Doctor Who: Season Two

Doctor Who: Season Two staring David Tennant and Billie Piper. 

This TV show has enough going for it to get my nerd blood flowing strong. There were only about two episodes in this 13 episode season that I would consider sub-par but all the others were so spot on I didn't care about those other two. One of the best things I like about the new Doctor Who, versus what I watched when I was kid, is how focused they are on character and involving other characters in the Doctor and his companion's travels. 

It's refreshing to see writers who actually care about the characters and the passion is always on display in this show. I like how they build on the mythology of the Doctor, his race the Time Lords and how it really affects him as a person. By doing this they really build his character and give more weight to the decisions and chooses he makes within each episode. 

I'm just really glad David Tennant has more than one season to be the Doctor because from what I've seen from him this season he has the potential to take down Tom Baker as the best Doctor. He brings such an energy and passion to the role that I wasn't quite prepared for. I thought Christopher Eccleston did such a fantastic job in the first season, but he needed more than one season to cement his status as better than Tom Baker, thankfully David Tennant is going to get that chance and from what I've seen I think he's going to do it. 

I also like how they writers aren't afraid to throw in the two part episodes as many shows seem to run from this kind of programming. They think viewers don't like it or are do dumb to follow continuing episodes, thankfully these writers seem to trust their viewers. Another thing I like is how funny these episodes are. There are many times I found myself laughing out loud from the comments of the Doctor brought on by his character and the writers seem to understand his character as they never let a situation dictate how his character would respond, but instead let the Doctor respond to the situation as he would respond. Too many writers seem to forget their character when writing as the character starts to act against their nature when situations arise for the sole sake of the story line. I absolutely hate that and these Doctor writers don't forget that, for that I am thankful. Looking forward to the rest of the season, thank you BBC and Neflix.

Safety Not Guaranteed

Safety Not Guaranteed. 

This is a low budget film to the extreme is a far cry from the special effect filled and over priced summer movies that now seem to dominate every season.  I'd heard about this movie for a long time, but just never got around to seeing until now, and unlike most low budget films this one has a really focused storyline, is not pretentious, and only an hour and 25 minutes long. 

 All in all it made for a good watch and is a gem of a film. 

 I don't know if I'd label this movie sci-fi?  There's an element of time travel that threads it's way through the movie, but it's more talked about than used. The focus of the movie is more about character and relationships, than about time travel. Time travel is just a foundation to see how these characters are going to act and interact with each other. Two of the characters want to go back in time to fix a relationship, while the other one is trying to reconnect to a relationship he had in the past and the last person is trying to just connect with a girl in the present. 

I really liked how the story set itself up and then let everything that happens just happen based on a classified add that starts everything in motion. There were still some things not answered by the movie's end, but all in all it was a good ending and an interesting movie easily worth watching.

Coupling

Coupling. 

This is the show Friends was desperately trying to be but failed at every year. I just never bought into the whole fantasy world created in Friends, most of the simplest of internal logic never made much sense in the show and I always found the characters of Ross, Phebe, and Joey some of the most annoying and irritating people in the world and on television - will someone please tell me how the character of Joey was able to get his own television show? How Phebe was still alive and not in a mental institution? I could never understand. How Joey wasn't on a mentally disabled list was another thing I could never understand. And Ross was just annoying for someone who had a PHD and if he had a PHD he was one of the stupidest people alive to hold a PHD. So yes there were issues I had with Friends those just scrape the surface. 

Now Coupling, the main thing I can say about Coupling is that the BBC has done it again in creating a brilliant show that for the most part holds up logically the way Friends never did. These people always seem to meet at night, in bars, and in their flats after work, unlike Friends who seemed to meet at all times of the day and any day of the week where I kept asking myself, "When and were do these people work?" 

Coupling is laugh out loud funny. I haven't seen a show in ages that made me laugh out loud in a long time but Coupling seemed to do just that in every episode. A lot of their dialogue and conversations had some real bite and thoughtfulness to it that American shows only think they have. There is a lot of talking about sex in show just so you know before you go into watching it, but like I said a lot of the talk comes from a very honest place which makes Coupling all more relevant as no matter who you are the idea of sex as a universal constant that bridges all languages and cultures is always going to be true. I think I only found that last four or so episodes of Season Four not as good and the main reason for that was they ditched one of the main characters and replaced him with another character that was nowhere as good. I don't know why they did this but in my opinion it really hurt the last season because that character was pivotal to the show.  His absence was sourly missed. In truth this show is just about what the title of it is about, Coupling.  People, relationships, friendships, partners, mixing and matching with the people around us.  These are the driving forces of this show and it was all the better for it.  The six main leads in this show really clicked and seemed more real than the blank, cliched characters from Friends.

Under the Dome

Under the Dome by Stephen King. 

If you've read King before then you know what you're getting into before you start this book and I would blurb this book "The Stand Lite". 

It's over a thousand pages long making it appear like The Stand in a visual sense, but it's nowhere near as good as The Stand was. That doesn't mean Under the Dome isn't good, it is good just not as good as The Stand was. 

King has this power to create and write about small towns that is truly remarkable and here that power is on full display as he creates this small town that one day gets this invisible dome put around the town that extends miles up, miles below, and miles around them. Basically encapsulating in something that amounts to a fish bowl.  Then King populates this town with characters that seem to live and breathe as he gives them a rich, full history that as the story goes on you really get to know them in a personal way. King has always been good at this, but this close examination of the town under a dome takes it to a whole other level, as we get to see how this town would react in such a crisis as being encased in a dome. It's interesting seeing how different people would respond in different ways if such a thing happened. As the story goes on the small town really becomes alive as you get to know the landscape, the stores, the buildings, the different houses, the small restaurants, the roads, the radio stations and the other things that make a small town run like clock work. But the real show is the Dome and seeing how it, from a fantastical point of view, would react in our real world makes the Dome come alive. I'm not going to get too crazy with telling you how, but reading about it was really cool as King brought a realistic perspective to the Dome that I would've never thought of and that realistic perspective really made the story more interesting than it would've been. That is a writer's job: to bring a different perspective to something that would either seem normal or abnormal and then write what happens.  Stephen King has done that here.

