Sherlock Holmes, 2010

I wonder how many times Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's story has been retold in the cinemas. I enjoyed this retelling, although Hollywood took some excessive license with our well-known hero. Call me slow, but it just dawned on me how similar Gregory House (House, M.D.) is to Doyle's main character.

I like Robert Downey, Jr. as a swash-buckling, egotistical almost-megalomaniac Hero. I am not so sure it comes off well as Sherlock Holmes; he gets the intelligence and the wit down pat, but some of the buffoonery comes off as sheer incompetence as opposed to absent-mindedness sometimes associated with a great intellect. I do in particular like the well-thought out premeditated scenes (most having to do with fights); to counter that, all that slapping stuff was just stupid.

Great characters all around, good casting (not great, not horrible). Good show. Passable.

The Book of Eli, 2010

I was at first worried that this was going to be too much like Cormac's "The Road"; the whole post-apocalyptic, anarchy, dog-eat-dog thing going on. There was a bit of that enmeshed into the story, but not quite to the same degree.

I am not a big Gary Oldman fan, and after this feature I am even less so. Hard to tell how much of it was his fault vs the screenwriter; just a wee bit too obsessed on a friggin' book and nobody knows why. Eli alludes, mysteriously, to how it might have started the war, but that's all we get.

The obvious religious tie-ins were intriguing, and I especially appreciated the twist at the end. However, the loopholes nag at me. Eli was travelling for 30 years?!? And never got lost? How is it that he not only learned Braille, but was able to retain and regurgitate the entire King James Bible? How come more people did not live near the coast? In a world where water is such a precious commodity, you only have a small population living on a freak of an island?

Overall I enjoyed this film. The soundtrack was very good and I enjoyed the direction of the film. I was not crazy about the high-contrasted, muted colors though. I realize the color palette and lighting effects were added to help it feel post-apoc, but still... in my own words, I would call it "too artsy".

Angels and Demons, 2009

It is interesting how Dan Brown (the author of these stories) focuses so much on religious corruption and super-secret socieities, mixing in much myth, legend and old-school fables.

I like Tom Hanks for these films. It is possible others could have filled his shoes (maybe), but I like him in what he did. I am not so sure I liked the pairing of him with the obligatory "good girl" scientist Vittoria - I did not find her believable at all. I felt that the Catholic population was well cast, even though I had strong doubts about Ewan; but he pulled through.

The story is a good bit of entertainment. I think I might be fed up with all the hooplah surrounding The Illuminati and such, between Dan Brown's stories and "National Treasure". However, the twist in this one is a good one. Overall, good flick but would not see it again.

Avatar, 2009

I do not recall if I have ever seen a 3-d movie. Nope, don't think so.
So I do not have much to compare to. But what I saw I liked. True, most of the film did not seem especially 3d'ish - so much of it was, well, 2d. *grin* But whether it was my imagination, or the 3d special affects, or some combination of both, there was definitely some sharper clarify in the picture. Ironically, what really hindered the 3d effect for me was the edge of the screen - it would be extremely interesting to have watched this in IMax.

But on to the movie itself. I like the way it was shot; vibrant colors, wonderful detail, good sound quality. The CGI was exceptionally good, but not yet perfect. For instance, the landscape was amazing, especially the floating mountains. However, the humanoid Na'vi still come across as fake. I really like how the artists melded the faces of the real-life actors into their creations, and it is obvious that a lot of movement came from recording the live-action. There were enough things, tho, that demonstrated the short-comings of CGI.

The plot was interesting. Not exactly sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-chair gripping, but the same stuff recyled between the "against all odds", small man vs. big man themes as in The Matrix or even many of the Disney films.

Some of my biggest issues involve the "linking". Somehow a humans conciousness is transmitted into a Na'vi body. The films shows a hyperspace-like, almost wormhold-travel transition which would leave one to believe that this "linking" is essentially an out-of-body experience. Aside from that voodoo, the avatar Na'vi retains the special ability to "sync" with living things, which is just outrageous. Another problem I had was with the general dude; his script took him way too far into stereotypical diabolical land. And the profit-hungry corporation guy was a bit too soft and too weak in the end.

I did like the symbolism with the climatic battle between the general's mech and Sully's Na'vi; both avatars, both battling it out, tech vs nature (in a way).

