I read Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones a few years back, but it is now back in the headlines because it is being adapted to screen. Over at Cinematical, they talk about the book, and I agree entirely with their assessment:
Released in 2002, the novel became a smash hit despite an unknown author and a difficult subject. The story of fourteen-year old Susie Salmon, who watches the aftermath of her rape and murder from heaven, connected big time; glowing reviews and spectacular word of mouth kept the book on the bestseller list for over a year and helped sales exceed a million copies. I share the general enthusiasm. Sebold's prose is an elegant, efficient, beautiful wonder, and the novel is remarkable -- equal parts painful and hopeful, difficult and compulsively readable.
I do agree, right up until the book jumps the shark.I rarely have such a visceral reaction to books, but I couldn't resist adding my comments to the blog:
I agree with that entirely, right up to the point where the book jumps the shark. If you have read the book, you know exactly where I am talking about. It changed the entire feel of the book so jarringly, I had to read the passage several times to make sure I had just read what I thought I did. Peter Jackson has an excellent, and rare, opportunity to excise that section and make the film better than the book.
Will he take out that ridiculous scene and save the movie?
So, Rotten Tomatoes currently has Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull at 79% fresh, which is a good score. But, this is the kind of film, being a huge Raiders fans, that I am going to see no matter what anyone says. Still, I cannot resist movie reviews, so I browsed through some.Here's a review from Cinematical, that I think best captures what true fans of the series want and are gratified to hear:
To those who spent the last several years offering lame jokes about Indiana Jones and the Retirement Home, be prepared to eat some crow. Yes, Indy does look quite a bit older than the last time we saw him, and fine, it's kind of absurd to expect a 60-year-old man to do what Dr. Jones does. In the real world. In a series that offers vengeful gods, mine cart roller coasters, and immortal knights ... are we really going to whine about an actor with a few new wrinkles on his face? Ford does many of his own stunts here, plus he's aided by several stuntmen, a few CG tricks, and some masterful editing. Not once does this guy seem too old to be doing his thing. As far as Mr. Ford's actual performance is concerned, he slips back into the character with no effort whatsoever. Wiser and more weathered, but absolutely the same old Indy.
At this point you'd probably like a simple answer to a simple question: "Is it as good as the other ones?" To which I would answer "Yes, absolutely ... aside from the first one." To me (and many others), Raiders of the Lost Ark is right up there on a level with Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, and The Godfather. In comparison, I consider Temple of Doom to be a stellar collection of action scenes that are punctuated by sub-par dialog and a horribly annoying damsel, while Last Crusade is a warm-hearted and creative adventure movie that suffered just a little bit from downright familiarity. So while I really enjoy Temple and Crusade, they don't hold a candle to their big brother. And Crystal Skull follows that arc to a tee: It's definitely got some over-clunky dialog, a touch of over-ripe "expositionzing," and at least one action beat that feels patently ridiculous, but complaining about those things (in the face of so much colorful fun) seems a bit greedy -- like opening your Christmas presents and then saying "That's it?!?!"
Ultimately, you certainly don't need this review like you'd maybe need a review of something small, indie, or festival-bound, since you already know full well if you want to see a movie called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If you've made it this far, you probably just want to know what an old-school fan (who also happens to be a movie critic) thinks of the movie. Yes, I saw all three Indy flicks during their theatrical run, and more times than I care to mention. So with both sides of my brain (the geeky nostalgia side and the semi-smart analytical side) in working order, I can most assuredly recommend Indiana Jones Part 4 as one of the most comfortably entertaining adventure movies of the past several years. To expect any movie to live up to the Raiders standard is simply unfair, but Crystal Skull fits very excellently next to both Temple of Doom and Last Crusade.
Was there a dearth of great movies last year? Of Oscar-nominated caliber movies? I liked Juno. I liked Ellen Page. I even liked the writing. But in a million years I would never have nominated it for Best Picture. One. Million. Years.I have seen Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood, and I think it is outrageous to include the title of this other film I am talking about in the same sentence, so I just won't do it. Again, Juno was good. It was entertaining. It was cutesy and quirky and a nice little film. But, for your consideration, here are a few other movies I have seen in 2007 that I would not be ashamed to include in the 'Best Picture' list that were excluded:
3:10 to Yuma
Gone Baby Gone
Bourne Ultimatum
If you haven't seen any of the above, I entreat you to do so and tell me any of the above isn't a better consideration for 'Best Picture' than Juno.
Via QuizLaw, I see a CNN story video, below of a 7-year old who when joy-riding in his grandmother's SUV. And crashed into a few cars along the way. In his own words, "it's fun to do bad things."
Jesus, this kid is a poster-child for a future criminal. And by "future" I mean soon, because the county is planning to charge him with grand-theft auto. Just listening to the kid shrug off possibly killing someone or being punished 'a little' as appropriate is chilling.
I have to agree with the grandmother's response, "I wanna whip his behind. That's what I wanna do right now. If I thought they wouldn't take me to jail, I'd whip his behind right now." The kid's take, "Punish me a little... like take away video games for a whole weekend." Whoa, junior! Not so harsh! That's crazy bad, like say making you go out and exercise, my little tubby lard! No rush though; that's what they have the 'exercise yard' in lockup for.