House of Cards

House of Cards directed and produced by David Fincher staring Kevin Spacey (also a producer) and Robin Wright Penn (Princess Buttercup from the infamous movie The Princess Bride, who here is anything but Buttercup like). 

 First off I haven't seen the BBC series this is based on but after seeing this I'm going to watch the BBC series sometime, to compare them because the BBC does such great job of producing shows for television.  And I would like to compare original content to the updated or remade content to actually see if it was necessary for it to be remade or updated or if it was just a gimmick, like the new Conan and Total Recall movie were or for that matter just about any movie Hollywood or TV has remade. But that being said this House of Cards wasn't amazing but had a watch ability to it, as I sat down and watched episode after episode, not being chained to the confines of a weekly release date. Doing that has hugely helped this series, as I did feel more in control of what I was watching and when I was watching it.  Watching this way also made it more enjoyable and in a sense more intimate. 

Fincher's fingerprints are all over this show as every episode - even the ones he didn't direct - still have the Fincher feel from the first episode he directed.  This is a good thing because visually it gives this show a super polished, highly professional look, easily comparable with the shows HBO, Showtime, AMC, and FX have been producing over the last decade or so. I've been a huge Fincher fan since I saw his movie Seven and have seen every film he's made since, with only The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons being the one film of his I didn't like.  While The Social Network, Fight Club and Seven being three of the best films I've seen from this "new" crop of directors out there. Personally I think The Social Network is one of the best films to be released in a long time. His visual palate has always been one I like to watch and it translates very well to House of Cards as it totally helps this show transcend any thought that it might not be that good or might not compare with the other cable or network shows out there. Visually it's one of the best shows out there and the production of it also helps to fully lift this show into the realms of the cable shows tearing it up. 

Everything in this show looks authentic and realistic, even if they use sound stages it doesn't feel like it's a stage but feels wholly authentic. One of the things I noticed was how production-wise their was a contrasting and juxtaposing of rooms, houses, kitchens, class-ism, clothes, and wealth that added to the depth of everything in this show and it never feels cluttered by how many things were compared, but it only added to the complexity of what was happening on screen. The best example I can give of this is how the main character of Francis Underwood (played by Keven Spacey) his clothes, house and office are compared with the reporter Zoe Barnes (played by Kate Mara) her clothes, apartment and office(s).  This is done with intention for every character.  Pay close attention to their clothes and location because that is part of their character and part of this show. This point is hammered home by Underwood near the beginning of the first episode where he repeats the word, "Location, location, location," so clearly location in proximity and appearance play a huge part in this show. It's all the better for it, much like Game of Thrones, location helped to define their characters, the same is true for this show. 

 Now I will say the characters in this show are no where near as in depth as Game of Thrones, but I still found myself engrossed in them as I watched episode after episode. Another thing this show has going for it is pitch perfect casting and some really good acting from the whole cast. Spacey and Wright-Penn own his show with every scene they're in together and apart. This is another good example of a show that doesn't have to rely on high profile actors to move everything forward because there are enough solid, good characters actors that can do much better and everyone in this show does.

Pride and Prejudice

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen published in 1813. 

Yes, I do read all kinds of books. 

Yes, this is a romance novel and yes, it is a very good read. 

I was really surprised that it was such a page turner.  I wasn't expecting that at all, and from a romance book written in 1813. The hardest part I had with reading this book was overcoming Jane Austen's writing style because it wasn't like any kind of writing style I had read before.  It was truly that different, but once I got settled into her mindset the story that unfolded was highly engrossing. I must also confess to having seeing the amazing BBC miniseries staring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle before reading the book and the BBC did such a great job of the adaptation that visually I saw the series as I was reading it.  It was that perfectly cast. But Jane Austen set the stage for what the BBC did and what a great job she did of setting that stage. Entering her world was like being transported back into that time of manners, propriety, and the art of conversation that are so foreign in our society today. 

One of Jane Austen's greatest strengths is her art of conversation.  She weaves a great web of sentences, arguments, counter-arguments, and tact that it was truly a delight to read. She doesn't spend time describing things, places, or people but lets her readers imagine what they will about those things, places, or people. When she does describe things, which is rare, that means there's a reason for it, so special attention needs to be paid when that type of description is written. Her major concern is what's happening inside people and the chess board of society and the culture around that society that is what she is focused on the most. In between all of this she throws in all kinds of questions about class-ism, wealth, education, and any combination of those words that it staggers the mind that such a simple story about love could have so many layers of depth. 

Some of my favorite scenes, as I am sure Austen intended them to be were the scenes with Darcy and Lizzy together, which I didn't realize weren't that many, but when they were there they were vibrant with life and made me want more scenes with these two characters: when Darcy first proposes to Lizzy and near the end when Darcy and Lizzy take their walk and realize finally that are in love. My favorite scene of all is when Lizzy visits Darcy's home Pemberley and gets a whole new perspective on Darcy from his staff and the grounds itself help to soften her attitude towards Darcy. This is the first time in the book that Austen breaks into the narrative to the describe the settings of Pemberley, which goes into describing Darcy himself. Austen did such a great job of showing how Lizzy went from complete hatred of Darcy into the love that blossomed in her heart. I fully bought into the transformation of her, none of it reeked of falsehood, but was written in a genuine realistic way as Lizzy came to a lot of knowledge of Darcy - as the reader did also - through second hand information that helped to flesh out a lot of the misunderstanding that had transpired before. Reading this and watching the love grow between these characters was a delight to read that as the book started to end I wanted them to get together. 

And that is sign of a good writer and a good romance novel.

Skyfall

Skyfall directed by Sam Mendes staring Daniel (some day to be knighted) Craig, the Dame Judi Dench, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ralph Finnes, Javier Bardem, and Albert Finney. 

I read in an interview that Mendes used the movie The Dark Knight as a template for this movie and let me tell you, it shows in a lot of ways and is that much better for it. 

The first place it shows is in casting. The cast list alone seems to mirrors what Nolan did with the Batman movies, which proves the point - higher good actors and actresses and the movie will be that much better, much like the Harry Potters movies proved to be more interesting because the caliber of actors and actresses they hired for those movies, elevated the overall production and every scene those actors were in.  The same goes for Skyfall, as much as it did for all of the Nolan Batman movies. 

