Spoiler Review: The Words on DVD

My Rating:  Not really enjoyable overall.  Check it out only if you are in need of a distraction and don't  care how unfulfilled it may leave you.

Initial thoughts:  From the trailer I had seen it looked like The Words would be about a man's journey through feeling unsatisfied with his life and choosing to steal someone else's work and deal with the consequences.  Only not so much, after all.

Nutshell: The movies opens with Dennis Quaid telling a story about Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) who is a guy who is trying to write a novel and get published but gets continually rejected.  He is dealing with this difficulty while in a relationship with Dora (Zoe Saldana).  They get married in Paris and Dora buys him an old briefcase which has an old manuscript inside.  Rory reads it, steals it, gets published, and becomes successful from it.  An old man (Jeremy Irons) comes around to confront Rory to tell him about how he knows he stole the story and tells the story about how the story was written. 

Basically, this movie is a story about a guy who tells a story about a guy who tells a story about a guy who writes a story and loses the story.  This is like Inception where you substitute the dreams with stories, only not nearly as entertaining or thought provoking.

What I dig:  Not much.  The acting was okay, but nothing really excited me.  Their casting choices were pretty good.

What I don't dig:  Just about everything relating to the plot.  They set up the moral quandary of Rory stealing the work and claiming it as his own.  Basically, they start off making their lead character unlikeable because he is kind of a selfish guy who gets money from his dad to pay for a chance to become a writer.  At the start of the film Rory has been doing this for 2 years, it seems, on top of having his parents pay for his college years before this.  Basically, Rory comes off as a moocher but finally gets a job.  He keeps trying and keeps failing.  Instead of coming to terms with his inability to write compelling fiction who switches tack to write in some other field that he may be good at he comes across a manuscript that is good and steals it.  I don't understand what we are supposed to like about this guy.  So, given that they have set up an unlikeable character do they make him turn a corner and just become a full on villain?  No, they make him a wishy washy guy who, after finally being confronted by an old man who wrote the story, decides then to fess up.  And by the time he tells his wife this she gets angry but doesn't really seem to do anything about it.  If one is going to go to the extent of becoming a criminal I can only feel like the characters should have owned it, gone full criminal, looked at the situation pragmatically and dealt with the conflicts that popped up from there.  I think this would have been way more compelling rather than Rory confronting the old man again and just listening to his story and opting to accept the "punishment" of continuing to claim the story as his own with no consequence other than the knowledge that he stole a story, got rich, got famous, and continued with a successful writing career even if his further attempts were not as a good as the first book.  So, his punishment is a sophomore-and-beyond slump and dealing with having told his wife and publisher a lie, which they both seem to accept with no real issue. 

Oh, and all of this is told by Dennis Quaid in a book with the subtext that he is the writer who had difficulty with his wife while currently drinking wine with the gorgeous Olivia Wilde who obviously wants to have sex with him.  Big moral dilemmas there, guys. 

All I can feel like is if I missed the true moral of the story and didn't understand it, then it is because the story was poorly constructed and the moral was poorly delivered.

Final thoughts:  Only watch it if you feel the need to be apathetic about a story that doesn't bother to reach for any real emotion, conflict, or morality.

Feel differently or agree?  Hey, any comments are appreciated. 

Review: Django Unchained

Writer and Director: Quentin Tarantino

My Rating:  Loved it.  Another solid movie from Tarantino in a genre he hasn't touched before.  If you like Tarantino then definitely see it in the theater.

Initial thoughts:  From the trailer I thought this was going to be a solid western with some unconventional parts, which it was.  I was not disappointed.

Nutshell:  In 1858 a German-born bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), is on the trail of the outlaw Brittle brothers.  A slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), can identify the outlaws and the two team up.  Dr. King Schultz teaches Django his trade, frees him, and eventually they go in search of Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) to buy her freedom.

What I dig:  This movie was a gorgeous, stylish western.  The action was great, the characters of Django and Dr. King Schultz, especially, are fantastic, along with great performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson.  There was even a great cameo from Franco Nero, the original Django.  I also loved Walton Goggins, of Justified fame, in this.  Tarantino mixes his violence and humor superbly.  I was immersed instantly and loved the ride the whole way. 

