Bedtime Stories (2008): Yeah. It was on TV or OnDemand. Boys chose it. It's not good. I'm sad for Adam Shankman having directed it.
9 (2009): The writers clearly watched LOTR one too many times: one shiny round thing to rule them all, one shiny round thing to find them, one shiny round thing to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. This could have been an incredibly interesting movie with minimal effort but noooo. We have to focus on the inane and ignore the profound. Way to ruin it.
Cadillac Records (2008): This movie is ok with a lot of qualifiers. Beyonce is super. Beyonce is not, however, Etta James and should not pretend to be. Every cameraperson within a yard of Adrian Brody should be aware of his nose and I should not, at any point, have a direct sight line into his nasal cavity. Um, also, it's not so great that I didn't know who the narrator was (in terms of history/actual person) until the credits were ready to roll.
Brick Lane (2007): This one is watchable which is more than I usually have to say about movies dealing with the immigrant experience. I haven't read the book yet so I'm interested to see the parallels. I do like how the movie dealt with this one woman's emotions and did not trivialize them.
Prizzi's Honor (1985): I don't know what this is. I don't know what it was trying to do. I don't necessarily dislike it but I certainly don't like it. Even considering my affinity for Kathleen Turner.
Georgia O'Keeffe (2009): Yep, Lifetime Movie event. This is what happens when "Project Runway" is on Lifetime and I see ads and what happens when J is out of town and I'm bored. Actually, this wasn't bad at all. Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons are incredibly watchable and now I know more about an artist I didn't know anything about (well, her personal life), maybe (since it may be completely fictionalized).
Happy-Go-Lucky (2008): Mmmkay. I don't know what to say about this one. I liked it just fine but I don't know how to describe it. Unlike, Prizzi's Mess above, this one is good but a bit strange. Quirky. It's lovable and quirky.
The End of the Affair (1999): J told me I should read the book first but I tried for a minute and couldn't get into the swing of Greene's writing. I'll give it another shot now because the movie is excellent. Really very good.
The Passion by Jeanette Winterson (1987): I heart Jeanette Winterson. Seriously. I'm going to have to get another of her books now just to have the promise of reading it. This one has parallel narratives and is set during the Napoleonic Wars but doesn't beat. you. over. the. head. with. capital. H. history. So, brilliant!
Out Stealing Horses by Per Peterson (2003, translated to English 2005): Goodness. This book was on The Millions Best Books of the Millennium (So Far) list. It's Norweigan and quite good. It runs dual narratives, one of which is a flash back, and it manages both and the transitions between the two beautifully. And the novel feels very full despite most of it being in very sparse settings. What might be the best part is that the book leaves threads loose but it feels ok instead of infuriating. Clearly a talented author.
Zombieland (2009): Wonderful.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
17 Movies and a Book
1. You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008): It was an Adam Sandler kind of day (I later watched #3). Cute enough movie minus the hummus and something else I thought was gross . . .
2. The Breakup (2006): I've seen this one before but I am not a fan (it was on TV). Sure it's sort of fun in a mean way (and we know I love fun in a mean way) but the ambiguous ending irks me.
3. 50 First Dates (2004): I might have seen this before--I've at least seen parts of it but maybe not the whole thing. It's cute. I like it despite the problems I have with a mother only having limited memory and living on a boat.
4. Cache (2005): Add an accent on that e. What the fuck? An interesting concept but way far out in left field where too many French movies seem to reside.
5. Moon (2009): I liked this one a great deal. A sci-fi movie with a very limited cast--basically Sam Rockwell multiplies--that makes a great character study. I was ok with its limitations. Plus, it was made by Zowie Bowie, how fun is that?
6. Funny People (2009): Sandler needs to do more serious roles like this. A return to Punch Drunk Love is in order. He's just so good at them that he doesn't need to make the nonsense.
7. I Love You, Man (2009): I love Paul Rudd.
8. District 9 (2009): Turn away at the nails. Argh! Otherwise a good movie as long as it gives up the idea that it's an apartheid story.
9. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966): It's not bad but, Jesus, it's long. I, of course, watched the extended version, so more staring at each other. I do like a young Clint Eastwood, though.
10. Priceless (2006): Cute rom com a la Breakfast at Tiffany's.
11. Flawless (2007): Bored out of my mind in 12 minutes so I quit.
12. Persuasion (1995 BBC): The dialogue got a bit muddled in accents sometimes but the love story was sweet and very Austen.
13. Footloose (1984): This was a very 1984 day (we watched Ghostbusters later). I've seen this one before, of course. Awesome. Just awesome.
14. Ghostbusters (1984): I don't think I've seen this one since I was a child. Hilarity.
15. His Girl Friday (1940): How did I miss this one? Cary Grant? Snarky? It's fun. I liked the banter, of course but wish it could have kept up with itself just a bit better.
16. Once Upon a Time in America (1984): It's movies like this that make 1984 look bad. Seriously. I was about to give up at an hour thirty in because nothing happened. Nothing. Another half hour, barely anything. J watched the middle by himself and I caught the end with him. I totally called the "twist" the minute it was a possibility, 10 minutes or so in. Nonsense. Complete nonsense.
17. Arsenic and Old Lace (1944): Again with the Cary Grant and the sort of snarky and me missing it until now. And, again, super fun but wished it kept the pace the whole movie.
18. The Piano Teacher by Janice Y.K. Lee (2009): I have a few problems with this book; the first of which is the fact that the book is not about a piano teacher. There is a piano teacher and she plays a vaguely important role but she is not the center as the author imagines her to be and she is not interesting. Further, she could be basically eliminated from the book with little to no ill effects. She is nothing more than a trick to move the plot forward. Ok. So, the book runs dual narratives in Hong Kong, one in the early 40's before and during the war and the other in the early 50s. That works just fine except the pacing is off. There is a whole chunk in the middle that is only the 40s (the piano teacher is only in the 50s sections) and the end has to play with sequencing in an unnatural and unprecedented way (for this book) to make the suspense work. The book more or less is about the privileged in Hong Kong and what one will do to survive in war and afterward. It is an interesting read and the end is suspenseful but it leaves a few holes that should be filled in rather than passed over with a "things happen during the war." The book also suffers for its misguided and lazy focus on the piano teacher (not to mention the useless and silly epilogue) when it should be focusing in on one of the main players in the action. It could, for example, have focused in on Will (the piano teacher's lover who was imprisoned during the war and the lover of another of the main characters before the war--he's a definite main player) and just had the piano teacher as a side thought. She still could have served the same plot furthering but not pretended to be the main character. She doesn't have the heft or the purchase in the main action to be the protagonist. It's just too easy to make the main character a woman who saunters in en medias res. I wish the author had taken the challenge and gotten her hands dirty.
2. The Breakup (2006): I've seen this one before but I am not a fan (it was on TV). Sure it's sort of fun in a mean way (and we know I love fun in a mean way) but the ambiguous ending irks me.
3. 50 First Dates (2004): I might have seen this before--I've at least seen parts of it but maybe not the whole thing. It's cute. I like it despite the problems I have with a mother only having limited memory and living on a boat.
4. Cache (2005): Add an accent on that e. What the fuck? An interesting concept but way far out in left field where too many French movies seem to reside.
5. Moon (2009): I liked this one a great deal. A sci-fi movie with a very limited cast--basically Sam Rockwell multiplies--that makes a great character study. I was ok with its limitations. Plus, it was made by Zowie Bowie, how fun is that?
6. Funny People (2009): Sandler needs to do more serious roles like this. A return to Punch Drunk Love is in order. He's just so good at them that he doesn't need to make the nonsense.
7. I Love You, Man (2009): I love Paul Rudd.
8. District 9 (2009): Turn away at the nails. Argh! Otherwise a good movie as long as it gives up the idea that it's an apartheid story.
9. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966): It's not bad but, Jesus, it's long. I, of course, watched the extended version, so more staring at each other. I do like a young Clint Eastwood, though.
10. Priceless (2006): Cute rom com a la Breakfast at Tiffany's.
11. Flawless (2007): Bored out of my mind in 12 minutes so I quit.
12. Persuasion (1995 BBC): The dialogue got a bit muddled in accents sometimes but the love story was sweet and very Austen.
13. Footloose (1984): This was a very 1984 day (we watched Ghostbusters later). I've seen this one before, of course. Awesome. Just awesome.
14. Ghostbusters (1984): I don't think I've seen this one since I was a child. Hilarity.
15. His Girl Friday (1940): How did I miss this one? Cary Grant? Snarky? It's fun. I liked the banter, of course but wish it could have kept up with itself just a bit better.
16. Once Upon a Time in America (1984): It's movies like this that make 1984 look bad. Seriously. I was about to give up at an hour thirty in because nothing happened. Nothing. Another half hour, barely anything. J watched the middle by himself and I caught the end with him. I totally called the "twist" the minute it was a possibility, 10 minutes or so in. Nonsense. Complete nonsense.
17. Arsenic and Old Lace (1944): Again with the Cary Grant and the sort of snarky and me missing it until now. And, again, super fun but wished it kept the pace the whole movie.
