Not Much

Actually I don't have it, but everyone
needs a cute cat picture once in a while.
It's the internet, after all.

I know.  I know.  I haven't written in a while.  It's not that I've given up blogging, but it's just that I haven't found much to blog about, nothing for a real rant or review of length has come forward. So I thought I might just do a few shorties.  This is going to be random...

No really stupid memes have come my way, unless you count the one or two supporting or "standing by Clive," that rancher in Nevada.  Most folks have figured out that the guy has been not to paying his  grazing fees for  two decades on land that was not his family's, has lost several court cases, and has basically ignored BLM fines which were originally cleared by President Reagan in an executive order 12548.  Most saw that he gathered a group who wanted to have a shoot out with the law, threatened to use their women as shields and even placed snipers.  We know this guy is so racist that all he needs is sheet to wear and a cross to burn.  Will someone explain to me how he cannot recognize the USA Governement and fly its flag at the same time. Even Hannity and the once supportive Rand Paul and at least one Nevada senator were forced to backtrack on this "patriot," and the main Tea Party has remained strangely silent.

I suppose I could have written about Sarah Palin equating holy baptism with torture at the NRA convention, but in all honesty the less press we give her the better.

I thought about maybe writing a review of the new comedy series Bad Teacher, but I could only watch that dreck for about ten minutes before I went to the DVR.  That ten minutes was actually about two minutes longer than I made it into the movie version. I do not know when bad movies became a good idea for television series, but despite the snippets of a review from People to advertise the show, I actually could only come up with two comments.  People magazine is hardly the place I would turn for in-depth and intelligent analysis when its biggest story every year is the sexiest people alive issue.  I am underwhelmed by this news.  And as for Bad Teacher,  the adjective in the title is all you need to describe this show.

Watch Fargo.  It is far more interesting and intelligent and really well acted.

I also contemplated a rant about some of the posts that a few people put up because on more than one occasion I see the post from someone I know and think to myself, "I had you in class or I've known you for years.  What happened? I know you were smarter than this.  When did you become the echo chamber for extremists, biased news, and conspiracy theorists?  Did it just become too difficult to check the facts?" I then silently "sigh" for the loss of a promising mind.

So I've saved all this for one minor rant and review to let you know that I haven't quit ranting and reviewing.  I just don't have much right now.  Good news is that Spiderman opens this weekend.

Posting a Little Nerd Sacrilege on the Game of Thrones

I haven't read all of the Game of Thrones.  It was not from a lack of trying.  I found it laborious reading with characters I felt no empathy with and an overly complex plot that really wanted to be both fantasy and political that moved forward at a snail's pace.  It had so many characters introduced with so many minor interconnections by pledge, war, family, friendship and animosity, that I had difficulty even keeping track.  Introductions to characters were often brief with barely enough description that if I did not remember their name, family relationship, or nickname, I had no idea who they were when they were mentioned again later by one of their interchangeable names.  Even physical descriptions were often similar. I know very few who have actually read the series.  One friend who did, tells me he finally printed out character lists and family trees to make it through the first book. If you did, congratulations.

I made it roughly two-thirds of the way through, and then I decided I just didn't know why I was putting myself through this.  I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for the plot to do something.  Moving forward or even to the side would've been nice.  It just didn't.  And above it all, I just didn't care when a character was hurt, murdered, betrayed, attacked, or imprisoned.  As with the brief introduction to characters, motives seemed to be added later.  And so I quit.  Perhaps I will go back and try again.  I don't think I am an idiot.  I love complex stories with multiple story lines and characters. Shogun by James Clavell which  basically asks the reader to learn the entire Japanese Samurai culture and the Japanese language was a fascinating read.  I was even able to keep track of characters by name and wade through Russian novels like Crime and Punishment without a cheat-sheet.

So I decided to watch the HBO series instead.  I've heard that it hits the highlights of the books and makes them imminently more accessible. I find the same problem.  I don't like the characters, I find it contrived, and I still have problems following who is who in relationship to whom.  And then there are the random deaths.

Yes, you're right.  In real life, death is random.  Good people die.  Bad people succeed.  Game of Thrones is not real life or even realism.  It is fantasy that doesn't seem to know what it is:  epic fantasy, dark fantasy, political fantasy, satiric fantasy, humorous fantasy...  Not to put too fine of point on it, do all the deaths actually serve a purpose?