What I don't dig:  It was long at 2 hours 45 minutes.  Some stuff should have been cut out and trimmed up and left as special features for the DVD, especially a good chunk of the Calvin Candie parts, despite the superb performance from DiCaprio.  Kerri Washington didn't have much to do in this.  Some of the music didn't fit with the genre, but I realize that is Tarantino's scoring style, so no big shock there.  To me these are minor quibbles for what is a good, solid movie.

There has been some scuttlebutt about how some people have a problem with how many times the word "nigger" is used in this film, but I didn't have a problem with it.  A notable work of fiction from the time period, The  Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, used the word twice as much as this movie, so that just shows me that it is reasonable to believe that people in the South used the word as much as Tarantino's script illustrates. 

Final thoughts:  If you like westerns or Tarantino movies then go see this.  If you are not into violence or Tarantino then avoid it.

Any comments are appreciated! 

Rant: the Star Wars themed Nighthawks painting

     First off, I'm not sure who painted this.  I got it from a facebook post and initially thought it was pretty cool.  Then, I looked deeper.  

     Looking closer at this picture, this is a bad situation. Yoda is fucked. You've got two Sith Lords, a Storm Trooper with this boss right next to him, and a mercenary who doesn't give a fuck about fighting Jedi. They already took out R2 and 3PO, leaving them deader than fried chicken, frozen, and soon to be covered in snow.

     So you might be thinking, "What about Chewie? He's there, it is all good." The hell it is. He has a fucking paper hat on! And his hands are full with a tray of steaming mugs. He is like a busboy from Pulp Fiction, some wetback gettin' paid a dollar fifty a hour, is he gonna really give a fuck they're stealin' from the owner or if Sith Lords are going to take over the joint?

     "But he's Chewie!" Yeah, so what? He's a space sasquatch with a shiny bandolier that holds nothing. What is he going to do? Dump the steaming mugs on them? On guys in armor whom the steaming mugs will not affect? "But he can get Darth Maul!" Yeah, and, statistically, he will also get Yoda. He's a space sasquatch, do you think he has any good coordination? Fuck no. He's no Bigfoot android from the Six Million Dollar Man, he's a bumbling, growling moron who probably gets more hair into those mugs than liquid.

     This is how Yoda dies, man, at 11:00 at night in a greasy spoon on Coruscant with a fucking Santa hat on while Chewie just gives his shitty, disingenuous sympathetic growl and cleans up the mess in hopes of getting a few coins for a tip because he's saving up to buy some other bullshit bandolier type decoration that serves no purpose other than to make him/her feel good.

     Buying pretty things isn't going to make you feel better, Chewie, and isn't going to make you pretty on the inside. You've got to tell them to take this job and shove it, quit, and take charge of your life, because otherwise, you are literally serving the Empire here. Do it, Chewie, I believe in you.


Comment if you'd like, or leave Chewie and Yoda to their fates if you are heartless.

Spoiler Review: The Watch on DVD

First off, spoilers.  Anything beyond the rating below has minor spoilers in it.  Honestly, with this film, you shouldn't care about the spoilers if you read this.  Oh, and there is some profanity here, too. 

My Rating:  It was okay.  Not good, not bad. 

Initial thoughts:  So, I was thinking this movie was just going to be another narcissistic project from Ben Stiller that would be short on comedy and long on too many minutes of Ben Stiller.

Nutshell:  This movie was just another narcissistic project from Ben Stiller that is short on comedy and long on too many minutes of Ben Stiller.  Also, this was a really long commercial for Costco, which I am assuming gave the movie makers tons of money to get this film done.  Basically, Ben Stiller works at Costco and his friend gets killed there by an alien.  Stiller starts a neighborhood watch to catch the killer and is joined by Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, and Richard Ayoade.  Various alien tomfoolery takes place ending with a showdown in the product placement Costco.

