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.
How Do You Know gets a 1/5. I would have rather watched this SNL sketch, this Romeo + Juliet trailer (look for Rudd at the 23-30 second point. He's the dancing astronaut), and this scene from Sesame Street 100 times (and I probably did over the course of the Rudd-a-Thon).
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Paul Rudd
Showing posts with label 1/5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1/5. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Unstoppable: A Stream of Consciousness Blog
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.
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.
Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Rosario Dawson (the one who plays Connie, the boring character)
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.
Monday, June 13, 2011
The End of the Free Market
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.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Blueprint
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.
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.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Morning Glory
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.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Harrison Ford
Yes, that’s the interview that Daily Shill correspondent Andrea Levine attended. Read her report on the experience here!
Buy the movie
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.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Harrison Ford
Yes, that’s the interview that Daily Shill correspondent Andrea Levine attended. Read her report on the experience here!
Buy the movie
Monday, March 28, 2011
Salt
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.
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.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Knight and Day
If your idea of a good time is watching Tom Cruise act like he’s too cool for school and Cameron Diaz panic and scream like a child, then Knight and Day is the movie for you. If, like me, you think that sounds revolting, save yourself the 109 minutes and avoid the film.
June (Diaz), while flying home for her sister’s wedding, finds herself in the middle of a rogue agent’s attempt to escape with Zephyr, a battery that never runs out of power. Roy (Cruise), the agent, claims he’s running off with Zephyr to keep his partner from selling it, and says that June has to come along with him because now the government will be after her, too. The two find themselves in all sorts of danger throughout the movie with plenty of car chases, gunshots, and explosions.
I had problems with the Knight and Day from the beginning. First of all, the story was difficult to follow— it felt like I had missed the first five minutes where characters (and their motives) were introduced. I had a hard time grasping why June had to go with Roy (and why she went along without taking any action). Really, June’s character frustrated me to no end. I’m not what I would call a feminist, but the helpless, idiot, damsel-in-distress nature of June made me want to protest. Making June a mechanic (a job typically associated with men) does not cancel out the fact that she became a screaming mess whenever anything went wrong. And when she suddenly becomes “brave” towards the end of the movie, there was no reason for her character shift. Get it together, Hollywood. I don’t need my character development to be subtle (though that would be nice), but I do need it to be moderately plausible.
This whole Daily Shill challenge (including Knight and Day) has confirmed my dislike of action movies. I find fighting and chasing boring. But, even if I were an action fan, I don’t think Knight and Day would have been a better movie. The story and characters are too weak (and obnoxious). It gets a 1/5.
In other news, I’ve made the decision to continue reviewing all movies features on future seasons of The Daily Show. I will, of course, complete my goal of reviewing everything featured in the 2010 season, but I don’t want to let the Daily Shill fade away after that. (But I also want to read the books I want to read, not just the Daily Show ones). If anyone has anything featured on the show that they want me to review, let me know, though, and I will add it to the list.
June (Diaz), while flying home for her sister’s wedding, finds herself in the middle of a rogue agent’s attempt to escape with Zephyr, a battery that never runs out of power. Roy (Cruise), the agent, claims he’s running off with Zephyr to keep his partner from selling it, and says that June has to come along with him because now the government will be after her, too. The two find themselves in all sorts of danger throughout the movie with plenty of car chases, gunshots, and explosions.
I had problems with the Knight and Day from the beginning. First of all, the story was difficult to follow— it felt like I had missed the first five minutes where characters (and their motives) were introduced. I had a hard time grasping why June had to go with Roy (and why she went along without taking any action). Really, June’s character frustrated me to no end. I’m not what I would call a feminist, but the helpless, idiot, damsel-in-distress nature of June made me want to protest. Making June a mechanic (a job typically associated with men) does not cancel out the fact that she became a screaming mess whenever anything went wrong. And when she suddenly becomes “brave” towards the end of the movie, there was no reason for her character shift. Get it together, Hollywood. I don’t need my character development to be subtle (though that would be nice), but I do need it to be moderately plausible.
This whole Daily Shill challenge (including Knight and Day) has confirmed my dislike of action movies. I find fighting and chasing boring. But, even if I were an action fan, I don’t think Knight and Day would have been a better movie. The story and characters are too weak (and obnoxious). It gets a 1/5.