"Winter is coming" eventually.  Doesn't the fact that it seems cold in several places all the time mean it is arrived and exactly how long does it take an army of White Walkers to arrive?  What was once established as a central idea just seems to be sitting on the bench at the sidelines to be put in randomly to remind us there was (is?) an over-arching theme to the series. "Winter is coming" and here is a white walker to remind you.  And while I'm at it, what purpose do the Stark wolves serve?  Is there some sort of meaning to the idea that many of the swords bear a name or is it just a bunch of guys roaming around naming swords? The throne does seem to be made of swords and there are dragon bones in the king's castle.  Is there a meaning to this or is it just really cool to have an odd chair and your own personal T-Rex without having to go to the local museum of nature and science? And is it just me or are the Lannisters becoming less blonde.

Meanwhile, in another country, the only character I actually like, Daenerys Targaryen, is gathering an army and raising dragons while never seeming to go anywhere which is okay because other than some brutal battles and betrayals and murders, nothing seems to change or ever happen in the kingdom of the Iron Throne, which seems to be made of steel swords.  I am also sure that given the nature and randomness of the deaths, Daenerys is pretty much toast. No don't tell me if I am wrong or right.

So what finally prompted this diatribe and sacrilege on the nerd kingdom of Throne lovers everywhere was the infamous "Red Wedding."  I had heard the term, but I somehow managed to avoid anything else about it, including who died.  When that episode rolled in, I knew. I could see the betrayal coming from proverbial miles away.  Sorry fanboys and girls, Rob Stark was an idiot, and I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe that this guy would win any battles let alone a war.  The guy is oblivious to the political realities of the realm in which he lives. So we went through two seasons of war, watched all that blood and death and for what? So we could have another shocking episode 9?

His dad's death, just to pour salt on the wounds, also served no purpose. At the time, it was meant to be a noble act to save his family, to avert the war, to prompt the overthrow of Geoffrey or to do something.  It didn't.  Again, in real life death is often pointless and serves no purpose.  In crafted stories, important character deaths should be thought out and reasoned and reveal something about a character  or a theme, or move the plot  To kill off characters because the writer just wants to speaks loudly. It says there is no real purpose for the character  so rather than coming up with something to add to the plot, the character dies or perhaps the killing is just for the shock value. Shock value is cheap. You can find it in any schlock slasher movie.

I heard once that George R. R. Martin once jokingly, or not, threatened that if fans complain too much about his writing speed or his willingness to kill off virtually any character, that he would kill even more favorite characters in the next book.  If this is true, it only supports my point that in the world of Game of Thrones death is a plot point serving no purpose, and the entire series seems to have no real direction.


Then there is Joffrey.  I have to say I am actually a bit sorry for the young actor who landed the role of the most vile sociopath on television.  He will probably be forever labeled and basically unusable by almost every other series and film.  He will really struggle to break the image.  There is skill in his acting to get that kind of reaction, especially when you consider how many other vile creatures there are roaming around the kingdom.  Let's also face it, everything has been done to make the character so unlikable, that if you saw him you'd belt him one, and when the police later asked, "Why did you hit him?" you would say, "Somebody had to."

I read fantasy for a myriad of reasons, the least of which is meaningless reality.  I know the argument may be that we have a sort of antihero or even anti-civilization in the Game of Thrones, but that just does not work.  Perhaps the death of the only noble character in the first season was loosely symbolic that all goodness is dead, and there only remains the twisted and corrupt.  Perhaps, Game of Thrones seeks to be a first of its kind, a dystopic fantasy, but even in a dystopia, there must be hope.  It is the reason we feel so disheartened when Winston Smith dies in 1984 or John the Savage hangs himself in Brave New World.  Even in an antihero, there must be something redeeming - something we can feel empathy with or for, and the fact remains that no character nor element of Game of Thrones gives us that hope or empathy. I ask you that in the three seasons that have now passed, has anything really changed other than a bunch of characters are dead?

I realize I am in the vast minority, and I will no doubt continue to watch in hopes that something of value comes from all this in the next three seasons of the series.  This rant will no doubt be disliked, hated, or even vilified by any fan that comes across it.  But just as my reading of the book, my patience has limits. Who knows? Maybe winter will finally come.

