It's been a busy weekend. I was in Youngstown for Thanksgiving, and back in Reynoldsburg the very next day. I turned 23 and got a thumbs-up on my job at work thus far.
Thanksgiving was fun. As per usual, my family drank a bunch of wine and got silly. After we ate, Nick wanted to go throw a football around outside. Since we were both...silly with wine, this turned into about an hour-and-a-half's worth of shtick in the street, entertaining the rest of my family.
Nick, Amy and I eventually watched "Deal or No Deal" with the rest of my family, making fun of a southern woman who kept saying "might could," as in, "I might-could take that deal." She was also calling her husband "Love Dove." We have no idea what his real name was. Damn south. Hannah was asleep from about 6:30 that evening until about 7:30 the next morning.
At any rate, Monday was my birthday. I had to go into work to do all of my ordering and things, and then I came home. When I arrived home, Amy was waiting for me on the couch. There was a card on the table, that said, "OPEN ME FIRST." Tied to the chair was a balloon that featured Darth Vader. Taped on the balloon was a note imploring me to "Use The Force" to find my presents. So for the next ten or so minutes I wandered around the apartment on a scavenger hunt for my presents.
She's the one for me.
If you think this typing looks a little different, it is. It's a very subtle change and I applaud you for finding it. The change is that I got a laptop computer.
Amy and I made a compromise to the effect that I could get a laptop if we could start seriously shopping for engagement rings. This is a compromise I could live with. So, while we were out Monday night, we stopped in at Best Buy because one of her gifts was a $10 gift card (which had a dreidel on it). On a whim, I suggested we go back and look and laptops, just to start researching. After a few minutes of looking, I happened across one that caught my eye. It was great price for the features that it had, and since it had Windows Media Center, when the Vista upgrade came out, this one would come with Vista Premium. And on top of that, if I got a wireless router and signed up for the Geek Squad to come and set up two computers on it, I would get a $150 rebate. So, all said, I would pay $10 for a router and an appointment. I didn't get it Monday night, but we did some more looking around.
Yesterday we came back to Best Buy and I bought it. It's great.
Lastly, I'd like to ,with your indulgence (like you have a choice), mention a few work-related items. First of all, I found out what the deal is with my meeting in Maryland next Thursday. My flight out of Columbus is at 6:15 a.m., and my flight back TO Columbus is at 5:40 in the evening. I hope I get paid for this.
Also, there's a very good chance I'm going to win the trip to Costa Rica. Basically, there's a holiday coffee competition going on in the region. The store that sells the most as a percentage of the overall store sales, wins a trip for a week to Costa Rica, along with 10 or 11 other people.
Lastly, the regional director-type for coffee was in yesterday and today, but he had to leave earlier than he expected today, so I didn't get a chance to talk to him. But I called him, and he said that I was doing a really good job and that he's really impressed with what I've done to bring the sales back up and to make everything look better.
Success!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Casino Royale
This is a first for this blog: an actual, first-run movie review. You see, the thing is, ticket prices are ridiculously expensive these days, and if there's a movie I'm only kind-of interested in seeing, I'm perfectly content to wait until Netflix, the wonder that it is, sends it to me wrapped in love and a waxed paper sleeve.
So unless there's something I really want to see, I don't go to the theater all that much. I dig the cheap theater with the second-run movies, but I live pretty far away from one, so that the convenience of checking out a flick is nil.
However, Casino Royale is something that I really wanted to see, and Amy agreed to seeing it, stating that she wouldn't mind seeing Daniel Craig shirtless. Whatever. He's attractive. I get it.
Anyways, I wanted to get my overall opinion in early, to convince you that it's worth the money.
You want to see this movie.
When the word broke that Daniel Craig would be the new Bond, I was all for it. I thought he was good in Road to Perdition and Layer Cake, and I could see what he could bring to the role. But a lot of people scoffed and threatened boycotts. Whether any of them made good on the threat is something I don't know, especially when the first trailers were released.
I was all for change because the series had started to become a joke unto itself. It became about a few stock items in each submission: the gadgets, the car, the chick. I noticed a while ago that the movies have to have the climax take place in the following places: underwater, in the air, or on land. This may seem obvious, but take a look back at the movies. You can predict what it's going to be 9 out of 10 times. In the beginning of Tomorrow Never Dies, a submarine gets sunk by a weird torpedo: this one's going to take place at sea. Moonraker: this one's obvious. No matter what the story, who the actor is, who the Bond Girl is, you knew what was going to happen. For a while, the producers considered opening up the franchise as a director showcase. What would John Woo's Bond be like? And exactly how much blood would be in Tarantino's Bond? It seemed like an interesting prospect.
But then, something else happened. In almost clear deference to Batman Begins, the solution to a stale, jokey franchise is to take it back to square one. And for those of you who don't know, Casino Royale is the very first Bond novel Ian Fleming ever wrote.
Okay. Enough about backstory - let's get to the movie. It's intense - the most intense in the series, in my opinion. We start out just as Bond gets his 00 status. He's a rookie, and it shows. He shows definite potential for the job, but he's a little sloppy and way too arrogant. He's put on his first mission and it goes wrong somewhere, which nearly leaves him out in the cold completely.
The first mission, while I won't deal out spoilers, is a great sequence. Craig lends a great physicality to the role that was missing from Brosnan's later entries and pretty much all of Roger Moore's leathery hide. I mean, seriously. He was like "Bond: Age 52."
Craig's physicality definitely shows in pretty much all of the action-oriented scenes. The cool thing is that, when the fights happen, there's no slow-motion, so everything goes amazingly quickly. Another neat thing is that, during all of the action-sequences, when Craig is doing all this chasing and fighting, while he's still a young scrapper, every now and again he shows some of the Bond intellect we are used to. For instance, while chasing a criminal that is climbing up a thin wire holding up a bunch of pipes on a construction site, instead of chasing him up the wire, Bond shoots the lever and is launched quickly upward. Also - don't have a lot of bullets but have a lot of people to shoot? Aim for something that blows up.
Something else I wanted to talk about is the music. We all know the Bond theme. It's a globally recognized series of notes. However, in this movie, we don't hear it but only a rare few times. It's really fun when he first puts on The Tuxedo, and the theme plays quietly with subtlety in the back. Also, a negative about the music. I hated the song. I'm not a Chris Cornell fan, and why he was chosen to write and perform the song is way beyond me. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.
As naturally occurs in movies that are based on old novels, some updating needs to take place. One of the things changed was the gambling. Instead of the obscure card game played in the original novel, they play Hold 'Em Poker. But, of course, this is allowed. After all, you wouldn't see Pinochle in a Western - you'd invariably see Five Card Stud.
However, as Bond himself has some weak moments, as does this movie. Somewhere in the second half of the movie, Bond mutters a really cheesy line. You'll know it when you hear it. And there's also the obligatory love story subsumed in there that feels, well, just obligatory. It's obvious that this was meant to be an action flick.
Beyond Craig himself, there are some really great performances. Eva Green plays the lovely Vesper Lynd, who is responsible for the money Bond is gambling with, and she lends a sweet vulnerability and naivety to the role. Mads Mikkelsen is disturbingly maniacal. There are physical bad guys and there are brainy bad guys. Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre is just quietly menacing.
A few funny moments happened in the theater while watching the movie. The first happened when the MI6 correspondence car first showed on screen. Amy and I heard about 50 guys climaxing. The opposite happened during the torture scene, when Amy and I heard just about every guy inhaling sharply in sympathetic pain. It was a little disturbing for a guy to watch, in their defense.
To put an end to this ridiculously long post, you must see this movie if you're a Bond fan (die-hard or moderate) or even if you just dig really great action movies. This one certainly breathes life into a franchise that was left asphyxiating (that's a hard word to spell) in mediocrity.
So unless there's something I really want to see, I don't go to the theater all that much. I dig the cheap theater with the second-run movies, but I live pretty far away from one, so that the convenience of checking out a flick is nil.
However, Casino Royale is something that I really wanted to see, and Amy agreed to seeing it, stating that she wouldn't mind seeing Daniel Craig shirtless. Whatever. He's attractive. I get it.
