This probably won't come as a surprise to most of you, since it's been a month since I've posted, but the time has come to say goodbye to the Daily Shill.
As many of you know (since most readers are my friends and family in real life), I was recently hired as a full time Adult Services librarian. The job is wonderful, and I am always happy to go to work in the morning. However, I still have a year's worth of classes left on my Masters degree-- something I need for the job. Which means that on top of going to work 40 hours a week, I am taking two grad school classes (and doing all the homework associated with the classes...which is a lot). That leaves me with next to no time to do anything else. And the Daily Shill takes up a lot of time.
Additionally, I have seriously missed reading whatever books I want to. And while that's been more of an annoyance, now that I'm responsible for recommending books to others, I need to start reading books that I actually want to recommend. There's only so many times I can pull Packing for Mars off the shelf. In the past month, I've read a ton of books I've been meaning to read for ages (or books that just caught my eye). And it has been wonderful.
So thank you all for reading, for supporting me, for linking to my blog posts and liking my page on Facebook. When I finish grad school (now slated for December 2012), there's a chance I may start a new review blog. It won't be the Daily Shill, though. Liking the idea for a blog is not enough for me; I need to like the process as well. If I do start something new, I will post it here. Also, I post to the Chelsea District Library Adult blog about once a week (and there are other posts by the amazing librarians I work with). If you need an Emily-fix, visit there (or actually visit the library!)
And I'm not shutting this door completely. If I happen to read or see something that was promoted by the Daily Show, and if I happen to have the time and inclination to write a review, I'll post it here. And I kind of want to do another stream of consciousness blog. So, instead of goodbye, I'll say see you later.
Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, though a quality show, was a bit too sciencey for me (though my use of the word “sciencey” is a good indicator of my scientific aptitude). His show, which premiered about a year ago on the Science Channel, explores scientific questions seemingly without answers. This review is of the show’s first episode: “Is there a Creator?”
Freeman doesn’t pull any punches, jumping right in with a question that could easily stir up some controversy; after all, religion and science are often thought of as opposites. The show, with narration by Freeman of course, alternates between interviews with scientists and scientific explanation (complete with animated diagrams, like those movies we’d watch in science class). Though the scientists interviewed don’t come out with anything conclusive (can you imagine the headlines: “Science TV show proves the existence of God” or, conversely “‘There is no God!’ shouts Freeman”), both sides seemed to be equally represented.
Unfortunately, I was never really drawn into the show. Maybe it was because I watched it at the end of a long day and didn’t really feel like exercising my mind anymore. Maybe it was because I couldn’t consider the idea that the creator is a computer programmer and we’re in a virtual world like the Sims. Maybe it was because I was distracted by Freeman pronouncing the last syllable of creator as “tore” rather than “ter.” However, those are all personal issues with the show. As I watched it, even though I wasn’t too interested, I continually thought about how much my dad and my grandpa (Papa, I’m talking about you!) would have enjoyed it. I’m just not the ideal audience.
Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman gets a 3/5.
I had a suspicion watching Blue Valentine was not going to be all new books and Heath Bars (you mean that's not happiness for everyone?), but I didn't think it could be that bad. I mean, all of the quotes from critics on the back of the DVD talked about what a great love story it was. Love stories have happy parts, right? Not this one. After watching Blue Valentine, I felt like I would never be happy again. I thought, "Oh my gosh, this is awful" multiple times throughout the movie. I would have turned it off if I didn't have to watch it for the Shill. I can step back and objectively see that it was a very good movie, but I will never see it again.
Cindy (Michelle Williams) and Dean’s (Ryan Gosling) marriage is falling apart. Cindy is frustrated with Dean’s childishness and his lack of initiative despite his talent. Dean wants to do all he can to make the marriage work, but his progress is often set back by his alcoholism and extreme jealousy. All of these issues are further complicated because the two have a daughter: the incredibly adorable Frankie (Faith Wladyka). Dean’s last-ditch effort to save the marriage by taking Cindy to a motel (and leaving Frankie with her grandfather) is intersperced with events from the past that brought the two together in the first place.
Cindy and Dean are both three-dimensional characters—neither fit a complete stereotype, and both of their points of view are understandable. Gosling and Williams’ performances are spot-on; their emotions and actions are raw and believable. I cared for both of them and wanted for them both to somehow get what they were hoping for, making it all the more heartbreaking when I realized (early on) that it was impossible.
There’s no question that Blue Valentine was a well-made movie, but the experience of watching it was not worth it—at least not for me. Still, it gets a 4/5.
I love Paul Rudd. I love Paul Rudd so much that during my junior and senior years of college, my roommates and I had a “Rudd-a-thon” where we watched as many of his movies as possible. I love Paul Rudd so much that my top three celebrity crushes, from biggest crush to slightly less big, are Jason Segal, Paul Rudd, Jon Stewart. Yes, he edges out Jon Stewart. But despite all that Rudd love, I wasn’t particularly excited about watching How Do You Know. It just looked bad. And guess what, it was!
How Do You Know chronicles the troubles of Lisa (Reese Witherspoon) and George (Rudd) and how they are eventually brought together. Lisa, a professional softball player, has just been cut from the team, and, as a way to cope, has started dating Matty (Owen Wilson) a clueless man-whore of a professional baseball player. George, meanwhile, is in the process of being indicted by his father’s company and, consequently, finds himself without a job. Oh, and also without a girlfriend, since his chose to leave him just as his life was going bad.