The Winter Soldier All the Right Points

There are only a few sequels that are better than the original.  It often takes the third movie to at least match the original, especially in the world of action movies.  I think, however, that Marvel Studios and their production team are finally figuring out that a series of epic battles with no character development just doesn't cut it.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a really good example of avoiding the pitfalls of sequels, developing a plot and character, and showing respect to the genre.

We see a struggling Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans) who has found that the world he left in 1945 is much changed. In 1945, it was a world in which horrible events occurred.  Captain America fought so that people could be free.  It is now a world that is under constant surveillance in the name of protecting that freedom. At beginning of the movie comes “That’s not freedom. That’s fear,” announces Captain America as he discusses this surveillance and planning strikes before someone has broken the law.  It is this neat juxtaposition of fighting for freedom vs. living in fear under the guise of protecting freedom that drives the main plot of Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

This is what good science fiction, this time from a comic book format, does.  It asks the tough questions and reminds us what should be.  The answer about the surveillance comes from the leader of Shield, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who tells us that he and Shield must live in the world as it is not what he would like it to be.  He has forgotten perhaps why it is he does what he does. It is from this point that we realize that this is what Captain America is really about.  Not settling for the world as it is, but fighting for the world we want it to be no matter the risk.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is at times both silly and stylish.  It is classic in the comic book world in that we know who the bad guys are going to be, and we will also have a few remember why they wanted to be good guys to begin with.  They will struggle with power and responsibility.  Heroic comic books at their best are true morality tales.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier remains true to the genre while having more character and emotional value than the first Captain America without becoming grandiose.  Too often, Hollywood seems to forget that for a movie to be well done, that it is not about the action sequences or trying to come up with something "different" or the "twist" to the genre.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier works because the writers and production team seem to hold a respect for bringing these stories to life.

I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier in 3D and it plays really well in the format.  I have to admit, one of the best uses of 3D technology was in the old fashioned chase sequences.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier has all the marks of a great blockbuster.  I will buy the DVD.

Noah, the Zealot

Okay...so you've decided to see the movie Noah. You should know some things from the get go.

First this is not Noah the biblical story, but Noah the story inspired by the biblical story.  Shortly before the movie's release, the trailer had this statement added by Paramount after several in the religious community objected to the non-literal adaptation of the biblical story: "The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."  I would point out that the movie has a little less than three short Bible chapters to work with. I would also point out that many touted biblical movies also use "artistic license."  The Ten Commandments, for example is one.


Second, if you are going to go because of the ad that announces that "If you liked Gladiator and Titanic, you'll love Noah," you should know that I have no idea why anyone would say this.  It has the guy from Gladiator in it.  There is a big boat, an ocean and a love story like in Titanic.  This pretty much ends that similarity.

Third you need to be prepared for some pretty intense moments, some pretty ridiculous ones, and some that are more than just a little strange. I must admit that during the opening sequence I was wondering what I had let myself in for, but it did finally settle into something that was more visually stimulating.  You also need to be prepared for a movie that seemed to me to be longer than it is.  Two hours and twenty minutes is longer than most movies, but it is still shorter than quite a few movies, like anything by Peter Jackson and of course The Ten Commandments, and Ben Hur.


I will let scholars who are far brighter than I argue the differences from the many interpretations of the story in movie form, because there are a bunch of stories about Noah out there.  For the most part the movie remains true to the many themes that are found in the story.  Its strongest is the one of free will.  Humans choose evil.  Humans choose good. Humans make choices.  Humanss are fallible even the most moral of them.  We see these in the character study that is Noah who is played by Russel Crowe.  Noah is the title of the movie, after all.  The framework of the movie is the flood story, and the movie is actually more about a man who must choose.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ SPOILERS BY THE ARK LOAD FOLLOW }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Noah is, for lack of a better term, a zealot but not in the sense that the word has come to carry.  He is driven to be moral and good.  He is driven to try and interpret the visions of what his Creator has sent.  He is chosen, but first and foremost he must choose.  Noah is sent a vision, and he turns to his grandfather, Methuselah, played by Sir Anthony Hopkins, to receive answers to this vision.  It is the old grandfather who leads Noah to the interpretation.  Always though, Methuselah asks questions.  He does not give answers.