Anyways, I wanted to get my overall opinion in early, to convince you that it's worth the money.
You want to see this movie.
When the word broke that Daniel Craig would be the new Bond, I was all for it. I thought he was good in Road to Perdition and Layer Cake, and I could see what he could bring to the role. But a lot of people scoffed and threatened boycotts. Whether any of them made good on the threat is something I don't know, especially when the first trailers were released.
I was all for change because the series had started to become a joke unto itself. It became about a few stock items in each submission: the gadgets, the car, the chick. I noticed a while ago that the movies have to have the climax take place in the following places: underwater, in the air, or on land. This may seem obvious, but take a look back at the movies. You can predict what it's going to be 9 out of 10 times. In the beginning of Tomorrow Never Dies, a submarine gets sunk by a weird torpedo: this one's going to take place at sea. Moonraker: this one's obvious. No matter what the story, who the actor is, who the Bond Girl is, you knew what was going to happen. For a while, the producers considered opening up the franchise as a director showcase. What would John Woo's Bond be like? And exactly how much blood would be in Tarantino's Bond? It seemed like an interesting prospect.
But then, something else happened. In almost clear deference to Batman Begins, the solution to a stale, jokey franchise is to take it back to square one. And for those of you who don't know, Casino Royale is the very first Bond novel Ian Fleming ever wrote.
Okay. Enough about backstory - let's get to the movie. It's intense - the most intense in the series, in my opinion. We start out just as Bond gets his 00 status. He's a rookie, and it shows. He shows definite potential for the job, but he's a little sloppy and way too arrogant. He's put on his first mission and it goes wrong somewhere, which nearly leaves him out in the cold completely.
The first mission, while I won't deal out spoilers, is a great sequence. Craig lends a great physicality to the role that was missing from Brosnan's later entries and pretty much all of Roger Moore's leathery hide. I mean, seriously. He was like "Bond: Age 52."
Craig's physicality definitely shows in pretty much all of the action-oriented scenes. The cool thing is that, when the fights happen, there's no slow-motion, so everything goes amazingly quickly. Another neat thing is that, during all of the action-sequences, when Craig is doing all this chasing and fighting, while he's still a young scrapper, every now and again he shows some of the Bond intellect we are used to. For instance, while chasing a criminal that is climbing up a thin wire holding up a bunch of pipes on a construction site, instead of chasing him up the wire, Bond shoots the lever and is launched quickly upward. Also - don't have a lot of bullets but have a lot of people to shoot? Aim for something that blows up.
Something else I wanted to talk about is the music. We all know the Bond theme. It's a globally recognized series of notes. However, in this movie, we don't hear it but only a rare few times. It's really fun when he first puts on The Tuxedo, and the theme plays quietly with subtlety in the back. Also, a negative about the music. I hated the song. I'm not a Chris Cornell fan, and why he was chosen to write and perform the song is way beyond me. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.
As naturally occurs in movies that are based on old novels, some updating needs to take place. One of the things changed was the gambling. Instead of the obscure card game played in the original novel, they play Hold 'Em Poker. But, of course, this is allowed. After all, you wouldn't see Pinochle in a Western - you'd invariably see Five Card Stud.
However, as Bond himself has some weak moments, as does this movie. Somewhere in the second half of the movie, Bond mutters a really cheesy line. You'll know it when you hear it. And there's also the obligatory love story subsumed in there that feels, well, just obligatory. It's obvious that this was meant to be an action flick.
Beyond Craig himself, there are some really great performances. Eva Green plays the lovely Vesper Lynd, who is responsible for the money Bond is gambling with, and she lends a sweet vulnerability and naivety to the role. Mads Mikkelsen is disturbingly maniacal. There are physical bad guys and there are brainy bad guys. Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre is just quietly menacing.
A few funny moments happened in the theater while watching the movie. The first happened when the MI6 correspondence car first showed on screen. Amy and I heard about 50 guys climaxing. The opposite happened during the torture scene, when Amy and I heard just about every guy inhaling sharply in sympathetic pain. It was a little disturbing for a guy to watch, in their defense.
To put an end to this ridiculously long post, you must see this movie if you're a Bond fan (die-hard or moderate) or even if you just dig really great action movies. This one certainly breathes life into a franchise that was left asphyxiating (that's a hard word to spell) in mediocrity.
Thank You for Smoking
One of the most impressive things a movie can do is to make the audience get behind the bad guy. It worked ridiculously well for Mel Gibson in Payback, one of my all-time favorites (which is coming out with a drastically re-cut version after the new year).
In Thank You for Smoking, you really get behind Aaron Eckhart as he talks his way into making a sick-child group seem evil, getting cigarettes into space and as he mentors his son into being a successful arguer.
Eckhart plays Nick Naylor, the very public face of the collection of cigarette companies commonly referred to as Big Tobacco. As he puts it, he is "paid to talk." Officially, his title is the lobbyist for the companies, trying to get his way in Washington, D.C. He has two comrades, the lobbyist for Alcohol, Maria Bello, and the lobbyist for the Firearm industry, the amazingly funny David Koechner, The three of them make up they are informally called the "Merchants of Death," or the MOD Squad.
Throughout the course of the film, Eckhart talks to his son's class about being a lobbyist, during which he makes the point of "deciding for yourself what's best," which sounds dangerously close to encouraging a class of 6th graders to start smoking. Somewhere in the fold, Katie Holmes, a reporter for a national newspaper, interviews Eckhart for a piece in her paper, and then has sex with him a bunch of times. Eckhart also has to deal with William H. Macy, a senator from Vermont, who has taken it upon himself to adorn every cigarette pack with a big skull-and-crossbones picture with the word "POISON" emblazoned underneath it.
But perhaps the crux of the film is when he takes his son, who he only gets to see on the weekend, due to divorce, on his business trip to Los Angeles to try and get some cigarette product-placement in the film industry. Eckhart wants his son to see just what he does up close, and his son wants to learn more about convincing people to do whatever he wants them to believe. In a choice scene, Eckhart is teaching his son the tricks of the arguing trade. In a mock debate about chocolate versus vanilla ice cream, Eckhart teaches his son that, if he proves that vanilla is not the best flavor in the world, then by default he's won. Proving the other side wrong makes you right.
This is one of the smartest satires I've ever seen. Every scene that depicts Nick Naylor as the good guy, every scene the depicts the senator of Vermont a socks-with-sandals-wearing hippie, every joke David Koechner makes, you can feel satire oozing out of it. However, the remarkable thing is that, at the center of all the satire, the story is about a father trying to make a connection with a son he rarely sees, a son that sees him as the hero we all used to see our fathers as.
In the end, if you want a sometimes-biting-but sometimes-subtle satire, wrapped inside a bunch of very well-executed jokes and some affecting father-son moments, this is the movie for you.
In Thank You for Smoking, you really get behind Aaron Eckhart as he talks his way into making a sick-child group seem evil, getting cigarettes into space and as he mentors his son into being a successful arguer.
Eckhart plays Nick Naylor, the very public face of the collection of cigarette companies commonly referred to as Big Tobacco. As he puts it, he is "paid to talk." Officially, his title is the lobbyist for the companies, trying to get his way in Washington, D.C. He has two comrades, the lobbyist for Alcohol, Maria Bello, and the lobbyist for the Firearm industry, the amazingly funny David Koechner, The three of them make up they are informally called the "Merchants of Death," or the MOD Squad.
Throughout the course of the film, Eckhart talks to his son's class about being a lobbyist, during which he makes the point of "deciding for yourself what's best," which sounds dangerously close to encouraging a class of 6th graders to start smoking. Somewhere in the fold, Katie Holmes, a reporter for a national newspaper, interviews Eckhart for a piece in her paper, and then has sex with him a bunch of times. Eckhart also has to deal with William H. Macy, a senator from Vermont, who has taken it upon himself to adorn every cigarette pack with a big skull-and-crossbones picture with the word "POISON" emblazoned underneath it.