18. The Piano Teacher by Janice Y.K. Lee (2009): I have a few problems with this book; the first of which is the fact that the book is not about a piano teacher. There is a piano teacher and she plays a vaguely important role but she is not the center as the author imagines her to be and she is not interesting. Further, she could be basically eliminated from the book with little to no ill effects. She is nothing more than a trick to move the plot forward. Ok. So, the book runs dual narratives in Hong Kong, one in the early 40's before and during the war and the other in the early 50s. That works just fine except the pacing is off. There is a whole chunk in the middle that is only the 40s (the piano teacher is only in the 50s sections) and the end has to play with sequencing in an unnatural and unprecedented way (for this book) to make the suspense work. The book more or less is about the privileged in Hong Kong and what one will do to survive in war and afterward. It is an interesting read and the end is suspenseful but it leaves a few holes that should be filled in rather than passed over with a "things happen during the war." The book also suffers for its misguided and lazy focus on the piano teacher (not to mention the useless and silly epilogue) when it should be focusing in on one of the main players in the action. It could, for example, have focused in on Will (the piano teacher's lover who was imprisoned during the war and the lover of another of the main characters before the war--he's a definite main player) and just had the piano teacher as a side thought. She still could have served the same plot furthering but not pretended to be the main character. She doesn't have the heft or the purchase in the main action to be the protagonist. It's just too easy to make the main character a woman who saunters in en medias res. I wish the author had taken the challenge and gotten her hands dirty.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
13 Movies and a Book
Love is a Many Splendored Thing (1955): I'd seen this one years ago but re-watched because a book in my supposedly-being-read stack (The Piano Teacher by Janice Y. K. Lee) reminded me of it in a the-movie-is-being-ripped-off way. I haven't finished the book but it is certainly following the movie's footsteps very closely in certain ways. Regardless, the movie is about a woman who is half Chinese, half British but who identifies as Asian who reluctantly falls in love with a married (sort-of) British news correspondent. Nothing much happens and it isn't that interesting.
White (1994): The second in the Three Colors trilogy. This one isn't terrible but it is (again) heavy handed with the color imagery. We follow a Polish man, Karol, as he deals with the fact that his wife (Julie Deply) has divorced him because of his impotence (both sexually and in life in general). Karol flees to Poland in an interesting way and sets about changing his life in equally interesting ways. I can't say too much and not give away the plot but I did like it better than Blue.
Red (1994): The last (and the best) of the Three Colors trilogy. This one centers on a model who forms a friendship with a questionable man after rescuing his dog. Still heavy handed with the color imagery, this one manages to be both subtle and interesting in terms of plot. It may be worth watching the other two to see this one (although they're not related really, so you could skip the other two).
The Rookie (2002): I thought I'd seen this but I'm not so sure. Anyway, it's a cute movie about baseball if you can look past Kevin Costner's "acting."
Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006): Cute but seemingly driven by video game development.
Night at the Museum (2006): About what I'd expected: cute and fun, just don't ask too many questions.
I Could Never Be Your Woman (2007): Paul Rudd's dancing is worth it. Having to deal with a script in serious need of editing, eh. What could have been a fluffy rom com has been made into what tries very hard to be a commentary on nature v. nurture complete with a Mother Nature character who can only be seen by Michelle Pfieffer. Ick.
Doubt (2008): Brilliant. Everyone acts beautifully. The movie is beautifully shot. The script is tight and manages to consider both sides of the story without picking one (and without seeming wishy washy for not picking one) while making sure that whatever side you've chosen is riddled with doubt.
The Professor and the Housekeeper by Yoko Ogawa (2003 Japan, English Translation 2009): I don't know what I read that recommended this one but I should have known better the minute I picked up the book. Right there on the pretty blue with cherry blossoms cover is a blurb by Paul Auster. While it is better than anything Auster could produce, it lacks a lot. The book is about a housekeeper who starts work for a retired math professor who, because of a car accident, has a 90 minute short-term memory. The story is almost touching because the housekeeper forms a friendship with a man to whom she has to re-introduce herself every morning (or when she returns after errands if she's been gone more than 90 minutes). And her 12 year old son also forms a friendship with the professor. But, and it's a huge but, the story becomes increasingly more concerned with showing off that the author understands the math and the baseball (introduced by the son) so the friendship becomes overshadowed by the author (remind anyone of Auster?).
Bull Durham (1988): I've seen this one a bazillion times before but always love being reminded that they used the bar in which I spent quite a bit of my MA.
Public Enemies (2009): Yeah, it's not the best Johnny movie. Yeah, it's not the best gangster movie. But I think it's a good movie. I liked the subtlety of it and the look of it and the balance between shoot-em-up and love story.
Soylent Green (1973): Jesus. The late 60s/early 70s were bizarre. This was interesting to watch, I guess, but it lacks a lot in terms of character development, plot development, etc.
Brideshead Revisited (2008): Eh. Watch the mini-series instead. I haven't read the book but I do know that the mini-series remained fairly faithful--this was very different in some regards and almost a direct re-film of the mini in serious ways.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): I like these movies well enough (ok, so I sort of hated the last one in a serious way but really liked the really dark one, whichever one that was--so that evens out to well enough) but I think the viewer who has not read the books is missing out on a lot. Like the kid in class who is a little confused during discussion because he/she only read the cliff notes, the non-reader viewer is left out in the cold with plot and character development. For example, while I've been told and I assumed Harry and Dumbledore had been on other adventures and this was the reason behind their closeness, the movie did not tell me that. I think, basically, the movies don't stand on their own in most cases and it's only getting worse as they film the longer books. I also think the sequel aspect of the films is getting in the way of each individual film. A lot of time is spent at the end of each one to set up the next instead of wrapping up the current one. Threads are left loose and the non-reader viewer is left ambivalent.
White (1994): The second in the Three Colors trilogy. This one isn't terrible but it is (again) heavy handed with the color imagery. We follow a Polish man, Karol, as he deals with the fact that his wife (Julie Deply) has divorced him because of his impotence (both sexually and in life in general). Karol flees to Poland in an interesting way and sets about changing his life in equally interesting ways. I can't say too much and not give away the plot but I did like it better than Blue.
Red (1994): The last (and the best) of the Three Colors trilogy. This one centers on a model who forms a friendship with a questionable man after rescuing his dog. Still heavy handed with the color imagery, this one manages to be both subtle and interesting in terms of plot. It may be worth watching the other two to see this one (although they're not related really, so you could skip the other two).
The Rookie (2002): I thought I'd seen this but I'm not so sure. Anyway, it's a cute movie about baseball if you can look past Kevin Costner's "acting."
Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006): Cute but seemingly driven by video game development.
Night at the Museum (2006): About what I'd expected: cute and fun, just don't ask too many questions.
I Could Never Be Your Woman (2007): Paul Rudd's dancing is worth it. Having to deal with a script in serious need of editing, eh. What could have been a fluffy rom com has been made into what tries very hard to be a commentary on nature v. nurture complete with a Mother Nature character who can only be seen by Michelle Pfieffer. Ick.
Doubt (2008): Brilliant. Everyone acts beautifully. The movie is beautifully shot. The script is tight and manages to consider both sides of the story without picking one (and without seeming wishy washy for not picking one) while making sure that whatever side you've chosen is riddled with doubt.
The Professor and the Housekeeper by Yoko Ogawa (2003 Japan, English Translation 2009): I don't know what I read that recommended this one but I should have known better the minute I picked up the book. Right there on the pretty blue with cherry blossoms cover is a blurb by Paul Auster. While it is better than anything Auster could produce, it lacks a lot. The book is about a housekeeper who starts work for a retired math professor who, because of a car accident, has a 90 minute short-term memory. The story is almost touching because the housekeeper forms a friendship with a man to whom she has to re-introduce herself every morning (or when she returns after errands if she's been gone more than 90 minutes). And her 12 year old son also forms a friendship with the professor. But, and it's a huge but, the story becomes increasingly more concerned with showing off that the author understands the math and the baseball (introduced by the son) so the friendship becomes overshadowed by the author (remind anyone of Auster?).
Bull Durham (1988): I've seen this one a bazillion times before but always love being reminded that they used the bar in which I spent quite a bit of my MA.
Public Enemies (2009): Yeah, it's not the best Johnny movie. Yeah, it's not the best gangster movie. But I think it's a good movie. I liked the subtlety of it and the look of it and the balance between shoot-em-up and love story.
Soylent Green (1973): Jesus. The late 60s/early 70s were bizarre. This was interesting to watch, I guess, but it lacks a lot in terms of character development, plot development, etc.
Brideshead Revisited (2008): Eh. Watch the mini-series instead. I haven't read the book but I do know that the mini-series remained fairly faithful--this was very different in some regards and almost a direct re-film of the mini in serious ways.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): I like these movies well enough (ok, so I sort of hated the last one in a serious way but really liked the really dark one, whichever one that was--so that evens out to well enough) but I think the viewer who has not read the books is missing out on a lot. Like the kid in class who is a little confused during discussion because he/she only read the cliff notes, the non-reader viewer is left out in the cold with plot and character development. For example, while I've been told and I assumed Harry and Dumbledore had been on other adventures and this was the reason behind their closeness, the movie did not tell me that. I think, basically, the movies don't stand on their own in most cases and it's only getting worse as they film the longer books. I also think the sequel aspect of the films is getting in the way of each individual film. A lot of time is spent at the end of each one to set up the next instead of wrapping up the current one. Threads are left loose and the non-reader viewer is left ambivalent.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
11 Movies
State of Play (2009): Terrible, convoluted, nonsensical movie with faux "twists" (totally given away in the previews), mismatched character "development," and preachiness about print v. blogs.