Although we go way back, Kelly and I often don't see eye-to-eye, as he goes to church and loves his liberal views. However, when we do click, it's usually about movies, and usually about other people when they get things wrong. His response to another blogger who had issue with the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, of all things, is a well-written passage:
But to return to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I've never had a problem with the ending. Lance and his commenters seem to think that the ending doesn't fit the movie that precedes it, but of course it does! The early briefing scene, when Indy and Marcus Brody are explaining the Ark of the Covenant to the two Army guys who seem to never have attended Sunday School, has Indy opening his Bible to an engraving of the Ark blasting its enemies with "Lightning, fire, or the Power of God or something"; Marcus points out "The Bible speaks of the Ark leveling mountains and laying waste to entire regions. An army which carries the Ark before it is invincible." It's set up very early on that the object the Nazis are looking for contains within it the very power of God, and it's referenced again in the hold of the cargo ship when the Ark burns the swastika right off the crate, so at the end, when it's the Power of God which strikes them all down, it comes as no surprise. Nor, really, does the grisly nature of God's punishment toward those who touch his Ark seem inappropriate to anyone who has read any of the Old Testament at all. This is an instrument of the God who turned Lot's wife into salt because she looked back at where she'd come from. So yeah, melting the Nazis? I can see Old Testament Jehovah doing that.
What doesn't quite add up is Indy's sudden realization that he and Marion will be safe as long as they shut their eyes and refuse to look openly on the power of the Ark. How did he know? Was it pure intuition? We don't know. In the novelization, there's a line from that old wise man Indy and Sallah visit for the translation of the writing on the Headpiece; the line seems to be prefaced in the movie, when he says "This is a warning, not to disturb the Ark of the Covenant." In the movie that's all he says, but in the book he adds something like "He who would open the Ark and look on its contents will surely die", reading from the Headpiece. So at the end, it's that bit of wisdom that Indy suddenly remembers. That would have made the ending of Raiders make a little more sense.
And, I found this to be particularly funny about the end that normally gets the 'last laugh' of the film:
(And here's a thought: we all know that the Ark is locked away by the US Government by the "bureaucratic fools" Indy rants about at the end. But is that the right way to look at this? I imagine that Indy had to signal for a rescue from that island in the Mediterranean; assuming they're picked up by an American ship, they'd find a man, a woman, a golden box, and...a whole bunch of dead Nazis who have been slain in spectacularly nasty fashion. Upon returning to the US, these Army guys (one of whom is played by William Hootkins, who was the first Rebel pilot to die above the Death Star in Star Wars) learn all this, and now they've got a dilemma: Now that they have the Ark, what the hell do they do with it? If it's that powerful and indiscriminate in meting out punishment, then they can't very well use it in any meaningful sense; and they can't put it back where it was found, now that the Nazis know where Tanis and the Well of Souls are. So, they take the last option that makes any sense: they seal it away themselves, someplace secret and safe. Makes sense to me, and Indy's "bureaucratic fools" are actually doing the only responsible thing they can. How about that?)
Unfortunately, we don't often see eye-to-eye on a lot of things; I couldn't even agree on his first post on 100 things that bug me. We'll always have Indy.
The new trailer for The Dark Knight was distributed last weekend, and prior to that there were select screenings. On some of those screenings, viewers were treated to a "Jokerised" version of the trailer, which turns out to be not as much hilarious as a work of genius. See below:
My favorite (aside from the light saber) is probably the opening, when he write "Jump!!" over the screen. This viral marketing campaign has really upped the ante in terms of whetting the appetite.
I'm impressed with Iron Man. Not just because it was one of the more thoroughly enjoyable films I've seen, but because it lived up to the hype, maybe even exceeding it.It should go without saying at this point that Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic. What deserves to be mentioned is that this is a tight movie. At a point early in the first act, I realized something clever the filmmakers had done in their slow-reveal of a certain Marvel counterterrorism agency and I wanted to whisper it to my girl Danny sitting next to me. I wanted to wait for a lull in the action to note my findings -- and had to wait about an HOUR before there was anything resembling a lull. That's how entertaining the entire film is; if nothing else, it is one heck of an engaging experience.
Last night a friend asked me if he would like it, and I responded, "I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who wouldn't. Unless, of course, you really want to." Yes, according to Rotten Tomoatoes there are about 9% of reviews that weren't overwhelmingly positive, and one of those is from my old standby, Walter Chaw, who occasionally doesn't keep his eye on the ball because of his obsession with political allegory. His review is entertaining, but certainly not persuasive enough to suck the fun out of the film. It's too bad (and yet entertaining in itself) that he observes:
Consider a scene where Iron Man rockets to the Middle East, saunters around to Led Zeppelin and AC-DC in an interesting/depressing update of the Wagner-scored helicopter attack from Apocalypse Now, and makes it back in time for a starlet elbow-rub covered by E! basic cable. If Batman Begins and Superman Returns capture how Americans think of themselves in their darkest, most introspective moments, Iron Man offers a glimpse into how Americans project themselves into the world as a giant, swinging, turgid dick. It's Dr. Strangelove but not as satire. Meanwhile, although Stark's alcoholism is downplayed, the casting of Downey Jr.--his personal backstory addiction-infected enough--lends the film a healthy degree of vital self-awareness: this Stark's drug of choice isn't firewater, it's leggy blondes and technophilia in the form of making things in racing red that blow up real good. (Note Stan Lee's requisite cameo as Hugh Hefner.) The real insight offered by Iron Man is that, as a culture, we're no less addicted to it. iPods and Bluetooth and Summer Blockbusters that cost more than it'll take to rebuild Myanmar after ten thousand of their people are swept out to sea: looks like a job for Iron Man.
