PheD Up (archives)

Moving

I won't be updating this blog anymore. If you'd like to find me, you can look here: in medias res.

Thanks for reading,
elisamaza76

Better living through more effectual freaking out.

2010 is a rebuilding year for me. Lots of things are broken, or not far from it, and the no-longer-quite-so-new year seems like as good an excuse as any to renew my resolve to start addressing that fact with something more than denial and ineffectual freaking out. Not that denial isn't fun, but it's nice to switch things up now and again. And, while dealing with reality does, quite often, bring the freak out, it's generally less fun than denial. If it's not going to be fun, it should at least  be useful, right? So, for the new year: minimal denial and only effectual freaking out.

What's that you say? Yes, yes - I understand that some people manage to accomplish things without freaking out at all. Yes, I *have* tried it. Yeah, it's great, but-- LISTEN! I AM NOT THOSE PEOPLE, OK?!

*sigh*

Where was I? Ah, yes. The new year is off to a great start, thanks to the first of my Effectual Freakouts. The initial freakout actually happened last year, but I didn't take any action on it until now. It went something like this:

Reality (early 2009): Well, you've really made a mess of your finances. Time to focus on paying down those balances. Well past time, in fact. *sigh* IF I pay this much for this long...

Denial (in intermittent bursts throughout the year): Oooh, cute shoes...I've been wanting that CD...But, I've got to eat, right? And I'll order something cheap...Must.Have.Coffee...It's not for me...OMG, True Blood!...Well, it *is* on sale...

Reality (also in intermittent bursts) + Ineffectual Freakout: It's on sale, and I still can't afford it. I don't have any money and I'm all out of credit. Holy shit, I don't have any money and I'm all out of credit! How the hell am I out of credit?! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH CREDIT THAT WAS?! That's it - no more retail therapy. I'm going to exercise discipline and...yeah, that'll never work. Maybe I'll check out those debt management programs. Yeah, that's it - I'll check out those debt management programs.

Action (late-ish 2009): DMP checked into - yay, me! I can't do it until after my conference, but it's nice to have a plan.

Reality + denial: Ok, ok - I can't do it until after my conference. So, I might as well wait until the beginning of the year. I mean, I might need my credit cards over Christmas. And I need a few things for work. And I do still have those store cards. A little more wouldn't hurt...

Reality + Effectual Freakout: Jesus, Apollo, and Thor - what is wrong with me?! Wait - don't answer that! Baby steps...baby steps...OK! If I call them right now I can sign up for the program!

Action: *Spends two whole days doing and redoing budget for the year. Then spends what feels like hours on the phone, closing out accounts.*

Ineffectual Freakout + Denial + Reality: *Has total crisis because have had these credit cards longer than have ever dated anyone and--* Maybe I could just keep the one card...for emergencies? And it's better for my credit rating if I can keep one open, right? Right?! Oh, God. This is going to suck. And, I'm never going to be able to live by myself. I want to move! How am I ever going to be able to move?!

7. Reality + Effectual Freakout: Shut UP! You can't keep the one card because you have to close that OTHER card from them. And, you can't move anyway because you spent all your money! You're screwed!!! The best you can do is put the plan in motion and suck it up!

So, the plan is in motion. Which frees me up to freak out about all sorts of other things! Next up: health. No, dating! No, no - career--

Shit

The Year In Movies (2009 edition)

Pretty much what it looks like. New movies, movies that are new to me...I'll leave it at the top and will update it as appropriate. FYI - My 5* movie rating system has 6 levels:

5 *s = WOW!
4 *s = Good
3 *s =Decent, or at least not bad enough to get 2 *s
2 *s =Bad, but not awful, or enjoyable despite its awfulness
1 * = The best part was the end, because then it was over
no *s = deep, pain-filled sigh...I will never get that [insert running time here] of my life back.

PS - The reviews may very well be spoilery. I won't usually put a warning on individual ones.

The Year So Far: Underworld; Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans; Frost/Nixon; The International; Watchmen; Duplicity; Let the Right One In; Wolverine; Star Trek; Fast and Furious; Kissing Jessica Stein; Up; Into the Wild; Away We Go; Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen; The Proposal; The Hangover; Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince; The Awful Truth; (500) Days of Summer; In Bruges; Definitely, Maybe; Shoot 'Em Up; The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard; District 9; Gamer; Where the WIld Things Are; Edward Scissorhands; The Twilight Saga: New Moon; The Princess and the Frog; Sherlock Holmes; Adventureland; Nine

JANUARY

Underworld** (DVD)

I watched this again in anticipation of checking out the forthcoming prequel. Let me just be honest: I love Underworld. There - I said it. Now, don't get me wrong. I KNOW that it's awful. But I love it anyway. I stumbled across it several years ago DVD when my old crush on Scott Speedman (who plays Michael Corvin, Hapless Victim) resurfaced. I don't remember why or how that happened, but there it was. And it had such potential! Vampires v. Werewolves! No - Vampires v. werewolves + Romeo and Juliet x post-Matrix action movie! But it was obvious that a chunk of the plot had been jettisoned (though not well enough) to make more room for action (this is confirmed in the special features), and Kate Beckinsale left me feeling mostly meh about Selene, and Scott Speedman...well, let's face it, he's pretty, but terrible, and he didn't even look that pretty in this move, so...

And yet, I love it. Why? Partially because I enjoy bad movies. There are worse faults, right? And this one has some spectacular moments in it for such a bad movie. Wentworth Miller saying, "...A full-grown man *bit* you?" while looking at Scott Speedman like he's crazy comes to mind. And Scott Speedman, despite himself, delivers two of the best lines in the movie. His "What the fuck is going on?!" is exactly the thing that should be asked more often in movies like this. And, when Selene tells him - nonchalantly - to jump out of a very high up window, and he looks out, turns back and says, "Are you fucking kidding me?!" That is a beautiful moment, one that more Hapless Victims should have.

