Week in Review: August 20 - 25

Notes - This past week we were marked by the deaths of director/producer Tony Scott, comedian Phyllis Diller, and astronaut Neil Armstrong.  The world is a different place without them.

Movies - This week's Bond movie was You Only Live Twice and the new movie was The Bourne Legacy.  I wasn't really a big fan of either.  To mark Tony Scott's passing I did two of his films, Top Gun and Domino.  One is a classic, the other not so much.

Books - Book of the week was E.L. James' Fifty Shades Freed, the final instalment in the Fifty Shades trilogy.  To Mark the completion of the series, I also looked at the many signs of domestic abuse that the series marks in a note.

TV - TV show of the week was the first season of Revenge.  While I enjoyed it, I'm not entirely sure if I'll be tuning in to the second season; I don't think it'll be one that will keep me watching week-by-week.

Recommendations - New movies this week are Premium Rush, Hit and Run, and Robot and Frank.  My guess is that the best of the bunch is going to be Robot and Frank, which will also be the hardest to see given its limited release.

Next Week - The plan for next week includes the much delayed Pete Smalls is Dead, and a tribute to Neil Armstrong with the space-related disaster movies Armageddon and Deep Impact - because if you're going to do one, you might as well do them both.  New movie of the week will be Whitney Houston's final film, Sparkle.  Bookwise we're going to wrap up (for now) both the Tales of Dunk and Egg series and the Lord John series, with the short stories "The Mystery Knight" and "Lord John and the Plague of Zombies."

Requests -What about you guys? Anything you'd like me to watch or read?  Let me know in the comments.

A Note: Neil Armstrong

"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."

It was reported yesterday that Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon (assuming you believe that man has walked on the moon), has died at the age of 82.

Whether you believe that man did in fact walk on the moon or you believe that the government perpetuated a wide scale cover up saying as such, Armstrong still represents just all the things that we as a species have achieved - his one small step was in fact a giant leap for mankind.

His family has stated:

For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.

This, of course, has lead to the Twitter hashtag of #WinkAtTheMoon, because that's the kind of people we are now.  There's also a call to have August 25th become Wink at the Moon Night.  Not sure what to make of this legacy... but hey, at least Armstrong can be comforted with the thought that he didn't appear in Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

Revenge (Season 1)

Starring: Madeleine Stowe, Emily VanCamp, Gabriel Mann, Henry Czerny, Ashley Madekwe, Joshua Bowman, Connor Paola, Christa B. Allen, Nick Wechsler

Creator: Mike Kelly

Genre: Thriller, Mystery, Serial Drama

Rating: A-

I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about Revenge’s premier season.  I like the basic story, although it’s one that I’ve seen before, but the overall tone of the show kind of got to me after awhile.  After awhile I couldn’t help but feel like I was watching a daytime soap opera instead of a primetime TV series.  As the series wasn’t on the CW this feeling was a bit annoying.

Revenge follows Emily Thorne (VanCamp) as she moves to the Hamptons in order to pursue a plot of revenge against the Graysons - Conrad (Czerny), Victoria (Stowe), Daniel (Bowman), AND Charlotte (Allen) - an elite family that spends every summer at the Hamptons.  Seventeen years prior Emily’s father, David Clark (James Tupper), was framed for a terrorist attack by the Graysons and their colleagues, resulting in David Clark spending the rest of his life in prison and his daughter, then known as Amanda Clark, being shipped off to foster homes, an institution, and later a juvenile prison.  Now with a new identity and a lot of money Emily has a carefully detailed plot against those responsible for her father’s downfall.

I think the series can be kind of divided into two halves; the former where Emily’s beginning to carry out her plot and is a somewhat likeable character, even if she’s also a rather devious bitch, and the latter where Emily’s become rather consumed by her plot and is just an outright bitch.  There are a lot of big reveals – affairs, illegitimate children, multiple identities, murder, and so on – but the more that they happen the more disinterested with the show I became.  At some point the whole thing just seemed to be about everyone in it trying to screw over everyone else in it.  I don’t think there’s a single character in this show who actually has a descent nature – even Jack, who’s the nice guy uncorrupted by money, can be a bit of a dick at times, and when he’s not it’s hard to think of him as anything but a shmuck.  Making things worse is the fact that the more reveals happen the more the show feels like it’s little more than a soap opera – I’m seriously waiting for a character to be randomly recast or a baby to be born and then rapidly aged, or someone’s long lost evil twin to appear.  The show started with an interesting premise, but it just becomes a bit much after awhile.

