Movie Review: Skyfall

 Movie Review: Skyfall 

James Bond is back in his twenty something outing as a super spy out to stop a bad guy from terrorizing the world.  Insert more generic James Bond plot information here.

What I liked:

Acting

The actors in this movie are giving it them all to create emotional and engaging characters. Daniel Craig is believable as an aging super spy beaten down by his job but still devoted to queen and country. Judy Dench is simply Judy Dench, full stop great acting that gives gravitas to her character's difficult portrayal by the screenwriters. Javier Bardem???? creates an engaging and enigmatic villian that holds his own against some of the best of the James Bond villains, a credible threat using dubious methods.

Visuals

A beautiful movie shot very well. Establishing shots are sweeping, character moments are surrounded by well crafted sets, and the action is clear and immediate.

Action

Speaking of the action scenes, they take even the most unbelievable situations and make them exciting and tense. If the movie did anything right, it was making the threats and the heroes active and violent without going over the top.

What I disliked:

Story

I am a James Bond fan and fan of spy films in general, so I am used to world in peril plots, but this movie fails to deliver. Halfway through, the plot gets almost thrown away and we are shoved into a movie about something else entirely.

Characterization

Ever wanted to watch a James Bond movie and utterly hate James Bond? This is the movie for you. Sure, he’s stood by and watched the people (i.e. Bondgirls) die before, but not like this, folks. This is super casual Bond-Don’t-Give-A-Shit.

Themes vs What happens

This movie is all about what happens when you live too long with a licence to kill. I think that’s what they were trying for, anyway. It becomes a violent, over-the-top kill fest with a less than memorable bad guy and a few twists that could have been avoided by turning off a flashlight.

Who is this for?

Die hard James Bond fans that don’t care about story.

Really excited for Iron Man 3 and Django Unchained. Will watch DH4 and Gangster Squad. Red Dawn will be great on TBS.

24 Television Review

What if Die Hard were a soap opera? Kiefer Sutherland’s only long running television appearance, 24 tells the story of Jack Bauer as he goes through the eight worse days of his life. Each episode passes in real time for 24 episodes to make a full day each season as Bauer and his team race to stop some terrorist threat.

What I liked:
Action - The action in this show is top notch and is the star of the show. Between the interpersonal conflicts and long winded speeches there are almost movie level gunfights full of one liners and full on “that guy just died for real” moments.
Characters - Jack Bauer is Dirty Harry and everyone around him better get the hell out of the way. Over the eight seasons, other characters come and go and most of main cast (especially Marylynn Riescub as Chloe) make a huge impact on the viewer, but how Bauer makes an impression on each of them is priceless.
Twists - There are some truly good twists that I did not see coming. Good guys become bad guys, Bad guys become good guys and folks just die out of nowhere. Add that to the cliff hangers that occur between episodes and you get for some long viewing periods.

What I didn’t like:
Dialog - The dialog in the first couple of seasons and often beyond is laughable and noticeable with exposition. “Yes, I just walked into the area and I don’t like that guy.” “Why not, Jim?” Because, Steve, just last hour he shot my dad and in the next hour he’s gonna blow up LA with a radioactive bomb?” How do you know? “Because he told me when we were having dinner this morning when we still worked together.”
Repetitive - If you watch the seires like I did, streaming or on DVD, straight through, you notice a lot of the same tricks pulled out of the same bag. At this point, some dude will turn out to be evil. Around midseason, everything you thought you knew was wrong?! Also, Jack gets repeatedly beat to hell, but you know by the ticking clock that he’s still got X amount of time to make it somewhere.
Coincidence - There are some points where everyone almost randomly goes to the same place, or two factions seem to need the same thing and use the same guy to get that thing. I was only casually watching the series, so some plot threads may have eluded me as I drifted away, but often it seemed like things coincided on this show at really helpful or unhelpful moments. “You mean the president is in town with his incompetent assistant the same day that the shipment of the virus is coming in. Thanks, guy who just happened to know all this!”

Who would like this?
I dunno. If you liked Die Hard, I’d say put it on in the background while you exercise and have fun. There’s some good moments and enough of them to keep you interested. The only problem may come when streaming or on DVD as each episode ends with a cliffhanger that continues immediately on the next episode. Can become editing.