The second thing similar to the Batman movies is the direction. There were certain scenes in Skyfall that were very reminiscent of Nolan’s Batman and really helped to make Skyfall have that same kind of epic feel and it’s all the better for it.  Casino Royale didn’t have this same kind of epic feel that Mendes brings to Skyfall.  I don't think Casino Royale needed that epic feel, but by having that epic feel brought to Skyfall, it makes that much a different movie, so much so that it doesn't feel like a regurgitated sequel.  It feels wholly it's own.  

The third and fourth part inspired by The Dark Knight is the theme and villain: a theme of chaos, honor, duty and betrayal and a villain who’s out for ultimately revenge but serves the same purpose as the Joker. He’s there to kill and cause as much chaos as possible and bring up questions of loyalty, honor and betrayal. The questions this type of theme and villain bring up are exactly the same kind of questions facing a government and military today involving terrorists who kill just for the sake of killing. How do we combat and stop them? By doing this Mendes makes Bond even that much more relevant than ever before. Also this villain brings a personal stake to the table that I’ve never seen before, where the action scenes have a more personal feel and aren’t just over the top for the sake of being over the top. Don’t get me wrong they are over the top.  It wouldn’t be a good action movie or Bond movie if they weren’t over the top.  This time around though, the action is much more personal for Bond than ever before. 

This is a good sequel to Casino Royale.  I consider the Quantum of Solace more a straight continuation of the Casino Royal.  I don’t think Skyfall is anywhere near as good as Casino Royale, but I like the fact it's not trying to be.  It's just trying to be it's own movie and it succeeds in that, in everything it does. Casino Royale did things with the Bond franchise that were a complete about face from everything the previous movies had done before and it was all the better for it. Skyfall continues that about face with ease. Daniel Criag is the best Bond of all time. He’d kick the ass of all the previous Bonds with ease. He’s exactly what Ian Fleming wrote about, he's a cold blooded killer who happens to be a secret agent and he just the kind of person you would want doing the secret agenty type of things. He gets results and be damned who gets in his way. 

Lastly Adele did a smashing job on the opening theme.  I’d rank it in the top three for Bond themes and over time it might move up even higher.  Bring on the next Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes Bond. I’m awaiting.

Doctor Who: Season One

Doctor Who: Season One. 

This is exactly what the doctor ordered. 

Jess and I finished off season one last night and are two episodes into season two already. Jess has already watched all the seasons of Doctor Who and right now I'm playing catch up - just writing that sentence makes Jess one hot babe and just thinking about it makes her even hotter, I definitely married the right woman. 

I grew up watching the old Doctor Who back in the 80's with my dad so I have some very fond memories of the wobbly sets, people definitely dressed in costumes pretending to be either a monster or an alien, and special effects consisting of sparklers and fire crackers. Finally growing up with Tom Baker, being the best actor to every play Doctor Who. So, I am very familiar with the budgets restraints of the old Doctor Who, but also those memories of the old Doctor have always filled me with a sense of joy that not many modern television shows can fill, despite all the money thrown at those shows, I could always tell Doctor Who had some genuine passion working behind the scenes. To me, Star Trek never seemed to have that kind of passion, but seemed more born from the sterile world it was creating. Farscape, Firefly and Babylon Five are three of the modern sci-fi shows, that in my opinion herald back the good old Doctor Who days, where passion was the name of the game not some corporation made product. That being said, I extremely like this new Doctor Who and thoroughly enjoy how they've updated the Doctor for a new generation. I like the fact there is still a cheesiness to the show, for me that just adds to the greatness of it. 

The two staple things that make a good Doctor Who episode still remain: storyline and of course the Doctor. Personally I think the story lines for this new Doctor are much better than the ones I watched and more in depth. They do the one thing Star Trek could never figure out, continue things from one episode into the next episode or future episodes. Things that happen in one episode will affect or be mentioned about later on.  That kind of continuity is something I've always liked, because to me it means the writers are really caring about what they're doing and they're paying attention to what is going on.  And unlike Soap Operas who seem to fly by the seat of their pants, the things that happen in here actually make sense and the characters remain true to who they are not changing because a certain story line demands it. Instead the characters remain true to who they are, unlike Star Trek, they don't go back to being who they are the next episode.  They change when a circumstance or incident makes them change and, like real life, they stay changed.  By doing that the writers want the viewer to pay attention and it means the viewer will be rewarded later on, if they chose to watch it all over again, as they will spot the little Easter Eggs planted in each episode. 

BBC picked the right actor to portray the Doctor and kick start the Doctor Who new season off. Christopher Eccleston brings such an interesting take on the Doctor and his wardrobe change is so dramatic that he perfectly washes away every actor who played the Doctor after Tom Baker and I think Eccleston could have possibly overtaken Tom Baker as a better Doctor if he had played in more episodes, but alas he is only 13 episodes.  But what a great 13 episodes they are. He has a such a playfulness about him and joy that it's truly fun to watch him play the Doctor and, where as most characters seem to run away when trouble arises, I like how the Doctor runs to the trouble because he wants to figure out what's going on. He is in a constant need of solving how things operate. He is the ultimate troubleshooter.  The Sonic Screwdriver really helps to establish him as a troubleshooter, and he's just about over the edge into being a true blue collar worker. Personally I think Hellboy is the truest all superheroes to be called a blue collar worker because he just makes it seem like his job is a 9-5 working job. I never get that feeling from the Doctor, which is why I wouldn't say he's a true blue collar worker, but, like I said, he's almost there. Now let's bring on who is considered the best Doctor Who, even better than Tom Baker, David Tennant. I'm really looking forward to it.

Rosemary and Rue

Rosemary and Rue by Seanan McGuire. 

This book is classified as urban fantasy which is basically taking the fantasy genre and putting it in our modern world and this book also adds  a detective/mystery to the story which seems to be the norm for this urban fantasy genre. I don't know why this is the case with urban fantasy, but that's a question best left for another post. 

I was basically looking for another series to fend off my hunger for a new Dresden, Song of Ice and Fire, The Way of Kings, or a King Killer Chronicles book - I didn't realize how many series I was reading and waiting for the new book to come out.  When I read about this series I figured I'd give it a try. 