But perhaps the crux of the film is when he takes his son, who he only gets to see on the weekend, due to divorce, on his business trip to Los Angeles to try and get some cigarette product-placement in the film industry. Eckhart wants his son to see just what he does up close, and his son wants to learn more about convincing people to do whatever he wants them to believe. In a choice scene, Eckhart is teaching his son the tricks of the arguing trade. In a mock debate about chocolate versus vanilla ice cream, Eckhart teaches his son that, if he proves that vanilla is not the best flavor in the world, then by default he's won. Proving the other side wrong makes you right.
This is one of the smartest satires I've ever seen. Every scene that depicts Nick Naylor as the good guy, every scene the depicts the senator of Vermont a socks-with-sandals-wearing hippie, every joke David Koechner makes, you can feel satire oozing out of it. However, the remarkable thing is that, at the center of all the satire, the story is about a father trying to make a connection with a son he rarely sees, a son that sees him as the hero we all used to see our fathers as.
In the end, if you want a sometimes-biting-but sometimes-subtle satire, wrapped inside a bunch of very well-executed jokes and some affecting father-son moments, this is the movie for you.
Perks of the job, in a manner of speaking.
It appears that, in two weeks, I will be taking a day trip to Maryland for work.
I will fly out in the morning to attend an 11 a.m. meeting, and then fly back sometime after that is done.
Why, exactly, is this happening? Well, there is some new technology available to us (the company and the coffee area I maintain) that will help smooth out the ordering process. Everything will be computerized and I will be using a computer do-hickey to scan what I have, and the amount I have, and an electronic order will be automatically sent to the company.
How cool is that?
And I'm pretty sure, after the new year, that I'll be taking another work-related trip to Colorado. How's about that?
I will fly out in the morning to attend an 11 a.m. meeting, and then fly back sometime after that is done.
Why, exactly, is this happening? Well, there is some new technology available to us (the company and the coffee area I maintain) that will help smooth out the ordering process. Everything will be computerized and I will be using a computer do-hickey to scan what I have, and the amount I have, and an electronic order will be automatically sent to the company.
How cool is that?
And I'm pretty sure, after the new year, that I'll be taking another work-related trip to Colorado. How's about that?
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Twilight Samurai
If it's one thing I enjoy in movies, judging from the past few movies I've seen, it's stripped-down stories contradicting heroic generalities.
I reviewed Dirty Harry and said it was about how being a cop isn't all it's cracked up to be, and how you can't always be a hero.
In The Twilight Samurai, we see a man both satisfied and dissatisfied with his own position, and how unwilling he is to be a warrior.
This movie is about a very low-level samurai near the end of feudal Japan whose wife has been killed by a disease they call "consumption," or tuberculosis. So he's left to care for his two young daughters and his aging, senile mother. So when it's time to come home from work, it's all making dinner and tending to his garden. Oftentimes, he doesn't even have time to bathe himself.
The woman he married was in a station above his own, and she always wanted him to try to rise in his station, seeking to quell her family's disgust. So when she eventually died, she requested a funeral way more expensive than he could afford, leaving him in drastic debt. However, he's made peace with his own way of life, and he truly loves his daughters. He's made them do book learning, something women were not normally even allowed to do, in favor of learning just enough to make a proper home. He doesn't even seem to care that his co-workers call him "Twilight" because he never wants to go out drinking and he never seems happy at all.
Upon visiting a friend of his, he learns that a childhood friend of his, a girl named Tomoe, has been divorced from her husband, a high-ranking samurai, because he habitually got drunk and beat her. A divorce was also controversial, and getting one required direct permission from the lordship. He inadvertently gets in the middle when the ex-husband comes around, and challenges him to a duel.
I won't tell you how the duel goes down - it's one of the more exciting scenes in the movie. But our hero fares well.
Eventually, he gets called upon to kill a renegade general who refuses to commit suicide upon orders from high above. Only, Twilight doesn't want to. He's not a killer, and he's been considering giving up the sword to become a farmer. But he's a samurai, and he has to obey orders.
Twilight's character represents the general feeling towards samurai near the end of the 19th century - who needs them anymore? There isn't a whole lot to fight for - every time a leader dies, there's a political war that causes former allies to fight against one another. It's a shit life.
The story and acting, all great, put aside, another thing to take note of is the period recreation. Everything looks beautiful and genuine. There are a lot of earthy tones and a lot of shots of open fields. I've seen a bunch of period pieces, and one of the main differences between the good and the bad is how much effort is put into generating every detail relevant to that period.
Likewise, there are a lot of good medieval movies - but put in a rock and roll soundtrack, and the entire movie gets turned to complete crap (see: the unbelievably god-awful A Knight's Tale).
This one is a great twist on the familiar samurai genre flick. This is a thinking man's samurai. Definitely rent it. Or borrow it from your local library, like I did.
I reviewed Dirty Harry and said it was about how being a cop isn't all it's cracked up to be, and how you can't always be a hero.
In The Twilight Samurai, we see a man both satisfied and dissatisfied with his own position, and how unwilling he is to be a warrior.
This movie is about a very low-level samurai near the end of feudal Japan whose wife has been killed by a disease they call "consumption," or tuberculosis. So he's left to care for his two young daughters and his aging, senile mother. So when it's time to come home from work, it's all making dinner and tending to his garden. Oftentimes, he doesn't even have time to bathe himself.
The woman he married was in a station above his own, and she always wanted him to try to rise in his station, seeking to quell her family's disgust. So when she eventually died, she requested a funeral way more expensive than he could afford, leaving him in drastic debt. However, he's made peace with his own way of life, and he truly loves his daughters. He's made them do book learning, something women were not normally even allowed to do, in favor of learning just enough to make a proper home. He doesn't even seem to care that his co-workers call him "Twilight" because he never wants to go out drinking and he never seems happy at all.
Upon visiting a friend of his, he learns that a childhood friend of his, a girl named Tomoe, has been divorced from her husband, a high-ranking samurai, because he habitually got drunk and beat her. A divorce was also controversial, and getting one required direct permission from the lordship. He inadvertently gets in the middle when the ex-husband comes around, and challenges him to a duel.
I won't tell you how the duel goes down - it's one of the more exciting scenes in the movie. But our hero fares well.
Eventually, he gets called upon to kill a renegade general who refuses to commit suicide upon orders from high above. Only, Twilight doesn't want to. He's not a killer, and he's been considering giving up the sword to become a farmer. But he's a samurai, and he has to obey orders.
Twilight's character represents the general feeling towards samurai near the end of the 19th century - who needs them anymore? There isn't a whole lot to fight for - every time a leader dies, there's a political war that causes former allies to fight against one another. It's a shit life.
The story and acting, all great, put aside, another thing to take note of is the period recreation. Everything looks beautiful and genuine. There are a lot of earthy tones and a lot of shots of open fields. I've seen a bunch of period pieces, and one of the main differences between the good and the bad is how much effort is put into generating every detail relevant to that period.
Likewise, there are a lot of good medieval movies - but put in a rock and roll soundtrack, and the entire movie gets turned to complete crap (see: the unbelievably god-awful A Knight's Tale).
This one is a great twist on the familiar samurai genre flick. This is a thinking man's samurai. Definitely rent it. Or borrow it from your local library, like I did.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Dirty Harry
Without a doubt, my favorite cop movie of all time is Bullitt, starring Steve McQueen. It is a movie that I watched with my father some years ago, when he got a copy of it on VHS. A while ago, I got it on DVD and have watched it several more times, absorbing more and more each time.
I bring this up because of its similarities to today's subject, Dirty Harry, starring, of course, the Magnum toting Clint Eastwood.
There are several similarities. For one, the settings are both the same: San Francisco. The music for both was done by Lalo Schifrin, who has done a ridiculous amount of movie soundtracks, including, but not limited to, THX 1138, Enter the Dragon, The Amityville Horror, the Mission: Impossible trilogy, the Rush Hour movies, After the Sunset, and the theme song for the second "Splinter Cell" video game. They also feature characters whose reputations seem to precede them, not all of the time in a positive way.
Both of these films feature main characters who are not completely satisfied with their lives, as Callahan demonstrates near the beginning when he dolefully stops about four bank robbers while chewing the only bite of his hot dog he got before shots were fired (this is the scene where he spews the famous line about "I know what you're thinking: did he fire six shots or only five...?"). And throughout the movie, various characters make brief references to Callahan's wife, only to immediately correct themselves with, "Oh...sorry Harry."
