Saturday, February 28, 2015
Reel Reviews
Guardians of the Galaxy -- This movie gets a huge leg up in generating goodwill from its audience through its amazing soundtrack. The music nails it for appealing to viewers of a certain age, who most likely already have these songs on their preferred listening device--people like yours truly. Then again, it probably does some damage if those viewers recognize the soundtrack as a cynical ploy to appeal to said demographic, and thus boost ticket and home viewing sales. Call all that a wash, and thus we're stuck with trying to judge this film on its own merits--and that is a hit and miss proposition. For every space opera element that is derivative, predictable, and stale, there's also a piece of cleverness, good humor, and just sheer entertainment that offsets the problems. If we do the math, I think the whole thing winds up in the plus column; not by much, but enough that this one gets a passing grade, something just high enough to keep that goodwill going for the inevitable sequel.
Monday, February 23, 2015
No Appreciation for Depreciation
You hear it said all the time: "I would never buy a new car, because the value depreciates by a huge amount the moment you drive it off the lot."
This bromide has been repeated so often that it has become an honored bedrock constituent of conventional wisdom. Most folks who hear this sentiment will nod their heads in agreement at the worthy who spoke these words, and will swear to the heavens that they too would never buy a new car, lest they also see their car's precious valuation drop like a bird struck dead.
There's just one problem with all this: it's stupid.
I don't deny that a new car's value immediately decreases as soon as you've bought it. That's undoubtedly true. It's just that it doesn't really make much difference if your vehicle's value immediately drops by several hundred, or even thousands, of dollars as soon as you drive it. Why would it? Presumably, most people who buy a new car expect to keep that car for an extended amount of time, probably for many years. In that scenario, why would you care if the car you bought for $22,000 is now only worth $19,000? You're not planning on selling it anyway. Why do you need to make sure that you hold onto that extra three grand in value? Are you a junkie gambler and need to use your brand new car as collateral on some desperate bet? Will your bookie only accept a car valued at $20,000 on your parlay? If that's your situation, you've got bigger problems than your car's depreciation.
Value drops off sharply at first, but after some time the rate of depreciation is going to slow down (assuming you take care of the car reasonably well). The car you buy new will lose value quicker than the same car from two model years before purchased new or used. But in eight years, when the new car is eight years old and the earlier model is ten years old, which will have more value? As likely as not, it'll be the one you bought new, though probably not by much; both cars' values will approach each other as they get older and older.
Some will object that the valuation matters for insurance purposes; that is, for premium purposes and for what you'll get on a claim if the car is totaled a week after you drove it off the lot. Premiums will always be higher for a newer--that is, higher value--vehicle. But at least one insurer--Liberty Mutual--specifically advertises a policy of "one year newer" replacement for stolen or wrecked cars. Other insurers probably have similar policies, and if they don't...well, more business for LM. Bottom line: insurance is hardly a reason not to buy a new car, if you can afford it (both the car and the premiums).
The "depreciation problem" thing is one of those examples of something that stupid people hear and they agree with it because they think it sounds like wisdom--except, of course, they're stupid, so what do they know about wisdom? This matter, like many other examples of conventional wisdom, falls apart when you think it through.
Now, if you want to lease a new car...well, you're on your own there.
This bromide has been repeated so often that it has become an honored bedrock constituent of conventional wisdom. Most folks who hear this sentiment will nod their heads in agreement at the worthy who spoke these words, and will swear to the heavens that they too would never buy a new car, lest they also see their car's precious valuation drop like a bird struck dead.
There's just one problem with all this: it's stupid.
