"There is good and there is evil and evil must be punished." - Rorschach
Is there anyone who believes people can be just bad? I mean bad like evil. Like they are just bad people inherently? Just asking.
Wow, it really seems as if I'm being bombarded with bullshit stories this week. Usually it's every other week but no I am just having a hard time understanding how much bad news I'm getting, personally and worldly. I will be brief about this if I can.
So this video has been posted on the internet, of this girl, who I think is Croation and looks to be anywhere from 14 to 25 (you know the type), and it's a short video of this girl down by a river and she has a box of puppies and she is cheerfully hurling them into the river, no doubt killing them. It is around 30 seconds long and it is sheer cruelty. PETA is tearing their hair out no doubt.
I just have got to ask: Why dogs? Puppies, specifically? Are you that much of a fucking sadist that its not enough to snuff something that can't really defend itself against you, but you have to kill the absolute picture of sweet and innocent. And this time a FUCKING BOX OF THEM! I almost hope this chick is a budding psychopath, that way I could somewhat understand it. But honestly it is more than likely the motive of the chick who threw the cat in the trash can: because she was bored or because she could.
This whole thing was especially ironic because my grandfather's girlfriend's daughter just died of drowning. I got into a conversation with my friend about it, he brought that someone once said they thought drowning would be peaceful. My friend and I, being clever ol' geniuses, clearly believe drowning would be agony. And nearly ten puppies got to experience it. It's a vicious world.
I mean what did I watch?! Gummo part 2! This isn't the first video that has gone viral displaying the abuse of a dog. A year or two back there was that infamous US soldier punting a puppy into some canyon in Iraq (god bless America, right?) and then there was the foreign video featuring some guys dropping a dog off of a bridge and then laughing as it moaned in pain...and don't let me forget you, Michael Vick. Cowards all of them. I would hang them by their thumbs for three days if I could. Although I'd say little miss puppy killer tops them all.
I was happy to hear however that many people were so outraged by the video that they are actually trying to find the girl who did this. The people of 4chan, who I guess double as a vigilante group, believed to have found the people responsible for the video/abuse and they are being harrassed. Still no one has come forward and no one has been legitimately tagged as the puppy killer. I personally hope some pseudo lynch mob finds this girl, because she is evil and she deserves to be punished.
There will be those out there, heartless people, who will regard this thing like the cat tosser did: the "it's just a dog, what's the big deal" rationale. Well fuckheads 1) it is not just a dog, it is several dogs, puppies in fact. 2) if they were just dogs, they wouldn't be called man's best friend, they matter. I know, plenty of human lives are wasted in situations just as pointless every day, but this is still a fucked up story. I once again bring up my wish that people like this should not be real.
Okay, I'm too angry. I'm done. Fuck the girl, fuck animal abuse, fuck this whole thing. I have nothing more to say.
This has been some thoughts on some really sick shit from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
"Black-speak"
"Brotha please!" - translation: Oh come on; yeah right or other variants
For those who think the title is racist, you're probably right. Black-speak is only the unpolite way of referring to Ebonics, which I also believe is a little racist. Oh right, for those who have not heard, Ebonics or the African American Vernacular English as it is clearly defined has been made an actual language. I'm just wondering if this is necessary.
Ebonics came to prominance during the days when Africans and African Americans were still enslaved, but since after their freedom it is has stuck around and apparently evolved just the same over time. But I don't quite think that because people have "unproper" word phrases, combinations, uses, colorful dialects, or just overall overkill of slang means that it should be a totally different language. Although I must admit it would be cool if Ebonics could be a foreign language course in schools (probably not, but just imagine). Ebonics really is just highly developed slang, and there whole groups of people all over who have variations of that. Are the Cockney speaking a totally different language too, I mean if Ebonics is pretty much black-speak than I guess Cockney is pretty much British-speak. I'm at an impasse at which speak is more fun.
I really don't know what kind of worldly or national effect this could bring about, probably not a very big one. I'm not even sure if this is correct. My sources could be wrong. It does sound a bit too ridiculous I think. Who knows there could be some positive things to Ebonics becoming a language: if I learned it I wouldn't have to keep rewinding scenes when I watch The Wire. It just goes to show that the 21st Century is becoming an interesting and undeniably absurd century every day. Oh 2oth, how I long for thee. I suppose it could be worse, my mom was born in 1969, right after Woodstock and the Moon Landing and a galore of other cool shit. What do I get? iPods, iPhones, iMac (think), iHome, fuckin' iPads, and now apparently Ebonics. Hardy-goddamn-har.
This has been Your Modest Guru's most racially ambiguous joint. Thanks for reading.
For those who think the title is racist, you're probably right. Black-speak is only the unpolite way of referring to Ebonics, which I also believe is a little racist. Oh right, for those who have not heard, Ebonics or the African American Vernacular English as it is clearly defined has been made an actual language. I'm just wondering if this is necessary.
Ebonics came to prominance during the days when Africans and African Americans were still enslaved, but since after their freedom it is has stuck around and apparently evolved just the same over time. But I don't quite think that because people have "unproper" word phrases, combinations, uses, colorful dialects, or just overall overkill of slang means that it should be a totally different language. Although I must admit it would be cool if Ebonics could be a foreign language course in schools (probably not, but just imagine). Ebonics really is just highly developed slang, and there whole groups of people all over who have variations of that. Are the Cockney speaking a totally different language too, I mean if Ebonics is pretty much black-speak than I guess Cockney is pretty much British-speak. I'm at an impasse at which speak is more fun.
I really don't know what kind of worldly or national effect this could bring about, probably not a very big one. I'm not even sure if this is correct. My sources could be wrong. It does sound a bit too ridiculous I think. Who knows there could be some positive things to Ebonics becoming a language: if I learned it I wouldn't have to keep rewinding scenes when I watch The Wire. It just goes to show that the 21st Century is becoming an interesting and undeniably absurd century every day. Oh 2oth, how I long for thee. I suppose it could be worse, my mom was born in 1969, right after Woodstock and the Moon Landing and a galore of other cool shit. What do I get? iPods, iPhones, iMac (think), iHome, fuckin' iPads, and now apparently Ebonics. Hardy-goddamn-har.
This has been Your Modest Guru's most racially ambiguous joint. Thanks for reading.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Mosque Pit
"An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes." - Cato the Elder
In case you weren't informed, an Islamic Mosque is being formed in New York City coincidentally a few blocks away from Ground Zero of the World Trade Center attacks. There has been some backlash due to this construction by a vast number of people, who apparently would like the much revered right to religious freedom to be ignored in this matter. This may actually be the one time I have heard not just someone, but droves of people come out and basically say "it is too soon for religion."
You know, people who frequently blur the lines between religion and state tend to come off as a bit hypocritical to me. Many of the right wing masses (to be fair, those goaded on by the right wing media) are typically pressing the government to get back to the ways of the Constitution. Of course, this means for white, conservative Christians and not for brown, politically ambiguous Muslims. Yes freedom is good until it applies to the people you don't like, then it's obscene. This is only another scapegoat for the conservative media and loose cannon GOP wolves. It is just something else to get their followers afraid and angry about something. Something else that threatens whatever blanket of security the rich and paranoid think they sleep under. It's simple: when the Man says something is good, it's really good; when the Man says something is bad, it's really bad. It doesn't matter if he later says something is bad that he earlier said was good or vice versa. Whatever the rich yet inexplicably relatable guy you believe is looking out for you tells you has got to be true, right?
Quickly: A highpoint of this drama has led up to a protester brutally stabbing a man in the face and verbally abusing him. The man was apparently just someone who "looked Muslim" to him (I guess the guy was bearded with tanned skin). The attacker was some insignificant film student, essentially America's text book bottle of repressed fury. I think the victim was a cab driver, who I think might not have been Muslim but just some passerby. Muslim or Middle Eastern or not, the pudgy lover of the arts has just committed what could be called a hate crime, proving this protest is one big gathering of rage to a particular group of people a la discrimination. How does one look like a religion, I've never gotten that. Too many stupid people confuse religions with race. Let me clear this up: people don't look Muslim, they look Middle Eastern; people don't look Jewish, they look Israeli; people don't look Christian, they look like Toby Keith. Let's go a step further and not categorize a certain people as having to remain of a certain faith. A white man is just as free to be Muslim as an Iraqi man, just like the Iraqi man can be just as Christian as he wants to be in America.
Obviously, I understand the mindset of the people against the mosque. The terrorists involved in the attacks were mostly, if not all Muslim. Still, the terrorists were under the command and fighting in the name of a radical organization that used religion, as many radical organizations do, to justify murder and warfare. So in a sense, the Islamic religion was a victim to the crimes of Osama Bin Laden as well. Do the actions of the few spoil the many? That's a question heard frequently in the past. The people protesting the mosque apparently think so. I might understand their side of things a bit more if The Taliban was setting up shop near Ground Zero, seeing as how they were the ones responsible for the attacks that made it. Just because the people involved were Muslim doesn't mean shit. Do people just forget all the horrifying things have come about from the actions of other religions in the past? Anyone remember the pointless bloodshed of The Crusades? Hitler was a Christian, but we aren't afraid that all Christians wanna slaughter Jews and rule the world these days, are we?... well come to think of it... nope, no I'm not getting into that.
Another thing is, the people of New York or wherever angry assholes come from are acting like this thing just hunkered down right next to the site. As if the trash from the mosque being tossed out around back is landing right down into the thick of the disaster point. It's over two blocks away! It's not like the stench of Islam is going to rise up from the air and glide over and infect the holiness that is Ground Zero. Also, I thought New York City was supposed to be one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse cities in the world. Major hypocrisy! There is just as much of a chance of a Taliban cell residing within this mosque as there is of a Christian church housing the next Jim Jones; both are just as probable as they are improbable. 9/11 is often compared to the Pearl Harbor Attacks of 1941. After the attacks many Japanese-Americans, Japanese tourists, and some just Asians in general were hualed off to internment camps for fear of being enemy operatives. Of course we didn't keep them in those camps forever and they certainly aren't looked upon with hateful eyes anymore. We as Americans should know just like anyone else that the little people do not have any say in the actions of the powerful. Many Muslims were no doubt horrified about 9/11 too, and even more terrified of retaliations once Muslim men were revealed to be the terrorists. They are just people.
The protest of the mosque goes against one of the most crucial elements of our constitution. Freedom of religion is very essential to this country. Though I am not a particularly religious man and pretty non-denominationally hinged, I think it is great that people in this country are allowed to practice a faith of their choosing. Faith is an important thing, it is not something that should be toyed with. So in my opinion, New Yorkers should be able to go into a little mosque and bow to Allah in peace if that is their choice. Anyone's got a problem with that, then they should take it up with their God, otherwise leave them alone.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that people should get over 9/11. How can someone get over a thing like that? I'm saying that we should move on. It happened, there is no changing it. But we can change and with the way things are we certainly need to change. But to change some need faith. In this country that luxury should be free for everyone.
This has been some commentary on recent controversy from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
In case you weren't informed, an Islamic Mosque is being formed in New York City coincidentally a few blocks away from Ground Zero of the World Trade Center attacks. There has been some backlash due to this construction by a vast number of people, who apparently would like the much revered right to religious freedom to be ignored in this matter. This may actually be the one time I have heard not just someone, but droves of people come out and basically say "it is too soon for religion."
You know, people who frequently blur the lines between religion and state tend to come off as a bit hypocritical to me. Many of the right wing masses (to be fair, those goaded on by the right wing media) are typically pressing the government to get back to the ways of the Constitution. Of course, this means for white, conservative Christians and not for brown, politically ambiguous Muslims. Yes freedom is good until it applies to the people you don't like, then it's obscene. This is only another scapegoat for the conservative media and loose cannon GOP wolves. It is just something else to get their followers afraid and angry about something. Something else that threatens whatever blanket of security the rich and paranoid think they sleep under. It's simple: when the Man says something is good, it's really good; when the Man says something is bad, it's really bad. It doesn't matter if he later says something is bad that he earlier said was good or vice versa. Whatever the rich yet inexplicably relatable guy you believe is looking out for you tells you has got to be true, right?
Quickly: A highpoint of this drama has led up to a protester brutally stabbing a man in the face and verbally abusing him. The man was apparently just someone who "looked Muslim" to him (I guess the guy was bearded with tanned skin). The attacker was some insignificant film student, essentially America's text book bottle of repressed fury. I think the victim was a cab driver, who I think might not have been Muslim but just some passerby. Muslim or Middle Eastern or not, the pudgy lover of the arts has just committed what could be called a hate crime, proving this protest is one big gathering of rage to a particular group of people a la discrimination. How does one look like a religion, I've never gotten that. Too many stupid people confuse religions with race. Let me clear this up: people don't look Muslim, they look Middle Eastern; people don't look Jewish, they look Israeli; people don't look Christian, they look like Toby Keith. Let's go a step further and not categorize a certain people as having to remain of a certain faith. A white man is just as free to be Muslim as an Iraqi man, just like the Iraqi man can be just as Christian as he wants to be in America.
Obviously, I understand the mindset of the people against the mosque. The terrorists involved in the attacks were mostly, if not all Muslim. Still, the terrorists were under the command and fighting in the name of a radical organization that used religion, as many radical organizations do, to justify murder and warfare. So in a sense, the Islamic religion was a victim to the crimes of Osama Bin Laden as well. Do the actions of the few spoil the many? That's a question heard frequently in the past. The people protesting the mosque apparently think so. I might understand their side of things a bit more if The Taliban was setting up shop near Ground Zero, seeing as how they were the ones responsible for the attacks that made it. Just because the people involved were Muslim doesn't mean shit. Do people just forget all the horrifying things have come about from the actions of other religions in the past? Anyone remember the pointless bloodshed of The Crusades? Hitler was a Christian, but we aren't afraid that all Christians wanna slaughter Jews and rule the world these days, are we?... well come to think of it... nope, no I'm not getting into that.
Another thing is, the people of New York or wherever angry assholes come from are acting like this thing just hunkered down right next to the site. As if the trash from the mosque being tossed out around back is landing right down into the thick of the disaster point. It's over two blocks away! It's not like the stench of Islam is going to rise up from the air and glide over and infect the holiness that is Ground Zero. Also, I thought New York City was supposed to be one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse cities in the world. Major hypocrisy! There is just as much of a chance of a Taliban cell residing within this mosque as there is of a Christian church housing the next Jim Jones; both are just as probable as they are improbable. 9/11 is often compared to the Pearl Harbor Attacks of 1941. After the attacks many Japanese-Americans, Japanese tourists, and some just Asians in general were hualed off to internment camps for fear of being enemy operatives. Of course we didn't keep them in those camps forever and they certainly aren't looked upon with hateful eyes anymore. We as Americans should know just like anyone else that the little people do not have any say in the actions of the powerful. Many Muslims were no doubt horrified about 9/11 too, and even more terrified of retaliations once Muslim men were revealed to be the terrorists. They are just people.
The protest of the mosque goes against one of the most crucial elements of our constitution. Freedom of religion is very essential to this country. Though I am not a particularly religious man and pretty non-denominationally hinged, I think it is great that people in this country are allowed to practice a faith of their choosing. Faith is an important thing, it is not something that should be toyed with. So in my opinion, New Yorkers should be able to go into a little mosque and bow to Allah in peace if that is their choice. Anyone's got a problem with that, then they should take it up with their God, otherwise leave them alone.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that people should get over 9/11. How can someone get over a thing like that? I'm saying that we should move on. It happened, there is no changing it. But we can change and with the way things are we certainly need to change. But to change some need faith. In this country that luxury should be free for everyone.
This has been some commentary on recent controversy from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Lost: The New Man in Charge
"We deserve answers!" - Hector of the Dharma Initiative
As I've said before, fans who saw the ending to Lost were, like with many endings to many popular shows, heavily divided in their thoughts. Many loved it to tears, many hated it with a passion, many were still confused. I was the first one. I would have to say that the show's true climax does the right thing by resolving the arcs of the many characters we've cared about over the course of the series. They were the ones that were really important essentially. And by focusing on them and the end of their journey, Lost ended with a breathtaking, emotional ride that concluded a multilayered adventure and reminded us of how much history we've had with it. That being said, answering mind boggling questions was not a major factor. But it's not as if the minds behind Lost were totally oblivious to fans lust for mystery solving or were just copping out. To those who were unsatisfied with the one side, a DVD featurette for Season 6 gives us an epilogue: The New Man in Charge, that answers some of the things you didn't find the time to just interpret for yourself.
(Spoilers)
The plot of The New Man in Charge centers around the missions of the newly appointed representative to the Protector of The Island, Benjamin Linus. His first task leads him to Guam (destination of Ajira 316) where he goes in to shut down a Dharma Initiative warehouse whose primary function was supplying the food drops that we saw in Season 2. The two sole DI employees there are baffled at all that's happened in the past 20 years (they apparently thought the Initiative was still around). Ben pays them but is persuaded to provide them both with an answer to each single questions they have. This leads him to mention the moving Island as well as play DI Orientation tape that explains a few things: the odd selection of animals on The Island and their purposes, the purpose of Room 23, and the infamous "Island pregnancy disorder." Ben soon departs and heads to his next and infinitely more important location. Arriving at Santa Rosa Hospital in Los Angeles, he arrives to meet "Keith Johnson" who we soon learn is Walt Lloyd, the "special" former castaway. Walt was apparently institutionalized when no one believed his story about The Island (I'm assuming because he discovered Michael died). Ben convinces Walt that The Island needs him, and more importantly his father needs him. "Just because he's dead doesn't mean you can't help him." says Ben. Hmm... Anyway, Ben leads Walt out and to the Dharma Bus, where Hurley awaits in the back seat. Walt is overjoyed that one of his old friends came back for him and Hurley assures Walt that The Island is exactly where he is supposed to be, now more than ever because Walt has "work to do." With this, the three drive off into the night, on their way back to The Island where Walt is to take up "a job." Even though I'd say I've had my fill of Lost with the series finale, this was a delight.