The opening shot of Harry features the San Fransisco Police Department's memorial wall, listing the men who've fallen on duty, suggesting that being a cop isn't all what it's cracked up to be in the movies (which is odd because at one point during the movie, Callahan jumps on top of a moving school bus).
In terms of reputation, which I mentioned earlier, Callahan gets the nickname Dirty Harry, as revealed after he tricks a jumper into attacking him by insulting him, because he's called whenever someone's dirty work needs doing. As his partner says it, "He's always given the shit end of the stick."
The main plot of the film is that there's a rooftop sniper loose in S.F. and he's randomly shooting one person a day, until he gets a ransom of $100,000 dollars. Pretty meager by today's standards, of course, but that was, what, 35 years ago? Things go haywire when a stakeout leaves the sniper, who calls himself Scorpio (and we never learn his real name), very aware that the cops are onto him. So, he takes a hostage and demands more money.
The major plot piece occurs near the middle of the movie, where Scorpio has Callahan running around the dirty San Francisco nightlife with $200,000 in cash in a yellow suitcase.
And while we're on the subject, one of the major characters in this movie is the city of San Francisco. Filmed merely three years after Bullitt, this San Fran is much grittier and scummier, and the fact that Callahan get stopped by mugger and perverts on his frantic trip around the city proves this point.
When Callahan delivers the money, Scorpio reveals that he's going to kill the girl anyways, and runs off. Long story short, he catches Scorpio and arrests him.
In any normal movie, this would be where the resolution would hit. By arresting Scorpio, the location of the girl would be revealed, and she would be returned to her parents with only minor psychological damage. Hell, it happened in Silence of the Lambs, and that movie was way more messed up.
But you'd be wrong to think all of that. This is a different kind of movie. The girl is found, dead, and Scorpio's arrest doesn't stick because Callahan broke into his house without a warrant, rendering the rifle Scorpio used to kill two people inadmissible as evidence. Also, Callahan shot Scorpio in the leg to stop him from running, and then stepped on his gunshot wound to force him to reveal the location of the girl. Ah, well, that's law for you. Ask everyone's favorite deaf criminal justice/law student/i don't remember exactly what it's called-type girl Brooke.
The climax actually occurs after Scorpio strikes again, having been released back on the streets due to Callahan's altruistic, if legally flawed, law enforcement techniques. He hijacks a bus full of schoolchildren and now demands the money and a jet waiting for him at the airport.
After all this excitement, running around San Fran, jumping onto a moving school bus, and so on, Callahan shows he doesn't quite dig it all. As he tells the wife of his wounded partner, "I don't know why [I'm still here]..I really don't." One of the last shots of the movie has Callahan ripping the badge out of his wallet and hurling it into the water of the big climatic set piece.
And if Dirty Harry didn't spawn four sequels, this would have been a grander gesture to remember.
This is a great movie, and certainly a classic. It has very memorable moments and very memorable lines. The performances, especially Clint Eastwood's, are really great. It's major flaw, however, is that its ideology seems to contradict itself. Its opening shot and its closing shot seem to convey the fact that being a cop isn't a glamorous job, and it makes you consider your self-worth. But a lot of it in between, especially the bus sequence, seem to convey the opposite notion. Rooftop shoot-outs don't normally occur on the job, especially right after seeing, with binoculars, a naked girl, with two other girls starting to strip, through their apartment window, which happens to be open in the middle of the night.
This is definitely a renter, but it's a buyer for die-hard fans.
I bring this up because of its similarities to today's subject, Dirty Harry, starring, of course, the Magnum toting Clint Eastwood.
There are several similarities. For one, the settings are both the same: San Francisco. The music for both was done by Lalo Schifrin, who has done a ridiculous amount of movie soundtracks, including, but not limited to, THX 1138, Enter the Dragon, The Amityville Horror, the Mission: Impossible trilogy, the Rush Hour movies, After the Sunset, and the theme song for the second "Splinter Cell" video game. They also feature characters whose reputations seem to precede them, not all of the time in a positive way.
Both of these films feature main characters who are not completely satisfied with their lives, as Callahan demonstrates near the beginning when he dolefully stops about four bank robbers while chewing the only bite of his hot dog he got before shots were fired (this is the scene where he spews the famous line about "I know what you're thinking: did he fire six shots or only five...?"). And throughout the movie, various characters make brief references to Callahan's wife, only to immediately correct themselves with, "Oh...sorry Harry."
The opening shot of Harry features the San Fransisco Police Department's memorial wall, listing the men who've fallen on duty, suggesting that being a cop isn't all what it's cracked up to be in the movies (which is odd because at one point during the movie, Callahan jumps on top of a moving school bus).
In terms of reputation, which I mentioned earlier, Callahan gets the nickname Dirty Harry, as revealed after he tricks a jumper into attacking him by insulting him, because he's called whenever someone's dirty work needs doing. As his partner says it, "He's always given the shit end of the stick."
The main plot of the film is that there's a rooftop sniper loose in S.F. and he's randomly shooting one person a day, until he gets a ransom of $100,000 dollars. Pretty meager by today's standards, of course, but that was, what, 35 years ago? Things go haywire when a stakeout leaves the sniper, who calls himself Scorpio (and we never learn his real name), very aware that the cops are onto him. So, he takes a hostage and demands more money.
The major plot piece occurs near the middle of the movie, where Scorpio has Callahan running around the dirty San Francisco nightlife with $200,000 in cash in a yellow suitcase.
And while we're on the subject, one of the major characters in this movie is the city of San Francisco. Filmed merely three years after Bullitt, this San Fran is much grittier and scummier, and the fact that Callahan get stopped by mugger and perverts on his frantic trip around the city proves this point.
When Callahan delivers the money, Scorpio reveals that he's going to kill the girl anyways, and runs off. Long story short, he catches Scorpio and arrests him.
In any normal movie, this would be where the resolution would hit. By arresting Scorpio, the location of the girl would be revealed, and she would be returned to her parents with only minor psychological damage. Hell, it happened in Silence of the Lambs, and that movie was way more messed up.
But you'd be wrong to think all of that. This is a different kind of movie. The girl is found, dead, and Scorpio's arrest doesn't stick because Callahan broke into his house without a warrant, rendering the rifle Scorpio used to kill two people inadmissible as evidence. Also, Callahan shot Scorpio in the leg to stop him from running, and then stepped on his gunshot wound to force him to reveal the location of the girl. Ah, well, that's law for you. Ask everyone's favorite deaf criminal justice/law student/i don't remember exactly what it's called-type girl Brooke.
The climax actually occurs after Scorpio strikes again, having been released back on the streets due to Callahan's altruistic, if legally flawed, law enforcement techniques. He hijacks a bus full of schoolchildren and now demands the money and a jet waiting for him at the airport.
After all this excitement, running around San Fran, jumping onto a moving school bus, and so on, Callahan shows he doesn't quite dig it all. As he tells the wife of his wounded partner, "I don't know why [I'm still here]..I really don't." One of the last shots of the movie has Callahan ripping the badge out of his wallet and hurling it into the water of the big climatic set piece.
And if Dirty Harry didn't spawn four sequels, this would have been a grander gesture to remember.
This is a great movie, and certainly a classic. It has very memorable moments and very memorable lines. The performances, especially Clint Eastwood's, are really great. It's major flaw, however, is that its ideology seems to contradict itself. Its opening shot and its closing shot seem to convey the fact that being a cop isn't a glamorous job, and it makes you consider your self-worth. But a lot of it in between, especially the bus sequence, seem to convey the opposite notion. Rooftop shoot-outs don't normally occur on the job, especially right after seeing, with binoculars, a naked girl, with two other girls starting to strip, through their apartment window, which happens to be open in the middle of the night.
This is definitely a renter, but it's a buyer for die-hard fans.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The coporate lateral ladder.
I'm having a lot of frustration at work recently. The holidays are coming up, and it's the perfect opportunity to get my sales back up to where the should be, as opposed to where they have been while there was no one in my position taking care of everything.