I realized about 15 minutes into the movie (about the time that the lesbian softball player caricatures showed up) that I should have done another stream-of-consciousness blog, but I wasn’t going to go back and watch the beginning again. Instead, you just get a few complaints from me.
What bothered me most about How Do You Know, was how unlikeable and unrelatable the characters were. Lisa was whiney and frustrating and someone I wouldn’t want to be friends with. George was nervous and neurotic and the not-cute kind of awkward (where was the Rudd charm?). Matty, who I should have hated because of his playboy tendancies, was the only one who won me over; he just reminded me of a dumb puppy. In a chick-flick (which I think is what this movie was supposed to be), I should fall for the romantic interest (in a good one, I should fall for both guys in the love triangle). Instead, I didn’t like anyone and counted down to the movie’s end.
Oh man, at the beginning of July, I was supposed to write another progress report! Summer has been just slipping away from me, and it's hard to believe the month is almost up. So here is the next progress report, albeit a few weeks late.
Progress Report #3: Timeline: Well, I’m not going to finish this project by the end of this year, like I was hoping to. This summer, in particular, has left very little time for reading Daily Shill books.
Here’s where I stand: I’ve read 43 of 73 books. I watched 28 of 35 films. I’ve watched 9 of 15 TV shows. I’ve heard 3 of 4 albums.
I’ll continue to plug away at this, but I recognize it’s not realistic for me to reach my goal of completing all sections by the end of December. Oh well!
Writing: I’m happy with where I’ve come with this blog, and I certainly feel more confident in my ability to write for it. Lately, I was especially pleased with my review of Unstoppable and my review of The Blueprint (both are quite different).
Am I Glad I’m Doing This?: Sometimes, but not always. Lately, especially, I’ve come close to quitting, and the novelty of this project has worn off. Even though I’m ready to be done (and relatively far from it), I’m still glad I’ve worked on this project. I’ve certainly expanded what I read, which is a good thing for anyone, but especially for a librarian.
Thank Yous: First off, a huge Thank You to Mom, Nana, Uncle Greg, Amanda, Brodie, Caroline and Theresa for being regular readers. (There may be more of you out there...thank you to you as well!) As always, thanks to the Chelsea District Library for helping me get all of the books, movies, and albums I need to review, and thanks to Anna at the library for taking my profile picture. Thanks to Kate and her handy-dandy list of Daily Show books. And thanks to the folks at Ignite Chelsea 2 for giving me the opportunity (and talking me into) giving a talk on the Daily Shill (which you can see here!)
Expect fewer reviews in the months to come—I’ll do my best to continue posting something every Monday, but I can’t make any promises.
Again (as I’ve said in every progress report), I’d appreciate any feedback you have—positive or negative.
I am about to watch a movie. It is called Unstoppable. It’s about a train that doesn’t stop. And it is going to be bad.
This is what I imagine the movie will be like. Except it won’t be funny.
I will write this blog as I watch it. It might get a little long, and will probably have spoilers.
1:06- They want me to know that this movie is “Inspired by True Events.” They are also trying to make me afraid of trains. So far, it’s not working.
2:17- Unnecessary Chris Pine crotch shot.
2:59- Now Pine is trying to reach a wife(?) girlfriend(?) on the phone. There has been no talking in this movie yet. Lots of dramatic music, though.
4:10- Hey, that daycare center/retirement home quip from the SNL parody was actually in the movie. Yikes.
5:08- Now they’re talking about how a track needs to be cleared because some school children are coming to ride trains. Maybe SNL didn’t make anything up. Here’re the kids. And the dramatic music builds.
6:10- They just announced that the train doesn’t have brakes. Danger is brewing!
7:20- “Railroading” was used as a verb. Oh man, a real life train is going by right now! I hope it has brakes.
8:30- The plot thickens. Pine has received a call from his friend(?) saying that he can come in for a trial and then go home. I suspect this has something to do with the lady from earlier. But now the train has left the station, and we all know that it is not going to stop. The personal drama must be set aside for the train drama.
10:25- A minor character named Dewey just deserted a moving train with no brakes (and now it’s driving itself). I’m confused because I thought it was Denzel and Pine’s train that wouldn’t have brakes. The music is pretty dramatic still.
11:25- DEWEY JUST GOT RAN OVER BY THE TRAIN WITH NO BRAKES!
11:40- False alarm. He just didn’t catch up to it (because after deserting the moving train, he realized that was probably a bad plan. Dewey’s pretty dumb.) Now it’s a runaway train. Dewey couldn’t stop it. You might say it’s unstoppable.
12:30- We’re getting a look at Denzel’s personal life now. He’s got some good looking daughters, but I sense there’ll be some trouble there. They seem to be having a party that Denzel was supposed to attend. Instead, he’s on a train.
14:25- Denzel and Pine are having a heart-to-heart about being old and young.
15:19- I think Dewey is my favorite character of this movie so far. They’re giving him a hard time about letting a train with no brakes drive itself. I guess he deserves it. A line: “It’s a train, Dewey, not a chipmunk.”
17:22- They’re calling the runaway train a “coaster.” I keep thinking they’re talking about a roller coaster. You know, a runaway train might make a good rollercoaster—is that what Big Thunder Mountain Railroad is at Disney?
18:44- More heart-to-heart between Pine and Denzel. We learn that Pine is “sort-of” married and Denzel’s daughters work at Hooters.