The best thing McGuire does so far is world building. She creates a convincing world that blends the faerie magical world with the human world. Her main character October Daye isn't as full bodied as Butcher's Dresden and that's the one place McGuire's story lacks,which I'm hoping in later books will become more fleshed out. But she's a good writer and has created an interesting world well enough that I moved on to book two soon after finishing this one.

If you're in the a mood for an urban fantasy, mystery book you should give this book chance.  It will serve well to pass the time. Also this book has a good hook with the prologue and first chapter that had me highly more than interested in reading more when I read it and made me want to continue with the story. McGuire did a great job of setting of the prologue and first chapter enough that will urge the reader to continue to read.

Lars and the Real Girl

Lars and the Real Girl directed by Craig Gillespie staring Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, and Patrica Clarkson. 

This was one of the oddest story lines I've read about, and for a long time I didn't see this movie based on what the story line was about.  But seeing as how I've watched a lot Ryan Gosling movies over the last few months and they've all been good, as well the movies I've seen with Emily Mortimer in them, and they've been good.  I had to give this movie a shot. I'm going to tell you the basic story line and there is one thing you need to know, this movie is rated PG-13 not R despite on what the story line is going to be about. 

The basic story line revolves a guy who buys a real life like sex doll and treats her like a real person. There is no sex involved in this movie and the main characters doesn't buy the doll for sex, but instead he has a deep emotional/psychological problem and he uses this doll to cope with that problem. This movie is really good as it fully explores the problem Lars has and how the doll is used to break down the barriers in his life, his brother's life, and his brother's wife's life. It's a very simple story line and movie, despite the oddest of subject matters for a foundation of the movie, but it all works and works very well. One of the best things about this movie is the representation of a small northern town where it snows as much as it shines of sun in Florida. The movie doesn't treat the people of this small town as dumb or backwards, but treats them with a lot of respect as they and the weather itself play a major role in the movie. This is a very touching, heartwarming movie as it explores the subject of relationships and people with problems. Worth watching.

Moonrise Kingdom

Moonrise Kingdom directed Wes Anderson, staring Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton and introducing Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman in the main character roles (and they do a good job considering this is their first film). 

I've been following Wes Anderson's career since I fist saw his movie Rushmore, which is still one of the quirkiest and funniest comedies I've seen, but Anderson hasn't made a movie anywhere near as enjoyable as Rushmore. His movies since have felt overlong and paced as if a turtle was in a race, as as I will explain. I also liked his next movie The Royal Tenenbaums even though it clearly had a structure and focus problem, which clearly hindered the pacing of the movie that his previous movie Rushmore didn't have a problem with. Those problems became more compounded with next movie Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which was good but was starting to border on pretentious and quirky for the sake of being quirky.  Where as Rushmore was quirky, but that quirkiness was supported within the story and didn't feel like a hindrance.  It was more focused as it had a main character to follow whose quirkiness helped to define him and not vice versus a. I skipped his next movie The Darjeeling Limited because it just seemed very pretentious with a quirkiness that Anderson was becoming defined by instead of letting the quirkiness flow with the story.  With Rushmore the quirkiness organically mixed with the story but with the his later film this quirkiness seemed forced as it seemed with The Darjeeling Limited thus the reason I didn't see it. Then finally Anderson seemed back on form with Fantastic Mr. Fox. One of the strangest and most delightful kid's movies I've ever seen (and I use kid's movie in the loosest sense of the term, that's not from content but just from oddness). 

 Now I'm glad to say that Anderson has finally delivered an enjoyable live action movie that heralds back to his Rushmore days.  

Moonrise Kingdom delivers and the quirkiness doesn't feel forced, but flows with the narrative and characters in ways his previous movies had left behind. It's a simple story about two kids who fall in love, run away from home and the insuring pursuit of them that follows. The kids seem much older than their young years, but never did I doubt this because the story line supports this. The world Anderson creates in this movie is a joy to see and watch enfold before my eyes and his framing (of which Anderson is known for) of certain scenes are wonderful to behold. The world seems wholly believable and the way his characters interact within this world are funny and convincing. Another thing I like about this movie is how Anderson doesn't tell a lot things but shows what happens and leaves it up to the viewer to pay attention to what is happening.  If you pay attention there are things that happen which will seem confusing.  He shows instead of tells, but shows in a convincing manner that supports the story line instead of just showing for the sake of showing wherein lies the most problems with "art" movies. He doesn't use interpretation of a scene as a crutch to the viewer, but instead uses it as it's supposed to be used, to further the the storyline.  This is a fun, fairytale movie with delightful acting, a good solid story line, quirkiness in every frame, and a true love that is believable.

A Cry in the Dark

A Cry in the Dark directed by Fred Schepisi starring Meryl Streep and Sam Neill.

About all I can say for this movie is that I saw it.  There's really not much else to say about other than Meryl Streep is the only other reason to see this movie because her performance is good as she portrays the mother whose baby got taken by a dingo.  She portrays the grieving mother with a coldness and detachment that is kind of striking but at the same time there's a lot empathy towards her because we know what really happened.  I don't care how she wants to embody her character, the viewer will always empathize with her because of how the first part of this movie was set up.


That's the major flaw in this movie is that they try and make a mystery out of the baby loss where there is no mystery.  They try and get the viewer to wonder if a dingo did take the baby or did something else happen?  But there's no real mystery about it because as the first part of the movie shows us, we know the baby was taken by a dingo.  There is no and if or buts about it.  A dingo took the baby.  So I don't care how characters after this fact act or what other things are brought to light.  A baby was taken by a dingo.  I saw it.  The movie showed it to me.  If the writer was going to try and form a mystery around this event, then the major event can't be shown or at least shown in a way where can honestly be asked.  But as this movie is set up no questions can honestly be asked where the viewer doesn't automatically side the mother and father of the story.

the mystery makes sense.  That's not the case here as no matter how much "questioning" the makers of this film want to add to the storyline, there is no mystery because they've already shown us everything. 

The Avengers: Season 2

The Avengers: Season 2. 

Finished watching this second season with the kids this morning and what another good season of the Avengers, looking forward to season three coming out whenever it does. This is one of the more adult, kid cartoons out there and I don't mean that in the content of the show but in how the story lines progress. They don't progress in the standard stand-a-lone content where things in one episode don't affect the other episodes but there is an over all story arc that each episode builds upon and requires a lot of paying attention to what is going on because things that happen in one episode do affect the other episodes. There's a lot live action shows that don't have anywhere near the in depth story line progression of this cartoon show. 