In other news, I’ve made the decision to continue reviewing all movies features on future seasons of The Daily Show. I will, of course, complete my goal of reviewing everything featured in the 2010 season, but I don’t want to let the Daily Shill fade away after that. (But I also want to read the books I want to read, not just the Daily Show ones). If anyone has anything featured on the show that they want me to review, let me know, though, and I will add it to the list.
Monday, December 27, 2010
How to Beat up Anybody
Judah Friedlander’s book How to Beat Up Anybody: An Instructional and Inspirational Karate Book by the World Champion looked stupid, but in a fun way. I’m a huge fan of 30 Rock, and even though Friedlander is a character in the show, not a writer, I guess I just assumed he would be funny by association. I was wrong. How to Beat Up Anybody was just plain stupid, and a waste of time to read.
The World Champion is an egotistical character that originated in Friedlander’s stand-up comedy. I’ve never seen the stand-up, so maybe The World Champion fares better in that medium. However, in a book that focuses solely on his ridiculous claims of awesomeness, it gets old fast. I think I would find the egomaniac annoying even in small doses, but when the entire book is based on the idea that this guy is funny, and then he isn’t, the entire book seems like a waste.
How to Beat Up Anybody consists mostly of very posed and photoshopped images of Friedlander (in his World Champion getup) beating the crap out of people. There are a few variations (in one chapter he’s dressed as a woman because people think drag is funny, in another he’s teaching strippers self defense because they wanted some boobs in the book), but generally it’s page after page of the same bad joke.
Also, the text in the book was poorly laid out—you are meant to read the text in a specific order, but because of its placement around photos, I was often reading steps out of place. I don’t think the jokes would’ve landed for me had I read them in the correct order, but the jumbled quality didn’t help matters any.
As you might expect, I’m giving How to Beat Up Anybody a 1/5. Seriously, this was almost worse than reading the books that make outlandish political claims that I disagree with; at least with those books, I can learn where others are coming from. I can’t come up with a single silver lining to reading How to Beat Up Anybody (and those of you who know what an optimist I am can really see how I feel about the book).
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Judah Friedlander
The World Champion is an egotistical character that originated in Friedlander’s stand-up comedy. I’ve never seen the stand-up, so maybe The World Champion fares better in that medium. However, in a book that focuses solely on his ridiculous claims of awesomeness, it gets old fast. I think I would find the egomaniac annoying even in small doses, but when the entire book is based on the idea that this guy is funny, and then he isn’t, the entire book seems like a waste.
How to Beat Up Anybody consists mostly of very posed and photoshopped images of Friedlander (in his World Champion getup) beating the crap out of people. There are a few variations (in one chapter he’s dressed as a woman because people think drag is funny, in another he’s teaching strippers self defense because they wanted some boobs in the book), but generally it’s page after page of the same bad joke.
Also, the text in the book was poorly laid out—you are meant to read the text in a specific order, but because of its placement around photos, I was often reading steps out of place. I don’t think the jokes would’ve landed for me had I read them in the correct order, but the jumbled quality didn’t help matters any.
As you might expect, I’m giving How to Beat Up Anybody a 1/5. Seriously, this was almost worse than reading the books that make outlandish political claims that I disagree with; at least with those books, I can learn where others are coming from. I can’t come up with a single silver lining to reading How to Beat Up Anybody (and those of you who know what an optimist I am can really see how I feel about the book).
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Judah Friedlander
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Gunn's Golden Rules
I have never watched Project Runway or any other show that Tim Gunn may be on (is he on other shows? I don’t even know). But I’ve seen him on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, and he seems likeable enough, so I approached his book with an open mind. Maybe it was a little too open…
Gunn’s Golden Rules:Life's Little Lessens for Making it Work claims to be an etiquette book. And, as I was reading the introduction, where Gunn says the etiquette he cares about boils down to “just be nicer,” I was completely on board (I may have even said, “Yes, yes, I agree!” aloud). And then came the book. It was a strange amalgamation of manners tips, Project Runway anecdotes, and catty stories of people’s rudeness, peppered with all too many catchphrases (“Make it work,” anyone?). Not what I wanted.