20:08- A safety inspector is here to talk to the kids. What an unfortunate day to have a “coaster.”
21:28- Some incompetent railroad employees are arguing, oh, hey, Dewey’s with them. We’re learning that they don’t have a “coaster” because the train is going fast.
23:19- The runaway train is approaching the children’s train. They aren’t going to kill them off this early (or really at all, I don’t think). …And they’re safe. The trains just quickly pass each other.
24:45- Things aren’t so good for Pine and his lady trouble. His restraining order is continuing for at least another 30 days. Wonder what he did.
25:50- I haven’t written about Connie, the lady in charge of the trains. She’s kind of boring.
26:47- Dewey’s incompetent friend is trying to jump on the train. I don’t think it’ll work, since there’s still an hour left. Oh man. He just ran into a sign. Is he dead?
28:13- Now Pine and Denzel are fighting. Their relationship is confusing. Pine seems to have some kind of family relationship with the railroad. Their train is also too long. I bet the runaway train will complicate that problem.
30:52- Oh man, they just announced on the news that Dewey will be held accountable for the runaway train. Poor, stupid Dewey.
31:37- And now we find out that the train is carrying some kind of scary glue chemical.
33:10- The Chrysler Building line just came up. Ha!
34:32- A trailer of horses just got knocked into the path of the runaway train. First kids, now animals—they are trying to get us scared from any angle they can. Don’t worry, the horses make it.
37:19- I’m really impressed with what good impressions Jay Pharoah and Taran Killam (the SNL actors) did of Denzel and Pine.
40:00- A 22 year old Afghanistan War Vet is now trying to stop the train (by a helicopter? I don’t quite get it). He’s not going to make it.
44:47- The soldier tried to parachute down on the train. He couldn’t do it, and got injured. And now the other train that was trying to stop it fell of the tracks AND IT’S EXPLODING! I think we’ve reached the first casualties of the movie.
48:26- Pine and Denzel’s train is heading towards the runaway one. Are they going to make it? (Yes. My guess is yes.)
48:45- And cut to Hooters…
51:23- After they closely pass the train without getting hit, Denzel decides to chase it in the engine of the their train (they’ve ditched the cars). You know, he really is looking old. I guess Remember the Titans was a long time ago.
55:52- I am watching a movie where the villain is a train.
56:00- Oh man, we just learned that Denzel is being forced to retire. Drama!
1:00:05- We’re getting Pine’s backstory, and I don’t even care anymore. Something about pulling a gun on a cop. I’m bored of this movie. The novelty of making fun of it as I watch has been lost.
1:02:00- They are shooting at the train. It is a movie where the bad guy is an object, and they’re still shooting it.
1:04:00- Oh my gosh, there’s still half an hour of this left. How much longer do I have to watch some guys chase a train?
1:05:51- Denzel is trying to impart some life lessons. We’ll see if they stick.
1:08:38- I accidentally stopped paying attention and wikipedia’d Taran Killam. I have a little crush on him, I think.
1:09:31- Oh my gosh, Killam was Spaulding on The Amanda Show. Weird. In Unstoppable they are still chasing the train. Pine’s wife is trying to call him now. How the tables have turned…
1:10:52- What!? Killam is engaged to/has a baby with the lady who plays Robin on How I Met Your Mother! Whoa! Meanwhile, they are still chasing the train. Debris is hitting the train like hail. I’m not sure where it’s coming from because I stopped paying attention for a couple minutes.
1:13:20- I just learned that Chris Pine’s character name is Will. He’s fallen between cars on the runaway train. They’re saying his name a lot. Maybe they should’ve said it more early on, and then I might’ve cared about him more than I care about Dewey—who, by the way, has been missing from the movie for a long time.
1:14:26- They attached the two trains, but Will’s foot is hurt. He’s fixing it with duct tape, though.
1:15:32- They are now pulling at the runaway train in the opposite direction (I guess that’s why they’re chasing it?). I hope it works so this movie can end already. You know, this two trains thing feels a little like a math problem
1:17:24- This drawn out tension reminds me of the end of reality shows…”There are only two more photos in my hands…”
1:20:37- This movie doesn’t have enough talking to keep me interested. On the other hand, I just learned that Denzel’s character name is Frank. Also, the brakes on the train Frank is driving (the one that could be stopped) have broken. Now they have two unstoppable trains. (Though they’re connected, so I guess it counts as one train)
1:26:39- With ten minutes left, I’m trying to figure out if there has been any character development in this movie. I don’t think there has. Will’s wife cares about him now, and Frank’s daughters care about him, but that seems to be the only change. And I guess Will and Frank are friends now.
1:28:44- Inspirational music has started playing. Will is climbing into the engine of the runaway train. People everywhere are cheering. Hey, a shot of Dewey; he’s pretty happy.
1:30:00- And the train has stopped. So much for that unstoppable business.
1:31:12- Will is reunited with his family, and all marital problems are solved.
1:31:50- And Frank gets to keep his job. These guys really owe Dewey. What if he hadn’t deserted that train?
1:32:59- And here we are at closing credits. Enjoy your 1/5, Unstoppable. Wait, guess who got the last "where is he now" feature? It’s Dewey—he’s now working in the Fast Food Industry. Poor Dewey.
Did you like this style of post? Was it funny? Obnoxious? Too long? Let me know. I have more terrible movies ahead of me, and could certainly do this again if it works.