I don't deny that a new car's value immediately decreases as soon as you've bought it. That's undoubtedly true. It's just that it doesn't really make much difference if your vehicle's value immediately drops by several hundred, or even thousands, of dollars as soon as you drive it. Why would it? Presumably, most people who buy a new car expect to keep that car for an extended amount of time, probably for many years. In that scenario, why would you care if the car you bought for $22,000 is now only worth $19,000? You're not planning on selling it anyway. Why do you need to make sure that you hold onto that extra three grand in value? Are you a junkie gambler and need to use your brand new car as collateral on some desperate bet? Will your bookie only accept a car valued at $20,000 on your parlay? If that's your situation, you've got bigger problems than your car's depreciation.
Value drops off sharply at first, but after some time the rate of depreciation is going to slow down (assuming you take care of the car reasonably well). The car you buy new will lose value quicker than the same car from two model years before purchased new or used. But in eight years, when the new car is eight years old and the earlier model is ten years old, which will have more value? As likely as not, it'll be the one you bought new, though probably not by much; both cars' values will approach each other as they get older and older.
Some will object that the valuation matters for insurance purposes; that is, for premium purposes and for what you'll get on a claim if the car is totaled a week after you drove it off the lot. Premiums will always be higher for a newer--that is, higher value--vehicle. But at least one insurer--Liberty Mutual--specifically advertises a policy of "one year newer" replacement for stolen or wrecked cars. Other insurers probably have similar policies, and if they don't...well, more business for LM. Bottom line: insurance is hardly a reason not to buy a new car, if you can afford it (both the car and the premiums).
The "depreciation problem" thing is one of those examples of something that stupid people hear and they agree with it because they think it sounds like wisdom--except, of course, they're stupid, so what do they know about wisdom? This matter, like many other examples of conventional wisdom, falls apart when you think it through.
Now, if you want to lease a new car...well, you're on your own there.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Jogging Your Mind, and Hand
I had an insight recently. Put most people in a meeting, or any similar situation, where they're sitting there with a pad of paper and a writing instrument, and most of those people will start doodling on the paper. Usually, we interpret such doodlings as evidence that the person with the pen is bored. However, I've come to suspect that that's not true.
I think that when someone starts doodling in such a situation, what he or she is actually doing is something similar to running in place. Joggers run in place when they are not moving forward, such as when waiting at a stoplight, but want to keep themselves at the ready and on their toes for when they do get the green light to go again. Doodling performs a similar function during note-taking situations: it's a way to keep your writing hand revved up and ready to move while there's nothing to note, so that you can quickly jot down your notes when there is something worth writing down.
Thus, it's unfair to accuse the doodler of being bored or not paying attention--he's actually paying attention and keeping his hand at the ready for the task ahead.
Not the most earth-shattering insight, perhaps, but it's an example of how everyday actions, when interpreted from another angle, can turn into something radically different from what we've always assumed them to be.
I think that when someone starts doodling in such a situation, what he or she is actually doing is something similar to running in place. Joggers run in place when they are not moving forward, such as when waiting at a stoplight, but want to keep themselves at the ready and on their toes for when they do get the green light to go again. Doodling performs a similar function during note-taking situations: it's a way to keep your writing hand revved up and ready to move while there's nothing to note, so that you can quickly jot down your notes when there is something worth writing down.
Thus, it's unfair to accuse the doodler of being bored or not paying attention--he's actually paying attention and keeping his hand at the ready for the task ahead.
Not the most earth-shattering insight, perhaps, but it's an example of how everyday actions, when interpreted from another angle, can turn into something radically different from what we've always assumed them to be.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Recently Read
I Don't Care if We Never Get Back
by Ben Blatt & Eric Brewster
What is it about baseball that makes even its most partisan supporters feel the need to trash the game? To readers who delve into I Don't Care if We Never Get Back, that may not seem like a pertinent question. Since the book is a travelogue relating the ups and downs of two friends on a 30 games in 30 days road trip, and most of the downs are related to things that happen beyond the ballpark, you could be forgiven for believing that this book does little to besmirch the game of baseball. But it's not as simple as that.
