George Clooney's other 2005 feature, Syriana, but I'm confident it will hold up.
The movie is beautifully shot - can you imagine if it was released in colour? It would be even more visually striking. As it is, it works even better mixed with the historical footage from actual McCarthy hearings.
What I especially like about this film is that it portrays the people actually acting like real people. I think some might find that distracting and consider the film boring, but it adds a level of realism to a fantastic biopic.
I really don't have much more to write about it than that...but I just had to get it out there. If you haven't seen it before, go check it out now!
Saturday, September 1, 2012
My All-Time Movies List
For some reason, I found myself thinking about the movies I watched over and over as a kid; the movies that, no matter how many times I'd seen them, I could always pop in when I was bored. These are the movies that I watched when I was sick; when I was home all summer; on weekends. These are the movies that I want my kids (when I have them) to watch as they grow up.
The movies aren't in any particular order - I just listed them as they came to mind. Most of these movies were recorded from TV, and were watched complete with glorious '80s commercials.
Back to the Future
What can I say about this movie? What can I say about any of them? As kids, we watched this from a VHS tape, recorded from some TV channel I can't remember. I should point out that I'm referring primarily to the first movie, not the entire trilogy. We never had Part II or III on tape, but we watched the hell out of the first one. It's an easy plot for a kid to wrap his head around.
The Star Wars Trilogy (1977-1983)
The unfortunate thing about this trilogy is that I'm unlikely to ever find copies of the original, unedited versions (without going on eBay finding the DVD copies that were released a few years ago with the original theatrical versions) in high definition, because this is how I grew up watching them. I think that I would definitely want to show my kids these versions, and I'll do my best to make sure that happens. I think there's a lot to be said for using physical special effects instead of computer generated crap.
The Karate Kid Part I and II
This one's a funny one for me; I remember watching both of these movies quite a bit - mostly the first one - but I really prefer the second one. The problem is, our copy of the second one got messed up in the recording. Oh well!
Bigfoot
This is an obscure one, and I've never seen it available in any media ever, anywhere, except our one VHS tape that we recorded from TV. There are probably a dozen movies by the same name, but in this case I'm talking about the 1987 made-for-TV film starring Candice Cameron Bure. Yes, starring DJ from Full House. I think the only other bigger stars in that movie were Colleen Dewhurst and Joseph Maher. Have you even heard of them? Yeah, exactly. Okay, actually, the father, James Sloyan, appeared in a few Star Trek episodes (TNG, DS9, Voyager), so there's at least one "famous" character actor in it too. Look, it's a great movie, and you should watch it.
The Great Muppet Caper + A Muppet Family Christmas
I think my favourite of these two is The Great Muppet Caper, but both are excellent films (the latter is made-for-TV I think) that showcase The Muppets at the height of their amazing-ness. While last year's The Muppets was great, I don't think it can ever top The Great Muppet Caper - even though it may have matched it in tone at least.
Ghostbusters
Another of the great '80s films, I probably watched this one just as much as the Star Wars movies.
I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, and likely will come to mind after I hit "Publish". But if I only remember these movies, that's still one pretty great list to show my kids. There's only one modern movie I can think of that I would add to this list - and it's Moneyball. It seems like a strange choice, but I just finished watching it for the umpteenth time, and I'll likely watch it again and again. It's become one of those movies, like those listed above.
I didn't really have much of a point to this post, just stuff I wanted to share. Got any movies that you watched over and over in your childhood? I'd be interested to see what any '90s kids watched too.
The movies aren't in any particular order - I just listed them as they came to mind. Most of these movies were recorded from TV, and were watched complete with glorious '80s commercials.
Back to the Future
What can I say about this movie? What can I say about any of them? As kids, we watched this from a VHS tape, recorded from some TV channel I can't remember. I should point out that I'm referring primarily to the first movie, not the entire trilogy. We never had Part II or III on tape, but we watched the hell out of the first one. It's an easy plot for a kid to wrap his head around.