Does anybody out there really like Ben Stiller as a lead character?  Sure, he made plenty of money with those Museum movies, but I think that was more due to kids wanting to see it over and over again with their excessive need to consume and re consume bright, shiny, shallow crap rather then any Ben Stiller charisma.  The last good comedic outing from this guy was Tropic Thunder, and he was the weakest element in it despite having the largest part.  Ben Stiller is probably a nice guy, but I don't give a shit about him.  His need to make the main character arc about him is tedious.  Give it up, man.  You have the ability to possibly become a great second string actor if you just hold back and don't try to be something you are not; a leading man.  Take a cue from your pops, he can add real flavor to a project by not trying to hog the camera, but I am betting if someone did give him the lead on a project he would know enough to dial it back to make the character likeable, and not demanding of excessively sentimentality in a way overeager attempt to connect with people.  Daddy issues, maybe?

And holy shit what happened to Vince Vaughn?  That guy's head is just a giant, misshapen biscuit now.  But at least *he* can dial it back.  Vince Vaughn had a string of films there where he pushed way too far with the unlikeable, overbearing personality and it killed those films.  In this one he was just more of a lonely guy looking to connect with other guys for some platonic man time.  And it worked.  He was genuinely likeable for the most part. 

As for Jonah Hill, hmm, it wasn't really hitting with me.  We've seen the socially awkward, over-militant, thousand yard stare character before whose purpose was to be funny while making us uncomfortable.  This time, though, the awkward one liners came across as just flat with no punch.  Just a paycheck, maybe?

Richard Ayoade played his part perfectly.  He was a quirky British guy who didn't really fit in super well in suburban America and it worked considering the places his character ended up.

Overall this film wasn't terrible, but it just wasn't good, either.  It looked to me like the director, Akiva Schaffer, let the guys run on some improv hoping to find gold, but it didn't pay off and the movie just wasn't that funny for what was supposed to be a comedy.  The effects with the alien were not bad, but this wasn't a solid enough alien invasion film to carry the lack of comedy.

Final thoughts:  Watch it if you are bored, but don't expect big laughs or a great alien story.  If you like any of the actors in this then spend the buck or so on a rental, otherwise, skip it.

Any comments are appreciated! 

Review: Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher is written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie.

My Rating:  Loved it. If you can stand Tom Cruise (some cannot) then see it!   

Initial thoughts:   I was expecting a passable action movie from Tom Cruise, but this movie turned into something I thoroughly enjoyed.  From the trailer it looked like an action movie with no real depth, but what the movie became was a thriller with a good bit of solid action elements.

Nutshell:  A sniper takes out five people in a park in Pittsburgh.  The crime scene is an evidence gold mine and they quickly get the guy.  Jack Reacher, an old military police badass, sees the crime on the news and knows the guy that they caught.  Fourteen years ago Reacher had caught the guy in the military for a similar shooting and heads to Pittsburgh to make sure the guy is convicted, but what he finds when he gets there turns into a twisty, tense, action filled thriller.

What I dig:  I really did not expect this movie to be so GOOD.  It was a solid plot; everything made sense and I didn't see any plot holes or odd fitting behavior.  It was written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who wrote The Usual Suspects, so the guy has solid cred from me for being a good writer, despite writing some other stuff that I didn't care much for (The Valkyrie, The Tourist, and The Way of the Gun), but he delivered beautifully this time.  I feel he did a great job directing, too.  He managed the tension superbly and the action scenes were well shot with enough distance to see what was happening (a technique losing popularity with so many directors zooming in and bouncing the camera around to make up for poor choreography).  Tom Cruise did a great job here not being the typical smiley nice guy that he so often feels he has to be.  I don't recall the guy cracking a toothy grin not once, actually.  He was more of a tense, taciturn character, but could deliver solid wisecrack dialogue when it was needed.  Overall the movie was fantastic and way better than I expected.

What I don't dig:  Some of the snappy dialogue was a little cheesy to me, but other people in the theater liked it judging by their laughs.  And it was somewhat fantastical how this gruff, quiet 50 year old guy with little charisma was getting so many young women all hot and bothered, but I could understand it is fiction.  Beyond that, I don't have anything negative to say.  It was a tight script and a tight movie.  Excellent.