Recommendations: August 24

Premium Rush - Joseph Gordon-Levitt's latest, this movie combines the classic car chase with... bike messengers. I really have no clue just what to expect from this movie, but I'm sure it'll be fun.  I mean, really, car chase plus Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Hit and Run - Okay, so I hate that I want to see this.  It's going to be lame and ridiculous and lame.  But I've seen the trailer for it more than a few times now, and it also looks like it might be fun - that or like every good bit of this movie is in the trailer.

Robot and Frank -A futuristic movie about robots and jewel thieves, except not exactly in the way that one might typically predict - an ex-jewel thief, Frank, is given a robot butler by his son.  What starts out as a robot looking after an old man turns into the two becoming a heist team.  This film has a limited release, but the premise and the cast, I'm totally interested.

The Rescuers - Not the best Disney movie, that's for sure, but still a cute one.  The Rescuers tells the story of mice Bernard and Miss Bianca as they search for a little girl who has been kidnapped by treasure hunters.  It's been pulled out of the Disney vault just in time for its 35th anniversary.

Good Will Hunting - The 15th anniversary of critically acclaimed movie, written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.  While this wasn't either's first role it was the film that took them out of bit parts and stoner flicks and into the greater world of fame that they have since achieved.  Damon has since acted in a lot of good movies and Affleck has proven to be a great director and at worst a mediocre actor, but this is where it all really started.

The Host - I know what you're saying: recommending a Stephenie Meyer novel? Really?  Yes, really.  The Host is actually a good novel, although it's rather slow at points.  I enjoyed the world that Meyer created here.  It's a quick read, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Domino (2005)

Starring: Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Édgar Ramírez, Jacqueline Bisset, Delroy Lindo, Mo'Nique, Mena Suvari, Dabney Coleman, Lucy Liu, Christopher Walken

Director: Tony Scott

Genre: Action, Crime, Drama,

Rating: C

This might be the worst movie I've ever seen Kiera Knightley in - which says a lot, because she's been in movies like Phantom Menace, Bend it Like Beckham, and King Arthur.  Actually, I'll take that back; this isn't the worst Knightley movie I've seen, but it might be the worst Tony Scott one - I've seen fewer Tony Scott movies.

Domino claims that it's the true story, mostly, of real life actress turned bounty hunter Domino Harvey (played by Knightley), although having watched it I suspect that's as legit as saying that Pearl Harbor is based on the true story of the attack of Pearl Harbor.  It tells the story of an angry girl who never really fit in until she became a badass bounty hunter.  The film alternates between being flashbacks, telling her journey into being a bounty hunter and the incident that got her arrested, and her interrogation by FBI agent Taryn Mills (Liu), to which she is all too willing to tell her story.  Not that you really believe her story.  The whole thing comes across as this ridiculous concoction, which is made worse by the fact that the movie pretends like it's based on a true story.  I think had it dropped that premise - had it simply said that the character of Domino was base on the person of Domino but that the story was a complete fabrication, it would have been better.  The entire film is really rather ridiculous, requiring viewers to suspend their disbelief - which is hard to do when it's pretending to be based on truth.

That's the biggest problem with this movie.  It's not the acting or the script or the shooting choices - all of which vary between good and not so good, but none of which alone make the movie a bad one.  It's the fact that it asks the viewer to suspend too much of their disbelief.  It's important to not ask too much of your viewers.  I can suspend a lot of disbelief in a science fiction or fantasy movie - I love being sucked into some sort of alternate reality, a world which is the result of the imagination of its creators.  At the same time, however, I hate it when someone pretends that something is set within the real world, pretends that this is even a real story.

Despite that, however, I don't really dislike Domino.  It's not a good movie, but it's kind of fun.  There's action and there's some funny bits - thanks largely to the likes of people like Mo'Nique.  The plot could have been hugely simplified, the story cleaned up a lot, and the script tightened.  But the biggest problem is definitely going to remain the fact that this film pretends like it's real when anyone can see that it isn't.

Top Gun (1986)

Starring: Tom Cruise, Kelly McGillis, Val Kilmer, Anthony Edwards, Tom Skerritt, Michael Ironside, Meg Ryan, Rick Rossovich, Whip Hubley, James Tolkan

Director: Tony Scott

Genre: Action, Drama, Romance

Rating: B

This has long been a favourite movie of mine, and is in my opinion probably one of the best Tony Scott films there is (which is either saying a lot or not much at all, depending on your overall opinion of Tony Scott movies).  Top Gun is ridiculously cheesy at points and really kind of bad, but at the same time it’s so good it’s easy to forgive the cheese.   It’s not exactly a mindless action film, but it definitely has a lot of the characteristics of one – if you don’t spend too much time thinking about the movie and just enjoy the ride then it’s a good one.

