The Green Mile (1999)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Michael Clarke Duncan, David Morris, Bonnie Hunt, James Cromwell
Director: Frank Darabont
Genre: Crime, Drama, Fantasy
Rating: B

Even after having seen this a couple times I’m still not exactly sure what my opinion of The Green Mile is.  In some ways it’s rather extraordinary and well done; it has an amazing cast, an interesting premise, a good script, and that interesting mix of blatant fiction and real believability that can only be achieved by really good fantasy and science fiction.  On the other hand, however, the characters themselves are a bit flat and stereotypical and the story itself rather simplistic.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the story itself is clichéd, but the characters are definitely ones that we already know, with each kind of filling some type of archetype.

Paul Edgecomb (Hanks) is the corrections officer in charge of death row inmates at Cold Mountain Penitentiary, also known as “the Green Mile.”  Near the start of the film John Coffey (Duncan) arrives on the Mile, having been convicted of raping and killing two young girls.  With him on death row are Eduard “Del” Delacroix (Michael Jeter) and “Wild Bill” Wharton (Sam Rockwell); both John and Del come across as being good guys with some sort of cognitive or learning disability while Wild Bill is just your typical criminal asshole.  Acting as an antagonist to both the inmates and his fellow corrections officers is Percy Wetmore (Doug Hutchison), the nephew of the governor’s wife and a sadistic asshole. The Mile is also graced by the presence of the tame mouse, Mr. Jingles, who eventually becomes the pet of Del.  Oh, and John reveals that he has the power to heal people with his touch.  That’s kind of important to the plot.

The best place to start with praising this movie is the casting.  Everyone in The Green Mile does pretty much exactly what they’re needed to do, be it making you feel sad or scared or what not.  While some of the films that the actors have done may not be exactly good, in The Green Mile they each appear to bring out their best.  I really liked how they all had accents that (to a non-southerner at least) really seemed to fit with the general setting and time of the film.  My biggest praise, however, has to go to Duncan himself whose portrayal of John Coffey is absolutely amazing.  He’s more than just this gentle giant, although the subtly with which that more is portrayed is hard to describe.  This role is something that amazed me about Duncan, and the way that he presented himself is one that I’ve never really seen him recreate.  While I’ve loved watching Duncan in other roles, I wish he had done more movies like this.

That having been said, though, John Coffey himself is a huge stereotype.  I mean, seriously, gentle giant? Black guy who’s not really all that bright?  Black guy with magical powers?  His isn’t the only stereotype either; there really isn’t a lot done to develop any of the characters beyond the archetypes that they fit in.  The good guys are good simply because they’re good, the bad guys are assholes because they’re assholes.  There’s no real reason as to why they are the way that they are. You can just get this sense throughout the film that the plot is a simplified version of something else – either some greater plot that was the book version or else a greater idea that the original writer never put to pen (and knowing that the book was written by Stephen King, I strongly suspect that the err was the result of the former).  There’s magic in the movie, but not really behind the story.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Author: J.K. Rowling
Genre: Fantasy
Rating: B

I’m not really sure that I can do an unbiased review of the first Harry Potter novel.  At the same time, however, I’m not really sure if I’m required to be unbiased, this being my blog and not a scholarly source of any sorts.  At this point in my life, reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is like reuniting with an old friend; life may have changed a lot since I first met Harry and Hogwarts, but going back to this book always takes me back to the first time I read it – when I was less worldly, less jaded, and less critical.  As such, it’s hard to critique this book.

Philosopher’s Stone introduces us to the world of magic and all that it entails.  In many ways it’s a complete story while in many other ways it’s merely a small piece of a much greater puzzle – an important piece, but a small one.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with the book itself or the franchise as a whole (I’m assuming that there are a few of you still out there) Philosopher’s Stone is about a young boy, Harry Potter, who had believed that he was an unremarkable boy until his eleventh birthday.  As a baby he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle, the Dursleys, after his parents died in a horrific accident – it’s revealed early on to the readers that the Potters’ deaths was the result of some remarkable event, but Harry’s non-magic relatives told him only that they died in a car crash, hoping to hide his heritage from him and as a result make him grow up ‘normal’.  All this changes on his eleventh birthday when Rubeus Hagrid shows up and announces to Harry that he’s a wizard and has a spot at the magical school Hogwarts.  From here the story is as much about Harry’s first year in the magical world itself, and all the traditional friend- and enemy-making that such an occurrence entails, as it is about the more sinister elements that threaten Harry’s new world and the titular philosopher’s stone.

In many ways, Philosopher’s Stone is both remarkably slow and remarkably fast in its pace.  There’s never a point when I feel bored by the story or hoping that it would just get to the point – at the same time, however, I’ve read this book so many times that the cover is falling off, the pages are all nicely creased, and I spend half of it quoting lines that are coming up – but it isn’t until a good portion of the book is done that you actually find out about the sinister elements, the philosopher’s stone and what not.  For the most part, Philosopher’s Stone is set up and little anecdotal incidents that don’t really appear to pertain to any greater plot – at least not right away.  While this style works well in the larger books in the series – it’s easy to spend a hundred pages setting the story up when a novel is eight hundred pages long, but less so when the novel’s only two hundred pages – it doesn’t work as well in Philosopher’s Stone.  I’m not saying that the book needed to be longer or really changed in any way – it’s awesome and I love it – I’m just saying that it takes a lot to get beyond the anecdotes and to the greater threat.

Despite this slowness, though, the anecdotes and little incidents that transpire throughout Philosopher’s Stone are absolutely intriguing.  I love the way Rowling weaves together the real world and one that’s merely a figment of her – and our – imagination, as well as the way that she writes a multidimensional novel.  On the one hand Philosopher’s Stone (and most of the other books in the series) is a relatively light read.  At some two hundred pages it’s a book that can easily be consumed in one sitting.  At the same time, however, there’s an underlying current in these books.  You don’t see it as readily on your first read of Philosopher’s Stone as you can in the later novels, but the story is an intricate web and things that Rowling makes a brief mention of in Philosopher’s Stone pop up in much greater significance later on.  In addition to this, Philosopher’s Stone is a tribute to the greater work of literature.  You can tell that Rowling is a well read women not simply because of the skill with which she writes but because of the many allusions to other writings that she makes.  While the books are children’s fantasy novels, they also contain elements of mystery, adventure, thriller, and romance novels (although less romantic in this one than in others), and they show signs of having been inspired by many other great works.  In addition, they allude to real life events, acting as a parallel to many things that plague the real world.  One of the things that really bothers me about fantasy authors is when they don’t appear to have read fantasy novels before writing their own works in the genre, but you never get this sense with Rowling.  From the moment that you pick up Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone to when you put down Harry Potter Deathly Hallows you can tell that Rowling is well read in a plethora of genres, including fantasy.