It's also fabulous, in my opinion, that Speedman is basically the damsel in distress for the whole movie, even once he's been hybridized, and is allegedly "stronger than both." If only his she-knight in shining leather were more compelling. She's mostly just angry (bordering on pouty), and the only reason I really want her and Michael to prevail is that Lucian (more on my love of that one later) wants her and Michael to prevail. Ooh, but her boots are very compelling -  they're like a pair I own, but more...well, just more.

But mostly, I love Underworld because of Viktor (Bill Nighy) and Lucian (Michael Sheen). Nighy's Viktor does this weird, clicky, twitchy thing, but it somehow works, especially when he's dripping disdain for one thing or another, and Viktor's got a lot of disdain to drip. The absolute best line in the movie is Viktor at his most disdainful: "Your incompetence is becoming most...taxing. (to Kraven - honestly? Kraven? Why not just name him cowardly traitor?)

So Viktor's a gem, and even before you know that Lucian is all Tortured Past and not *really* the bad guy (well, if you discount the kidnapping, murder and assault on several members of the Corvinus clan), he's obviously awesome, which is totally down to Sheen's delivery. His reaction to finding the pack - sorry, coven - in Fight Club mode is classic: "You're acting like a pack of RABID DOGS!! And that, gentlemen, simply will not do... Pierce! Taylor! Put some clothes on, will you?" And then, when you find out about Sonja (it takes Sheen approximately 1 minute to make the whole movie worthwhile), you just want to give him a hug and...wait, is that just me? Oh. Never mind, then.

Um, anyway, once Lucian bites it I'm pretty much uninterested. Viktor throws a great fit about the tiresome task of stamping out abominations, but that final fight scene does little for me (poor Michael is lame in all forms, human and hybrid), and the special effect for Viktor's death is atrocious. It's a shame that the movie didn't do its premise justice. It's also a shame that Selene/Kate Beckinsale isn't more compelling a heroine, that Michael and Selene aren't ever really developed, and that Scott Speedman...well, he is awfully pretty in that last shot.

Anyway, it's a bad movie, but I love it, mostly for the Viktor/Lucian magic. And Kate Beckinsale's boots.

Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans***

Yeah, you read that right - 3 stars!

So, you know that I love Underworld, and that I love it because of Viktor and Lucian. So, imagine my glee when I heard about Underworld 3: Rise of the Kick-Ass Supporting Cast! I had to postpone my viewing in deference to the Big Important Interview I had a few days after it came out, but made my way to the theater as soon as I could. I'll cut to the chase: I love it, and with much less of a sense of shame that I love the first. I think this is the best of the 3. Granted, that's maybe not saying much, but there it is. This one certainly hangs together plot-wise better than either of the previous ones, but perhaps that's the benefit of a prequel like this - we already know what's coming, and just need to know how it started. Not surprisingly, it pretty much started with Viktor being a dick.

I was actually a little disappointed with Nighy this time - too much of the weird clicky-twitchy thing - but Viktor is still fantastically bad. Again, he gets what's probably the best bit in the movie. Viktor's daughter, Sonja (who I am mostly meh about - why can't they make the female characters in this franchise more exciting?) asks V. whether he has any gratitude towards Lucian (more on my undying love for him later), who has broken a rule, but only to save her life. It would appear not, given that he's had the lycan flogged and thrown into a dungeon, but Viktor's reply sets the record straight:

"I am awash in it - that he lives shows the breadth of my magnanimity."

Well, when you put it like that...

And then there's Lucian. *sigh*

I wish they'd have let him speak (rather that shouting) more of his lines, but Michael Sheen is largely fantastic and surprisingly sexy, though if brit-accented rockstarjesusromeowerewolf doesn't sound appealing to you, you should probably ignore that last statement. Lucian is the real reason to see this - he snarls, swoons and stirs up the oppressed masses with just enough swagger that, while the "love story" is simply asserted and never convincingly presented, one has no trouble imagining what Sonja sees in him. He also gives Nighy a run for the best-line award. Viktor spits that he should have crushed him under his heel when he hda the chance. "Yes," Lucian rumbles, "you should have...but you didn't." The first half drew a chorus of "Yeah!" and "Mmm hmm" in both theaters (shut up - I had gift passes both tiems!); the ellipses and second half got full on shouting and applause.

Sheen makes it clear, I think, what Sonja might see in Lucian (The Sexy). The flipside is a bit less obvious: Rhona Mitra is hot, but mostly uncompelling, as seems to be the trend for the heroines in this franchise. To her credit, she may not have Kate B's boots, but she does display some serious kickassery with a sword, and she handles a couple of emotional moments (in the dungeon and the sun chamber) well enough.

Underworld 3 will not satisfy those looking for a lot of gore (there are a few bloody moments, but far fewer than the ick-fest that was Evolution), but there are some very entertaining action pieces here, with just enough story to make them seem necessary. For an extra kick, do what I did: watch Frost/Nixon and Underworld 3 in close proximity. I kept waiting to Frost to transform and tear Nixon's throat out...

PS - Why are there any she-lycans? I understand perfectly why Viktor wouldn't have wanted any - slave labor force (males stronger), population control - but why, even in the "present" of the 1st move, were there no she-lycans?

Frost/Nixon****

(This  was part of my Michael Sheen double-header. I'd heard about Frost/Nixon, and was curious, but probably wouldn't have made the effort to see it in the theater if it hadn't been for the chance to see Michael Sheen do Something Serious and Rockstarjesusromeowerewolf in the same day. I haven't seen The Queen yet (I know, I know!), so this was my first experience of him in a non-Lucian part. To borrow a phrase from a friend, I vote yes.)