Though I would have been more impressed with my original vision of this epilogue: Hurley and Ben just shortly after their inaugerations, burying Jack, with Hurley asking his questions and Ben sort of tutoring him in all things Island; maybe even discovering some new things together, this was still satisfactory for the answer starved part of me. The answers weren't even my favorite part (although I'm glad they finally addressed the pregnancy issue). My favorite parts were the little character moments: Pierre Chang in his omniscient orientation zone; Hurley totally Jacob-in-the-back-of-a-cab esque ; Walt and Ben reminiscing their rather flawed past; the Lost-liners like "we're gonna have to watch that again," "you have work to do," "What happened, happened." Callbacks are always nice when a show has this great of a mythology.
Still this has its flaws. I'm actually less thrilled about answers than I let on. For the most part, when big, drawn out questions were answered on the show they felt pretty anti-climatic. The ones that rarely were were ones regarding the characters (again, characters were more important). Although after awhile the lack of subtlety with question answering was worked in a way that made the show hilariously metafictional (just more props to the writers). There are many times the fans of the show seep into the dialogue of the characters in the later seasons (kinda like Supernatural too). It even happens in here, the two Dharma workers are really just two fanboys confused and looking for resolution to things that puzzled them, and when they got answers to their questions they were even more bewildered. I also felt as if this short was way too short for what it was packing. The answers section in the beginning is clever and interesting but more time was devoted to that section than the Walt section, which I felt was more significant.
This gave more of a sense that the story of Lost continued on even after the point at which the day is saved and everyone goes home in literal or figurative ways in the last episode. There is gonna be, dare I say, even more speculation about the show after this thing. I liked the fact that after five seasons and the shows end, Walt's arc is still present and notoriously undiscovered. He is now a young man whose hasn't found what the others found before or later in their lives: himself. My theory on what his job will be is to hone his gifts to form some kind of powerful Locke-esque communion to The Island. Ben uses Michael as incentive for Walt to return. Michael's spirit told Hurley midway through the final season that "the whispers" on The Island were that of lost spirits who couldn't move on from life, probably due to the terrible choices they made. The whispers parallels the sideways spirits of our characters in the final season who were able to move on due to the fact they were able to find each other again even after death. Walt's primary job: help the lost souls find their own great LAX in the sky, where I'm sure in time the eventual spirits of Walt, Michael, Ana Lucia, Eko, Miles, Richard, Frank, Daniel, Charlotte, Ilana, Eloise, and Widmore will arrive at that church and find Ben waiting so they can find out what comes next. Of course that's just me.
In closing, the epilogue provoked some fun thoughts, but it really is kind of soon for this, like Oliver Stone making W. before Bush was even out of office. I really don't think it will provide the answer seekers any real satisfaction. The twelve minutes of answers that lead to more questions doesn't compare to the two and a half hour epic that was the last and apparently answerless episode, or the entire series for that matter. But being a lover of Lost, just seeing a couple of the characters again and getting excited at speculating their mysterious futures was still enjoyable in its own right. Watching The New Man in Charge isn't by any means necessary, but I wouldn't say it isn't worth seeing. In the end, the only question I'm actually thinking about is how many times have I said "this Lost post will be my last." In truth their will probably be more to come for future anniversaries in tribute for a show that was my first true television addiction. Okay, I'm ending this right now.
This has been more Lostiness from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and Namaste.
As I've said before, fans who saw the ending to Lost were, like with many endings to many popular shows, heavily divided in their thoughts. Many loved it to tears, many hated it with a passion, many were still confused. I was the first one. I would have to say that the show's true climax does the right thing by resolving the arcs of the many characters we've cared about over the course of the series. They were the ones that were really important essentially. And by focusing on them and the end of their journey, Lost ended with a breathtaking, emotional ride that concluded a multilayered adventure and reminded us of how much history we've had with it. That being said, answering mind boggling questions was not a major factor. But it's not as if the minds behind Lost were totally oblivious to fans lust for mystery solving or were just copping out. To those who were unsatisfied with the one side, a DVD featurette for Season 6 gives us an epilogue: The New Man in Charge, that answers some of the things you didn't find the time to just interpret for yourself.
(Spoilers)
The plot of The New Man in Charge centers around the missions of the newly appointed representative to the Protector of The Island, Benjamin Linus. His first task leads him to Guam (destination of Ajira 316) where he goes in to shut down a Dharma Initiative warehouse whose primary function was supplying the food drops that we saw in Season 2. The two sole DI employees there are baffled at all that's happened in the past 20 years (they apparently thought the Initiative was still around). Ben pays them but is persuaded to provide them both with an answer to each single questions they have. This leads him to mention the moving Island as well as play DI Orientation tape that explains a few things: the odd selection of animals on The Island and their purposes, the purpose of Room 23, and the infamous "Island pregnancy disorder." Ben soon departs and heads to his next and infinitely more important location. Arriving at Santa Rosa Hospital in Los Angeles, he arrives to meet "Keith Johnson" who we soon learn is Walt Lloyd, the "special" former castaway. Walt was apparently institutionalized when no one believed his story about The Island (I'm assuming because he discovered Michael died). Ben convinces Walt that The Island needs him, and more importantly his father needs him. "Just because he's dead doesn't mean you can't help him." says Ben. Hmm... Anyway, Ben leads Walt out and to the Dharma Bus, where Hurley awaits in the back seat. Walt is overjoyed that one of his old friends came back for him and Hurley assures Walt that The Island is exactly where he is supposed to be, now more than ever because Walt has "work to do." With this, the three drive off into the night, on their way back to The Island where Walt is to take up "a job." Even though I'd say I've had my fill of Lost with the series finale, this was a delight.
Though I would have been more impressed with my original vision of this epilogue: Hurley and Ben just shortly after their inaugerations, burying Jack, with Hurley asking his questions and Ben sort of tutoring him in all things Island; maybe even discovering some new things together, this was still satisfactory for the answer starved part of me. The answers weren't even my favorite part (although I'm glad they finally addressed the pregnancy issue). My favorite parts were the little character moments: Pierre Chang in his omniscient orientation zone; Hurley totally Jacob-in-the-back-of-a-cab esque ; Walt and Ben reminiscing their rather flawed past; the Lost-liners like "we're gonna have to watch that again," "you have work to do," "What happened, happened." Callbacks are always nice when a show has this great of a mythology.
Still this has its flaws. I'm actually less thrilled about answers than I let on. For the most part, when big, drawn out questions were answered on the show they felt pretty anti-climatic. The ones that rarely were were ones regarding the characters (again, characters were more important). Although after awhile the lack of subtlety with question answering was worked in a way that made the show hilariously metafictional (just more props to the writers). There are many times the fans of the show seep into the dialogue of the characters in the later seasons (kinda like Supernatural too). It even happens in here, the two Dharma workers are really just two fanboys confused and looking for resolution to things that puzzled them, and when they got answers to their questions they were even more bewildered. I also felt as if this short was way too short for what it was packing. The answers section in the beginning is clever and interesting but more time was devoted to that section than the Walt section, which I felt was more significant.
This gave more of a sense that the story of Lost continued on even after the point at which the day is saved and everyone goes home in literal or figurative ways in the last episode. There is gonna be, dare I say, even more speculation about the show after this thing. I liked the fact that after five seasons and the shows end, Walt's arc is still present and notoriously undiscovered. He is now a young man whose hasn't found what the others found before or later in their lives: himself. My theory on what his job will be is to hone his gifts to form some kind of powerful Locke-esque communion to The Island. Ben uses Michael as incentive for Walt to return. Michael's spirit told Hurley midway through the final season that "the whispers" on The Island were that of lost spirits who couldn't move on from life, probably due to the terrible choices they made. The whispers parallels the sideways spirits of our characters in the final season who were able to move on due to the fact they were able to find each other again even after death. Walt's primary job: help the lost souls find their own great LAX in the sky, where I'm sure in time the eventual spirits of Walt, Michael, Ana Lucia, Eko, Miles, Richard, Frank, Daniel, Charlotte, Ilana, Eloise, and Widmore will arrive at that church and find Ben waiting so they can find out what comes next. Of course that's just me.
In closing, the epilogue provoked some fun thoughts, but it really is kind of soon for this, like Oliver Stone making W. before Bush was even out of office. I really don't think it will provide the answer seekers any real satisfaction. The twelve minutes of answers that lead to more questions doesn't compare to the two and a half hour epic that was the last and apparently answerless episode, or the entire series for that matter. But being a lover of Lost, just seeing a couple of the characters again and getting excited at speculating their mysterious futures was still enjoyable in its own right. Watching The New Man in Charge isn't by any means necessary, but I wouldn't say it isn't worth seeing. In the end, the only question I'm actually thinking about is how many times have I said "this Lost post will be my last." In truth their will probably be more to come for future anniversaries in tribute for a show that was my first true television addiction. Okay, I'm ending this right now.
This has been more Lostiness from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and Namaste.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The cat's in the bag
"Bitches be crazy." - modern expression
Okay so this is a short little rant about this recent event in which a woman in the UK was caught on a street camera walking along the street, saw a cat perched, and then, just for the hell of it I guess, put the cat into a nearby trash tin and left it there. The cat stayed there for around 15 hours before it was found by its owners.
So I often talk about just how fucking crazy people are in this world. This is one of the simpler examples. No deranged Austrian has to breed a family with his daughter in his basement, no father has to waterboard his child, Lindsey Lohan doesn't have to bawl her eyes out for having to spend a few weeks in jail, no some average ordinary woman can just be minding her business and then all of a sudden just toss a cat into a trash tin. Instant WTF.
This broad goes on to prove she is crazy just by the way she reacted when confronted by the authorities. She apparently didn't know what the big deal was, seeing as how it was just a cat, right? She also didn't know what she was doing was wrong and was just trying to be funny, that's sick enough but we can clearly see she is being as inconspicuous as possible before pushing the cat into the tin. My theory: this chick just wasn't a hunting girl as a kid so honing her homicidal tendacies was out of the picture, so whenever there's a random animal or something around she'll abuse it in some way. I've actually only heard of such a random and unproved act of animal cruelty, namely a cat, in one other place. It was actually in the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, where one of the killers apparently enjoyed running down stray cats he saw on the road. For those readers confused, yes, I am comparing this cat bagging British chick to one of the killers from In Cold Blood.
This whole thing is just so stupid. The things people do don't make sense. There was no motive, no logic, no reason behind this random act. Nope, this average ordinary person just knew she could and did it. That is my pet peeve motive. Any violent or terrible action is at least somewhat barable, but when someone does something bad "because they could", that is what I hate the most. After that the person isn't a villain, they aren't even a monster, they are just a douchebag. Fuck you, douchebags. All of you. Fuck you, random cat tosser. Fuck you, Mel Gibson. Fuck you, Jersey Shore cast. This just goes to show how even one of the most insignificant things can inspire wide and deep discussion. It's almost brilliant how much trouble this one woman caused just by getting the idea in her head to toss a cat into a trash tin. Because now I'm here in America talking and tearing my hair out about it. In that aspect, it's kind of an amazing world we live in. I'd think the world was great if people weren't so fucked up all the time.
This has been some ol' bullshit from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Okay so this is a short little rant about this recent event in which a woman in the UK was caught on a street camera walking along the street, saw a cat perched, and then, just for the hell of it I guess, put the cat into a nearby trash tin and left it there. The cat stayed there for around 15 hours before it was found by its owners.
So I often talk about just how fucking crazy people are in this world. This is one of the simpler examples. No deranged Austrian has to breed a family with his daughter in his basement, no father has to waterboard his child, Lindsey Lohan doesn't have to bawl her eyes out for having to spend a few weeks in jail, no some average ordinary woman can just be minding her business and then all of a sudden just toss a cat into a trash tin. Instant WTF.
This broad goes on to prove she is crazy just by the way she reacted when confronted by the authorities. She apparently didn't know what the big deal was, seeing as how it was just a cat, right? She also didn't know what she was doing was wrong and was just trying to be funny, that's sick enough but we can clearly see she is being as inconspicuous as possible before pushing the cat into the tin. My theory: this chick just wasn't a hunting girl as a kid so honing her homicidal tendacies was out of the picture, so whenever there's a random animal or something around she'll abuse it in some way. I've actually only heard of such a random and unproved act of animal cruelty, namely a cat, in one other place. It was actually in the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, where one of the killers apparently enjoyed running down stray cats he saw on the road. For those readers confused, yes, I am comparing this cat bagging British chick to one of the killers from In Cold Blood.
This whole thing is just so stupid. The things people do don't make sense. There was no motive, no logic, no reason behind this random act. Nope, this average ordinary person just knew she could and did it. That is my pet peeve motive. Any violent or terrible action is at least somewhat barable, but when someone does something bad "because they could", that is what I hate the most. After that the person isn't a villain, they aren't even a monster, they are just a douchebag. Fuck you, douchebags. All of you. Fuck you, random cat tosser. Fuck you, Mel Gibson. Fuck you, Jersey Shore cast. This just goes to show how even one of the most insignificant things can inspire wide and deep discussion. It's almost brilliant how much trouble this one woman caused just by getting the idea in her head to toss a cat into a trash tin. Because now I'm here in America talking and tearing my hair out about it. In that aspect, it's kind of an amazing world we live in. I'd think the world was great if people weren't so fucked up all the time.
This has been some ol' bullshit from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Review
"An epic of epic epicness" - Tagline
Looks like something just tied Inception as my movie of the year. I really shouldn't be surprised. This comes from filmmaker Edgar Wright (director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) one of the most inventive guys making movies, so what can you expect? Greatness that's what. He may have already hit his magnum opus with his lastest film Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Really this movie is one of a kind. I don't know if it is one of the greatest movies ever made (many in the nerd, and I mean MEGA nerd, kingdom will hail it as THE greatest movie or something), but it certainly is one of the most fun movies to come out in a long while.
The story of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a simple tale of love. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, girl's seven evil exes do battle with boy over control of girl's romantic future... maybe it is not that simple. So yes, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a nerdy bass guitarist in Toronto, Canada who has a love at first sight encounter with oddly hairstyled American girl Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and he has to literally fight to keep their relationship stable as Ramona's exes have formed a league to destroy Scott. What ensues in the process are a series of monumental brawls in a world of unusual and somewhat cartoonish circumstance, almost as if the world's ultimate fanboy dropped a shit ton of acid.
Now for once I will say that the real treat in this film is not the acting but the style. This movie's style is almost beyond comparison. The only way I can put it is: Quentin Tarantino, Brian De Palma, David Lynch, Kevin Smith would probably climax at this shit and be ashamed they thought they made a ton of references in their films (okay, maybe exaggerating but I don't care). Props to Edgar Wright for joining Christopher Nolan as one of this century's top new filmmakers. Upon seeing promos for the movie, I knew I wanted to watch but didn't know if it was going to be good because I had no idea if even a director with a style as high velocity as Wright's could make the madness I was seeing briefly flow in a way that was almost cartoonishly coherent. I mean this is set in a world where real logic is almost completely absent. I don't want to give away too much of the insanity that goes on. I will say that Scott Pilgrim is the supremely choreographed, energetic, perfect blend of comic books, video games, movies, alternative rock, and martial arts. Seriously, there is so much to take in I don't even know if I could describe it. That may be one of this film's drawbacks for some however, because some of these things will go over people's heads. Not everyone is gonna get why Scott's band is called "Sex Bob-omb" or the "Nega Scott" scene. I wouldn't be surprised if a helluva lot of stuff went over my head too. It is that culture laced. I forgot to mention, the whole basis of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is from the comic book of the same name created by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who I imagine is at the top of the subcultural food chain having been the mind behind this beast.
The acting isn't Oscar worthy in the movie, but it works solid for this movie and all of the characters are enjoyable. Michael Cera recites his repetitive acting routine once again as the title character, a selfish, arrogant, and overdramatic bastard who somehow manages to keep you on his side for most of the movie. Yeah, enjoy your time as a badass Cera, for not even this can make me forget you were, and have remained as far as I'm concerned, George Michael Bluth from Arrested Development. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who I don't think has made an appearance since Death Proof, plays the mysterious and emotionally detached Crying Lightning girlfriend very well. She really needs more roles, if this isn't enough proof. The most badass of the Culkin family, Kieran Culkin stars as Scott's "cool gay friend Wallace...who's gay!" a wise roommate who doulbes as a sort of droll fight announcer. Ellen Wong has a hilariously bittersweet role as Scott's infatuated recent ex with the badass name of Knives Chau. Everything involving her is so sad but so funny. Allison Pill, Johnny Simmons, and Marc Webber round out Scott's neurotic garage band. Oscar Nominee Anna Kendrick has a small but effective role as Scott's sister.
However I think the biggest treat for the people going to see this will be The Seven Evil Exes. Each one of them shows up almost out of nowhere, they make big entrances, show themselves to be wholly unique characters, and deliver on a huge epic fight. Every fight is amazing and you have no idea how the next one will be as good as the one you just saw, but somehow every new fight surpasses the other in awesomeness. It is fantastic. I am the not the first to say that where most films try to cram two or three villains into a movie and have it come off unconvincing, this one has over seven and they are all fun as hell. Three exes will be enjoyed the most in particular: Chris Evans as a macho skateboard champ/A list actor; Brandon Routh as a stoic telepathic vegan; and finally Jason Schwartzman (in what might be his best role since Rushmore) as the "big boss" I suppose. The Exes are the icing on the cake for this movie, without a doubt.