Mark of Athena Book Review

I read the new entry in the Percy Jackson/Heroes of Olympus universe by Rick Riordan, Mark of Athena. Here’s my opinion:

What I liked:
Realism - The book and the series as a whole is filled with real people that do realistic things in the face of adversity, i.e. heroes.
Relationships, unromantic. Since all the characters have been introduced in previous books, I was delighted to see how these personalities clash and conform to each other throughout the book. I wished more attention was dealt to the group as a whole, but I feel that will come with later entries as this gives a more fragmented view as how
Detail - As in all of Rick Riordan's books, tons of myths and callbacks from previous books are evident. I found myself looking up more information on these old gods as much as I did looking up references to the other books.

What I didn’t like:
Relationships, romantic. There are great moments of romance in this book, but they rest squarely between Percy and Annabeth. Without giving spoilers, there are three moments spread throughout this book that show how these two characters have grown to both support and care about each other. And that’s the key word. Show. The other characters romantic relationships are just told to us through passages of internal narration that leave little to be desired.
Shifting narration - As Riordan’s other series, The Kane Chronicles, I think this book suffers from having a central narrator. I see why he would want to show multiple viewpoints, especially with such a diverse cast, but something is lost as it feels we get less in the way of following a story and more plodding from one place to another.
Pacing - Tied to the shifting narration is the choppy pacing of the book. One location to the next, jumping from action to long periods of quiet contemplation. This works at times, but the focus on all the various characters in their own narrated chapters breaks the book into fight/wait, fight/wait, instead of keeping the plot moving.

Was it banned?
No, it’s new. So far, I can see no particular instance of banning of this series, but parents may have issues with some of the relationship things, however chaised they are, the dark elements of the books and the violence.

Who would like this?
Teens and older who liked the Percy Jackson series or Harry Potter, boys and girls alike. The same attention to detail and humor with likeable characters exists here, just get ready when the power of love does not solve everything. Anyone who digs greek and roman mythology. Possibly comic book readers, as these kids have awesome powers. Aquaman can be cool.

Kitchen Confidential Book Review

Summary
An autobiographical tale of one man's love obsession with food and the business of making food. Anthony Bourdain, famous chef of television and New York kitchens, gives an unflinching look into the business of food.

What I liked
Writing Style. Bourdain's story is told in a rambling, disjointed style that comes across more like a diary or book of short stories than a narrative memoir. This has positive and negative effects, the positive allowing the book to feel like a stranger telling you stories at the end of a heavy nights drinking at the bar.
Characters. The stories are filled with a cast of disjointed, eclectic individuals that make a prison yard look like a kindergarten. Punctuated with stories of success and excess, these people carry the stories as you learn their strengths in the kitchen and their weaknesses in life.
Honesty. The book is unflinching in the sex, drugs and rock and roll that Bourdain lived in. The candid nature of the text made me at times look back at my own time in kitchens and the reasons why I would go back and the reasons I ran screaming.

What I didn’t like
Sometimes distracting food porn. This book is as much about food as it is about Bourdain's life. This book has more food porn than the Hunger Games as the chef goes into detailed lists of various dishes in various languages. This can sometimes break the narrative or derail it entirely, sometimes distracting to the point that this reader had to stop and make a sandwhich or two to stop a growling stomach. This gives points to the effectiveness of his descriptions, but can stop the reading cold.
Broken biography. As I stated above, the writing style has negative moments. Like the food porn, jumping from story to story, life point to life point can be frustrating for the reader as it interupts the flow of the narrative. This might be just me, but when a writer gives candid and detailed descriptions in most of his text, the "boring" parts that are glossed over are just that more apparent.

Why was this book be banned?
I have no evidence of this book being banned from a school or library, but do not expect this book to be handed out at student job fairs. Graphic language including tales of sex, drug use and all around debauchery fill this book with a sometimes delightful glee.

Who would like this book?
Liberally minded foodies will also enjoy the obvious love of food in these pages. Adults who also indulge in books about rock stars cutting loose will enjoy the hell out of this book. I fear and hope that some teenagers out there get this book into their hands, as I believe as much as this book fills me with nostalgia it would prepare those who would venture into kitchens either as temporary employment or as a career.

Be my friend on GoodReads!

The Red Pyramid Book Review

The Red Pyramid (The Kane Chronicles, Book 1) by Rick Riordan

An extension of the Percy Jackson universe, gods, magic and heroes live among us in this tale of the Kane children, Carter and Sadie, as they learn they are the descendants of Ancient Egyptian magicians.

If you or your children liked the Harry Potter books, these may be the natural extension of that type of world and myth building. By bringing ancient myths into the present day, this tale of action and adventure teaches as well as entertains.

Now that all the boring stuff is out of the way, what did I think really?