I'm of two minds about this movie. I enjoyed it while I was watching it, and felt like it was well done, but something was missing for me. I found myself alternating between thinking that the performances were really good and thinking that they were too "stagey"  (by which I think I mean that Langella's Nixon felt really exaggerated to me at several, though not all) points. The general problem, I think, was that I found myself thinking about the performances at all. That's why I'm of two minds. I felt like it was good, like it had emotional heft and good writing and good acting, but I rarely felt carried away by it. Maybe that's not always a fair expectation of a movie, but I think it's what I look for. I think the best movies (and books) are the ones you can get caught up in, the ones in which you can stop seeing actors on a screen, or words on a page, and just get lost in a story. Most of Frost/Nixon did not do that for me. The exceptions to that came mostly at the end. Starting from The Telephone Call, I finally stopped feeling like I was watching Michael Sheen and Frank Langella do their jobs very well, and just got caught up in the story. If I'd felt like that more of the time, I'd have given Frost/Nixon 5 stars.

That said, I did think that the whole movie was good, just not great. And, I left feeling like the accolades have gone to the wrong person. Well, that's not exactly what I mean - Frank Langella is very good in this movie. But so is Michael Sheen, and so is Kevin Bacon. I think the problem is that their performances are quieter, less the Big Loud kind of good, more the kind of good that sneaks up on you. I prefer the latter; the Oscars seem to prefer the former.

Anyway, a good movie, worth watching.

FEBRUARY

The International***

Not bad, just not particularly gripping, which seems like a problem for a thriller.

MARCH

Watchmen***
I had lots to say about this when I first saw it, then was too lazy to write the review. Here's what I'll say now:

Not surprisingly, the movie has nowhere near the depth of the book. But, it's richer than a lot of what I'll see this summer, and has some very good performances in it. Jackie Earle Haley is fantastic as Rorschach, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is very good as the Comedian. The problem is that, despite that, it's a middling movie based on really good source material. Matthew Goode was actually pretty good, but his physical wrongness for the part really distracted me (I felt like he needed to look a little older, and certainly more imposing). Unlike a lot of reviews I've seen, I was largely uncompelled by Billy Crudup's voice work as Dr. Manhattan.  Patrick Wilson is good but not great as Dreiberg; much like his character, he magically became hot when he put the Nite Owl II suit on (further research has shown that he is, in fact, usually hot, and also a singer, which is hot). Malin Ackerman was...ok, Silk Spectre II was already not the best character, but Malin Ackerman was, in my opinion, absolutely terrible. Hot, but terrible. Really really terrible.

All of that said, I saw it twice in the theater and will probably buy it. I enjoyed it, I think some of the visual touches are really well done, and...fine, I have a huge crush on Patrick Wilson now, and also on Jeffrey Dean Morgan (though not from the movie - he's too good at being The Comedian to be attractive), and I think the special features will be fun. Don't judge.

Duplicity***
A fun way to pass a couple of hours, and Clive is lookin' gooooood.

APRIL

Let the Right One In (DVD)****
Pretty good, and also pretty disturbing. The young leads were compelling, and the climax was gratifying in a way that I can't feel comfortable about. The end is...troubling. Especially seen in light of the beginning.

And then there's Eli (also equal parts good and troubling). I read a little about it, and it seems that there's more of a backstory for Eli in the novel, which addresses (at least a little) something huge that the movie raises but leaves completely unaddressed. I’ll probably add it to my summer reading list.

MAY
Wolverine***

This movie did not suck. I'd heard that it would, then I heard that it did, but I disagree. It's not great, but it's not bad either. It was...fine. And that's the problem. It was entertaining enough, and had enough good moments to be just-north of mediocre, but it also left me feeling meh. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine still looks really hot, channels the rage, and brings the man pain. On the subject of man pain, can I just say that I am sick to death of the Oedipal Yell? Find a new was to express "THIS IS TERRIBLE!", ok Hollywood?

Liev Schreiber does a good crazy guy with claws and brings a welcome (for me, at least) smirkiness to the proceedings.

Also making me happy? Gambit. I loved him in the cartoon (don't judge!), so it was fun to see him (I *did* miss you!), and I think he had potential, except for the part where he might as well have had PLOT DEVICE stamped onto his forehead. You can have him be a plot device - just don't have him FEEL so much like one. that said, if there were a spin-off/sequel with more Gambit in it, I would probably watch it, and I'm sad that the continuity/timeline shenanigans they've pulled preclude a Rogue/Gambit adventure, because I would *definitely* watch that.

Too bad (and here's that spoiler I warned you about) Wade/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) is probably the sequel direction, because I have absolutely no interest in him. None. Ryan Reynolds is fine in his early scenes, and I'm sure the character is awesome in the comics (which I never read), but I don't really feel like I need to see more of him. Though I probably would if it involved more of Hugh Jackman looking hot while kicking his ass. Just sayin'. Because Hugh *was* ridiculously hot. That scene, with him standing shirtless outside of his cabin, before it all goes horribly wrong? Almost worth the price of admission right there. And he deserves an award of some sort for looking *so* good with *such* stupid hair...

Ahem, As I was saying, my assessment of Deadpool (fine, but I kind of don't care) is sort of how I felt about the movie overall. It's mostly just fine. The character stuff is fine, but not good enough to make it feel like more than a better-than-average excuse for the action sequences. The strongest emotional attachment in the movie was with two small characters who will definitely not be in any sequels. The action sequences are fine, but nothing that blew me away. It's an entertaining way to kill a couple of hours, but, more than anything, it made we want to watch the first one again.

And maybe look into that kid who played Gambit. 