I was under the impression that The Switch was aiming to be an uproarious romantic comedy—taking the comedic angle more than the romantic one—and, truth be told, I was over the movie before it even started. However, The Switch had a lot more heart than most rom-coms, and, in fact, almost doesn't belong to be classified that way. And, though I don’t plan on watching it again, The Switch was not a bad movie-- certainly better than I expected.
Wally (Jason Bateman) and Kassie (Jennifer Aniston) are best friends who drift apart after Kassie has a son via sperm donor and moves away. What Wally and Kassie don’t realize is that Sebastian (Thomas Robinson) is actually their son together, since drunken Wally accidentally dumped Kassie’s donor sperm and replaced it with his own. When Kassie and Sebastian move back to New York and into Wally’s life, Wally realizes both that Sebastian is his son, and that he has feelings for Kallie, and is unsure what to do about either.
Though the trailers play up the relationship between Wally and Kassie, the one that the story really follows is that between Wally and Sebastian—who, can I say, is absolutely adorable. I want Robinson to be every movie's “cute kid.” Though it certainly got too cornball on more than one occasion, Wally’s and Sebastian’s interactions seemed genuine, and—though I am loathe to admit it—had me teared up on one occasion. And Bateman certainly had more chemistry with Robinson than he did with Aniston.
Valerie Plame’s identity was leaked around the time when I started paying attention to politics and the news, and as the trial also coincided with a time I had to bring in current event articles to my government class, I came into the movie version of her life with some background knowledge, but was ready to get a story linking it all together. Fair Game, starring Naomi Watts as Plame and Sean Penn as her husband Joe Wilson, gave me the story I wanted.
Though it begins with a few of Plame’s earlier CIA missions, Fair Game focuses almost entirely on the circumstances leading to her leaked identity and the aftermath of the situation, especially the effects it has on the relationship between Plame and Wilson.
Watts and Penn both did an excellent job portraying their characters—I thought of them as Valerie and Joe rather than Naomi and Sean— motivations were clear, and neither over-acted.
Fair Game kept me interested, but still felt more like a movie designed to educate, something you would see on the History channel or in a school government class, rather than a movie you would watch for entertainment. That being said, it gets a 3/5 (but almost gets a 4).
I’m sorry this review is so short—I watched the movie about 3 weeks ago, and forgot to write the review until now (having a job is a really wonderful thing, but it also limits my free time). I also apologize that there was no new update last week; I was on vacation.
A week ago, I was ready to give up the Daily Shill. I had started to compose a post listing reasons, which basically summed up to "I WANT TO READ WHAT I WANT TO READ!" But I had already watched Nanny McPhee Returns and I sure wasn't going to have watched it for nothing. So I decided I'd write that one more review, and then wait to make a decision about the Shill until this week. After writing the review, I decided to give the Daily Shill another push and keep going. Because I'm not a quitter.
What brought me to the brink of quitting? Well, sure, it's a buildup over time, but the book that pushed me over the edge was Ian Bremmer's The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War between States and Corporations? It was just incredibly boring, especially compared to the many other (non-Shill) books I am now allowing myself to read. But I finally finished it yesterday, and am ready to move onto Christopher Hitchens' Hitch 22 which, though longer, should be more interesting.
As you may have already picked up on, this review of The End of the Free Market is not going to be a fair one (or a long one). I'm not an economist. I never will be an economist. And I only sort of get the economy. So, reading a book that basically lists out multiple countries' laws and regulations regarding the free market is a confusing, boring mess of words. Multiple times, I realized my eyes were going over the pages, but my mind was elsewhere. I really can't provide an accurate summary.
The reason I found The End of the Free Market so boring? I figured it out: there are no people in the book. Rather than talk about how people are affected by countries' takes on the free market, rather than talk about the lawmakers and rulers, Bremmer chooses to talk about policy instead. And that's where he lost me. The few pages on Russia (where, yes, people made a cameo appearance) were relatively interesting, but the rest of the book lost me. It's certainly not pleasure reading, and I don't recommend it (unless, of course, you're an economist or interested in the economy. You're probably the intended audience for this book.) 1/5.
It's always seems odd to see a kids' movie promoted on the Daily Show. Sure, I know that parents must make up some of the show's audience, but to me, it seems like such a college program. (Though that's probably because I started watching it in college). I have a hard time reviewing movies for kids, because-- I hate to admit it-- I've become a children's movie snob. I still love watching favorites from my childhood, even the bad ones since nostalgia makes up for a weak story and bad acting. My favorite movie of all time is a children's movie (Pixar's Up). I actually watch children's movies and read children's books all the time. But when a movie comes out that doesn't have the nostalgia of The Wiz or the heart and strong story of Up (or practically anything else by Pixar), I'm critical. I can't watch it from a child's point of view.
All that being said, Nanny McPhee Returns was better than I expected. But I didn't expect much. The basic storyline: Isabel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a young mother, looking after three children and struggling to keep up the family farm while her husband is at war. It's tough enough making ends meet, and when two spoiled cousins are thrown into the mix, causing all five children start behaving badly, Isabel is pushed to her wits end. Enter Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) who, using magic, teaches these children five lessons.
Sound like a mix between Mary Poppins and Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle? It is. Though I'd recommend reading those books (or watching the Poppins movie) rather than picking up a copy of Nanny McPhee Returns. Though there were moments when the movie had the wonderful feel of a storybook brought to life (similar to the tone of the fabulous show Pushing Daisies), they were fleeting. The acting was fine, but the story just didn't do it for me. And enough with the bodily function jokes already. I know kids love 'em, but kids will laugh at other kinds of jokes, too.