Week in Review: September 3 - 8

Note - This week was marred by the death of actor Michael Clarke Duncan.  There was no tribute for him this week - although last week we did Armageddon, in which he had a memorable role, and next week we'll do The Green Mile, for which he received an Oscar nomination.

Movies - This week we had two Bonds, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds are Forever, finishing off both Sean Connery and George Lazenby.  We also had two new movies, Premium Rush and Lawless.  My favourite of the week was Premium Rush, while my least favourite was On Her Majesty's Secret Service - although I have decided that On Her Majesty would make an interesting Bond film.

Books - Book of the week was the hilarious and hopefully not entirely true memoir, Let's Pretend This Never Happened (A Mostly True Memoir) by Jenny Lawson. While I thought the mid-point of the book was a bit weak it both started and ended well, and I really enjoyed it.  Definitely had points where it made me feel a bit better about my family.

TV - We've continued the review of Grey's Anatomy with its second season, which I thought was superior to its first.  Stay tuned for the third season, which'll happen in weeks to come.

Recommendations - New this week is The Words, which I'm surprisingly really looking forward to seeing.  Also out is Bachelorette, which I'm sure will be at least mildly entertaining.

Next Week - Next week's Bonds will be The Man with the Golden Gun and Live and Let Die, the first of the Roger Moore's.  We'll also be doing The Words and Hit and Run, for a bit of a Bradly Cooper-a-thon., and The Green Mile for a Michael Clarke Duncan tribute.  Book-wise, we'll be starting the great Harry Potter review, with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcer's Stone for you Americans).

Requests -Anything you'd like me to read or watch? Let me know in the comments!

Grey's Anatomy (Season 2)

Starring: Ellen Pompeo, Sandra Oh, Katherine Heigl, Justin Chambers, T.R. Knight, Chandra Wilson, James Pickens, Jr, Isaiah Washington, Patrick Dempsey, Kate Walsh

Creator: Shonda Rhimes

Genre: Medical Drama, Serial Drama
Rating: B-

I went into rewatching Grey’s Anatomy with the thought that at some point the character if Izzie Stevens (Heigl) was a good one.  Sure, she wasn’t the best surgeon in our crew of interns and she could be annoying at times, but I was certain that at some point in this show I actually liked her.  I’m not certain when I stopped liking her, but I do know for sure that by episode 19 of season two I really couldn’t stand her.

The second season picks up pretty much exactly where the first one left off, a trait that I always enjoy – while a lot of time has passed for the viewers, no time at all has passed for the show.  Meredith (Pompeo) has just discovered that her dreamy boyfriend Derek (Dempsey) is in fact married, with the appearance of his wife, Dr. Addison Montgomery Shepherd (Walsh).  This love triangle becomes the primary focus of this season, as Meredith comes to terms with Addison’s existence, Addison fights to get her husband back, and Derek is forced to chose between the women.  While this forms the focus of the show for much of the season it isn’t the only major plot.  There’s also Izzie falling in love with a patient (Jeffrey Dean Morgan); Alex (Chambers) grows as a character, as he develops a relationship with Izzie; George (Knight) finally deals with his feelings for Meredith; the relationship between Christina (Oh) and Burke (Washington) grows and finally becomes public; Bailey (Wilson) is pregnant; we discover more about the relationship between Meredith’s mother and Dr. Webber (Pickens); and we’re introduced to Callie Torres (Sara Ramírez), Erica Hahn (Brooke Smith), and Mark Sloan (Eric Dane), who each become main characters in later seasons.  Oh! And there’s a bomb! In a body!

 Let's start with what I liked about this season... I actually loved the triangle between Meredith, Derek, and Addison.  I don't remember how I felt about it when the show first aired, but this time round I definitely liked it.  I really like Addison as a character, I was disappointed to see her leave at the end of season 3 (and even more disappointed by Private Practice, but that's a whole other review).  The triangle later on in the season is less great, even if it does involve Chris O'Donnell.  At that point it really seems like the show runners are just trying to create drama and delay what has been set up to be the inevitable.  I would love to see O'Donnell's McVet return at a later date for a random appearance just because he was a fun character - I would not like to see him return as a romantic partner for anyone.

In addition to liking the Mer/Der/Addy triangle, I also really love what they did with George this season.  I actually think this might have been George's best season - as much as I loved the character, it's really all downhill for him from here.  Likewise, I really loved the growth of Alex here and the development of his relationship with Izzie.  While I really did not like Izzie in general, I did like what she brought out in Alex.  As for Christina and Burke... I'm never really sure if I think that Burke got Christina.  At one point in season 4 she comments on how much of herself she had to give up for him; in season 2 you start to really see her doing that.  I always love the character, but I don't think I ever really liked the relationship here.  Beyond the coure group of interns, we have the plots with Bailey (awesome!) and the Chief (less awesome, but still good).  If this show became Bailey's Anatomy I would be totally okay with that.  There is just something so unbelievably perfect about the way that Chandra Wilson portrays her.

The good having been established, let's now turn to the bad.  Mainly Izzie Stevens and her relationship with Denny Duquette.  There was nothing about this plot that was enjoyable.  While I understand that the interns (and the doctors) make mistakes and aren't always able to be professional, the relationship between Izzie and Denny is just a whole new level of wrong.  It's something you can really see building up overall with Izzie in general; she's never good at separating her emotions from her work.  While other doctors struggle with this at times, most of them are able to balance between appearing completely unemotional and heartless (Yang is an example of this, often) and being really emotional and thus unable to properly do their job.  Izzie isn't able to do this, and it just gets really annoying.  The thing that really gets me about this is that I think we're supposed to be rooting for Izzie - be it when she's having an emotional affair with her patient, or when she's violating the oath that she took before becoming a doctor - notably, the do no harm bit.  I really wasn't.  I didn't want Denny to die... I just didn't want Izzie to succeed.  Her actions really scared me - not in that I was frightened, but rather in the way that I was unnerved by the idea that a doctor might behave like that.