Walter as usual is very insightful, witty, and in this case, ultimately self-defeating. Iron Man, Tony Stark, that is, IS a dick. He is not Batman, and sure as hell isn't Superman. Often the character makes a lot of questionable decisions, but ultimately he's doing what he thinks is right, his way. In other words, he is who he is, and the movie is what it is. And the only way you're going to dislike the film is if, like Walter, you work really hard to miss the point.
On the other end of the readability spectrum from Gravity's Rainbow is the sequel to Twilight, New Moon. Author Stephenie Meyer is admittedly long-winded, but her last two-hundred pages saves the best for last and sets up a lot of interesting scenarios for the next chapter. In short, she manages to make the book overall a better read than the original.While I am enjoying the series and its different take on vampires (and werewolves) and star-crossed love, a couple of things give me pause. I will say that if in fact teenage girls are ridiculously overwrought with petty emotions and prone to bouts of insanity, then Meyer couldn't capture heroine Bella better. Sure she's willful and headstrong... and kind of an idiot. Meyer taps into the notion of the teenage notion of instant beautiful romance and love, but that lead vampire Edward, who is over 100 years old, would declare such love in the same way makes me actually think they are made for each other to be that DENSE. There are some points in the book that I really want to slap them all upside the head... but then this is a 'young adult' book, isn't it? I should expect those moments. Unfortunately, this goes on and on in New Moon for the first 300 of 500 pages, until we finally get some plot going.
In the end: Did I like the book? Yes. Could it have been trimmed by about a 100 pages? Absolutely. Will I get the next one in the series? Yes.
It's hard to shake off the sting of defeat, but somehow I feel that by giving up on reading the much-lauded (and hated) cult classic Gravity's Rainbow, that I'm beaten. I think the Wikipedia entry summarizes the book well in its introduction:
Frequently digressive, the novel subverts many of the traditional elements of plot and character development, traverses detailed, specialist knowledge drawn from a wide range of disciplines, and has earned a reputation as a "difficult" book.
In 1974, the three-member Pulitzer Prize jury on fiction supported Gravity's Rainbow for the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. However, the other eleven members of the board overturned this decision, branding the book "unreadable, turgid, overwritten, and obscene." The novel was nominated for the 1973 Nebula Award for Best Novel, and won the National Book Award in 1974. Since its publication, Gravity's Rainbow has spawned an enormous amount of literary criticism and commentary, including two reader's guides and several online concordances, and is widely regarded as Pynchon's magnum opus.
I read about 90 pages of the book, and I'm not really sure what it is about to that point except V2 rockets are falling on London in WW2 and they may be related to one man's sexual conquests. It's no exaggeration to say that the book WILDLY digresses (one Amazon reader mocked that to digress you would have to have something to digress FROM) on all manner of topic, to the point that if your attention does not sway on every single page, you are a gifted reader, indeed. Thomas Pynchon is gifted, by the way, with turn-of-phrase, with amazing level of description, and actual laugh-out-loud jokes and insightful observations. Those occasional nuggets of charm were enough to keep me plowing through what ultimately I agree is unreadable morass of "plot", until I passed the point where I was getting nearly as much pleasure out of the book as pain.Before I got to that point, I read some of the "pro" comments on Amazon just to get a few "learned" opinions. From C. Gardner:
"Gravity's Rainbow" is definitely the most bizarre and challenging book I've ever read. One can't just sit down and read it; it demands the most concentration you'll ever have to muster to read a work of fiction (if you're going to try it, by all means get Steven Weisenburger's companion book).
Unfortunately, I do the lion's share of my reading on the Metro, and I have no intent to bring two books along. From JReid, entitled "A Challenge to All Lazy People":
When I first read this book I did so without wanting to put any effort into it. I was lazy. I didn't bother to look up any of the historical, scientific, or pop cultural references...The process was arduous, painful, and frustrating. I hated this book. I simply didn't know what he was saying because I couldn't put anything into context...I believe that one of Pynchon's goals is to dare the reader into reading this book. Simply put, he wants us to work. Kierkegaard said that being a Christian should not be an easy task. The same is true, I think, in literature. For, the safer literature gets, the more it comes to resemble TV...
Well, you had me there until, of course, you made an analogy to Christianity. It is tough to be a Christian; you have to work hard to ignore the truth of the world. But the rewards are great! And if you think "TV" is all spoon-fed crap, then you haven't been watching the right shows.
Read more of them if you like, but they all boil down to a few common threads:
The book is not meant to be understood.
The book is meant to challenge your intellect.
The book is incredibly hard to finish.
Wow, where do I get a copy!
Ultimately, I feel that the book wouldn't be considered as "great" if it wasn't such a painful experience to finish it. It's not that I don't 'get it' (obviously one needs a companion book to do that), but that it was incredibly boring. I mean more boring than the first six chapters of Fellowship of the Ring boring (we're walking and we're walking...). At least THAT was coherent!
