FUN

I don't write much at all anymore, and don't particularly miss it. I used to keep a few different blogs active concerning varying areas of interest, so although one may look abandon at times, one or more of the others were often thriving. This is no longer true. A large part of me is happy that I no longer feel the need to talk to myself over the internet, and another part of me wonders if I'll ever regret quitting. Either way, I wanted to leave this blog on a Fun kind of note....

My last review is reserved for the band Fun. 

I kind of wanted to write this review as an apologetic tribute to the band that I once abhorred, as a way to make up for all of the times I spouted hate for their style, and sound. Honestly, although I definitely still hate quite a bit of Fun's work, I take it all back.  

Last summer, I did an internship in a city about 30 minutes away from where I live, and I swear-I maxed out my car's sound system and listened to "Some Nights" on a constant loop LITERALLY the entire commute, both to and from work each day. The first time I heard that song it hit a familiar nerve in me and took me through a slew of emotions I never thought I'd experience after simply listening to a song. Naturally, I downloaded it and listened to it a few more times to see if I had really understood the lyrics. Other songs have moved me in the past, but honestly, I find it hard to relate to most music on the radio these days. I'm not a pimp, a slut, a party animal without a care in the world, a lonely or brokenhearted person, or a pill-popping addict. I haven't been cheated on, and I'm not a cheater. My heart isn't a stereo, and I'm really not the "uber tough, you can't touch this because I'm a WOMAN who just needs to catch my breath" type. Seriously-there is nothing on the radio today that relates to who I am and what I'm doing with my life right now. 

Even though I really can't relate to what Fun sings about in Some Nights, I feel like the story and telling of events in this song really helped me to understand a lot about certain people in my life that I had never been able to understand before. And most importantly-this song addressed an issue that is compelling and in some ways intriguing to think about, especially in today's world. I applaud Fun for opening my mind with this song. 

And since then the song "Carry On" has been released which, again, I can't EXACTLY relate to, but I feel is a song that each of us will one day understand (if not already). "May your past be the sound, of your feet upon the ground"---yes! I like the simplicity of the message-just carry on! I may not be lost and alone right now, and I'm not going through difficult times by any means, but this is a song that I am sure I will be glad to recall when such times arise. Unlike some of the other "honest" songs out there, Carry On gives you a positive take-home message, rather than leaving you with the empty and depressed feelings that many post-modern works will. Props again, on an amazing song.  

Lastly and most recently, Fun and Pink pulled together to bring us "Just Give Me a Reason". The idea that we can learn to love again.... yeah, that moved me. Not to mention the song (and all of the songs that I've mentioned so far) is downright beautiful. The combined vocal talent AND a song worth listening to?! Not to mention the live version actually sounds better than the studio. 

         Side note: Pink's song "Try" is another move-me and I was shocked and impressed by it. THEN I WATCHED THE LIVE PERFORMANCE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqUFTWi1pVg The talent in this video is downright amazing. I was shocked. The vocals aren't as strong as usual for her, but that could be because she's doing... well, what she's doing. Just watch the video.

So anyway, that's for you, Fun. Nate Ruess, you're quite a bit more talented than I had initially perceived, and I legitimately feel bad/dumb for saying otherwise. Keep doing what you're doing---because I love it!

(really sorta hoping that this post will make me miss writing and force me to do it again... )

Albert the Albino Alligator

I was thinking the other day about how I never post anymore.... and then I realized I haven't really watched a movie in ages (and a NEW movie in even longer). Haven't read any books, haven't listened to any new music, haven't even followed MLB postseason or ANY NFL/College football. Sooooo. There's nothing to write about. Nothing. At. All. 

So I decided to post a picture of an albino alligator, because... Why not? 

THE HURT LOCKER

Recently realized that my last post was my response to the Hunger Games film.... which, for the information of anyone who reads this, would be 100% different if I were to write that post today following my second viewing. Just a little side note...

I know you're terribly curious as to what has kept me from posting, so I'll go ahead and share. The last 6 or so months have been full of change for yours truly. Big changes with school (graduation!!!) and work (new job!!!), as well as personal life (.... never mind). Have I been engaging in the various art forms? Not really, actually. Sure, I saw some of the major blockbuster films of the summer [The Avengers was my favorite, The Dark Knight Rises was a little sub-par imo, but still a great film], but I haven't been "watching" films or "reading" books like I used to. I used to cling to these forms of entertainment during the big life changes, because the escape from reality was kind of my anchor. I don't think it is anymore...