Recommendations: September 7

The Words - I wasn't really sure about this at first, but after having seen the trailer for it a couple times I have to say that I'm really looking forward to seeing The Words, a film about a writer who stole another man's work.

Bachelorette - Another wedding movie, this one about a group of friends who've been asked to act as bridesmaids for a girl they all ridiculed in high school.  Not entirely sure what to expect of this one, but I'm sure I'll check it out.

Titanic - Re-released on Blu-Ray 3D, Blu-Ray, and Digital Combo, presumably to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the RMS Titanic and the much more resent re-release of the film in 3D.  If you have the ability to watch 3D movies at home, I'd definitely recommend this one, it was nicely done.

The Five-Year Engagement - Starring Jason Segel and Emily Blunt, this movie is about the trials that couples go through during engagements and was pretty funny.  Not either's best work, but it definitely had its moments.

The Tome of the Undergates - Sam Syke's third instalment in his Aeon's Gate trilogy has just been released, so I thought I'd recommend the first instalment in the series, The Tome.  Sykes is a fantasy author and the son of fellow author Diana Gabaldon, so in my opinion he's definitely worth checking out.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Starring: Sean Connery, Bernard Lee, Jill St. John, Charles Gray, Lana Wood, Jimmy Dean, Bruce Glover, Bruce Cabot, Putter Smith

Director: Guy Hamilton
Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller
Rating: C

Okay, so this movie literally features a scene when Bond is being attacked – in a violent sense of the word – by two underwear clad women named Bambi (Lola Larson) and Thumper (Trina Parks). In a couple of the reviews so far I’ve said that while the plot devices were cheesy at least they didn’t reach the level seen in Austin Powers. I now have to take that back – this officially hits a point lamer than in Austin Powers. I was definitely disappointed.

Diamonds Are Forever is - surprise, surprise - about diamonds.  After seemingly killing Blofeld and a Blofeld (Gray) look-alike, Bond (Connery) is given the task of uncovering a diamond smuggling ring.  Here he poses as smuggler Peter Franks (Joe Robinson), while killing the real Franks, whose body is then passed off as Bond - Bond faking his own death seems to be a common theme in these movies.  While investigating the whole thing, Bond also sleeps with women, notably diamond smuggler Tiffany Case (St. John).

This movie is ridiculously campy.  While many of the other movies (so far) have had huge elements of camp Diamonds Are Forever takes this to a whole new level - from villains Bambi and Thumper to the dull Bond girl, the portrayal of Blofeld, and the overall plot.  Bond movies are supposed to be sophisticated, classy, and dangerous... this one's just kind of lame.  It's really a rather sad note for Connery to have gone out on, although he will be back for the non-Eon Bond film Never Say Never Again.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Starring: George Lazenby, Bernard Lee, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas

Director: Peter R. Hunt

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: C+

This is definitely my least favourite so far of all the Bond movies, and I rather suspect that it's going to remain such for a good while (potentially even forever).  A lot of my problems with this movie were similar to my problems with The Bourne Legacy; while Bond has become a franchise that is greater than the individuals that have played Bond (at this point, eight actors have portrayed him in twenty six films and one short), the initial foray into a Connery-less Bond film just doesn't really work.  Lazenby was not a great Bond in general and the tone of the movie overall felt just... off.

SPECTRE Number 1, Blofeld (Salavas) is back, this time with a plot to sterilize all the world's food supply unless his demands are met.  Blofeld is doing this through the use of what he dubs his Angels of Death; a group of women who go to an allergy and phobia clinic in the Swiss Alps, where they're brainwashed.  Bond poses as geneologist Sir Hilary Bray in order to gain access to the clinic, where he sets out to defeat Blofeld and sleep with as many Angels of Death as he can.  Rounding out the plot is Contessa Teresa di Vicenzo (Rigg), a woman who Bond saves and begins to woo in exchange for information about Blofeld from her father.  Because Bond's classy like that.

To start; Lazenby's portrayal of Bond was lame.  He didn't have the finess or class that Connery's Bond has - I hate to compare actors playing the same role to each other, because it isn't really fair, but in this it's hard not to.  This isn't really a reboot of the franchise, a new series, or a remake; it's a continuation of the same series, and thus Lazenby is supposed to be continuing the same character.  While Lazenby may be forgiven for attempting to make the character his own, he does so in a manner that's just a bit too extreme.

He's not helped at all by the general story either.  Starting a new Bond in a role where he spends most of the movie pretending to be someone else is not the wisest move.   Having Bond then go on to do un-Bondly things just makes the situation worse.  I've commented before that Bond is rather sexist, but having him date a suicidal woman just so that he can get information from her father is a new low for him.  There was just something about him in this movie that made me actually want to root for the bad guys - which is really saying something, given as in Bond the bad guys tend to be pretty much pure evil.  I expect better from Bond.

Lawless (2012)

Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Guy Pearce

Director: John Hillcoat

Genre: Crime, Drama, Western

Rating: C

I was really disappointed by this movie.  There was a lot about it that should have been good - that could have been good - but ended up sadly failing.  I don't think I've ever actually watched a Gary Oldman movie that I didn't like before, and perhaps that's where this could have gone right.  Movie makers of the world, take note: more Gary Oldman is always a good thing.

Based on the book The Wettest County in the World by Matt Bondurant (grandson and great-nephew of the Bondurant brothers featured in both book and film) Lawless takes us to Franklin County, Virginia during the Prohibition.  The film follows three brothers, Forrest (Hardy), Howard (Clarke), and Jack (LaBeouf) as they come up against the law, primarily in the form of Special Agent Charlie Rakes (Pearce).  The Bondurants are moonshine bootleggers who refuse to give a cut of their profits to the law, causing the law to begin to try to find ways to get rid of them - typical violent ways - pushing them towards a relationship with mobster Floyd Banner (Oldman).  Along the way both Forrest and Jack find love; Forrest in former Chicago dancer Maggie Beauford (Chastain) and Jack in the form of Bertha Minnix (Wasikowska), the daughter of a preacher (who I think might've been Amish or some similar religion).