Top Gun follows US Naval Aviator Lieutenant Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Cruise) and his wingman Radar Intercept Officer Lieutenant Nick “Goose” Bradshaw (Edwards) after they essentially luck out and get a ticket to the Top Gun school at NAS Miramar, despite the fact that Maverick is considered to be a rather reckless fighter.  There, Maverick competes with fellow pilot LT Tom “Iceman” Kasansky (Kilmer) for the position of top pilot – with Iceman considering Maverick to be dangerous – while also wooing civilian instructor Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood (McGillis).  Oh, and there’s the music.  I love the soundtrack to Top Gun, which is furthered by the fact that my three favourite songs on the soundtrack are all original songs for the movie itself – “Danger Zone,” “Take My Breath Away” and “Top Gun Anthem.”  If you don’t like the first two, you might want to skip this movie as they’re both played a lot.

Okay, so the premise of the movie is a bit ridiculous and in many ways rather typical of the armed forces (in whatever variation) type movie, especially when an outright war isn’t actually used.  The acting, however is good – whatever you might feel about Tom Cruise’s personal life, you can usually count on him to bring in a good performance.  I’m not sure if you can say as much about the rest of the cast, with the exception of Tom Skerritt and Anthony Edwards, who I either don’t know from anything else or can be a bit unpredictable in the roles they pick.  Granted, Tom Cruise has become a bit unpredictable as of late too.  I enjoy the chemistry between Maverick and Charlie, even if I do question just how quickly their relationship progresses – we don’t really get to see it develop, it just happens.  The film’s a bit bogged down by the whole search for why Maverick is the way he is; the daddy issues are both over used and unnecessary.  I would have completely bought the whole “Maverick is reckless because he’s a young guy who’s flying a fucking jet” storyline.  More depth wasn’t really necessary.

Where this film really succeeds, however, is in the jets.  The flying is cool, even if it’s reckless and possibly unrealistic.   I actually really don’t care (or know) if it’s unrealistic and the fact that it’s reckless is a huge part of why it seems so cool.  It is fun watching people do stuff that could potentially get them killed.  That’s why people like watching action flicks; it’s all about the danger that the characters appear to put themselves into.  Top Gun appears to have a lot of danger and cool stunts, which the characters are always eager to point out to us.  Where the movie fails is in its drama and romance, both of which really provides a surplus of cheese.  While there’s chemistry between Maverick and Charlie there’s nothing original, unique, or really cool about the relationship.  The music does kind of fail here too; as much as I love the soundtrack, I do have to say that the same songs are played over and over again, in a way to the detriment of the film itself.  It’s one thing to have a thematic song for a movie, it’s another thing to have a few thematic songs and to play them almost exclusively – something that’s made worse by the fact that this isn’t a movie that should need to depend on the soundtrack.  I love music based movies where the one song is sung more than a few times because it’s the song that the characters are writing or it’s part of a performance, or whatever.  But when it’s just the background music, it can get a bit stale and kind of suggests that there isn’t that much in the way of a music budget – they probably spent it all on the jets.  Which, really, was a wise choice.  I mean, it’s jets.  I can forgive a lot of cheese and a repetitive soundtrack in favour of stunts with jets, especially when I enjoy the songs themselves.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Joan Allen, Albert Finney
Director: Tony Gilroy
Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller
Rating: C-

I think my biggest problem with The Bourne Legacy was that it didn’t need to be made.  The Bourne Trilogy ended well – both book-wise and movie-wise.  Robert Ludlum wrote three Bourne novels, concluded the series, wrote a number of other books, then died.  Then in what has the appearance of being a case of greed and laziness the Ludlum estate gave permission to Eric Van Lustbader in order to write more Bourne novels.  The ending that had wrapped the trilogy up was shattered and Van Lustbader to this day is popping out a Bourne a year.  As someone who enjoys writing and creating characters this rather bothers me – I don’t particularly like the idea of continuing someone’s work posthumously.  It’s one thing in the case of Robert Jordan, where he made arrangements for it to happen prior to his death and wrote down how the story was supposed to end so that someone could continue The Wheel of Time series.  It’s another thing if the author ended the series, died some time later, and then someone decided to resurrect his books.

Okay, so now that that rant is out of my system, let’s move on to the movie itself. Continuing the theme of The Bourne Legacy didn’t need to be made, or at least didn’t need to be a Bourne film, is the fact that it doesn’t actually involve the titular Jason Bourne – at least not really.  In my opinion plans for the film should have been axed once Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon announced that they would not be involved in the film.  Despite being set in the same universe an being based around another member of the Treadstone Project Legacy has a really different feel to it and in my opinion could have easily been based in a similar but different world.  In fact, I think it would have been better off had they taken that route.