Grey Gardens (2009): The HBO movie, not the documentary. Very well acted and interesting enough but it feels much longer than its hour and 44 minutes.
Blue (1993): The first part of the Three Colors trilogy. I like the idea of this movie much more than the actual execution. Nothing happens--at all--and that gets a little tiresome. Also, the use of the color gets a little heavy-handed and, therefore, trite.
You Got Served (2004): I have more street cred than this movie. And this movie so desperately tried to have it.
Wet Hot American Summer (2001): I love Paul Rudd and I newly love Christopher Meloni dancing but this movie just didn't appeal to me. It lost my attention because it seemingly went haywire about a third of the way in--like they all said, screw the script and plot, let's just be wacky. It didn't work for me.
Traitor (2008): Can we say preachy? And kind of wrong about terrorism?
27 Dresses (2008): Cute enough for a chick flick but also bad bad bad for women (as chick flicks are wont to be). And was it just me or was Katherine Heigl's hair a funny color?
In the Heat of the Night (1967): I used to watch the tv show when I was young but had never seen the movie. I liked it quite a bit. It's just a good, solid movie with solid acting that tackles an issue but doesn't so much beat you over the head with it repeatedly.
Made of Honor (2008): There is no honor in this movie. None. I don't know who is supposed to be made of honor but I have a feeling it's Patrick Dempsey since he's the "maid of honor." But, no, not realizing you love your best friend of the opposite sex until she goes away and then trying everything to ruin her engagement (I don't care if he was "infiltrating"--that's still ruining) and then only telling her the night before the wedding and only being able to say "I love you" to dogs until the exact moment the "hold your peace" line comes into play at which point you crash (literally and figuratively) the wedding to take the bride away because you're too selfish to realize that you've been an ass is not in any way imaginable having honor. The movie COULD have been saved IF the bride had backed out of her own wedding because SHE realized she was marrying the wrong person. It is in no way acceptable to have her HAVE to get married just because her retarded best friend can't open his eyes. AND it is in no way acceptable for her to have been silent about her feelings for him. Hello! Grrrrr. Stupid movie that manages to be bad for BOTH genders.
Sense and Sensibility (1995): I've seen this several times before but don't think I realized Hugh Laurie is in it in a tiny but perfect role. No wonder he was hired for House. Regardless, I like the movie a lot although I wish Kate Winslet would have been a little less red in the face the whole time.
For the Love of the Game (1999). I hated it. No, not even. I was so bored that I couldn't form much of an opinion. And I only made it halfway through before I couldn't watch anymore. So I won't say much about this one because it may have redeemed itself in the second half (doubtful) but the hour I watched felt like 4.
Star Trek (2009): Thank you. A good, solid, dramatic, funny, well-acted, fabulously cast (I can't say how much I enjoyed seeing Simon Pegg as Scotty), movie that both pays homage and its dues to the decades of original material and goes forward. Wonderful. I'll take a few more of these, please.
Grey Gardens (2009): The HBO movie, not the documentary. Very well acted and interesting enough but it feels much longer than its hour and 44 minutes.
Blue (1993): The first part of the Three Colors trilogy. I like the idea of this movie much more than the actual execution. Nothing happens--at all--and that gets a little tiresome. Also, the use of the color gets a little heavy-handed and, therefore, trite.
You Got Served (2004): I have more street cred than this movie. And this movie so desperately tried to have it.
Wet Hot American Summer (2001): I love Paul Rudd and I newly love Christopher Meloni dancing but this movie just didn't appeal to me. It lost my attention because it seemingly went haywire about a third of the way in--like they all said, screw the script and plot, let's just be wacky. It didn't work for me.
Traitor (2008): Can we say preachy? And kind of wrong about terrorism?
27 Dresses (2008): Cute enough for a chick flick but also bad bad bad for women (as chick flicks are wont to be). And was it just me or was Katherine Heigl's hair a funny color?
In the Heat of the Night (1967): I used to watch the tv show when I was young but had never seen the movie. I liked it quite a bit. It's just a good, solid movie with solid acting that tackles an issue but doesn't so much beat you over the head with it repeatedly.
Made of Honor (2008): There is no honor in this movie. None. I don't know who is supposed to be made of honor but I have a feeling it's Patrick Dempsey since he's the "maid of honor." But, no, not realizing you love your best friend of the opposite sex until she goes away and then trying everything to ruin her engagement (I don't care if he was "infiltrating"--that's still ruining) and then only telling her the night before the wedding and only being able to say "I love you" to dogs until the exact moment the "hold your peace" line comes into play at which point you crash (literally and figuratively) the wedding to take the bride away because you're too selfish to realize that you've been an ass is not in any way imaginable having honor. The movie COULD have been saved IF the bride had backed out of her own wedding because SHE realized she was marrying the wrong person. It is in no way acceptable to have her HAVE to get married just because her retarded best friend can't open his eyes. AND it is in no way acceptable for her to have been silent about her feelings for him. Hello! Grrrrr. Stupid movie that manages to be bad for BOTH genders.
Sense and Sensibility (1995): I've seen this several times before but don't think I realized Hugh Laurie is in it in a tiny but perfect role. No wonder he was hired for House. Regardless, I like the movie a lot although I wish Kate Winslet would have been a little less red in the face the whole time.
For the Love of the Game (1999). I hated it. No, not even. I was so bored that I couldn't form much of an opinion. And I only made it halfway through before I couldn't watch anymore. So I won't say much about this one because it may have redeemed itself in the second half (doubtful) but the hour I watched felt like 4.
Star Trek (2009): Thank you. A good, solid, dramatic, funny, well-acted, fabulously cast (I can't say how much I enjoyed seeing Simon Pegg as Scotty), movie that both pays homage and its dues to the decades of original material and goes forward. Wonderful. I'll take a few more of these, please.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
6 Movies, 1 Book
Sunshine Cleaning (2009): I want it to be Sunshine Cleaning Company. I liked this one a lot but I like dark wry comedies and I love Amy Adams and Emily Blunt is only rising in my opinion. Adams does a good job of at once being completely pitiful, a little cheerleader annoying, but completely likable. I don't know what else to say, I like it.
In the Mood for Love (2000): Bleh. Not all that interesting. The premise is very interesting: a man and a woman in 1960s Hong Kong (the film is Chinese) find out that their respective spouses are having an affair with one another. The man and woman then decide to be friends but to never cross the line their spouses crossed. What develops, of course, is a very complicated relationship in which they play act conversations they might have with their spouses (confronting them about having an affair) or how they met/began the affair. All of that is, of course, sexually charged and intimate. The movie, however, fails to build much tension and then just falls off, dropping everything. I appreciate subtlety but too much subtlety and you have nothing.
Monsters vs. Aliens (2009): I want it to be Monsters v. Aliens. We saw it in 3D and that was ok enough for a little while but it made my eyes go wonky (probably just a symptom of my particular eye dysfunctions). The 3D added some interest to the film and that was cool. Otherwise, it was cute. Probably better if you love the old monster movie genre and know those films well enough to catch all of the references.
Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry by Leanne Shapton (2009): I can never remember that title. The closest I get is "Personal Artifacts." Luckily that works in the B&N search engine when I look up the title for the bazillionth time. I had my doubts about this one. It's completely formatted like an auction catalog (so, photos of objects with brief descriptions), yet it is supposed to tell the story of the demise of Lenore and Harold's relationship. Strangely, it works quite well. There are a few letters, postcards, e-mails and whatnot included to give the object descriptions a slight push forward but, for the most part, the objects tell the story and you find yourself engrossed in the relationship. It's annoying only in the fact that I wished I'd thought of it and was talented enough to pull it off. There is supposed to be a movie made of it. I don't know how exactly that is going to work . . .
Rachel Getting Married (2008): No. No. No. I cannot stand people like Anne Hathaway's Kym in this movie. Perhaps I took the movie a little too personally but I really hated it. I didn't like the contrived faux-multi-ethnic, tragically hip wedding. I didn't like the bride having to coddle and bathe her sister on her wedding day. I didn't like the dynamics of the family. And the list goes on. The only thing I vaguely liked was Kym's mother punching her in the face and I wish that happened in the first scene. Terrible movie.
Role Models (2008): I'll watch just about anything in which Paul Rudd dances. My only complaint is that he didn't dance enough. I did, however, really appreciate him dressed as a Kiss-inspired Role playing game member (is there a more precise word for such people?). Not brilliant but a funny fulfillment of the genre.
I've Loved You So Long (2008): Here, Kristin Scott Thomas is a French/English woman (the movie is French) just released from a 15 year prison sentence, for murder, who begins living with her younger sister whom she has not seen in years (and the sister is much younger). The film is very very very well-paced, especially for a film in which nothing much happens and Thomas's performance is remarkably restrained and precise. Somehow I managed to figure out the motive behind the murder almost as soon as who was murdered was revealed but I don't think this was given away by the movie (maybe I just watch a few too many murder mystery oriented tv shows). Anyway, I liked it very much.