I really enjoyed the performances of Worthington and Saldana; I felt they did a great job and had wonderful chemistry. Of course, Saldana's character was, for all intents and purposes, 100% generated, so some of that chemistry is a bit contrived, imo. Still, without those two, the movie would be a complete flop.

Analyze This, 1999

I was strolling through the library and found the Analyze duo. So, the first one was entertaining - not stupendous, not rolling on the floor, not side-splitting. I do not think I even got past a good grin. Interesting story-line, and Deniro delivered a solid, rough character type as well as most of the mafia guys. Except, and this is a big one, except when Deniro cried. Yeah, I realize it was supposed to be counter to his character, but he did a horrible job faking it. Wow.

I feel bad for Kudrow. She has this mannerism about her that she developed over the long years of shooting Friends, and now she cannot shake it - I see Phoebe everywhere she goes. For her sake, I hope she can break out of it at some point. Of course, Meg Ryan never really broke out of her own cast either.....

For a Billy Crystal film, I wanted more comedy, more wit. Am I that dense that I missed most of it? I am somewhat biased in thinking that I am not, but.... =)

And that's about it for This.

My Name is Asher Lev, by Chaim Potok

Reading this right after "The Chosen", I fooled myself into expecting some kind of parallel story, or some connecting thread, some bridge between the two. And really, there is none other than the backdrop of the religious Jewish background (which is significant, surely, in and of itself).

What I did enjoy was how Potok took the reader on a journey through an artist's eyes. And not just any artist, but a genius. I love how the little child has no idea how his works affect others, that he just does what he does because that is all he knows. Hence, the very understandable lapse while Asher was away at school, not really missing that piece of his life yet.

And that is where I stopped reading. =) I know, I am a bad person. I'll go back and get it from the library again. Some day. But with what I had read, I was just not pulled into it like I was with Potok's first book.

The Road, by Cormac McCarthy

One reviewer compared this piece to a "lyrical epic of horror", in which I must whole-heartedly agree. And I am tempted to leave it at that. The story itself is horrible; grisly, ghastly, inhumane, indecent, morose, decadent. The writing richly delivers this phantasm with a powerful vibrance - hence my strong reaction to it. The sharp detailed storyscape is punctuated by a lame dialogue consisting mostly of "keep moving", "I don't know" and "Okay"; make no doubt, the stark contrast between the two accentuates the narrative unbelievably well.

I also picked up the audiobook, read by Tom Stechschulte. At first I was worried, but the narrator's thick gravely voice fit perfectly to paint a brooding stark picture that flirts with disaster this side of death.

I have a hard time grasping the idea that Cormac dedicated this work to his son. True, the writing is phenomenal, but the story is black. I cannot put the innocent luminosity of childhood next to this thing. It is a thing that should not be done.

Homeworld2, 2003

5 years after the game was released, I finally bought it. $10, including s/h. =)

I decided against Sins of a Solar Empire, which is much newer and produced by IronClad with StarDock, both of which I have a lot of respect for. I was very tempted to go with SOS just to support them. So why didn't I?

Homeworld2, much like Homeworld, has awesome graphics. Not as good as EVE Online (in terms of ship detail and scale), but the scenery is excellent (although highly unbelievable), the ship ion trails are great, the action is lively - that was one thing I really missed in SOS, as it was very hard to track ships while riding piggy-back, which I do a lot. While I enjoy the planetary aspect of SOS (and the more diverse tech tree), Homeworld focuses on being a space game.

My one biggest pet peeve with Homeworld, and my one major reason for not giving it two thumbs up, is that the different races have exactly the same ships!! What the heck!?! And it pisses me off that after thousands of years and I don't know many eons, I still have to research basic things like "advanced torpedoes". That is just plain stupid. I wished the game would doing something a little more realistic; the idea of capturing and acquiring Mover technology is a step in the right direction, and there should be much more focus on that. And what about those stupid Bentusi? "All-wise"? I love the high-tech nature of their background (pacifist dogs), but they are just plain naive.

Due to the fact that both the races have more or less exactly the same tech tree and ships, the "player vs cpu" option is just about pointless. I used it to get me ready for the singler-player. That is one good thing about Homeworld - the single-player campaign is very well developed. SOS has no single-player. At least the SOS player vs. cpu is interesting enough. It was more built for online play, and at that I would have to venture it excells. But I am not an online player. Maybe some day...