Nanny McPhee Returns gets a 2/5. It wasn't awful, but I won't watch it again, either.
Hope everyone had a wonderful holiday yesterday-- sorry there was no new update! Today, I bring back "Ratings without Reviews" where I rate some of the other things I've been reading and watching. Later this week, there will be a new Daily Shill Review.
Ratings without Reviews:
Books:
Sleepwalk with Me by Mike Birbiglia: A seriously funny book, completely worth the read. 5/5
The Sandman, Preludes & Nocturnes by Neil Gaiman (and several illustrators): I've read the Sandman series before and loved it, but it starts a little slow. 3/5
The Last Little Blue Envelope by Maureen Johnson: The perfect follow up to 13 Little Blue Envelopes; Johnson knows how to write quality YA Fiction. 4/5
Movies:
Catfish: Engaging, creepy, and engrossing. 5/5
The Hangover Part II: I didn't think a repeat of the same plot could be funny, Part II proves that, with new jokes, it can be. 4/5
Kristen Schaal and Rich Blomquist’s book The Sexy Book of Sexy Sex is absolutely hilarious, but not for the faint of heart. It’s moderately graphic (though illustrated with cartoons by Michael Kupperman and Lisa Hanawalt), lewd, and in-your-face. But did I mention that it’s hilarious?
Schaal and Blomquist are both writers for The Daily Show (and Schaal will occasionally appear on camera as Senior Women’s Issues Correspondent). The Sexy Book of Sexy Sex certainly has the feel of an uncensored Daily Show, with its short sections, clever titles, and immature (in a good way!) jokes. With chapters titled “The History of Sex,” “For Sexperts Only” and “The Future of Sex” among others, Schaal and Blomquist run the gamut of sex jokes.
The only part of The Sexy Book of Sexy Sex that I didn't care for are the long “stories” at the end of each chapter: “Regular Sex” has one about joining the Mile High Club, “The Gay Chapter” has some satire of slash fiction, “For Sexperts Only” has one about a man who’s in love with the Loch Ness Monster. Though the ideas behind most of these stories were funny, they would have been better as a one-off joke, rather than a five-page story.
Despite my minor complaint, The Sexy Book of Sexy Sex is a good one, and I do recommend it. (Unless, of course, you’re my parent or grandparent, in which case I suggest you read something else). That being said, remember it is a humor book about sex that takes the jokes way beyond “making whoopee.” If that doesn’t sound funny to you, it won’t be. But if it does, read the book! I give it a 4/5.
And now, here's a short rant about my Daily Shill Project. This was not inspired by The Sexy Book of Sexy Sex. They just both happen to exist in the same post.
There have been times I’ve wanted to give up on The Daily Shill before, but I don’t think any as strong as right now. I’ve lost my motivation to slog through books I don’t want to read—there’s so much good stuff out there, why am I wasting my time on things in which I’m not interested? I’ve made it pretty far, and I’m not a quitter (as I keep telling myself over and over), but man-oh-man, I’m ready to be done.
Part of the problem, I think, is it’s a lot of work for a small amount of feedback. I have no idea how many people read this blog, but when you take away my relatives and close friends, I don’t think that leaves much else. Yeah, I have a decent amount of followers on Facebook (and a few on Blogger and Twitter), but I don’t think most check out the blog. I track my posted links on bit.ly, and each review gets an average of 3-5 clicks. That doesn't seem like very many for the amount of time it takes to read each book (or watch each movie) and write the review.
Also, I’ll admit it, even though I knew from the beginning that it was a long shot, I was secretly hoping for some sort of recognition for this project from the Daily Show. I don’t need a mention on the show or anything, but gosh, I’d love an email saying, “We see what you’re doing, and it’s neat.” (The neat part is optional).
Enough whining, I’ll make it through, I’m over halfway there. But, meanwhile, I’m also letting myself read some other books (and am reacting with overkill). Right now, I’m reading Phyllis Reynolds Naylor’s Alice Alone (the middle of a series I loved as a kid/teen), PJ O’Rourke’s upcoming travelogue Holidays in Heck, Judy Dutton’s Science Fair Season (also due to be published in the next few months—librarians, reviewers, and teachers, check out Netgalley to get free digital galleys of upcoming publications), and the first trade book of Neil Gaimon’s Sandman series. Oh, and Ian Bremmer’s The End of the Free Market for the Shill.
I watched Ben Affleck’s movie The Town more than a week ago, but I’ve had troubles sitting down to write the review. After finishing the movie, I wasn’t entirely sure how I felt about it, and, over time, no more clarity has been found.
The Town takes place in Boston’s Charlestown neighborhood, a location rife with crime, particularly bank and armored truck robberies. Doug (Affleck) and a group of his buddies make their living by performing these robberies, and the movie opens will the group robbing a bank managed by Claire (Rebecca Hall). Though it’s a little rocky, the guys eventually end up pulling off the robbery, but not without killing a guard and taking Claire as an incredibly temporary hostage. However, more problems are to come. This robbery causes FBI Agent Frawley (Jon Hamm) to begin to seek out the guys. Additionally, Claire lives in the same neighborhood as Doug and when the two meet at a Laundromat, they begin to fall in love (Doug recognizes Claire, she does not recognize him).