In the Mood for Love (2000): Bleh. Not all that interesting. The premise is very interesting: a man and a woman in 1960s Hong Kong (the film is Chinese) find out that their respective spouses are having an affair with one another. The man and woman then decide to be friends but to never cross the line their spouses crossed. What develops, of course, is a very complicated relationship in which they play act conversations they might have with their spouses (confronting them about having an affair) or how they met/began the affair. All of that is, of course, sexually charged and intimate. The movie, however, fails to build much tension and then just falls off, dropping everything. I appreciate subtlety but too much subtlety and you have nothing.
Monsters vs. Aliens (2009): I want it to be Monsters v. Aliens. We saw it in 3D and that was ok enough for a little while but it made my eyes go wonky (probably just a symptom of my particular eye dysfunctions). The 3D added some interest to the film and that was cool. Otherwise, it was cute. Probably better if you love the old monster movie genre and know those films well enough to catch all of the references.
Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry by Leanne Shapton (2009): I can never remember that title. The closest I get is "Personal Artifacts." Luckily that works in the B&N search engine when I look up the title for the bazillionth time. I had my doubts about this one. It's completely formatted like an auction catalog (so, photos of objects with brief descriptions), yet it is supposed to tell the story of the demise of Lenore and Harold's relationship. Strangely, it works quite well. There are a few letters, postcards, e-mails and whatnot included to give the object descriptions a slight push forward but, for the most part, the objects tell the story and you find yourself engrossed in the relationship. It's annoying only in the fact that I wished I'd thought of it and was talented enough to pull it off. There is supposed to be a movie made of it. I don't know how exactly that is going to work . . .
Rachel Getting Married (2008): No. No. No. I cannot stand people like Anne Hathaway's Kym in this movie. Perhaps I took the movie a little too personally but I really hated it. I didn't like the contrived faux-multi-ethnic, tragically hip wedding. I didn't like the bride having to coddle and bathe her sister on her wedding day. I didn't like the dynamics of the family. And the list goes on. The only thing I vaguely liked was Kym's mother punching her in the face and I wish that happened in the first scene. Terrible movie.
Role Models (2008): I'll watch just about anything in which Paul Rudd dances. My only complaint is that he didn't dance enough. I did, however, really appreciate him dressed as a Kiss-inspired Role playing game member (is there a more precise word for such people?). Not brilliant but a funny fulfillment of the genre.
I've Loved You So Long (2008): Here, Kristin Scott Thomas is a French/English woman (the movie is French) just released from a 15 year prison sentence, for murder, who begins living with her younger sister whom she has not seen in years (and the sister is much younger). The film is very very very well-paced, especially for a film in which nothing much happens and Thomas's performance is remarkably restrained and precise. Somehow I managed to figure out the motive behind the murder almost as soon as who was murdered was revealed but I don't think this was given away by the movie (maybe I just watch a few too many murder mystery oriented tv shows). Anyway, I liked it very much.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Center Stage: Turn It Up (2008)
That's right a straight to dvd sequel to a little known Australian dance movie. And I L.O.V.E. it. The first one is one of my go-to cheesy dance movies and this one just gets added to that list. It manages to do what the Step Up duo didn't in that the Center Stage pair are separate entities that don't immediately relate to each other. Cooper shows up in the second but there is no awkward moment where we sort of have to explain what the last movie was all about--that's right Step Up 2: The Streets, I noticed your pitiful writing in of a dance-off between characters past and present and Center Stage is better, much better. This one also pulls in street dance with the ballet without making either seem stupid or uptight. And, of course, there is the end dance number that re-tells the whole thing. G.E.N.I.U.S. I need to own it immediately.
Coraline (2009)
Cute! I loved the stop-motion animation and the story is fun. There are some things to forgive or overlook--a few forced plot points and Dakota Fanning being involved with anything--but it's essentially a kids' movie so you have to move on and understand kids would like it. Anyway, there isn't much to say other than I loved the cat, I love Neil Gaiman, the movie is cute, and now I sort of want to read the book . . . although I bought Neverwhere so that will be first (not to mention the still-not-finished-and-still-sort-of-not-totally-engaging 2666).
Friday, March 6, 2009
6 Movies and a Book
A bunch of satisfying fluff, three disappointing Oscar nominated movies, and a frustrating book.
Step Up 2: The Streets (2008): Not as good as the first one but good enough and great for 30 minutes of Wii Fit's free step. Nothing like people dancing to get you to forget your calves hurt a lot. The plot isn't genius but it's standard and satisfying. I thought it ended a bit abruptly.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962): I've never been a Sinatra fan and this didn't change my mind. I figured it out, for what that's worth, early on and it simply failed to have much of an impact. I'm vaguely curious to read the book to see if it is more successful in terms of suspense.
Persepolis (2007): Eh. Interesting enough I guess but it doesn't quite go far enough. Something crucial is missing to form a complete story arc. I am interested in this book, too, just to see if the movie misses something. I do, however, love the animation and the use of color.
Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008): If they showed that gum one more time! And the vomit? Gross. The movie was cute enough but it could have been brilliant. The problem, well one of them, is that is just gives up at a certain point. Someone who has some influence thought "Dude! Wouldn't be it super cool to have them have sex at Electric Lady Studios and have the equalizer register the noise!" Problem is from the moment she falters and then goes into the studio, the whole movie falters and the moment looks incredibly contrived, as does the moment at the party where they confront the toxic-boy/girlfriends, as does the escalator moment. So this movie filled with cute honest moments winds up looking hollow. Just for a quick look at an equalizer.
Alfie (1966): Ugh. I only made it to the halfway mark, well not quite even the halfway mark. I just couldn't tolerate it and, on top of that, it was immensely boring. I always hear how likable Michael Caine makes the character. How great it is that this complete womanizing cad can be made human. Um, no. I hated him and I didn't like the women he was involved with so I didn't care about any sort of relationship they were having. And I was particularly annoyed with his use (or lack thereof, rather) of pronouns. All women were "birds" so apparently the appropriate pronoun is then "it." I can get past "birds." Whatever. But "it"? Even birds have genders. And it's just so sickeningly sexist. Especially for 1966! Ugh. Gross.
Shall We Dance? (Shall we dansu?) (1996): This is the Japanese movie, not the JLo/Richard Gere movie. I think the plot is the same (I've not seen the American one) but I also think it makes more sense in the Japanese context in which ballroom dancing is really seen as odd. It's cute and funny but a little long at over 2 hours for a basic romcom.
Firmin by Sam Savage (2006): A fluff book that was to be a reward for slogging through 3 of 5 books of 2666. It's a cute premise and cute packaging (there is a bite taken out of the side of the book--albeit one too large to have been taken by a rat). I hated it until page 74. The book is only 164 pages long. The first 74 pages is nonsense. Pure nonsense. So, the book is about a rat named Firmin who somehow knows how to read and just happens to be born in a used bookstore. Ok. Whatever. But the first 74 pages are filled with nonsense. I can't even explain how stupid some of it is. But at page 74, it all turns around because Firmin is taken in by a hippie deadbeat author and the book has a relationship around which to revolve. That makes all the difference. The book actually becomes endearing at this point. Too bad it's almost half over. The second half, the endearing half, moves a little too quickly. I wish the whole book were like the second half.
Step Up 2: The Streets (2008): Not as good as the first one but good enough and great for 30 minutes of Wii Fit's free step. Nothing like people dancing to get you to forget your calves hurt a lot. The plot isn't genius but it's standard and satisfying. I thought it ended a bit abruptly.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962): I've never been a Sinatra fan and this didn't change my mind. I figured it out, for what that's worth, early on and it simply failed to have much of an impact. I'm vaguely curious to read the book to see if it is more successful in terms of suspense.
Persepolis (2007): Eh. Interesting enough I guess but it doesn't quite go far enough. Something crucial is missing to form a complete story arc. I am interested in this book, too, just to see if the movie misses something. I do, however, love the animation and the use of color.
Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008): If they showed that gum one more time! And the vomit? Gross. The movie was cute enough but it could have been brilliant. The problem, well one of them, is that is just gives up at a certain point. Someone who has some influence thought "Dude! Wouldn't be it super cool to have them have sex at Electric Lady Studios and have the equalizer register the noise!" Problem is from the moment she falters and then goes into the studio, the whole movie falters and the moment looks incredibly contrived, as does the moment at the party where they confront the toxic-boy/girlfriends, as does the escalator moment. So this movie filled with cute honest moments winds up looking hollow. Just for a quick look at an equalizer.
Alfie (1966): Ugh. I only made it to the halfway mark, well not quite even the halfway mark. I just couldn't tolerate it and, on top of that, it was immensely boring. I always hear how likable Michael Caine makes the character. How great it is that this complete womanizing cad can be made human. Um, no. I hated him and I didn't like the women he was involved with so I didn't care about any sort of relationship they were having. And I was particularly annoyed with his use (or lack thereof, rather) of pronouns. All women were "birds" so apparently the appropriate pronoun is then "it." I can get past "birds." Whatever. But "it"? Even birds have genders. And it's just so sickeningly sexist. Especially for 1966! Ugh. Gross.
Shall We Dance? (Shall we dansu?) (1996): This is the Japanese movie, not the JLo/Richard Gere movie. I think the plot is the same (I've not seen the American one) but I also think it makes more sense in the Japanese context in which ballroom dancing is really seen as odd. It's cute and funny but a little long at over 2 hours for a basic romcom.