Anyone who wants to have my copy, let me know. Mint condition, thrown only once.
It feels like a good topic for a rapid-fire answer segment on a game show: Which of the following original movies could make sense with a sequel? Iron Man? Sure. Batman? Of course. Superman? Let's hope so. Donnie Darko? Huh? No. HELL no. Why?Never to be stunned by Hollywood logic, word comes today that there indeed will be a sequel to Donnie Darko:
Touted as the sequel to the 2001 cult hit, the story picks up seven years after Donnie Darko left off. The youngest Darko, Samantha, is now 18 and abandoning her commitment to Sparkle Motion. She heads to Las Vegas with her best friend Corey, but the two are plagued with bizarre visions. I imagine they will involve a rabbit.
Richard Kelly, the original director, is in no way involved.
I think Richard Kelly is even going "huh"? For those of you who haven't seen it, Donnie Darko is a unique film experience, one that is engaging, creepy, supernatural, and romantic all in the same picture. About as convoluted as a mainstream picture can be, it really benefits from multiple viewings (not to mention the director's commentary track!). If nothing else, Kelly has great taste in 80's alternative music, which infuses the movie. Now, aside from the fact that the story (well, the causality loop, if you will) is completely wrapped up in the film, the main character is not even around anymore. Also, who exactly is your target audience in this venture. Donnie Darko is a CULT film, meaning that the type of people that liked the film would likely react with repulsion to the idea of a "sequel".
On the other hand, I am using logic here, so that probably wouldn't fit in a studio meeting. Alas.
Quite a few reviews are out, and as of this posting, Rotten Tomatoes has Iron Man securely in the "fresh" -- and not just fresh; 89% is hardly a lukewarm recommendation. Read some of them, read all of them, read NONE of them... you'll probably not get a better opening gush than the review from Cinematical:
Forget about all the fantastic action. Dismiss the disarmingly smart, wry screenplay, and ignore the phenomenal supporting cast. Feel free to overlook the dozen components that make Jon Favreau's Iron Man the most uniquely entertaining superhero movie in a long time ... I've got the one main reason that this flick is worthy of your two hours and ten bucks right here, and that reason is named Robert Downey Jr.
I don't know... did he like it? Read more to find out! My only trepidation is when the reviewer gets my expectations up by comparing it to super-hero classics:
I'll put it in terms that the superhero movie geeks will understand: It's almost as good as Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2 and Batman Begins. Yeah, it's that kind of quality. Only Iron Man is a pretty unique entry in its own right. It's got some violence, some edge, and some seriously snarky attitude. But then it also has a little something to say about the nature of a society that allows itself to be governed by its own high-tech weaponry -- which means that not only is Iron Man a very fun, very slick, and very consistently clever movie; it also has some sort of a social conscience.
I'm glad there is some separations there where it forges its own identity. As I mentioned in my Lifes Rich Pageant post, comparing something to the past sometimes can ruin the first reveal of the product.That all said, I am excited to see the film, because if I never read a review, any of the trailers and TV spots have conveyed enough of Robert Downey's charm to get me into a theater. I will say this about the review, a comment about Downey that also rings true for me:
Like many movie fans of my generation, I consider Downey to be sort of an old friend. We all wept when Jami Gertz noticed his odd demise in Less Than Zero, we loved watching his evolution in films like True Believer and Chaplin, and we all felt pretty great when the guy finally kicked his well-publicized drug addiction.
Downey is a survivor, no doubt, and he's also a refreshingly engaging actor to watch -- and boy was I thrilled when Marvel announced that this would be the guy to portray Tony Stark. To those who don't know the Stark character from the comic books, let me just make it clear: Downey is the perfect guy to play a smug yet charming, sarcastic yet likable, and perpetually womanizing multi-billionaire mega-genius with a bum ticker. We all know the guy can play sly, snarky, smart characters, so much of Iron Man's early stuff is light lifting for the actor -- but when he starts getting angry? Noble? Heroic? The guy is aces across the board. Bottom Line: Downey has paid his dues, he's been through a lot of hell, and now he's a freakin' superhero who delivers the best popcorn flick performance since Johnny Depp first played pirate. Sometimes Hollywood actually works.
I've agreed about the casting, and I'm thrilled to see him in the role. I'm so secure in the casting and Downey's potential that I find it hard to picture anyone else doing it, or capable of pulling of the multi-dimensional role that is Tony Stark. Jerk, playboy, hero, villain, egomaniacal charmer, and no-doubt first blockbuster of the year, you can count on my ten bucks contributing to the cause.
Last week, Jane's Addiction reunited to perform at the NME Awards USA show. On the URL, there is an interview and a two great You Tube clips of classic songs. The one that brought back a lot of memories is the opener for their landmark third album Ritual de lo Habitual, "Stop":
Here's some text describing why they were there:
For last night's performance, bassist Eric Avery unearthed the guitar he used for the original JANE'S ADDICTION performances, which hadn't seen the light of day in nearly two decades.
Check out pictures of JANE'S ADDICTION's performance from Wire Image, Getty Images.
JANE'S ADDICTION was presented with the Godlike Genius Award at the inaugural U.S. NME Awards "in recognition of the fact that the band has done more than any other to introduce American alternative music to the mainstream," according to a press release.