This relationship was the thing that bothered me about The Town. I couldn’t understand how Doug would allow himself to spend enough time with Claire to fall for her, and I also didn’t get how they fell in love so fast. I know The Town is an action movie, and wasting time on scenes developing a romantic relationship is probably not what the audience wants, but it was this (and, oddly enough, not the robberies and violence) that kept the movie from being believable to me.
The Town is without a doubt an action movie (though one with a bit more depth than the typical action fare, I assume). As this blog has already made clear, action movies are not my favorite. However, The Town was the first action movie I’ve seen for this project where the car-chases and gunfights didn’t seem gratuitous. Though they still aren’t things I particularly enjoy watching, they fit within the story and didn’t distract me.
I appreciated that The Town did not have distinct lines drawn between good and bad characters. Typically, you’d be led to root for either the FBI agent or the robbers, but The Town did no such leading. Sure, the robbers were wrong to steal and kill, but the movie showed the personalities behind their tough-guy characters and explained how they got in that situation. Conversely, it was clear that Agent Frawley was just doing his job—he wasn’t crooked, he wasn’t malicious. I liked that characters weren’t cut and dry and that I was able to choose for myself who to support. However, instead of picking a side, I found myself not cheering for either one; I just didn’t care.
The Town gets a 3/5. It’s worth watching, but not worth buying.
And I’d like to thank Anna at the Chelsea District Library for taking my new profile picture (finally, it’s Daily Shill relevant) and writing about the Shill in the library’s e-newsletter!
If you’re a regular reader of the blog, you’ve read my rants about how I hate reading political books. I promised myself I wouldn’t rant about how awful all political books are (as I did plenty here and here). But Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski’s book The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency got me riled again. Another rant is forthcoming, and you are warned.
Like I’ve said before, I am on the liberal end of the political spectrum. However, I have plenty of friends and relatives who are conservative, and I like to think that reading books like The Blueprint will give me some insight into these friends and relatives viewpoints. I know that these books won’t change my mind or my political slant, but its always good to be exposed to multiple viewpoints. Unfortunately, political books are really terrible way to get reasonable arguments (and I mean political books written by both conservatives and liberals). In these books, authors will manipulate facts and quotations to serve their argument. These authors will demonize their opponents and discredit any point-of-view that doesn’t match their own. It’s awful. Usually, though, these tactics will ease in: the hatred will build up as the book continues. With The Blueprint, though, it began on page two. And I knew it was going to be a painful read.
In The Blueprint Blackwell and Klukowski (or “The Kens,” as I like to think of them) argue that President Barack Obama is manipulating (and ignoring) the constitution to build more power for his party and himself. Separated into eight chapters—the subjects of which range from the appointment of czars to gun control to the bias of the media—The Kens lay out a string of actions Obama has taken (or will take) to grab as much power as he can.
One of the things that bothered me most about The Blueprint was its hypocrisy. Many of Obama’s actions that Blackwell and Klukowski had problems with were things conservative presidents had done in the past (and will do in the future). Take, for example, their complaint that Obama will have the opportunity to appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court, and that the justices he appoints will be liberal. Of course they will be liberal. Just as the three justices appointed by President Ronald Reagan, two justices appointed by President George HW Bush, and two justices appointed by President George W Bush were conservative. It’s just how the system works. Would it be better if presidents selected moderate appointees rather than those that match their political party? Probably, but that’s not what happens.
What was the worst, though, were the offensive, borderline-hateful statements the authors occasionally made. Things like the insistence that illegal aliens must always be referred to as such (and never “illegal immigrants,” or “undocumented workers”) or that schools that acknowledge homosexuality are “toxic learning environments.” There were multiple times I found myself wanting to rip the pages of the book, and it was a library book! (Since I am a year away from becoming a librarian, understand the gravity of that statement).
I could go on listing my problems with The Blueprint (like how any book attempting to be serious should never compare the President-- any president-- to Emperor Palpatine), but enough is enough. It gets a 1/5.
Reza Aslan’s, Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting the Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalism is a thought-provoking, worthwhile read. In three, moderately short sections—“The Geography of Identity,” “God is a Man of War,” and “The End of War as We Know It”—Aslan gives a background of group identity, fighting on behalf of a religion (or extreme interpretation of it), and the current state of fundamentalism, focusing especially on the Middle East.
Aslan writes in a clear, yet intelligent, voice. Though I often found myself pausing to fully comprehend ideas he put forth, Beyond Fundamentalism could be read quickly, even in a day or two. However, I would recommend reading the book only a chapter or two at a time to get the most of it. I’ll admit, I wasn’t able to do this for the entire book, but I wish I had. It's worth taking the time to think about what Aslan writes.
Though there were many aspects of Beyond Fundamentalism that made me think, one key issue was the feeling of group identity. Aslan points out that one such form is national identity—however, with the increasing globilization, this nationalism in becoming weaker, for better or worse. Some then turn to religion for the feeling of belonging, and, in the extreme, this religion can take the form of the incredibly fundamental groups that encourage terrorism.
Similar to the issue of group identity is the idea of unity and belonging, and the importance that this unity involves inclusion (which allows for differences), rather than assimilation (which emphasizes sameness). Though the creation of the European Union has increased unity of many European countries, it has also highlighted the “otherness” of those who do not belong. Until I read Beyond Fundamentalism, I was not aware of the struggles Muslims face in many European countries—that some school cafeterias in France won’t serve halal meat to Muslim students, that The Netherlands has legislation attempting to ban the Qur’an, and that “Islam Out of Britain” is a rallying cry of the British National Party. Though terrorism is never the way to fight back against these inequities (and, in itself, engenders more hatred and fear), this persecution of Muslims only feeds the fire of these radical groups.