To start, Lawless has an amazing cast.  With the exception of LaBeouf, who's movies tend to get mixed reviews, and Clarke, who I really don't know from anything else, there is an amazing cast here.  I mean, Jessica Chastain alone has won or been nominated in awards for almost every movie she's been in so far - and not awards like MTV Movie Awards, I mean BAFTAs and Oscars.  And that's without taking into consideration the fact that Gary Oldman is in this movie - Gary Oldman, who was described as "one of the best actors on the planet" by film critic Peter Travers.  When you see a cast like this, you should be able to expect greatness from a movie.  Something more than just the typical shoot 'em up type film.

In many ways, this is where Lawless fails.  It's trying to be more than your typical shoot 'em up type film but fails because it doesn't properly utilize its cast.  The best parts of the movie were the scenes with Chastain and Hardy or anything with Oldman, but Lawless wanted to focus more on LaBeouf and his adventures.  I haven't read the book, so I can't say what the source material does, but the story of the quiet and rough Forrest and his relationship with the far more sophisticated Maggie is a lot more interesting than anything Jack does.

What Lawless does with Jack is nothing short of predictable.  It's not really a shoot 'em up type film, but it's stereotyped of a lot of western and crime type movies.  Watching it you know what's going to happen long before it happens - at least when it comes to Jack.  There's a bit of unpredictability with Forrester, and a lot with Howard (who really, should be described as a drunk lunatic and thus by nature of his character is unpredictable), but the other stories... I know what's going to happen. It's obvious.  I usually try to avoid going into spoilers and talking about the endings (or at least not being graphic when I do so), but I feel like with Lawless I could detail the entire movie, right down to the end, and no one would be surprised about it - well, no one who watches movies at least.  Oh, and Oldman?  Completely under utilized.  He only had a handful of scenes, maybe two of which were actual speaking parts.  I loved his performance, but there definitely wasn't enough of it.  Once again: movie makers of the world please remember you can always use more Gary Oldman.

One good thing did potentially come out of my seeing this movie.  I now have a desire to read the book that it's based on.  If it's anything like your typical book-to-movie conversion - in which a great book becomes a rather shittastic movie - I think The Wettest County in the World could be a really interesting read.  It at least appears to have gotten better reviews on Goodreads than Lawless has anywhere.

Premium Rush (2012)

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Shannon, Dania Ramirez
Director: David Koepp
Genre: Action, Thriller

Rating: B+

“I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can't stop. Don't want to, either.”

I was a bit surprised by just how much I enjoyed this movie.  Going into it, I figured that it would be good but I was really surprised by just how much it captured me.  Premium Rush isn’t really your typical action flick, but it does have elements of such, along with elements of drama, romance, and humour.  What really captured me, however, was the paratext (for lack of a better word) of the film; the model of New York that served as a map throughout the film, the regular time updates, the text messages, and the way it goes back to tell bits of the story that we haven’t yet been told.

Wilee (Gordon-Levitt) is a New York City bike messenger who takes great pride in being such.  He is a rather reckless rider, although he considers the risks that he takes in his biking to actually be protecting him – he has fixed gears and no brakes on his bike, can’t coast, and doesn’t stop for lights – can’t stop for lights.  He has a girlfriend, Vanessa (Ramirez), who he’s currently fighting with, a rival, Manny (Wolé Parks) who he’s in competition with, and after picking up a package to deliver to Chinatown he has an angry, violent man, Bobby Monday (Shannon), to run – er, bike – from.  The movie runs roughly in real time, covering the span of about two hours (from just before Wilee picks up the package to when he drops it off), with flashbacks utilized to explain the backstory of the different characters.

One of the things that I really liked about this movie – and I realize that it’s a bit lame – was the way they did the map of New York.  Movies like this really depend on the space in which they occur, and often they assume that the viewer has some sort of working knowledge of the area.   Premium Rush doesn’t do so; it realizes that despite the rather large population of New York the majority of viewers will probably not be from the state let alone the city and thus provides a map rather frequently – merging the idea of a phone GPS system with a miniature model of the city.  I loved this map simply because it put the movie in a real place for me.

That’s not all that I loved though.  I really liked the way they nicely mixed drama and humour.  There wasn’t anything about it that was really “this is a funny moment, laugh now” but there were still more than a few moments that brought a smile to my face, often despite the humour occurring in a rather unconventional way.  There were more than a few reoccurring jokes and even characters that really shouldn’t typically have humour lines got some – I particularly loved the way that Michael Shannon laughed in this film, although I’m not sure if that’s his normal laugh or not.   I really liked the cast too, and the fact that Gordon-Levitt and Shannon aside they weren’t actors who are really well known.  I like watching movies and TV shows with rather unknown actors because it gives you a chance to fall in love with the character because of their own characteristics and not simply because they’re played by someone that you already know and love.

My favourite part, however, was probably the ending.  I’m not going to go into too much detail, because I don’t want to spoil, but I love how things were resolved – or not resolved.  Some things are resolved while other things are left hanging and in the end I was left with a sense that the story continued after the credits rolled, but without leaving me hanging.  There were a lot of issues that came up in the film and were more secondary to the plot that made me cringe in a way – stuff that made me go “I’ve seen movies before, I know how this is going to end.”  I was pleasantly surprised in that a lot of these actually didn’t end up how I expected them to and some of them didn’t even really get resolved.  It was a lot like life in that: not all of your problems can be solved in a two hour period, or even one day, or even ever.  Sometimes things are left unresolved or hanging, and Premium Rush acknowledges that while still leaving you with a feeling of closure.

A Note: Michael Clarke Duncan

Evidently, it's a bad time to be a celebrity.

The latest death is actor Michael Clarke Duncan, known for movies The Green Mile, Armageddon, The Whole Nine Yards, and the TV show The Finder.  Just based on that description you can see that his career had both successes and failures, although even when he was in something that wasn't exactly good, Duncan was always a pleasure to watch.

I've been saying this a lot lately, but the world will be different without Duncan.  Movies will certainly be lacking both his size and his charisma.  While he often played more secondary roles, he always left his mark.