Past recipients of the Godlike Genius Award, usually a highlight of the U.K. NME Awards, include U2, PAUL MCCARTNEY, THE CLASH, NEW ORDER, PRIMAL SCREAM and others.
Avery did not participate in the band's 1997 and 2001 reunions, with RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS bassist Flea, Chris Chaney and Martyn LeNoble all taking turns in the lineup.
Regarding his reasons for agreeing to take part in the JANE'S ADDICTION reunion at the NME Awards, Avery said in a statement, "I've chosen to reject the prospects of reuniting in the past for personal and philosophical reasons. I have always considered reunions to be a way to make a quick buck, and it sells short my own experience of it the first time around. The reason I started to even consider this is because it's honoring the past instead of trying to recreate it."
Of all the reasons to quit a band, or not get back together, Avery has the best reasons. Why should I be shocked? Jane's Addiction has always been an answer to the question, "Who do you listen to?" that prevents the questioner from making any kind of derisive statement about your tastes. In short, in college, they were cool, and even if you didn't like them, you knew that saying "they suck" means that you risked being judged yourself. They were the alternative's alternative, the bad asses, the guys who rocked and really were different, back before Nirvana and Pearl Jam found the scene.Probably one of the more recognizable album intro's ever, the Spanish-speaking female prefacing the band's powerful first song still gives me the tingles. The song feels weird without it, and I'm glad they kept it as originally designed for the show.
Fresh off the success of "Jane Says" from Nothings Shocking, the album features at once its most notable and popular song, "Been Caught Stealing", and its greatest flaw. Stuck right in the middle of the playlist, it is do different as to stick out. I don't dislike the song, per se, but I think including something that flows with the rest of the album would have elevated the album to even greater heights. Okay, I DO have a beef with the song, because Perry Farrell famously said prior to the album's release that he would break up the band if they hit #1 (and he did), and that fucking song absolutely is to blame for that.
Maybe it was the right thing to do, maybe they peaked and they wanted to go out on top, or before corporate America started loving them (note to Perry: appearing on "Are you ready for some football?" sing-alongs destroys the memories of my youth). I don't know if it was the first album to have the two covers because of the new fad of "Parent Advisory" stamps, but I can't think of another predating the censors. In any event, their arrival/swan song of 1990 is responsible for a lot of great college memories, and still rocks today.Great tracks:"Stop", "No One's Leaving", "Ain't No Right", "Classic Girl" "The Masterpiece":"Three Days" Unsung personal favorite:"Then She Did..." Delete from iPod:"Of course"
PS: Speaking of Nothing's Shocking, I personally think that album is tighter, and probably the best alt rock album of the 80's. But I'll save that discussion for another time.
I have to admit, I never heard of the Hugo-award winning book, Hyperion, until Cinematical posted a story about how the series was going to be made into film. Mostly, this observation about the main 'anti-hero' of the book intrigued me:
If you click through to Variety, be warned that their plot description is woefully inadequate. In particular, their deadpan reference to "a monster called the Shrike, which impales people on metal trees" is the rough equivalent of describing HAL 9000 as "a computer that locks people out of spaceships" -- accurate, but pointlessly so. The nature of the Shrike is a whole lot more interesting than that.
I found empathy with the comparison, mostly because I know far too many simpletons who think that "There Will Be Blood" is about blood, and "No Country for Old Men" is about... well who knows.My interest was already spiked, but often I'll just wait for the movie, except that one of the comm enters observed:
Since Simmons novels are among my favorite works of literature (and I teach literature for a living), I am certainly apprehensive about any potential adaptation, particularly one that will reduce two enormous novels into a 2-3 hour movie. I'm guessing the project's screwed from the get-go.
Both increasing my interest and my dread, I decided I better get the book. Needless to say, I was more than impressed.
Hyperion is set in the distant (~700 years) future, where humans are spread out in the "Hegemony of Man" amongst many connected worlds in the "Web". "Old Earth" (meaning our Earth) no longer exists, thanks to the "Big Mistake". Yeah, oops. Anyway, seven pilgrims are set on a voyage to see The Shrike, the aforementioned killing machine. What follows are the backstories of the seven pilgrims, told by each, as they set about their journey. Think a giant episode of "Lost", only most of the action happens in the flashbacks.
As the flashbacks all are compelling in different ways. I was impressed and moved the way Simmons managed to take the tales, all dealing in one way or another with the Shrike, and come at it from such disparate and interesting angles. Religion, paternalism, lust, love, technology, and the supernatural are all represented, all dealt with style, wit, and often moving sequences. The science-fiction world he has created is both just a backdrop to the characters and yet wonderfully interwoven and important to the fabric of the story. I'm really quite astounded by the breadth of emotion and topic covered in this setup story.
And it is a setup. Hyperion is about the journey, about how they got there, not about what happens next. (That's Fall of Hyperion, the conclusion.) If you haven't figured out this is already one of my top-ten favorite books ever, then I'll just confirm that now.