Star Trek ****

Short version: All kinds of fun! I have every intention of seeing this again :)

Longer, potentially spoilery version: It's not a perfect movie: the time travel thing could be a little more solid, and there are some logical inconsistencies that would drive Mr. Spock nuts (no matter how well he suppressed that ire). But, the performances are good, the spaceships are cool, and that "pointy-eared bastard" is a straight-up pimp - who knew?! Leonard Nimoy rocks Spock I, but I would have expected nothing less. The man is a rock star. As is Quinto as Spock II - if "live long and prosper" as a kiss-off hadn't already established that, the Uhura thing would have sealed it for me. The fact that Nimoy is there, and doing just the perfect job you'd expect, makes Quinto's performance that much more noteworthy. He does a fantastic job of being, not an imitation of the Spock we know and love, but a Spock that it makes perfect sense that one might have been. Quinto's Spock is calm and cool, but seething just beneath the surface, and he conveys that beautifully. And I'm not sure how someone can manage to be sexy with those ears, but damn...

So, you can tell who my favorite was. As for the rest: Zoe Saldana doesn't have the killer curves Nichelle Nichols did (casting would have needed their own singularity to find an actress shaped like that, and who knows what sort of trouble *that* would have caused), but she's gorgeous, and her Uhura is whip-smart, self-assured and fun to watch, as is the buddy chemistry (well conveyed in succinct fashion) between Chris Pine's Kirk and Karl Urban's "Bones" McCoy. Pine's got all kinds of swagger, but also manages to make what could have been a really annoying "assumed daddy/authority issues" plotline compelling to watch. His face is also compelling to watch. Karl Urban is saddled with a bit too much "nudge, wink" dialogue, but he pulls it off. I'll be happy to see McCoy better developed in the sequels. And he's just plain made of hotness, so no surprise there. Scotty is all comic relief - Pegg, of course, nails that. Cho's Sulu has a couple of great moments as well. All kinds of fun! I have every intention of seeing it again, and not because the crew is so damned pretty.

Well, not *just* because the crew is so damned pretty :)

Fast and Furious **1/2
Not a good movie, but that's not what I went for. How's this for truth in advertising: the cars are very fast, and Vin Diesel's Toretto is, in fact, furious!

Vin, Michelle, Paul, and Jordana are still not terribly talented (Michelle is, I think, the best of the four). They are also all still very pretty to look at, as are the cars - a shame that we don't really get to drool over any of them more. The opening heist and 1st race are exciting, but the other bits of fast driving are pretty repetitive. There's just enough of a plot to mostly give an excuse for the action, and the holes in it are as big as you'd expect them to be. This is big, dumb, fun - pretty much what I expected, though somehow not quite enough fun...

Kissing Jessica Stein (DVD)***1/2
I'd heard mixed reviews about this - one friend thought it was hilarious and fantastic, another thought it was OK but problematic. Not surprisingly, they were both right. There are some moments of serious hilarity, and there are aspects of the story that are very well done. But what's a romantic comedy without tired caricatures of women? Here we've got one uber-picky neurotic and a free-spirited maneater/nympho-lite type. And then there's the ending, which reinforces the idea that that "finding yourself" and "loosening up" means getting with the guy who's been an asshole the whole time.

So, despite the less-than-typical approach, this movie ends up pretty much where pretty much every other romantic comedy ends up. Fun, funny, and sometimes infuriating.

JUNE
Up****1/2
I mostly loved this. The beginning is beautifully done (Disney and Pixar continue the trend of making me cry at cartoons), and most of what follows is a fabulous time :)

Into the Wild (HBO)****

Away We Go****
I really enjoyed this movie. Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski are both great, as are the various talents who show up to support them (I especially *heart* Allison Janney's). That said, something keeps this movie from being completely fabulous. I think it's the story itself - what little there is of it. Too many hints untold story, and not enough told to balance them out (or distract us from them). I feel like the lack of filling is was intentional, and I like the idea, I'm just not sure it works as well as it could. The ending, especially bothered me. The ellipsis felt like laziness, rather than a poignant lack of resolution (not to mention being far too neat for a movie that does such a good job of showing a compelling everyday messiness). Still, the leads carry it well and there are some moments of real, often beautifully understated brilliance.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen**
1. This movie is absolute crap.
2. I enjoyed it anyway. Those 2 stars mean "enjoyable despite its awfulness."
3. I'm pretending that Skids and Mudflap (aka the squabbling, illiterate ghettobots) do not exist. If they existed, they'd be less offensive to me than Jar Jar Binks, but only by a tiny bit.

JULY
The Proposal***1/2
I was pleasantly surprised by this - Sandra Bullock is her usual charming self, Betty White is a riot, and Ryan Reynolds has great comedic delivery.

The Hangover****
The fact that I'm ignoring the so-not-funny Asian/gay/fat jokes long enough to give this 4 stars should let you know how funny the rest of it is. To paraphrase Tara Thornton (HBO version), "That was some fucked up shit." But in a good way.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince***1/2
Radcliffe and co. do a fine job, but the movie still feels a bit hollow. The 6th book felt tense, suspenseful, and eventually heartbreaking. The 6th movie is exciting, funny, and does have a couple of well-done emotional moments, but even the big events don't hit as hard as they should.

One of the better entries in the movie series (though nothing to rival the 3rd), but still a pale shadow of its literary origin.

The Ugly Truth**1/2
Heigl and Butler are both amusing, and deserve better material.

500 Days of Summer****
I enjoyed this movie a lot. I had read a few things that made me wary that there would be extreme quirkage, but that was not the case. This movie is mostly quirk free, and what quirk there was was well-placed. The chronologically untethered narrative works very well. I don't know whether or not the characters feel real (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, in my opinion), but they somehow seem truthful.

But I'm mad about the last (I think) line of dialogue. Boo.

In Bruges**** (HBO)
I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I was pleasantly surprised. Well, sort of. The movie is great - so pleasant. And it hilarious, except for the heartbreaking part. So, not so pleasant. Dark humor and...well, darkness. Won't want to watch it again, but glad I saw it.