Clearly, for no other sport would such a trip be possible; only baseball plays its games on such an abundant schedule that a game a day for a whole month would even be plausible. And no other sport would inspire one of its fans--note: one fan, despite the book's two authors; more on that below--to even contemplate such a trip, including going to the trouble of developing an algorithm that would provide--in theory--the most efficient driving route to get one's self all the way across the country and back for all those games, in minimal time. Only a baseball fanatic would go to such trouble, and thus the game itself comes under some scrutiny when the concept goes a little sour.
And sour it goes, on more than one occasion. Co-authors Blatt and Brewster find themselves in trouble all over the place: torrential storms that threaten their tightly woven schedule (not to mention their lives on the roads); ticketing troubles, including an unfortunate scalping incident; utter exhaustion due to lack of sleep, and its consequences; and a friendship strained to the limit by one participant's lack of enthusiasm for baseball.
It's that last item that hangs over the narrative right from the start, making the reader wonder why in the hell Brewster, who doesn't care much for the game, would agree to accompany the baseball and statistics mad Blatt on such a trip in the first place. It's out of friendship, of course, and that acknowledgement comes in due time, but the damage to the reader's enjoyment of the story is done long before Blatt and Brewser--in their prose, at least--come to terms with their fraternal feelings for each other. The authors play up the conflict for comedic effect, but for most readers the laughs are few and far between; the most likely impression the reader will get from these chapters is the sense that these guys are not very pleasant to be around. Why then would one want to waste time reading a book about them?
Other problems abound here, the major one being the choice to write the book in both second person and third person voices. The more illiterate among us probably wouldn't even notice, but if you understand composition at all, you're not likely to enjoy a narrative that bounces back and forth between "We did this..." and "Eric said this..." or "Ben checked that..." Perhaps it should have been a warning that the need to share author billing--and thus torment the voice of the narrative--would make for a less than successful book (and, for that matter, road trip).
Some further issues, mostly mechanical problems, take some steam out of this work as well. At one point, during a discourse on the worshipful attitudes fans take towards their favorite ballplayers, the authors offer this nugget:
There are a few redeeming notes here and there. The boys' rumination, in the course of a game in Baltimore, on the nature of "The Star Spangled Banner"--the national anthem as question, not statement, at least in its usually performed verses--is insightful and thought-provoking, even if the authors step on their own premise a few paragraphs later. And, as noted above, when Blatt and Brewster do finally acknowledge the depth of their friendship and what it means to them, they are redeemed (somewhat) in the reader's eyes.
Unfortunately, that redemption comes too late in the game to affect the outcome. I Don't Care if We Never Get Back has to go down as a loss for the authors and their readers. As with baseball itself, having a little respect for the game going into it is a big help; otherwise, the game is famous for humbling its participants. Blatt and Brewster should have learned that lesson on their trip, and if not then, then certainly by the time their book was published.
by Ben Blatt & Eric Brewster
What is it about baseball that makes even its most partisan supporters feel the need to trash the game? To readers who delve into I Don't Care if We Never Get Back, that may not seem like a pertinent question. Since the book is a travelogue relating the ups and downs of two friends on a 30 games in 30 days road trip, and most of the downs are related to things that happen beyond the ballpark, you could be forgiven for believing that this book does little to besmirch the game of baseball. But it's not as simple as that.
Clearly, for no other sport would such a trip be possible; only baseball plays its games on such an abundant schedule that a game a day for a whole month would even be plausible. And no other sport would inspire one of its fans--note: one fan, despite the book's two authors; more on that below--to even contemplate such a trip, including going to the trouble of developing an algorithm that would provide--in theory--the most efficient driving route to get one's self all the way across the country and back for all those games, in minimal time. Only a baseball fanatic would go to such trouble, and thus the game itself comes under some scrutiny when the concept goes a little sour.
 |
| I Don't Care if We Never Get Back by Ben Blatt and Eric Brewster |
It's that last item that hangs over the narrative right from the start, making the reader wonder why in the hell Brewster, who doesn't care much for the game, would agree to accompany the baseball and statistics mad Blatt on such a trip in the first place. It's out of friendship, of course, and that acknowledgement comes in due time, but the damage to the reader's enjoyment of the story is done long before Blatt and Brewser--in their prose, at least--come to terms with their fraternal feelings for each other. The authors play up the conflict for comedic effect, but for most readers the laughs are few and far between; the most likely impression the reader will get from these chapters is the sense that these guys are not very pleasant to be around. Why then would one want to waste time reading a book about them?