Though Beyond Fundamentalism occasionally felt out of date (particularly the final chapter, which focuses on the issue of a potential Egyptian democracy), it is certainly still recommended. I give it a 4/5.
You may be wondering, “Wasn’t Talking Funny promoted in the 2011 season of the Daily Show? Doesn’t that mean you don’t have to review it?” Yes, that’s true, I don’t have to. But on Friday night I happened to watch it, and I also happened to need something to review for this week, so it worked out all around.
Talking Funny, an HBO special created by Ricky Gervais, consists of Gervais, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Louis C.K. sitting around and talking about comedy for about 45 minutes. However, despite the title, Talking Funny is just not funny. Granted, I don’t know that humor is its intention; instead of making jokes, the four comedians talk about standup, how they got involved, and their take on the trade.
To be honest, I was disappointed. Though their discussions were interesting enough, when four of my favorite comedians are together, I want to hear some jokes, damn it! Also, Seinfeld came across as pretty self-involved and arrogant—and not in a funny, intentional way like Gervais does. And sometimes the conversation wasn’t that engaging (who cares whether or not Rock does a sound check?). Neither funny nor interesting? No thank you!
There’s really not that much to say about the special; it was okay, worth the 45 minutes it took to watch, but not that much more. It gets a 2/5. However, if you’re looking for some great stuff by these comedians, catch an episode of Seinfeld or Louie (the best rated TV show in Daily Shill history), watch Chris Rock’s documentary Good Hair, or watch one of Gervais’s “Out of England” comedy specials.
I approached Morning Glory with an open mind, not because I thought it was going to be a high quality movie, but because I thought it had to be better than the crappy action flicks that have populated the Shill over the past month. Unfortunately, that hope was soon crushed—by the first scene of the movie, no less.
Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams), producer of a morning TV program in New Jersey, devotes herself entirely to her job. At the beginning of the film, Becky is on a first date that is clearly not going well. Though this date was intended to show how much Becky values her job above personal relationships—she babbles about it, can’t resist picking up phone calls from work, and doesn’t manage to keep a conversation going with her date—it ends up showing that Becky is absolutely crazy. So when she gets fired from that job and begins frantically looking for a new one, I somewhat expected her to end up in a mental hospital. (Okay, not exactly true since the previews heavily indicated that Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton were going to be news anchors in the movie, but it seemed as though Becky was destined for a breakdown). Instead, Becky gets a job producing a different morning show, where she has to deal with the drama-queen antics of anchors Mike Pomroy (Ford) and Colleen Peck (Keaton) while attempting to combat the show’s tanking ratings.
Though the idea has some limited potential, Morning Glory didn’t go anywhere with it. Becky doesn’t stop placing an incredibly high priority on work, and I can’t imagine she would have any more success with future first dates. Of course, Becky doesn’t have to worry about first dates because Adam (Patrick Wilson), a dreamy guy she meets on her first day, somehow gets over the crazy and falls in love with her. Truth be told, the character of Adam seemed shoe-horned into the movie—perhaps to try to counteract the strange sexual tension between Becky and Pomroy.
As much as I like Ford (I will always be a little bit in love with Han Solo and Indiana Jones), he sure phoned it in for Morning Glory. When he was “angry” he used a voice akin to Christian Bale’s Batman, and his heartfelt moment towards the end of the movie lacked any believable emotion, (seriously, I thought he was being sarcastic). Nothing is worthy of comment about any of the others' “acting.”
Morning Glory gets, as you may have guessed, a 1/5. Still feel like watching a movie set in a newsroom? Pick up Anchorman instead; it’ll always have a 5/5 in my book.
Seriously, watch it now because I’m going to spoil it for you if you don’t.
To be honest, I would have been satisfied with the funny sequel to When Harry Met Sally without the twist. But when “Grampires” popped up on the screen, I burst into laughter. The idea of senior citizen vampires is funny enough—pepper it with When Harry Met Sally references, and I am on board. Throw in “Grombies” at the end (with the iconic shot of a couple talking over “It had to be you”) and I couldn’t ask for any more.
Billy Crystal and Helen Mirren completely committed to the bit; sometimes I forget how much I love Crystal, but When Harry Met Sally 2 brought it all back. It did get a little too bloody at times (and there was one too many eating scenes), but still hilarious and worth the watch. It gets a 4/5.
Since the video was available to all with internet, and only 4.5 minutes, I asked my Facebook/Twitter followers to submit ratings of their own.
My mom gives it a 3/5, saying it would have gotten a 4 if it weren’t so “gross” UPDATE: My mom has asked to upgrade her score to a 4/5, and I'm letting her because, well, she's my mom. Here's the reason it went up: "I just watched it again and looked away at the extra-gross parts and caught more funny lines this time. (Kumadin... Ha Ha)"
Jeremy W. also gives it a 3/5, saying “I like the twist, but think it would have been funnier if they'd cut a majority of the feasting sequences.”