On an unrelated note, this will be the only update today.  School starts this week and I'm a bit behind on writing reviews.  There will, however, be two updates both tomorrow and Thursday.  We'll see about doing something in memory of Duncan next week.

Let's Pretend This Never Happened (A Mostly True Memoir)

Author: Jenny Lawson
Genre: Autobiography, Comedy
Rating: A-

I ended up reading Let’s Pretend This Never Happened at least partially by accident. After a bad day I’d gone into my local bookstore and picked up a copy of Jenny Lawson’s memoirs and began to flip through the first chapter, thinking that reading would help quell my temper before I went on with the errands that I had to run – reading tends to have that effect on me. Before I knew it I was sitting in one of the “use for 30 minutes only” chairs mid-way through the seventh chapter and completely hooked on the book. Because I was in public I was trying to do my best to not laugh out loud as I read the stories within these memoirs, resulting in a choked convulsion that amused one of the store clerks greatly – fortunately for me, she’d already read Let’s Pretend and understood just why I was laughing.

Let’s Pretend This Never Happened is blogger Jenny Lawson’s first foray into book-writing, and a remarkably revealing one at that. While she does provide the disclaimer in the title that the events described in the book are “mostly true”, she also provides countless pictures throughout the book to support many of her stories and has a way of telling you when she’s not exactly been truthful, resulting in the feeling that ninety per cent of the book is in fact truth. While the bulk of the stories are either hilarious or disturbing (or disturbingly hilarious), others are really moving and heart wrenching; it’s easy to laugh as Lawson describes the time that she artificially inseminated a cow for school, it’s much harder to do so as she describes her many failed pregnancies and the neurosis that she developed as a result.

Lawson balances both cow vaginas and her own with remarkable skill, and uses them and the other stories that she tells to paint a picture of a very neurotic, very real woman who in many ways isn’t all that different from you or I. When reading the individual stories that make up this book you might not be able to say “I’ve done that,” but I’m sure you’ll be able to identify with a lot of the feelings behind it. In many ways this book is almost an ironic depiction of Lawson; she describes herself as this extremely neurotic woman who over thinks even the simplest of social interactions and is constantly having to check herself in order to ensure that she’s fitting into the standards of normalcy projected by mainstream society – and when she fails to hilarity, disaster, and awkwardness ensues – but in her memoirs she reveals the woman that she really is. While I’ve never really read any of her blogs, it makes me wonder if she is as open there as she is in Let’s Pretend.

While I could go on praising Let’s Pretend and go into some of my favourite parts – in addition to the chapter about the cow’s vagina there’s also a lengthy part about how, while working in Human Resources, Lawson repeatedly had to track down male staff and ask them ‘is this your penis’ after they’d sent pictures of their genitalia out over the office email – I should probably point out a few of the more negative points. While I loved the beginning and loved (although, maybe to a lesser extent) the ending, I found the middle to be a bit slow. Lawson spent a lot of time on her anxiety, but the stories there seemed to be repetitive, especially as she detailed the many times that she embarrassed her husband while at one of his work parties. Where Let’s Pretend really shined was in the stories about her family and her friends. The story about when Lawson went with a group of women on a wine tasting was, in my opinion, a perfect example of Lawson’s neurosis but still had the charm of her interacting with people that she cares about and loves – the same cannot be said for the stories of her rambling about serial killers to her husband’s colleagues. While both might be true, one makes her out to be this very real person while the other makes her look just nuts.

Week in Review: August 27 - September 1

Movies - We finally reviewed Pete Smalls is Dead, which was joined by reviews of Sparkle, Armageddon, and Deep Impact.  None of these movies was particularly good, however I did really enjoy the two disaster flicks.  Joining them was a note discussing the two together.

Books - This week we finished off both Tales of Dunk and Egg, with "The Mystery Knight" and Lord John with "Lord John and the Plague of Zombies."  As both series are works in progress, I'm sure there will be later instalments, which I'm looking forward to reading when they come.

TV - TV show of the week was The Big Bang Theory, with its second season.  I found it to be an improvement on the first season, and will continue to review the show.

Recommendations - New movie recommendations were Lawless and For a Good Time Call.... I'm looking forward to seeing both, although the limited nature of the release of For a Good Time suggests that I'll have to wait until that one's on DVD.

Next Week - Next week we'll resume our Bond-a-thon with On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds are Forever - the last official Sean Connery film and the first non-Sean Connery film, although not in that order.  We'll also have the new Joseph Gordon-Levitt film, Premium Rush, and Lawless.  Book of the week will be Jenny Lawson's Let's Pretend this Never Happened, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Requests - Anything I should read or watch?  Let me know in the comments.

The Big Bang Theory (Season 2)

Starring: Johnny Galecki, Jim Parsons, Kaley Cuoco, Simon Helberg, Kunal Nayyar, Sara Gilbert
Creator: Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady
Genre: Sitcom
Rating: B+

The second season of The Big Bang Theory develops the characters a lot more, leading to the formation of a lot of the things that become key elements of the show.  We get to really know Sheldon (Parsons) as more than just a jackass; it’s in this season that he really becomes a neurotic asshole who could easily be diagnosed with a number of different disorders – although whenever anyone says that he’s crazy, Sheldon is always quick to deny it and say that his mother had him tested.  In rather weird way, Sheldon becomes loveable in this season – he is as infuriating for the viewer as he is for his friends, but in a way that makes him rather endearing and loveable.  Adding to Sheldon’s growth is the growth of Penny (Cuoco) and Leonard (Galecki), their friendship, and their feelings for each other.  I really enjoy the development of this relationship, and the way that gradually over time Leonard becomes less awkward around Penny and, in turn, Penny becomes a bit more… understanding of the men in the show.