Firmin by Sam Savage (2006): A fluff book that was to be a reward for slogging through 3 of 5 books of 2666. It's a cute premise and cute packaging (there is a bite taken out of the side of the book--albeit one too large to have been taken by a rat). I hated it until page 74. The book is only 164 pages long. The first 74 pages is nonsense. Pure nonsense. So, the book is about a rat named Firmin who somehow knows how to read and just happens to be born in a used bookstore. Ok. Whatever. But the first 74 pages are filled with nonsense. I can't even explain how stupid some of it is. But at page 74, it all turns around because Firmin is taken in by a hippie deadbeat author and the book has a relationship around which to revolve. That makes all the difference. The book actually becomes endearing at this point. Too bad it's almost half over. The second half, the endearing half, moves a little too quickly. I wish the whole book were like the second half.
Monday, February 16, 2009
2666 by Roberto Bolano (2008); "2. The Part about Amalfitano" and "3. The Part about Fate"
I reassert my opinion that this book is very uneven. I enjoyed parts of each section but skimmed through others.
Part 2 focuses on Oscar Amalfitano, who appeared briefly in Part 1 as a tour guide of sorts for the critics, and his family. Here I must, again, complain about the fact that women's voices in this novel are not regularly heard except through letters to men with whom they have abruptly severed sexual relationships. Amalfitano's wife, Lola tells her life's story through letters to him after she has left him and their daughter, Rosa. Lola's life is interesting and parallels the search for an author in Part 1 as she goes in search of a poet but we don't get her story first hand. Because this is the second instance and echoes the silencing of Liz, it bothers me all the more. The remainder of the section follows Amalfitano as he moves with his daughter from Spain to Mexico and as he goes through something of a mental break. Not incredibly interesting
Part 3 focuses on Oscar Fate (a little trite given Amalfitano's first name is Oscar . . . not to mention Fate as a last name . . . . ) who is an African-American journalist working for an Af-Am-centric publication. This section gets very boring very quickly as Oscar is working on a report about a founding member of the Black Panthers--the entirety of a speech the man gives is documented and I find that incredibly boring and unnecessary. Bolano seems to lack a certain grasp on the idea of brevity and synopsis. Anyway, Oscar then gets recruited to cover a boxing match in Mexico in Amalfitano's city (the same city to which the critics chased Archimboldi) and gets tangled up in some dubious dealings involving Amalfitano's daughter Rosa and her shady friends. This section is interesting but ends on a strange note with narratives bouncing back and forth between times and possibly points of view, not a narrative strategy in the book so far. So far, this is the best book in terms of consistency and being concise and honestly making me want to continue the book (after the Black Panther speech that is). Maybe the rest of the book will follow? I look forward to seeing how these narratives come together, or don't. At any rate, I've only read 349 pages of 898 so a lot is left to happen.
Part 2 focuses on Oscar Amalfitano, who appeared briefly in Part 1 as a tour guide of sorts for the critics, and his family. Here I must, again, complain about the fact that women's voices in this novel are not regularly heard except through letters to men with whom they have abruptly severed sexual relationships. Amalfitano's wife, Lola tells her life's story through letters to him after she has left him and their daughter, Rosa. Lola's life is interesting and parallels the search for an author in Part 1 as she goes in search of a poet but we don't get her story first hand. Because this is the second instance and echoes the silencing of Liz, it bothers me all the more. The remainder of the section follows Amalfitano as he moves with his daughter from Spain to Mexico and as he goes through something of a mental break. Not incredibly interesting
Part 3 focuses on Oscar Fate (a little trite given Amalfitano's first name is Oscar . . . not to mention Fate as a last name . . . . ) who is an African-American journalist working for an Af-Am-centric publication. This section gets very boring very quickly as Oscar is working on a report about a founding member of the Black Panthers--the entirety of a speech the man gives is documented and I find that incredibly boring and unnecessary. Bolano seems to lack a certain grasp on the idea of brevity and synopsis. Anyway, Oscar then gets recruited to cover a boxing match in Mexico in Amalfitano's city (the same city to which the critics chased Archimboldi) and gets tangled up in some dubious dealings involving Amalfitano's daughter Rosa and her shady friends. This section is interesting but ends on a strange note with narratives bouncing back and forth between times and possibly points of view, not a narrative strategy in the book so far. So far, this is the best book in terms of consistency and being concise and honestly making me want to continue the book (after the Black Panther speech that is). Maybe the rest of the book will follow? I look forward to seeing how these narratives come together, or don't. At any rate, I've only read 349 pages of 898 so a lot is left to happen.
Catching Up Again: 5 Movies
The MacKintosh Man (1973):
My love of Paul Newman is certainly a documented fact. I just wish all of the movies he was in could measure up to his acting ability. The MacKintosh Man (whose tagline gives away a piece of information not revealed (or true) until the middle of the movie) is a mess of a spy movie. If you were the dumbest person alive, you might not figure out the whole thing before it's done but, with even a tiny bit of sense or experience with spy movies, you'll know the grand secret long before the movie thinks you should. All of that, of course, results in a spy movie with a significant lack of suspense. No need to see it.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975):
No, I hadn't seen this one in its entirety until recently but I had seen most of it. I liked it well enough but will admit to falling asleep in the middle of it for a bit . . .
The Pianist (2002):
I am not a devotee of Adrian Brody. I just don't really get it. And The Pianist really failed to connect with me on an emotional level. I just didn't care. And I didn't believe that he was tortured by not being able to play piano for all of those years. It's fine but not wonderful.
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946):
Wow, the movies I've seen recently are lackluster or just plain bad. This one falls into the just plain bad category. It's long and boring. Very long and very boring which resulted in me only making it through half of it.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008):
This is a beautiful movie. Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt have to be two of the most beautiful people alive. It has it's problems and isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, which is only magnified by all of the hype surrounding it even before it was released. It is, for example, not as good a movie as The Dark Knight. But, on its own merit, it is a good, enjoyable movie.
My love of Paul Newman is certainly a documented fact. I just wish all of the movies he was in could measure up to his acting ability. The MacKintosh Man (whose tagline gives away a piece of information not revealed (or true) until the middle of the movie) is a mess of a spy movie. If you were the dumbest person alive, you might not figure out the whole thing before it's done but, with even a tiny bit of sense or experience with spy movies, you'll know the grand secret long before the movie thinks you should. All of that, of course, results in a spy movie with a significant lack of suspense. No need to see it.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975):
No, I hadn't seen this one in its entirety until recently but I had seen most of it. I liked it well enough but will admit to falling asleep in the middle of it for a bit . . .
The Pianist (2002):
I am not a devotee of Adrian Brody. I just don't really get it. And The Pianist really failed to connect with me on an emotional level. I just didn't care. And I didn't believe that he was tortured by not being able to play piano for all of those years. It's fine but not wonderful.
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946):
Wow, the movies I've seen recently are lackluster or just plain bad. This one falls into the just plain bad category. It's long and boring. Very long and very boring which resulted in me only making it through half of it.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008):
This is a beautiful movie. Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt have to be two of the most beautiful people alive. It has it's problems and isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, which is only magnified by all of the hype surrounding it even before it was released. It is, for example, not as good a movie as The Dark Knight. But, on its own merit, it is a good, enjoyable movie.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
2666 by Roberto Bolano (2008); "1. The Part about the Critics"
First, put a ~ on the n in Bolano. And I'll avoid any spoilers.
Second, no, I'm not finished with the whole book. I'm going to try to write about each book (5 in all) because I am certain that by the time I get to the end of this almost-900 page monstrosity not only will it be five years from now but I will have forgotten everything from the beginning of the book.
Starting with the title. I wish someone knew how to pronounce it. It is "twenty-six, sixty-six" (my preference, I think) or "two-six-six-six" or "two thousand six hundred sixty six" or "two six sixty six" or . . . . Of course, all translated from Spanish but the same configurations apply. The New Yorker has a "National Reading 2666 month" (right--in a month. Ha!) and discusses the title but with no real conclusions. Here and here.
I love the epilogue: "An oasis of horror in a desert of boredom" --Charles Baudelaire. I need to find the source but it might be the title of a paper one day.
So this part, as indicated by the title, is about the critics. Four critics, only one of whom is a woman, who study the same author (who is a bit Pynchon- or Salinger-esque in reclusivity): Liz Norton (British), Jean-Claude Pelletier (French), Piero Morini (Italian), and Manuel Espinoza (Spanish) study Benno von Archimboldi (German). Arguably, the critics are the preeminent Archimboldi scholars and they supposedly spend a lot of time writing and conferencing on the author. Slightly interesting is Bolano's choice to have only European scholars and an European author when he was Chilean.
I was incredibly interested at first. How many books are written on literature scholars? Not many. And how many actually dare to show them at a conference? Not many. And how many show the relationships between scholars. Not many. So that drew me in along with all of the hype and the great physical packaging of the three book boxed set. But these scholars, unfortunately for my attention span with the book, engage in a sort of scholarship that I don't appreciate and that I find sort of useless academically. They chase the author. The actual physical author. They are interested in his life, where he is, etc. I love Salinger, love DeLillo, am intrigued by Pynchon (mainly because I don't understand the books enough to love him). But their personal lives do not come into play in my scholarship. I would never dream of taking a trip to New York to find Pynchon and can't imagine that finding the man would actually accomplish anything. And this is not only because when faced with an author I can do little more than say my name for an autograph but because I study fiction. I'm not looking to write a biography.