The events in Legacy are initiated by Jason Bourne (Damon, seen only via a photograph) exposing Operation Blackbriar and the Treadstone Project, leading to an investigation of CIA Deputy Director Pamela Landy (Allen) and Operation Blackbriar supervisor Noah Vosen (David Strathairn).  Upon learning of this, the CIA calls in Eric Byer (Norton) to deal with the situation and make it go away – which he does by eliminating all members of Operation Outcome, which I think was another aspect of Blackbriar and Treadstone.  This elimination is a problem for Aaron Cross, codename “Number Five,” who would rather not be killed.  He goes on the run, but he’s disabled by his dependency on pills the agency has given him to enhance his physical and mental capabilities – greens and blues.  Conveniently for him, the CIA is also attempting to kill all of its Outcome scientists, leaving Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz) pretty much dependant on him for her continued survival.

So, just to start, this series does not need the Bourne connection.  The premise can exist really easily without the Bourne connection and would have been better off having severed it.  The few actors who were in both movies aren’t utilized properly – but then few of the actors in this movie are utilized properly at all.  The characters are, for the most part, flat and dull.  They fit stereotypical roles and are never given any real reason to expand.  I was particularly disappointed with Norton, who basically just stood around and barked orders.  Renner and Weisz bring a lot to the show and really stand out simply because they make the most out of their flat characters and try to add some depth.  I don’t know what’s motivating any of the CIA type agents, beyond the fact that bad guys are bad guys.  I only know that the good guys are motivated by the hey, let’s stay alive mentality of things – I’m not really given any reason to root for them beyond the idea that I should be rooting for people to stay alive.  There are a few good moments and I actually really liked Weisz’ role in the chase scene.  Her role was, in my opinion, the only perfect element about both this movie in general and the chase specifically.

With that one perfect moment behind us, let’s discuss the other failures of the movie. The chase scene where Weisz was awesome was, in my opinion, poorly done. There were elements that I loved about it – namely the fact that the police weren’t shooting at the fleeing protagonists, which is something that I always hate in action movies (if you’re fleeing from the police in a crowded area, they’re not going to shoot. The chances of hitting one of the many innocent bystanders is too great). The music was lame and rather redundant, which I guess kind of made it fitting for the sequence itself, which was also rather redundant. There were a few good action sequences overall, but none that was worth the cost of admission.  Really, when it came down to it this was an unremarkable addition to the series.  Oh, and the ending sucked.  I'm not going to explain why, because that would be a massive spoiler, but it was a let down.  I'd say skip this movie and hold out for The Expendables 2.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Starring: Sean Connery, Mie Hama, Donald Pleasence, Akiko Wakabayashi

Director: Lewis Gilbert

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: B-

Once again, Bond is back, this time in a movie that is just really weird.  At the start of the film, James Bond (Connery)'s death is faked, enabling him to go undercover in Tokyo, where he investigates whether or not the Japanese are involved in the hijacking of an American spacecraft.  Bond hooks up with another Bond girl, SPECTRE is revealed to be involved, and a lot of things happen that make you wonder just how we haven't succeeded in blowing up the world yet.

I really don't know how I felt about this one.  It was short, or at least it felt that way, and so I didn't get bored - which has happened with other Bond movies - but I didn't really feel enticed either.   I actually found a lot of this movie to be based on racial stereotypes, more so than in previous Bond films.  Once again, a lot of this movie reminded me of Austin Powers (fitting, because it is part of the basis for the parody), and its strengths seemed to lay in the fact that while being similar to the Mike Meyers film it wasn't actually Austin Powers.  This is going to be a rather short review, simply because I don't really know what to say about this movie.  I didn't really enjoy it, but at the same time I didn't really dislike it either.  It's a weird one, sorry.

A Note: Phyllis Diller

It appears as though this is a really bad week for celebrities.  It started with Tony Scott, and now the latest celebrity death is legendary comic Phyllis Diller.

I stumbled onto Diller's comedy completely by accident; she was a frequent roaster in The Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, which I've always enjoyed (seriously, watching people from the 70s sit around and call Dean Martin a drunk and Betty White a slut is hilarious). Diller was an amazing comic and really paved the way for other female comics.  While she hadn't really done stand up much lately, Diller was still an icon and we've lost a legend.

Because of the nature of Diller's work I don't intend to (as of this moment) do any special review for her this week.  She was a stand up comic, not an actress, so I don't think it'd really do her justice to review one of her movies.  I'm not all that familiar with them, so I don't know what role would be fitting to commemorate her.  If there's a Diller movie that you think I should review, let me know in the comments.