Other problems abound here, the major one being the choice to write the book in both second person and third person voices. The more illiterate among us probably wouldn't even notice, but if you understand composition at all, you're not likely to enjoy a narrative that bounces back and forth between "We did this..." and "Eric said this..." or "Ben checked that..." Perhaps it should have been a warning that the need to share author billing--and thus torment the voice of the narrative--would make for a less than successful book (and, for that matter, road trip).
Some further issues, mostly mechanical problems, take some steam out of this work as well. At one point, during a discourse on the worshipful attitudes fans take towards their favorite ballplayers, the authors offer this nugget:
In World War II, the United States government name a 422-foot ship the SS Christy Mathewson [sic] after the legendary Giants pitcher. The military, which surely should have no shortage of its own heroes to draw from on the battlefield or in the halls of Congress, chose to honor a man who threw a ball a shorter distance than a soldier could throw a grenade.Um, no. That ship was named after Christy Mathewson, who, in addition to a Hall of Fame pitching career, served during WWI and thus suffered exposure to poison gas (during a training exercise) that left his lungs permanently damaged and susceptible to tuberculosis--a condition that ended his days on the mound. That story is well-known among baseball fans; how did the baseball-obsessed Blatt not know it, or not care enough to avoid besmirching the memory of one of the game's legends? Beyond that major gaffe, other instances of careless writing pop up: the sentence that begins "It's difficult to appropriate the exact moment..." (presumably, 'appropriate' should be 'approximate'); the chapter headings where the home of the Reds is spelled 'Cincinatti'; and the chapters where accounts of certain games get short shrift. Again and again, Blatt and Brewster come up short as proofreaders, at the least, if not as prose stylists.
There are a few redeeming notes here and there. The boys' rumination, in the course of a game in Baltimore, on the nature of "The Star Spangled Banner"--the national anthem as question, not statement, at least in its usually performed verses--is insightful and thought-provoking, even if the authors step on their own premise a few paragraphs later. And, as noted above, when Blatt and Brewster do finally acknowledge the depth of their friendship and what it means to them, they are redeemed (somewhat) in the reader's eyes.
Unfortunately, that redemption comes too late in the game to affect the outcome. I Don't Care if We Never Get Back has to go down as a loss for the authors and their readers. As with baseball itself, having a little respect for the game going into it is a big help; otherwise, the game is famous for humbling its participants. Blatt and Brewster should have learned that lesson on their trip, and if not then, then certainly by the time their book was published.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Reel Reviews
Million Dollar Arm -- Damn, those Disney people sure know how to make a movie. There's absolutely nothing surprising about this flick; everything is utterly predictable, you can see every twist and turn coming a mile away. And yet it's still an enjoyable, entertaining film to watch. Twenty years ago I would have cynically dismissed a movie like this, and that may be your reaction to this one; but having lived a little and come to recognize the value of sweet, simple, charming entertainment, I can see a work like this for what it is: perhaps not something impressive, but still worthy of our attention, and worth rooting for. Also, it's nice to be reminded that people in other countries love their children, too; we don't get enough of that here in the U.S. Bottom line: no home run, but a solid single up the middle.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Reel Reviews
The Monuments Men -- Noble ideas should always be winners. Sadly, they often are not, though the ones that aren't are not necessarily losers; sometimes they just fight life to a draw. So it is here with George Clooney's remembrance of a group of non-soldiers who suited up and went into a war not to save a country or each other, but the very culture of the Western world. The unevenness of the film probably reflects the difficulty in capturing this story in a dramatic setting; parts of the film are entertaining and involving, while others seem disjointed and not particularly well fit with the rest of the film. (If a movie had been made strictly about the recovery of the Madonna and Child statue--a major plotline here--one suspects it would have been a tighter, more watchable film.) As it is, this flick stands as a good effort, and its noble idea--that the treasures of our culture were worth saving when monsters wanted to destroy them--surely deserves at least this much attention.