What bothered me most about Gunn’s Golden Rules was how terribly scattered it was; it jumped from one story to another without transition—it seemed like it might be Gunn’s cocktail party conversation. I would’ve cut Gunn some slack—after all, he’s not a writer—but the book was co-written. Yes, there’s a little “with Ada Calhoun” on the cover. If you bring in a writer to help you with the book, the writing had better be decent. Or just neutral, I would’ve been okay with that. I will admit, I sometimes feel a little hypocritical criticizing the writing of these books, as I know my writing on this website is not super. But then I remember that they are writing a book—if I were writing a book (instead of a blog), you can bet I would draft and edit much more thoroughly. So, on with the criticism, I guess.
Every so often, Gunn told an interesting story, and the book was a quick read, but even so, I’m giving Gunn's Golden Rules a 1/5. If it weren’t for the Daily Shill, I would have stopped reading about 80 pages in.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Tim Gunn
Buy the Book
Sad to be at work this week and next? I don’t blame you. But, perhaps I can help? Come back to the Daily Shill every workday between now and Christmas (assuming you don’t work on the weekend or the 24th) and read a new review. That makes it all better, doesn’t it? Wait, you’re telling me it doesn’t? Well, sorry, it’s all I can do.
Gunn’s Golden Rules:Life's Little Lessens for Making it Work claims to be an etiquette book. And, as I was reading the introduction, where Gunn says the etiquette he cares about boils down to “just be nicer,” I was completely on board (I may have even said, “Yes, yes, I agree!” aloud). And then came the book. It was a strange amalgamation of manners tips, Project Runway anecdotes, and catty stories of people’s rudeness, peppered with all too many catchphrases (“Make it work,” anyone?). Not what I wanted.
What bothered me most about Gunn’s Golden Rules was how terribly scattered it was; it jumped from one story to another without transition—it seemed like it might be Gunn’s cocktail party conversation. I would’ve cut Gunn some slack—after all, he’s not a writer—but the book was co-written. Yes, there’s a little “with Ada Calhoun” on the cover. If you bring in a writer to help you with the book, the writing had better be decent. Or just neutral, I would’ve been okay with that. I will admit, I sometimes feel a little hypocritical criticizing the writing of these books, as I know my writing on this website is not super. But then I remember that they are writing a book—if I were writing a book (instead of a blog), you can bet I would draft and edit much more thoroughly. So, on with the criticism, I guess.
Every so often, Gunn told an interesting story, and the book was a quick read, but even so, I’m giving Gunn's Golden Rules a 1/5. If it weren’t for the Daily Shill, I would have stopped reading about 80 pages in.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Tim Gunn
Buy the Book
Sad to be at work this week and next? I don’t blame you. But, perhaps I can help? Come back to the Daily Shill every workday between now and Christmas (assuming you don’t work on the weekend or the 24th) and read a new review. That makes it all better, doesn’t it? Wait, you’re telling me it doesn’t? Well, sorry, it’s all I can do.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Grown Ups
You’d think, as I’m a huge Saturday Night Live fan, that I would be thrilled to see the guys from the cast of the early 90s get together for a movie. But here’s the thing, out of those guys, I truly dislike two (Adam Sandler and David Spade) feel neutral-leaning-to-dislike towards one (Rob Schneider) and like one (Chris Rock). Throw in yet another guy I could care less about (Kevin James) and you get Grown Ups, a comedy with too many leads and not enough laughs.
The premise: all these fellas were on a middle school basketball team that won a championship. Though they’ve drifted apart in their adult lives, when this coach dies, they all reunite at his funeral. (Let me drift away from the synopsis for a just a second here to talk about the implausibility of this whole situation. We’re talking about a middle school basketball team here. Could you tell me the first name of your middle school basketball coach? Would you go to his funeral? Also, this coach seemed to have no other friends/family other than the kids who were on this team. He asks that Sandler give his eulogy, Schneider sings a song—what about his children and loved ones? Hell, what about the other basketball teams he coached? – he did get a new one each year. This bothered me for the entire movie…clearly).
So these guys each bring their entire family out to this funeral for this guy they once knew, and, Sandler, feeling nostalgic, rents this lakehouse for them all to stay at. And each of these guys, of course, has their own family issues. Sandler is crazy-rich and his children are spoiled brats; Spade is a womanizer who’s never settled down; Schneider has married an old hippy (and has been a terrible father to his three grown daughters); Rock’s wife is pregnant and he has a crazy mother-in-law who lives with him; James is low on cash (and his wife still breast-feeds his 6-year-old son). Basically comedy waiting to happen…or at least that’s what these guys thought.