I'm rambling, yes. And so far, this is more about my personal life than my thoughts concerning entertainment, but it was one of those posts that felt necessary. Necessary for myself, obviously. I guess I prefaced this post like this because I wanted to explain my recent infatuation with war films and otherwise depressing genres... which would be a slight bit confusing to those who know me.

THE HURT LOCKER

Excellent film. There are so many reasons I could use to back my claim of excellence for this movie, but I'll keep this relatively tame.

1) The cinematography just seemed right. I realize that that statement in and of itself wouldn't be considered an appropriate or valid reason to deem a film "great", but that's exactly how I want to describe it. The use of angles and shots and lighting, the lack of music to fill the emptiness... it just seemed so well done. The "less is more"/raw mentality doesn't always work for me, but I really appreciated it in this movie. I thought it was very well directed from all directions.

2) I loved the lack of a very emotional and driving story line. Not until the end do we start to understand the point of the film; the majority of the movie almost feels like a documentary, like we're watching in real time as an EOD unit goes about doing their job day-by-day. This approach bored me at first, but once it got going I really started to appreciate the concept. By the end I was completely satisfied.

3) Great characters, good acting. The three main characters kept me hooked, but the actors seemed to start off a little slow. Once they warmed up (or maybe it was just that I was beginning to care for their characters), they were pretty convincing. There were still a few moments that felt really cheesy and sophomoric as far as acting is concerned (not just for the main characters, but for other parts as well), but overall I was pretty content, but not completely blown away.

4) The last few scenes of the movie summed up exactly why it is that I enjoy this genre in the obsessive way that I do. More about that in my summary...

Like I said, there were a lot of reasons to love this movie. There were also a few reasons NOT to enjoy it (I mean, do EOD guys really double as snipers? I didn't think so...?). But even the scenes that seemed the most inaccurate and unrealistic still managed to create a very believable view of the kind of things that happen over there.



Now, another film that I watched within the last week was BROTHERS, but I don't have the energy to cover that one right now. Suffice it to say, the film was incredible and moving, and I had few if any negative thoughts following my watch. It blew me away. I was very skeptical of Tobey Maguire's ability to play such a dramatic role, but even he put me to silence.

SUMMARY:

"The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." (as quoted from THE HURT LOCKER)

and

"Who was it that said only the dead have seen the end of war? I have seen the end of war. The question is, how do I go on living? " (BROTHERS)



These quotes sum up the many reasons that I love to watch these films. Having dated one and known many a military man/woman, it has always interested me to understand what it is that causes the dramatic change once they return home after an overseas tour (particularly the ones who serve in combat, obviously). Some of them want nothing more than to go back, and some seem to be only half alive/detached/living in a contorted view of reality. It makes me sad either way, because the ones who love it seem to only be happy when wearing fatigues on the field of battle, and the other seems to have a very difficult time finding any happiness. Either way, it seems like both types, at the very least, have a hard time readjusting to reality. Necessary though it may be at times, war is a truly ugly fact of life. Here's to the men and women that serve... the sacrifice is so much more than we can imagine!

Here it is... my obligatory "Hunger Games" post.

Entertainment is such an interesting concept. We use entertainment to cure boredom, to keep us company, to kill time. My deep and never-ending curiosity of the psychology of the human mind is what makes this book/movie series so compelling (for me). I saw the movie opening weekend (nearly two weeks ago), but I can't seem to wrap my mind around what it is that I feel necessary to say, so I'm going to do this in the best way that I know how to: the list method. In other words, here is a list of thoughts/feelings/reactions/whatever else that occurred to me after seeing this film. Let's hope that this list finds its way to an ending at some point in time...

1) How is it that so many liberals are enjoying this film? I read a review opening weekend that praised Collins for her pro-environment film. ....really? At what point in the film did the reviewer mistake the cries of children and their families for that of the trees and oceans? Am I the only one that saw the anti-government main theme of the film? We've all heard the Thomas Jefferson quote saying something along the lines of "a government that is big enough to give you everything you need, is big enough to take away everything you have." Call me crazy, but I feel like Collins was trying to make a point. Panem is the future of America (I've noticed that movie watchers that didn't also read the book had assumed that the "it's America's future" concept was all assumption, but the book does identify Panem specifically as a future America). I think that the message here is one of warning; it's a warning of the dangers of big government, and trusting-or worse still-EXPECTING the government to take care of you.