Just some good examples of this: the last season ended with Captain America being kidnapped by the Skrull (who are shape shifters).  So when this season begins Captain America is not the real Captain America but a Skrull who is undermining the Avengers and doing his best to help the Skrull empire take over the world.  The first 5 or so episodes have this happening in it to the extent that my son had two Captain America toys and one of them was the Skrull Captain America and the other was the real Captain America.  This Skrull invasion really affected everything in this season.  Iron Man took a back seat to most of this season as he started not trusting any of the Avengers because he couldn't figure out who was a Skrull or not, so he figured he'd just not trust anyone.  Shield had their Helo Carrier blown up during the Skrull invasion had to live out of basically a rent-a-base the whole season.  Hulk got taken captive because of the Captain America Skrull so he wasn't there for the better part of the season and when he came back it was Hulk smash time, something both my son and daughter were excited about.  Ant Man wasn't here this season because of some choices he made from the last season and then had them finally dealt with this season in some surprising ways.  Then one of the major plot lines from Season one dealing with Chang - whose from the future and came to kill Captain America because of a choice he made that affected Chang's present - finally arises near the end of the second Season where Captain America has to make that choice. 

The level of in depth story telling just blew me away as I watched each episode, clearly the writers weren't just writing as they went but had written things down in advance. This is sort of a children version of Game of the Thrones, the storyline supports itself that well.  I wish Marvel comics would have this same type of arc set up in their comics, instead of just flying by the seat of their pants. 

This is also type of show that actually makes the Black Panther and Hawkeye really cool which is something Marvel comics has never been able to do, the writing is that good for the show. Also some new members are brought in as are a lot of the other super heroes from Marvel comics making this a feast for all of the nerds out there - of which I am one. The last episode brought in one of my favorite Marvel characters: Galactus for a huge show down and was a worthy season ender.  Now bring on the third Season.

21 Jump Street

21 Jump Street directed by I don't know and I don't really care and after looking at the IMDB website there were two directors on this movie, which explains a lot. Staring John Hill (one of the most overrated actors/comedians in Hollywood that Hollywood keeps pushing on the public, as they keep putting him in about every movie known to man, doing their best to make him a star, when in fact if you're a star you don't need to be pushed in that direction your initial talent and charisma will take there, you don't have to led there) and Channing Tatum (another one of these "hot-young" actors that Hollywood keeps trying to make a star when in fact he hasn't done anything or been in anything that really amounts to much of anything, to even remotely put him in that star category, but for some reason Hollywood is going to keep pushing him on us until we see him as a star, which will work at least for a time, as it does with that atrocious show American Idol and the "winners".  Man I hate that Hollywood machine about as much as I hate the media and politicians). 

This movie ranks up there with Meet the Parents for me, in that as the movie progresses, I feel absolutely no sympathy at all for the main characters because of the decisions they make put them in the situations that turn out bad.  It was the same with Meet the Parents, the main character continued to keep lying all the time, so I never felt nothing for him when the situation went bad because he put himself in that situation.  This movie is the same way.  The main characters make so many stupid and down right idiotic decisions throughout this movie that I have no compassion or empathy for them at all when things go bad.  In fact I want them to get hurt or injured when things go wrong because of how stupid those choices were.  I don't feel sorry for a person or character when their choices (fully known to them) dictate the actions that now surround them. This happens a lot in 21 Jump Street and I never felt sorry for these characters and the situations they were in, when in fact I found myself rooting for the other people in the scenes and wanting the main characters to be handed their comeuppance, which in my limited knowledge of writing is never a good thing unless that's the intention of the writer and here it clearly wasn't. 

I mean these guys go through the movie blowing stuff up, wrecking up class rooms, throwing a party where high school students consume alcohol and drugs (and these are the cops/heroes/good guys), and generally doing all sorts of destruction to the city/school and no one seems to really care about it. This movie made me long for the good old days of Lethal Weapon where story line and characters actually mattered because in this movie they don't seem to matter at all. Like I've said before when has dick and fart jokes become the normal mode of comedy, it so lacks the wit and humor of how comedy used to be.  There's no subtlety anymore it's all in your face humor. Don't get me wrong there are some moments where I was laughing out loud, but those moments couldn't outweigh the extreme insanity of most of this movie that had me scratching my head in confusion at the inconsistencies on display. 

The one aspect of the movie I really liked the movie didn't explore it at all and that is the jock hanging out with the nerd students I generally found that interesting and actually a lot of stuff to the story line when the writers actually wanted to follow the story. 

How did this movie make as money as it did?

Mortal Instruments Book Two: City of Ashes

Mortal Instruments Book Two: City of Ashes by Cassandra Clare.

This book was actually worse than the first book.  I cared even less about the two main characters in this book than I did in the first book.  They are just flat out annoying.  I kept wanting bad things to happen to them and when they did, I kept wanting those bad things to continue to happen to them.  But alas, it just wasn't meant to be.  It was to the point were I was cheering the villain on throughout this book, because he was so much more likable, and interesting than the two bland lead characters that were being forced onto me at every page and with every sentence.  I will not be reading the next books in this series anytime soon, this book annoyed me so much.  At least Rowling knew to focus on the story of Harry Potter versus the insane romance of a teenager, because crossing into that territory is like trying to solve the riddle of the Sphinx.  

This book also does the cardinal sin when a continuing series, and that is, to not really expand on the mythology of the world building.  The world Clare built is very interesting, with lots of layers and extra worlds, but instead of building this world she instead chooses to force on a love love triangle - or I should say it's now become more of a love octagon - onto the reader.  This whole teenage romance thing has just never done anything for me and makes the scenes between the two "star-crossed lovers" pathetic and dull to no end.  I just didn't care.  The main story line is so much more interesting than the emotional state of two characters I don't care about, but instead Clare chooses to focus on them, instead of what is interesting and that's the story line.  But then again who I am to argue, because these books have sold in the millions - so therefore I must be wrong.  Wait, The Davinci Code also sold in the millions and it was, literally, one of the worst written stories I've ever read and also had some of the worst cliche ridden characters I've every come across that they made Michael Bay's characters look like Shakespeare characters by comparison.  But ultimately what do I know?  The general public has spoken with their money, so therefore I must be wrong.