What I liked

• Myths and legends of Ancient Egypt are really cool. Riordan’s interpretation of these figures in modern day settings makes for some fun and entertaining moments, such as the cat goddess grooming herself and other things that sound creepier than they are. Also, pointing out all the little Egyptian artifacts that are still in use today makes walking to the store all that more exciting.
• Riordan does not talk down to the audience. This book is kinda mean in the way the characters (preteen children) are knocked around, beaten down, and straight up told they are going to die more than once.
• Small nods. There are various small nods to both the Percy Jackson books as well as other mythologies, the biggest being Moses. I am excited to see if Riordain expands on this. (I really, really want him to write a Norse myth series.)
• F-Yeah moments. More than one time you will find yourself raising your fist as Carter and Sadie rise to an occasion, beat a bad guy silly, or just get off one good line.

What I did not like

• The characters are a little stale and oddly defined. As mixed race children, more than once it is mentioned that Carter is African American and Sadie looks more European American and was raised in London (complete with an British accent) but this rarely comes through in the story. This is an interesting choice, but part of me thinks it was wasted and the other part of me thinks it was done to give depth the kids did not need. I would have liked this choice better if it had been handled with more subtlety rather than the odd mention or use of British slang terms as this would have given each character a unique voice rather than the same voice with different terms.
• Alternating chapters. An extension of the last point, as each sibling hands off the story to the other, the effect is either jarring or simply “man, I was having fun with him/her.” The effect is used in other fiction (Game of Thrones) to give alternating perspectives on the same events or “what was also happening while...”, but here (with few exceptions) both children are present for every event and have the same perspective. Each of their voices is nearly the same, asking why this had to be written this way.
• Use of Egyptian Names. This could have bothered me more than in the Percy Jackson books because I am more familiar with Greek/Roman mythology, but each time I was given the name of this god or that, I forgot it. Notice how above I keep mentioning “cat god?” No idea what her name was and she was my favorite character. Saying this and also saying that it teaches me stuff (above)... well, I am old and do not really care. I do see this making children go running to Wikipedia, though. (God help us.)
• Setting. Hogwart’s. Camp Halfblood. Sound familiar? Because these are home base. They are a safe harbor and a known entity. Children’s books need this place, a comfortable setting, because they give the audience a place to return to where everything in the book can operate with the book’s world rules. I am fine with Indiana Jones running around the world, but Harry Potter better get his ass to Hogwart’s at some point. This book does not have that, or at least introduces then destroys at least two. It keeps the story loose and moving, but this also takes away something for the audience to connect to.

Why was it banned? Justified?
I could find no instance of the Red Pyramid being banned in a school or library, but that does not mean it could not happen. The abundancy of mentions about worshiping the gods (not Christian) and mention of Christian mythology may lead more religious parents to dislike this book, if not for the blatant mention of magic. Some parents may also not wish their children to be introduced to the idea of mixed race children (however poorly handled) until the child (and parent) is ready to tackle the idea of racism (or they could just be bigoted assholes. Yeah, I’ll judge you on that.) A wild number of murders and deaths also happen in the book, mostly offscreen, that may make some parents want to hold off until the kid is older.

Doctor Who: "The Angels Take Manhattan" Review

If you have not watched the latest episode of Doctor Who, "The Angels Take Manhattan," then just skip this review as I may spoil some things as I rant and rave.  Go.  Close this and go watch it if you care, then come back and give me another hit on the website.  Do that anyway, if you are feeling funky.  Hint, hint.

Also, I am going to rant and rave about the new Doctor Who in general because I do not think I have done that, at least in a while, so if you have not watched since the Christopher Eccleston days, probably spoilers there, too.  They are all on Netflix, go nuts.  Start with Blink, not because it pertains to this episode but because it's just really good television.

Okay, on to the ranting and raving.

Summary:
The Angels are back and in Manhattan.  After Rory gets sent back in time, Amy and the Doctor follow and with River Song attempt to put right what once... well, things happen.

What I liked:

• The atmosphere and overall noir-ish feel that it kinda sorta had.  Could have used more of this.  New York is given full treatment and I really wanted to visit it again after watching this episode.
• The cast.  I really like to see these people play.  Matt Smith, Karen Gillian, Arthur Darvill and Alex Kingston, regardless of how you feel about their characters, are really, really good at making everything seem fun and in the moment.  I never question why these people are together.
• The Angels.  I am probably the first person to say this on the internet, so here goes: The Angels scare the crap out of me and I really like the opportunities they give for the writers to play with time in story. Plus, baby Angels and the pitter patter of little feet.  Shudder.
• The good use of a goodbye.  Done twice, but the first time is more effective.