I have a store manager who is complaining about bad comps (how the sales are doing in comparison to last year's sales at the same time), but who doesn't allow a lot of displays throughout the store. He doesn't like nice wooden display fixtures that match all the shelves throughout the store, but he allows product still in the boxes to be stacked upon one another, with the cardboard cut open. Some of them are actually on the floor. Not the sales floor, I mean the actual literal floor.
He gave me one place to do some cross-promotion. There was olive oil there, but he said grocery would take it out. A week ago. I had to do it myself today.
While doing that, I was stopped by someone in the bakery department, where the display would be, and was told that I couldn't put my coffee there because he needed it for his product.
So I'm stuck now.
You know, I've been making a huge effort to get displays up, to keep the shelves full, and to talk about the product as much as possible to get the sales back up. But it's not enough because the people who want sales up are blocking everything I do. When I was hired for the job, I was told one of the reasons was my creativity. But I can't exactly let that shine, can I? If I'm not allowed to do my job?
If I make an effort, and sales suffer because of a higher-up's trite standards, I can't blame myself for it. But I applied for the job because I wanted to do it, and if I'm not allowed to do it, it's torture.
It would be different if I were given the opportunity to do all of this stuff, and sales were still bad. But I'm not getting the opportunity.
So luckily I have the next few days off to cool down and think about what I'm going to do. What loopholes do I have?
I do have one thing. It's a piece of advice I was given by the man that pretty much gave me the job, and it's what I'm going to leave you with tonight.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
I have a store manager who is complaining about bad comps (how the sales are doing in comparison to last year's sales at the same time), but who doesn't allow a lot of displays throughout the store. He doesn't like nice wooden display fixtures that match all the shelves throughout the store, but he allows product still in the boxes to be stacked upon one another, with the cardboard cut open. Some of them are actually on the floor. Not the sales floor, I mean the actual literal floor.
He gave me one place to do some cross-promotion. There was olive oil there, but he said grocery would take it out. A week ago. I had to do it myself today.
While doing that, I was stopped by someone in the bakery department, where the display would be, and was told that I couldn't put my coffee there because he needed it for his product.
So I'm stuck now.
You know, I've been making a huge effort to get displays up, to keep the shelves full, and to talk about the product as much as possible to get the sales back up. But it's not enough because the people who want sales up are blocking everything I do. When I was hired for the job, I was told one of the reasons was my creativity. But I can't exactly let that shine, can I? If I'm not allowed to do my job?
If I make an effort, and sales suffer because of a higher-up's trite standards, I can't blame myself for it. But I applied for the job because I wanted to do it, and if I'm not allowed to do it, it's torture.
It would be different if I were given the opportunity to do all of this stuff, and sales were still bad. But I'm not getting the opportunity.
So luckily I have the next few days off to cool down and think about what I'm going to do. What loopholes do I have?
I do have one thing. It's a piece of advice I was given by the man that pretty much gave me the job, and it's what I'm going to leave you with tonight.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Mission: Impossible III
I don't care what you have to say about Tom Cruise. We all know he's lost it somewhere along the line, or he's always been nuts and has been hiding it ridiculously well all these years.
The fact is that he's a great performer. Put him in a Jerry Maguire and he'll make your date cry. Put him in a Last Samurai and you want to start taking sword fighting classes. Put him in a Collateral and you want to be a hitman.
His first turn as Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible was a great spy thriller with the appropriate twists and turns. Mission: Impossible II, though not a perfect follow-up, was a pretty kickin' action turn. And now, Mission: Impossible III was an absolutely nail-baiting action-thriller.
One of the concepts that started with M:I:II was getting a different director to helm each project, to see what exciting direction each director could take it in. Brian De Palma, who gave us Scarface and the fascinating Femme Fatale, directed the first one, while John Woo lent his "ballet of bullets" style of action sequences to the franchise. J.J. Abrams, director of the incredible "Lost," now infuses his unique brand of storytelling with the series' lexicon.
One of the key elements of Abrams' stories is his flash-forwards/backs. You can notice it in "Lost," where each episode explores a different character's back story, giving us insight into that character. M:I:III is no different, as the movie opens up to a scene presumably from somewhere in the middle of the story. It opens up with Tom Cruise strapped to a chair across from his lady, and Philip Seymour Hoffman with a gun in his hand, saying, "You have an explosive device in your head. Sound familiar?"
Not yet, but it will soon enough.
Hoffman proceeds to grill Cruise and interrogate him, threatening to kill the lady if he doesn't 'fess up. And, as a testament to Cruise's performance abilities, as each number counts up to ten, he goes from desperate confusion, to angry threatening, to hopeless pleading and bargaining.
Hoffman reaches ten, a shot rings out, and the screen goes black. Now that's a pre-opening credits sequence.
From then on, it's a fairly straight-forward story. Cruise is now not an operating field officer, but a training officer for IMF, and is getting engaged to Michelle Monaghan (see: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang). He gets called onto a mission that goes wrong somehow, and is left to figure out why.
Throw in a very cool mission that gets pulled off without a hitch, Philip Seymour Hoffman as a very maniacal bad-guy, a simply stunning action sequence on a bridge, and some office administrative double-crossings, and you've got your basic spy action-thriller.
The supporting characters are just as important. Simon Pegg shows up as the office-side technical support/comic relief in his first American-made film (to the best of my knowledge), other than a very brief cameo as a zombie in George A. Romero's Land of the Dead.
The big beef I have with this movie is the ending. Although I won't get into it now so as to not ruin it, suffice it to say that it seemed very tacked-on and disconnected. I get a feeling that there was a different ending intended, but was changed before releasing.
Who cares if Tom Cruise has a crazy personal life? That's Hollywood. Beck's a scientologist, too, you know. Is that going to stop you from buying his next 17 albums? It's all the gossip about personal lives that makes movies perform poorly. A lot of people missed out on this great flick just because of Tom Cruise's personal life. I went to the theater to see this, told everyone I knew, and 9 out of 10 times, I got back, "I know...I just think he's out of his mind."
As a result of the movie's poor performance, Cruise's production company with Paula Wagner was cut loose, and there can at this time be no more Cruise-starring Mission: Impossible sequels. The rumor around the internet is that Brad Pitt will pick it up.
Now my question to you is: How exactly would the movie explain that?
You. Go rent this movie, then buy it to watch it over again. Now.
The fact is that he's a great performer. Put him in a Jerry Maguire and he'll make your date cry. Put him in a Last Samurai and you want to start taking sword fighting classes. Put him in a Collateral and you want to be a hitman.
His first turn as Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible was a great spy thriller with the appropriate twists and turns. Mission: Impossible II, though not a perfect follow-up, was a pretty kickin' action turn. And now, Mission: Impossible III was an absolutely nail-baiting action-thriller.
One of the concepts that started with M:I:II was getting a different director to helm each project, to see what exciting direction each director could take it in. Brian De Palma, who gave us Scarface and the fascinating Femme Fatale, directed the first one, while John Woo lent his "ballet of bullets" style of action sequences to the franchise. J.J. Abrams, director of the incredible "Lost," now infuses his unique brand of storytelling with the series' lexicon.
One of the key elements of Abrams' stories is his flash-forwards/backs. You can notice it in "Lost," where each episode explores a different character's back story, giving us insight into that character. M:I:III is no different, as the movie opens up to a scene presumably from somewhere in the middle of the story. It opens up with Tom Cruise strapped to a chair across from his lady, and Philip Seymour Hoffman with a gun in his hand, saying, "You have an explosive device in your head. Sound familiar?"
Not yet, but it will soon enough.
Hoffman proceeds to grill Cruise and interrogate him, threatening to kill the lady if he doesn't 'fess up. And, as a testament to Cruise's performance abilities, as each number counts up to ten, he goes from desperate confusion, to angry threatening, to hopeless pleading and bargaining.
Hoffman reaches ten, a shot rings out, and the screen goes black. Now that's a pre-opening credits sequence.
From then on, it's a fairly straight-forward story. Cruise is now not an operating field officer, but a training officer for IMF, and is getting engaged to Michelle Monaghan (see: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang). He gets called onto a mission that goes wrong somehow, and is left to figure out why.