Reel Reviews
Philomena -- Wow, and I thought I hated nuns before seeing this movie. You might feel the same way after watching this tragic tale, which is disheartening but not so heavy that it can't walk the thin line between too much truth and entertainment. Steve Coogan holds his own against an acting mainstay like Judy Dench (who both give excellent performances), and gets major kudos for also co-producing the film and co-writing the sharp, insightful screenplay. When it's all put together, you get a film worthy of its Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and well worth your time.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Reel Reviews
Captain America: The Winter Soldier -- I really wanted to give this flick a positive review, and intended to do so up till the moment I sat down at the keyboard. This film brings likeable qualities to the screen: Chris Evans does a good job of conveying Cap's earnestness, many of the action sequences are typically audacious (a trait shared with its predecessor), the plot even takes a stab at some serious philosophical questions. But...this doesn't seem like a very well thought out movie. The surprises aren't all that surprising, the major reveal doesn't make a great deal of sense (and why "The Winter Soldier"? I don't recall that ever being explained), and the ending largely devolves into the same orgy of destruction we saw in the first Avengers flick. If you're big on the whole Marvel universe, you probably want to watch this one for completeness, if nothing else--just don't pay for it; get it from the library or TV. If they want your dollars, the producers need to do better than this.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Reel Reviews
The Book Thief -- This may be the first movie about Nazi Germany to ever capture so clearly the sense of how medieval the place, time, and frame of mind was. Though the story, and the film's interpretation thereof, are set in the Germany of the '30s and '40s, the feeling that comes through when watching this film is of a place and time--and, perhaps, a culture and an ideology--from at least two centuries before then. Within that context the movie presents a lovely story that manages to avoid being a downer despite the grief and horror that surrounds young Liesl's life. (Big kudos to young Sophie Nélisse, who shines in the role of Liesl.) It can be a little heavy at times, but this picture delivers a moving experience and deserves your attention.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Reel Reviews
The Fault In Our Stars -- This is obviously a work of fiction. Most real life people aren't nearly as charming, intelligent, sophisticated, and interesting as the two protagonists in this tearjerking tale. If you can get over that suspension of disbelief hurdle, you'll find yourself pleased and charmed and moved by this film, and you'll probably get a good cry out of it, too. And that's definitely something everyone needs once in a while. Give this one a look.
Recently Read
A Nice Little Place on the North Side:
Wrigley Field at One Hundred
by George Will
As a newspaper columnist and television talking head, George Will has been the epitome of elitism and snobbery, all wrapped up in a bow-tied package that serves only the interests of the wealthy masters who pay him handsomely for such representation. But every once in a while, Will steps away from his political role and chooses to celebrate his other--perhaps only legitimate--passion, baseball. And when Will writes about baseball, he becomes...well, not exactly likeable. Tolerable is probably a better adjective for this other dimension of Will's character.
Loveable is not the correct adjective either, though it is one that is often attached--along with tag "losers"--to Will's subject in his latest baseball book, the Cubs. For while A Nice Little Place on the North Side is ostensibly about Wrigley Field, the ballpark is just a building, and it would be of little note to anyone but for the actions of the team that has spent most of the park's history as its primary tenant.