At any rate, I'm not surprised that liberals refuse to face the music on this one; I mean, it is entertainment, and people aren't often quick to accept the idea that their principles are drowning our society (and if that offends you, I'm really not even sorry, because I do think that it's true), but what humors me is the fact that so many of them have found ways to make it feel like a liberally-themed flick---of which it most assuredly is not.

2) Panem is completely religiously deprived. I didn't think about this much when I read the books, but when I watched the film it really stood out to me. It's interesting to see a people stripped of all religion. Our society now is working overtime in an effort to rid our country of religion. Our post-modern ideals tell us that truth is relative and that no one standard can be held across a diverse population. Well to Hell with that! (and by "hell", maybe I'm referring to Panem, where children are forced to kill each other off in the name of "entertainment"...?)

Among my circle of friends, Christians are seen as hypocritical, pompous, dogmatic, self-righteous, ignorant and otherwise. People view Christians as weaklings in need of a crutch to hang on to because they're simply too weak to walk life alone. Well here's a thought to ponder: what would the world look like without them? Would it be something similar to Panem, where people look for fulfillment in personal appearance, wealth, status, and fun?

NOW-Onto items that relate more to the film itself.

3) It's always difficult to take a perfectly good book and make a film of it, and it's even harder to make me enjoy it. This film-love it or hate it-stayed very close to the book. A few minor details were switched around to avoid either a) a 4 hour movie or b) a bunch of confusion. The majority of the book is told from Katniss' POV, and you lose a lot of those details in the book to movie transfer, but I do give them props for staying basically as close as possible. That's one thing that I certainly can't (and don't need to) pick on!

4) Acting=well done. I wasn't a big fan of Katniss' personality in the books (heck, in a world like Panem, I'd like to see a girl with a weakness SOMEWHERE). The all-powerful female theme that is prevalent right now kind of drives me nuts. I understand that people are capable of rising to the occasion, and that this sort of confidence and ability to stand and be strong in the face of danger is possible, and that females are no exception to this rule-even if they are teenaged girls required to kill their peers-but I feel like I'm being lied to. Why would it be so bad to show just a sliver of weakness? Would that not make her human, and therefore relatable? You can make her strong, but perfect? C'mon. ANYWAY-that's all to say this: I did not like Katniss' character traits (that were as strong in the movie as they were in the book), but I thought that she was very well played by Jennifer Lawrence. I was skeptical when I saw the first trailer, but I wasn't altogether negative about it when I watched the film in full. All of the acting was strong, really. Peeta and Gale were both cast exceptionally well, in my opinion.

4) Music=A+ I thought the soundtrack was excellent when I watched the movie. I was in a newer theater with a bangin' sound system, and the score made a solid contribution to the movie as a whole. I always appreciate a "less-is-more" concept when applied correctly, and this one was executed with precision. After my first watch/listen, I have no complaints in this department.

5) Camerawork=wow, why are you trying to make me vomit? I felt like there were two types of camerawork in this movie... it was either REALLY CLOSE SHOTS, or extremely shaky movements. I was uncomfortable either way. I'm not sure why this is becoming a fad, as most people I talked to shared my feelings. The shaky camera worked for the fight scenes, but I don't understand the point of using them throughout the entire film. It loses its luster after a point. That was my main annoyance.

6) Violence. Yow. Sex is different in books, and violence is too. You just don't get the same effect when you're reading. Children fighting/killing each other was a strange concept when I read it, but it was straight up disturbing when I saw it on the big screen. I think this was the intent of the story to begin with and therefore an accomplishment, but wow... talk about a sobering concept. Rome was a sick society-I pray and hope that we never find entertainment in the slaughter of any living creature, much less children.


My conclusion? I did like the movie. I liked more about it than not, and I thought that it was very well done, and that it did the book justice. My favorite part is that I can't get my mind off of it; I keep thinking about the different themes represented, and the disturbed feeling that I've been experiencing since I saw the film is almost pleasant in that I'm glad to know that I'm bothered by it. I feel like-between reality TV and the sort of music that we listen to, etc-we are becoming incredibly desensitized as a society. We're also looking for the "shock" value to amuse us. It's kind of scary to think that a person needs to see a movie like The Hunger Games to realize how messed up we're allowing ourselves to become. My main fear and concern about this movie is the same one I had following the books: does it have this impact on the target audience? I mean there are so many important lessons to be learned from this series, and the unfortunate fact is that our teenagers are trained to be entertained, and not to think. They see the love triangle, they see the violence, the see the costumes, and the actors, and the sets, and the camerawork, and they hear the music. But do they think about what's really happening? Honestly, I don't know... but I hope so.