Throw in a very cool mission that gets pulled off without a hitch, Philip Seymour Hoffman as a very maniacal bad-guy, a simply stunning action sequence on a bridge, and some office administrative double-crossings, and you've got your basic spy action-thriller.
The supporting characters are just as important. Simon Pegg shows up as the office-side technical support/comic relief in his first American-made film (to the best of my knowledge), other than a very brief cameo as a zombie in George A. Romero's Land of the Dead.
The big beef I have with this movie is the ending. Although I won't get into it now so as to not ruin it, suffice it to say that it seemed very tacked-on and disconnected. I get a feeling that there was a different ending intended, but was changed before releasing.
Who cares if Tom Cruise has a crazy personal life? That's Hollywood. Beck's a scientologist, too, you know. Is that going to stop you from buying his next 17 albums? It's all the gossip about personal lives that makes movies perform poorly. A lot of people missed out on this great flick just because of Tom Cruise's personal life. I went to the theater to see this, told everyone I knew, and 9 out of 10 times, I got back, "I know...I just think he's out of his mind."
As a result of the movie's poor performance, Cruise's production company with Paula Wagner was cut loose, and there can at this time be no more Cruise-starring Mission: Impossible sequels. The rumor around the internet is that Brad Pitt will pick it up.
Now my question to you is: How exactly would the movie explain that?
You. Go rent this movie, then buy it to watch it over again. Now.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Really quick (but excellent) news:
Go here for the article I read, but it appears as if "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" can temporarily forget its threat of cancellation.
I can't tell you how thrilled I am, and Tim no doubt will be, at this news.
As a user called El Fuego on the Ain't It Cool News website put it, "Hey, if 'Joey' lasted 2 seasons, this deserves at least that long. It's not perfect, but it's better than most of the crap out there."
If it had been canceled, however, I would have posted this paraphrased quote from the Onion's A.V. Club, in regards to the "Stella" Season 1 DVD:
"Considering most of the crap that stays on the air these days, getting canceled is almost a badge of honor."
But it didn't get canceled. So I won't post that.
But I just did.
Pretend I was talking about "Sports Night."
I can't tell you how thrilled I am, and Tim no doubt will be, at this news.
As a user called El Fuego on the Ain't It Cool News website put it, "Hey, if 'Joey' lasted 2 seasons, this deserves at least that long. It's not perfect, but it's better than most of the crap out there."
If it had been canceled, however, I would have posted this paraphrased quote from the Onion's A.V. Club, in regards to the "Stella" Season 1 DVD:
"Considering most of the crap that stays on the air these days, getting canceled is almost a badge of honor."
But it didn't get canceled. So I won't post that.
But I just did.
Pretend I was talking about "Sports Night."
I want to direct your attention to this:
Hey people. As I continue to add and play with the new Blogger Beta template, of which, by the way, I am a fan, I want to direct your attention to some things.
One of the things I added recently was a site feed to The Onion Radio News. Click on the links and it will take you to a page to listen to a roughly minute-long radio news story that is perpetually the funniest thing you've ever heard.
Enjoy. Let me know how you like it.
One of the things I added recently was a site feed to The Onion Radio News. Click on the links and it will take you to a page to listen to a roughly minute-long radio news story that is perpetually the funniest thing you've ever heard.
Enjoy. Let me know how you like it.
The Hidden Fortress.
I decided that eventually it would be time to put my zombie fanaticism to an end, and that I would need to transition into another genre I can call my own.
I, of course, am doing this no time soon, but I thought it would be good to get some fresh film in there somewhere. Thus, The Hidden Fortress.
As one of Akira Kurosawa's classic and seminal samurai films, Fortress sounded like it would be a good primer because of its known influence on George Lucas into creating the Star Wars trilogy. The older ones. Not the newer ones, also known as The Worst Movies Ever Made trilogy.
Fortress tells the tale of a general and princess from a recently destroyed kingdom who must travel across enemy borders, sneak through enemy territory, and into the land of allies carrying 200 pieces of gold. Also in the movie are two bumbling peasants, who can't seem to keep their greed in check as they are blindly convinced to help the general and the princess. As the general Rokoruta put it, "Make them carry gold and they'll do anything we ask."
One of the key elements of Kurosawa's films is his visual style. His trademarks carry long, single-frame shots where a lot of action takes place. One opening scene has the two bumbling peasants lamenting their position in life and suddenly looking past the camera shocked, as a war-torn man is chased into the frame by several men on horses and killed right there in front of them. All of this takes place in one single wide shot.
Another positive of this film is that the peasants, though best friends at heart, often end up in fights with each other of small pieces of the gold. This functions as the comic relief of the film, and their physical acting is timeless.
The special feature on this disc that I watched was an interview with George Lucas about the film's influence on himself. He tells of his upbringing, where he didn't get to see any foreign films until film school, where he was exposed to Kurosawa's work. The main influence on Lucas, as he states it, is the telling of the story from the two lowliest characters. In Fortress, that means the two peasants. In Star Wars, that of course means the two droids, C-3PO and R2-D2. It is a very unique attribute to have, and an uncommon one. A lot of movies have two very lowly characters partnered up - say, Dumb and Dumber or the like, but although the characters are idiots, they are still the main characters of the movie.
As a primer, this was a great one. It gave me a lot of insight into Kurosawa's world of storytelling, without having too much clutter to muck it up. There have been better-rated films in his catalog, like Seven Samurai or Yojimbo, but The Hidden Fortress stands as a testament to Kurosawa's work as timeless and important.
I, of course, am doing this no time soon, but I thought it would be good to get some fresh film in there somewhere. Thus, The Hidden Fortress.
As one of Akira Kurosawa's classic and seminal samurai films, Fortress sounded like it would be a good primer because of its known influence on George Lucas into creating the Star Wars trilogy. The older ones. Not the newer ones, also known as The Worst Movies Ever Made trilogy.
Fortress tells the tale of a general and princess from a recently destroyed kingdom who must travel across enemy borders, sneak through enemy territory, and into the land of allies carrying 200 pieces of gold. Also in the movie are two bumbling peasants, who can't seem to keep their greed in check as they are blindly convinced to help the general and the princess. As the general Rokoruta put it, "Make them carry gold and they'll do anything we ask."
One of the key elements of Kurosawa's films is his visual style. His trademarks carry long, single-frame shots where a lot of action takes place. One opening scene has the two bumbling peasants lamenting their position in life and suddenly looking past the camera shocked, as a war-torn man is chased into the frame by several men on horses and killed right there in front of them. All of this takes place in one single wide shot.
Another positive of this film is that the peasants, though best friends at heart, often end up in fights with each other of small pieces of the gold. This functions as the comic relief of the film, and their physical acting is timeless.
The special feature on this disc that I watched was an interview with George Lucas about the film's influence on himself. He tells of his upbringing, where he didn't get to see any foreign films until film school, where he was exposed to Kurosawa's work. The main influence on Lucas, as he states it, is the telling of the story from the two lowliest characters. In Fortress, that means the two peasants. In Star Wars, that of course means the two droids, C-3PO and R2-D2. It is a very unique attribute to have, and an uncommon one. A lot of movies have two very lowly characters partnered up - say, Dumb and Dumber or the like, but although the characters are idiots, they are still the main characters of the movie.
As a primer, this was a great one. It gave me a lot of insight into Kurosawa's world of storytelling, without having too much clutter to muck it up. There have been better-rated films in his catalog, like Seven Samurai or Yojimbo, but The Hidden Fortress stands as a testament to Kurosawa's work as timeless and important.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Bride of Re-Animator
I'm going to start off this section with a movie that very clearly shows a portion of my film tastes with Bride of Re-Animator.
For those of you not familiar, this one is a direct sequel to the movie Re-Animator, starring Jeffrey Combs as Dr. Herbert West, a man very interested in...well, eliminating death. The original was a great flick if you enjoy 1980's special effects and lots of blood. Dr. West moves to Massachusetts as a Med student at a hospital Miskatonic, and soon finds his way into sharing an apartment with the handsome and talented Dr. Daniel Cain, who happens to be dating the daughter of the Dean of the medical school. Well, Dr. West soon involves Dr. Cain in his activities and they both get kicked out of the medical school, with a little help from obvious bad-guy Dr. Carl Hill, played creepily by David Gale. Things go very much awry and Dr. Hill ends up a headless zombie (carrying around his own head), the dean of the medical school ends up a zombie, and what is referred to later as the "Miskatonic Massacre" breaks out, involving all of Dr. West's "experiments," killing Dr. Cain's girlfriend Megan in the process.