Final thoughts:  If you like thrillers and/or action movies then go see it.  It is a solid film all the way around.  So much so that I have decided I will read the book, called One Shot by Lee Child.  Look for a review soon for that, too.

Any comments are appreciated! 

Ramble: The Hobbit's Unexpected Effect On My Life

So, with the recent release of the Hobbit movie I have been thinking about the book and my own experience with it.  I can say it has affected my life in a way I never realized.





I can't be sure about where first I heard of the story as a child.  Most likely it was from one of my three older brothers who, not known for being the type to read books but would rather weaponize them as projectiles, must have told me about the animated film by Rankin/Bass and not the book.  Since I grew up in the 1980s, with a lack of more than three TV stations, and due to no available playback technology for my poor family in a good portion of the decade, I never actually saw that film.  So, I must have read the Hobbit somewhere along the way as a kid.

However, I can solidly remember reading it again in the 6th grade where the school library had a copy of the hardback that had illustrations from the aforementioned Rankin/Bass animated movie.  The illustrations were amazing to my jelly little mind.  The animated movie style of illustration has always been something I loved, which made the movie days in school tolerable despite them showing us a lot of that Disney princess crap.  That tolerance evaporated when we started watching live action Disney movies instead; I must have seen Honey I Shrunk the Kids six or seven times in the sixth grade alone when teachers were too tired of dealing with us little howler monkeys. 

Anyway, back the illustrated Hobbit book, I loved it so much I studied it and eventually copied some of the illustrations.  I specifically recall that I looked at and redrew the large picture of angry Smaug and turned it in for Art class.  I remember the teacher, who really liked me, coming to me and asking if this was something I head created out of my head.  She had a very concerned look on her face and when I told her, "no," she visibly relaxed.  Oh, Mrs. P., you had no idea what seeds that book planted in my mind, but you'd see them soon enough over the next three years until I left Middle School.  And, yeah, sorry for the barrage on your hippy sensibilities with the all the demons, gunslingers, and such.  At least you didn't have to deal with the High School years, when that magic female physique, complete with shapely boobs, entered the picture(s).

I can honestly say the Hobbit book launched me into the world of fantasy.  Next came the Lord of the Rings, then stuff like Dragonlance, which led to Dungeons and Dragons, down into rabbit holes like the Drizzt Do'Urden adventures (let's be for real, those books are all about him, the rest of the Icewind Dale party be damned), somehow skipping the Shanara stuff (it just didn't vibe with me), on the way developing a giant crush on Lessa from the Pern series, who was the most fleshed out female character I had read at that point. The fascination moved on to movies such as Highlander, Excalibur, and Conan the badass.  The cracks spread like a wizard's lightning through my "normal" kid psyche and moved on until I eventually became the giant geek who would go out on weekends to fight friends with foam covered sticks and play tabletop RPGs or collectible card games. 


While I haven't read the Hobbit book in a long, long time, I did have an odd attempt at reading it again in my late 20s or so.  It was the latest of my harebrained attempts to try to learn Spanish.  Despite being of hipanic origin I don't speak the Spanish language, which I am somewhat shamefaced about.  Am I ashamed enough to actually try to learn it through study, practice, and genuine effort?  Oh, no.  Laziness trumps shame yet again.  But, at one point I heard that if you read books in Spanish, you will pick it up in an organic way.  Well, damn, I know I can *read* at least.  I thought it would be super simple to accomplish.  So, I hit the nearest bookstore and checked out the Spanish language book section and was at a loss for what to read until I saw the title El Hobbit.  I tried reading the book.  I gave it an honest effort and made it in maybe 50 pages?  Yeah, that theory about reading to learn a language may have held water if you've got at least some knowledge of the language, but I soon found out that I'd only understand maybe 3% of the words in El Hobbit with most of that meager percentage being made up of the character names. 