Still, with this feast of amazing proportions under my chin, there is, looking back, things that kind of brought me down. Immediately after watching it I felt as if this was going to be the Napoleon Dynamite of action movies, where you either love it or hate it. But now that I think about it, there were things that made it less satisfying. Two in particular: Michael Cera and the hipster overkill. Now I've been a long time defender of Michael Cera, I've always thought he was funny in his own awkward, weird, Peter Lorre's son kind of way. But his delivery with the very hipster dialogue and his position as this sort of badass didn't mesh well for me. I know it's sort of the point when he's put into these roles and most of the time I don't care, but here it really just took me out of the movie a lot. I just wanted to slap him most of the time. I would've believed it if he used his Francois personality from Youth in Revolt, now that would've been badass. Then there's the hipster stuff. To put it simply, being this is a very hipster classified movie, the hipster emphasism was overkill in the worst ways. I'm what could generally be called a hipster and it was way too much for me sometimes. Then again they are in Canada in the movie. Who knows maybe hipsters are a little more hardcore up there. They don't sully what is good about this movie, but they really do annoy me enough to make this review only slightly lower.
In short, though it has its few problems like any great movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an absolutely exhilerating and hilarious experience. Honestly though, this might as well have been called The World Revolves Around Scott Pilgrim, he is some dweebish 23 year old child in a rock band that is actually good, is revered by most, has hot girls all over him, has a whole netherrealm to hide in when feeling down, and is peculiar enough to get into monumental battles with mystical super villains. He's got a lot more going for him than most. Even so, go watch it right now. It is not an experience you will regret. In fact, alongside Avatar and Inception, it is probably one of the most thrilling experiences you are sure to have. Three and a half bob-ombs.
This has been the third review as of late from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and I hope you'll be watching.
Looks like something just tied Inception as my movie of the year. I really shouldn't be surprised. This comes from filmmaker Edgar Wright (director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) one of the most inventive guys making movies, so what can you expect? Greatness that's what. He may have already hit his magnum opus with his lastest film Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Really this movie is one of a kind. I don't know if it is one of the greatest movies ever made (many in the nerd, and I mean MEGA nerd, kingdom will hail it as THE greatest movie or something), but it certainly is one of the most fun movies to come out in a long while.
The story of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a simple tale of love. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, girl's seven evil exes do battle with boy over control of girl's romantic future... maybe it is not that simple. So yes, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a nerdy bass guitarist in Toronto, Canada who has a love at first sight encounter with oddly hairstyled American girl Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and he has to literally fight to keep their relationship stable as Ramona's exes have formed a league to destroy Scott. What ensues in the process are a series of monumental brawls in a world of unusual and somewhat cartoonish circumstance, almost as if the world's ultimate fanboy dropped a shit ton of acid.
Now for once I will say that the real treat in this film is not the acting but the style. This movie's style is almost beyond comparison. The only way I can put it is: Quentin Tarantino, Brian De Palma, David Lynch, Kevin Smith would probably climax at this shit and be ashamed they thought they made a ton of references in their films (okay, maybe exaggerating but I don't care). Props to Edgar Wright for joining Christopher Nolan as one of this century's top new filmmakers. Upon seeing promos for the movie, I knew I wanted to watch but didn't know if it was going to be good because I had no idea if even a director with a style as high velocity as Wright's could make the madness I was seeing briefly flow in a way that was almost cartoonishly coherent. I mean this is set in a world where real logic is almost completely absent. I don't want to give away too much of the insanity that goes on. I will say that Scott Pilgrim is the supremely choreographed, energetic, perfect blend of comic books, video games, movies, alternative rock, and martial arts. Seriously, there is so much to take in I don't even know if I could describe it. That may be one of this film's drawbacks for some however, because some of these things will go over people's heads. Not everyone is gonna get why Scott's band is called "Sex Bob-omb" or the "Nega Scott" scene. I wouldn't be surprised if a helluva lot of stuff went over my head too. It is that culture laced. I forgot to mention, the whole basis of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is from the comic book of the same name created by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who I imagine is at the top of the subcultural food chain having been the mind behind this beast.
The acting isn't Oscar worthy in the movie, but it works solid for this movie and all of the characters are enjoyable. Michael Cera recites his repetitive acting routine once again as the title character, a selfish, arrogant, and overdramatic bastard who somehow manages to keep you on his side for most of the movie. Yeah, enjoy your time as a badass Cera, for not even this can make me forget you were, and have remained as far as I'm concerned, George Michael Bluth from Arrested Development. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who I don't think has made an appearance since Death Proof, plays the mysterious and emotionally detached Crying Lightning girlfriend very well. She really needs more roles, if this isn't enough proof. The most badass of the Culkin family, Kieran Culkin stars as Scott's "cool gay friend Wallace...who's gay!" a wise roommate who doulbes as a sort of droll fight announcer. Ellen Wong has a hilariously bittersweet role as Scott's infatuated recent ex with the badass name of Knives Chau. Everything involving her is so sad but so funny. Allison Pill, Johnny Simmons, and Marc Webber round out Scott's neurotic garage band. Oscar Nominee Anna Kendrick has a small but effective role as Scott's sister.
However I think the biggest treat for the people going to see this will be The Seven Evil Exes. Each one of them shows up almost out of nowhere, they make big entrances, show themselves to be wholly unique characters, and deliver on a huge epic fight. Every fight is amazing and you have no idea how the next one will be as good as the one you just saw, but somehow every new fight surpasses the other in awesomeness. It is fantastic. I am the not the first to say that where most films try to cram two or three villains into a movie and have it come off unconvincing, this one has over seven and they are all fun as hell. Three exes will be enjoyed the most in particular: Chris Evans as a macho skateboard champ/A list actor; Brandon Routh as a stoic telepathic vegan; and finally Jason Schwartzman (in what might be his best role since Rushmore) as the "big boss" I suppose. The Exes are the icing on the cake for this movie, without a doubt.
Still, with this feast of amazing proportions under my chin, there is, looking back, things that kind of brought me down. Immediately after watching it I felt as if this was going to be the Napoleon Dynamite of action movies, where you either love it or hate it. But now that I think about it, there were things that made it less satisfying. Two in particular: Michael Cera and the hipster overkill. Now I've been a long time defender of Michael Cera, I've always thought he was funny in his own awkward, weird, Peter Lorre's son kind of way. But his delivery with the very hipster dialogue and his position as this sort of badass didn't mesh well for me. I know it's sort of the point when he's put into these roles and most of the time I don't care, but here it really just took me out of the movie a lot. I just wanted to slap him most of the time. I would've believed it if he used his Francois personality from Youth in Revolt, now that would've been badass. Then there's the hipster stuff. To put it simply, being this is a very hipster classified movie, the hipster emphasism was overkill in the worst ways. I'm what could generally be called a hipster and it was way too much for me sometimes. Then again they are in Canada in the movie. Who knows maybe hipsters are a little more hardcore up there. They don't sully what is good about this movie, but they really do annoy me enough to make this review only slightly lower.
In short, though it has its few problems like any great movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an absolutely exhilerating and hilarious experience. Honestly though, this might as well have been called The World Revolves Around Scott Pilgrim, he is some dweebish 23 year old child in a rock band that is actually good, is revered by most, has hot girls all over him, has a whole netherrealm to hide in when feeling down, and is peculiar enough to get into monumental battles with mystical super villains. He's got a lot more going for him than most. Even so, go watch it right now. It is not an experience you will regret. In fact, alongside Avatar and Inception, it is probably one of the most thrilling experiences you are sure to have. Three and a half bob-ombs.
This has been the third review as of late from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and I hope you'll be watching.
A Single Man Review
"Staring in the mirror, looking back at me isn't so much a face as an expression of a predicament." - George Falconer
A Single Man was surprisingly a film I enjoyed on a personal level as well a film level. It is just brilliantly made. The movie is introspective, with a sometimes dry sense of humor, knowledge, and a true passion for its characters. It almost reminded me of Catcher in the Rye (which I read and reviewed recently). The character has that sort of absentmindedness or deep thinking attitude about him and the thoughts he has are wholly interesting.
The film revolves around George Falconer (Colin Firth) on the day he plans to kill himself. Why does he want to kill himself? Jim (Matthew Goode), the man he had been in love with for sixteen years, died recently, leaving George heartbroken, lonely, and essentially weary of life. He plans to simply get through the day in an orderly fashion, have nice conversations, teach his class, have dinner with a friend, and go home and end it all. But the events of his day will either inspire him that life is worth living or truly convince him that dying is the only he can breathe again.
You might not think it at first glance, but A Single Man is one of the most well made movies recently. Like Oren Moverman with The Messenger, this film is the debut of Tom Ford, a popular fashion designer. Combined with the set crew of the show Mad Men, Ford is able to pull off a very realistic and fresh 1950s Los Angeles setting. The cinematography, sets, and wardrobes are all top notch. There's a very beautiful scene where George and a local trick have a gaze at the beautiful, smog fueled, pink sunset in a convenience store parking lot. The movie throughout always looks as if it had been made by someone who had an eye for things in the production department.
The acting is ace as per my tastes. Colin Firth, who I've not seen in a lot (though he's been in plenty), no doubt makes one of the finest characters I've seen in movies lately. Firth brings such quietness, wit, and sadness to the role of George that you can't help but want this destroyed man to make it. It isn't hard to see why this man was Oscar nominated. Julianne Moore is very intriguing as George's old friend Charlie, a heavydrinking, nostalgic woman who parties with her friends, or maybe just friend, almost as if it were denying that she is an older woman whose made too many mistakes. Charlie is the kind of wreck who does well to distract you from that fact. Moore as Charlie is very convincing, and she's never been sexier than with her British accent. Matthew Goode's role is occasional but always nice because Goode is such a charming bastard. In just the few flashbacks he appears in you get why George would be so sad after losing him. Other actors who have good parts are Nicholas Hoult as an infatuated student, Ginnifer Goodwin as a friendly neighbor, and Ryan Simpkins as Goodwin's weird but curious daughter. Acting good all around.
So yes, A Single Man was a very interesting film, engrossing and thoughtful. It gains our sympathy and attention as an audience and any film that can do that is bound to be good. Props to the whole damn thing. It may not be for some people, but some people aren't me. Four out of four bullets.
This has been the second of three reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
A Single Man was surprisingly a film I enjoyed on a personal level as well a film level. It is just brilliantly made. The movie is introspective, with a sometimes dry sense of humor, knowledge, and a true passion for its characters. It almost reminded me of Catcher in the Rye (which I read and reviewed recently). The character has that sort of absentmindedness or deep thinking attitude about him and the thoughts he has are wholly interesting.
The film revolves around George Falconer (Colin Firth) on the day he plans to kill himself. Why does he want to kill himself? Jim (Matthew Goode), the man he had been in love with for sixteen years, died recently, leaving George heartbroken, lonely, and essentially weary of life. He plans to simply get through the day in an orderly fashion, have nice conversations, teach his class, have dinner with a friend, and go home and end it all. But the events of his day will either inspire him that life is worth living or truly convince him that dying is the only he can breathe again.
You might not think it at first glance, but A Single Man is one of the most well made movies recently. Like Oren Moverman with The Messenger, this film is the debut of Tom Ford, a popular fashion designer. Combined with the set crew of the show Mad Men, Ford is able to pull off a very realistic and fresh 1950s Los Angeles setting. The cinematography, sets, and wardrobes are all top notch. There's a very beautiful scene where George and a local trick have a gaze at the beautiful, smog fueled, pink sunset in a convenience store parking lot. The movie throughout always looks as if it had been made by someone who had an eye for things in the production department.
The acting is ace as per my tastes. Colin Firth, who I've not seen in a lot (though he's been in plenty), no doubt makes one of the finest characters I've seen in movies lately. Firth brings such quietness, wit, and sadness to the role of George that you can't help but want this destroyed man to make it. It isn't hard to see why this man was Oscar nominated. Julianne Moore is very intriguing as George's old friend Charlie, a heavydrinking, nostalgic woman who parties with her friends, or maybe just friend, almost as if it were denying that she is an older woman whose made too many mistakes. Charlie is the kind of wreck who does well to distract you from that fact. Moore as Charlie is very convincing, and she's never been sexier than with her British accent. Matthew Goode's role is occasional but always nice because Goode is such a charming bastard. In just the few flashbacks he appears in you get why George would be so sad after losing him. Other actors who have good parts are Nicholas Hoult as an infatuated student, Ginnifer Goodwin as a friendly neighbor, and Ryan Simpkins as Goodwin's weird but curious daughter. Acting good all around.
So yes, A Single Man was a very interesting film, engrossing and thoughtful. It gains our sympathy and attention as an audience and any film that can do that is bound to be good. Props to the whole damn thing. It may not be for some people, but some people aren't me. Four out of four bullets.
This has been the second of three reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Messenger Review
"It could be worse. It could be Christmas." - Capt. Tony Stone
Most modern war movies are doing the right thing by not focusing on THE war, but instead focus on the soldiers. The Messenger, a film that came out last year like The Hurt Locker, does not feature the war in the Middle East but we feel it's presence in the main characters. The soldiers in The Messenger are not fighting a physical or environmental enemy, but mental and emotional anguish. The job of the heroes in this film is to inform citizens that their son or father or daughter or mother has been killed in the line of duty. Many war movies display a soldier dying violently with great effect, but seeing a piece of that soldier's family die in their own living room can be just as tragic.
Fresh from the shit, the decorated and recently recovered Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) is given job of Casualty Notification as a way of serving out the last few months of his tour. His commanding officer is Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), who has never seen combat but knows the stoic procedure down to a T. Montgomery has to deal with his own demons, his trouble seeking CO, and a need to care for a woman (Samantha Morton) whom he notified of her husband's death. The end product, which is the first film made by Oren Moverman, is startling and devestatingly effective.
Getting the technical aspect out of the way, I will say that this film has a unique visual style. The camera is very often shaky, almost documentary like, during many tense scenes, while also having its wealth of fine angles and steady shots.
Now for my favorite part. The acting. It was phenomenal. Once again, the cast does a lot in spite of the fact that there is no ensemble group. Ben Foster, like Joseph Gordon Levitt (Maybe moreso), is proving again and again to be one of Hollywood's most terrific modern actors. He brings so much depth and emotion to his role. He almost embodies this very haunted man. Woody Harrelson (Oscar nominated for this) pulls off one of his best roles as a man who is precise and focused as hell on the job but still finds time being Woody Harrelson while off duty in a way that fits the story. Harrelson is still awesome, you won't see it at first but he was the one who damn near made me weep. The female lead of the movie is Samantha Morton who really is never anything but good. She has a great, subtle, and natural screen presence, her face almost breathes hope and light (lets say if I were to cast an angel she would be it). I'm not sure if she actually put on weight or is wearing a suit or makeup of some kind but she is a bit heavier in this to pull off a sort of average woman look about her. Her performance is very touching and never goes cheesey or cliche. A real surprise here was Steve Buscemi in a small but incredibly powerful role. He plays a father due for notification and his reaction to his son's death is one of the most, if not the most incredible moment in his career (next to the "I don't believe in tipping" scene from Reservoir Dogs). Any other actors, unknowns I'm pretty sure, who play those being notified of the deaths of loved ones are heartbreakers. Jena Malone has a small role that again shows her maturity and not just because of her sex scene (yeah she isn't young Jodie Foster from Contact anymore) but she's still Jena Malone and charming as hell and always nice to have in a movie so there ya go. So once again acting gets an A++, because I really don't watch a lot of movies without something close to that.
The Messenger is a deep, compelling, emotionally charged story about the effects that war has at home. It should be viewed with an open mind and a prepared box of tissues. It nearly made me cry and left me unsettled for the next two days. It is that powerful. Four out of four purple hearts (that's right I'm adding a rating system).
This has been a heavy hitter review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Most modern war movies are doing the right thing by not focusing on THE war, but instead focus on the soldiers. The Messenger, a film that came out last year like The Hurt Locker, does not feature the war in the Middle East but we feel it's presence in the main characters. The soldiers in The Messenger are not fighting a physical or environmental enemy, but mental and emotional anguish. The job of the heroes in this film is to inform citizens that their son or father or daughter or mother has been killed in the line of duty. Many war movies display a soldier dying violently with great effect, but seeing a piece of that soldier's family die in their own living room can be just as tragic.
Fresh from the shit, the decorated and recently recovered Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) is given job of Casualty Notification as a way of serving out the last few months of his tour. His commanding officer is Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), who has never seen combat but knows the stoic procedure down to a T. Montgomery has to deal with his own demons, his trouble seeking CO, and a need to care for a woman (Samantha Morton) whom he notified of her husband's death. The end product, which is the first film made by Oren Moverman, is startling and devestatingly effective.
Getting the technical aspect out of the way, I will say that this film has a unique visual style. The camera is very often shaky, almost documentary like, during many tense scenes, while also having its wealth of fine angles and steady shots.
Now for my favorite part. The acting. It was phenomenal. Once again, the cast does a lot in spite of the fact that there is no ensemble group. Ben Foster, like Joseph Gordon Levitt (Maybe moreso), is proving again and again to be one of Hollywood's most terrific modern actors. He brings so much depth and emotion to his role. He almost embodies this very haunted man. Woody Harrelson (Oscar nominated for this) pulls off one of his best roles as a man who is precise and focused as hell on the job but still finds time being Woody Harrelson while off duty in a way that fits the story. Harrelson is still awesome, you won't see it at first but he was the one who damn near made me weep. The female lead of the movie is Samantha Morton who really is never anything but good. She has a great, subtle, and natural screen presence, her face almost breathes hope and light (lets say if I were to cast an angel she would be it). I'm not sure if she actually put on weight or is wearing a suit or makeup of some kind but she is a bit heavier in this to pull off a sort of average woman look about her. Her performance is very touching and never goes cheesey or cliche. A real surprise here was Steve Buscemi in a small but incredibly powerful role. He plays a father due for notification and his reaction to his son's death is one of the most, if not the most incredible moment in his career (next to the "I don't believe in tipping" scene from Reservoir Dogs). Any other actors, unknowns I'm pretty sure, who play those being notified of the deaths of loved ones are heartbreakers. Jena Malone has a small role that again shows her maturity and not just because of her sex scene (yeah she isn't young Jodie Foster from Contact anymore) but she's still Jena Malone and charming as hell and always nice to have in a movie so there ya go. So once again acting gets an A++, because I really don't watch a lot of movies without something close to that.