The Star Wars Trilogy (1977-1983)
The unfortunate thing about this trilogy is that I'm unlikely to ever find copies of the original, unedited versions (without going on eBay finding the DVD copies that were released a few years ago with the original theatrical versions) in high definition, because this is how I grew up watching them. I think that I would definitely want to show my kids these versions, and I'll do my best to make sure that happens. I think there's a lot to be said for using physical special effects instead of computer generated crap.
The Karate Kid Part I and II
This one's a funny one for me; I remember watching both of these movies quite a bit - mostly the first one - but I really prefer the second one. The problem is, our copy of the second one got messed up in the recording. Oh well!
Bigfoot
This is an obscure one, and I've never seen it available in any media ever, anywhere, except our one VHS tape that we recorded from TV. There are probably a dozen movies by the same name, but in this case I'm talking about the 1987 made-for-TV film starring Candice Cameron Bure. Yes, starring DJ from Full House. I think the only other bigger stars in that movie were Colleen Dewhurst and Joseph Maher. Have you even heard of them? Yeah, exactly. Okay, actually, the father, James Sloyan, appeared in a few Star Trek episodes (TNG, DS9, Voyager), so there's at least one "famous" character actor in it too. Look, it's a great movie, and you should watch it.
The Great Muppet Caper + A Muppet Family Christmas
I think my favourite of these two is The Great Muppet Caper, but both are excellent films (the latter is made-for-TV I think) that showcase The Muppets at the height of their amazing-ness. While last year's The Muppets was great, I don't think it can ever top The Great Muppet Caper - even though it may have matched it in tone at least.
Ghostbusters
Another of the great '80s films, I probably watched this one just as much as the Star Wars movies.
I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, and likely will come to mind after I hit "Publish". But if I only remember these movies, that's still one pretty great list to show my kids. There's only one modern movie I can think of that I would add to this list - and it's Moneyball. It seems like a strange choice, but I just finished watching it for the umpteenth time, and I'll likely watch it again and again. It's become one of those movies, like those listed above.
I didn't really have much of a point to this post, just stuff I wanted to share. Got any movies that you watched over and over in your childhood? I'd be interested to see what any '90s kids watched too.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
I was going to write out a whole review of The Dark Knight Rises. I had even started writing it out in a notebook (I got to two and a half pages, and still wasn't finished). But here's the problem. Since seeing it last Tuesday, I've called into question my opinions of the film. And no, not because I've listened to reviews of it that disagree with my initial grade (I thought it was the best of the trilogy immediately after watching it), but because I went back and watched the first two Nolan!Batman films - and that's when my opinion changed.
Call it revisionist history; I always felt that The Dark Knight felt like a really long movie, like they stiched two different stories together. Don't get me wrong - I really liked The Dark Knight, but I felt that it had too many flaws to be really a "great" movie or "greatest movie of all time".
This is why I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was a superior movie. It proceeded along the plot in a timely manner, and didn't feel too long (despite being actually longer in length). But then, as I said - I re-watched The Dark Knight recently, and I saw it in a different light. It didn't feel as before that Nolan was stitching together two stories (that of The Joker and Two-Face). It felt like a fairly cohesive story that worked quite well.
So all that's really changed is my opinion on which movie is better - and that is, The Dark Knight is better. That's not to say that The Dark Knight Rises is a poor movie - on the contrary, it's very good. I think I enjoyed Bane as a villain more than The Joker. However, I enjoyed The Joker as a character more than Bane. It's quite an interesting dilemma.
Suffice it to say, if you haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises, you should. I also urge you to NOT compare it to The Dark Knight if you hold it up on a pedestal. In all likelihood it's in your best interests to avoid watching either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight before watching Rises. Trust me, it stands very well on its own (despite its flaws).