So, in various ways The Hobbit had a serious effect on my life.  It was probably my first direct experience with the fantasy genre and provided a course correction at a young age.  Had I not discovered the book at that young age where would I be now?  I'm not sure, but it would probably be a less interesting place for my mind, although I am guessing in that alternate universe I would probably know how to speak actual Spanish. 

Thanks for reading and comments are welcome.

Reviewed: V/H/S movie

My Rating:  Loved it.  It is a fresh experience in a genre that is getting stale even for fans,  but if you aren't down with found footage horror movies then skip it.

Initial thoughts:  All I heard was that this movie was a found footage horror anthology movie and  that the buzz around it was positive.  So, when I saw it for rent at the local vending machine I  got it.

Nutshell:  Some miscreants break into a house looking to rob it of a particular VHS tape.  In the  process they come across various tapes that they view, all of which are horrific.  Each tape is  its own contained short story.

What I dig: I am a fan of the found footage genre as well as horror, and this anthology gives  some great examples of what can be done with some creativity in the short form.  Half of the  stories I found truly creepy and loved them.  The other half were less entertaining, but still  worth the viewing overall.  Given that this is all short form there isn't a lot of time to bond  with the characters, but some of them did connect with me and I did care about what was happening  to them.  It does have a lot of comeuppance for the various d-bags found within the film.  Plus,  there's boobs.  Yes, I am a man who likes the sweater puppies and I always welcome them.  I would  say more about what I liked, but I truly do not want to spoil anything or plant any seeds in  viewers heads.  This should be experienced with fresh eyes and no thought pollution of what is  inside.

What I don't dig: The first 20 minutes were a chore for me to get through.  I didn't like any of  the characters introduced in that time, but once the movie really got rolling in that first VHS  tape I was on board.  Being found footage a lot of the camera work is jumpy, out of focus, and  often artifacted, but that goes with the territory.  A couple of the stories went on a little  long, but overall it didn't detract too much from the good experience.

Final thoughts: If you like found footage horror then check it out on DVD.  It is way better than  the Paranormal Experience movies because things actually happen here. 

Reviewed: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey movie

My Rating:  It was okay.  Not good, not bad.  The High Frame Rate killed the experience for me.  If you are a Middle Earth fan then see it as a matinee.  If not, wait for DVD.

Initial thoughts:  I was excited for the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but that excitement was a cooled off by the thought that I'd be seeing it in HFR (high frame rate at 48 frames per second), which I was skeptical about.  I wanted to see Middle Earth again after so many years, so I opted for the midnight show on Thursday and rolled the dice on HFR and 3D.  I should have gone to see it in normal movie 24fps.

Nutshell:  C'mon, it is the Hobbit.  If you don't know what it is about, then you've either never read the book or seen the LOTR movies, which means you just arrived from outside Earth or from a vagina.  I feel there is no need for me to sum it up. 

What I dig: It is a solid return to Middle Earth from Peter Jackson, which is to be expected.  You've got the old characters in there and the addition of the dwarves fit in great.  The 3D wasn't bad and wasn't distracting, but it also didn't amaze my eyeballs.  The fight scenes were okay, but I feel like Aragorn and his crew would have fucked these dwarves up in a matchup, despite the superior dwarven number.  I think that statement there sums up overall how I feel about this movie versus any of the LOTR movies.

What I don't dig:  This is gonna be a long one.  The HFR (high frame rate) was visually atrocious to me.  It bothered the shit out of me from the very beginning all the way to the end.  It was like I was watching an afterschool special with an amazing wardrobe budget.  Also, a lot of the effects looked fucking terrible in HFR.

The dialogue was just not that good.  The few jokes there were I saw in the trailer, which was disappointing.  Beyond that, the quality and emotional resonance feels like it was watered down from the LOTR movies.  Could it be the creative team just wasn't that into this? 

Honestly, I got bored in parts, which never happened in the LOTR movies.  Is it fair that I keep referring to them in this review?  I feel it is, since they are all part of the same overall world.  Getting back to being bored, Peter Jackson and crew definitely padded this movie way out.  There were some unnecessary scenes and characters, like, for instance, scenes with the guy who had bird shit running down his face didn't need to be in the film.  Yeah, that's right, I said there is a guy with bird shit on his face in here. 