The Messenger is a deep, compelling, emotionally charged story about the effects that war has at home. It should be viewed with an open mind and a prepared box of tissues. It nearly made me cry and left me unsettled for the next two days. It is that powerful. Four out of four purple hearts (that's right I'm adding a rating system).
This has been a heavy hitter review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Vampires Suck: why bother
My first taste of the parody films was from the Wayans Brothers. Now their older stuff was hilarious, the hood movie parody Don't Be a Menace to South Central while drinking your Juice in da Hood, Scary Movie, Scary Movie 2 were all hilarious. Later the Scary Movie franchise was taken over by the folks behind the older parody films such as Airplane and The Naked Gun series, now these were chuckle worthy but not nearly as funny. But now Scary Movie has evaporated into nothing and a slew of movies that anyone with the slightest shred of taste in films could see from the promotion is terrible. I am talking about the films of writer-directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, who have made such films as Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, and, very recently, Vampires Suck. These are young, aspiring filmmakers who watched the Wayans Brothers' films and said to themselves "Huh? I don't get it. I bet no one else will either. Let's make some movies that we understand." Unfortunately, the above filmography was the outcome of that decision.
Now these films have been bashed by almost every critic, major or otherwise, but I don't need them to tell me. No, I can find out these films are shit by way of two fundamental things: the trailers that give away just about every possible joke (lame as they are) and the reactions the people at my school have had to them (because most people at my school have very little taste in such things). Come on, Meet the Spartans? I could understand it if the trailers showed all of the jokes if the jokes had meaning, were intelligent, or were just, you know, good. But the jokes I see in these things seem to come out of nowhere (and they apparently do in the trailer), are parodies of other things instead of what the film claims to be parodying, or are just really lame. Take that joke about the "James gang" being the Black Eyed Peas in Vampires Suck. It doesn't make sense! Yes because The Black Eyed Peas consisted of three people, one black and two white. Only an idiot would actually make a joke like about the Twilight villians looking like The Black Eyed Peas. I believe that the critics at Spill.com said it right when they said the jokes made in the movie are jokes that could have been conceived by the fans of Twilight.
This begs another question. I go to school with many young ladies and older women who are immensely fond of Twilight and they all want to see this movie that mocks and parodies it, yet these same fans berate and are offended by the people who mock it on an every day basis. So it's not okay when someone with some taste mocks it, but when shitty filmmakers with no taste do it it's dandy? Hypocrisy anyone? Just shows how freaking weird some (hear me, SOME) Twilight fans are.
Anyway, the guys at Spill are right: I think audiences appreciate jokes more if they have to use their heads to get the jokes. I can also tell that the Spill crew is right when they say that the absolute majority of the jokes in Vampires Suck are just references to other things/"hey look at that, it's funny because it exists." That's not comedy! The rest I'm told is, as I predicted, "comedy" that consists of jokes that haven't been funny in years (prat falls, being hit over the head, flatulence, there's probably even a few animal reaction shots). I really don't see the point of this movie. Why watch inconceivably famous people make lame jokes about Twilight when millions of regular people can make good jokes about Twilight. Vampires Suck, if anything, only adds to Twilight's ever growing popularity. I'm getting the feeling the series is even starting to overshadow the work of Anne Rice or, dare I say it, Bram Stoker.
None of this changes anything. I don't heed the call of Twilight fans who urge me to read the series one because the only fans I trust are a few friends (most of whom think Vampires Suck looks hilarious) and my brother (because Twilight may be the only book he has read for himself). The only vampire book I plan to read anytime soon (which is probably way off still) is Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot. Why? Because my dad (who knows his books) said it was the best vampire book he's ever read, and my dad's word means a lot more than the word of the Twihards', many of whom are people who can't imagine why I wouldn't read Twilight yet scoff when I suggest to them The Dark Tower. I'm sure one day I will pick up each Twilight book and read them dilligently and set them down and realize that I was a fool all along but for now I'm sticking with what I know is good.
Anyway, yeah, Vampires Sucks looks awful and you won't convince me otherwise. I recommend you have your children watch good movies and good literature at very young ages, graphic or not, because they will develop good taste and therefore sense and gravitate away from the bad shit.
This has been some intuition from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Now these films have been bashed by almost every critic, major or otherwise, but I don't need them to tell me. No, I can find out these films are shit by way of two fundamental things: the trailers that give away just about every possible joke (lame as they are) and the reactions the people at my school have had to them (because most people at my school have very little taste in such things). Come on, Meet the Spartans? I could understand it if the trailers showed all of the jokes if the jokes had meaning, were intelligent, or were just, you know, good. But the jokes I see in these things seem to come out of nowhere (and they apparently do in the trailer), are parodies of other things instead of what the film claims to be parodying, or are just really lame. Take that joke about the "James gang" being the Black Eyed Peas in Vampires Suck. It doesn't make sense! Yes because The Black Eyed Peas consisted of three people, one black and two white. Only an idiot would actually make a joke like about the Twilight villians looking like The Black Eyed Peas. I believe that the critics at Spill.com said it right when they said the jokes made in the movie are jokes that could have been conceived by the fans of Twilight.
This begs another question. I go to school with many young ladies and older women who are immensely fond of Twilight and they all want to see this movie that mocks and parodies it, yet these same fans berate and are offended by the people who mock it on an every day basis. So it's not okay when someone with some taste mocks it, but when shitty filmmakers with no taste do it it's dandy? Hypocrisy anyone? Just shows how freaking weird some (hear me, SOME) Twilight fans are.
Anyway, the guys at Spill are right: I think audiences appreciate jokes more if they have to use their heads to get the jokes. I can also tell that the Spill crew is right when they say that the absolute majority of the jokes in Vampires Suck are just references to other things/"hey look at that, it's funny because it exists." That's not comedy! The rest I'm told is, as I predicted, "comedy" that consists of jokes that haven't been funny in years (prat falls, being hit over the head, flatulence, there's probably even a few animal reaction shots). I really don't see the point of this movie. Why watch inconceivably famous people make lame jokes about Twilight when millions of regular people can make good jokes about Twilight. Vampires Suck, if anything, only adds to Twilight's ever growing popularity. I'm getting the feeling the series is even starting to overshadow the work of Anne Rice or, dare I say it, Bram Stoker.
None of this changes anything. I don't heed the call of Twilight fans who urge me to read the series one because the only fans I trust are a few friends (most of whom think Vampires Suck looks hilarious) and my brother (because Twilight may be the only book he has read for himself). The only vampire book I plan to read anytime soon (which is probably way off still) is Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot. Why? Because my dad (who knows his books) said it was the best vampire book he's ever read, and my dad's word means a lot more than the word of the Twihards', many of whom are people who can't imagine why I wouldn't read Twilight yet scoff when I suggest to them The Dark Tower. I'm sure one day I will pick up each Twilight book and read them dilligently and set them down and realize that I was a fool all along but for now I'm sticking with what I know is good.
Anyway, yeah, Vampires Sucks looks awful and you won't convince me otherwise. I recommend you have your children watch good movies and good literature at very young ages, graphic or not, because they will develop good taste and therefore sense and gravitate away from the bad shit.
This has been some intuition from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Underrated: Michael Keaton
Michael Keaton. Star of Beetlejuice, Tim Burton's Batman, Batman Returns, Pacific Heights, Desperate Measures, Porco Rosso (english version), and Mr. Mom. Had supporting roles in Jackie Brown, Out of Sight, and just recently Toy Story 3 and The Other Guys. The first true, and in my opinion best, Batman. He is a charming, likable, and very effective actor. With all of that in mind, I have only one question: why the hell is he on my underrated list?
Seriously, Keaton is just one of those actors who was big a long time ago but only seems to be getting very small roles these days. It's a shame because he's mentioned all the time by every reviewer I keep up with, people who wish he'd come back to really good acting. At some points I think maybe he and actors like him are taking smaller roles because their hearts not fully into it anymore, or maybe they've gotten older and just don't want really big roles. I don't think that's quite true about Keaton though, in 2009 he made what was as close to a true starring role as he could in The Merry Gentleman. That was a pretty good movie, and he was terrific in it. The Merry Gentleman was also his directorial debut, proving not only is Keaton still a great actor he is a great director too.
Perhaps The Merry Gentleman was a project he just wanted to do for a long time. I think I heard in a movie once that everybody interested in film wants to be a director at some point, so maybe it was something like that. Still a good movie though. Something I thought was funny was that Keaton was actually cast in the role of Jack on Lost before the show aired because back then Jack was supposed to have died in the first episode. But once Jack became a main character Keaton dropped out. Understandable, but still Keaton on Lost would have been awesome (Lost was a show full of great actors who aren't given enough credit and were allowed to really shine). I mean Lost certainly would have been a step up from White Noise and First Daughter.
Looking back at his roles, whether it was the totally insane Beetlejuice, the deranged mastermind in Desperate Measures, the zany cop in Jackie Brown, or of course the menacing and somber role of Batman, it just seems kinda sad. I don't know. Maybe Michael Keaton will make a big acting come back someday like Robert Downey, Jr. or Mickey Rourke. Either way it's still good to see him whenever he's in a movie. I'm actually really liking the voice acting he does these days as the shifty doll Ken in Toy Story 3, the cocky Chick Hicks in Cars, or of course as the soft spoken cursed pilot in Hayao Myazaki's Porco Rosso. While Michael Keaton may or may not be held in high regard in Hollywood, he is rated very high by us lovers of film.
This has been an issue of The Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Seriously, Keaton is just one of those actors who was big a long time ago but only seems to be getting very small roles these days. It's a shame because he's mentioned all the time by every reviewer I keep up with, people who wish he'd come back to really good acting. At some points I think maybe he and actors like him are taking smaller roles because their hearts not fully into it anymore, or maybe they've gotten older and just don't want really big roles. I don't think that's quite true about Keaton though, in 2009 he made what was as close to a true starring role as he could in The Merry Gentleman. That was a pretty good movie, and he was terrific in it. The Merry Gentleman was also his directorial debut, proving not only is Keaton still a great actor he is a great director too.
Perhaps The Merry Gentleman was a project he just wanted to do for a long time. I think I heard in a movie once that everybody interested in film wants to be a director at some point, so maybe it was something like that. Still a good movie though. Something I thought was funny was that Keaton was actually cast in the role of Jack on Lost before the show aired because back then Jack was supposed to have died in the first episode. But once Jack became a main character Keaton dropped out. Understandable, but still Keaton on Lost would have been awesome (Lost was a show full of great actors who aren't given enough credit and were allowed to really shine). I mean Lost certainly would have been a step up from White Noise and First Daughter.
Looking back at his roles, whether it was the totally insane Beetlejuice, the deranged mastermind in Desperate Measures, the zany cop in Jackie Brown, or of course the menacing and somber role of Batman, it just seems kinda sad. I don't know. Maybe Michael Keaton will make a big acting come back someday like Robert Downey, Jr. or Mickey Rourke. Either way it's still good to see him whenever he's in a movie. I'm actually really liking the voice acting he does these days as the shifty doll Ken in Toy Story 3, the cocky Chick Hicks in Cars, or of course as the soft spoken cursed pilot in Hayao Myazaki's Porco Rosso. While Michael Keaton may or may not be held in high regard in Hollywood, he is rated very high by us lovers of film.
This has been an issue of The Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Catcher in the Rye Review
"Anyway, I'm sort of glad they've got the atomic bomb invented. If there's ever another war, I'm going to sit right the hell on top of it. I'll volunteer for it, I swear to God." - Holden Caulfield
I figured why wait to read this in school. I don't like assigned reading at all. So I've finished reading J.D. Salinger's teen angst masterpiece The Catcher in the Rye. Now needless to say I had a lot of expectations for this book. It's almost a book I read as a challenge, like "oh yeah, you think you can blow me away, Salinger? Bring it." I'm like that with most books, I think. But I just finished it last night (or this morning, I'm a slow reader) and upon doing so I knew I would have to do a review on it and here it is.
For those who don't have that good an idea what it is about, Catcher in the Rye follows a few days in the life of the teenage antihero Holden Caulfield. Holden is a deeply cynical, repressed, awkward, deep thinking young man (sound familiar?) There is no real arc to this story, it's just his life and how he lives it. This is also a first person narrative, so the main treat for the readers is we get the in depth, private thoughts of Holden. And believe me, he has plenty to think about. Through his often pessimistic and angsty narration, we are shown the confusion, fears, alienation, and a wealth of other thoughts that are no doubt streaming through the minds of most teenage males, or just teens in general. Can ya dig it?
What inspired me to read this more than anything was Salinger's recent death. I wanted to know if he is as great a writer as everyone claimed. I wanted to know how strongly I should feel that he is not around anymore. After reading his highly acclaimed and most renowned work, I have to say it's a damn shame. Salinger has such command of writing, such a knowledge of dialogue and stream of consciousness. I especially love how he's not trying to push a message or anything. The character of Holden is intelligent but he is by no means a wise person. The reader is supposed to be the one applying their own wisdom to the things that happen to him.
Holden was where I came to an impass. He is considered to be one of the greatest literary characters. I began reading the story and very quickly I realized that I was really annoyed by him. If you've read this you'll know and you're gonna read it you will know, Holden is always complaining about something. He sees almost everyone as phony and if someone does something he doesn't like he exaggerates like it is something "they always do" or "never do." Sometimes he places himself as inferior, other times he has amazing thoughts of granduer. He envisions himself being something of a badass a lot when in reality he is a weakling, which sometimes he admits. A lot of times he seemed emotionally detached from situations he is in or thinks about, while at others he shows a lot of emotion toward something else. There are even times when he seemed truly emotionally unstable: "then all of a sudden I started to cry." WTF? But really, honestly, the reason he was so frustrating a character for me is because, of course, he was like me. Most everything I said above about him could also be attributed to me, or maybe any teenager. It's the mark of a great character I think, one that is crafted to mirror the reader in some way. In that sense, I think Holden is probably one of the most relatable characters I've come across. He's a person. He will do things you don't like and things you do.
So yes, I'll admit it, The Catcher in the Rye is a genius book. It's a book that doesn't require much of a plot, but is good mainly because it is brilliantly written. Props to J.D. Salinger and may he rest in peace because he made something extraordinary. Love it or hate it or both, I definitely do believe it is one of the most important books a person can read.
This has been another literary review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
I figured why wait to read this in school. I don't like assigned reading at all. So I've finished reading J.D. Salinger's teen angst masterpiece The Catcher in the Rye. Now needless to say I had a lot of expectations for this book. It's almost a book I read as a challenge, like "oh yeah, you think you can blow me away, Salinger? Bring it." I'm like that with most books, I think. But I just finished it last night (or this morning, I'm a slow reader) and upon doing so I knew I would have to do a review on it and here it is.
For those who don't have that good an idea what it is about, Catcher in the Rye follows a few days in the life of the teenage antihero Holden Caulfield. Holden is a deeply cynical, repressed, awkward, deep thinking young man (sound familiar?) There is no real arc to this story, it's just his life and how he lives it. This is also a first person narrative, so the main treat for the readers is we get the in depth, private thoughts of Holden. And believe me, he has plenty to think about. Through his often pessimistic and angsty narration, we are shown the confusion, fears, alienation, and a wealth of other thoughts that are no doubt streaming through the minds of most teenage males, or just teens in general. Can ya dig it?
What inspired me to read this more than anything was Salinger's recent death. I wanted to know if he is as great a writer as everyone claimed. I wanted to know how strongly I should feel that he is not around anymore. After reading his highly acclaimed and most renowned work, I have to say it's a damn shame. Salinger has such command of writing, such a knowledge of dialogue and stream of consciousness. I especially love how he's not trying to push a message or anything. The character of Holden is intelligent but he is by no means a wise person. The reader is supposed to be the one applying their own wisdom to the things that happen to him.
Holden was where I came to an impass. He is considered to be one of the greatest literary characters. I began reading the story and very quickly I realized that I was really annoyed by him. If you've read this you'll know and you're gonna read it you will know, Holden is always complaining about something. He sees almost everyone as phony and if someone does something he doesn't like he exaggerates like it is something "they always do" or "never do." Sometimes he places himself as inferior, other times he has amazing thoughts of granduer. He envisions himself being something of a badass a lot when in reality he is a weakling, which sometimes he admits. A lot of times he seemed emotionally detached from situations he is in or thinks about, while at others he shows a lot of emotion toward something else. There are even times when he seemed truly emotionally unstable: "then all of a sudden I started to cry." WTF? But really, honestly, the reason he was so frustrating a character for me is because, of course, he was like me. Most everything I said above about him could also be attributed to me, or maybe any teenager. It's the mark of a great character I think, one that is crafted to mirror the reader in some way. In that sense, I think Holden is probably one of the most relatable characters I've come across. He's a person. He will do things you don't like and things you do.
So yes, I'll admit it, The Catcher in the Rye is a genius book. It's a book that doesn't require much of a plot, but is good mainly because it is brilliantly written. Props to J.D. Salinger and may he rest in peace because he made something extraordinary. Love it or hate it or both, I definitely do believe it is one of the most important books a person can read.
