Need to start writing again.

And i’m not just talking about my blog either. I need to hurry the hell up and finish the shitty shitty novel I’ve been working on for over a year.  Granted that might be kind of a misleading statement since any actual work on it hasn’t been done since July, but hey, there was a point in 2012 in which work was done on it.

Aside from writing, I also need to revisit another of my favorite parts of 2012, recording podcasts.  I think instead of having a set schedule for when I will record them with… whoever will record them with me, I need to instead wait until there is actually something I really want to talk about.  Previously Emace and I would record every Wednesday night I think, and at times the conversation seemed forced since there may have been something I really wanted to talk about on Monday, but by the time we recorded, I wasn’t in the mood any more. So what do I, or did I earlier last week, want to talk about?

– That Pierce Morgan interview with that nut case Alex Jones.

– Whoooooo 49ers

– New Years resolutions

– 2013 Mancation.

– All the movies I’ve seen lately

– Boobs.

Now there are no specific boobs I wanted to talk about, or even any specific sub topics regarding boobs; I just like talking about boobs. In fact, let me try and tackle those last two topics by writing a little bit about the movie “Flight” which i recently went to the movie to see, and didn’t in any way download it along with like 10 other recently released movies now that a ton of oscar nominated screeners have hit the internet.

FLIGHT

A lot of this movie had been spoiled for me when I read a review that basically said the beginning third of the movie was amazing, and then the rest was just a long commercial for AA. I wonder if i would have felt that way if I hadn’t read that review.  I feel it was a fairly accurate review, especially the reviews description of how crazy hot Ruxin’s wife on the Legaue is when she is naked and prancing around a hotel room naked. Like super naked. Jesus was she naked. Not sure if boobs are real, but honestly who cares. Her name is Nadine Velasquez and she used to play the heart of gold stripper on “My Name is Earl”

I know I should probably discuss other facets of the movie, but I can’t stop thinking about this scene.  I guess it’s mostly because she’s hot and naked, but also its because I always find it weird when a famous or semi famous actress who has never been naked on film (but probably at some point in her normal life i’m assuming) decides to do a nude scene and there is no press about it.  I’m not saying CNN needs to do a story on it, but I just figured it would get a mention on the web leading up to the movie in order draw in the Mike Johnsons of the world.  People have wanted to see olivia Munn’s boobs in a non hacked cell phone picture context for a long time, and then she showed them off in Magic Mike, and the world wasn’t given any warning this was going to happen.  In fact I never would have found out if for some reason everyone who went and saw that movie took a vow of silence to not mention it.  If I ever make a movie in which Oliva Munn, Nadine Velasques, or Leslie Mann show off their boobs, that will be the only thing mentioned in the press releases and promotion material for the movie.

This is 40

Speaking of Leslie Mann’s boobs, she shows them off in this movie again. Once again she doesn’t do it just to make a scene crazy sexy, but instead it is used for comedic purposes just like… what ever that body swap movie she was in.

Close enough. Anyways this movie had some high points but not a lot of them.  On the plus side it continued the recent trend of Apatow and other comedies that resolve their conflicts more honestly and realistically. No Duce Ex Machina of any other types of Machine provided solutions to problems.

Django Unchained

I know there was a lot of debate about this movie, mostly centering around what some thought was an excessive use of the N word, and also the general depiction of slavery itself.  While I do understand the need for a better representation of the horror of slavery in America’s history, I don’t think that you can fault a movie like Django for failing to do so.  The point of the movie, and the reason for its existence, was simply to entertain.  I’m sure the creator, and many peole involved with the making of the movie had individualized goals, like perhaps having a kick ass black character who fought against oppressors during the time period – which is kind of cool cause how many kick ass black cowboys have there been in movies, but in general this movie was not supposed to be informative.  I don’t think at least.

I also think there is a big difference between white washing or re-writing history to seem less horrific in a movie and writing a movie that chooses not to delve into the darker aspects of our ancestors. It might be a subtle difference to some, and for many the location of where this line might be drawn is sharply different, but I feel this movie did a good job of not ignoring the holocaust of American Slavery while at the same time, not loosing itself to it.

To illustrate this, I’ll give to examples from the movie.  Early on Django is picking out clothes to wear as he is essentially going under cover with his white bounty hunter buddy played by that awesome guy from inglorious bastards. I’m not going to look up his name. i’m sure you know who I mean. So Django chooses an insanely flamboyant outfit that probably would have gotten the shop keeper killed if he had actually sold it to a black man if this story was 100% historically accurate and designed to inform the viewer of the horrors even a freed black man had to endure during that time period.