Call it revisionist history; I always felt that The Dark Knight felt like a really long movie, like they stiched two different stories together. Don't get me wrong - I really liked The Dark Knight, but I felt that it had too many flaws to be really a "great" movie or "greatest movie of all time".
This is why I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was a superior movie. It proceeded along the plot in a timely manner, and didn't feel too long (despite being actually longer in length). But then, as I said - I re-watched The Dark Knight recently, and I saw it in a different light. It didn't feel as before that Nolan was stitching together two stories (that of The Joker and Two-Face). It felt like a fairly cohesive story that worked quite well.
So all that's really changed is my opinion on which movie is better - and that is, The Dark Knight is better. That's not to say that The Dark Knight Rises is a poor movie - on the contrary, it's very good. I think I enjoyed Bane as a villain more than The Joker. However, I enjoyed The Joker as a character more than Bane. It's quite an interesting dilemma.
Suffice it to say, if you haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises, you should. I also urge you to NOT compare it to The Dark Knight if you hold it up on a pedestal. In all likelihood it's in your best interests to avoid watching either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight before watching Rises. Trust me, it stands very well on its own (despite its flaws).
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Review: Black Sheep
So the reason why I didn't immediately post my review of Black Sheep was because I got invited on to do movie reviews over at http://www.moviemarker.co.uk. I decided to throw that review (and use any future movie reviews) over there.
You can read it here: http://moviemarker.co.uk/?p=2151
You can read it here: http://moviemarker.co.uk/?p=2151
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
DVD Survivor: An Introduction
Alright, so in my last post I mentioned my concept of "DVD Survivor", wherein I have a list of DVDs that are teetering on the chopping block, and I watch them to determine whether or not they stay on the shelf. Simple, right? In Part 1, I will not only list all of the movies I'll be watching, but also do the first review. Everything is listed in alphabetical order, which is also how I will be watching the films.
The List
* - Denotes a movie I haven't watched yet
Well, this should be interesting. The first review up is 1996's Black Sheep (not to be confused with 2006's film about zombie New Zealand sheep)!
My original plan was to actually put the review here on the blog. I've watched it, and written it, but for some currently secret reasons I am holding it back. So how about we play a little game? Let's go through the list and see which I think I'll Dump or Keep. Even though I've watched Black Sheep, I can still give you my initial opinion when I first made the list.
The List
- Black Sheep* (1996)
- Ed Wood (1994)
- Good Night and Good Luck (2005)
- Hero (2002)
- The Last Samurai (2003)
- Lost in Translation (2003)
- Saw II (2005)
- Shaolin Soccer (2001)
- Syriana (2005)
- Taxi Driver* (1976)
* - Denotes a movie I haven't watched yet
Well, this should be interesting. The first review up is 1996's Black Sheep (not to be confused with 2006's film about zombie New Zealand sheep)!
My original plan was to actually put the review here on the blog. I've watched it, and written it, but for some currently secret reasons I am holding it back. So how about we play a little game? Let's go through the list and see which I think I'll Dump or Keep. Even though I've watched Black Sheep, I can still give you my initial opinion when I first made the list.
- Black Sheep* (1996) - DUMP
- Ed Wood (1994) - KEEP
- Good Night and Good Luck (2005) - KEEP
- Hero (2002) - DUMP
- The Last Samurai (2003) - KEEP
- Lost in Translation (2003) - KEEP
- Saw II (2005) - DUMP
- Shaolin Soccer (2001) - DUMP
- Syriana (2005) - KEEP
- Taxi Driver* (1976) - KEEP
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
DVD Survivor, Baseball, + Other Creative Stuff
Today's post isn't really meant to be thought-provoking, unless it provokes the thought of "why does he think we care?" Anyway it's another "update" post of things I'm working on / will be working on. Or you may want to call it, "Things I'm Writing That Aren't Actually Stories". Or "This is What I Write Instead of Fiction".