That all said, you should go and read it rather than wait for the film. Films? Nope, just one:
Today we got word that Warner Bros. has greenlit a single-film adaptation of the first two books (Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion). It's to be written by Trevor Sands, about whom we know very little except that he is apparently working on a number of different sci-fi projects in various stages of development. Making the two novels into one movie makes sense in a way, since they really comprise one story and the ending of Hyperion is an enormous cliffhanger. On the other hand, the books are so huge in scope and contain so many different perspectives (Simmons claims to have been inspired by The Canterbury Tales) that they seem better suited for a season of a TV show with each episode focusing on a different character. According to the Variety piece, Sands plans to take "a selective approach to the two novels' multiple points of view in a way that manage[s] to coherently and unconfusingly tell the story." Uh, I guess we'll see about that.
Skeptical would be the key word for me. I can easily see how this (just Hyperion) could be made very well in a six-part mini-series. Heck you could get real clever and do a half-season. But one single movie to cover both books? Madness. Madness.
I like to take a little variety in my reading. Admittedly, that variety often comes in the form of different types of vampire books, but this applies more to genres. I try to change up the genre of book every now and then. Graphic novel, sci-fi, supernatural (vampires!), non-fiction, and classics.As my favorite author cites Kurt Vonnegut as one of his recommended authors, and knowing that Slaughterhouse-Five is considered to be a 20th Century classic, I decided to give it a go. And I was not disappointed by the ride.
Excuse Deterrence Checklist:
Not enough time. S-F clocks in at a whopping 224 pages, which is pretty short compared to even your shortest Harry Potter tome.
Not enough money. The book has been in mass-market paperback for years, meaning over at Amazon you can get the book for about a buck plus shipping if you wanted.
Not interested in an anti-war book. It's not what you think it is. Here's the first line: "Listen, Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time."
Slaughterhouse-Five struck me as funny, moving, thought-provoking, and entertaining. I have said that Capote used foreshadowing the best (in In Cold Blood), but now I can say that Vonnegut used it the funniest. I can say that I've never read a book like it, and I'm sad for not having read it years ago. But even sadder still if you don't accept my recommendation. Then you would be a fool!
The other day I freely admitted that I'm a playoff hockey fan, not a regular season fan. I take no shame in this; I find an 80-game regular season to be ridiculously long and needless, and I know I'm not alone on this.
For someone who freely admits to not having interest in watching hockey during the regular season, the amount of knowledge I have amassed in watching each game in the wonderful Flyers-Capitals series alone has demonstrated last night to far exceed most casual fans. And by casual fans I mean the ones who were openly rooting for the Capitals, but didn't understand some of the 'complexities' of the game, or were sporting brand-spanking-new Capitals "red" jerseys. You know who you are. (Aside: At least they went away from that black-and-gold crap color scheme. Can the Wizards be far behind?)
Note to Super-Caps-Fan #1: Every time you yell "that's a takedown!!", as if that term has some hockey meaning, to signal outrage that a hold or a hook or a trip was not called, you are embarrassing yourself, your fan-base, and your nation's capital. This is nothing new, but just FYI. I don't want you to stop, mind you, because it makes me giggle.
Note to Super-Caps-Fan #2: If you don't understand the game, don't get outraged when a perfectly legal, obvious, and correct call is made that hurts you. This applies to quite a few folks who protested the goal when the Caps defenseman got checked into Huet (the goalie) and knocked out of the crease, thereby making an each shot for the Flyers. See image below, or the video recap here. He had the puck come back to him and the wrong time, thereby making any check legal; if he didn't have it, it would have been cross-checking. He was caught in a wrong place. What are they going to do -- call their own guy for goalie interference? That has happened already twice in this series and no call was made then, either. Here's a minute-long video recap here; the goal is when the Flyers go up 2-1. Note to Super-Caps-Fan #3: Do not blame the referee when your team commits an obvious overtime penalty that ends up costing you the game. I don't care if you are in overtime, when you sweep your stick across a guy's legs so obviously that you force the hand of the referee, don't blame me. In the words of Barry Melrose (video above):
The referees just let them have one about twenty seconds before then -- they had to call the second tripping penalty. Good call by the referees.
Thanks, Barry. You would have had a good time out last night.
Cinematical links to a few preview videos concerning the very popular "Twilight" young adult vampire book series. From what they show, it looks like they are following the book pretty closely, which is always a good sign. I've read the first book in the series, and enjoyed it. It couldn't be more different than another vampire series I raved about -- this one basically makes vampires extremely pretty, powerful, and magical, and there really isn't much of a downside to being one. Unless you fall for a human teenager. The book feels like one long high-school crush, which is not to say it's a bad thing (I'm a sucker -- no pun intended -- for vampires), but don't go looking for some meaty complex tale here.That said, I'll probably still see it in the theater. Now when are they going to make Already Dead? That would be killer. According to a really vague Wikipedia entry, it's "in the works". I won't hold my breath.
Seedings lie. Playoffs seeding lie like rugs. And you get what you deserve if you don't pay attention to recent history. The hottest team in a series doesn't necessarily have to be the "favorite", and in the case of last night's Game 1 of the Sixers-Pistons series, the favorite Pistons couldn't get the job done.And there was shock and awe by analysts everywhere. But don't buy the hype that the Pistons lost, they were simply beaten. I actually watched the entire game (I honestly cannot recall when I have ever watched a whole NBA game), and both teams had bouts of turnovers and missed "easy" shots. (The box score says it all: each team had the same number of turnovers, and Philly shot 43% to the Pistons' 39.) No excuses -- the better team won.