Another fact that tested my tolerance is the treatment of women. Norton is not on equal footing with the men academically. She stumbled into her study of the author. And, of course, she must, absolutely must, have a physical relationship that causes problems and turns sour not to mention the emotional baggage she brings into that relationship. And the narrator (third person omni), at first, paid little heed to her and her opinions on the relationship but offered the other side in detail. Toward the end of this book, he does resolve that a bit and pays more attention to her but the damage has been done. There aren't many other women in the book so far. An old publisher who only makes a brief appearance, a Mexican woman who is maybe (probably) sexually exploited and deserted, a woman or two referred to in a story, and a hoard of Mexican women killed but only referenced in passing toward the end of the book.
Another odd thing is the attention paid to dreams by the narrator. Several times the reader is told about the dreams of the main characters. They're maybe interesting but I'm not sure what to do with them.
2666 is certainly not like other South American/Latino books I've read. This is not Garcia Marquez's magical realism (which right now just makes me want to read that instead). I would be interested to know if this is a strain of Latino literature I've missed or if it's something new or if it's just Bolano (which really just makes me want to go back to school for Latino lit).
So far the book is good. Not quite the brilliant espoused by critics and it definitely tests my interests. It's a dense read and the tiny sections instead of chapters tend to make me read fewer pages in one sitting. Add that to the plot and thematic trouble and it's going to take me a while to get through it. I like it but I'm really questioning whether all the hype isn't just because the author died, left the book unfinished, and the sheer ginormous size of it. It might help, too, if I had already read The Savage Detectives instead of piling it on my nightstand.
So, forward I go (after a brief respite with some Winterson and Obama, I think).
Second, no, I'm not finished with the whole book. I'm going to try to write about each book (5 in all) because I am certain that by the time I get to the end of this almost-900 page monstrosity not only will it be five years from now but I will have forgotten everything from the beginning of the book.
Starting with the title. I wish someone knew how to pronounce it. It is "twenty-six, sixty-six" (my preference, I think) or "two-six-six-six" or "two thousand six hundred sixty six" or "two six sixty six" or . . . . Of course, all translated from Spanish but the same configurations apply. The New Yorker has a "National Reading 2666 month" (right--in a month. Ha!) and discusses the title but with no real conclusions. Here and here.
I love the epilogue: "An oasis of horror in a desert of boredom" --Charles Baudelaire. I need to find the source but it might be the title of a paper one day.
So this part, as indicated by the title, is about the critics. Four critics, only one of whom is a woman, who study the same author (who is a bit Pynchon- or Salinger-esque in reclusivity): Liz Norton (British), Jean-Claude Pelletier (French), Piero Morini (Italian), and Manuel Espinoza (Spanish) study Benno von Archimboldi (German). Arguably, the critics are the preeminent Archimboldi scholars and they supposedly spend a lot of time writing and conferencing on the author. Slightly interesting is Bolano's choice to have only European scholars and an European author when he was Chilean.
I was incredibly interested at first. How many books are written on literature scholars? Not many. And how many actually dare to show them at a conference? Not many. And how many show the relationships between scholars. Not many. So that drew me in along with all of the hype and the great physical packaging of the three book boxed set. But these scholars, unfortunately for my attention span with the book, engage in a sort of scholarship that I don't appreciate and that I find sort of useless academically. They chase the author. The actual physical author. They are interested in his life, where he is, etc. I love Salinger, love DeLillo, am intrigued by Pynchon (mainly because I don't understand the books enough to love him). But their personal lives do not come into play in my scholarship. I would never dream of taking a trip to New York to find Pynchon and can't imagine that finding the man would actually accomplish anything. And this is not only because when faced with an author I can do little more than say my name for an autograph but because I study fiction. I'm not looking to write a biography.
Another fact that tested my tolerance is the treatment of women. Norton is not on equal footing with the men academically. She stumbled into her study of the author. And, of course, she must, absolutely must, have a physical relationship that causes problems and turns sour not to mention the emotional baggage she brings into that relationship. And the narrator (third person omni), at first, paid little heed to her and her opinions on the relationship but offered the other side in detail. Toward the end of this book, he does resolve that a bit and pays more attention to her but the damage has been done. There aren't many other women in the book so far. An old publisher who only makes a brief appearance, a Mexican woman who is maybe (probably) sexually exploited and deserted, a woman or two referred to in a story, and a hoard of Mexican women killed but only referenced in passing toward the end of the book.
Another odd thing is the attention paid to dreams by the narrator. Several times the reader is told about the dreams of the main characters. They're maybe interesting but I'm not sure what to do with them.
2666 is certainly not like other South American/Latino books I've read. This is not Garcia Marquez's magical realism (which right now just makes me want to read that instead). I would be interested to know if this is a strain of Latino literature I've missed or if it's something new or if it's just Bolano (which really just makes me want to go back to school for Latino lit).
So far the book is good. Not quite the brilliant espoused by critics and it definitely tests my interests. It's a dense read and the tiny sections instead of chapters tend to make me read fewer pages in one sitting. Add that to the plot and thematic trouble and it's going to take me a while to get through it. I like it but I'm really questioning whether all the hype isn't just because the author died, left the book unfinished, and the sheer ginormous size of it. It might help, too, if I had already read The Savage Detectives instead of piling it on my nightstand.
So, forward I go (after a brief respite with some Winterson and Obama, I think).
Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
I am beginning to have a clear picture of the films Paul Haggis must have in his collection. Those he admires most and after which he models his writing.
Gentleman's Agreement is ostensibly about anti-Semitism and how terrible it is with Gregory Peck going under-cover as it were as a Jew to write a magazine article about the impacts of anti-Semitism. The problem is that it's about a gentile going under cover as a Jew to expose gentile beliefs and most of the movie is spent on conflicts between Peck and his in-on-it fiance (who he's known for about 5 minutes) because of the considerable strain it puts on their relationship and the way she chooses to handle anti-Semitism by not handling it. While Peck wants to fight every fight, the fiance would rather turn her nose up at it but not say anything in the moment. Then we get the real Jew in on the action who is only visibly persecuted once in the film and has trouble finding an apartment (but there is no on-screen confrontation). The trouble with the whole movie is that while it does expose some of the horrible things done to the Jewish population, it's really all about liberal gentile guilt. The terrible things are done to Peck who we know isn't Jewish so those people watching the movie who are anti-Semitic would think oh that's terrible that one of ours is being treated that way not oh that's terrible that we treat Jews that way.
In addition to those considerable problems, the movie is preachy and speech-y (a la Haggis). The movie turns around when the fiance learns she must take some form of action and rents her place to the Jewish friend thus resolving the conflict between she and Peck. Unfortunately, the whole movie comes off as condescending. No, we shouldn't tolerate any sort of hate or hate crime but slugging men in restaurants is not the answer either. I understand this movie was forward for its time and caused considerable trouble for those involved thanks to McCarthy era witch-hunting but it doesn't hold up and shouldn't be used as a model for social action movies now.
Gentleman's Agreement is ostensibly about anti-Semitism and how terrible it is with Gregory Peck going under-cover as it were as a Jew to write a magazine article about the impacts of anti-Semitism. The problem is that it's about a gentile going under cover as a Jew to expose gentile beliefs and most of the movie is spent on conflicts between Peck and his in-on-it fiance (who he's known for about 5 minutes) because of the considerable strain it puts on their relationship and the way she chooses to handle anti-Semitism by not handling it. While Peck wants to fight every fight, the fiance would rather turn her nose up at it but not say anything in the moment. Then we get the real Jew in on the action who is only visibly persecuted once in the film and has trouble finding an apartment (but there is no on-screen confrontation). The trouble with the whole movie is that while it does expose some of the horrible things done to the Jewish population, it's really all about liberal gentile guilt. The terrible things are done to Peck who we know isn't Jewish so those people watching the movie who are anti-Semitic would think oh that's terrible that one of ours is being treated that way not oh that's terrible that we treat Jews that way.
In addition to those considerable problems, the movie is preachy and speech-y (a la Haggis). The movie turns around when the fiance learns she must take some form of action and rents her place to the Jewish friend thus resolving the conflict between she and Peck. Unfortunately, the whole movie comes off as condescending. No, we shouldn't tolerate any sort of hate or hate crime but slugging men in restaurants is not the answer either. I understand this movie was forward for its time and caused considerable trouble for those involved thanks to McCarthy era witch-hunting but it doesn't hold up and shouldn't be used as a model for social action movies now.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Mama Mia! (2008)
Oh dear. I felt very sorry and embarrassed for Pierce Brosnan singing. Otherwise the movie was cute enough. Not brilliant or life changing but cute and fun. The last few minutes with the cast singing in spandex outfits was really charming and endearing and sort-of worth watching the whole movie for but, of course, we all know I have a weakness for silly dancing actors. And, of course, I hope I look as good as Meryl Streep does when I'm that age, in spandex no less.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Bye Bye Birdie (1963)
This one was on tv on a Saturday afternoon with nothing to do. And, apparently, nothing on tv either. Basically a lot of good-ish actors who shouldn't be singing but did: Janet Leigh, Dick Van Dyke, Ann-Margaret, and a few others. I know it was supposed to be kitschy and not perfect but it was close to intolerable and headache inducing. I appreciate the idea of it but not this execution.