Fifty Shades: Abuse

If you do a quick Google search you can rather easily find a comparison of the relationship between Twilight's Edward and Bella and the "Signs That You're In an Abusive Relationship" chart, which can be found here.  In this search, the searcher looks each of the "signs" and compares it to the relationship between Edward and Bella, although without providing context this comparison can easily be dismissed.  I don't agree fully with the comparison itself, but I also don't disagree with it.  There are many forms of abuse within the Edward and Bella relationship, and I do think it's a huge problem that the books present this as normal.

But, I'm not here to talk about Twilight, I'm here to talk about everyone's favourite erotica Fifty Shades.  The comparison done for Twilight made me want to do a comparison for Fifty Shades - although, I am going to try to avoid reference to the sexual aspect of their relationship.  I don't think that the bondage and what not that Ana and Christian partake in is abusive, not most of the time.  There are a few moments when Christian might cross the line for Ana, but they do utilize a safe word and I think in cases where Christian crosses the line and Ana doesn't use the safe word then what happens to her is her own fault - if you don't safe word, you appear as though you're consenting, and we do see Ana safe word in Fifty Shades Freed, causing Christian to immediately stop.  That being said, there are many other signs.  Just a quick note: I'm only including in this list the signs that are relevant.  In the original list, there are twenty-four signs, with the note that "the more 'yes' answers, the more likely it is that you’re in an abusive relationship."

Your Inner Thoughts and Feelings

Do you: Feel afraid of your partner much of the time?  While Ana's fear of Christian does appear to diminish over time she does spend a lot of the first two books constantly afraid of him.  Even when this fear does seem to lessen after their marriage she still walks on egg shells around him and fears his anger.

Avoid certain topics out of fear of angering your partner? This, combined with the first sign, is the most important one according to this chart, which states "the most telling sign is fear of your partner. If you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around your partner—constantly watching what you say and do in order to avoid a blow-up—chances are your relationship is unhealthy and abusive."  This is also really characteristic of the relationship between Ana and Christian.  Even post-marriage, Ana is constantly avoiding telling Christian things because of how he might react.  She fears telling him about her decision to keep her surname at work and is often annoyed with Kate for bringing up subjects that are going to upset Christian and, consequently, get her into trouble.

Believe that you deserve to be hurt or mistreated? This one's a bit tricky and borders on their sexual relationship.  There are times when Ana does seem to think that she should be punished for her behaviour because it doesn't meet with what Christian approves of.

Feel emotionally numb or helpless? This one's a bit tricky.  There are certainly periods when Ana appears to feel helpless, although I'm not certain if it really qualifies here.  She definitely appears rather helpless in regards to preventing Christian's anger, short of giving up her autonomy.

Your Partner's Belittling Behaviour

 Does Your Partner: Humiliate or yell at you? Christian yells at Ana and often.  While this in itself doesn't necessarily say that it's an abusive relationship - people fight, it happens - the cause of his yelling does.  Christian yells at Ana when she fails to obey him, and the degree of obedience that he demands is abusive.

Treat you so badly that your embarrassed for your friends or family to see? Ana is definitely embarrassed when Christian yells at her, although he does tend to restrain himself in front of friends and family.  The closest that we can see here is his treatment of her in front of Mrs. Jones and Taylor, which often embarrasses Ana.  A good example of this is his reaction to finding out that Ana's pregnant - she's horrified to realize that Mrs. Jones heard the interaction.

Ignore or put down your opinions or accomplishments? I don't think that Christian ignores or puts down Ana's accomplishments per say, but instead he does seem to treat her as though she can't accomplish more without his help.  When she gets her job, he treats it as though she only succeeded in getting the job because her new boss wanted to sleep with her.  He then treats her as though she's incapable of rising in her chosen career unless he buys the business and gives it to her.  She's incapable without him.

Blame you for their own abusive behaviour? Even outside of the bedroom, Christian does blame her for a lot.  He's very much a 'I wouldn't have to yell at you if you did what you were told' type of person - which is even furthered by the fact that he repeatedly says how he'd like to punish her in a non-sexual manner for his misbehaviour.

See you as property or a sex object, rather than as a person? This one's really tricky, and is more evident in the first book than the later ones.  The thing that really distinguishes Ana from Christian's previous partners is that Ana insists on being seen as a person and not property or a sex object.  When looking at it this way, it strongly suggests that Christian's relationships with his previous subs were abusive - as was his relationship with Mrs. Robinson, although there he was the abused.  I'm not going to criticize the subculture to which these relationships belonged, but I am going to say that the way that Christian entered into them is a sign of abuse.

Your Partner's Violent Behaviour or Threats

Does your partner: Have a bad and unpredictable temper? I would actually say that Christian has a very predictable temper. He's almost always angry about something that Ana has done, no matter how small it might be.  At one point he gets angry with her for going to pick up her boss a coffee, despite the fact that doing so is within her job description.