But the comedy didn’t pull through for me; most of it was on the fart joke caliber and the funniest line (“I want to get chocolate wasted”) was featured in the film’s trailer. Plus, I just wasn’t able to feel for any of the main characters because there were just too many of them. I couldn’t tell you a single character’s name because each family was only given a minute or two of introduction. After that, the movie is old guys trying to relieve their glory days by doing stupid stuff. And yes, that last sentence refers both to the plot of the film and its creation.
As you might expect, I’m giving Grown Ups a 1/5. If you’re a big Sandler and crew fan, maybe you’d like it, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Adam Sandler & Chris Rock
Buy the DVD
The premise: all these fellas were on a middle school basketball team that won a championship. Though they’ve drifted apart in their adult lives, when this coach dies, they all reunite at his funeral. (Let me drift away from the synopsis for a just a second here to talk about the implausibility of this whole situation. We’re talking about a middle school basketball team here. Could you tell me the first name of your middle school basketball coach? Would you go to his funeral? Also, this coach seemed to have no other friends/family other than the kids who were on this team. He asks that Sandler give his eulogy, Schneider sings a song—what about his children and loved ones? Hell, what about the other basketball teams he coached? – he did get a new one each year. This bothered me for the entire movie…clearly).
So these guys each bring their entire family out to this funeral for this guy they once knew, and, Sandler, feeling nostalgic, rents this lakehouse for them all to stay at. And each of these guys, of course, has their own family issues. Sandler is crazy-rich and his children are spoiled brats; Spade is a womanizer who’s never settled down; Schneider has married an old hippy (and has been a terrible father to his three grown daughters); Rock’s wife is pregnant and he has a crazy mother-in-law who lives with him; James is low on cash (and his wife still breast-feeds his 6-year-old son). Basically comedy waiting to happen…or at least that’s what these guys thought.
But the comedy didn’t pull through for me; most of it was on the fart joke caliber and the funniest line (“I want to get chocolate wasted”) was featured in the film’s trailer. Plus, I just wasn’t able to feel for any of the main characters because there were just too many of them. I couldn’t tell you a single character’s name because each family was only given a minute or two of introduction. After that, the movie is old guys trying to relieve their glory days by doing stupid stuff. And yes, that last sentence refers both to the plot of the film and its creation.
As you might expect, I’m giving Grown Ups a 1/5. If you’re a big Sandler and crew fan, maybe you’d like it, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Adam Sandler & Chris Rock
Buy the DVD
Monday, August 23, 2010
Remember Me
Back in March, when previews for Remember Me were on TV all the time, I commented that I couldn’t figure out what the movie was about, but I knew it was something I wouldn’t want to see. And then Robert Pattinson went on the Daily Show. So on Friday, I spent two hours watching the movie, and, even after finishing, I couldn’t really tell you what it’s about.
Here’s my best shot. Tyler (Pattinson) is a depressed young adult dealing with his brother’s suicide, his rocky relationship with his father (Pearce Brosnan), and general malaise. After Tyler gets in a fight with a cop, his roommate Aidan (Tate Ellington) dares him to ask out the cop’s daughter, Ally (Emilie de Ravin). Tyler does, and the two begin a relationship.
The thing is, throughout the entire movie, I was trying to figure out what story they were trying to tell. The sappy piano heavy score and Pattinson’s brooding made it clear they were going for a Notebookesque vibe, but there was no real plot. In the last 15 minutes of the movie an attempt was made to justify why these people’s lives were important, but it didn’t succeed. The twist seemed gimmicky and was a cheap way to get people emotions.
Even taking account that they were not given much to work with, the actors certainly did not impress me. It was abundantly clear that the actors with the three largest parts (Pattinson, Brosnan, and de Ravin) were all foreigners putting on American accents. Patinson’s was good and Brosnan had only a few slip-ups, but de Ravin’s was just horrible to the level of distraction.
As you may expect, Remember Me gets a 1/5. Though making fun of it is enjoyable, it’s not enough to make it worth watching.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Robert Pattinson
Tune into the Daily Shill every weekday this week for a new review. Still to come, my thoughts on Revolutionaries, The Kids Are All Right, Losers, and (probably) The Big Short.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Hot in Cleveland (Day of Reviews, Post 5)
I thought Sex and the City 2 would be the worst thing I’d watch today, but I was wrong. That place was taken by Hot in Cleveland, TV land’s original sitcom. It bases itself on this premise: three ladies traveling from LA to France have to emergency-land in Cleveland and decide to stay because the guys there find them hot. Every joke is broad and heavy-handed, but the laugh track (or, possibly, the live studio audience) eats them up. I, however, did not.