Bell, Book and Candle (1958)
I've seen this movie a bazillion times and like it quite a bit. It's a cute, fun romantic comedy centering on Kim Novak, who is a witch, and James Stewart, who is bewitched. Jack Lemmon supports the cast as Novak's brother and Elsa Lancaster (best known, perhaps, as the bride of Frankenstein) is their aunt. The plot is basic romcom fare: girl meets boy, girl/boy likes the other, girl gets boy (with a little magic), and then hilarity ensues. Definitely worth watching, a bazillion times at that.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Wrong Man (1956)
Hmpf. I had problems with this movie, some founded and others not so much. Basically, the movie failed to have much of an impact. According to Hitchcock, who introduces the film, this is a real story and all the more frightening because of its reality. Well, yeah, maybe in 1956.
So, the film is about the police arresting the wrong man for a crime and the methods by which they deem him guilty are less than reliable--really relying solely on identifications by eye-witnesses which we all know from watching one too many Law and Order episodes (or just basic sociology/criminal justice classes) are none too accurate. So, right, that's scary in 1956 but technology and police oversight prevent the majority of that sort of mix-up now in my mind. What makes that one more of an unfounded problem is because there are tons of wrong men arrested and tossed in jail as illustrated by the bazillion cases of wrongly convicted people based on inaccurate fingerprint identification in LA recently. Basically, I know this still happens but it doesn't frighten me so it is not an effective method of suspense.
The very much founded in reality problem I have with the film is the wife's complete inability to function once things really go downhill for the husband. And then she miraculously recovers months (I forget what the text actually said so maybe it's longer?) later. Seriously?
So this one ends up being a vaguely interesting look at a wrongly accused man but doesn't hold up to the passage of time (or the idea that women might be able to handle stress a little bit better).
So, the film is about the police arresting the wrong man for a crime and the methods by which they deem him guilty are less than reliable--really relying solely on identifications by eye-witnesses which we all know from watching one too many Law and Order episodes (or just basic sociology/criminal justice classes) are none too accurate. So, right, that's scary in 1956 but technology and police oversight prevent the majority of that sort of mix-up now in my mind. What makes that one more of an unfounded problem is because there are tons of wrong men arrested and tossed in jail as illustrated by the bazillion cases of wrongly convicted people based on inaccurate fingerprint identification in LA recently. Basically, I know this still happens but it doesn't frighten me so it is not an effective method of suspense.
The very much founded in reality problem I have with the film is the wife's complete inability to function once things really go downhill for the husband. And then she miraculously recovers months (I forget what the text actually said so maybe it's longer?) later. Seriously?
So this one ends up being a vaguely interesting look at a wrongly accused man but doesn't hold up to the passage of time (or the idea that women might be able to handle stress a little bit better).
Friday, January 16, 2009
Catching Up: 22 Movies and a Book (!)
So, yeah. I was lazy. I was out of town then it was Christmas then it was New Year's then it was . . . Yeah, nope, just me being lazy. So here's the catch-up blog entry. I'll try to keep it short.
1. The Visitor (2007): Brilliant, inspiring, and heartbreaking. It manages to make the issue of illegal immigrants pertinent and get the viewer emotionally involved without resorting to cheap tricks or cheesy plot lines or ranting at the system.
2. Good Night, and Good Luck (2005): My apologies to Clooney but I found this one a tad lifeless. To be so concerned with the impact of McCarthy's political reach, the film folds itself into this one news show without showing the viewer the wider implications. While I know a good bit of the history, the movie should allow me to use that a supplement, not the primary source for information. Meanwhile, that info could have been added in if other, superfluous, aspects were removed (the Patricia Clarkson/Robert Downey Jr storyline was sweet but carried no importance for the larger plot, for example). It's fine but I'm baffled at the hoopla about it when it was released.
3. Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa (2008): I LOVE dancing animals. That's it.
4. Jane Austen Book Club (2007): A movie like this can pass for cute because I don't expect the same things from it as I do, say, Good Night, and Good Luck. It's fluff and it's fun and it makes me wish I had a book club. My only complaint: Jimmy Smits.
5. The Hustler (1961): This just makes me sad that Paul Newman will never make another movie. It's good. I'm not in love with it and it has it's problems (the female character is not what we'd call, oh, I don't know, good for women) but Newman is wonderful as usual as is Jackie Gleason. It does offer an interesting look into the "tough guy" and the (d)evolution of such a character, especially when that tough guy is ultimately being controlled by, not only his addiction to his profession/hobby (pool and gambling on the game), but by the machinations of that corner of society (the hierarchy of tough guys so to speak). So, yeah, an interesting glimpse into that sort of masculinity.
6. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953): I've seen this movie a bazillion times but I still love Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell. Yes, it's a tad dated. Yes, it's a tad sexist. But it's still a solid, fun comedy musical.
7. Christmas in Connecticut (1945): A cute Barbara Stanwyck movie in which she's a domestic goddess in print: writing essays with decorating, child rearing, and cooking tips about her life on a farm in Connecticut with her husband and newborn baby. The man who owns Stanwyck's publication demands that she give a soldier a proper Christmas at her home which, of course, the owner will also attend. The problem? Stanwyck is a single, childless woman living in a tiny New York apartment and her uncle, who owns a restaurant, provides all of the recipes for her writing. Mayhem ensues during which a male pursuer of Stanwyk proposes marriage (again) and offers his Connecticut farm for a cover-up scheme and, of course, Stanwyk and the soldier fall in love. It sounds more confusing than it is. The movie is a fun, false identity movie (that was strangely and probably tragically, remade in 1992 for tv with Dyan Cannon and Kris Kristofferson, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger).
8. 3:10 to Yuma (1957): YAWN. Watch the newer one.
9. Evening (2007): I didn't expect this to be good but I did not expect it to be so bad. Now that I see it was co-written by Michael Cunningham, I'm even more baffled. I did not like The Hours (novel or movie) or A Home at the End of the World but I disliked those three things for very different reasons. It seems as if Cunningham is making a study out of how to just miss the mark in a variety of ways. Amazing. Anyway, the movie is just dull and I think completely fails to do what it sets out to do. And then end. Ugh. The end is just a cheap attempt to make everyone cry.
10. Sabotage (1936): Supposedly the first film to be made about terrorism, this one is not your typical Hitchcock. It's fine but it's a little dull and slow.
11. Adaptation (2002): Things I do not need to see in a movie: a crowning baby, Nicolas Cage masturbating (especially more than once). Otherwise, the film was an interesting look at meta-narratives and the process of adapting a book to film. I have the book but haven't read it so I'd be interested to see how it ties together. I'm glad to have seen it but won't watch it again unless I teach it.
12. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007): What? The title refers to how pregnant one of the main characters is when she goes to an rendezvous for an illegal abortion. One ginormous problem with the film is that it is subtitled in white letters against an often light background making the Romanian impossible to translate. So half the time I had no idea what was being said. The other problem is that I can't imagine being impressed with the film had I been able to understand every syllable. It seemed to function on characters emotions that were not explored or developed. But, again, maybe one line of subtitles would have solved that problem.
13. The Reader (2007): Genius. Clint Eastwood should watch this movie over and over until he can learn to make a mid-film thematic and tonal transition without making it look and feel like two disparate movies jammed together at the middle. Kate Winslet is brilliant as usual and the actor playing the boy convincingly ages into Ralph Fiennes who is also wonderful. My one tiny complaint is a tiny lack of exposition when she is offered a promotion to distinguish it from the earlier, more life-changing promotion. One little line would have helped me immensely. Otherwise, virtually flawless.
14. The Lost Weekend (1945): I lost 101 minutes watching this poor excuse for an anti-drinking PSA. Sad.
15. The Man who Knew Too Much (1956): Strangely, a remake of a 1934 Hitchcock, by Hitchcock, this time with James Stewart and Doris Day. It's definitely interesting. It kept my attention but a few threads were left hanging loose (the taxidermist, for example) that I would have preferred tied up.
16. Marley and Me (2007): That sound you hear is an audible scoff at the idea that this is anything like a family film about a rambunctious puppy. I'll save you the rant and just say this: at least the last 20 minutes of the film are devoted to an almost pornographic look at this poor dog dying, including the euthanasia syringe being inserted and drained of drugs. Terrible.
17. Goya's Ghosts (2006): This movie is not so much about Goya but more about a scandal into which he is pulled revolving around a monk who has Goya's muse imprisoned under (false) charges of being a heretic (we're talking the Spanish Inquisition here) and then that monk is shamed and flees only to return under the guise of a rational man working under the banner of Napoleon. It has some flaws (Natalie Portman playing two characters, for one) but it's watchable.
18. The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): This one isn't even worth a review. Just watch The Tudors.
19. The Red Shoes (1948): I have mixed feelings about this one. It's a tad long (a little over two hours) to tell what should be a concise, compact story. Quite a lot of time is performance footage which is not especially compelling even as much as I love dancing movies. But the story is interesting in that it centers on a retold ballet version of the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, "The Red Shoes," while the larger story is also a retelling of the same story. So, eh. It's on the list and I like the layered meta-narratives.