This has been another literary review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Frustrated yet witty title
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve niether and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I hate people sometimes. Scratch that. I hate people a lot of times. I'd kill em all if I could. But let's be serious. You aren't here to listen to me talk about my fantasies, you are here to listen to me talk about our reality. What concerns us all. What should concern us all. And what is absolutely, positively, extremely, frustratingly, unethically, disgracefully, immorally, ludicrously, inevitably wrong with our reality sometimes.
What I'm going to talk about is some pretty bad people. I hope I won't sound like I'm pushing some kind of message, because there's nothing I hate more than people talking down to other people. And I don't want to criticize the beliefs of whoever reads my blog. I mean if you're reading my blog, I am thankful as hell and it is much obliged that you give a damn. Anyway, on to the bad guys.
By a message, I meant of course a political message. The people I am talking about are politicians. They are what is called Conservative these days. Liberals and Conservatives, why have these lables. Everybody is a liberal about some things and conservatives about others. Okay screw it, I'm calling them Donkeys and Elephants, and the Independants will be Snails (I saw a mock Party logo that was funny). So being the spawn of two particularly Donkey oriented but outspoken Snail people, I have had my qualms with the Elephant group. But in the past I more often than not have only disagreed with what the Elephants were doing. There is nothing wrong with that, I disagree with plenty of people about plenty of things. I mean as somewhat of a Donkey oriented Snail I too have had problems with The Donkies. But lately the Elephants are just kind of loose cannons. The things they propose and the things they do do not sit well with me. Take this Angle woman, a new Elephant oriented politician that has hit the scene. She seems to be urging the integration between church and state, which goes against old constitutional rules. Some have talked of making so that American workers cannot retire until they are at age 70. That's ten more years for grandpa. Then there is talk of changing the 14th Amendment and making it so the children of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, cannot have US citizenship if they are in fact born in the United States. So it's not enough that we are going after the adults, or at least the illegal adults who are in fact guilty (though their intentions are understandable), but now we have to go after the children. Isn't that kind of, uh, heartless? WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!? They are even talking about internment camps for immigrants. Because if barbed wire fences and a tent for the whole family doesn't scream American Dream I don't know what does. I don't wanna tell the Elephants how to do their job but if I could I'd say "Think of the people. Think of the children."
The other people I wanna talk about are far worst. They take religion, one of the most influential things in the world, something that is supposed to be good and inspiring, and turn it into something ugly. I am of course talking about the horror of humanity The Westboro Baptist Church. No one else is as hate mongering, infuriating, revolting, and absolutely inhuman. They are the KKK without the white suits, or at least they're gonna be. The brain child behind this cheery congregation of cunts is a mister Fred Phelps. I know some people who don't like old people. I can never really understand why. Fred Phelps is why. He is such a stereotypical old, angry, bible thumping bag of bones it'd be cartoonish if he wasn't an actual person. A man in his 70s, Phelps has had quite the charmed life: he's been arrested for numerous assualt cases, has reportedly abused his children, and started a church that has hellfire gospels galore, in turn creating a generation that will spawn more generations of angry, radical, religious fanatics. The pass times of the Westboro Baptist Church are picketing the funerals of soldiers, gays, and I guess these days nerds, hating America, and making me want to trip balls so as not to think about them. If this is what a proposed God digs, as they claim, I really want nothing to do with him and I will gladly go to hell for that. Phelps' daughter, whose name I didn't bother to remember or chose to forget, is considered the most hated woman in America. She explains with a homely, calm smile on her face that things like 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wars, death, destruction, mayhem are "awesome." None of it registers as pain and suffering to this woman, it only means we are getting closer and closer to Armageddon and the Apocalypse. Her teenage daughters, who seem like pretty and ordinary young women, have said with teenage girl giggles how they've been taught and do hate America. Oh yes, I'm not lying when I say that Phelps has said that if anybody has gotten the way to practice religion right in the world (ya know, his way) it'd be the Taliban. Also when asked about the parts of the bible in which God displays his forgiveness and kindness, Phelps says outright that "whoever says that obviously has never read The Bible a day in their life" and I'm pretty sure went on to criticize them and a dozen other things. The insanity of the WBC is so great that they have recently protested Comic Con, where all the hardcore nerds flock every year, believing it to be a form of idol worship. The nerds of Comic Con protested back in response however. I mean it is honestly remarkable how fucking crazy this guy and his group is. They might as well put up a sign saying "RACISTS, FANATICS, ANGRY OLD FOLKS, COME ON IN AND HATE TOGETHER" because if history has taught us anything, really hateful people like to band together with other really hateful people to hate everything. Fuckin' conformist fucks! I mean I know I say there are people out there I want to die and I usually don't really mean it, but this time I am pretty sure I mean it. I really want these people to die. You hear stories about how God has a church cave in on his worshippers (so says Hannibal) but it's usually good religious people. Why can't the bad guys by smited?
PEOPLE LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT. BE. REAL! They are people I sometimes think don't deserve to breathe the same air as me. People that make me feel bad that I am a person. Isn't that a terrible thing to feel. Like you are almost ashamed to be cut from the same cloth as someone else. I'm no saint, but I like to think I'm a pretty good guy. But I'm also a conflicted and, admittedly, angry person. It might just be a period in my life. For all I know I could do a total 180, a C.S. Lewis if you will, in the future where I'm a non-descript, polite, straight laced accountant paying for my kids tuition, going to church, choosing self gratification as opposed to marital relations, living in a small town just a few miles from where I used to live, watching Lifetime TV movies and Two and a Half Men reruns, and wondering what happened to who I used to be. Maybe, but let's hope not. Right now I'm a cynical bastard, who feels and thinks too much, wants to do something that has meaning, wants to live in some other country for three years, who knows he will struggle and win some and lose some, who has a distinct personality people would remember, who would gladly make love to a wife or domestic partner or possibly a ONS (One Night Stand abbreviated), who watches HBO and Showtime, who likes pondering the mysteries of the universe instead of knowing, who is on a journey to figure out who he is. I'll try to be that person for as long as I can. I'm trying to be that way right now. But the way I am right now, I can't even kill a bug without saying "sorry," and feeling like shit afterward (Not extremely, I mean given the ant hills I crushed as a kid I should feel like Hitler but it's not like that). That being said, when I have the knowledge that people so horrifying can be in this world I just don't know how I can stand it. But I do stand it. I stand because we all have to stand it and if I couldn't I wouldn't make it in the world. I bottle up the hate I have for it, it and the bullshit that looks me in the eyes every day. And I'm gonna try to keep standing it until someday hopefully it doesn't bother me as much as it does now. I find it a lot easier to say "I'll try" than to say "I will." All I really can do is try. Win or lose, I'll still try.
[I watched Chaplin the other night. I've never seen an actual Charlie Chaplin movie but I've seen a scene from one that really spoke to me. And for anyone who would like to know how I, and how I would like for everyone to view things, I'd recommend you all look a Chaplin's speech from The Great Dictator. Really listen to it. I wish things could be that way.]
This has been a fight to fulfill a promise from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
I hate people sometimes. Scratch that. I hate people a lot of times. I'd kill em all if I could. But let's be serious. You aren't here to listen to me talk about my fantasies, you are here to listen to me talk about our reality. What concerns us all. What should concern us all. And what is absolutely, positively, extremely, frustratingly, unethically, disgracefully, immorally, ludicrously, inevitably wrong with our reality sometimes.
What I'm going to talk about is some pretty bad people. I hope I won't sound like I'm pushing some kind of message, because there's nothing I hate more than people talking down to other people. And I don't want to criticize the beliefs of whoever reads my blog. I mean if you're reading my blog, I am thankful as hell and it is much obliged that you give a damn. Anyway, on to the bad guys.
By a message, I meant of course a political message. The people I am talking about are politicians. They are what is called Conservative these days. Liberals and Conservatives, why have these lables. Everybody is a liberal about some things and conservatives about others. Okay screw it, I'm calling them Donkeys and Elephants, and the Independants will be Snails (I saw a mock Party logo that was funny). So being the spawn of two particularly Donkey oriented but outspoken Snail people, I have had my qualms with the Elephant group. But in the past I more often than not have only disagreed with what the Elephants were doing. There is nothing wrong with that, I disagree with plenty of people about plenty of things. I mean as somewhat of a Donkey oriented Snail I too have had problems with The Donkies. But lately the Elephants are just kind of loose cannons. The things they propose and the things they do do not sit well with me. Take this Angle woman, a new Elephant oriented politician that has hit the scene. She seems to be urging the integration between church and state, which goes against old constitutional rules. Some have talked of making so that American workers cannot retire until they are at age 70. That's ten more years for grandpa. Then there is talk of changing the 14th Amendment and making it so the children of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, cannot have US citizenship if they are in fact born in the United States. So it's not enough that we are going after the adults, or at least the illegal adults who are in fact guilty (though their intentions are understandable), but now we have to go after the children. Isn't that kind of, uh, heartless? WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!? They are even talking about internment camps for immigrants. Because if barbed wire fences and a tent for the whole family doesn't scream American Dream I don't know what does. I don't wanna tell the Elephants how to do their job but if I could I'd say "Think of the people. Think of the children."
The other people I wanna talk about are far worst. They take religion, one of the most influential things in the world, something that is supposed to be good and inspiring, and turn it into something ugly. I am of course talking about the horror of humanity The Westboro Baptist Church. No one else is as hate mongering, infuriating, revolting, and absolutely inhuman. They are the KKK without the white suits, or at least they're gonna be. The brain child behind this cheery congregation of cunts is a mister Fred Phelps. I know some people who don't like old people. I can never really understand why. Fred Phelps is why. He is such a stereotypical old, angry, bible thumping bag of bones it'd be cartoonish if he wasn't an actual person. A man in his 70s, Phelps has had quite the charmed life: he's been arrested for numerous assualt cases, has reportedly abused his children, and started a church that has hellfire gospels galore, in turn creating a generation that will spawn more generations of angry, radical, religious fanatics. The pass times of the Westboro Baptist Church are picketing the funerals of soldiers, gays, and I guess these days nerds, hating America, and making me want to trip balls so as not to think about them. If this is what a proposed God digs, as they claim, I really want nothing to do with him and I will gladly go to hell for that. Phelps' daughter, whose name I didn't bother to remember or chose to forget, is considered the most hated woman in America. She explains with a homely, calm smile on her face that things like 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wars, death, destruction, mayhem are "awesome." None of it registers as pain and suffering to this woman, it only means we are getting closer and closer to Armageddon and the Apocalypse. Her teenage daughters, who seem like pretty and ordinary young women, have said with teenage girl giggles how they've been taught and do hate America. Oh yes, I'm not lying when I say that Phelps has said that if anybody has gotten the way to practice religion right in the world (ya know, his way) it'd be the Taliban. Also when asked about the parts of the bible in which God displays his forgiveness and kindness, Phelps says outright that "whoever says that obviously has never read The Bible a day in their life" and I'm pretty sure went on to criticize them and a dozen other things. The insanity of the WBC is so great that they have recently protested Comic Con, where all the hardcore nerds flock every year, believing it to be a form of idol worship. The nerds of Comic Con protested back in response however. I mean it is honestly remarkable how fucking crazy this guy and his group is. They might as well put up a sign saying "RACISTS, FANATICS, ANGRY OLD FOLKS, COME ON IN AND HATE TOGETHER" because if history has taught us anything, really hateful people like to band together with other really hateful people to hate everything. Fuckin' conformist fucks! I mean I know I say there are people out there I want to die and I usually don't really mean it, but this time I am pretty sure I mean it. I really want these people to die. You hear stories about how God has a church cave in on his worshippers (so says Hannibal) but it's usually good religious people. Why can't the bad guys by smited?
PEOPLE LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT. BE. REAL! They are people I sometimes think don't deserve to breathe the same air as me. People that make me feel bad that I am a person. Isn't that a terrible thing to feel. Like you are almost ashamed to be cut from the same cloth as someone else. I'm no saint, but I like to think I'm a pretty good guy. But I'm also a conflicted and, admittedly, angry person. It might just be a period in my life. For all I know I could do a total 180, a C.S. Lewis if you will, in the future where I'm a non-descript, polite, straight laced accountant paying for my kids tuition, going to church, choosing self gratification as opposed to marital relations, living in a small town just a few miles from where I used to live, watching Lifetime TV movies and Two and a Half Men reruns, and wondering what happened to who I used to be. Maybe, but let's hope not. Right now I'm a cynical bastard, who feels and thinks too much, wants to do something that has meaning, wants to live in some other country for three years, who knows he will struggle and win some and lose some, who has a distinct personality people would remember, who would gladly make love to a wife or domestic partner or possibly a ONS (One Night Stand abbreviated), who watches HBO and Showtime, who likes pondering the mysteries of the universe instead of knowing, who is on a journey to figure out who he is. I'll try to be that person for as long as I can. I'm trying to be that way right now. But the way I am right now, I can't even kill a bug without saying "sorry," and feeling like shit afterward (Not extremely, I mean given the ant hills I crushed as a kid I should feel like Hitler but it's not like that). That being said, when I have the knowledge that people so horrifying can be in this world I just don't know how I can stand it. But I do stand it. I stand because we all have to stand it and if I couldn't I wouldn't make it in the world. I bottle up the hate I have for it, it and the bullshit that looks me in the eyes every day. And I'm gonna try to keep standing it until someday hopefully it doesn't bother me as much as it does now. I find it a lot easier to say "I'll try" than to say "I will." All I really can do is try. Win or lose, I'll still try.
[I watched Chaplin the other night. I've never seen an actual Charlie Chaplin movie but I've seen a scene from one that really spoke to me. And for anyone who would like to know how I, and how I would like for everyone to view things, I'd recommend you all look a Chaplin's speech from The Great Dictator. Really listen to it. I wish things could be that way.]
This has been a fight to fulfill a promise from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Top Ten Movie Openings
Introductions can either go very well or very badly, either way an introduction can tell someone whether or not they are going to enjoy the rest of their company. This is just as true for movies as it is for people. Some movies can let you know, or mislead you to think, how great it is going to be for the duration of the film just from the opening scene. I will be listing and explaining my favorite movie openings right now.
10. Citizen Kane
"Rosebud..." - Charles Foster Kane
Yeah, everyone remembers this one. I'm sure some would rank it higher, but it is so obvious that I think ranking it any higher than tenth place would be contributing to Citizen Kane's already monumental glory. What is considered to be the greatest movie of all time opens as the camera cycles through Kane Manor I guess. It is gloomy, dark, and lonely, just like it's inhabitant, who we will come to know as Newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane (played by writer/director/producer Orson Welles). We finally find Kane as an old man in his death bed. Clutching a snow globe in his hand, Kane utters his last word: "Rosebud..." and then dies. That last word is the macguffin for the entire movie. Though this choice is obvious, I still can't deny that this is an amazing opening. Citizen Kane is notorious for being a film way ahead of its time. In the opening we have an effective excess of superimposition, very well designed set pieces, great shadowy lighting, extreme closeups among many other unique camera angles, and extensive makeup for Orson Welles. So yes, Citizen Kane. Had to be on here.
9. The Shining
The opening of The Shining would seem pretty standard, being it is a tracking shot with the credits sliding along the screen, but with Stanley Kubrick directing, it becomes one that sticks with you. It is a serene, steady cam tracking shot that sweeps over a still lake and along a mountainside road. It follows a car overhead through in a mazelike fashion. Until we come upon the very majestic Overlook Hotel. And being it is a Stanley Kubrick movie, a straight horror movie to boot, their is an incredibly unsettling and ominous score playing throughout this opening. This opening is designed only to let you know we are going someplace we don't wanna go.
8. Goodfellas
"For as long as I could remember I always wanted to be a gangster..."
Martin Scorcese wastes no time when telling the violent story of the 1970s New York mafia. The highly acclaimed Goodfellas opens as three gangsters Henry (Ray Liotta), Jimmy (Robert De Niro), and Tommy (Joe Pesci) are riding in a car. They start to notice a noise coming from the back and pull over into a secluded area. Opening the trunk, we find a bloodied and bashed man on the inside begging for his life. Angered that the man is alive, Tommy viciously begins stabbing him with a butcher's knife, followed by Jimmy unloading a gun into his chest. After this, Henry, not as horrified as he should be, closes the trunk and begins his narration. This scene is the first minute of the movie.
7. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
"...They lived only to face a new nightmare. The war against the machines." - Sarah Conner
In the opening to one of the greatest action movies of all time, director James Cameron finds the right tones when depicting peace and stability in contrast to war and devastation. It shows simple shots of a sun baked Los Angeles, with cars in traffic, crowds of people crossing a busy street, and children laughing happily on a playground. But these images fade into blinding light until we are faced with the same images in the future. Los Angeles, and the world for all we know, is a dark wasteland of destruction. The traffic has halted altogether and the people in cars are charred skeletons. The streets are empty, the playground is empty. Sarah Conner, the hero from the previous Terminator and the mother of mankind's last hope, narrates as a battle breaks out between human survivors and Skynet's machine army, complete with a league of terminators. A scarred warrior emerges from a bunker and oversees the battle. John Conner, the leader of the resistance, Sarah's son. Sarah explains that the machines' attempted to once again kill John in the past, but that John again sent another soldier to protect his past self. After this a tracking shot of the city in flames is shown with the epic main theme playing until finally we focus on a burning terminator face staring into the screen. This whole opening gets the point across, we know we are in for a ride just here. Kudos to Cameron.