That's a problem, because, while a reader should absorb an author's work with a dispassionate mind, the fact is that when a professional sports team serves as the bulk of a book's subject, only a non-fan can maintain that kind of stoic disassociation. And those who are not sports fans rarely pick up sports-related books. Those who will crack the spine of a newly minted baseball book are most likely baseball fans, who will bring to those pages their own thoughts, feelings, and memories regarding the team in question.
Hence, the central role played by the Cubs in A Nice Little Place... can undermine the reader's enjoyment of the book (unless, of course, you are--like Will himself--a long-time Cubs fan). While a baseball fan may be able to appreciate a telling of the highs (rare) and lows (legion) of the Cubs' history, he is unlikely to be moved in any great sense by the vignettes presented in this book. (Will eschews a straight narrative history of the park and instead offers a more episodic, mostly chronological telling of Wrigley Field lore.)
That is probably why A Nice Little Place... is at its best when Will shifts away from idle tales about the Cubs' fortunes and relates more information about how Wrigley Field has affected the team's performance. Nowhere is this clearer than in Will's portrait of P.K. Wrigley, the son of the field's namesake and "reluctant owner" of the Cubs through the much of the middle of the 20th century (when losing records became Chicago's hallmark). In the junior Wrigley, Will gets to portray a near perfect idol for why the Cubs have underachieved for so long; the man actually came out and plainly said that his goal, in emphasizing the Wrigley Field experience (rather than winning teams), was to cater to "people not interested in baseball." Will builds a solid case that such a philosophy--ballpark as showcase and team as afterthought--has been the ruin of many a Cubs season.
One wonders then, if the ballpark has been so guilty, why would a true blue Cubs fan be so quick to lionize the place? Will, however, never wavers from his Cubs fan bona fides, even expressing some cautious optimism that the current Ricketts family ownership will put a stop to all this "just have a good time" stuff and put a winning team on that hallowed field. How quaint. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that recent renovations aren't going so well, and the neighborhood around Wrigley Field is getting restless.
So it goes for the Cubs, and partisans such as Will will have to endure the tribulations for a while longer before they see better days for their favorite team. And if things keep working out as usual for the team on Chicago's North Side? Well, Will and his friends will still have their favorite ballpark--in at least some of its glory--to comfort them with memories good and bad. Such is life and baseball.
Wrigley Field at One Hundred
by George Will
As a newspaper columnist and television talking head, George Will has been the epitome of elitism and snobbery, all wrapped up in a bow-tied package that serves only the interests of the wealthy masters who pay him handsomely for such representation. But every once in a while, Will steps away from his political role and chooses to celebrate his other--perhaps only legitimate--passion, baseball. And when Will writes about baseball, he becomes...well, not exactly likeable. Tolerable is probably a better adjective for this other dimension of Will's character.
Loveable is not the correct adjective either, though it is one that is often attached--along with tag "losers"--to Will's subject in his latest baseball book, the Cubs. For while A Nice Little Place on the North Side is ostensibly about Wrigley Field, the ballpark is just a building, and it would be of little note to anyone but for the actions of the team that has spent most of the park's history as its primary tenant.
 |
| George Will's A Nice Little Place on the North Side |
Hence, the central role played by the Cubs in A Nice Little Place... can undermine the reader's enjoyment of the book (unless, of course, you are--like Will himself--a long-time Cubs fan). While a baseball fan may be able to appreciate a telling of the highs (rare) and lows (legion) of the Cubs' history, he is unlikely to be moved in any great sense by the vignettes presented in this book. (Will eschews a straight narrative history of the park and instead offers a more episodic, mostly chronological telling of Wrigley Field lore.)