20. Wife for a Night (1952): A strange little Italian mixed-up identity movie that will only suffer if I attempt a plot summary. But it's cute and fun.
21. Smart People (2008): Unfortunately not written by smart people.
22. Brideshead Revisited (1981, miniseries): This should really count as about 5 movies since it was almost 11 hours long. Regardless, I liked it but think it a few things crammed together. There is the war frame, the Sebastian/Charles college story, some sort of transitional period, and a Charles/Julia story. Individually, they all work but I found myself forgetting entirely about the frame until it came up again at the end and then not being interested in it because it skipped information I wanted to know. And I loved the Sebastian/Charles and Charles/Julia stories but did not care for the circumstances that removed Sebastian from the story. I found myself wanting more Julia in the first half and more Sebastian in the second. It's as if they couldn't really appear as full characters in the same scene. Oh, and I found the whole parents' dying parts not well incorporated which could be the point, that adults don't necessarily come into our lives until there is a serious problem, but still.
23. And the book! Vacation (2008) Deb Olin Unferth: I bought this one (for my birthday) largely because it's a pretty hardcover sans dust jacket published by McSweeney's. This is a strange book to me because I found myself not really caring about what happened or about the characters when I first started reading it (which, of course, relegated it to the pile while I finished Calamity Physics) but somewhere in the middle-ish of the book, I cared. And by the end, I really wanted the book to continue. It's a strange plot-line with a few subplots so I can't really summarize it with any efficiency or, ultimately, veracity but I do recommend it. I'm not sure why but I do like it, kind of a lot.
Ok, that's done. Hopefully, I can stay on top of things a little better now ;)
1. The Visitor (2007): Brilliant, inspiring, and heartbreaking. It manages to make the issue of illegal immigrants pertinent and get the viewer emotionally involved without resorting to cheap tricks or cheesy plot lines or ranting at the system.
2. Good Night, and Good Luck (2005): My apologies to Clooney but I found this one a tad lifeless. To be so concerned with the impact of McCarthy's political reach, the film folds itself into this one news show without showing the viewer the wider implications. While I know a good bit of the history, the movie should allow me to use that a supplement, not the primary source for information. Meanwhile, that info could have been added in if other, superfluous, aspects were removed (the Patricia Clarkson/Robert Downey Jr storyline was sweet but carried no importance for the larger plot, for example). It's fine but I'm baffled at the hoopla about it when it was released.
3. Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa (2008): I LOVE dancing animals. That's it.
4. Jane Austen Book Club (2007): A movie like this can pass for cute because I don't expect the same things from it as I do, say, Good Night, and Good Luck. It's fluff and it's fun and it makes me wish I had a book club. My only complaint: Jimmy Smits.
5. The Hustler (1961): This just makes me sad that Paul Newman will never make another movie. It's good. I'm not in love with it and it has it's problems (the female character is not what we'd call, oh, I don't know, good for women) but Newman is wonderful as usual as is Jackie Gleason. It does offer an interesting look into the "tough guy" and the (d)evolution of such a character, especially when that tough guy is ultimately being controlled by, not only his addiction to his profession/hobby (pool and gambling on the game), but by the machinations of that corner of society (the hierarchy of tough guys so to speak). So, yeah, an interesting glimpse into that sort of masculinity.
6. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953): I've seen this movie a bazillion times but I still love Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell. Yes, it's a tad dated. Yes, it's a tad sexist. But it's still a solid, fun comedy musical.
7. Christmas in Connecticut (1945): A cute Barbara Stanwyck movie in which she's a domestic goddess in print: writing essays with decorating, child rearing, and cooking tips about her life on a farm in Connecticut with her husband and newborn baby. The man who owns Stanwyck's publication demands that she give a soldier a proper Christmas at her home which, of course, the owner will also attend. The problem? Stanwyck is a single, childless woman living in a tiny New York apartment and her uncle, who owns a restaurant, provides all of the recipes for her writing. Mayhem ensues during which a male pursuer of Stanwyk proposes marriage (again) and offers his Connecticut farm for a cover-up scheme and, of course, Stanwyk and the soldier fall in love. It sounds more confusing than it is. The movie is a fun, false identity movie (that was strangely and probably tragically, remade in 1992 for tv with Dyan Cannon and Kris Kristofferson, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger).
8. 3:10 to Yuma (1957): YAWN. Watch the newer one.
9. Evening (2007): I didn't expect this to be good but I did not expect it to be so bad. Now that I see it was co-written by Michael Cunningham, I'm even more baffled. I did not like The Hours (novel or movie) or A Home at the End of the World but I disliked those three things for very different reasons. It seems as if Cunningham is making a study out of how to just miss the mark in a variety of ways. Amazing. Anyway, the movie is just dull and I think completely fails to do what it sets out to do. And then end. Ugh. The end is just a cheap attempt to make everyone cry.
10. Sabotage (1936): Supposedly the first film to be made about terrorism, this one is not your typical Hitchcock. It's fine but it's a little dull and slow.
11. Adaptation (2002): Things I do not need to see in a movie: a crowning baby, Nicolas Cage masturbating (especially more than once). Otherwise, the film was an interesting look at meta-narratives and the process of adapting a book to film. I have the book but haven't read it so I'd be interested to see how it ties together. I'm glad to have seen it but won't watch it again unless I teach it.
12. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007): What? The title refers to how pregnant one of the main characters is when she goes to an rendezvous for an illegal abortion. One ginormous problem with the film is that it is subtitled in white letters against an often light background making the Romanian impossible to translate. So half the time I had no idea what was being said. The other problem is that I can't imagine being impressed with the film had I been able to understand every syllable. It seemed to function on characters emotions that were not explored or developed. But, again, maybe one line of subtitles would have solved that problem.
13. The Reader (2007): Genius. Clint Eastwood should watch this movie over and over until he can learn to make a mid-film thematic and tonal transition without making it look and feel like two disparate movies jammed together at the middle. Kate Winslet is brilliant as usual and the actor playing the boy convincingly ages into Ralph Fiennes who is also wonderful. My one tiny complaint is a tiny lack of exposition when she is offered a promotion to distinguish it from the earlier, more life-changing promotion. One little line would have helped me immensely. Otherwise, virtually flawless.
14. The Lost Weekend (1945): I lost 101 minutes watching this poor excuse for an anti-drinking PSA. Sad.
15. The Man who Knew Too Much (1956): Strangely, a remake of a 1934 Hitchcock, by Hitchcock, this time with James Stewart and Doris Day. It's definitely interesting. It kept my attention but a few threads were left hanging loose (the taxidermist, for example) that I would have preferred tied up.
16. Marley and Me (2007): That sound you hear is an audible scoff at the idea that this is anything like a family film about a rambunctious puppy. I'll save you the rant and just say this: at least the last 20 minutes of the film are devoted to an almost pornographic look at this poor dog dying, including the euthanasia syringe being inserted and drained of drugs. Terrible.
17. Goya's Ghosts (2006): This movie is not so much about Goya but more about a scandal into which he is pulled revolving around a monk who has Goya's muse imprisoned under (false) charges of being a heretic (we're talking the Spanish Inquisition here) and then that monk is shamed and flees only to return under the guise of a rational man working under the banner of Napoleon. It has some flaws (Natalie Portman playing two characters, for one) but it's watchable.
18. The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): This one isn't even worth a review. Just watch The Tudors.
19. The Red Shoes (1948): I have mixed feelings about this one. It's a tad long (a little over two hours) to tell what should be a concise, compact story. Quite a lot of time is performance footage which is not especially compelling even as much as I love dancing movies. But the story is interesting in that it centers on a retold ballet version of the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, "The Red Shoes," while the larger story is also a retelling of the same story. So, eh. It's on the list and I like the layered meta-narratives.
20. Wife for a Night (1952): A strange little Italian mixed-up identity movie that will only suffer if I attempt a plot summary. But it's cute and fun.
21. Smart People (2008): Unfortunately not written by smart people.
22. Brideshead Revisited (1981, miniseries): This should really count as about 5 movies since it was almost 11 hours long. Regardless, I liked it but think it a few things crammed together. There is the war frame, the Sebastian/Charles college story, some sort of transitional period, and a Charles/Julia story. Individually, they all work but I found myself forgetting entirely about the frame until it came up again at the end and then not being interested in it because it skipped information I wanted to know. And I loved the Sebastian/Charles and Charles/Julia stories but did not care for the circumstances that removed Sebastian from the story. I found myself wanting more Julia in the first half and more Sebastian in the second. It's as if they couldn't really appear as full characters in the same scene. Oh, and I found the whole parents' dying parts not well incorporated which could be the point, that adults don't necessarily come into our lives until there is a serious problem, but still.
23. And the book! Vacation (2008) Deb Olin Unferth: I bought this one (for my birthday) largely because it's a pretty hardcover sans dust jacket published by McSweeney's. This is a strange book to me because I found myself not really caring about what happened or about the characters when I first started reading it (which, of course, relegated it to the pile while I finished Calamity Physics) but somewhere in the middle-ish of the book, I cared. And by the end, I really wanted the book to continue. It's a strange plot-line with a few subplots so I can't really summarize it with any efficiency or, ultimately, veracity but I do recommend it. I'm not sure why but I do like it, kind of a lot.
Ok, that's done. Hopefully, I can stay on top of things a little better now ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)