Reasons I hate movies, Part 1: "The Vow"

Once upon a time, watching movies was fun.


I was going to write a long post about how disappointing movies can be, but I decided that it would benefit no one and deleted my rant. I'll just go ahead and review the movie I last saw in the same fashion I would review any other movie....





THE VOW




..............................




Frankly, I have nothing to say.



But if I was going to say something, the one and only word that comes to mind is, simply: "WHY?!"

I went to see this movie-in the theatre, no less-with friends. This is probably why I take to a blog and other online social medias at the end of the day--because I am friends with the sort of people that enjoy these films.

I really don't even know where to begin with this one, so I've decided to save my time and just give a brief explanation for *part* of the reason I hated this movie.

NOTHING IS ORIGINAL!

I always have and [hopefully] always will hate the dramatic love story chick flick movies (and books) that teenybopper girls dig. Even AS a teenybopper I hated them because they seemed to be trying to distort the line between real life and lovey dovey dreams in an attempt to make me believe that people live happily ever after even in the midst of complete and utter chaos in their lives. That isn't real life. I like entertainment because I appreciate the opportunity to leave my own problems behind for a few hours, that's the fun in it for me... but I don't like it when they make every attempt to show you how real life fantasies CAN COME TRUE... because really, sometimes they can't. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE ALTOGETHER.

As much as I didn't like "The Notebook", I will give it a point or two for originality. The love story in and of itself was corny and predictable, but the Alzheimer's/dementia/whatever it was twist actually made that insanely boring movie all worth it, for me... because the twist was completely unexpected, as I have never seen anything like it before. Movies like "Inception", "Edward Scissorhands", "Forrest Gump" or even "Napoleon Dynamite" catch my attention and entertain me because they are stories that I never would have dreamed of in my own head. They use everyday principles and happenings, but show them to us in a new and unpredictable way. Even true[ish] stories like "Slumdog Millionaire" (which I happened to watch the same weekend as The Vow, unfortunately) show us a horrible side of the world that we'd like to believe doesn't exist, and makes an amazing movie out of it that both moves AND entertains us.

I need to stop now. I know that this post is full of error and probably won't make sense to any mind besides my own, but I'd just wanted to take a moment to defend my cynicism. Maybe I wouldn't be so critical if the movies were actually good, capiche? I'm really REALLY hoping that "The Hunger Games" lives up to my expectations....


Also-I don't think I'll be watching the Oscars tonight. I humbly refuse to participate until someone makes a movie worth an award.

PS-I'm just in an especially crabby mood today. Bad movies don't actually make me as mad as I sound-I just haven't gotten over the fact that I paid $10 to see The Vow, yet...

The Hunger Games Trilogy

Finally finished the trilogy! (and by "finally", I'm referring to the amount of time it took me to buy them... it actually only took me about 7 hours to read all three... and I'm not a particularly fast reader.) While they are in the "young adult" category (which may or may not describe my demographic) and consequently kind of "easy" to read, I thought they were very [very] good. A few things that stood out:

Unless you've been living in a dark and lonely place the last few months (what with the growing popularity of these books and the hype over the release of the first movie coming up), you probably have at least an inkling of the general premise of the book. But for those cave dwellers who may not know, here's a brief and simple synopsis:
The Hunger Games trilogy is set in the future of North America-a place now called Panem. The dictatorship holds power over 12 districts, but at one time there were 13; the 13th rebelled, and it is believed to have been annihilated by the government. In an effort to prevent future rebellion, the government holds an annual Hunger Games competition in which each district provides one female and one male competitor. The Games are held in a man-made arena and are designed to challenge the survival skills of the competitors, whose main goal is to kill off their counterparts and be the sole survivor and therefore the victor.

My first reaction to the concept of this book was complete disgust. No one that I talked to explained that the DICTATORSHIP was trying to SCARE the districts into compliance. A couple of minor details that would have resulted in me reading them much sooner and without so much attitude going in (great job, my friendlies). At any rate, the books-while brutal and relatively violent, at times-are actually really good, and not as disturbing as I was led to believe.

A few things that I loved about this trilogy:

1) The books got progressively better. This is one series in which I actually enjoyed the third book more than the first two... and the first two captured my attention well enough to propel me to full force into the third. Character development was great, and the story really unfolded. At the end of the first book I couldn't imagine what could possibly happen in the next one, as the story seemed to be finished. Turns out that was only just the beginning!