The season opens and closes in a sort of opposites; at the start, Leonard and Penny have just completed their first date, which results in a very short lived and somewhat disastrous relationship as Leonard begins to over think things and the difference in intelligence between the two comes into play.  The bulk of the remainder of the season shows Leonard trying to move on and get over his feelings for Penny, although he isn’t exactly successful at this and even as her friend still winds up questioning the nature of their relationship and over thinking the meanings of things that she says.  By the end of the season, however, his over thinking seems to be in line, as Penny becomes rather distraught at the idea of him, and the other guys, going to the North Pole for three months.  In between the two events, Leslie Winkle (Gilbert) briefly dated first Leonard then Howard (Helberg), making one question just how the hell Howard managed to get laid.  Leonard also dates Stephanie Barnett (Sara Rue), proving that it is possible for Leonard to date someone that Sheldon approves of.  We’re also introduced to reoccurring characters, including Barry Kripke (John Ross Bowie), a co-worker and antagonist of the guys; Beverly Hofstadter (Christine Baranski), Leonard’s mother; and Stuart Bloom (Kevin Sussman) and Captain Sweatpants (Ian Scott Rudolph), the owner of the comic book store and a regular patron, respectively.

I think some of the humour in this season is my favourite of the show's course, at least so far.   The guest stars that they have this season are amazing - I especially like the episode where Summer Glau appears as herself, and the guys all try to hit on her.  This is really the last season where the focus is more on the random antics of the male characters in the show and not on their romantic entanglements, although the romantic entanglements do have a part.  I was a bit disappointed in the part that Gilbert played; while I enjoyed Leslie Winkle in the first season, I didn't like how they used her in the second season and found her to be rather one-dimensional.  This is definitely also the last season where the characters really are as they were at the start of the show, each one makes some form of growth in this season, however subtly, and even more growth in the later seasons.  You can definitely see here the ways that this show is evolving.

Leslie Winkle wasn't the only additional character that I disliked.  Barry Kripke never ceases to annoy me, both in his character and his speech.  While I enjoy Stuart overall, he tends to be a bit too depressing for my tastes - I'd like to see something good happen in his life for once.  He provides a great foil to the group, but is really kind of pathetic.  Not as pathetic as Captain Sweatpants, but that's a whole other issue.  I did love Leonard's mother, but so far I've loved all the parental introductions and would like to see more from the character's extended families.

Recommendations: August 31

Lawless -A western-crime film set during the Depression, Lawless is from newcomer Megan Ellison and already critically acclaimed director John Hillcoat.  IMDb is predicting great things of it, with one writer saying "if this film bombs, I give up and will only watch Fast & Furious/Step Up movies for an entire month."  With a response like that, I almost want Lawless to bomb.

For a Good Time, Call... - About a pair of girls (presumably fresh out of college) who become roommates and through a series of events decide to start their own phone sex line.  This movie is already being compared to Bridesmaids, which I think means it's supposed to be good, but in my opinion can really mean just about anything.  Presumably, it'll be funny.

Battleship - The latest game-turned movie film, Battleship is somehow inspired by the board game of the same name while being about aliens.  I've yet to actually hear a single good thing about this movie... but it has Alexander Skarsgård in it, so it can't be that bad, right?

The Lucky One  - The latest Nicholas Spark film, this one staring Zac Efron.  Like most Efron movies this definitely isn't the best, but still enjoyable.  Don't forget to check out my review of it.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits - I really wasn't a big fan of this animated children's movie, thinking that it kind of fell short of my expectations.  Not the worst, but definitely not up to the bar that Pixar's set.

The Fault in Our Stars - I haven't actually read this book myself, yet, but a friend from work recommended it to me and the little that I've looked at so far has told me that it's going to be a good and funny read.  It's about a teenage girl with cancer, so I'm sure that it's going to end up being of the dark humour type.

Armageddon vs. Deep Impact

When discussing the movies Deep Impact and Armageddon separately its rather challenging to not end up comparing the two.   Deep Impact was released just a month before the similarly themed Armageddon, but took the journey into a different direction - where Armageddon was about great men doing great things to save the planet, Deep Impact is about people trying to survive, although the great men do feature.  Both are really bad movies, but at the same time both are really great as well.

In the long run, I think Deep Impact is the better movie.  There are a lot of flaws behind it, both in the general plot and the way that the film itself is conveyed to its audience, but it's still a good movie.  It's heartwrenching and devastating and depicts more than just the people saving the world - it's also about the people being saved, or not saved.  The science also seems a lot better in this movie, it all makes just a bit more sense.  The one big issue is the whole idea that there's only one ship being sent up into space, with just one pack of nukes - you would hope that they'd send as many ships up with as many bombs as possible, but whatever

Armageddon, however, is the movie that's stood the test of time better.  There is a lot about Deep Impact that reveals itself as a product of the nineties, from the technology used to the sheer appearance of a lot of the cast.  The first time that Jon Favreau's character shows up on screen I had to do a double take - he looks so much younger.  I did a similar double take with Bruce Willis in Armageddon - he has hair! - but there's a lot more of it in Deep Impact.  In general, there's also a lot more about Armageddon that feels almost, although not entirely, timeless.  It feels as though it could be set during any period between when it was released (and even a few years earlier) to now.  Deep Impact, however, is firmly stuck in the ninties.

Deep Impact (1998)

Starring: Robert Duvall, Téa Leoni, Elijah Wood, Vanessa Redgrave, Maximilian Schell, Morgan Freeman

Director: Mimi Leder

Genre: Action, Drama, Romance

Rating: C+

Another disaster movie about a comet coming to destroy the planet. Given just how frequently this one comes up, it's almost as though the idea is ingrained within our human DNA - although if that's true, then one might have to question the origins of many horror movies.

May, 1998 a high school astronomy club discovers a comet that is eventually revealed to be heading towards the planet, set on destroying life as we know it.  Astronauts are sent up to the comet to destroy it, while people on Earth are left trying to deal with their impending doom.  The film alternates between telling the story of these "heroes" and the people who are left behind.

I think my favourite part about this movie is the many shots of the comet in space.  While I have no clue just how scientific Deep Impact is, the feel that it has to it is a lot more realistic than that in its compatriot, Armageddon.  This isn't about the great individuals saving the world, this is about the world facing the end of humanity and dealing with it.  One of the criticism of the film is that it's not a particularly emotional one, but in fact I found it to be more emotional than Armageddon - but I can be a bit of a sap.  The start of the film isn't emotional, it's bleak but not heart moving, but as Deep Impact begins to reach its climax it starts to pull the heartstrings.  It's hard to not feel emotion as everyone begins to really face the demise of the planet.