Hurt you, threaten to hurt or kill you? Christian often threatens to hurt Ana, or talks about his desire to punish her for her behaviour.  In the second book part of the plot is fuelled by the fact that he keeps on threatening her in emails sent to her work address.

Threaten to commit suicide if you leave? I'm not sure if Christian ever threatens to commit suicide if she leaves, but he does completely shut down when he thinks that she's going to leave.  The threat of a physical death may not be present, but the threat of a more mental/emotional one is.

Your Partner's Controlling  Behaviour

Does your partner: Act jealous and possessive? In Christian's mind every man who meets Ana wants her, something that causes numerous fights between the couple.  Ana is even afraid of mentioning Jose, her longtime friend, because of the fight that might ensue.

Control you where you go or what you do? Control is a key part of Christian's personality, and his control over Ana is an important part of the plot.  Through the course of the three books he tries to restrict where she can see her friends as well as what friends she sees, and what she does.  He tries to keep her from going to work and doesn't seem to understand her desire to have a job or a life that is in any way independent from his control.

Keep you from seeing your friends or family? This is kind of a yes and no.  Christian seems to want to dictate what friends Ana's allowed to see, as well as the terms under which she's allowed to see them.  Jose, is one of the friends that he tries to keep her from seeing, while Kate is one of the friends that he tries to restrict how she can see.  The fact that there is the possibility of a sexual relationship between Jose and Ana (even though she insists that she's not interested, and after his attempt at a pass during which they were both drunk he doesn't continue to pursue her) is irrelevant, given Christian's continued relationship with both Mrs. Robinson and his es-subs - many of whom he supports financially.

Limit your access to money, the phone, or the car? Christian does limit her access to cars rather regularly.  Ana is only allowed to drive when Christian gives her permission to do so.  While he doesn't limit her access to money specifically, he seems to think that the only money she should have is money that he gives her - he tries to limit her ability to earn her own money.

Constantly check up on you? And how.  Christian stalks Ana to such a point that it even becomes an important plot point - the way she's able to survive the third book is because she expects him to have access to her phone's GPS so that he can stalk her after she appears to leave him.  This isn't the first time that he's done so, stalking regularly comes up.  He does send her regular text messages throughout the day and calls her regularly too. While I'm not going to say that that in itself is abusive or stalking, his reaction when she doesn't answer immediately is rather extreme.  Rather than assuming that she's busy or unable to respond right away he gets very upset if she doesn't respond back or call when she says she will he constantly overreacts.  On several occasions he has stormed into her place of work simply because Ana didn't answer her phone.  He has also cut short business trips because he was unable to get a hold of Ana and even invades her trip to visit her mother - which she took in order to take a break from him.

So, yeah.  The chart listed twenty-four signs, seventeen of which can be applied in a manner to the relationship between Christian and Ana.  While not all of these are very clear cut signs of abuse, a lot of them are.  Furthering this is the information from the chart that I used as this post's picture.  According to this, "abusive individuals need to feel in charge of the relationship" - as seen by their need to make decisions for you or the family, the expectation that you "obey without question" and the fact that they might "treat you like a servant, child, or even as his or her possession" - all of which apply to Christian.   Furthermore, an abuser may "prevent you from going to work" and "you may have to ask permission to do anything, go anywhere, or see anyone."  Ana even has to ask permission to drive her car - compounded by the fact that she is denied permission to continue driving the car that she owned at the start of the series.  For me, the clincher is Christian's excuses.  The site says "they will blame their abusive and violent behavior on a bad childhood, a bad day, and even on the victims of their abuse."  This certainly applies to Christian.  In my opinion, however, the worst part is the fact that within the series even the people who know about Christian's behaviour - most notably his psychologist Dr. Flynn - support him in it and encourage Ana to stand by him.

Fifty Shades Freed

Author: E.L. James
Genre: Erotic Fiction
Rating: F

Despite the many flaws of the Fifty Shades books, I can say that there is one thing that I actually really liked about them: the titles.  The name “Fifty Shades” in itself refers to Christian Grey and as you read the books it kind of becomes apparent that the protagonist is not narrator Ana so much as it is her lover, Christian.  Sure, things don’t follow him as nicely, but the story is more about his development and growth than it is about hers.  Fifty Shades of Grey sets up who Christian is, while Fifty Shades Darker divulges deeper into his many, many issues.  The finale, Fifty Shades Freed shows Christian being freed from his plethora of issues.

I really had to force myself to read this book.  I tried to read it when I read the first two, but I just could not get into it.  I spent the first four chapters yelling at the book and rolling my eyes and feeling just overall bothered by it.  So I put it down and moved on to other things.  Then I came back to it, because despite my dislike of the series I did want to finish it.  I like completing things, no matter how bad they are.