I really hated this book so much so, that the last 100 pages or so, I skimmed through the majority of the action scenes just to get to the conversation scenes so I could find out what was basically going on, so I could just finish the book and move onto something better.  I did much the same thing with Brown's book also, which had a good storyline and good ideas but the characters and plot twists were so forced, much like this book, that in the end I just gave up caring about what was going on and just wanted to end the insanity.

Now it's ended and I'm moving on to better things that don't have teen romance or love octagons that feel more at home in a daytime soap opera than a book like this.  It's a shame really because there is a good story here wanting to be told.

Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond directed by Edward Zwick starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, and Jennifer Connelly. 

I’ll tell you what, Edward Zwick is one of the rare directors who makes movies that are normally about something, but unlike most of the Hollywood leftists, who seem to think preaching is the only form of communication. Edward Zwick actually makes movies that are good and entertaining and when the movie is over you don’t feel like you’ve been preached at or have had your intelligence insulted. 

Blood Diamond is the kind of movie that exposes the exploitation of the diamond business in Africa, but unlike most of Hollywood, in Zwick’s film there are so many villains that pointing the finger at whose evil does no good.  Everyone is evil and in the end a life is a hell of a lot more precious than any diamond ever will be. By then end of the film that's one thing that rings true: life versus a diamond. I never for once felt he was hitting me over the head with this idea. 

Another thing that makes this movie really fire on all cylinders is that DiCaprio’s character, who’s a smuggler and scoundrel, stays that way throughout the film and doesn’t have some change of heart moment, which was a bold move to make for the movie.  It made his character all the more real and only helped to strengthen the message being presented here. All in all it’s actually a very bold screenplay as it doesn’t adhere to a lot of the typical Hollywood cliches.  Don’t get me wrong there are a few in place but I felt they were earned, whereas the typical ones: cynic finally finds a heart, the leading man sleeps with leading lady, and let’s not kill the bad guy when we have the chance, instead let’s keep him around a little longer so he can come back later for a more dramatic death scene.  All of these typical clichés are abandoned leaving this screenplay with a very focused storyline. All of this is only helped by Zwick’s direction and the many on the location shots that only add to the theme of the movie. It’s a good movie, with a good screenplay, and some solid acting.

Rise of the Gaurdians

Rise of the Guardians by Dreamworks. 

Another good kid’s movie to be released last year and one my kids thoroughly enjoyed. They sat glued to couch as the movie went on. 

This movie did a good job of world building for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Sandman, the Tooth Fairy, and Jack Frost. Then they did a good job of creating some interesting characters to inhabit these worlds. It still amazes me that children’s cartoons have more in depth story lines and characterization than live action movies.  I am constantly amazed by this and will continue to be amazed by this as time goes on.  This was a movie that earned all of the emotion that was woven throughout it, none of it felt cheap. One of my favorite scenes is when the little boy Jamie sees Jack Frost for the first time: the amazement in eyes was just priceless. The end scene where Sandman comes back and his sand dreams start walking and flying around the small town was just an awe inspiring moment, there are too few of those in live action movies. 

Dreamworks also did a good job of voice casting for the characters as the actors and actress they hired brought some solid weight to their respected characters. This is a movie that has a simple story line, nothing really complicated – it’s the find-your-true-self story line, but because they have some good characters to inhabit their world it makes things move along with good speed. I had a fun time with the kids as we watched a really good movie.

Justified: Season Two

Justified: Season Two staring Timothy Olyphand. 

If you're not watching this this show, get out there and start watching. This is one of the most underrated shows on TV and it doesn't get the same amount love that other high profile shows do. And I don't know why that is? 

Season Two picks up right where Season One left off and the writers of this show continue to prove just how they’re masters at understanding characters and developing them. Marshal Givens continues to be a well thought out character, where his motivations are explored with a depth I can only say is matched by Game of Thrones. This is the only show out there I've seen where all the characters actions or decisions have consequences, so when someone does something you know something is going to happen based on that choice or decision. Whereas most shows it always seems forgotten when people do things and it's back to normal mode next episode, never talked about or ever brought up (Star Trek, X-files, and Lost were terrible at this) not so with Justified people talk about what happened in the episode(s) before.  You know just how people do in real life they talk about things from the day/weeks/months before.  The continuity runs thick here.  This kind of continuity really adds an intimacy to the show that a lot of other shows lack and makes me wonder why other shows writers don't think this far in advance when they're writing a season. It really lets me see how much these writers care about a show. 

Mythology-wise Justified isn’t as complicated as Game of Thrones but it does have its own history and mythology that it keeps building on with each episode.  While each piece and new character add to the richness of the world building it’s doing. Hopefully I’ll start watching Season Three here in a bit until then get out there and start watching one of the best shows on TV.

Seven Psychopaths

Seven Psychopaths starring Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrison, and Christopher Walken. 

Well first thing first: with a cast list like this, one expects a certain something from this movie, which is one of the reasons I gave this movie chance. I wouldn’t call these guys bone-a-fide movie stars but at the very least, these guys are more than good character actors, who can really act with just about anything given to them. Here is a few examples: Woody Harrison stole every scene he was in The Hunger Games and was flat out amazing in Zombie Land; Christopher Walken’s name speaks for itself now-a-days with whatever movie he’s in, he’s pretty much become a brand unto himself; Colin Farrell was amazing as Crockett in Miami Vice and the short part he had in Crazy Heart was subtle but yet commanding in those few scenes with Jeff Bridges (and that was Jeff Bridges he was acting with and holding his own); Sam Rockwell who is literally just amazing in everything he’s in (even that terrible movie Confessions of a Dangerous Mind which he was wonderful in despite the movie and the ball and chain actress, Julia Roberts, herself) he single handedly made that movie Moon since he was pretty much the only actor in the movie and yet he somehow managed to make that movie highly entertaining.  He pretty much stole every scene he was in in Galaxy Quest, and was flat out hilarious in The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (he sure has some fascination with movies that have galaxy in the title – I just noticed that). Anyway my point being with a cast of this nature this movie has to at least be seen because it should at the most be entertaining. 