Betty White is the show’s silver lining. Her timing manages to make a few of the bad jokes tolerable, but even she can’t save them all.
I was really hoping to give this show a 4, since then I would’ve given one of each rating to everything I reviewed today. But, you know, that’s clearly not going to happen here. It’s getting a 1/5.
Sex and the City 2 (Day of Reviews, Post 3)
I haven’t seen any episodes of Sex and the City. I haven’t seen Sex and the City the movie. But, I can no longer claim that I haven’t seen Sex and the City 2. And that is a sad thing.
Let me tell you, the movie is rough. It follows four rich ladies, Carrie, Charlotte, Samantha and the uptight redhead (whose name I can’t remember…okay, I’ve looked it up: she’s Miranda) to Dubai, perhaps the most excessive place in the world. In it, they wear crazy clothes, ride camels, drink, have sex (and get arrested for it), buy shoes, and complain about how hard their lives are at home. It was sickening.
Perhaps I would feel differently if I had followed these characters for years, but I doubt that. A few of my friends are Sex and the City fans, and they disliked the movie as well. The movie is not funny, dialogue is not natural (though that could be blamed on the writing rather than the acting), and characters are not relatable.
The highlight of Sex and the City 2 was watching Liza Minnelli perform “Single Ladies,” but any joy from that was taken away by the stereotype-filled gay wedding where the dance took place.
As you might expect, I’m giving the movie a 1/5.
Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with writer and director Michael Patrick King
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Tooth Fairy
Tooth Fairy was the first “joke” of my Daily Shill Mission. I’d describe my challenge to someone, they’d say something like “Oh, that’s really cool,” and I’d say, “Yeah, but I have to watch Tooth Fairy,” and then we’d groan. I’d put it off for weeks, but a few days ago, I did what I had to do and watched the movie.
Despite the jokes, I was determined to approach it with an open mind. I was going to give it two ratings: one for my current feelings about it, and one for how I think I would’ve rated it as a kid. But then, as I was watching Tooth Fairy, I realized there were no original ideas in the movie and my open mind was gone.
The most obvious parallel is The Santa Clause. In that movie, a disbeliever (played by Tim Allen) finds himself stuck being Santa Claus—the job that he insisted didn’t exist. After resistance, he embraces the job, and not only believes himself, but helps others to believe. Replace “Tim Allen” with “Dwayne Johnson” and “Santa Claus” with “Tooth Fairy” and you’ve got the plot of Tooth Fairy. However, it doesn’t have the heart or the holiday excitement that The Santa Clause has.
That, of course, is the main parallel but there are also hints of Love Actually (boy close to the protagonist is a good musician, but afraid to perform in the talent show, but with encouragement from the protagonist, wows everyone in the show) and Finding Nemo (main character has fin/shoulder injury that keeps him from doing things, but by the end of the movie, he realizes it’s all in his head and that he can achieve what he tries to do).
Also, Tooth Fairy just wasn’t good. Its redeeming factor was that there weren't any fart jokes. It gets a 1/5. If you feel like some Tooth Fairy related entertainment, though, let me recommend Gregory Maguire’s book What the Dickens. It’s one of those books that can be enjoyed equally by children and adults, and it presents a new point of view about the job of Tooth Fairy. Also, it is one of three non-Daily Show books I have read this year.
Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Julie Andrews. (I just love her. Watch this interview instead of watching the movie).
Despite the jokes, I was determined to approach it with an open mind. I was going to give it two ratings: one for my current feelings about it, and one for how I think I would’ve rated it as a kid. But then, as I was watching Tooth Fairy, I realized there were no original ideas in the movie and my open mind was gone.
The most obvious parallel is The Santa Clause. In that movie, a disbeliever (played by Tim Allen) finds himself stuck being Santa Claus—the job that he insisted didn’t exist. After resistance, he embraces the job, and not only believes himself, but helps others to believe. Replace “Tim Allen” with “Dwayne Johnson” and “Santa Claus” with “Tooth Fairy” and you’ve got the plot of Tooth Fairy. However, it doesn’t have the heart or the holiday excitement that The Santa Clause has.