AUGUST
Definitely, Maybe***1/2 (HBO)
Now, I've got HBO for a limited time and, since I really should watch something besides True Blood to justify having it, I've been Tivoing some movies for later viewing. This one was a perfect candidate, since I would never have Netflixed it - I saw a trailer for this a long time ago, it looked absolutely horrid, and I didn't give it another thought until recently, when a friend of mine claimed to have watched and enjoyed it. It was, in fact, not bad - a perfectly good sick-on-the-couch movie, and I don't think that's just the cough syrup talking. Abigail Breslin was cute, but not too cute (as was Isla Fisher, who I am growing better at distinguishing from Amy Adams). Ryan Reynolds was less compelling to me in this than he was in the Proposal (though I'd say this is a better movie than that was), but was still enjoyable. While the ending was no surprise, it was fun getting there.

Shoot 'Em Up Ø (HBO)
Neither Clive Owen's hotness nor Monica Bellucci's boobies made this worth my 90 minutes. Actually, it took less time than that, because I started fast forwarding - I'd have stopped watching altogether, but I wanted to know why someone was trying to kill the baby. The explanation was not worth the sadistic dreck I waded through to get it.

I think I'll need to watch Gosford Park to rehabilitate Clive's image.

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard*
Before I had seen the movie, as I watched the trailers, I thought to myself, "This is going to suck. I can tell from the trailers." There were, first of all, 9 billion trailers in front of this movie. OK, just 6, but it felt like 9 billion. First, there was an extended period of silence, accompanied by a blank screen. I thought, for a moment, that the projector would be broken, and we'd have to be given vouchers or something. No such luck.

First up was Shutter Island. Likelihood of my seeing it: hell no. This movie might actually be good, but I wouldn't know, because I ignored the trailer as best I could. I don't do horror movies, and I kind of don't do Leonardo DiCaprio. Next was Couples Retreat. Likelihood of my seeing it: hell no. This movie will not be good, and I know, because I paid attention to the trailer. Then came Gentlemen Broncos, which I might be dumb enough to watch. On DVD. After that was The Informant!, to which my initial response was, "No." But if I heard good things about it, I'd watch it on DVD. The next was Gamer, for which I am so there! What? Gerard Butler looks very compelling! Wait - I mean the movie! The movie looks very compelling! Least, but not least (that was Couples' Retreat), was Extract. I probably will not watch this either. The trailer left me with a strong sense of "meh," which I suspect is the best case scenario of what the movie would do.

After this crop of high quality previews, I was not at all surprised at how not good The Goods was. The trailers were bad, the movie wasn't very funny, and then Will Ferrell showed up and things got even worse. And then there was more not-very-funny. There were some legitimately funny moments (including at least the beginning of the a capella angels), but not enough of those in a row to justify the rest of it.

This movie was better than Shoot 'Em Up (thus the star), but only because it was (mostly) less cruel.

District 9***
District 9 is not a bad movie, but it is a problematic one.

As a sci-fi/action movie, it is probably one of the better ones I've seen recently. It is compelling enough, with a simple but coherent plot, and is well-paced. Things go boom and splat - I found it a little too gory, but my gore threshold is pretty low. In basic alien action movie terms, it was pretty good. The problem is that it isn't a basic alien action movie.

One of the people I saw it with insisted that it was ridiculous to consider any sort of political or social commentary aspect of the movie, because it "was just an action movie." He suggested that It was especially ridiculous to think it had anything to say about race, because, as he informed me, "we're just beyond all that." First of all, I'm not sure it's ever actually true that being "just an action movie" means it's not worth thinking about what one is absorbing while watching. Second of all, I do not live in a world where "we" ("the world," he said at one point) are beyond that. I do not deny that some things are better, racially speaking, than they once were but that those improvements have erased all problems, and the need to discuss them, to think about them. After all, the end of apartheid did not mean the end of bigotry in South Africa. Which brings us to the more specific reason why it's ridiculous to think that *this* movie can be "just an action movie." Even without the chatter I'd heard beforehand (which I intentionally kept at a minimum), it's impossible to set a movie in Johannesburg, have a group in it that's been imbued with recognizable stereotypes, stick them in a township, focus on the role that bigotry has played in their circumstances, and have it be "just an action movie." It is also impossible to watch a movie set in South Africa where black South Africans are relegated to mob scenes and a few "man on the street" cameos, and where "The Nigerians" are shorthand for barbaric, superstitious, predatory criminals and not think about ethnic tension. I don't know what message the filmmaker intended to convey, but it came across to me as a mixed one.

Finally, a very basic bone to pick: black South Africans were not some minority group that stumbled upon the land and got stuck there, wanting nothing more than to go home. They were the majority, and they were already home.

District 9 is not a bad movie, but it is a problematic one.

SEPTEMBER
Gamer**1/2
Gamer was better than I expected it to be. That's not to say that it was good - plot holes, loose ends...you know the drill. But it had more of a plot than I'd expected, and held it together better than I thought it would. I liked the action more than I liked the gore. I haven't played a first person shooter in a long time, but the friend that I saw it with said it felt like Halo, which I think she meant as a compliment.

The movie was pretty much a slightly better version of what I'd expected, until a moment towards the end when The Bad Guy (played by Michael C. Hall, sporting an inexplicably thick "southern" drawl) breaks into song. I've Got you Under My Skin - full voice, complete with soft shoe. It's relevant, but still completely bizarre. I loved it.

So, not really a good movie, but an entertaining one. Especially the song and dance.

OCTOBER
Where the Wild Things Are****
A sometimes exuberant (the wild rumpus is pretty awesome), more often bittersweet (I was glad not to be the first member of the audience to start sniffling) film, Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are felt less to me like an adaptation of Sendak's book and more like a meditation on where that little boy might have been a few years down the line. A friend of mine said that the was missing the innocence of the book, which I think is accurate. Sendak's Max has always struck me as a little boy (5 or 6? I'm terrible at guessing child-age), making a little boy's mischief. Jonze's Max is a little older (9, from what I've read) and, not surprisingly, both his mischief and his Wild Things are a little more complex.