Better, you sputter? Really? Yes, really. The Sixers, the #7 seed with a 40-42 season record, are a better team than Detroit, the #2 seed, with a 59-23 record. The two teams split their season series 2-2, so that seems a wash, but a different story emerges when you look at the records since the All-Star break.
Sixers record since All-Star break: 22-12. Pistons record: 17-14.
Number of games played between the Sixers and Pistons since the All-Star break: 2. Number the Pistons won: ZERO.
Instant update: make that 3-0 as of last night.
I asked one of my Detroit friends what he thought of the series, and he said: "I think we will be playing four practice games the first round." Yes, he and many others today are shocked by the opening home game loss, not so much because it was a big upset but because of their own ignorance.
That all said, this is only one game, so nobody is crowning the victor just yet.
Brace yourself, because this is one long and blustery blog about my allegiances to sports teams. (It started out small, but I found that I had a helluva-lot to rant about when it comes to this.) If there's anything that I tend to take flack from "true" fans of sports teams is that I root for more than one team from just about every sport I follow. For people that have only followed one team in a particular sport, the idea that you can pull for more than one professional sports team feels, well, wrong.
College Sports And the way that I can tell you that I can testify what these fans feel is that I agree with that sensation for college sports. When it comes to college, I am a die-hard Penn State fan. There is something about attending a school that really gives you a sense of ownership and pride, and a lovely bloodlust for crushing certain teams and screaming "fucking kill him!!!" and meaning it, at least for the four seconds their quarterback is scrambling around. I'm looking at you, Nebraska and Ohio State. And any team from Florida but I digress; that's just general displeasure with teams from that state. So, college football is the one sport where I really have only one team.
In college basketball, to the annual chagrin of local ACC fans, I also root for, wait for it, Duke. OH MY GOD, NOOOOOOOO!!! But, yes.If your head has not exploded in righteous indignation, allow me to explain why. Before I ever went to Penn State, I was a fan of college basketball. In the days way before on-demand sports and ESPN8: The Ocho, you didn't have a lot of options as to who you wanted to watch. As it happens, Duke was starting to become a perennial powerhouse in the early-to-mid 80's, so they were getting a lot of exposure on TV. Plus, right around the time I was a junior in high school, they recruited a kid named Bobby Hurley to run the point. At the time, I was a short, white point/shooting guard, so there was instant emulation. Anyway, that's when I started watching Duke games as a fan.
Does the fact that I have been a Duke basketball fan for over 20 years get me any street cred down here? Of course not. Granted, I am in Maryland Terp country, and they love to hate Duke, so what do I expect. It makes for more fun watching, frankly. Now, that all said, if Duke and Penn State played, I like Duke, but I bleed PSU. No contest. I watched just about every PSU game they played this season that was televised (don't get me started about the Big Ten Network) and though we finished 15-16, was satisfied with a season where we lost our best two players to injury. PSU basketball has a long tradition of 'suck', but I love my team. Hey if you only have one tournament highlight in the last ten years (2001), that says something. But we beat Carolina and that is worth arms-raised-in-victory cred for years. In looking up the results for that tourney, I forgot that Duke was the eventual champion. Puts my priorities in clear relief, but man, that was a good tourney.
Now before we get into the rest of the discussion, here are the general guidelines for figuring out allegiances:
I grew up south of BUFFALO, and my mother's side of the family is mostly up there.
I migrated to PHILADELPHIA to finish high school, and my father's side of the family is mostly up there. My best friend lives up there.
I lived with many PITTSBURGH natives in college (PSU is 40% Pittsburgh, 30% Philly, 30% miscellaneous), so I grew to appreciate their teams.
I have lived in the WASHINGTON, DC area for the last 10 years (has it really been that long?).
These four notes will help you to understand most of my choices. But there are quirks in every system, most of these driven by sweet, sweet bitterness.
NHL Now, moving on to professional sports (and I am only talking about the big four), that's when we get a little murky. Let's start with the murkiest and the one currently on the brain as we are hip-deep intro round one of their playoffs: the National Hockey League.I fully admit, I'm a playoff hockey fan only. I have a hard time finding interest in any sport where the regular season is more than 30 games; for me it has to do with the import of each game. (I cannot understand how baseball fans can bother to care about each game, especially in April. I have seen fans get so upset over something that matters 1/162 of their season. NOOOOOOO!!!) That all said, my favorite team is the Flyers, (Reference Guideline #2 above) followed closely behind by the Sabres (Reference Guideline #1). This is as close to a wash as I get in sports; it seems that just about every year they play each other in the playoffs, and I just kind of shrug and wait for the outcome.At least that's what I tell my family. I figured out that Philly trumps Buffalo because Philly fans are mean. I like that. So put that as unofficial guideline #5: when in doubt, go with the mean fans.
Now, because of Reference Guidelines #3 and #4, I root for the Penguins and the Caps when neither the Flyers nor the Sabres are involved, but it's not even close to as strong a feeling. So they get no logo post. It just doesn't feel right. Honorable mention: Detroit Red Wings. This is my girlfriend's team. She loves to watch playoff hockey, too (she actually smiles when she sees blood on a player's face -- I'm not joking). I don't root against them, but I like to see her happy. But am I going to root for them if they come up against any of the above four teams? Not really.