Homeworld scores high in looks, sounds effects and musical score. Replay is practically shot. I like it, but I no longer love it.

And the battlecruisers just seem weak. I wanted them to have much more punch. I liked the heavy cruisers from the first one much better. The Infiltraor/Marine frigates are somewhat novel, but underplayed. And how do you "infiltrate" something like a hyperspace gateway with marines??

Guess I'll start looking around for the MODs already. =) I really like the Babylon5 mod for the first Homeworld (although I never played a version that was fully developed). And I never found a mod with a fully developed single-player campaign, either, which would be really cool.

Before They are Hanged, by Joe Abercrombie

I really like the small little details that Joe infuses his writing with; all the nitty-gritty details make his story telling come to life. On the other hand, he has a distracting obsession with male genitalia.

I found myself liking and feeling sorry for Logen Ninefingers. He seems to be the most realistic of the cast; ironically, one of his sayings is "you gotta be realistic." The weight of his guilt is heavy, a burden he drags with him everywhere.

I was not all the crazy about the other characters. Bayaz is becoming weak, Luthar is overly pompous (as if Joe is trying too hard to accomplish that). Ms. Maljinn is interesting, bad spirit that she is.

The Well of Ascension, by Brandon Sanderson

Another good read by Sanderson. My one biggest complaint is that we still have no idea what the Well of Ascension actually is. I am not a big fan of a story where the climax just gets started on the last few pages.

I continue to like Sanderson's style of writing; there is something about his story-telling that draws me in, that compels me forward. Ironically, I find it hard to personally identify with any of the characters, but I do find them entertaining. The development of the Kandra background is quite intriguing, and the tie to Koloss makes for a very interesting character soup. The various twists are excellently played out.

The pairings of the allomantic metals is a great concept, but there do seem to be some holes. I like how the author allows the characters to discover things and have the reader learn as the characters do. But there are an odd number of such metals, hence not all of them can have pairs. I found it unbelievable that the Ministry knew nothing about Duralumin, and that Zane was able to duplicate and master it so quickly (even with the Kandra's help).

Overall, I like the story. I did not love it, though. I do look forward to the third book.

Kung Fu Panda, 2008

Jack Black.... either you love him or hate him. Maybe his appeal to the younger generation is what turns me off. Maybe we should call him Jack "thingy" Black.

I did, however, really enjoy the story. Not to pick on Mr. Black, but I felt he brought way too much American flavor into what is essentially a very Chinese/Buddhist story. The ancient turtle (Oogway) was the quintessential eastern mystic, and Tai Lung was great as the really pissed off, uber bad guy. Did this story remind anyone of Karate Kid? =)

We brought our daughter, and I think the film was a bit too dark, too violent and too serious for her age-group. I did appreciate the wit and some of the more adult themes, but wish I would have not exposed my little girl to this film at this point in her life. I am glad we saw it together, instead of her seeing this piece without me.

The whole thing with the noodle shot was quite good. There were quite a few knowing laughs when the father (a duck) attempts to tell his son (a panda) something about their relationship he has not told him before. I enjoyed the voice acting (with the one noted exception); I almost felt bad for Jackie Chan when I found out he did the monkey.

Flight of the Phoenix, 2004

I did not think about how I was flying to Phoenix when I picked up this DVD. Or perhaps subconsciously I did. Strange.

Anyway, I did not have high expectations for Quaid. He came across pretty well in this one. Ribisi's Elliot character was a great match. A bit awkward at times, but I think that worked in well with the character. And I felt really good about Tyrese Gibson's character, but felt bad he was always walking in Quaid's shadow. And Hugh Laurie.... =) After watching several season's of House, it is almost relaxing to hear what I think is his real voice.

The film as a whole was ok. Very unbelievable at the end, but building up to it was good.

Sahara, 2005

This film raised a few questions for me, questions that detracted from the film. Steve Zahn as an ex-Navy Seal? Are you kidding me? Watching him snap on rounds to an automatic rifle or disarming himself were just painful.

Penelope Cruz as a "brilliant" UN scientist? At least she was a doctor for the WHO, which is a little more believable. A little.

What are we supposed to believe about the ironclad? Did it really sail off to African, or did it slip through some kind of wormhole? That was never clarified. We are led to believe that it actually traveled across the Atlantic, and if so, I find it completely unbelievable that the characters, as smart as they are supposed to be, accept that.