That, of course, is the main parallel but there are also hints of Love Actually (boy close to the protagonist is a good musician, but afraid to perform in the talent show, but with encouragement from the protagonist, wows everyone in the show) and Finding Nemo (main character has fin/shoulder injury that keeps him from doing things, but by the end of the movie, he realizes it’s all in his head and that he can achieve what he tries to do).
Also, Tooth Fairy just wasn’t good. Its redeeming factor was that there weren't any fart jokes. It gets a 1/5. If you feel like some Tooth Fairy related entertainment, though, let me recommend Gregory Maguire’s book What the Dickens. It’s one of those books that can be enjoyed equally by children and adults, and it presents a new point of view about the job of Tooth Fairy. Also, it is one of three non-Daily Show books I have read this year.
Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Julie Andrews. (I just love her. Watch this interview instead of watching the movie).
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Cop Out
Cop Out, starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, attempts to be both a comedy and an action flick and succeeds at neither. I did not once laugh, nor was I impressed or excited by the chase scenes and fights. Don’t go see it.
The story follows Jimmy (Willis) and Paul (Morgan) a pair of cops with the NYPD with their share of problems. The two have been suspended without pay for a failed drug bust, Paul thinks his wife is cheating on him, and Jimmy needs to sell a baseball card to pay for his daughter’s dream wedding; unfortunately for Jimmy, the card is stolen when he attempts to sell it and gets in the hands of a dangerous gang (which happen to be the same one for the earlier drug bust). Also, there’s another set of partners at NYPD who seem to dislike them, but I couldn’t really understand how those guys fit in.
So Jimmy and Paul set off on a mission to get the card, and end up wrapped up in drama with the gang. That’s the movie. I could give away the ending, but I bet you can figure it out on your own. Hint: All the problems are solved.
Watching Cop Out was a waste of time. I actually had to stop halfway through and watch episodes of 30 Rock to remind myself why I’m a fan of Tracy Morgan. It gets a 1/5.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Courting Disaster
I am not going to be able to review this book fairly. I am a liberal person, and Mark Thiessen’s book Courting Disaster goes against much of what I believe in. I was unable to approach it with an open mind, so I know this post will be biased. But I read the book (except for the appendices—I had to stop somewhere), and here’s my take on in.
Courting Disaster makes three general arguments. 1. Waterboarding (and other types of “enhanced interrogation”) is not torture. 2. Guantanamo Bay is a wonderful prison. 3. Obama is inviting and encouraging terrorists to attack by not allowing the CIA to waterboard and by closing Guantanamo.
Thiessen has a distinct style for proving his points. Here’s my interpretation. “Waterboarding isn’t torture. You want to know why it isn’t torture? Let me tell you about all these other gruesome torture techniques that have been used in the past. Then I dare you to tell me waterboarding is torture.” And then he spends pages describing torture. It’s the same with Guantanamo. (Again, my version of his words), “Life in Guantanamo is just great for all the terrorists there. You want to hear about bad prison life? Let me tell you about some other prisons. Then you’ll see Guantanamo is the Ritz of prisons.”
Needless to say, I wasn’t thrilled to be reading about torture and terrible prison life. And then there was Thiessen’s tone. It came across so snotty, almost like he’d be pleased if terrorists attacked during Obama’s administration, just so he could blame Obama for not torturing captured terrorists to gain information that could’ve stopped the attack.
The thing about Courting Disaster, though, is that people who don’t agree with Thiessen (aside from crazy people like me who belong to the Jon Stewart Book Club) are not going to read his book. The people who are going to buy it already agree with what Thiessen is arguing and will believe everything he says. And the few who read it who disagree will believe nothing he says.
This is the problem with books written with a strong political slant. Whether I’m reading one that is heavily liberal or conservative, I question the reliability of what I read. So, rather than reading a book arguing for waterboarding written by Donald Rumsfeld’s former speechwriter, I’d want to read one written by a member of the CIA who actually used these forms of “enhanced interrogation.” Sure, he’d probably have many, if not all, of the arguments that Thiessen has, but it would be a more reliable source.