Later in the movie there is a scene in which Django is once again undercover and is trying to buy his wife from a slave owner who hobbies in Mandingo fighting. To protect his cover, Django is forced to essentially order the death of another slave.  The selling out on Django’s part is some what painful, but understandable since he is fighting to get his wife out of slavery which surely includes torture and rape.  What made this scene poignant was that Django knew that the way this man would be killed was by being ripped apart by hungry dogs. Tarintino to his credit did not simply fade away to another scene in a way that let the audience know what happened without actually having to bear witness to it.  Instead he showed some quick cuts of the man being eaten to death, and reaction shots of Django and his buddy the bounty hunter who’s name I still have not looked up.  The bounty hunter was visibly shaken by what he was witnessing, but Django seemed unfazed for the most.  part. The dialogue in this scene explained why with Django saying something to the effect that his bounty hunter friend had never seen how cruel white men can be, but that he had… honestly that was a terrible job of repeating what was said, but trust me, it was really poignant.

Now those two scenes I think do a good job of explaining how Tarantino was able to not white wash bush also not get lost in the specifics, since his movie was not supposed to do either of those things.  Now if you want a movie that was supposed to enlighten and inform on a subject like slavery then maybe there was another movie out that tried to do that.

Lincoln

Hey what’d ya know. So yeah this was a good movie, but I almost had to turn it off during the first scene cause it was a little too heavy handed with the reverence for Lincoln  Granted, he deserves it, but I already know about the guy. I don’t really need a movie to tell me how important he was. I’ve been to the Lincoln memorial, I’ve seen grand salutes to him already.  What annoyed me about that first scene is that I’m not sure it actually did anything for the story aside from tell the audience that people back then were as in awe of him as many of us are in awe of him today. Who cares. It didn’t add to the story in my opinion  and just came off as cheesy when the one black soldier started reciting the Gettysburg address to him. If I was Lincoln and someone started doing that too me, I’d be like “Hey buddy, I know the speech  I wrote it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad your a fan, and yeah i’m awesome and have done a lot for you, and yeah maybe you can’t be a commissioned officer yet cause there’s still work for me to do with all this equality for all men stuff, but Jesus, just let me try to be humble and read the newspaper. ”

A lot of people are also complaining about the lack of Freadrick Douglas in this movie since he was the man that influenced and shaped a lot of Abe’s thinking. Sadly I don’t know enough about this somewhat short time spand of the movie to say whether or not Douglas should have been included or not.  It is very likely that it would have been more inaccurate to actually have included him in the story, saying and doing things that had actually occurred months or years prior to the story taking place.  This might be move of an issue of Douglas needing a movie more than Lincoln. I mean Christ, we all know about Lincoln. Yeah not everybody knows about how difficult it was or how he had to kind of get into the mud and sell out a little to get stuff done, or how precarious the situation was. But a movie about Douglas would do a lot more for informing the general public on a key piece of history since many might not even know the basics of what he did.

Les Miserables

Ok, this movie is actually the impetus for this whole article. Now that I’ve written all that other stuff, I don’t really feel like going into this movie and all my thoughts regarding it like I had planned on doing. So real quick here is my thoughts in bullet format.

  • Anne Hathaway is amazing in this. Her singing was great, but then adding on the acting that was needed for her part made it breathtaking. I don’t understand how someone can do both of those things at once. Pick one. Sing great, or act great. Don’t do both, and not at the same time.
  • Hugh Jackman was perfect for 24601.
  • Using the guy who is known in broadway circles as THE Val Jean, as the priest was a great idea. Also having him sing in that final song instead of Eponen when Fantine is joined by Val Jean was a really good move and makes sense more than the way they do it in the play if you think about it.
  • Speaking of the girl who played Eponen.. that can’t be how that is spelled, her name is Samantha Barks. Look her up. I love her as much as her character loved… who ever that dude was that married Cossett. She also played Eponen in the 25th anniversary performance of Les Mis…. Joe Jonas was terrible in that by the way.
  • Speaking of people who can sing a thousand times better than me, but still shouldn’t be in Les Mis cause they actually bring the play/movie grinding to a halt with their less than powerful voice and lack of emotion…. Russel Crowe.  He looked like an awesome Javiert … spelling, damn it. I hate you spelling and gramar. He acted the part very well when he was just speaking, but his voice when he sang was just… lacking. It wasn’t off key, it didn’t sound bad exactly, but it just wasn’t right.  It sounded like he was concentrating on singing the song when he was acting, where as Hackman was so confident in his singing he was just acting a part where the lines are sung. If that makes sense.  I honestly feel bad for crowe cause I think people are going to crucify him for this, and really its more of the fault of the producers than anyone else.

ughhhhhhhhhh… i want to sing her a song if you know what I mean… which is to say I would enjoy dating, marrying, and having sex with her.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s