2) The characters were pretty good. I wasn't actually a HUGE huge fan of the protagonist (Katniss Everdeen, who tells the story from the first-person perspective), because she was a little too emotionless and her overbearing sense of independence got kind of obnoxious at times. That being said, it all worked out really well in the end. The way her character developed (and this goes for all of the characters, actually), made sense of everything by the close of the series.

3) The love triangle was convincing. I honestly didn't know how that one was going to end. There was no clear choice between Katniss' two lovers, and the complexity of the issue made the story a lot more interesting.

Other than those things, I think that the book was a very eye opening look into what could happen to a country that falls apart due to issues of war and social unrest; an idea of what political strife and civil war can do. It showed the dirty side of a dictatorship, and any politics in general; how power can change an individual. It painted a picture of what it would be like to live in a world where defending your beliefs will cost you your life, and I hope that the "young adults" reading these books will take those ideas seriously... I hope that this story will help our younger generation realize and appreciate the rights that they have, and defend them as if they'd be lost otherwise.

(I'd add a portion about elements that didn't impress me, but there weren't any... none worth mentioning, anyway.)

So yes---I enjoyed these books and have and will continue to recommend them. Easy read, but a very good story. Looking forward to the movies, now, and desperately hoping that they can do the book justice.... we'll see!

Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, and The Hunger Games

Last film I watched in 2011 was Sherlock Holmes, first film of 2012 was Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The fact that I a) watched the second one and b) paid to see it in theatres says quite a lot for the first film.

Honestly, I thought the first movie was fantastic. It wasn't at all true to the books (since when is Sherlock Holmes a eccentric kung fu master?!), but if you watch it as a movie and not an adaption from an incredible book, it's pretty great (I didn't think I'd like it after hearing it bore little if any resemblance to the book, but I was pleasantly surprised).

Things I didn't like:

-I loved the book(s), and this was not the book(s).
-Abuse of slow motion.... It was cool the first 10 times. After that it bored me...


Things I liked:

-I thought it was casted perfectly. The characters were very well played (even if they were completely original and nothing like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's...)
-The humor was actually really funny, in my opinion
-Watson was perfect, and his dog was hysterical
-The action sequences were epic
-The sets were impressive, as were the lighting and camera angles (London was perfectly depicted, I think)


Things I loved:

-Holmes. For a character who was nothing like the original, this one was definitely an acceptable replacement. I clearly loved the book(s) (who didn't?!), but this made the story a lot more fun and entertaining. Staying true to Doyle's work could have gotten boring, I'll admit. And for someone as incredibly intelligent and observant as Sherlock Holmes, crazed, anti-social and completely consumed by his work is exactly how I'd imagine him. Using those characteristics to create humor was a bit of a risk, in my opinion, but I do believe it was a success.
-The soundtrack. Sometimes less is more, and sometimes Hans Zimmer writes every soundtrack in every movie released. I thought this one was clever, especially in a couple of intense scenes (if I had written this or taken notes during my watch I'd be able to give an example... unfortunately I did not...).
-Screenplay-A+. Not sure it could have been better.




SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS:

Things I didn't like:

-Kind of got boring. Movie 1 was exciting and intriguing and kept my attention from start to finish. Movie 2 didn't capture my attention to begin with and seemed to abuse some of the better aspects from Movie 1 in an attempt to continue with some of the humor and ambience I so much appreciated this first time around... it worked in some places, but not so much in others.
-The story didn't really catch on and left me confused more often than not. I understood it by the end, but everything before was just a blur of random confusion, for me (although I often feel this way when viewing with friends, unfortunately). I would have appreciated a few more hints, even some misleading tips to keep me more involved in the mystery.
-More abuse of the slow motion. I mean really...

Things I liked:

-Basically the same things from Movie 1; characters, humor and action were all up to par, for the most part

Things I loved-

-Nothing in particular, really.



These reviews aren't really fair considering I'll admit to the fact that I wasn't completely engaged in either viewing, but overall I did enjoy the two films and have plans to own them and watch them a good few more times as I found them to be quality entertainment.




As far as books go, I've been reading The Hunger Games trilogy to prepare myself for the March (I think it was March...?) release of the first move. Once I finish the third book I'll do an actual review, but I will say that I am enjoying them and do plan on seeing the movie (the first preview just freaked me out... now I understand the story and it isn't quite as horrific of a concept... not QUITE, anyway). Simple reads, big thoughts.... more on that when I can!