Good action scenes, good suspense. The turmoil in African had an appealing quality merely because it was believable. The picture on the DVD, cruising the Sahara in a make-shift "sand-surfer" is... unforgivable.

Life of Brian, 1979

I do not usually dig old movies. But this is Monty Python! =)

I also did not realize it was a parody on the "Life of Christ", so obviously, the whole think smacks of sacrilegious and scandalous bigotry. *grin* Otherwise it would not be Monty Python.

A motion picture destined to offend nearly two thirds of the civilized world. And severely annoy the other third.

It was humorous, of course. I don't get the whole thing with Brian's mother being a man, nor why all the women want to wear beards.

Lilith, by George MacDonald

Poor C.S. Lewis might flip in his grave, but I had a really hard time enjoying this book. Perhaps this speaks more about me than either Mr. Lewis or Mr. MacDonald.

MacDonald creates a fantastic universe (or, to play on words, a "Phantastic" universe); both in its scope and its creativity. The problem is it is just too stinkin' thick. The main character, writing from the first person, is given to spouts of metadata, conveying the difficulty he has conveying to his reader what he is experiencing. I give kudos to MacDonald for his command of the language, but I fear his temporal removal from my own bestows upon his effort a sense of antiquity; he is just hard to read for modern folks. His modes, his grammer (and excessive use of commas and dashes) and depth make reading hard work.

And yes, that means I am a lazy reader. Look at what I read for crying out loud.

The story is unique, in its own right. Even though he wrote the book over 110 years ago (egads!!), he touches upon concepts that others have only copied; a man travels to a new place where the metaphysical becomes, for all intents and purposes, the physical. His own identity is questioned, and must be discovered. The issue of being is put under a magnifying glass. For these I applaud MacDonald. I would just hate to have to read it again. *grin*

After the Sunset, 2004

I enjoyed "Entrapment" and had a small hope that this might be similar. In some ways it was, in others it was not. The story is supposed to be about a thief who is nearing retirement and takes on one final job, and the FBI agent chasing him. That specific plot has a long, drawn-out buildup. For the most part, I enjoyed the slow developement; the opening scene was great. Except I did not like Woody Harrelson's character (Stan Lloyd) at all. Too immature, in so many different ways.

After investing so much screen time to get to the climax of the story, I felt really let down; the heist itself was really rather basic. The small amount of intrigue was tasteful (and helpful, even critical), but by the time we get to the "Aha, gotcha" moments, you feel as if the best part of the movie happened a long time ago.

Neverwhere, Neil Gaiman

Even though Gaiman's "Neverwhere" shares a lot with "Stardust", I felt this story was much more believable, more captivating. Again we have a relatively small "other world" that shares borders with what we know as reality, filled with exotic and esoteric beings, from the sniveling and meek to the powerful and evil. Again we have a somewhat high-placed, important damsel in distress, and a blunder-head guy with some enigma of a connection to this other place who happens to be the hero and eventually experiences that all-important rite of passage. Is Neil projecting that desperately?

It is hard to put my finger exactly on what I liked better about this book. The story is foreign to me, which I liked, with a appreciable (and some that you like to hate) cast of characters. The hard decisions that have to be made are poignant, although somewhat clouded by the context.

Declare, by Tim Powers

Tim Powers (from what few reviews I have read) has been compared to John Le Carré; I agree that there is something of a likeness in there, but I enjoyed Powers more.

This was another one in a series of authors I gleaned from another author. Why not? =) The book started really slow. In fact, I almost gave up on it several times. For the record, I did give up on Russia House. The spy genre is not really my cup of tea, I guess. But given that, I thought the book was tremendously well written. It is not often I appreciate the quality of a book without enjoying the story. Is that the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Jazz is pretty much the same way, no matter how great the performers are, I hate Jazz. And I always give up on Jazz. =)

I really found Power's character development to be powerful, and classically paradoxical - the spy who falls in love with a spy. I loved his command of different cultures, use of languages and regional influences. The best part, in my opinion, about story telling is not forcing a fantastic, perhaps unbelievable, world upon a realistic canvas, but rather allowing (or rather, persuading, urging, beckoning) the reader to voluntarily extend his unbelief to the point that the story could potentially be real, no matter how fantastic it is. Or to put it a bit differently, I would grade a story by how thin the veil is between our world and the universe being fashioned by the author; how smoothly does it draw me in? Tim Powers painted a such a poignant, believable and livable world. Of course, my "standards" are constantly in flux, but, hey, that is my perogative.... *grin*