The film needed an editor and the script needed a more solid climax.  The ending fight just didn't hit for me, and since they went into this knowing it would be multiple films, why not edit this down and end it somewhere more exciting, or with higher stakes?  I find it easy to suspend disbelief most times, but my boredom with the story let my disbelief run.  Also, I was just damn tired of seeing so many goblins in this, and I'm sure we'll see more later. I am not terribly excited for the films to come.

Final thoughts:  Unless you like the look of telenovelas or tv soap operas, DO NOT SEE THIS IN HIGH FRAME RATE.  I'm curious to see if it will look better with a normal theater frame rate, but I really am not willing to shell out another 10+ bucks to find out.  Overall, it felt like a diluted LOTR movie and wasn't nearly as exciting any of the previous ones to me.  Given what we've seen before, this should have been better, plain and simple.  And no HFR, for reals.

Just saw the Pacific Rim trailer

I just saw the Pacific Rim trailer.  Hmm...overall, it looked pretty cool and I am interested.   I have faith in Guillermo Del Toro, but it looks like two people pilot one giant robot, which isn't a terrible idea, but it looks like they have to do the exact same action?  How does that make sense?  I'm guessing they will spell it out.  Also, to fight giant monsters we use our considerable technological intellect to create robots that...only punch them?  And, if there is no tentacle rape monster in this I am calling bullshit that this is supposed to be taking place in Asia.

Reviewed: Ready Player One book by Ernie (Ernest) Cline

My Rating:  Loved it.  Better than one of those great masturbation sessions.  Absorb now!


Initial thoughts:  I just finished Ready Player One.  Overall, if you are into geek stuff, read it!  This book is for you.  Initially I was skeptical, especially since I opted for the audiobook version read by Wil Wheaton, and while Wil is one of the geek gods, I just kind of don't like him for some reason.  It isn't that I have any problem with what Wil says, it is more like the way he says them.  There is something in his tone of voice that goes beyond normal geek snark and that just rubs me the wrong way.  I don't vibe with him.  Maybe it is because he doesn't have the obligatory second "l" in his first name?  Nonetheless, I still gave the audiobook an honest try, and I dug the shit out of it.  Wil did an excellent job reading Ernie Cline's awesome book.

Nutshell:  The book is set in the future where the energy crisis is in full swing, poverty is rampant, and the world is pretty much a shit hole.  The best escape from a terrible world is in the O.A.S.I.S., a simulated universe that you access with a visor and varying levels of feedback gear that enables manipulation with the virtual world.  Within this world the main creator has died and leaves his considerable fortune up for grabs, which can only be obtained by figuring out the creator's puzzles which are heavily dipped in 80s geek nostalgia references.

What I dig:  The geek references go way, way deep, far deeper than what I know of.  But Ernie spells it all out and you don't have any issue not relating.  The plot is an exciting one and a solid hero's journey.  This story isn't going to inspire a lot of introspection, but it is a great experience to simply enjoy and have fun with.  It makes you wish OASIS was real.  Good job, Ernie!  Also, way to make me curious about a Rush album.  I really dislike Rush, but you have made me open to listening to it, so giant bonus cookies to you.

What I don't dig:  The speech patterns of the characters was often terribly cheesy, but so were the 80s, which is a culture they immerse themselves in, so I can't gripe too much.  It was rather predictable, but what hero's journey isn't?  Initially, I thought this would be a G rating adventure, but with the profanity I'd say it was at least PG, though a bit more PG13 would have been more to my liking.  The 80s geek references are laid on pretty damn thick, which I don't have a problem with, but if you are not into the 80s it may annoy the shit out of you.

Final thoughts:  Again, if you dig geek stuff, get it!  If you don't, A) you kind of don't belong reading this blog and 2) skip it, unless you are a fan of hero's journey stories, then it may be tolerable to you.