Renjie S. didn’t give it a rating, but said, “OMG!!! I can't imagine what Sally would think if she knew this!!! Haha”
Last week was an exciting week for the Daily Shill. Jonathan Eig (who wrote Get Capone, the book I reviewed last week) read the review and commented on the Shill’s Facebook page, saying “Thanks for the great review! I think you hit on all the key points. I'm honored.” Let me tell you, I flipped out when I got that notification. This project can get frustrating at times—to tell the truth, I can’t wait until I can go back to reading whatever I want. Hearing that anyone has read a review keeps me going—hearing that the author read one reinvigorates me.
So thanks, everyone, for reading the blog. And let me know if you have any suggestions (or have anything featured in the 2011 season that you’d like me to review. I take requests!)
Back when I read Daniel Okrent’s bookLast Call, I wished it had “less politics and more parties, less Al Smith and more Al Capone.” Though Jonathan Eig’s book Get Capone: The Secret Plot that Captured America's Most Wanted Gangster didn’t show me the party scene of the 1920s, it certainly satisfied my curiosity about Capone. In the book, Eig follows Capone’s rise and fall as one of the best known (if not the best known) gangsters in the world.
Though Get Capone is filled with facts worthy of a research paper, Eig writes in an engaging and exciting style (that the subject matter of drinking, gambling, and shooting lends to nicely). Even though I knew what happened to Capone in the end (time at Alcatraz for tax evasion), I was still curious about what happened along the way, and the book sure told me. Get Capone didn’t pull me to read like a good novel does, but whenever I did take the time to read a few chapters, I was interested.
What I found most satisfying about Get Capone was that Capone is presented as neither a mostly good man who was wronged, nor an evil man who deserved his fate. Instead, Eig reported Capone’s virtues (like his soup kitchens for the poor) alongside his many faults (the murders, for one). In the end, while reading of his trial for tax evasion, I almost wanted Capone to get off easier—even though I believed he deserved a harsh sentence for the crimes (read murders) related to his bootlegging business. But then I’d realize I was ridiculous, and that the man belonged in jail. (And then I’d flip-flop back… it was an ongoing process).
Additionally, Get Capone gave me a new point of view of two historical figures: Herbert Hoover and Eliot Ness. I’ll admit, most of my opinion of Hoover comes from the musical Annie (and its sarcastic song “I’d like to thank you, Herbert Hoover”); not a good source, and one that portrays him in a negative light. However, though Hoover was unable to push America out of the Great Depression, his political life was not really all that bad. Turns out, Hoover was devoted to making government work more efficiently and did not seem to be in it for the power. Though Eig points out that Hoover was probably better suited to be Commerce Secretary (a position he held) than president, Hoover was apparently rather successful in his attempt to increase the government's efficiency. As far as Ness goes, I’d always heard that he was largely responsible for the capture of Capone and I never doubted it. Turns out, much of the credit belongs to George E. Q. Johnson and Frank Wilson. However, when Ness sold his life story to Oscar Fraley, Fraley inflated Ness’s role and his book, The Untouchables, became accepted by many as the true story.
All in all, I recommend Get Capone, and I give it a 4/5. Though it got a bit slow toward the end, it is still worth reading—especially if you’re interested in the subject. My dad was also reading Get Capone and will have a rating for The Shill as well within the next week or so. His rating will be posted on The Daily Shill’s Twitter (@dailyshill).
Yes, The Daily Shill now has a Twitter account. In addition to posting links to new reviews, I’ll also post commentary on the project, mostly consisting of facts from what I’m currently reading.
Regular readers of the blog (if they’re out there) know that I’m not a fan of action movies. So, as you may imagine, I was just thrilled to sit down and watch Salt, yet another action movie about a rogue agent. But, despite its many problems (and many there were), Salt was still better than Knight and Day. So, there’s that.
Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is a CIA agent, specializing in Russian matters. A Russian defector shows up and, during Salt's interrogation of him, accuses her of being a Russian spy with the intention to murder the visiting Russian president. Rather than submit to questioning and prove herself innocent, Salt immediately runs, causing her (now former) coworkers to make chase. Salt, though eager to escape from the assailants, finds herself incredibly concerned for her husband’s safety—this concern only increases when she is unable to contact him. The entire movie consists of the chase with a few "I hope my husband's okay" moments.
Even though I didn’t care for the movie’s action, there was one plot point that intrigued me. The defector who labeled Salt a spy explained that there exists a Russian group that raises children with the intention of sending them to live in America as spies. These children were taught the English language and American ways before they were taught Russian, and were eventually shipped off to America with given identity and mission. If the movie centered more on this process, spending time with the children raised as spies and dealing with how they felt about the role they were forced to play, I would have been more invested. Though the mystery of whether or not Salt was a member of this group made the movie more exciting, I would have liked to see the group highlighted in a different way.
My main problem with Salt, though, was its lack of substance. The movie jumped from one chase scene to another, spending little time advancing plot or explaining why characters were taking the actions they did. Maybe that’s what the action movie audience wants, but I wish motivations for the action (other than “get away”) had been clearer. I would have cared more.
Salt gets a 1/5. Though parts of its premise were thought-provoking, the majority of the movie was a mindless chase. I don’t need to watch that.
I'm sorry that there was no new post last week (and that the writing on this post is lackluster and borderline-bad). I'm in the last 3 weeks of my first year of grad school (woo-hoo!) and have been bogged down with papers, projects, and readings. Soon, though, The Daily Shill will jump into summer mode, which means that there'll be more reviews of books and often posts more than once weekly.
I am a graduate student who loves games, reading, writing, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
THE MISSION: To review every book, movie, TV show, album, article, and podcast promoted in The Daily Show's 2010 interviews.