The "sci-fi" diversion is a bit interesting. I think this is perhaps what drew me on. I call it a diversion but this is what separates Powers from Le Carré - the point at which this is an utterly different and independent excursion. The exploration of a group of deities bound by archaic symbols and responsibilities, sentient, perhaps malevolent, beings that have no place in the natural order of things, but exert such a heavy influence upon that natural order so as not to be completely ignored.

I am glad I finished the book, and I now am firmly convinced I do not like spy books. I am glad I read Tim Powers.

Hellboy 2, 2008

I think the only reason I wanted to see this film was because Guillermo did it. There were things I did, and did not, like about it; hard to say which one won out.

Bad news first. The underworld is way too open to the "real" world. Not that I mind such a flimsy barrier in my sci-fi stories, but the first Hellboy established a thicker wall, I think. Granted, I have not seen/read any of the other additional materials (comic books, animated series), so I have no idea if this is keeping in line with Guillermo's direction or not. The romance between Liz Sherman (pyro lady) and Hellboy are cute, but hardly believable, especially what they produce together. I also do not understand how Hellboy can go head-to-head with Prince Nuada; all Hellboy does is eat candy bars and watch TV. The whole concept of "area 51" (see that big 51 emblazoned in one of the rooms?) and keeping this paranormal research under the covers was overblown, especially the gimmicky way Tom Manning (played by Jeffrey Tambor) deals with the whole thing. Dr. Johann Krauss (the ectoplasmic guy) reminds me of a different comic antagonist, but now I cannot remember who. Anyway, just having him head up the paranormal research was rather dumb. Interesting character, though. A bit heavy on the gears motif.

Good news: I loved the scenes with the elves; beautiful artistic touches, nice design themes, great sense of dying power. It was not until I read a little bit more that I realized that Doug Jones not only plays Abe, but also the Chamberlain and the Angel of Death, as well as the Faun from Pan's Labyrinth and the Pale Man. The way he moves his hands is very similar in each one. I wonder if he ever tires of all the makeup. =) I liked Wink, and the Tooth Fairies were an unexpected twist. I really enjoyed Prince Nuada's swordmanship; made me wonder how we would stack up another trained sword-weilding Hollywood villian like Darth Maul (Ray Park). The questions that Prince Nuada plagued Hellboy with were intriguing and thought provoking; would he really want to kill off the last beings of a species? Not sure if this was mentioned in the first movie, but Hellboy is supposedly the son of the "Fallen One". Could have fooled me. *grin*

Hancock, 2008

I love how Will Smith portrayed his character in this film. The posters and the first shots of him are so raw, so grisly, so un-Hollywood, it gave his character a sense of reality. Even when he got all cleaned up, he did not look like the Will Smith we were expecting to see. Which is a good thing, IMO.

I think I really appreciated the emotional depth conveyed by Will Smith's Hancock; you could feel the tension as he grappled with the pain of not being loved or liked, of being abandoned. He defense mechanism is "I don't care", but it is obvious he really does. Which makes the drama that much more pungent as Charlize Theron's character (Mary Embrey) gets more involved on screen.

However, at the same time, when Mary comes out of the closet (so to speak), I think the movie quickly went downhill. Even in the earlier parts of the movie, I was disappointed by the special effects/CG when Hancock flies around with an SUV in his hands, and finally drops it on a spire. It gets worse when Mary and Hancock start going at it. It just comes across as so fake. Part of it is the utter lack of reality. It is one thing for someone to have superpowers, but when natural laws of "cause and effect" are suspended, I start to loose my connection. For instance, flying through the air with an SUV.... that heavy thing is going to fall apart quick. Hitting a kid so hard he flies a couple miles into the atmosphere? And catching him when he lands? Purely cartoonish - the Gs would kill him.

I did like the concept; a superhero type of race that loose their powers when they pair up, thus making population growth a foregone conclusion. The struggle to stay apart, constantly fighting the magnetism of wanting to know one of your own. And the message of using one's powers responsibly was a good one, but not well cemented.