MLB Moving on to the longest season ever and one that certainly doesn't start for me (although I always check scores) until August, baseball. Another very tight race for me, but ultimately, I take the Phillies over the Cubs.Using the Reference Guidelines, the first choice should be easy to figure out, but the Cubs? Well, western New York obviously has no baseball team, so how do you get the Cubs? Cable TV, that's how. In the early 80's you had two choices (other than the friggin' Yankees: blech) for daily baseball coverage: TBS and WGN. Braves and Cubs. My brother is a Cubs fan, and they always (used to) play their home games in the daytime, which means I came home from school early enough to catch the fourth inning on and Harry Caray.However, in terms of allegiances, although I have to admit I'd love to see the Cubs win the WS for the first time in 100 years, I think I'd be pulling against them if the Phillies played them in the playoffs. Because neither team has won in at least 25 years, I don't think I'd be too upset either way. Still, slight edge to the Phillies.
As for my current "home town" Washington Nationals... well what can you say about a team that's been around for three years? Not much, is my conclusion, and no logo for you.
NBA Continuing our tour of the major sports, we hit professional basketball and arrive with a more solid thwacking. Again, without a major team in the Buffalo (or Pittsburgh (discounting the Fish That Saved...), for that matter), the choice is easy: the 76ers. Watching the early 80's Sixers with Dr. J, Bobby Jones, Mo Cheeks, Andrew Toney, and Moses Malone (effortlessly recalling the starting lineup of the 1983 Championship team for your approval) was indeed the golden age of this team. Since then, I've watched many an Alan Iverson game in my time, and even though he's kind of a thug, I'm sad to have seen him go. Probably the highlight of his era was lighting up the Lakers for 48 to steal Game 1 of the 2002 Championship series. Certainly the Sportscenter highlight was his infamous "We talking about practice" press conference, which still gets a lot of airtime. Iverson's point of view was comically made by his repeated (and by repeated, I mean like 25 times) mention of "practice" versus "the game". It's too bad that he ended the rant with the question, "How the hell can I make my teammates better by practicing?" Up until that point I was laughing with him. Anyway.
I certainly have watched my share of Washington Wizards games around here, but are they logo-worthy? I think you know the answer. The team really took a down-turn once they changed their name from "Bullets" to "Wizards", which is about as limp a change as I can imagine. I guess it's not as bad as a nickname like "Heat" or "Magic", but it certainly sucks. And sucky nicknames. But I will put a Boston Celtics logo on here as a distant second team, surprising even the most prophetic prophesiser! This is the negative-postive inversion support (or NPIS) case, where I pretty much can't stand any other team (excluding the Sixers) in the East, and I also grew up watching the Lakers-Celtics battles of the 80's. Guess which Western Conference team I hate?
NFL Finally on to the main course, pro football. This one is tough because you again have two football teams that I have followed for a long time: Buffalo and Philly.Again, Philly gets the nod by the slimmest of margins, but only in recent years. I grew up a Bills fan and slowly evolved my preferences to the Eagles by being immersed in the NFC East environment that is Washington, DC. Obviously, there are plenty of Redskins fans around here, but you'd be surprised there are a great many Dallas, Eagles, and Giants fans around, too. It makes for great rivalrys, and great games. But it's the fans that bring it out in me, specifically the Redskins fans. You'd think that being down here this long would have swayed me towards their camp, but in fact where I used to support them (for my friends who liked them as long as we weren't playing each other), their incredibly delusional fans have driven me to embrace fully my hatred of the Redskins fans. Over the last couple years, this classic video of the fantasy football guy continually butchering "T.J. Houshmandezadah" and, finally getting it correct, intones "Championship" had come amongst my friends to represent your typical Redskins fan: cluelessly confident. So, you see that it is a combination of Reference #2 and pure irritation that puts Philly over the top in my heart. It's like milk chocolate and caramel coming together, and it is oh, so sweet. Worth mentioning: I put the logo of Green Bay up there because I once made the mistake of not supporting Danielle's team in the fullest amount. All my guidelines and irritations cannot stand up to an intense frowning and/or withholding of affections.
Cinematical has a beautiful layout of Star Wars characters in urban settings, photographed by French photographer Cédric Delsaux. They are all pretty cool, but I found the one below the most spine-tingling.
I am an avowed Buffy fan, and I share an enduring crush on her Willow character, despite her latent gayness. (Still the best foreshadowing line ever, when Willow meets her evil doppleganger and comments, "And... I think I'm a little gay.") Alysson herself is quite the cutie, and playing an intelligent, geeky, witty sidekick who happens to become an extremely powerful witch fits the profile for fanboy worship. Even if her character is gay, can't we at least hang out... and watch you make out with some chicks?
Okay, I segued there, but not as badly or as comically as the below faux-interview on the Onion, where a straight-laced FCC representative declares that some nudity on TV would be acceptable... just as long as it is from Alysson Hannigan.
FCC: Well, what Miss Jackson did was a tacky publicity stunt, whereas I’m sure any person can see the inherent artistic value in Alysson Hannigan slowly peeling away layer after layer of clothing until her milky-white bosom is in full view… obscured only by a few wisps of her auburn hair. Interviewer: That would be acceptable? FCC: It would be beautiful.
I rarely have such a visceral reaction to books, but I couldn't resist adding my comments to the blog:
.jpg)