That is probably why A Nice Little Place... is at its best when Will shifts away from idle tales about the Cubs' fortunes and relates more information about how Wrigley Field has affected the team's performance. Nowhere is this clearer than in Will's portrait of P.K. Wrigley, the son of the field's namesake and "reluctant owner" of the Cubs through the much of the middle of the 20th century (when losing records became Chicago's hallmark). In the junior Wrigley, Will gets to portray a near perfect idol for why the Cubs have underachieved for so long; the man actually came out and plainly said that his goal, in emphasizing the Wrigley Field experience (rather than winning teams), was to cater to "people not interested in baseball." Will builds a solid case that such a philosophy--ballpark as showcase and team as afterthought--has been the ruin of many a Cubs season.
One wonders then, if the ballpark has been so guilty, why would a true blue Cubs fan be so quick to lionize the place? Will, however, never wavers from his Cubs fan bona fides, even expressing some cautious optimism that the current Ricketts family ownership will put a stop to all this "just have a good time" stuff and put a winning team on that hallowed field. How quaint. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that recent renovations aren't going so well, and the neighborhood around Wrigley Field is getting restless.
So it goes for the Cubs, and partisans such as Will will have to endure the tribulations for a while longer before they see better days for their favorite team. And if things keep working out as usual for the team on Chicago's North Side? Well, Will and his friends will still have their favorite ballpark--in at least some of its glory--to comfort them with memories good and bad. Such is life and baseball.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Reel Reviews
X-Men: Days of Future Past -- What's the strength of this franchise? Most would say action, special effects, the metaphor--whatever else is obvious about these movies. I'd say it's casting. The reason we care at all about what's going on here is simply how well these actors inhabit their roles, and make the characters meaningful to us despite all the hullabaloo. This is particularly so with Jackman's Wolverine, but also applies to Stewart and McAvoy as Xavier (they don't really look that much alike, but you still buy them as different ages of the same guy), Fassbender as Magneto, even the lightning quick kid whose name (and actor) I didn't catch. Oh, and what is going on here, a.k.a. story? Preposterous bullshit, of course--which is sort of the point of these things. Regardless, it's enjoyable bullshit, and worth at least a couple hours of your future time.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Reel Reviews
Kick-Ass 2 -- Lighten up, Jim. Yes, this is an extremely violent movie, but given the story it tells it could hardly be otherwise. In fact, I'll take this in your face violence over the sanitized, inconsequential violence we've been fed in so many Stallone or Schwarzenegger movies. The real problem here is not the graphic nature of the action, but the lack of freshness in the overall work. Such shortcomings are inevitable, perhaps, in a sequel like this, when the original was so fresh and...yes...original. What pulls this one through is the characters; we like and believe in Kick-Ass and Hit Girl, and want them to come out on top, whatever fight they're in. Just relax and let this one be what it is, and you'll have some fun watching it.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Reel Reviews
Bad Words -- Here's a mean one, and delightfully so. Jason Bateman's character is exactly what I wish I could be; alas, some touch of diplomacy is necessary in this world. In a movie, though, a guy that dickish can be hilarious, and Bateman's Guy is just that. I'm wavering only slightly in this review, because one can argue that the movie does pull its punches a bit--but not in any significant way that pulls any of the principals out of character. Also, there's a minor fallacy in the movie's premise: there's no particular need to have rules keeping adults out of spelling bees, as most adults are atrocious spellers. Regardless, this film is a ton of fun, as long as you're not a wilting flower about the language. Check it out.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Reel Reviews
Mr. Peabody and Sherman -- Here's a cautionary tale about all these nostalgia based remakes we've seen these past several years: if you don't get everything just right when you're competing with someone's memories, the memories win. So it goes with this film. A lot of what's here is good, but when the movie misses the mark--for example: the voice for Sherman is nowhere close to the original--the discrepancy takes the viewer right out of the moment. That's a tough tightrope to walk, and why most nostalgia movies don't succeed. On its own merits, this flick tends to be very clever--they seem to get all the historical facts right--but there's a lot of dumb sprinkled in, too. If not for its attachment to an already known property, I'm not sure this script would have been produced. Put it all together and the ultimate product merits the so-so mark--as much for unfulfilled potential as anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