This second installment picks up months after the Miskatonic Massacre and finds Dr. West and Dr. Cain in Peru, lending their medical expertise to a Peruvian rebellion squad. I didn't just make that up. At any rate, the rebellion goes kaput, and the two doctors make their way back to Miskatonic, practicing again. Meanwhile, a fatty police lieutenant is put in charge of investigating the Miskatonic Massacre, who seems to have his own personal stock in it. A woman from the Peruvian rebellion, Francesca, shows up as well, looking or Dr. Cain and gets forced into the investigation by Lt. Chapman. Dr. West has taken it upon himself to console a still-grieving Dr. Cain over the loss of his girlfriend Megan, by stealing various body parts from the morgue and reassembling a body around Megan's heart. Meanwhile, a bumbling pathology doctor has inadvertently reanimated the head of Dr. Hill, who wants revenge on Dr. West. the climax takes place in the two doctors' shared house on a windy, stormy night.
While I thoroughly enjoyed Re-Animator, I found Bride to be a little more tedious than the first, with a few more forced plot points than the first. However, there was a lot of plot going on that was well-paced throughout the movie. It didn't seem too hasty, even at a mere 1:40 runtime, especially taking into consideration the fact that movies with half this plot these days run at over two hours. Dr. West's speech just before the climax is very well-done, proving that although Jeffrey Combs isn't a widely known actor, he definitely knows is territory.
So in the end, more of the same blood-spilling, reanimating fun, with a few more plot points thrown in to complicate things, sometimes a little for the worse. It's worth reanimating your DVD player for.
For those of you not familiar, this one is a direct sequel to the movie Re-Animator, starring Jeffrey Combs as Dr. Herbert West, a man very interested in...well, eliminating death. The original was a great flick if you enjoy 1980's special effects and lots of blood. Dr. West moves to Massachusetts as a Med student at a hospital Miskatonic, and soon finds his way into sharing an apartment with the handsome and talented Dr. Daniel Cain, who happens to be dating the daughter of the Dean of the medical school. Well, Dr. West soon involves Dr. Cain in his activities and they both get kicked out of the medical school, with a little help from obvious bad-guy Dr. Carl Hill, played creepily by David Gale. Things go very much awry and Dr. Hill ends up a headless zombie (carrying around his own head), the dean of the medical school ends up a zombie, and what is referred to later as the "Miskatonic Massacre" breaks out, involving all of Dr. West's "experiments," killing Dr. Cain's girlfriend Megan in the process.
This second installment picks up months after the Miskatonic Massacre and finds Dr. West and Dr. Cain in Peru, lending their medical expertise to a Peruvian rebellion squad. I didn't just make that up. At any rate, the rebellion goes kaput, and the two doctors make their way back to Miskatonic, practicing again. Meanwhile, a fatty police lieutenant is put in charge of investigating the Miskatonic Massacre, who seems to have his own personal stock in it. A woman from the Peruvian rebellion, Francesca, shows up as well, looking or Dr. Cain and gets forced into the investigation by Lt. Chapman. Dr. West has taken it upon himself to console a still-grieving Dr. Cain over the loss of his girlfriend Megan, by stealing various body parts from the morgue and reassembling a body around Megan's heart. Meanwhile, a bumbling pathology doctor has inadvertently reanimated the head of Dr. Hill, who wants revenge on Dr. West. the climax takes place in the two doctors' shared house on a windy, stormy night.
While I thoroughly enjoyed Re-Animator, I found Bride to be a little more tedious than the first, with a few more forced plot points than the first. However, there was a lot of plot going on that was well-paced throughout the movie. It didn't seem too hasty, even at a mere 1:40 runtime, especially taking into consideration the fact that movies with half this plot these days run at over two hours. Dr. West's speech just before the climax is very well-done, proving that although Jeffrey Combs isn't a widely known actor, he definitely knows is territory.
So in the end, more of the same blood-spilling, reanimating fun, with a few more plot points thrown in to complicate things, sometimes a little for the worse. It's worth reanimating your DVD player for.
Monday, November 06, 2006
These things I have learned.
This isn't something I normally do, but I thought that it would be something at least mildly entertaining, just like the rest of this blog.
Relationships, as the cliché goes, take some work. A lot of this work hangs on communication. You have to learn how to communicate effectively.
This means that, not only do you have to make sure you verbalize your thoughts and actions clearly, but you also have to learn how to listen to your partner. You have to understand what they mean when they say something.
This kind of goes along the lines of speech patterns, meaning that if a certain word or phrase is used, it has its own unique meaning, and you have to understand what the intended meaning is, regardless of the word. For instance, this is something that happened the other night:
Amy: "Honey, I'm going to do the laundry, so go separate your clothes."
This statement is a bald-faced lie on the surface. Because ten minutes later, after my laundry was separated into neat piles on the floor, and I returned to my television, Amy said this while carrying in a basket full of dirty clothes:
"Ok, you wanna help?"
This statement has its own meaning, but I'll get to that shortly. What I wanted to talk about was the bald-faced lie. The phrase in question is, "I'm going to do the laundry." I'm. You see, in order for her statement to be 100% accurate in both syntax and intended meaning, the statement would have to go, "We're going to do the laundry."
The second statement, the question, isn't a question at all, but a very in/direct request. The problem isn't the words, but rather the punctuation at the end. That statement should be:
"Ok, you wanna help."
And these are the things you have to learn if you're in a relationship. You understand the difference between what your partner says and what they mean.
You also have to learn that anything you say can and will be used against you. After the question was asked, my initial thought was, "No, I do not." But that's between me and my brain. I wouldn't actually say that. My balls are too precious to me.
One last thing to mention is that you have to have preternatural para psychic abilities. You have to read minds. When she has a few spare hours in the morning, Amy likes to sleep in, and on mornings off I usually get up no later than 9:30 whether or not I've got the entire day off. I've made the mistake in the past of trying to wake Amy up before she wills it to be so, and it usually goes like this:
I say, "Hey baby, it's x o'clock. You wanna get up?"
Amy says (in a manner of speaking), "Ten more minutes." I leave the room, and then come back in ten minutes.
I say, "Hey baby, it's time to get up."
She says something along the lines of, "I'll get up when I want." I sigh frustratingly and leave the room, which can coerce her into getting up. She comes into the living room, lays down on the couch with the blanket, and groans whenever I try to get near her.
So, one day the conversation (of sorts) went like this:
The night before, Amy says, "Don't wake me up tomorrow, I don't have to work until 1."
I say, "Okay, that sounds good."
In the morning, I wake up when I usually wake up on mornings off and say, "I'm gonna get up, ok?"
"Okay."
I then leave the room, shut the door behind me, proceed to make my coffee and sit down on the couch and switch on my morning CNN Headline News.
11:30 rolls around. Amy comes out of the bedroom and says the following:
"Why did you let me sleep this late?"
I laughed sadly, defeated.
Relationships, as the cliché goes, take some work. A lot of this work hangs on communication. You have to learn how to communicate effectively.
This means that, not only do you have to make sure you verbalize your thoughts and actions clearly, but you also have to learn how to listen to your partner. You have to understand what they mean when they say something.
This kind of goes along the lines of speech patterns, meaning that if a certain word or phrase is used, it has its own unique meaning, and you have to understand what the intended meaning is, regardless of the word. For instance, this is something that happened the other night:
Amy: "Honey, I'm going to do the laundry, so go separate your clothes."
This statement is a bald-faced lie on the surface. Because ten minutes later, after my laundry was separated into neat piles on the floor, and I returned to my television, Amy said this while carrying in a basket full of dirty clothes:
"Ok, you wanna help?"