6. Halloween
"Michael's around some place," - Judith Myers
Following the haunting opening credits, the horror classic begins with a single take from the POV of the killer (inspired by Touch of Evil's opening scene). On Halloween night, he approaches toward a house and watches as a young girl makes out with her boyfriend. They quickly go upstairs and the killer makes his way inside the house as the lights go out. We see him grab a butcher's knife from the kitchen and hide in the shadows as the boyfriend leaves. He creeps upstairs, donning a clown mask. Then he stalks behind the oblivious naked girl. As soon as she sees him, embarrassed, he begins stabbing her, watching his hand go back and forth as he does it. She soon falls dead and he hastily makes his way downstairs and out of the house as a car pulls up at the house. Two confused adults get out and take the mask off of the killer. We see it is a six year old boy, he has just killed his sister. This boy is Michael Myers. I love this opening because it is so atmospheric and shadowy, it makes the audience the killer using the point of view camera effect. The scariest aspect however, of the whole movie in fact, is filmmaker John Carpenter's chilling score. It is the music that accompanies death in my opinion.
5. Every Coen Brothers movie I've seen
Okay so maybe I haven't seen every movie by Joel and Ethan Coen but the ones I have seen have some pretty great opening scenes. They are always scenes that get your attention immediately by any means. They are usually pretty funny or just kind of weird. Some open with actors with distinct voices narrating usually on top of landscape shots, rural or urban, or otherwise: M. Emmett Walsh's wise good ol' boy talk about the dog eat dog way of things as we get shots of Texan countryside in Blood Simple; Nicolas Cage's goofy monologue regarding how his repetitive and ill conceived criminal career led him to the love of his life as he keeps going back and forth out of jail in Raising Arizona; Sam Elliot's laid back introduction to "The Dude" as a tumbleweed travels into Los Angeles in The Big Lebowski; Tommy Lee Jones' haunting, quiet southern reminiscing of lawmen before his time and the violence he has seen during his own while the lethal villain is arrested (temporarily) in No Country for Old Men. Other times it is a standard scene that introduces most of the principal characters and their main problems: Jon Polito talking about "ethics" while Albert Finney gives him "the high hat" in Miller's Crossing; John Turtorro as egotistical and neurotic Barton watching his play anxiously at the beginning of Barton Fink; William H. Macy discussing the plan to kidnap his wife with criminals Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare in Fargo; George Clooney, John Turtorro, and Tim Blake Nelson arguing after escaping from the chain gang in O' Brother, Where Art Thou; John Malkovich being fired by the CIA in Burn After Reading. Or there is A Serious Man which opens with what seems like a random scene: an early 20th century Jewish husband and wife in Poland are greeted by what the wife believes is a shapeshifting Jewish demon, but it turns out it is a demon, and it leaves after wifey attacks it. What the hell was that about? I have a theory but won't get into it now. The point is from what I've seen so far, the Coen Brothers' movies have always had great openings. And that's fitting because I think just about every Coen Brothers' movie I've seen is a masterpiece. I recommend watching every one I talked about.
4. Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."
Of course this is on here. It's Star Wars! The first movie opens in space of course with that always epic John Williams theme and that crawling yellow summary that I never paid attention to but always loved. Once the summary is over and the music fades out, we are faced with a ship being attacked by an Imperial vessel. The ship is boarded and the guards have a shootout with the Stormtroopers. At the same time droid C-3PO is becoming hysterical, while his partner R2-D2 records a message from Princess Leia to Obi Wan Kenobi. The droids stow away in an escape pod and launch themselves out to the nearby planet of Tatooine as Darth Vader strides on board and seizes control. This opening was a sci fi fan's delight. It is just iconic in every way. I don't think there is a moment of it I don't remember. It is just awesome and incredibly memorable.
3. Jaws
"Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun DUN, dun DUN!!!" - John Williams' danger music
Jaws opens as any good horror movie should. It introduces a cute guy and girl, sets a calm and sexy mood, one that puts us the audience at ease. They meet at a beachside bonfire, and he follows her off to the water. She strips down and dives in, while he passes out drunk. Once she is far out, we get a POV shot of course (because what could be scarier) from below as something watches her legs dangling in the water. Then that John Williams score kicks in and we know we are in trouble. Now the really cool thing about this scene, the only thing we see is the girl and her reaction to what happens. Soon her tranquility is shattered as she is abruptly yanked under water again and again. She is then violently dragged back and forth screaming. It keeps pulling and pulling until finally she goes underneath one last time, her screams for help drowning out. That is how you open your freaking movie. With one of the scariest scenes ever. We feel just as confused, shocked, and terrified as the girl. Steven Spielberg say hello to your very long career.
2. Reservoir Dogs
"You see this? This is the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses." - Mr. Pink
Now it was between this and Pulp Fiction, both diner scenes in Tarantino movies, but I went this one because I think it is much more inventive. Reservoir Dogs opens with a bunch of guys sat around a table in an LA coffee shop. They all look like tough guys too. Most of them wear black suits you'd see gangsters wear in a Hong Kong movie. A few of them have concealed guns. Reservoir Dogs, a movie renowned for it's violence and vulgarity, opens with these guys just having regular conversations. It starts off with Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino, also writer-director) explaining how he thinks Madonna's song "Like a Virgin" is a metaphor for big dicks, which stirs up various other thoughts on Madonna and music; Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker) says he liked "Borderline." After that Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) expresses his frustration at his boss Joe (Lawrence Tierney) mumbling a bunch of names from an old address book, which White takes. When they are about to leave, Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) won't pitch in for the tip because he "doesn't believe in tipping" unless the waitress "really puts forth the effort." Everyone gets into a political arguement against Pink, whose further monologue on minimum wage and work is hilarious. Pink finally tips when Joe orders him to. They all leave and a cool slow motion shot ensues as the group walks to their cars. What a great way to open this movie. It really is an example of Tarantino's filmmaking chops (and this was his first film). What really punctuates this scene is the fact that the next shows Mr. White driving a getaway car, while Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) bleeds and screams from a gunshot wound in the backseat. It is just very naturalistic and effective. It misleads in a good way.
1. The Lion King
"Nants ingoyama bagithi baba (There comes a lion)" - Circle of Life lyrics
Honestly, yes it is indeed The Lion King. Few movies open so beautifully, so majestically. It really paints the perfect picture of this world in the wilderness. It shows every creature across the land arriving at Pride Rock at the dawn of a beautiful day, as the newly born Simba is embraced by his mother and father, blessed by Rafiki the monkey priest, and then raised up at the cliff, against the sun for all to see. And the massive crowd of animals bow to their future king. In the middle of this the Circle of Life plays, adding to the harmonious feel of this scene. This opening has such crisp and defined animation and imagery. Everything fits together perfectly. You really feel the atmosphere of this world. This is a Disney film at its finest. It is always just a pleasure to watch. It is amazing every time I see it. That's right people, The Lion King is my favorite opening thus far.
So those are my top ten film openings. I hope you've enjoyed them, and maybe after reading this you will be inspired to see some of these openings and the entire films for yourself. I assure you they are all very good. At least I think so, and I like to think I am guy with good taste when it comes to movies.
So this has been another top list from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
10. Citizen Kane
"Rosebud..." - Charles Foster Kane
Yeah, everyone remembers this one. I'm sure some would rank it higher, but it is so obvious that I think ranking it any higher than tenth place would be contributing to Citizen Kane's already monumental glory. What is considered to be the greatest movie of all time opens as the camera cycles through Kane Manor I guess. It is gloomy, dark, and lonely, just like it's inhabitant, who we will come to know as Newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane (played by writer/director/producer Orson Welles). We finally find Kane as an old man in his death bed. Clutching a snow globe in his hand, Kane utters his last word: "Rosebud..." and then dies. That last word is the macguffin for the entire movie. Though this choice is obvious, I still can't deny that this is an amazing opening. Citizen Kane is notorious for being a film way ahead of its time. In the opening we have an effective excess of superimposition, very well designed set pieces, great shadowy lighting, extreme closeups among many other unique camera angles, and extensive makeup for Orson Welles. So yes, Citizen Kane. Had to be on here.
9. The Shining
The opening of The Shining would seem pretty standard, being it is a tracking shot with the credits sliding along the screen, but with Stanley Kubrick directing, it becomes one that sticks with you. It is a serene, steady cam tracking shot that sweeps over a still lake and along a mountainside road. It follows a car overhead through in a mazelike fashion. Until we come upon the very majestic Overlook Hotel. And being it is a Stanley Kubrick movie, a straight horror movie to boot, their is an incredibly unsettling and ominous score playing throughout this opening. This opening is designed only to let you know we are going someplace we don't wanna go.
8. Goodfellas
"For as long as I could remember I always wanted to be a gangster..."
Martin Scorcese wastes no time when telling the violent story of the 1970s New York mafia. The highly acclaimed Goodfellas opens as three gangsters Henry (Ray Liotta), Jimmy (Robert De Niro), and Tommy (Joe Pesci) are riding in a car. They start to notice a noise coming from the back and pull over into a secluded area. Opening the trunk, we find a bloodied and bashed man on the inside begging for his life. Angered that the man is alive, Tommy viciously begins stabbing him with a butcher's knife, followed by Jimmy unloading a gun into his chest. After this, Henry, not as horrified as he should be, closes the trunk and begins his narration. This scene is the first minute of the movie.
7. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
"...They lived only to face a new nightmare. The war against the machines." - Sarah Conner
In the opening to one of the greatest action movies of all time, director James Cameron finds the right tones when depicting peace and stability in contrast to war and devastation. It shows simple shots of a sun baked Los Angeles, with cars in traffic, crowds of people crossing a busy street, and children laughing happily on a playground. But these images fade into blinding light until we are faced with the same images in the future. Los Angeles, and the world for all we know, is a dark wasteland of destruction. The traffic has halted altogether and the people in cars are charred skeletons. The streets are empty, the playground is empty. Sarah Conner, the hero from the previous Terminator and the mother of mankind's last hope, narrates as a battle breaks out between human survivors and Skynet's machine army, complete with a league of terminators. A scarred warrior emerges from a bunker and oversees the battle. John Conner, the leader of the resistance, Sarah's son. Sarah explains that the machines' attempted to once again kill John in the past, but that John again sent another soldier to protect his past self. After this a tracking shot of the city in flames is shown with the epic main theme playing until finally we focus on a burning terminator face staring into the screen. This whole opening gets the point across, we know we are in for a ride just here. Kudos to Cameron.
6. Halloween
"Michael's around some place," - Judith Myers
Following the haunting opening credits, the horror classic begins with a single take from the POV of the killer (inspired by Touch of Evil's opening scene). On Halloween night, he approaches toward a house and watches as a young girl makes out with her boyfriend. They quickly go upstairs and the killer makes his way inside the house as the lights go out. We see him grab a butcher's knife from the kitchen and hide in the shadows as the boyfriend leaves. He creeps upstairs, donning a clown mask. Then he stalks behind the oblivious naked girl. As soon as she sees him, embarrassed, he begins stabbing her, watching his hand go back and forth as he does it. She soon falls dead and he hastily makes his way downstairs and out of the house as a car pulls up at the house. Two confused adults get out and take the mask off of the killer. We see it is a six year old boy, he has just killed his sister. This boy is Michael Myers. I love this opening because it is so atmospheric and shadowy, it makes the audience the killer using the point of view camera effect. The scariest aspect however, of the whole movie in fact, is filmmaker John Carpenter's chilling score. It is the music that accompanies death in my opinion.
5. Every Coen Brothers movie I've seen
Okay so maybe I haven't seen every movie by Joel and Ethan Coen but the ones I have seen have some pretty great opening scenes. They are always scenes that get your attention immediately by any means. They are usually pretty funny or just kind of weird. Some open with actors with distinct voices narrating usually on top of landscape shots, rural or urban, or otherwise: M. Emmett Walsh's wise good ol' boy talk about the dog eat dog way of things as we get shots of Texan countryside in Blood Simple; Nicolas Cage's goofy monologue regarding how his repetitive and ill conceived criminal career led him to the love of his life as he keeps going back and forth out of jail in Raising Arizona; Sam Elliot's laid back introduction to "The Dude" as a tumbleweed travels into Los Angeles in The Big Lebowski; Tommy Lee Jones' haunting, quiet southern reminiscing of lawmen before his time and the violence he has seen during his own while the lethal villain is arrested (temporarily) in No Country for Old Men. Other times it is a standard scene that introduces most of the principal characters and their main problems: Jon Polito talking about "ethics" while Albert Finney gives him "the high hat" in Miller's Crossing; John Turtorro as egotistical and neurotic Barton watching his play anxiously at the beginning of Barton Fink; William H. Macy discussing the plan to kidnap his wife with criminals Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare in Fargo; George Clooney, John Turtorro, and Tim Blake Nelson arguing after escaping from the chain gang in O' Brother, Where Art Thou; John Malkovich being fired by the CIA in Burn After Reading. Or there is A Serious Man which opens with what seems like a random scene: an early 20th century Jewish husband and wife in Poland are greeted by what the wife believes is a shapeshifting Jewish demon, but it turns out it is a demon, and it leaves after wifey attacks it. What the hell was that about? I have a theory but won't get into it now. The point is from what I've seen so far, the Coen Brothers' movies have always had great openings. And that's fitting because I think just about every Coen Brothers' movie I've seen is a masterpiece. I recommend watching every one I talked about.
4. Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."
Of course this is on here. It's Star Wars! The first movie opens in space of course with that always epic John Williams theme and that crawling yellow summary that I never paid attention to but always loved. Once the summary is over and the music fades out, we are faced with a ship being attacked by an Imperial vessel. The ship is boarded and the guards have a shootout with the Stormtroopers. At the same time droid C-3PO is becoming hysterical, while his partner R2-D2 records a message from Princess Leia to Obi Wan Kenobi. The droids stow away in an escape pod and launch themselves out to the nearby planet of Tatooine as Darth Vader strides on board and seizes control. This opening was a sci fi fan's delight. It is just iconic in every way. I don't think there is a moment of it I don't remember. It is just awesome and incredibly memorable.
3. Jaws
"Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun DUN, dun DUN!!!" - John Williams' danger music
Jaws opens as any good horror movie should. It introduces a cute guy and girl, sets a calm and sexy mood, one that puts us the audience at ease. They meet at a beachside bonfire, and he follows her off to the water. She strips down and dives in, while he passes out drunk. Once she is far out, we get a POV shot of course (because what could be scarier) from below as something watches her legs dangling in the water. Then that John Williams score kicks in and we know we are in trouble. Now the really cool thing about this scene, the only thing we see is the girl and her reaction to what happens. Soon her tranquility is shattered as she is abruptly yanked under water again and again. She is then violently dragged back and forth screaming. It keeps pulling and pulling until finally she goes underneath one last time, her screams for help drowning out. That is how you open your freaking movie. With one of the scariest scenes ever. We feel just as confused, shocked, and terrified as the girl. Steven Spielberg say hello to your very long career.
2. Reservoir Dogs
"You see this? This is the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses." - Mr. Pink
Now it was between this and Pulp Fiction, both diner scenes in Tarantino movies, but I went this one because I think it is much more inventive. Reservoir Dogs opens with a bunch of guys sat around a table in an LA coffee shop. They all look like tough guys too. Most of them wear black suits you'd see gangsters wear in a Hong Kong movie. A few of them have concealed guns. Reservoir Dogs, a movie renowned for it's violence and vulgarity, opens with these guys just having regular conversations. It starts off with Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino, also writer-director) explaining how he thinks Madonna's song "Like a Virgin" is a metaphor for big dicks, which stirs up various other thoughts on Madonna and music; Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker) says he liked "Borderline." After that Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) expresses his frustration at his boss Joe (Lawrence Tierney) mumbling a bunch of names from an old address book, which White takes. When they are about to leave, Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) won't pitch in for the tip because he "doesn't believe in tipping" unless the waitress "really puts forth the effort." Everyone gets into a political arguement against Pink, whose further monologue on minimum wage and work is hilarious. Pink finally tips when Joe orders him to. They all leave and a cool slow motion shot ensues as the group walks to their cars. What a great way to open this movie. It really is an example of Tarantino's filmmaking chops (and this was his first film). What really punctuates this scene is the fact that the next shows Mr. White driving a getaway car, while Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) bleeds and screams from a gunshot wound in the backseat. It is just very naturalistic and effective. It misleads in a good way.
1. The Lion King
"Nants ingoyama bagithi baba (There comes a lion)" - Circle of Life lyrics
Honestly, yes it is indeed The Lion King. Few movies open so beautifully, so majestically. It really paints the perfect picture of this world in the wilderness. It shows every creature across the land arriving at Pride Rock at the dawn of a beautiful day, as the newly born Simba is embraced by his mother and father, blessed by Rafiki the monkey priest, and then raised up at the cliff, against the sun for all to see. And the massive crowd of animals bow to their future king. In the middle of this the Circle of Life plays, adding to the harmonious feel of this scene. This opening has such crisp and defined animation and imagery. Everything fits together perfectly. You really feel the atmosphere of this world. This is a Disney film at its finest. It is always just a pleasure to watch. It is amazing every time I see it. That's right people, The Lion King is my favorite opening thus far.
So those are my top ten film openings. I hope you've enjoyed them, and maybe after reading this you will be inspired to see some of these openings and the entire films for yourself. I assure you they are all very good. At least I think so, and I like to think I am guy with good taste when it comes to movies.
So this has been another top list from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Lost Review
"Everything happens for a reason."
POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Though I'll try to keep it to a minimum, being it is a review)
Okay, I've finally decided to settle down and try to write the review, instead of stalling with more analysis' and theories. Once this is finished, there will be no more Lost related posts (though you can almost guarentee I will continue referencing it a lot). I hope this flies by rather quickly, seeing as how I'm combining two things I love writing about: Lost and reviews. Now I'm going in depth on the saga I dedicated three years of my television experience for. I will tell you all what I loved about it and why I think it is so great, and at the same time I will try not to gush too much and make this as standard a review as possible. So, without further introduction, let's get lost.