DVD Survivor
I'm not actually working on this yet, but it's an idea I had while (of course) on my lunch time stroll around the block at work. The basic premise is this: I have a bunch of DVDs that I bought a long time ago; in most cases these were movies I hadn't seen before, and rather than rent them, I bought them. In most cases, I probably ended up liking the movie; but in some, I haven't watched since.
We recently got an HDTV; even more recently, a Blu-Ray player. I'm going to want to be buying some new movies - some as replacements for movies I already own on DVD (Star Wars, Back to the Future, and a few others). Obviously those DVD copies will be out the door once they're replaced. But we'll also be picking up new copies of Blu-Ray movies we don't own, and we really don't want to run out of space. This is where we get to "DVD Survivor".
This isn't going to be something where I pit inanimate objects on Britannia Beach or something. "Survivor" is just a catchy name to me. I will watch each movie that is on the chopping block, and decide on each viewing whether to keep or toss said movie. I don't have a full list of what movies I'll be watching, but I can tell you it includes Hero(2002), The Last Samurai(2003), Lost in Translation(2003), Taxi Driver(1976), Good Night and Good Luck(2005), and Syriana(2005). I can tell you I can picture myself keeping at least three of those movies (I won't tell you which!). And of that list, there is only ONE which I haven't even watched yet.
I don't know when I'm starting this, but I do know these things: 1) It will be soon 2) I will be watching the movies in alphabetical order.
Baseball
Oh, baseball. The pre-season matchups kick off next month as teams across the league try to figure out how their roster will shape up for the 2012 season while pretending that they're really not enjoying the beautiful weather in Arizona and Florida.
I am a "regular" writer at my brother's Blue Jays blog, Blue Jays Luddite. Well, I was "regular" last year, but I think I'm going to make an effort to give him some more contributions. So if you like baseball, or at the very least want to read about the Blue Jays, be sure to keep an eye out next month for what's sure to be exciting training camp stories.
Other Creative Stuff
I think I've been letting all of this stuff take over my work on Alternative Airwaves, but I feel like it's okay. At the moment I don't feel overwhelmed, so I'm going to take that as a good thing. You see, it wasn't too long ago I was complaining about wanting to do something creative but not knowing what to do. I won't take it as a bad thing that now I have tons of ideas and they're all flowing.
I think the favourite thing I'm doing right now is my page-by-page review of Planet X, a Star Trek: The Next Generation / X-Men crossover novel written in 1998. I found it in Value Village, and I had to buy it. You can read it over at tngxmen.tumblr.com. I have a friend, Xyloart, who is doing the illustrations. And they are awesome; probably way better than my writing.
Speaking of Alternative Airwaves, as I said I've been stagnating a little. I'm coming up to the 50th episode (that'll be in May), and I'd like to put a bit more work into it to get it sounding really great. We'll see what I can come up with, but mostly the work will involve putting more time into finding music than anything else. Too often lately I've been picking music last-minute and only from 1 or 2 sources. Something I need to work on.
DVD Survivor
I'm not actually working on this yet, but it's an idea I had while (of course) on my lunch time stroll around the block at work. The basic premise is this: I have a bunch of DVDs that I bought a long time ago; in most cases these were movies I hadn't seen before, and rather than rent them, I bought them. In most cases, I probably ended up liking the movie; but in some, I haven't watched since.
We recently got an HDTV; even more recently, a Blu-Ray player. I'm going to want to be buying some new movies - some as replacements for movies I already own on DVD (Star Wars, Back to the Future, and a few others). Obviously those DVD copies will be out the door once they're replaced. But we'll also be picking up new copies of Blu-Ray movies we don't own, and we really don't want to run out of space. This is where we get to "DVD Survivor".