At one point in the novel, Ana thinks to herself “I’ve had enough of his cavalier, petulant, and frankly childish behaviour.”  I’m glad that she’s finally had enough of it – I’d had enough of it fairly early on in the first book.  Christian is a fucking child and acts like one – and he treats Ana like a child.  There is no development on this.  For a moment she finally stands up for herself and points out the bullshit way that he treats her and the way that he insists on getting his own way… then he starts talking about sex and she caves.  Because the way to solve all problems is to fuck.  I get that this is erotica, but I really hate going “this really dramatic thing happened and they almost died and now they’re fucking lots” or “fight, fight, fight, Christian basically abuses her, sex.”  I think that’s what I hate most about these books.  It’s not the poor writing or the melodramatic plot, but rather the fact that none of the issues between the two protagonists ever seems to get resolved and everything is just some sort of preamble for them to have sex.  There are a few moments in the series that I found hot, but they tended to not actually be the sex ones.  The scene in Freed when Ana washes Christian’s hair was amazingly hot – right up until Christian started talking about fucking her.  When you think about the hottest moments in a movie or book it’s never the actual sex, that’s just sex.  It’s the moments of tenderness between the characters.  Fifty Shades doesn’t have many of these moments, and the ones that it does have are often quickly ruined by Christian being a douche.

What else… I’m not going to touch on things like the stalking and Ray’s accidents, because simply put I think James’ attempts to introduce suspense to the story are really just ridiculous and over the top.  I’m not going to touch on the pregnancy because… well, really, the whole thing pisses me off and I don’t want to go off on a rant about how much of a giant douche Christian is or about how when I read erotica I don’t want to have to also read about transvaginal ultrasounds and the importance of using protection.  Also, did I mention that Christian’s a giant douche?  And a sexist one at that.

I’m not going to get into any of that because I’ve spent enough time yelling at this book and rolling my eyes while reading it.  I don’t need to do the same while writing a review of it.  I will give Ana credit in one count: when she gets pregnant she does stand up for herself.  The problem is, by this time I’m so used to their ridiculous fights that go nowhere that even as she’s standing up for herself I’m waiting for her to back down and fuck Mr. Perfect.  And really, she didn’t fail me there.  She stood up for herself, but as soon as Christian started giving her the silent treatment she effectively broke.  When your husband flips out on you for getting pregnant (because he of course had nothing to do with it) then goes and gets drunk with his ex you’re not supposed to essentially forgive him – at least through your actions if not your thoughts – within a day.  I think I just came to the conclusion that I would have liked these books a lot more if they had acknowledge Christian’s douchery more.  As messed up as it is, it would have made him a more attractive character.  There’s something hot about things that you know are wrong and bad for you.  There’s nothing hot about things that are wrong and bad for you when they’re presented as being completely normal and okay – and I’m not talking about the sex.  Furthermore, in not really standing up for herself Ana just becomes this wet towel of a character; the type of woman who brushes away domestic abuse because, well, he didn’t really mean to punch her in the face he was just having a bad day and had had a bit too much to drink.  Sure Christian doesn’t physically abuse her (outside of the bedroom, which doesn’t count because that’s part of an agreed upon sexual act that both parties enjoy), but he’s still abusive.

I think I need to wrap this up.  When I was in high school I was always told that when providing criticism I should do so in what my teachers called “feedback sandwiches” (or something to that extent) and I called “shit sandwiches.”  According to them you were supposed to say a good thing, then a bad thing, then another good thing, and repeat for each bad thing that you said.  The way I’ve always done it, however, is to say at least one good thing, then all the bad things (sometimes with a few other good things tossed in there), and then finish on a good thing.  Instead of the feedback sandwiches that overload you on all the good stuff and thus potentially lose the bad stuff, I try to provide the manwich of shit sandwiches.  So, to close this review of Fifty Shades Freed, I’m going to end on a good note, something that I’m happy about in regards to this novel.  I’m happy that it’s finished and that I will most likely never again read another book by E.L. James.  Oh, also, the Epilogue made me feel much better about the Epilogue in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  I'm even okay with "Albus Severus Potter."

A Note: Tony Scott

It's being reported that director/producer Tony Scott (Top Gun, The Last Boy Scout, Enemy of the State, Man on Fire) committed suicide today.

My condolences go out to his family and friends.  I know very little about the man himself, but I did enjoy his movies, even the ones that weren't exactly good.  Hollywood has lost a great director/producer.

I was planning on reviewing Pete Smalls is Dead this week, but in light of Scott's passing I think I'll delay Pete Smalls in favour of a Tony Scott film - probably either Top Gun or Domino, perhaps even both.