The story of Lost begins in 2004, when Oceanic Flight 815 crashes on what appears to be a deserted island while flying from Sydney to Los Angeles. Around fifty passengers survive the crash and soon realize that rescue is not coming. While a battle against nature is inevitable, it quickly becomes apparent to the castaways that there are other forces at work on The Island. Tensions rise as the castaways begin to reluctantly unlock the mystery of The Island, ponder who they are at heart, discover what dangers lie in their surroundings, and face trials they could never even imagine. In the middle of this story, the haunted pasts of the primary castaways are explored through flashbacks, revealing hidden natures and flaws in their personalities that could reflect or influence their present troubles. All of this makes for an engrossing, intense, and amazing story.
While the concept was not unfamiliar to television audiences, filmmaker J.J. Abrams (who had great success with the Alias series beforehand) brought Lost (originally titled Nowhere) to its eventual starting point. Shortly after, writer-producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse took over as the show's primary creative team. And this team took the original idea for the story -- "Cast Away" meets "Survivor" meets "Gilligan's Island" -- and took it to levels beyond all three. Many people think that the creators had no idea where the story was heading and were just making it up as they go along, but cryptic scenes in the beginning suggest there was plan from the beginning. As the mystery is uncovered, the show is allowed to evolve more and more and thus so are the characters. I really love how Lost is a show that doesn't have one particular genre. It can be just as hilarious as it can be dramatic. Season 1 is more than anything a drama, which is what I basically categorize the series as, even moreso than mystery. Season 2 was more of a psychological drama. Season 3 a bit of a conspiracy thriller. Season 4 was like an action adventure. Season 5 total science fiction adventure. Season 6 was undoubtedly a supernatural drama. And it maintains all of these genres throughout the entire series with an almost always balanced level of suspense. So really I am not lying when I say Lost has everything to keep a person interested. The show's primary themes are classic: redemption, destiny, coexistence, self discovery, love. The storytellers can also be thanked for making a story that contains a crazy Island, polar bears, a Monster, long lost scientific experiments, hostile natives, gunbattles, fistfights, explosions, and love triangles and have it be so character driven. If the gallery of strange plot points on this show don't keep people watching, the unique, multi-dimensional, and extremely well developed characters will. So yes, the writing aspect is beloved by me more than anything because it is always brilliant (yes, even the pointless Nikki and Paulo episode, it did have Billy Dee Williams...as himself).
Many shows have a big story that a group of main characters revolve around. Lost is a show that has a group of main characters the big story revolves around, and that is why it is so good. With all of the mysteries that are thrown at us, the real mysteries are the characters, their pasts and their futures. While every episode focuses on one character in particular, there is still time to peak in and out of the lives of everyone else. So we get a lot of development along side warm ups for even more development. That must have been an attractive idea for the cast, having really compelling and fleshed out roles. The acting is one of the shows most extraordinary aspects. It goes without saying that Lost probably would have sucked had it not had such great acting. When I started watching Lost the only actors I knew right off were Harold Perrineau who played Michael and Dominic Monaghan who played Charlie, but as I kept watching I realized that I'd seen just about every one of them somewhere before, and even more recognizable people show up later on in guest roles or otherwise. I'd be writing all day if I went through every one of the great performances on the show. I can say that no matter what incredible things happen, the cast always bring out moments of true heart and sincerity in their characters. As far as ensemble acting goes, Lost is some of the best I've ever seen.
Now for the technical detail. I will get the CGI area out of the way. For the instances CGI has appeared on Lost, it has been pretty hit and miss. In some areas such as the Monster and The Wheel, the effects are pretty simple but very convincing at the same time. Other moments look a little cartoonish, but don't take anything away from the moments. As far as any other special effects go, the rest are great. I love how makeup was always consistant: Ben was beaten to a pulp around the middle of season 5 and remained bruised until the end of season 6, which seemed like a two week period in the show's time. Lost is pretty consistant in regards to most things. The set designs are always interesting. I loved The Swan Hatch interior of season 2 and The Temple of season 6. All of the sets capture the feel they are supposed to and are convincing due to that, especially the castaways' camp. The main and most pivotal location is the Island, which is actually the Hawaiian island of Oahu, which is utilized amazingly to make up the very intricate world of Lost. Even more impressive than that is how Honolulu and other locations in Hawaii is used to place characters in locations all around the world, including Los Angeles, London, Iraq, Miami, Nigeria, South Korea, and of course Austrailia. With the number of locations, the Island being the most beautiful of all, a door is opened for great cinematography. I don't think I'm alone when I say Lost is a show that is breathtaking to look at; some visuals could belong in National Geographic. Aside from a few CG hiccups, Lost's technical detail is just as top notch as the others.
In my closing words, I will say this review does not do the show any justice. Even though it may sound like I think so, I will have to admit that this show won't be for everyone. I know some people who just can't follow it, or find it too confusing (yeah right, try watching The Wire). Others claim to want to watch the show just to figure out the mind bending mysteries. Telling as little as possible about the ending, I will only say what I always say. When it comes to the ending, you are gonna have to decide for yourself why you are watching Lost: for the mysteries or the characters. Some people may feel it is a cheat, others may feel it is very moving. Or both. I don't know. All I know is I loved every minute of it. It is a show I highly recommend, if you couldn't already tell.
Farewell Lost. At least until I rewatch the series after awhile. Which I absolutely will.
This has been a mission accomplished from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Though I'll try to keep it to a minimum, being it is a review)
Okay, I've finally decided to settle down and try to write the review, instead of stalling with more analysis' and theories. Once this is finished, there will be no more Lost related posts (though you can almost guarentee I will continue referencing it a lot). I hope this flies by rather quickly, seeing as how I'm combining two things I love writing about: Lost and reviews. Now I'm going in depth on the saga I dedicated three years of my television experience for. I will tell you all what I loved about it and why I think it is so great, and at the same time I will try not to gush too much and make this as standard a review as possible. So, without further introduction, let's get lost.
The story of Lost begins in 2004, when Oceanic Flight 815 crashes on what appears to be a deserted island while flying from Sydney to Los Angeles. Around fifty passengers survive the crash and soon realize that rescue is not coming. While a battle against nature is inevitable, it quickly becomes apparent to the castaways that there are other forces at work on The Island. Tensions rise as the castaways begin to reluctantly unlock the mystery of The Island, ponder who they are at heart, discover what dangers lie in their surroundings, and face trials they could never even imagine. In the middle of this story, the haunted pasts of the primary castaways are explored through flashbacks, revealing hidden natures and flaws in their personalities that could reflect or influence their present troubles. All of this makes for an engrossing, intense, and amazing story.
While the concept was not unfamiliar to television audiences, filmmaker J.J. Abrams (who had great success with the Alias series beforehand) brought Lost (originally titled Nowhere) to its eventual starting point. Shortly after, writer-producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse took over as the show's primary creative team. And this team took the original idea for the story -- "Cast Away" meets "Survivor" meets "Gilligan's Island" -- and took it to levels beyond all three. Many people think that the creators had no idea where the story was heading and were just making it up as they go along, but cryptic scenes in the beginning suggest there was plan from the beginning. As the mystery is uncovered, the show is allowed to evolve more and more and thus so are the characters. I really love how Lost is a show that doesn't have one particular genre. It can be just as hilarious as it can be dramatic. Season 1 is more than anything a drama, which is what I basically categorize the series as, even moreso than mystery. Season 2 was more of a psychological drama. Season 3 a bit of a conspiracy thriller. Season 4 was like an action adventure. Season 5 total science fiction adventure. Season 6 was undoubtedly a supernatural drama. And it maintains all of these genres throughout the entire series with an almost always balanced level of suspense. So really I am not lying when I say Lost has everything to keep a person interested. The show's primary themes are classic: redemption, destiny, coexistence, self discovery, love. The storytellers can also be thanked for making a story that contains a crazy Island, polar bears, a Monster, long lost scientific experiments, hostile natives, gunbattles, fistfights, explosions, and love triangles and have it be so character driven. If the gallery of strange plot points on this show don't keep people watching, the unique, multi-dimensional, and extremely well developed characters will. So yes, the writing aspect is beloved by me more than anything because it is always brilliant (yes, even the pointless Nikki and Paulo episode, it did have Billy Dee Williams...as himself).
Many shows have a big story that a group of main characters revolve around. Lost is a show that has a group of main characters the big story revolves around, and that is why it is so good. With all of the mysteries that are thrown at us, the real mysteries are the characters, their pasts and their futures. While every episode focuses on one character in particular, there is still time to peak in and out of the lives of everyone else. So we get a lot of development along side warm ups for even more development. That must have been an attractive idea for the cast, having really compelling and fleshed out roles. The acting is one of the shows most extraordinary aspects. It goes without saying that Lost probably would have sucked had it not had such great acting. When I started watching Lost the only actors I knew right off were Harold Perrineau who played Michael and Dominic Monaghan who played Charlie, but as I kept watching I realized that I'd seen just about every one of them somewhere before, and even more recognizable people show up later on in guest roles or otherwise. I'd be writing all day if I went through every one of the great performances on the show. I can say that no matter what incredible things happen, the cast always bring out moments of true heart and sincerity in their characters. As far as ensemble acting goes, Lost is some of the best I've ever seen.
Now for the technical detail. I will get the CGI area out of the way. For the instances CGI has appeared on Lost, it has been pretty hit and miss. In some areas such as the Monster and The Wheel, the effects are pretty simple but very convincing at the same time. Other moments look a little cartoonish, but don't take anything away from the moments. As far as any other special effects go, the rest are great. I love how makeup was always consistant: Ben was beaten to a pulp around the middle of season 5 and remained bruised until the end of season 6, which seemed like a two week period in the show's time. Lost is pretty consistant in regards to most things. The set designs are always interesting. I loved The Swan Hatch interior of season 2 and The Temple of season 6. All of the sets capture the feel they are supposed to and are convincing due to that, especially the castaways' camp. The main and most pivotal location is the Island, which is actually the Hawaiian island of Oahu, which is utilized amazingly to make up the very intricate world of Lost. Even more impressive than that is how Honolulu and other locations in Hawaii is used to place characters in locations all around the world, including Los Angeles, London, Iraq, Miami, Nigeria, South Korea, and of course Austrailia. With the number of locations, the Island being the most beautiful of all, a door is opened for great cinematography. I don't think I'm alone when I say Lost is a show that is breathtaking to look at; some visuals could belong in National Geographic. Aside from a few CG hiccups, Lost's technical detail is just as top notch as the others.
In my closing words, I will say this review does not do the show any justice. Even though it may sound like I think so, I will have to admit that this show won't be for everyone. I know some people who just can't follow it, or find it too confusing (yeah right, try watching The Wire). Others claim to want to watch the show just to figure out the mind bending mysteries. Telling as little as possible about the ending, I will only say what I always say. When it comes to the ending, you are gonna have to decide for yourself why you are watching Lost: for the mysteries or the characters. Some people may feel it is a cheat, others may feel it is very moving. Or both. I don't know. All I know is I loved every minute of it. It is a show I highly recommend, if you couldn't already tell.
Farewell Lost. At least until I rewatch the series after awhile. Which I absolutely will.
This has been a mission accomplished from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Lost: Mother what have you done
"Every question I answer will simply lead to another question." - 'Mother', basically summing up Lost
SPOILERS (In fact everything on my blog Lost related needs a spoiler warning; so for you readers who start reading Lost stuff and don't watch Lost, just keep the Spoiler warning in mind)
A recurring element on Lost is that the majority of the characters have bad fathers. Jack's/Claire's dad: a cold alcoholic/adulterer; Kate's dad: an abusive drunk; Sawyer's dad: suicide case; Hurley's dad: ran out on his family (but made amends); Sun's dad: crime lord; Sayid's dad: proud, agressive and unsymapthetic; Ben's dad: abusive drunk; Penny and Daniel's dad: Charles Widmore, nuff said; Locke's dad: yeah, that's pretty much all you need to say. I think the only ones who had good dads were Charlie and Jin. But no one really ever looks at the mothers. Plenty of characters had mother issues. Jack's mom: estranged and blames Jack for what happened to dad; Kate's mom: betrays her for murdering her abusive husband; Sawyer's mom: adulterer; Jin's mom: blackmails her own son's wife; Locke's mom: insane; Ben's mom: dead; Daniel's mom: led Daniel to his death by her own hand; Boone's mom/Shannon's stepmom: selfish bitch. So there are a helluva lot of mother issues too. Almost enough to match the number of father issues. I'm surprised mother issues aren't referenced as much, considering the most important actions of the show's two most enigmatic characters are inspired by their own mother issues. Issues that shaped them into the men that would cause all of things that happen on the show to happen. I am of course talking about Jacob and The Man in Black's Mother.
Though 'Across the Sea' was not an overly compelling answer episode, or Lost episode for that matter, I was still very intrigued by the lives of the two boys who would become the two men behind everything that happens. But even more interesting was the woman who raised them, the woman who claimed to be their 'Mother.' Over (what most estimate as) two thousand years ago, Mother was the current Protector of The Island. She found a pregnant woman stranded on The Island. After helping the woman deliver her two sons, Mother killed her and raised the boys as her own. Then of course as a kid, the very curious Man in Black (The Boy in Black, if you will) was guided by the spirit of his real mother to mistrust Mother and try to side with the other stranded people on The Island. Eventually The Man in Black was able to figure out how to get off of the Island, but when he did Mother destroyed his means of escape and killed his entire castaway camp. This led him to kill Mother in a fit of rage. All of this could have flown easily together if it hadn't been for Mother's last words to her prodigal son: "Thank you..."
That last line made me wonder if everything that happened to Jacob and The Man in Black since childhood was according to plan. Mother's plan. When Jacob was born, Mother was happy mainly because she has found a successor to protect The Island. She looked a little unsettled though when the second baby came. I think after that she had a different plan for him. I think maybe her plan for The Man in Black was to drive him to kill her. Why? Because I think she was the first Smoke Monster. Whenever Mother talked about The Heart of The Island, she had a bittersweet way about her. When she said what happens to those who go into the Heart is "worse than death" it seemed like she was speaking from experience. Also, I agree with others when I say that it does strike me as a little odd that one middle age stuck woman could sink in an entire well, destroy a village, and kill dozens of able bodied men singlehandedly. Compare the aftermath of The Man in Black's massacre at The Temple in "Sundown" with Mother's village massacre and it looks exactly the same. Also, being Protector of The Island can make you immortal and powerful but certainly not invincible, both Jacob and Jack were skilled fighters but they were both killed very easily. After Mother slaughtered the villagers, she didn't look like she had even been scratched, or even broken a sweat. She was a Smoke Monster. Of course my theory is kind of nullified by the fact that a Smoke Monster cannot be killed by a simple knife through the heart. Maybe there were different rules back then.
Anyway, yes I think Mother's plan for The Man in Black all along was to manipulate his feelings until he eventually ended her life. She knew Jacob was too good natured to ever do it, and plus he was the obvious choice to be Protector. It started out with little things like using the Senet game box to peak his interest about places beyond the sea and encouraging questionable behavior such as lying. Phase two, Mother appeared in the form of MIB's real mother to make him completely mistrust and even hate her. Finally the opportunity arose to send MIB over the deep end when he found a way off the Island and she totally ruined it. After that, she quickly gave Jacob his Protector inaugeration just before the other son came back to get revenge. I do believe she wouldn't let The Man in Black leave because she loved him, but she was also tired and I imagine being an immortal monster would become a heavy burden after awhile. I think she loved Jacob and The Man in Black very much, but as it has been proven before, by Jacob and then in the future with Ben, that when it comes to the Island some people are willing to sacrifice everything, even love. Oh to be a Protector of The Island. Although I don't think Hurley will stand for things like that to happen. Not in a million years. He had a good mother.
This has been another of and one of my last Lost analysis' from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
SPOILERS (In fact everything on my blog Lost related needs a spoiler warning; so for you readers who start reading Lost stuff and don't watch Lost, just keep the Spoiler warning in mind)
A recurring element on Lost is that the majority of the characters have bad fathers. Jack's/Claire's dad: a cold alcoholic/adulterer; Kate's dad: an abusive drunk; Sawyer's dad: suicide case; Hurley's dad: ran out on his family (but made amends); Sun's dad: crime lord; Sayid's dad: proud, agressive and unsymapthetic; Ben's dad: abusive drunk; Penny and Daniel's dad: Charles Widmore, nuff said; Locke's dad: yeah, that's pretty much all you need to say. I think the only ones who had good dads were Charlie and Jin. But no one really ever looks at the mothers. Plenty of characters had mother issues. Jack's mom: estranged and blames Jack for what happened to dad; Kate's mom: betrays her for murdering her abusive husband; Sawyer's mom: adulterer; Jin's mom: blackmails her own son's wife; Locke's mom: insane; Ben's mom: dead; Daniel's mom: led Daniel to his death by her own hand; Boone's mom/Shannon's stepmom: selfish bitch. So there are a helluva lot of mother issues too. Almost enough to match the number of father issues. I'm surprised mother issues aren't referenced as much, considering the most important actions of the show's two most enigmatic characters are inspired by their own mother issues. Issues that shaped them into the men that would cause all of things that happen on the show to happen. I am of course talking about Jacob and The Man in Black's Mother.
Though 'Across the Sea' was not an overly compelling answer episode, or Lost episode for that matter, I was still very intrigued by the lives of the two boys who would become the two men behind everything that happens. But even more interesting was the woman who raised them, the woman who claimed to be their 'Mother.' Over (what most estimate as) two thousand years ago, Mother was the current Protector of The Island. She found a pregnant woman stranded on The Island. After helping the woman deliver her two sons, Mother killed her and raised the boys as her own. Then of course as a kid, the very curious Man in Black (The Boy in Black, if you will) was guided by the spirit of his real mother to mistrust Mother and try to side with the other stranded people on The Island. Eventually The Man in Black was able to figure out how to get off of the Island, but when he did Mother destroyed his means of escape and killed his entire castaway camp. This led him to kill Mother in a fit of rage. All of this could have flown easily together if it hadn't been for Mother's last words to her prodigal son: "Thank you..."