This statement has its own meaning, but I'll get to that shortly. What I wanted to talk about was the bald-faced lie. The phrase in question is, "I'm going to do the laundry." I'm. You see, in order for her statement to be 100% accurate in both syntax and intended meaning, the statement would have to go, "We're going to do the laundry."
The second statement, the question, isn't a question at all, but a very in/direct request. The problem isn't the words, but rather the punctuation at the end. That statement should be:
"Ok, you wanna help."
And these are the things you have to learn if you're in a relationship. You understand the difference between what your partner says and what they mean.
You also have to learn that anything you say can and will be used against you. After the question was asked, my initial thought was, "No, I do not." But that's between me and my brain. I wouldn't actually say that. My balls are too precious to me.
One last thing to mention is that you have to have preternatural para psychic abilities. You have to read minds. When she has a few spare hours in the morning, Amy likes to sleep in, and on mornings off I usually get up no later than 9:30 whether or not I've got the entire day off. I've made the mistake in the past of trying to wake Amy up before she wills it to be so, and it usually goes like this:
I say, "Hey baby, it's x o'clock. You wanna get up?"
Amy says (in a manner of speaking), "Ten more minutes." I leave the room, and then come back in ten minutes.
I say, "Hey baby, it's time to get up."
She says something along the lines of, "I'll get up when I want." I sigh frustratingly and leave the room, which can coerce her into getting up. She comes into the living room, lays down on the couch with the blanket, and groans whenever I try to get near her.
So, one day the conversation (of sorts) went like this:
The night before, Amy says, "Don't wake me up tomorrow, I don't have to work until 1."
I say, "Okay, that sounds good."
In the morning, I wake up when I usually wake up on mornings off and say, "I'm gonna get up, ok?"
"Okay."
I then leave the room, shut the door behind me, proceed to make my coffee and sit down on the couch and switch on my morning CNN Headline News.
11:30 rolls around. Amy comes out of the bedroom and says the following:
"Why did you let me sleep this late?"
I laughed sadly, defeated.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Why would my brain do that to me?
So I had a crazy work dream last night. Usually, work dreams consist of the inane things I have to do. If work gets really stressful, I have work dreams.
Last night, however was a work dream of a completely different sort.
I was standing behind the counter at the coffee roaster, roasting coffee, helping customers, etc., when all of the sudden who should come up to the counter and ask about a pound of coffee but Hitler?
Hitler came to me looking for coffee. He asked a few questions, asked for a recommendation. And the oddest part was that it was totally casual. He was wearing a normal suit, like he was on his lunch break from his cubicle job at the office. Like, "okay, I'm here for some coffee to take home for the morning before I head back to work, which happens to be killing millions of Jews."
I don't remember exactly what kind of coffee he got, but I remember him leaving and me thinking, "Wow. What a low-key guy. That Hitler is really misunderstood."
Another dream I had from a few years back is equally crazy, and involved just as much introspection on my part. I was riding around in a car in the Coventry part of Cleveland with Bill Cosby. Just cruising, you know? And then, he asked me, "Hey, Jeff. You want some of this pot?"
And I remember being really conflicted. Because I'm not a pothead at all - I've never actually tried it. I'm not against other people using it, that's their own business - I've just never had the urge. But, unless he's offering you a part in Ghost Dad 2 (inside Tim joke), how do you say no to Bill Cosby?
And that's a question for the ages, my friends. How, exactly, do you say no to Bill Cosby?
Last night, however was a work dream of a completely different sort.
I was standing behind the counter at the coffee roaster, roasting coffee, helping customers, etc., when all of the sudden who should come up to the counter and ask about a pound of coffee but Hitler?
Hitler came to me looking for coffee. He asked a few questions, asked for a recommendation. And the oddest part was that it was totally casual. He was wearing a normal suit, like he was on his lunch break from his cubicle job at the office. Like, "okay, I'm here for some coffee to take home for the morning before I head back to work, which happens to be killing millions of Jews."
I don't remember exactly what kind of coffee he got, but I remember him leaving and me thinking, "Wow. What a low-key guy. That Hitler is really misunderstood."
Another dream I had from a few years back is equally crazy, and involved just as much introspection on my part. I was riding around in a car in the Coventry part of Cleveland with Bill Cosby. Just cruising, you know? And then, he asked me, "Hey, Jeff. You want some of this pot?"
And I remember being really conflicted. Because I'm not a pothead at all - I've never actually tried it. I'm not against other people using it, that's their own business - I've just never had the urge. But, unless he's offering you a part in Ghost Dad 2 (inside Tim joke), how do you say no to Bill Cosby?
And that's a question for the ages, my friends. How, exactly, do you say no to Bill Cosby?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Echoes.
Things we do, watch, listen to and say stick with us over the years. Things that are important to us ingrain themselves into our memory no matter how long ago the memories are from.
Eric Matthews, a musician, just released a new album in a long time, and it's very good. I then ordered the album of his that I remember from 1995, about 11 years ago, on Amazon.com. It was my brother's and I borrowed it and listened to it endlessly. So I received it yesterday (it would have been a few days earlier, but Amy forgot to give me the little note that said our mail carrier tried to deliver it but no one was home), and, driving around, I slid it into my car CD player. The tunes and melodies were instant in my mind, and as I suddenly found myself singing along, it occurred to me that I haven't listened to or thought about this album in over 7 years. But there I was, singing along.
I went to Best Buy to buy a copy of Mission: Impossible III. Shut up. It's a good movie. There was another sale going on there and I decided to pick up Memento and Enter The Dragon. Later that evening, while watching Enter The Dragon, a movie a watched a lot when I was a kid because my parents are Bruce Lee fans, a lot of the scenes and lines recalled themselves instantly again, even though I haven't seen that movie in a number of years.
My parents are action/adventure fans, so we tended to watch a lot of those movies. And those movies are older movies - movies that were big then, but no one really remembers that much now, at least not in the same regard when they were released. I can't tell you how many times I watched Ghostbusters during my childhood, nor Star Wars. And seriously - who has actually seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai? I have.
Another movie that comes to mind that I watched a lot with my parents but haven't seen in years is Big Trouble in Little China. I'm willing to bet that, if I ran out and got a copy of it, brought it home and put it in my DVD player, I would instantly begin to remember various scenes throughout the movie.
People can't escape this sort of thing. I bet that if, right now, you started to think about a movie or album or a book or a TV show that you haven't thought about in years, went out and found it and took it in you would know exactly what I'm talking about. It's like going back in time. It's like communicating with yourself from years ago.
Eric Matthews, a musician, just released a new album in a long time, and it's very good. I then ordered the album of his that I remember from 1995, about 11 years ago, on Amazon.com. It was my brother's and I borrowed it and listened to it endlessly. So I received it yesterday (it would have been a few days earlier, but Amy forgot to give me the little note that said our mail carrier tried to deliver it but no one was home), and, driving around, I slid it into my car CD player. The tunes and melodies were instant in my mind, and as I suddenly found myself singing along, it occurred to me that I haven't listened to or thought about this album in over 7 years. But there I was, singing along.
I went to Best Buy to buy a copy of Mission: Impossible III. Shut up. It's a good movie. There was another sale going on there and I decided to pick up Memento and Enter The Dragon. Later that evening, while watching Enter The Dragon, a movie a watched a lot when I was a kid because my parents are Bruce Lee fans, a lot of the scenes and lines recalled themselves instantly again, even though I haven't seen that movie in a number of years.
My parents are action/adventure fans, so we tended to watch a lot of those movies. And those movies are older movies - movies that were big then, but no one really remembers that much now, at least not in the same regard when they were released. I can't tell you how many times I watched Ghostbusters during my childhood, nor Star Wars. And seriously - who has actually seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai? I have.
Another movie that comes to mind that I watched a lot with my parents but haven't seen in years is Big Trouble in Little China. I'm willing to bet that, if I ran out and got a copy of it, brought it home and put it in my DVD player, I would instantly begin to remember various scenes throughout the movie.
People can't escape this sort of thing. I bet that if, right now, you started to think about a movie or album or a book or a TV show that you haven't thought about in years, went out and found it and took it in you would know exactly what I'm talking about. It's like going back in time. It's like communicating with yourself from years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