This is not a bad thing - I think the movie works well, and I enjoyed it a lot. Aside from the story itself, the movie is fabulous to look at, the music is well done, and I thought that Max Records did a great job of bringing the boy in the wolf suit to life. And, the wild things themselves are very cool.

I've read in a few places that this is not a "children's movie," but I think it might depend on the child. I have no way to know this, having little experience with children, but I suspect that the kids who love the book best are close to the age of the Max in the book. Similarly, I think children in movie Max's age range might really enjoy this version - I think I would have loved it when I was 9 or 10. As it stands, I liked it a lot at...well, more than 10.


Edward Scissorhands (DVD)***
Not sure how it's possible that I never saw this until now. I liked it - the storytelling doesn't quite pull its own weight, but it's an enjoyable film nonetheless. Not surprisingly, it's fabulous visually. Alan Arkin and Dianne Wiest are great as the parents, and Johnny Depp's largely silent performance is mostly compelling. But, it's also a pretty unsatisfying movie. If I didn't already know that Winona Ryder has been nominated for two Oscars, I certainly wouldn't have guessed it from this film. Plot-wise, I'm all for dark endings (and this is a fairy tale that needed one), but Anthony Michael Hall's character goes from jerk to murderous a little too abruptly, in my opinion.

Glad I saw it, not sure I'll need to see it again.


NOVEMBER
The Twilight Saga: New Moon ***
So, let's get the important stuff out of the way first. Taylor Lautner's body is amazing. There - I've said it.

New Moon was my least favorite of the books - the overwhelming codependency of it all was too much the point - but I think the second movie is better than the first. That's faint praise, but not as damning as it might sound. Kristen Stewart still spends too much time with her mouth hanging open (though perhaps less than in the first), and Bella still needs to be slapped repeatedly, but the slightly vacant look works for all the scenes of how-can-I-go-on-without-him angst. RPatz is still wooden - maybe that's his interpretation of the marble, statue-like quality of Meyer's vampires? - but his screen time is limited, due to the events that set this 2nd installment in motion. In his absence, Lautner does well by Jacob. He's still better at channeling the puppy than he is at bringing the wolf, but he has some very nice moments, and some of them even involve him wearing a shirt.

In supporting news, Billy Burke still rocks as Charlie and Anna Kendrick still nails the self-absorbed and slightly bitchy (though somewhat justifiably in this one) Jessica. Meanwhile, in Volterra, Michael Sheen is gleefully creepy (and deliciously over the top) as Aro, Christopher Heyerdahl looks appropriately bored as Marcus, and Dakota Fanning needed approximately 30 seconds to out-act the leads as Jane.

No reason to see this if you're not already into it, but enough eye candy and angst to keep the inner 15 year old amused for a couple of hours, if she's into this kind of thing.


DECEMBER
The Princess and the Frog****
It's no Beauty and the Beast, but I thoroughly enjoyed it! None of the individual songs blew me away (though A.N.Rose's voice is, of course, gorgeous), but Disney did well with the overall musical atmosphere. The story is good, and even comes with a good old-fashioned emotional sucker punch - classic Disney. The animation is lovely, and a few of the special sequences (Tiana's Place and the Shadowman scenes especially spring to mind) are really fantastic. A worthy addition to the Disney canon. Almost enough to make me forgive them for Pocahontas.


Sherlock Holmes***1/2
Good fluffy fun. The plot is thin, but the deduction is entertaining and the buddy-movie chemistry between RDJ and Law works well. Like Lord Blackwood's tricks, more flash than actual magic, but a good time nonetheless.


Superbad****
Just as crude as I expected, buy far more entertaining than I thought it would be - long live, McLovin'!


Adventureland***1/2
The supporting cast is stellar, and if it were structured as an ensemble piece, that would be enough. But the story really does revolve around the two leads, who turn in the two weakest performances. I really wanted Kristen Stewart to be good in this. Jesse Eisenberg didn't impress me much either, but maybe the director told them to talk fast and pause in strange places? Not bad, just not as good as it seems like it could have been.


Nine***
Nine is not bad, but it is unsatisfying. The parade of lovely ladies is impressive, but Kate Hudson seems out of place and Nicole Kidman's botox makes more of an impression than her performance. Judi Dench is good, but has little to do. Sophia Loren gets a pass because she's Sophia Loren. Penelope Cruz's first number is all kinds of hot, and Fergie's big song is a big, beautiful production number. Marion Cotillard is fabulous, and one of the things I really took away from Nine is that I should watch more of her work. Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor, but the terrible accent and mediocre singing are really distracting - most of the musical numbers, in fact, leave one wondering if the songs are more impressive when sung by more talented singers (only some, I think, would be).

The other thing I took away from Nine is that I should really watch 8 1/2. Unless you're really excited about that parade of lovely ladies, I'd recommend that instead.

Grading playlist #1 - pressed but not panicked

I Get Around - Dragonette
Stood Up - A Fine Frenzy
The Weight of the World - Editors
Take Me to the Riot - Stars
I'm an Animal - Neko Case
There is a Light That Never Goes Out - The Smiths
Time is Running Out - Muse
California on My Mind - Wild Light
Beds Are Burning - Midnight Oil
Hate On Me - Glee cast
Running Up That Hill - Placebo
Back in Time - V.V. Brown
Siren Song - Bat for Lashes

Promises, statements, and Nobel prizes

Alfred Nobel's will states that the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I tend to think of the Nobel as an acknowledgment given to someone who has done a lot, or done something really important (for when can we ever be sure that it is the most, or the best?) to promote the reduction of wholesale suckery in the world. If you look back over years, I think you'll find that many winners make more sense under my formulation than under any interpretation (certainly any strict interpretation) of Nobel's. I also tend to think of the Nobel as a reward for a job well done - something accomplished, even if the accomplishment has only been to get something started or recognized. Now, I think there have been some good starts made by this year's recipient, and some important things recognized because of him, but I don't think that's the Nobel committee's point here. This prize is, obviously to my mind, being given as a statement - a message, if you will. If it were mine to give, I don't know that I'd give it as a statement, but it isn't mine to give, and it is well within the committee's rights to give it as such.