It was very entertaining, definitely worth the time to watch it and these actors do not disappoint in this movie. They stand up and deliver some good performances. But some caution must be warranted here: it was very violent and very gory. This is by no means a classic movie but I would put it up there in the cult status category and in the hearts of some people where this movie will really connect. I won’t say it connected to me on the level, it's not that dear to my heart but as a cult status movie it is. I would watch it again. I would recommend it people to watch. It’s got a lot of memorable scenes and is a highly quotable movie. 

The movie itself is strange, as the story line is all over the place, not in a bad way, but in a way that could be annoying and at times almost veers on annoyance. But once it starts to go down this annoying side road the movie will do something unexpected that will keep you watching. It won’t be something so unexpected, as to not be believable, or seem like some kind of cheap gimmick, as it pertains to the story or character, but it’ll be something that fits in with the movie and characters. That was one of the things I really liked about it, how the movie dared to take risks and dared to be different. Another thing this movie has going for it is the Meat aspect of the movie.  Which is a word used and thrown around a lot in Hollywood when it wants to thinks it’s being pretty clever.  But really their just being pretentious.  Charlie Kaufman is infamous for this but I felt it was more earned with this movie than that overrated piece of crap Scream.  Here it’s used right but I won’t say more on that subject, just watch the movie and be highly entertained.

Expendables 2

The Expendables 2 directed by Simon West staring every big action hero from the 80’s and part of the 90’s minus Steven Seagal…oh and there is one Asian woman in this film just to balance things out. 

Well…where to begin? Over-the-top action? Check. Over-the-top action set pieces? Check. Over kill and cheesy dialogue? Check, no make that a double check because this cheese is lying around in the tons, in about every scene and in all kinds of flavors. Large amounts of body parts being shot to pieces as they are complimented by so many squibs that the color red actually becomes part of the movie? Check. Talk of being in a museum? Check. Use of and commenting on dialogue from other action movies? Check. A resemblance of a storyline so as just to keep the action scenes flowing from one to another? Check. Aware that Chuck Norris would steal every scene he was in in your movie? I don’t think they saw that one coming, but he did that in every scene he was in, and it was wonderful. It was fun. It was a blast. I didn’t going in expecting much and was rewarded with a good old fashioned action movie, which was pretty much what I was hoping for.

Justified: Season One

Justified: Season 1. Staring Timothy Olyphant. 

I just started watching this on Amazon Prime because I'd heard how good it was.  I don't know quite what I was expecting this show to be, but all I can say is that it went beyond what I was expecting.  The opening scene had me hooked as it portrayed everything, character-wise, about the main character Marshal Raylan Givens and was one of the best opening scenes, ever, for a TV show.  Everything you need to know about the show, and Givens, is there in that opening scene.  Hell, most TV shows now can't even do that in an entire season of their show and Justified did in the opening scene.  That showed me how much confidence the shows writers had in their material and it's hard pressed to find any show with that sort of faith in anything.  Normally those shows are always trying to find themselves with each episode that comes out.  Not Justified, much like Game of Thrones, it knows its characters, settings, story lines, and surrounding better than just about every show out there, hands down. 

This show is one of the best paced shows, and well written show, I've seen for a series in a long time. And the episodes fold in on themselves with ease, as they carefully build the mythology of the show.  I like how the episodes don't always turn out as expected, either.  They seem to be going in one direction, then completely turn around quickly, not in a gimmicky or cheap way, but in a way that stays true to the story line and characters.  The writers and creators of this show don't treat their viewers as stupid. This is one the show I've seen were cell phones always seem to be working and it's the first thing the US Marshals pick up when something goes wrong or someone gets shot. 

I also like how the choices people make in this show affect things later on in other episodes. It adds a little realism to the show. Also this show is about a person of good character, something we don't see to many of on TV now-a-days - and I've got a feeling that's one of the reasons the show is doing so well - this isn't the type of character you're going to find on the Shield or Sopranos.  This is actually a well written character who has shades of the John Wayne and Dirty Harry in him and all for the better. I really like that no nonsense, no bullshit mentality, because it's in short supply now-a-days with our government and all levels of politicians being the way they are being. It was very refreshing to see something like this on TV. They create a little world with this show has many layers, which are explored nicely and with enough depth as not to get stupid or too soapy. 

Tymothy Olyphant is excellent as the lead and face of the show.  This is a show he was meant to play and he does bring parts of his character from Deadwood with him, which makes it all the better. The other actors are a mix match of characters actors from Hollywood, but like I always say I'll take character actors over big name star actors, because they're that much better.  This show proves that with each episodes, as this group of actors really help to make this show as good as it is, which is a damn good watch. 

You won't waste your time with Justified.

Killer Joe

Killer Joe directed by William Freidkin staring Matthew McConaughey, Gina Gershon, and Thomas Haden Church. 

The tag line for this movie reads as follows: A totally twisted deep-fried Texas redneck trailer park murder story. 

A big emphasis needs to be placed on the word “twisted” because this movie is that, in every sense of the word, and is not a movie for the faint of heart or those easily unsettled with violence and situations that can turn gruesome with each passing second. Everything about this movie is unsettling and not meant to be good. Everything that is unsettling about the poster I posted with this review is in this movie. There are no good people here, everyone is a bad person, and there are no morals what-so-ever, in fact after this movie is over you might feel the need to take a bath or shower to wash off the filth you have just watched. 

I’ve always been interested in the films that unsettle or push boundaries or where critics say things like this about Killer Joe, “You’ll never see fried chicken the same way after you watch this movie.” Saying things like that only make me want to watch the movie even more and see if it's actually true, which I guess is good PR move on the films part because it gives them free press.  Let me tell you that saying about fried chicken, as it pertains to Killer Joe, is 100% true.  But even after saying that if I had to choose to watch this movie again I don’t think I’d watch it because there just wasn’t anything good about the story line or the people in this movie. 

There’s absolutely nothing redemptive about this movie. Some might say the ending is redemptive but if that is redemption then it’s the kind of redemption only Satan could get behind and smile about with pride. If you like movies like Pulp Fiction and Fargo then this movie is up your alley but at least Pulp Fiction and Fargo did have some interesting characters you could somewhat root for.  There’s not any characters in this movie you want to root for. 