This isn't going to be something where I pit inanimate objects on Britannia Beach or something. "Survivor" is just a catchy name to me. I will watch each movie that is on the chopping block, and decide on each viewing whether to keep or toss said movie. I don't have a full list of what movies I'll be watching, but I can tell you it includes Hero(2002), The Last Samurai(2003), Lost in Translation(2003), Taxi Driver(1976), Good Night and Good Luck(2005), and Syriana(2005). I can tell you I can picture myself keeping at least three of those movies (I won't tell you which!). And of that list, there is only ONE which I haven't even watched yet.
I don't know when I'm starting this, but I do know these things: 1) It will be soon 2) I will be watching the movies in alphabetical order.
Baseball
Oh, baseball. The pre-season matchups kick off next month as teams across the league try to figure out how their roster will shape up for the 2012 season while pretending that they're really not enjoying the beautiful weather in Arizona and Florida.
I am a "regular" writer at my brother's Blue Jays blog, Blue Jays Luddite. Well, I was "regular" last year, but I think I'm going to make an effort to give him some more contributions. So if you like baseball, or at the very least want to read about the Blue Jays, be sure to keep an eye out next month for what's sure to be exciting training camp stories.
Other Creative Stuff
I think I've been letting all of this stuff take over my work on Alternative Airwaves, but I feel like it's okay. At the moment I don't feel overwhelmed, so I'm going to take that as a good thing. You see, it wasn't too long ago I was complaining about wanting to do something creative but not knowing what to do. I won't take it as a bad thing that now I have tons of ideas and they're all flowing.
I think the favourite thing I'm doing right now is my page-by-page review of Planet X, a Star Trek: The Next Generation / X-Men crossover novel written in 1998. I found it in Value Village, and I had to buy it. You can read it over at tngxmen.tumblr.com. I have a friend, Xyloart, who is doing the illustrations. And they are awesome; probably way better than my writing.
Speaking of Alternative Airwaves, as I said I've been stagnating a little. I'm coming up to the 50th episode (that'll be in May), and I'd like to put a bit more work into it to get it sounding really great. We'll see what I can come up with, but mostly the work will involve putting more time into finding music than anything else. Too often lately I've been picking music last-minute and only from 1 or 2 sources. Something I need to work on.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
A Novel I will be reading through a web browser
The famous (infamous?) Ryan North linked to this tumblr: http://btothef.tumblr.com/
I can't imagine this project being anything other than awesome, and I will be following along. Oh and this is actually written by Ryan North so it should be fun to read in that respect.
That is all.
I can't imagine this project being anything other than awesome, and I will be following along. Oh and this is actually written by Ryan North so it should be fun to read in that respect.
That is all.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
On Movie Adaptations of Books - Part 1
I'm currently reading Fellowship of the Ring (technically, re-reading the first 11 chapters since I tried reading the book before), and it's got me thinking about the movie adaptations of the Lord of the Rings franchise, and movie adaptations of books in general. So I present to you a series of three posts about this very subject.
I don't know that I can say I've "always felt this way" about the relationship between film and books, but I've felt this way about it for a long enough time: they're different beasts. Yeah, I'm sure this is a newsflash for everyone out there. The weird thing - and this just occurred to me - is that while they are two different forms of media, they are both presented in a similar manner.
I bring this up because that's usually the go-to argument about the differences between film and print; film is a visual medium, they say, while print is not. Wait a second - I understand what point you're trying to convey, but how is reading a book not visual stimuli? You use your eyes to read the words, and that activates your imagination. I guess it would be better to say that books are an intellectual medium - but then, so too can film be intellectual (see: Tree of Life*).
To get to my point faster, here's the question: if books and movies can both be considered to be engaging the same stimuli - albeit in different ways - how come movie adaptations of books are often major departures from the original source? Unfortunately the answer is a little complicated, so uh...I hope you have some time set aside to do a little bit of reading. The first difference is obvious - how we physically consume the media; second, the physical limitations of either media; and lastly, the difference is that they're the same. What? Yes, they are the same. Bear with me - in three weeks, you will understand what I'm talking about.