Deep Impact juggles three storylines - following the astronauts, lead by Captain  sent to destroy the comet, named Wolf-Biederman; reporter Jenny Lerner (Leoni) as she breaks the story and deals with the plethora of problems resulting from her divorced parents, Robin (Redgrave) and Jason (Schell); and Leo Biederman (Wood), the boy who discovered the comet.  These were each handled really well, although I think I would have liked less of Leoni's storyline and more of the Wood and astronaut lines.  I also would have liked to have seen more of Morgan Freeman, who plays President Tom Beck.  You can never go wrong with more Morgan Freeman.

Armageddon (1998)

Starring: Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Liv Tyler, Ben Affleck, Will Patton, Keith David, Steve Buscemi

Director: Michael Bay

Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Rating: C+

This is not a good movie - few Michael Bay films really are.  It's lame and cheesy and ridiculous and I absolutely love it.  Unlike the similarly themed Deep Impact, Armageddon is pretty much entirely about the attempt to save the planet and not really at all about the people left behind, facing the end of the Earth.  Sure there are some brief moments showing the latter half, but they're not what's important.  That's typical of a Michael Bay film though; they're not about the little people, they're about the great men doing great things and the women who love them.

Armageddon opens with the discovery of an asteroid the size of Texas that is going to hit the planet and wipe out all life on it - even bacteria - in less than a month.  NASA scientists, lead by Dan Truman (Thorton) try to devise a way to save the planet, the best plan of which involves sending a group of astronauts up to it, drill a big hole into the asteroid (named Dottie), drop a nuke into it, resulting in an explosion that will divide the asteroid into two halves - if done before passing the magic line, Dottie will fly past Earth, but if done too late then both halves will still collide.  In order to do this, NASA needs drillers, specifically Harry Stamper (Willis) and his crew, considered to be the best deep-sea drillers on the planet.  This group of ragtag drillers are sent into space with NASA's best, all hoping to blow up the asteroid before its too late.  Oh, and there's a love story - Harry's daughter, Grace (Tyler), is in love with reckless driller A.J. Frost (Affleck), a fact that Harry is not happy about.

Where to start... So, it being a Michael Bay film, the science isn't exactly... well, science-y.  Bay depends on one-liners, flashiness, and things going boom, not intelligence.  There are no real good moments of solitude and reflection, something is happening every moment of the film.  When the people on the earth are reflecting about the impending doom it's always in this moment of passion and anger, there's no calms or moments of sorrow.  When things go wrong its huge and disastrous - such as the explosion of the Russian space station.  A lot of this creates confusion, it's hard to tell just what it is that's going on at points in the movie.  It's also rather messed up that Armageddon doesn't do anything to show any contingency plans and what not - in Deep Impact there's the Noah's Ark style backup plan, but there's nothing of the sort mentioned in Armageddon.

Actually, I do want to take back part of an earlier statement.  This film does take little people and makes them into great people.  In the end it's really the same result, but it's not entirely the same intent.  There are some great moments of Liv Tyler's that are really moving, as well as a few with the crew themselves.  For the most part though, it's all just silliness.  Armageddon doesn't really address the issue of the impending doom so much as the issue of how to stop it.  No one's caring about what happens after the team fails, just about ensuring that the team doesn't fail.  As such there's this huge gap to the film, this thing that's missing.  Despite that, though, I still love it.  Its an old favourite and I suspect it always will be for me.  Definitely not the best action film out there, or the best Armageddon movie, but still a good one.

Sparkle (2012)

Starring: Jordin Sparks, Whitney Houston, Derek Luke, Mike Epps, Cameron Ejogo, Tika Sumpter, Omari Hardwick, Cee-Lo Green

Director: Salim Akil

Genre: Drama, Music

Rating: C

Have you ever gone on Wikipedia and read the reviews or reception section of a movie and found yourself thinking "wow, this is incredibly biased"?  That's how I felt about Sparkle.  While a good portion of the reception section of Sparkle's Wikipedia page acknowledges the fact that it's not exactly the best movie, the way that it starts really implies that people think otherwise.  People should not think otherwise.  While Sparkle is an enjoyable movie and definitely has its great aspects it's not a particularly good movie.  The music is there - Sparks, Ejogo, and Sumpter each have great voices and Houston is a legend - but the plot itself is unoriginal, cliched, and predictable.  If I could think of another way to say something along those lines, I'd totally say it.

Sparkle tells the tale of Sparkle Anderson (Sparks), her sisters, Sister (Ejogo) and Dee (Sumpter), and their journey into fame, despite the opposition of their mother, Emma (Houston).  Sister is acknowledged as the best singer of the group, as well as the most reckless, and basically a whore.  Dee is the smart one of the trio; she mostly stays out of trouble and is attempting to get into medical school.  Sparkle, however, is somewhere in between - she acts demure and innocent and has horrible self esteem, but has the potential to be a talented songwriter and singer.  All of this, however, is disapproved of by their mother, who once attempted to become a singer as well, but failed rather miserably, and is now a uber religious, uper proper, respectable woman.

For a movie that's coming out now, I'm actually kind of embarrassed by how overused so many of the plot points were.  There really wasn't anything original about Sparkle, beyond the music itself.  You've even seen the characters before, although I do give each of the actors credit in doing their best with the roles that were given to them.  I love both Whitney Houston and Cameron Ejogo, who I felt brought the most to their roles.  They might have been characters that you've seen many times before, but I still enjoyed the journeys that they took.  I pretty much knew what was going to happen before it happened, but I still found myself hoping that they would make the right decisions.  I did kind of find something ironic about the fact that Whitney Houston was playing a church going woman with a troubled past, who happened to be the mother of a singer with a drug problem and an abusive husband.  Is Satin (Epps) her husband?  I'm not certain; they do get engaged and it's implied that they might have gotten married, but we never see it and it's never really established.

That lack of establishment is actually part of the problem of the movie.  It washes over the romantic elements of the plot and rushes the more dramatic elements, focusing instead on montages of the girls singing and Sister being beaten.  While the music is the film's strong point, I think Akil forgot that there was more to the movie than just that.  The relationship between Satin and Sister is developed some what, as is the relationships between the girls and their mother, but everything else is kind of left hanging.  It was a bit of a disappointment, really, although the fact that what they did develop was pretty much stereotypical of a music based movie, I guess the lack of development wasn't all that bad.  It might have been interesting to see just how many more cliches they could have tossed in there, though.