If there is any good in this movie I would say the direction by Freidkin was good. It’s probably one of his better directed movies since The French Connection and The Exorcist. Some of the scenes in this movie are just dripping with tension where I really didn’t know what was going to happen and his direction had a lot to do with that. Even the actual sound of the movie added a lot of extra information to what was happening in the movie as it seemed to heighten what was going on in a scene to a certain degree because of the sound. 

Matthew McConaughly did some of his best acting, as he played upon the expectations of his boyish good looks, to play an all-out psychopath with a quiet subtly that ever scene he was in was always just about tilting over with tension. It’s one of the best performances I’ve seen him do. The last thing that made this movie “good” was the production and sets which seemed to really visually capture the trailer park setting only adding to the greasy, dirty feel of the movie which never went away with each scene. I know a lot the movie was shot on location but it was better for that as it added that realism and sleaziness to a movie already ripe with it.

National Lampoon's Vacation

National Lampoon's Vacation staring Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo and the scene stealer himself Randy Quaid. 

They don't make comedies like this anymore, period. Jess and I were talking about this the other day and you know it's right comedies now-a-days are no where near as memorable as the comedies from 80's and before (just a small list from the top of my head: Dr. Strangelove, Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles, Holy Grail, Ghostbuters, The Jerk, and Planes, Trains and Automobiles). Now we just get full out gross humor with characters we really care nothing about, nor does the story even try to make us care about them.  

There is one thing I noticed while watching this movie that a lot of comedies do not do and that is: it knew when to cut a joke short and not let it drag out and by doing this I believe the humor of the joke stays longer in the mind. This movie also knows when swearing is humor and doesn't just populate it throughout the movie just because it can. The humor here was so much more sophisticated and, you know, actual humor not the gross out, dick and fart jokes and constant swearing that inhabits comedies now. I also forgot how great this poster was. Iconic and funny at the same time. This is also one of the few movies out there that supports the family instead of trying to tear it down.

The Great White Odyssey

The Great White Odyssey by National Geographic on Netflix. 

My son's gotten into sharks something fierce over the last few years, so that means I've also gotten into sharks more than I ever had before. After reading countless books on sharks, the great white shark has come to be my favorite shark and basically my favorite fish in the ocean. I'm really fascinated by them, their power, their mystery, and just about everything I can read or find out about them. So I was looking through Netflix's menu when I found this documentary a few weeks ago and watched it. 

I've got to admit it was a very enlightening documentary as the scientists tagged a great white and followed her 6,000+ mile journey from the coat of South Africa to the coast of Australia. She traveled on a course they never thought a great white traveled and they learned a lot about great whites that they thought they'd never learn. I learned a lot about the great white shark through this documentary and one of major things I learned is that the great white is still one of the greatest mysteries in the ocean, which means that fascinates me all the more. So if you've got some time and around 46 minutes to spare you can't go to wrong with the documentary and see what a truly beautiful and dangerous fish a great white shark is.

The Way Things Ought to Be

The Way Thing Ought to Be by Rush Limbaugh. 

I found this book and his second book the other day in the used book section of a Goodwill and figured I'd give them a read since I've been listening to Rush for years and have never read his book. 

What amazes me most about this book is that it was written in 1992 but many of things he was writing about then are still happening now. I mean our politicians and government are still running rapid through the country like it's some kind free shopping spree, only it's gotten worse now. But most of all it was fun seeing his thoughts in print versus just getting them over the radio because reading them gave him a lot more room to fully embody those radio thoughts. 

It was also fun to see a lot of the frustrations I'm feeling now about our government he was feeling about them then (and now from what I've heard on the radio). If anything this book fully explains the problems with our politicians, on both sides, and that if anything is going to be fixed it first has to be fixed there. It's also amazing at how prophetic a lot of the things he warned about then have taken place now especially dealing with our budget and economy that if we don't stop pouring money into empty, fruitless causes, that get no return, we're going to run out of money fast. Look at what's going on now. If you're looking for a good book and one that will challenge a lot what the Media says (or doesn't say) is true give this book a read.

Holy Motors

Holy Motors. 

I don’t quite know what to say about this film. I didn’t think it was that great but I still felt compelled to watch it until the end.  Enough happened in it to spur me to finish it. 

The best way I can summon up this movie is that it’s a French version of a David Lynch film. So if you like Lynch type of movies you will like this movie, without a doubt. There is enough odd things that happen visually in this movie to teach a college class on and I have no doubt college professors are already lining up to interpret this film. Therein lies the main problem with this film, it seems more concerned with interpretation than in exploring any kind of main theme or the ideas raised within it.  There is little or no characterization, which in my opinion is a major fault.  Because if I was given something to know about the motivation of the main character, I think it would have helped me to understand him and sympathize with the movie better, instead of worrying about interpreting everything on screen. 

 I mean there was a lot going on this film dealing with identities, acting, and preforming, but none of it seemed to weave together in an understandable way. A quote from Shakespeare also summons up this movie, “The whole world is a stage and we are but the actors on it.” In a sense this is a sci-fi film where the idea is the drive of the story and not the technology that makes up what happens.  But if the idea is going to be the drive there has to be someone driving the idea and I never felt there was a driver for this idea, which is a shame.  Because the idea of people who have a job of acting out things in real life, as if it were a job, is a very interesting idea for a society to evolve too. Even now I find myself thinking about the idea and how to make it better by actually having the main character be a character because that’s a world I would like to further explore and was very interested in. That is one of the reasons I think I stuck around until the end because it was an idea sci-fi movie, of which there aren’t a lot of those out there now.  So I gave it a little more wiggle room than I normally would, being a huge sci-fi fan all I tend to do that. Most sci-fi seems more concerned with technology and special effects instead of weaving those two together to make the kind of sci-fi movie which explores ideas instead of being just visual eye candy. This movie is no 2001, which has a story line and a narrative, but also leaves the viewer enough for interpretation without sacrificing the drive of the narrative or story. I never once felt left behind in the story of 2001 like I did with Holy Motors and most of Lynch’s film to which the smug college student or proffer would say, “You just don’t understand it. You don’t get it. The director and writer are just so much more advanced than you.” To that I say, “Have it.”