That last line made me wonder if everything that happened to Jacob and The Man in Black since childhood was according to plan. Mother's plan. When Jacob was born, Mother was happy mainly because she has found a successor to protect The Island. She looked a little unsettled though when the second baby came. I think after that she had a different plan for him. I think maybe her plan for The Man in Black was to drive him to kill her. Why? Because I think she was the first Smoke Monster. Whenever Mother talked about The Heart of The Island, she had a bittersweet way about her. When she said what happens to those who go into the Heart is "worse than death" it seemed like she was speaking from experience. Also, I agree with others when I say that it does strike me as a little odd that one middle age stuck woman could sink in an entire well, destroy a village, and kill dozens of able bodied men singlehandedly. Compare the aftermath of The Man in Black's massacre at The Temple in "Sundown" with Mother's village massacre and it looks exactly the same. Also, being Protector of The Island can make you immortal and powerful but certainly not invincible, both Jacob and Jack were skilled fighters but they were both killed very easily. After Mother slaughtered the villagers, she didn't look like she had even been scratched, or even broken a sweat. She was a Smoke Monster. Of course my theory is kind of nullified by the fact that a Smoke Monster cannot be killed by a simple knife through the heart. Maybe there were different rules back then.
Anyway, yes I think Mother's plan for The Man in Black all along was to manipulate his feelings until he eventually ended her life. She knew Jacob was too good natured to ever do it, and plus he was the obvious choice to be Protector. It started out with little things like using the Senet game box to peak his interest about places beyond the sea and encouraging questionable behavior such as lying. Phase two, Mother appeared in the form of MIB's real mother to make him completely mistrust and even hate her. Finally the opportunity arose to send MIB over the deep end when he found a way off the Island and she totally ruined it. After that, she quickly gave Jacob his Protector inaugeration just before the other son came back to get revenge. I do believe she wouldn't let The Man in Black leave because she loved him, but she was also tired and I imagine being an immortal monster would become a heavy burden after awhile. I think she loved Jacob and The Man in Black very much, but as it has been proven before, by Jacob and then in the future with Ben, that when it comes to the Island some people are willing to sacrifice everything, even love. Oh to be a Protector of The Island. Although I don't think Hurley will stand for things like that to happen. Not in a million years. He had a good mother.
This has been another of and one of my last Lost analysis' from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Lost: Black Smoke = Demon?
"It's very unseemly, making deals with devils." - Azazel (The Yellow Eyed Demon)
Okay this is far off and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed, that is if you are a fan of both shows, but did anyone else catch the fact that the foot soldiers of hell in the show Supernatural bare a striking resemblence to the mystical form of Lost's main antagonist. I mean both the demons' and The Man in Black's true form is a cloud of black smoke (with the occasional flare of light from within. Coincidence? Maybe not.
There has for a long time been spectulation that a show like Lost could exist in the universe of other shows. Some have thought it was Heroes, but I think given Lost's very spiritual and mystical traits Supernatural would be more likely. Going back to the black smoke connection, I started to wonder if all The Man in Black really was was a powerful demon, some kind of anomaly who could function not by possessing a human host but by shaping himself in the appearance of the dead. I mean he really does fit the profile. He was manipulative, sadistic, organized, and very evil. And with his level of power he was practically up to par with The Yellow Eyed Demon. And sure the castaways didn't have Ruby's demon slaying dagger or The Colt, but remember The Man in Black's main problem was that he was unable to leave The Island. I don't think all Jacob had to do to make that so was just say "it's the rules, brother" and that would be that. Think about it, Hunters commonly use what is called a "devil's trap" to keep demons locked in or out of a certain area (an area that could range between the trunk of Dean's Impala or half a freaking state). Maybe Jacob set in place a devil's trap around The Island, insuring his brother would never escape. And remember no one ever said what would happen if The Man in Black left, neither Jacob or MIB himself. The most we got were really omnious but vague responses: "If he escapes it's over, everything is over", "If he escapes then this all ends very badly." And given that we know how much he absolutely despised humanity even before his possible demonizing, it's not wrong to theorize that maybe The Man in Black was going to try to help Azazel and Lilith bring about The Apocalypse. Maybe? Maybe not.
Come to think of it, a lot of things on Supernatural can be related back to Lost. Walt being special: maybe he's like Sam, mixed with a little demon blood as an infant (we really don't know what was happening to him while his mom took him all over the world). Let's not forget the spirits and "Jacob's" cabin. Hurley and Miles are both spirit mediums for some reason. The light at the center of the Island is the source of human essence but turned The Man in Black into a monster/demon: could be some kind of strange Door to Hell, like a gateway that is both the source of Lucifer's corruption and God's energy? Maybe the entire Island is the link between heaven and hell? Maybe if Lost is the mystery, then Supernatural is the explanation? Maybe I think way too much about this stuff? Yeah, that's probably it.
Still thinking about it now, these are some cool possibilities. Still if all of these explanations are possible, I don't think I'd wanna know. Once again, I am one of those weird people who didn't care that they didn't answer the important questions in the end. I loved Lost because it was mysterious and secretive. And really the most important question for me was what was going to happen to the characters on the show. Persons Unknown has a pretty mind boggling mystery, but it is also a pretty lame show because the characters are mostly bland, unconvincing, or uninteresting. Lost is over now, I still feel the same way about it and I don't imagine those feelings are gonna change any time soon. But Supernatural is still on so I'm gonna see that adventure through to the end as well. I don't think I'll be disappointed. And for readers who have not seen either of these shows, I urge you to watch them.
This has been a very late Lost analysis from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Okay this is far off and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed, that is if you are a fan of both shows, but did anyone else catch the fact that the foot soldiers of hell in the show Supernatural bare a striking resemblence to the mystical form of Lost's main antagonist. I mean both the demons' and The Man in Black's true form is a cloud of black smoke (with the occasional flare of light from within. Coincidence? Maybe not.
There has for a long time been spectulation that a show like Lost could exist in the universe of other shows. Some have thought it was Heroes, but I think given Lost's very spiritual and mystical traits Supernatural would be more likely. Going back to the black smoke connection, I started to wonder if all The Man in Black really was was a powerful demon, some kind of anomaly who could function not by possessing a human host but by shaping himself in the appearance of the dead. I mean he really does fit the profile. He was manipulative, sadistic, organized, and very evil. And with his level of power he was practically up to par with The Yellow Eyed Demon. And sure the castaways didn't have Ruby's demon slaying dagger or The Colt, but remember The Man in Black's main problem was that he was unable to leave The Island. I don't think all Jacob had to do to make that so was just say "it's the rules, brother" and that would be that. Think about it, Hunters commonly use what is called a "devil's trap" to keep demons locked in or out of a certain area (an area that could range between the trunk of Dean's Impala or half a freaking state). Maybe Jacob set in place a devil's trap around The Island, insuring his brother would never escape. And remember no one ever said what would happen if The Man in Black left, neither Jacob or MIB himself. The most we got were really omnious but vague responses: "If he escapes it's over, everything is over", "If he escapes then this all ends very badly." And given that we know how much he absolutely despised humanity even before his possible demonizing, it's not wrong to theorize that maybe The Man in Black was going to try to help Azazel and Lilith bring about The Apocalypse. Maybe? Maybe not.
Come to think of it, a lot of things on Supernatural can be related back to Lost. Walt being special: maybe he's like Sam, mixed with a little demon blood as an infant (we really don't know what was happening to him while his mom took him all over the world). Let's not forget the spirits and "Jacob's" cabin. Hurley and Miles are both spirit mediums for some reason. The light at the center of the Island is the source of human essence but turned The Man in Black into a monster/demon: could be some kind of strange Door to Hell, like a gateway that is both the source of Lucifer's corruption and God's energy? Maybe the entire Island is the link between heaven and hell? Maybe if Lost is the mystery, then Supernatural is the explanation? Maybe I think way too much about this stuff? Yeah, that's probably it.
Still thinking about it now, these are some cool possibilities. Still if all of these explanations are possible, I don't think I'd wanna know. Once again, I am one of those weird people who didn't care that they didn't answer the important questions in the end. I loved Lost because it was mysterious and secretive. And really the most important question for me was what was going to happen to the characters on the show. Persons Unknown has a pretty mind boggling mystery, but it is also a pretty lame show because the characters are mostly bland, unconvincing, or uninteresting. Lost is over now, I still feel the same way about it and I don't imagine those feelings are gonna change any time soon. But Supernatural is still on so I'm gonna see that adventure through to the end as well. I don't think I'll be disappointed. And for readers who have not seen either of these shows, I urge you to watch them.
This has been a very late Lost analysis from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Cyrus Review
"John met the woman of his dreams...Then he met her son..."
Okay, so I sort of didn't plan on seeing this movie, like ever. Still even with that in mind I thought promos for the film made it look interesting and funny. Yes, even things that I'm fairly certain will appeal to me remain undiscovered by me as of yet. But fortunately I went to the movies with my dad and he wanted to see Cyrus. I figured why not, I mean what else was I gonna see? Cats and Dogs 2: The Revenge of Kitty Galore? I think not, not for me. But I did see Cyrus, and here's my review.
Now going in, I already knew this had "independant filmmaker" written all over it. I was right it is a pretty independant movie. It also looked pretty funny, a darkly kind that I am attracted to, and also disturbing. Like a Cable Guy kind of feel, but not that tense and unnerving. The story deals with a man named John (played by John C. Reilly) who goes to a party to meet a girl at the urging of his ex-wife (Catherine Keener). Just when things seem hopeless for John, he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) a sweet, funny, and attractive woman and they hit it off. In just a very short time things seem to be going great, then there's the but. Molly has a son named Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who remains in her home and universally babied despite the fact that he is 21 years old. Though he seems welcoming and polite at first, John gradually becomes aware of Cyrus' true intentions: Cyrus wants John out of their lives, fearing he will ruin the tight mother-son bond he's maintained over the years. So ensues some rather realistic emotional warfare for the love of a woman.
The story is kind of classic. Someone falls for someone else, someone else's child doesn't like someone, they quarrel. It usually paints the guy trying to get with the girl with child as the villain, but here the child is the villain of sorts, who is also not really even a child. The movie is written and directed by Jay and Mark Duplass, indie filmmakers whose last film Baghead (which I have not seen) was met with Reservoir Dogs-like reviews: "It's good, but you have potential to do better." I guess this is their better. It's a good film, indeed. The writing features realistic people acting out a movie cliche in a realistic way. Cyrus is a movie filled with awkward moments, but whereas some movies may seriously overplay the awkwardness to the point where it is almost unbelievable, this one does it so it feels like something that could happen. Whether it's being in the presence of the shifty young Cyrus or the party in the beginning, it is all very uncomfortable. With the heavy realism in the picture, it also means that the movie isn't the comedy of the summer. It is more of a drama after all. Still it is good movie to see and when you are meant to laugh, you will laugh. It's smart with it's dark humour, but not so much that it might go over some viewers' heads.
My favorite part of the movie was the acting and the cast was perfect here. It's good when a very small cast of characters can generate such power and energy in a movie. They are all believable in their roles too. John C. Reilly, an actor who looks funny and is funny, pulls off the character of John with utter sincerity and confusion, he makes him a strong and loving person who may not want to notice his rival is a "rival" but will do battle when he accepts it. I was glad to see Marisa Tomei play a lovely woman with a good relationship, her last few roles have had her playing the sexy lover of men who don't know how to be with her (Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead; Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler). You have a lot of sympathy for her because she needs a good man like John and deserves to be happy as much as he does, but wish she wasn't blind to what her son does to keep her from getting what she wants. Jonah Hill was what really surprised me here. Too many times has this guy been recycled through different movies as the fat, bitchy, curly haired, mini Rogen after Superbad. It was pretty annoying in Superbad, and even more irritating after the other movies he starred in after that featured him as the same guy. But here he is different. He's clean cut, neatly dressed, intelligent, and seemingly nice. This adds not only to his acting credibility, but the manipulative, creepy nature of Cyrus. It amazed me that this guy could go from being the whining Cartman-esque character to the cunning Benjamin Linus type. Though there were moments where I thought the Cyrus character could have been the love child of Mark David Chapman and 70s Patty Hearst, he was still as well-developed and realistic a character as the others. A character that was pretty genuine. So yes, Jonah Hill keep choosing different roles like this one, don't allow yourself to be typecasted. Also Catherine Keener is always great to see. Here's another actress who plays a woman with at least one bad experience with someone (40-Year Old Virgin; Being John Malkovich; Synechdoche, New York), but still she was a nice, sweet person here and I'm glad her character's relationship with Reilly's was a friendly one. Acting gets an A-Plus.
Cyrus will certainly not be for everyone. Some people out there will see John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill and the jokes in the trailers and immediately think this will be Step Brothers meets Superbad. They will be wrong. For people who just enjoy various kinds of movies, this will be for you. I recommend it because it's the kind of movie I like, and if you read my blog you should know what kind of person I am. If you are like me you will probably enjoy this movie. If not, then I'm sorry I led you astray. Either way Cyrus was a clever, involving, and very discomforting (in a fun kind of way) movie. That's all I've got to say about it.
This has been an August review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Okay, so I sort of didn't plan on seeing this movie, like ever. Still even with that in mind I thought promos for the film made it look interesting and funny. Yes, even things that I'm fairly certain will appeal to me remain undiscovered by me as of yet. But fortunately I went to the movies with my dad and he wanted to see Cyrus. I figured why not, I mean what else was I gonna see? Cats and Dogs 2: The Revenge of Kitty Galore? I think not, not for me. But I did see Cyrus, and here's my review.
Now going in, I already knew this had "independant filmmaker" written all over it. I was right it is a pretty independant movie. It also looked pretty funny, a darkly kind that I am attracted to, and also disturbing. Like a Cable Guy kind of feel, but not that tense and unnerving. The story deals with a man named John (played by John C. Reilly) who goes to a party to meet a girl at the urging of his ex-wife (Catherine Keener). Just when things seem hopeless for John, he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) a sweet, funny, and attractive woman and they hit it off. In just a very short time things seem to be going great, then there's the but. Molly has a son named Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who remains in her home and universally babied despite the fact that he is 21 years old. Though he seems welcoming and polite at first, John gradually becomes aware of Cyrus' true intentions: Cyrus wants John out of their lives, fearing he will ruin the tight mother-son bond he's maintained over the years. So ensues some rather realistic emotional warfare for the love of a woman.
The story is kind of classic. Someone falls for someone else, someone else's child doesn't like someone, they quarrel. It usually paints the guy trying to get with the girl with child as the villain, but here the child is the villain of sorts, who is also not really even a child. The movie is written and directed by Jay and Mark Duplass, indie filmmakers whose last film Baghead (which I have not seen) was met with Reservoir Dogs-like reviews: "It's good, but you have potential to do better." I guess this is their better. It's a good film, indeed. The writing features realistic people acting out a movie cliche in a realistic way. Cyrus is a movie filled with awkward moments, but whereas some movies may seriously overplay the awkwardness to the point where it is almost unbelievable, this one does it so it feels like something that could happen. Whether it's being in the presence of the shifty young Cyrus or the party in the beginning, it is all very uncomfortable. With the heavy realism in the picture, it also means that the movie isn't the comedy of the summer. It is more of a drama after all. Still it is good movie to see and when you are meant to laugh, you will laugh. It's smart with it's dark humour, but not so much that it might go over some viewers' heads.
My favorite part of the movie was the acting and the cast was perfect here. It's good when a very small cast of characters can generate such power and energy in a movie. They are all believable in their roles too. John C. Reilly, an actor who looks funny and is funny, pulls off the character of John with utter sincerity and confusion, he makes him a strong and loving person who may not want to notice his rival is a "rival" but will do battle when he accepts it. I was glad to see Marisa Tomei play a lovely woman with a good relationship, her last few roles have had her playing the sexy lover of men who don't know how to be with her (Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead; Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler). You have a lot of sympathy for her because she needs a good man like John and deserves to be happy as much as he does, but wish she wasn't blind to what her son does to keep her from getting what she wants. Jonah Hill was what really surprised me here. Too many times has this guy been recycled through different movies as the fat, bitchy, curly haired, mini Rogen after Superbad. It was pretty annoying in Superbad, and even more irritating after the other movies he starred in after that featured him as the same guy. But here he is different. He's clean cut, neatly dressed, intelligent, and seemingly nice. This adds not only to his acting credibility, but the manipulative, creepy nature of Cyrus. It amazed me that this guy could go from being the whining Cartman-esque character to the cunning Benjamin Linus type. Though there were moments where I thought the Cyrus character could have been the love child of Mark David Chapman and 70s Patty Hearst, he was still as well-developed and realistic a character as the others. A character that was pretty genuine. So yes, Jonah Hill keep choosing different roles like this one, don't allow yourself to be typecasted. Also Catherine Keener is always great to see. Here's another actress who plays a woman with at least one bad experience with someone (40-Year Old Virgin; Being John Malkovich; Synechdoche, New York), but still she was a nice, sweet person here and I'm glad her character's relationship with Reilly's was a friendly one. Acting gets an A-Plus.
Cyrus will certainly not be for everyone. Some people out there will see John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill and the jokes in the trailers and immediately think this will be Step Brothers meets Superbad. They will be wrong. For people who just enjoy various kinds of movies, this will be for you. I recommend it because it's the kind of movie I like, and if you read my blog you should know what kind of person I am. If you are like me you will probably enjoy this movie. If not, then I'm sorry I led you astray. Either way Cyrus was a clever, involving, and very discomforting (in a fun kind of way) movie. That's all I've got to say about it.
This has been an August review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)