I give Courting Disaster a 1/5. But, like I said, it’s probably not a fair rating. So if you want to, read the book. Make up your own mind about it.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Staying True
Remember Mark Sanford? He was that governor from South Carolina who gave the phrase “Hiking the Appalachians” a new meaning, when he used it as an excuse to cover up his affair with an Argentinean woman. Well, of course, he had a wife, Jenny Sanford, who decided to write a book about the ordeal.
The book, Staying True, actually covers much more than the affair and its attempted cover-up. Jenny goes through her and Mark’s relationship and political career beginning with their courtship and lasting until the present. Here’s the thing… most of it is boring. As terrible as the affair was, it is the only part of the book that had elements of a good story, and it is a remarkably small fraction of the entire work. The rest of Staying True is filled with way too many details, like what kind of sheets her sons had on their beds and the names that campaign workers gave various areas of the Sanford home. I can’t tell you how many times (probably once every five minutes or so) that I thought, “Why do we care about this?”
After reading Staying True, I’m pretty I’ve figured out Jenny’s goal: to extol Mark’s political career while simultaneously showing the world what an asshole husband he was. Though I didn’t find myself won over by Mark’s political viewpoints, I did finish the book knowing that he was a bastard.
My Staying True experience had an added element, as my library had only the audio version of the story. Jenny Sanford narrated it herself, which I initially thought would be a good thing, but soon proved to be otherwise. Jenny read with overly precise diction, but no expression or emotion whatsoever. I understand that it may be a difficult thing for her to continue to talk about the disarray of her marriage, but if that’s the case, she should have had someone else do the recording. If you do decide to check out Staying True, I’d definitely steer you away from the audio-book.
But, really, I’d steer you away from the book altogether. I’m giving Staying True a 1/5. Any book that leaves me wondering, “Why should I care?” is not a good one.
The book, Staying True, actually covers much more than the affair and its attempted cover-up. Jenny goes through her and Mark’s relationship and political career beginning with their courtship and lasting until the present. Here’s the thing… most of it is boring. As terrible as the affair was, it is the only part of the book that had elements of a good story, and it is a remarkably small fraction of the entire work. The rest of Staying True is filled with way too many details, like what kind of sheets her sons had on their beds and the names that campaign workers gave various areas of the Sanford home. I can’t tell you how many times (probably once every five minutes or so) that I thought, “Why do we care about this?”
After reading Staying True, I’m pretty I’ve figured out Jenny’s goal: to extol Mark’s political career while simultaneously showing the world what an asshole husband he was. Though I didn’t find myself won over by Mark’s political viewpoints, I did finish the book knowing that he was a bastard.
My Staying True experience had an added element, as my library had only the audio version of the story. Jenny Sanford narrated it herself, which I initially thought would be a good thing, but soon proved to be otherwise. Jenny read with overly precise diction, but no expression or emotion whatsoever. I understand that it may be a difficult thing for her to continue to talk about the disarray of her marriage, but if that’s the case, she should have had someone else do the recording. If you do decide to check out Staying True, I’d definitely steer you away from the audio-book.
But, really, I’d steer you away from the book altogether. I’m giving Staying True a 1/5. Any book that leaves me wondering, “Why should I care?” is not a good one.
Sorry it's been awhile since I've posted. This should start off a week full of reviews, though. I should finish Scott Patterson's The Quants and Jeff Garlin's My Footprint before the week is up.
Monday, March 1, 2010
No one likes Crisis and Command (or at least I don't)
I admit defeat. I'm not giving up on my mission, but Crisis and Command by John Yoo has beaten me. I had to return it to the library today, and I only made it through 250 pages. And let me tell you, those 250 were rough.
My main complaint with Crisis and Command isn't the way it's written, it isn't its political message, it's that it is BORING! Granted, a book mostly about constitutional law doesn't sound like a thriller, but since it focused on particular presidents, I thought the history would be interesting. And the first few pages of each chapter was...but that was it. Who knows, maybe the chapters on FDR, the Cold War Presidents, and the Once and Future Presidency were different. But I didn't make it that far. Since it was unfinishable, I give it 1/5.
If you're looking for a book to help you fall asleep at night, this is the one. But if you're looking for some entertainment, turn elsewhere. Might I recommend the book that started me on this mission: The Know It All by AJ Jacobs.
I could talk more about Crisis and Command if you wanted, but I think it would make for a boring review. Ask me, though, if you have any questions (about the first 250 pages).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