Week in Review: August 13 - 18

Movies - This week's new movie was Hope Springs, while the old movies were Thunderball and Haywire.  My favourite was Hope, and I was neither wowed nor amazed by either of the others, although I did have to admit that Thunderball was fun.

Books - Two books this week, the next two instalments in the Lord John series.  First up was "The Custom of the Army," which I wasn't a big fan of, followed by the novel The Scottish Prisoner, which I thoroughly enjoyed.  One of the things that I really liked about Prisoner was that it really tied up some of the loose ends that the series has provided.

TV - TV show of the week was the first season of Showtime's Homeland, which I really enjoyed.  A psychological thriller about terrorism, it really keeps you on your toes.  I'm looking forward to watching the second season.

Recommendations -This week's new releases are Sparkle and The Expendables 2.  I'm looking forward to the former as it's Whitney Houston's last role and the latter because it's Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen - he even says "I'm back."

Next Week - Look forward to the conclusion of the Fifty Shades series with the third novel Fifty Shades Freed, as well as a note on the series.  We'll also have my thoughts on the latest Bourne movie, Bourne Legacy, and the next James Bond, You Only Live Twice.  To round out the week, I'm thinking Pete Smalls is Dead.

Requests - What about you?  Any books, TV shows, movies, whatever, that you'd like to see me review?  Let me know in the comments.

Homeland (Season 1)

Starring: Claire Danes, Damian Lewis, Morena Baccarin, David Harewood, Diego Klattenhoff, Jackson Pace, Morgan Saylor, Mandy Patinkin

Creator: Gideon Raff

Genre: Psychological Thriller, Serial Drama

Rating: A+

I was really surprised by this TV show.  Going into it I wasn’t really sure what to expect; I figured it would be kind of typical of the cop versus bad guy type show.  Everything that I saw about it really suggested that it was a bit cut and dry, with the suspense being in whether or not the CIA would stop the terrorists.  In that case I was thoroughly surprised by this show, as it’s about so much more.  There is the element of whether or not the CIA is going to stop the terrorists, true, but there’s also the question of who the terrorists are, and in addition to catching them, will the CIA catch Carrie Mathison (Danes) in all of her not exactly appropriate behaviours?

The premise of Homeland appears simple: while on a mission CIA agent Carrie is told that an American prisoner of war is about to be released, but he’s been turned and is now working for Al Quida.  At first Danes thinks this is impossible, as to her knowledge there are no current POWs – then in the middle of an operative Sergeant Nicholas Brody (Lewis) is discovered, having been kept captive for the previous eight years and until now presumed to be dead.  Brody is greeted with a hero’s welcome by everyone, but Carrie believes him to be the turned POW that she had been warned of.  As no one in the CIA believes her, she takes it onto her own hands to deal with the situation, illegally bugging Brody’s home.  Carrie must determine whether or not Brody’s a terrorist, while keeping her actions hidden, and dealing with her own questionable mental health.

The thing that I really liked about the first season of Homeland was that it kept the viewers guessing about whether or not Brody is a terrorist for a long time.  You start off as convinced as Carrie is, certain that he must be a terrorist – after all, that’s what this show is being presented as.  As the season progresses, however, that fact comes into question as you begin to think that maybe he isn’t a terrorist, and then begin to hope that he isn’t one.   Brody’s experiences are fed to you throughout the series as you get to know who he is and what happened to him while he was captured.  You also get to know Carrie as well, and the journey of figuring out what it is that’s wrong with her and what fuels her obsession is just as interesting as the journey of figuring out Brody.  I wasn’t as big of a fan of some of the more secondary characters – especially Brody’s wife – but their stories are divulged into as well.  The show makes extensive use of flashbacks, but in a manner that isn’t as confusing as is seen in other shows.  The only character to experience a visual representation of his history is Brody, and as he’s the most cerebral of the characters I think this is important.  There are a lot of things about Brody that he wouldn’t share with anyone, simply because of the nature of his character, so it’s revealed in pieces to the viewer via flashbacks.  The performances of the two leads, Danes and Lewis, are amazingly well done.  Danes’ portrays the obsessive nature of her character perfectly, and the more unstable she gets the more I enjoyed her performance.  Lewis on the other hand does an amazing job of portraying this elusive character, he totally seemed to embody the character of Brody.  My one big problem with the show is that there is a lot of non-English spoken in it (which in itself I have no problem with), but an inconsistent use of subtitles.  A lot of it is greetings and the like, nothing actually important to the plot, but when it’s done in a manner that it’s obvious all characters present know what’s being said it doesn’t really make sense to not let the audience know what’s being said as well.  It’s just something that’s annoying to experience while you watch.