I do think there are others who could, and perhaps should, have been given this prize for actions already taken, but I also think that giving Obama this prize on the basic strength of a few actions and a whole lot of promises is a very powerful statement, one I'm not at all upset to see made. It is a powerful statement to say that a few actions and a whole lot of promises have that much strength. It is a powerful statement to say that shit is so bad that just admitting that and promising to try really hard to make it a little better - to use your power for good - deserves an award: not just any award, but this one. It is a powerful statement to say, "We believe you, Barack Obama." And, no, I do not mean to say, "We believe *in* you," but simply, "We believe you." In essence, Obama won this prize for promising not to be his predecessor. He won this prize for having promised to do his best to undo some of the harm his predecessor and those like him have done, both at home and abroad. He won this prize for promising to make America, and therefore all the bits of the world that America has a hand in, or an effect on, or an influence over, less of a train wreck (and we are, in fact, a train wreck right now, spreading our train wreckery just about everywhere we go). Obama has promised these things, and the Nobel Prize committee has expressed its belief in those promises.

But, if this prize was awarded to send a message, it is also a message to Obama. It is a powerful statement to award the Nobel Peace Prize on the strength of a few actions and a bunch of promises. But it is just as powerful a statement to say, "OK, we believe you. We believe you, we honor you for it, and now, because we believe you, we expect you to come through."

Well said, Nobel committee. Here's hoping that everyone is listening.

Notes from the True Blood marathon (spoilers ahead)

Shake and Fingerpop
I gave you a rare gift. The gift of not killing you. (Eric to Lafayette)

Never Let Me Go
Most wrong thing this season: that bathtub scene.

Hard-Hearted Hannah
This is nice...I could sleep here in a pinch. (Pam to Lafayette)

Note: Is it just me, or is the thing in the church balcony still only the second most wrong thing so far?

Release Me
Are you telling me you date raped Terry Bellefleur?! (Tara to Arlene)

Timebomb
Sookie - He's your maker, isn't he?
Eric - Don't use words you don't understand.
Sookie - You have a lot of love for him.
Eric - Don't use words I don't understand.

Honesty my ass, shithead...white suit motherfucker. (Jason, re: Steve Newlin)

I Will Rise Up
You may be immortal Lorena, but you are dead to me. (Bill to Lorena)

I'm not a boy, mama, I'm a grown-ass man! (Hoyt to his mama)

Finish your sentence. (Eric to Sookie)

New World in My View
(no notes until rewatch)

Frenzy
Lafayette - Eric made me drink his motherfuckin' blood is how that happened.
Sookie - Me too - he tricked me!
Lafayette - Somebody need to slap that bitch.
Sookie - I have!

Beyond Here Lies Nothing
"I'm a waitress - what the fuck are you?!" (Sookie to Maryann)

"The god with horns - WORSHIP HIM, BITCHES!" (BlackEye!Lafayette)

Note: The majority of this finale was made of SUCK. I do not approve of the way the Maryann thing was handled (well, the ending of it was fine, but the lead up was AWFUL!). But all the stuff leading into next season? Well played, True Blood. Well played.

Smoke and Mirrors

More book reviewing. This is an earlier collection, and the stories were mostly enjoyable, but I didn't enjoy them as much as the ones collected in Fragile Things. For the most part, these stories are entertaining, but less captivating - I thought this set was good, where I feel the other was great. Maybe these are just less my style. Or, maybe Gaiman's style in the other collection is more to my liking. There are standouts, though - the one hidden in the introduction is, again, excellent (it's called The Wedding Present), as is Snow, Glass, and Apples, the chilling final story, which may have forever ruined the fairy tale it recasts (not a huge loss - I never particularly cared for that one). For pure chills, the best of the lot is Don't Ask Jack (not surprisingly, jacks-in-boxes are going on The List, right alongside door knockers). Murder Mysteries is probably the one I will want to think more about - I wished, when it ended, that there had been more of it.

On to The Graveyard Book.

Fragile Things

I review a lot of movies on here, but this is a book review. I've just finished reading Neil Gaiman's "Fragile Things." Lots of good stuff here - even the lesser stories are good, and I don't think there's a single one that I flat-out didn't like. I wasn't really thinking of the stories (and a few poems) as creepy until I found that I was just a little antsier than usual riding the bus home at night and crossing the dark street to my front door. At some point, I also noticed a nearly uncontrollable urge to look over my shoulder while sitting in rooms alone, but it was short lived (I think). A few of the stories are downright scary, while some are just a little unsettling (or maybe upsettling, as Gaiman would say). Some are funny - there's a lot of humor in these pages - and almost all have an element of sadness. Gaiman writes things that want to be thought about, and they usually succeed in that.

My thoughts on some of the stories:

Monarch of the Glen - Last story in the book, but I read it first because it features Shadow, from American Gods. That boy never learns. Unsettling and beautiful (sometimes simultaneously), I suspect the tale will be as hard to shake as the cold damp that pervades it.

The Mapmaker - An excellent little story, hidden in the also excellent introduction.

A Study in Emerald - Gaiman describes it as Sherlock Holmes meets H.P. Lovecraft. I recognized the Holmes, and now want very much to read Lovecraft. Though I expect to be disturbed by it.

October in the Chair - Fabulous and upsettling. I'm totally stealing that word.

The Hidden Chamber - A poem about love, and also something scary that you can't quite put your finger on. Which might be a little redundant.

Forbidden Brides...- One of the more comical entries in the book, it features ghosts, a scary old house, a few mysterious ladies, and the horror of a marriage gone stale.

The Flints of Memory Lane - A great little ghost story, and probably the reason I was so nervous coming home that night.