Pete Smalls is Dead (2010)

Starring: Peter Dinklage, Mark Boone, Junior, Steve Buscemi, Rosie Perez, Seymour Cassel, Tim Roth

Director: Alexandre Rockwell

Genre: Comedy

Rating: D

This was not a good movie.  I have to apologize twice; once for having recommended it in the first place - even if said recommendation was somewhat of a joke to begin with - and again for having delayed this review so much.  In my defence, however, the recommendation came before I'd seen the movie and the delay was due to an unplanned schedule change as the result of celebrity deaths.  Not entirely excusable, but it's something.

Pete Smalls is Dead is about three friends - K.C. (Dinklage), Jack (Boone), and Pete Smalls (Roth).  They each set out at some point to make it big in Hollywood, but the only one to actually be successful is Smalls - who becomes a big shot director.  Jack ended up becoming an acting teacher, while K.C. owns a laundromat, is ten grand in debt, and his best friend is his dog.  The film opens with Smalls' death then follows up with K.C. being attacked and his dog kidnapped (dog-napped?).  K.C. has no intention of going to Smalls' funeral, until Jack offers to give him the money that he needs to get his dog back.  This offer, however, is a lot more complicated than it seems, and from the funeral to the end of the movie K.C. and Jack are on this intricate journey to get the money that K.C. needs and embark on the project that Jack always believed was theirs.

The thing that sucks most about Pete Smalls is that it could have been a great movie - it should have been a great movie.  There's this amazing cast, from the people with larger parts to the bit parts.  There's more than a few people who I didn't really know in this, but I found that their acting ability was able to keep up with the two primary leads of Dinklage and Boone.  There was also a really interesting premise behind the film, one that's fairly tried and tested, but at the same time it's being approached from a different angle.  It's a movie that has all this potential but it falls short.

The problem with Pete Smalls is not the acting or the script or anything, but the fact that the movie is just too convoluted.  It's too unrealistic and ridiculous.  I love the characters of K.C. and Jack, but everyone else in this movie just made me go "what the...?" occasionally with an expletive or two added on to the end to it.  While I did enjoy where the journey ended, the actual journey itself isn't really worth it.  The movie's just too messed up, too over the top, too convoluted.  There's a lot to it that is reminiscent of an old film noir, but not actually enough to make the film actually good.  It's one of those films that could have been, but wasn't.

The Mystery Knight

Author: George R.R. Martin
Genre: Novella, Fantasy
Rating: A-

The third novella in George R.R. Martin's Tales of Dunk and Egg "The Mystery Knight" reunites us with Ser Dunk and Prince Egg, and of course Egg's boot.  In this story, Dunk and Egg are headed north when they are sidetracked by a wedding feast, and tourney, in honour of the marriage of Lord Ambrose Butterwell and a daughter of Lord Frey.  Things are not all what they seem at the tourney, however, and there is a lot of talk of the Blackfyre Rebellion.

I think the thing that I like most about "The Mystery Knight" was that it divulged more into the history of Westeros while also making it part of the present.  There's the whole cliché that history repeats, and here Martin proves just how true that is.  I like the way that Dunk's life has drastically changed since he met Egg, and I also really like how, despite being a Martin creation, he's a very likeable character.  He isn't exactly the brightest and he certainly isn't the best jouster - both facts which he is well aware of.  He's almost like a Stark in that you really can't help but root for him, no matter how many times his actions lead him into trouble.  In contrast, there's Egg who while being likeable is far more arrogant than his counterpart.  You learn a lot more about Westeros from the mouth of Egg than you do from the thoughts of Dunk, but half the time his mouth opens you can't help but cringe and hope that Dunk clouts him.  Especially when he's mentioning his boot, which the contents of have caused as much trouble as relief.

My favourite part of this story was the fact that Dunk finally got to see the consequences for some of his previous actions, notably those in "The Hedge Knight."  The consequences of that first story are huge, as is Dunk, and it's nice to see that people haven't forgotten him.  Likewise, it's nice to see consequences to Egg's arrogance.  I'm not exactly sure that Egg's learned from his actions, but a lot of "The Mystery Knight" was showing the reader just what would happen if Egg's identity ever became common knowledge. Even when he does pull out his boot things don't exactly go the way that he expects, although once again I'm not sure if Egg realizes as much yet.  Once again, I'm looking forward to the next installation in this series.

Lord John and the Plague of Zombies

Author:Diana Gabaldon

Genre: Historical,Mystery, Novella

Rating: A-

 “Lord John and the Plague of Zombies” takes Lord John Grey to Jamaica, where he must deal with slaves, rebellions, corrupt Englishmen, snakes, and zombies, although not in that order.  At the start of the novel Grey has just arrived at Jamaica, summoned by the Governor to suppress a slave rebellion.  The rebellion is not entirely what it seems, with those rebelling against the English rule being not slaves but rather the descendants of the descendants of runaway slaves, no one knowing just who technically owns them.  What’s more is that the Governor’s home is overrun by snakes and a slave warns Grey to stay away from the Governor or else run the risk of being assaulted by a flesh eating zombie.  As per usual, it all goes to hell from there.

This story would have fit in well within the Lord John and the Hand of Devils anthology, had it been published later.  The way in which Gabaldon brings up the idea of the supernatural and then dismisses it is handled very nicely, although she does less dismissing than done in the previous novellas.  There are still a few questions that one could ask, although none that are of any great significance.  I really liked the way in which she continued to bring in old foes for Grey to encounter – even going so far as to re-introduce a foe from the early Outlander books.  I really like the way that each of these stories is for the most part a standalone story, with the plot being largely resolved by the story’s conclusion, but at the same time are all interconnected.  “Plague of Zombies” is like this, with elements of the story coming from The Scottish Prisoner and “The Custom of the Army.”  The one thing that I did dislike a bit was that there wasn’t really indication as to just when this story takes place; I know that it is at some point after the events of The Scottish Prisoner and before some of the events of the Outlander novel Voyager, but not exactly when. As such, it’s a bit discombobulating, trying to figure out just exactly what the time frame is.  Hopefully when Gabaldon publishes “Plague of Zombies” in her own anthology she remedies this by including a date at the start of the work. Otherwise, I thoroughly enjoyed it.