I thought I would start out with the most obvious, which is how we physically consume either media. To drill down a bit further, it comes down to how much time we spend with each form of story-telling. When reading a book, we have the leisure to read whenever we want, and virtually whereever we want.** Some people read at blinding speeds, while others take their time and read when they can.*** Unless you've borrowed the book from the library, it's there, ready for your eyes, whenever you wish.
Conversely, movies have an average running time of anywhere from 1 and a half hours to 2 and a half hours (with the epic movies, like Lord of the Rings, stretching past the three hour mark). One could argue that outside of the theatre we have the same luxury as we do with books in that we can watch at our leisure, pause and start as we please; the truth is that films are made to make money in theatres****, not at home or on the bus to work.
Because of the time constraint, writers and producers often have to cut extraneous portions of the source material in order to present it on-screen in a reasonable running time. This is especially true with large tomes (there's a reason why A Game of Thrones went to TV, not theatres). As a result, what we see on screen is usually not a 100% true adaptation of the book. And, in what's going to be a common theme in this essay, that's OK, because filmmakers are trying to make a film - just because they don't have an original idea doesn't change anything.
Dealing with a time constraint is the primary reason why die-hard franchise fans are often disappointed in on-screen adaptations of their most beloved stories. What they really need to do is critique the movies as films, not as adaptations. Yes, the strength of the story depends largely on the original source, but it's my opinion that you can't objectively say, "This movie was bad because it didn't contain X element that was present in the original book." Usually there's a reason it was omitted from the screen adaptation. What you should evaluate is what you see on screen, and how everything fits together.
Next week, we'll explore the physical differences of each media. And after that, I'll explain why neither of the first two essays matter because both formats are the same.
* - To be fair, I don't actually know anything about Tree of Life except that the critics over at Filmspotting had a field day with this one, and it all went way over my head. So I think it's safe to say that this film generated intense intellectual debate.
** - I'll thank you to not read while you drive.
*** - I certainly don't take several months to read a book. *cough*
**** - That's why they report box office gross, not weekly DVD sales. Of course this doesn't apply if your studio releases movies direct-to-DVD.
I don't know that I can say I've "always felt this way" about the relationship between film and books, but I've felt this way about it for a long enough time: they're different beasts. Yeah, I'm sure this is a newsflash for everyone out there. The weird thing - and this just occurred to me - is that while they are two different forms of media, they are both presented in a similar manner.
I bring this up because that's usually the go-to argument about the differences between film and print; film is a visual medium, they say, while print is not. Wait a second - I understand what point you're trying to convey, but how is reading a book not visual stimuli? You use your eyes to read the words, and that activates your imagination. I guess it would be better to say that books are an intellectual medium - but then, so too can film be intellectual (see: Tree of Life*).
To get to my point faster, here's the question: if books and movies can both be considered to be engaging the same stimuli - albeit in different ways - how come movie adaptations of books are often major departures from the original source? Unfortunately the answer is a little complicated, so uh...I hope you have some time set aside to do a little bit of reading. The first difference is obvious - how we physically consume the media; second, the physical limitations of either media; and lastly, the difference is that they're the same. What? Yes, they are the same. Bear with me - in three weeks, you will understand what I'm talking about.
I thought I would start out with the most obvious, which is how we physically consume either media. To drill down a bit further, it comes down to how much time we spend with each form of story-telling. When reading a book, we have the leisure to read whenever we want, and virtually whereever we want.** Some people read at blinding speeds, while others take their time and read when they can.*** Unless you've borrowed the book from the library, it's there, ready for your eyes, whenever you wish.
Conversely, movies have an average running time of anywhere from 1 and a half hours to 2 and a half hours (with the epic movies, like Lord of the Rings, stretching past the three hour mark). One could argue that outside of the theatre we have the same luxury as we do with books in that we can watch at our leisure, pause and start as we please; the truth is that films are made to make money in theatres****, not at home or on the bus to work.