Closing Time - Downright scary, in the best way possible - I have no idea what happened, but I know it was awful. And I no longer want a door knocker on my imaginary house, because I'd never be comfortable going in.

Other People - Brilliant.

Keepsakes and Treasures - It's hard to know when something will cross the line for me. I'm not particularly prudish, or easily offended, but there is definitely a too far. This one started off dark and disturbing, but I was game. It became not totally ok with me, then went straight to no-zone. It's a good story, but not one I needed in my head.

Good Boys Deserve Favors - When I was young, I used to daydream that something very similar to this would happen to me. It never did, but I sometimes wonder if I just gave up on the instruments too quickly.

Strange Little Girls - Little stories written to accompany Tori Amos' CD of the same name. Good as stories, and a reminder that I haven't really listened to that CD.

The Problem of Susan - A well done and quite disturbing response to what Gaiman calls the "disposal" of Susan Pevensie in the Narnia books.

Instructions - There are several poems included here. This is my favorite, I think. I begin to believe that I would turn around at the well, and it saddens me. You can hear Gaiman read the poem here.

Feeders and Eaters - Deeply, deeply disturbing. And good. And disturbing.

In the End - I'd love to read the Bible that ended with this. Something about this story made me think that Dinesen would have enjoyed it. I think, in fact, that Dinesen would have enjoyed much of Gaiman's work that I've read, which is, in my mind, a high compliment.

How to Talk to Girls at Parties - This story is to awkward parties what Buffy the Vampire Slayer often was to high school. If I'd read this in high school or college, I'd have thought of it every time I went to a dance or a party. Even as an adult, is there anything stranger or scarier than wandering through a gathering where you don't belong, wondering what strange creatures these are? How do I talk to them? And when they speak, why does so much of it sound like nonsense, or a language I don't speak, and can't, therefore, hear the meaning in?

It's best that I didn't read this way back when - I might have given up on the enterprise altogether. Or spent all the gatherings thereafter wondering if anyone was a poem.

Sunbird - I thought I knew what was coming, and then I didn't, and then I sort of did, but it still surprised me a little. Good stuff, one of the lighter entries.

Inventing Aladdin - My other favorite poem. I think I like the majority of "Instructions" better, but the last line of this one is pure genius. Gaiman writes elsewhere that he believes we owe it to each other to tell stories. Here, he suggests that we owe it to ourselves. Amen, Neil.

True Blood

If you're watching True Blood, and haven't yet seen ep 9 (I Will Rise Up), there are probably spoilers ahead.

*sigh*

Sunday's episode gets both a well-played and a WTF. I cannot be mad about the dream sequence (how ADORABLE is he?!), but I really think they've mishandled a few things. Here's what really bother me:

Last night's ep. was full of inconsistencies for me. The Eric/Sookie dream sequence was a nod to Book 4, and it was handled well - I'd been concerned to hear that the triangle was starting, worried they'd just scrap the book trajectory altogether, but I liked the dream sequence angle. But, in my opinion, the circumstances surrounding it have been tipped too far in the "Eric is a conniving asshole" direction to make the rest of it believable. (Well, given the context, "believable" is a loose term, but you know what I mean). When Godric asked Sookie if she cares for Eric, she gave the wrong answer for the way they've presented the characters in the show. Even with whatever empathy his care for Godric is supposed to have inspired, Sookie should be very firmly in the "Eric?! That asshole?!" camp, based both on the events of that episode (you know, where he tricked her into the blood thing, and she was enraged, and Bill punched him in the face, and they made a huge deal out of how terrible and wrong and gross it was?) and on the events of previous episodes (you know, where he KIDNAPPED AND TORTURED HER FRIEND?!). The more ambiguous "Oh, that Eric. He's an asshole, but there's something about him..." makes sense from the books, but neither the charm nor the bits of highly selective affection have been well established enough to make it work on the show, in my opinion. Not that I'll complain if it leads to Alexander Skarsgard being naked and adorable again. Well, I will, but whatever.

And, while I'm grousing, why is it gross that the sexual attraction comes with Eric's blood, but not at all an issue that the quantities of Bill's blood she's consumed might (should) be having the same effect? And why would being older make Godric burn faster in the sun, instead of slower? They haven't established that the older vampires are even more dead-like (dryer, more magic than flesh, etc) than the younger ones (which is the case in some versions of the myth). What they have established is that older means stronger. Bill has healed from some serious sun exposure, and he's way younger than Eric, who is way younger than Godric. Look, I'll take whatever rules you set - you just have to actually set them, and then follow them. None of this playing fast and loose with the worldmaking.

And what the hell is up with Maryann? Why does she need to kill Sam so bad? I am kind of tired of that storyline - I think the mutual smacking around scene did it for me. As a friend said earlier, it's going to need a really satisfying wrap-up to make it all worthwhile. That said, one of the things I loved about the episode came courtesy of that storyline. The rescue/kidnapping of Tara was brilliant. As always, I *heart* Lafayette. He went from "Something is wrong with this bitch" to "Oh hell naw, I'mma have to whup this mu'fucker's ass," to "RUUUUUUUUN!" in a matter of minutes, and it was brilliant.

Other highlights included Hoyt's declaration of "grown-ass man"-hood and Bill's sendoff of Lorena: "You may be immortal, Lorena, but you are dead to me." Nice! But the best line of the episode, hands down?

"Finish your sentence."

Finish your sentence

Reowr!

Oh, hell no.

Dear roommate's unattended guest:

OK, let me get this straight. You do not live here. And, you already know I didn't know you were here until I walked out in my bathrobe and found you in the hallway. You must know that I'm not thrilled about that. Now you're brushing your teeth with the door open?! You don't live here - you should NOT be that comfortable! I live here, and I don't brush the teeth with the door open, unless I'm alone, WHICH I SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW!

Not at all amused,
Person who actually lives here (ie me)