What I disliked:

• The last minute fix to the paradox.  This was a blatant rip-off of the Rose goodbye in Series Two, but with the Doctor having nothing to do with the final decision.  There is only tension and storytelling goodness when there is hope that the hero will save the day and he does not.  That is what makes a character send off good. Which is what they realized so the writers wrote...
• The twist.  Out of nowhere, with little to no foreshadowing and almost disrespectful to a character that for the last four years is the only one to see even the smallest amount of growth.
• The unexplained.  How are the Angels back after being erased?  How do they get around the galaxy?  What happened to that whole "look them in the eye thing?"  What happened to "they can not move even if they see themselves?"  And how does that one statue walk down the middle of Manhattan with no one noticing?  I think it would be pretty awkward if it just got stuck because a homeless dude could not sleep.  Blah, plot holes, plot holes, sticky sticky plot holes.
• River Song in general.  Do not get me wrong, I like the idea of the character and enjoy seeing her on screen working with the others, but she just seems to show up and know everything.  Which I guess is what the Doctor does, but now knowing her back story this seems improbable.

On the whole, a good episode that seemed to be a monster of the week.  Care did not seem to be taken to give the send off that we had been waiting for and I hope this becomes relevant in the future.  The tired themes that people age while the Doctor does not and that the Doctor needs a companion have been told better and way too many times.  Seems they could come up with more interesting themes and stories for a being that has traveled all of space and time for 1,200 years is all I'm saying.

About Moffet's 11th Doctor run in general:  I like it, but it does not have the cohesiveness of the Davies run that I came to expect.  The grand story lines, multi-part episodes that all build to a conclusion seem to have been dropped, which has lead to a lack of character development in general.  The stories do not serve the characters or give them depth.  Ask yourself: what do each of these characters need and what do they want and how are those at opposed at any given time?  The Doctor needs companions and wants adventure, so he gets it.  Rory needs a backbone and wants Amy, so he gets it.  Amy needs a life and wants adventure, so she gets it.  Who the hell knows about River...  This is boring and more in tune with a monster-of-the-week type show than the grand spectacles we have seen in previous series where the characters grow from week to week.  Martha went from doctor to field agent.  Donna, one of the greatest companions, went from secretary to the most important person in the universe "Doctor/Donna," changed profoundly from what she was in a single season.  Even Rose, arguably the weakest of the companions, had her eyes opened from an innocent shop girl with a family to a kinda badass that hopped dimensions.  And all of these had great send-offs that made us want to see what happened next in their lives.

This is odd coming from Moffet, who gave us some of the more memorable multi-part episodes of the Davies run.  The threads they do use, apart from the Centurion/Pandorica, fall flat, are predicatable and have poor endings.  I do not feel triumphant when the 11th Doctor wins, and that is a sad thing to have happen to a great character.  

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Book Review

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1)
by J.K. Rowling
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

“Yer a wizard, Harry.” Full stop, there you go, that sums up this, the first year at Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. I want to be fair here and say this is my second time reading the first of Harry Potter’s adventures and am as biased as the rest of fandom about this series, while maybe not so rabid.

J.K. Rowling is not so much a great writer as she is a world builder. A minor deity weaving a magical land that not only do you want to believe is real, you genuinely hope that it is real. The small and grand touches of magic that she spices the stories with help to immerse the reader with the best effect made in the first installment of the series. The slow introduction of both Harry and the reader to the world of magic is well told, each chapter building on the rest. If it were my choice, Rowling would continually set stories in this world that she has created and shun all others that may be brewing in her mind.

Other stories in this world would and could be fascinating from different points of view, as Rowling shows in the series by giving excellent side characters to play around the main character. These side characters, such as Nearly Headless Nick or the nurse Madam Pomfrey, often caused the main characters and the reader to talk about them in whispers lest they hear. As for the main cast, in this first book I can give them a pass as blank slates that build desires and wants as they move through the story and let them live as the child reader avatars that they are.

The writing of this story has some hits and misses. After it was pointed out to me the number of times Rowling likes to use adverbs when her characters speak, I could not help but notice them everywhere (he types pointedly). Overall, though, the descriptions are clean, the dialog is fun, and the writing level exceeds those meant for this age group.

This book has been banned on numerous occasions for its liberal use of magic and sorcery by children. The concern is that children will read the book and attempt to find a train station that does not exist that will take them to a school they cannot go to with supplies they cannot buy and learn witchcraft from people that are different from them. There may also be some complaints out there from those that can get past the magic thing that the books encourages challenging authority in children as well as wandering in the woods hoping to meet a unicorn or centaur.

Friend Me on Goodreads