Because of the time constraint, writers and producers often have to cut extraneous portions of the source material in order to present it on-screen in a reasonable running time. This is especially true with large tomes (there's a reason why A Game of Thrones went to TV, not theatres). As a result, what we see on screen is usually not a 100% true adaptation of the book. And, in what's going to be a common theme in this essay, that's OK, because filmmakers are trying to make a film - just because they don't have an original idea doesn't change anything.
Dealing with a time constraint is the primary reason why die-hard franchise fans are often disappointed in on-screen adaptations of their most beloved stories. What they really need to do is critique the movies as films, not as adaptations. Yes, the strength of the story depends largely on the original source, but it's my opinion that you can't objectively say, "This movie was bad because it didn't contain X element that was present in the original book." Usually there's a reason it was omitted from the screen adaptation. What you should evaluate is what you see on screen, and how everything fits together.
Next week, we'll explore the physical differences of each media. And after that, I'll explain why neither of the first two essays matter because both formats are the same.
* - To be fair, I don't actually know anything about Tree of Life except that the critics over at Filmspotting had a field day with this one, and it all went way over my head. So I think it's safe to say that this film generated intense intellectual debate.
** - I'll thank you to not read while you drive.
*** - I certainly don't take several months to read a book. *cough*
**** - That's why they report box office gross, not weekly DVD sales. Of course this doesn't apply if your studio releases movies direct-to-DVD.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
His Girl Friday (1940)
I have a 5-minute review of this coming up in my next podcast, but I felt in the mood to actually update a review blog I set up months ago.
I wrote a haiku about it.
I wrote a haiku about it.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Piracy
I haven't written here in a while; so why not write about a controversial topic? I don't think anything is as controversial these days as piracy - the "scourge of the Internet". I don't know if that's an actual quote from somebody, but let's pretend that it is.
To clarify, I'm thinking of a specific branch of piracy. I don't believe that music piracy - as rampant as it likely still is - is a hot-button issue anymore. To put it simply, people are finding ways to legally support artists they like (something music fans have always said they are willing to do) in models that now work. There's also a lot of music available legally for free online if you know where to look (and it's not hard to trip over all of it). I'm not thinking of the piracy of films either - I think the movie industry has done a much "better" job locking down their content.
My target today is book piracy - specifically, e-books. I don't think anyone can make their morning commute on the bus without seeing at least five people reading from their various e-readers. They're everywhere, and have exploded probably a lot faster than the publishing industry ever anticipated (mostly thanks to the Amazon Kindle). Blah blah blah - this is old hat now in 2011. Long story short: we now have the same technology that was introduced in Star Trek: The Next Generation: the PADD. Moving along...
Wait, can I back-pedal for a second and point out that this isn't going to have any kind of reference to statistics? This is largely an anecdotal piece.
Where was I? Oh yeah, e-book piracy. I'm indifferent to e-book piracy - that is to say, it's a gray area for me. Would I download an epub version of a book I don't own? Probably not (unless we're talking books by Cory Doctorow, which are freely given away); I consider that to be piracy. But if I get an e-reader (which I might quite soon), what if I want to read one of the books I already own on my shelf? I really don't think I should have to buy it in another format if I already have it on my shelf.
I suppose it's the same argument as music - if you own the CD, why re-buy it as an mp3? But the difference there is that it's really trivial to put a disc in a CD tray, and rip the music to your computer's library. Not so easy with books, unfortunately.
And, books are one of those things that friends and family usually give to us (or lend). If I'm given a physical book to read, is it still piracy to download an ebook format if I don't feel like lugging around a physical copy? That's a tough one, and the answer is both yes and no. Probably I should read the physical version.
Anyway, I really don't know where I stand on this, as you can tell from this wishy-washy post. Originally I was going to include some statistics on book piracy but I got lazy. So uh...hooray for e-readers?
To clarify, I'm thinking of a specific branch of piracy. I don't believe that music piracy - as rampant as it likely still is - is a hot-button issue anymore. To put it simply, people are finding ways to legally support artists they like (something music fans have always said they are willing to do) in models that now work. There's also a lot of music available legally for free online if you know where to look (and it's not hard to trip over all of it). I'm not thinking of the piracy of films either - I think the movie industry has done a much "better" job locking down their content.
My target today is book piracy - specifically, e-books. I don't think anyone can make their morning commute on the bus without seeing at least five people reading from their various e-readers. They're everywhere, and have exploded probably a lot faster than the publishing industry ever anticipated (mostly thanks to the Amazon Kindle). Blah blah blah - this is old hat now in 2011. Long story short: we now have the same technology that was introduced in Star Trek: The Next Generation: the PADD. Moving along...
Wait, can I back-pedal for a second and point out that this isn't going to have any kind of reference to statistics? This is largely an anecdotal piece.
Where was I? Oh yeah, e-book piracy. I'm indifferent to e-book piracy - that is to say, it's a gray area for me. Would I download an epub version of a book I don't own? Probably not (unless we're talking books by Cory Doctorow, which are freely given away); I consider that to be piracy. But if I get an e-reader (which I might quite soon), what if I want to read one of the books I already own on my shelf? I really don't think I should have to buy it in another format if I already have it on my shelf.
I suppose it's the same argument as music - if you own the CD, why re-buy it as an mp3? But the difference there is that it's really trivial to put a disc in a CD tray, and rip the music to your computer's library. Not so easy with books, unfortunately.
And, books are one of those things that friends and family usually give to us (or lend). If I'm given a physical book to read, is it still piracy to download an ebook format if I don't feel like lugging around a physical copy? That's a tough one, and the answer is both yes and no. Probably I should read the physical version.
Anyway, I really don't know where I stand on this, as you can tell from this wishy-washy post. Originally I was going to include some statistics on book piracy but I got lazy. So uh...hooray for e-readers?
Monday, August 8, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)
I've been anticipating this movie for quite some time - not because I'm particularly excited about the Harry Potter franchise (though it is a fascinating piece of work), but because it provides ultimate closure to the series (no matter what JK Rowling has to say about it). I had some expectations, based both on what I saw of the previous movie and what I read in the book. I don't think I need to address everything I feel about the movie, but I will do my best to give you a comprehensive overview of what I thought of the movie - both its strengths and weaknesses.
WARNING! If you have a particular allergic reaction to the phenomenon known as SPOILERS you should probably stop reading this until you've seen the movie - or read the book - because I'm not going to hold back on specific details. I will, however, provide a page break in case you're just glancing at the main page. Also, I apologize for the length of this. I'm sure you'll understand the need for an epic review.
WARNING! If you have a particular allergic reaction to the phenomenon known as SPOILERS you should probably stop reading this until you've seen the movie - or read the book - because I'm not going to hold back on specific details. I will, however, provide a page break in case you're just glancing at the main page. Also, I apologize for the length of this. I'm sure you'll understand the need for an epic review.
Friday, July 22, 2011
A Non-Screened Review of Friends With Benefits (2011)
Disclaimer: I have not seen, nor do I intend to see, Friends With Benefits - the new movie starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis due out today. This review is based on what I have gleaned from the trailers.
Here is the synopsis, from IMDB:
If you were wondering at all why I do not intend to see this movie, your answer is in that synopsis. It's telling me everything I need to know about this movie. And then this trailer fills in the rest. Before I continue, does any of this premise seem familiar at all?
Allow me to present some evidence:
Here is the synopsis, from IMDB:
While trying to avoid the clichés of Hollywood romantic comedies, Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis) soon discover however that adding the act of sex to their friendship does lead to complications.
If you were wondering at all why I do not intend to see this movie, your answer is in that synopsis. It's telling me everything I need to know about this movie. And then this trailer fills in the rest. Before I continue, does any of this premise seem familiar at all?
Allow me to present some evidence:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)