Noah arrives at what he must do all on his own. The flood is coming.  It cannot be stopped.  It can be survived.  He must build an ark for the innocent.  While the story parts ways with the ages of Noah and his sons, Noah still builds over the next several years an ark, telling his sons, only one of whom has a girl, that the Creator will send them all that they need.  It is this girl, Ila, played by Emma Watson, that will remind Noah again that as a man he has free will.  He must choose.

A Watcher

With the aid of some very odd fallen angels who have been encased in stone and called Watchers, Noah builds the ark and collects the animals. (I told you there was some weirdness)  The rest of mankind, led by the evil descendant of Cain named Tubal-cain (Ray Winston), come to try and take the ark.  When Noah seeks suitable wives for his other two sons, he arrives at the conclusion that all humans are guilty, and all humans must die.


His family will not have children especially since Ila is barren.  His wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connlley), goes to see the grandfather and begs him to get Noah to see that his line must continue.  Methuselah gives us the clearest statement of the theme.  He tells Naamah that if he interferes while things may change, only trouble may follow and ultimately, since Noah is chosen by the Creator, the choice will again be in Noah's hands. Methuselah then blesses Ila, and in doing so, takes away her inability to have children.

 Following this, the flood occurs and humankind, after a battle involving Noah and the Watchers defending the ark, is wiped out except for Noah, his family, and the bad guy who has managed to get onto the ark.  Tubal-cain becomes something of the metaphorical serpent for this new start for humans.  Of course, Methuselah's prediction comes true.  Ila is pregnant which means that if she has a girl, sinful humankind will survive. Noah determines that the Creator has sent the flood to eliminate man, and so if his grandchild is a girl, he must kill her.

Eventually, Ila gives birth not to one, but two  girls.  And despite being a zealot who believes the Creator has ordered him to exterminate all of man, Noah simply cannot do it.  He has killed many in the battle.  He has listened to the dying screams of humanity in the flood, and he has even killed his own personal serpent, Tubal-cain.  He cannot, however, kill the two innocent babies.  As Ila reminds him later it was never about choosing extinction but always about choosing and that was why he was chosen.  The Creator trusts his choice. Noah chose mercy. He chose love.

So if you follow the logic of all this, congratulations. After the movie I needed time to work through what I had witnessed, and so the spoiler filled review.  I will forgive director Darren Aronofsky the weirdness of some of this movie and the pacing problems in other parts of the movie.  It is well acted with multi-dimensional characters who have a clear unified theme to present.  Overall, I liked it. Is it the best thing I've ever seen,? No.  Is it biblical? No, but it is a gutsy attempt to bring something different to the big screen.  I know that many a Christian group have condemned Noah for not following the Bible, and many an atheist group condemned Noah for bringing religion to the screen.  Like many a film before it, it starts a conversation.  We all have, after all, a choice.

Divergent - Just Don't Think about It

Divergent is okay and entertaining enough to hold your attention but try not to spend too much time thinking about it or the story will rapidly unravel with plot holes that you can drive the proverbial Mack truck through.  In all honesty, the show has more of the feel of a teen series you'd find on the CW sandwiched between the Vampire Diaries and Reign.  It is watchable, but it just lacks the depth of plot, character and acting of the famous movie franchise, Hunger Games, that it seems to wish it was.

I am a strong believer that good stories are character driven.  Divergent's characters are far from complex.  They are either extremely good or extremely bad.  We have no real connection to them. The heroine of the movie, played by Shailene Woodley, is Tris, who is divergent.  In other words, in this post apocalyptic world of the factions, Tris fits into no faction.  At a certain point during their young lives the children, on the verge to becoming adults, are tested to see which faction they belong in. They can, however, on the day after the test, choose a faction they feel they belong in even if it goes against the test.

No one seems to notice the problem with having a test to classify people and then to tell them that if they don't like the results, they can become something else.  If the point of having factions is to make sure the peace remains, which is why the factions were created we are told, why would a society want hereditary and social traits to be brought into other factions? In fact, if divergents were capable of running in more than one faction, wouldn't they end up in charge?

There are five factions: Abnegation, who are selfless and as such are given to govern; Amity, who are peaceful, "are always happy" and see to the farming ; Candor, who are honest and deal with law; Dauntless, who are brave and the protectors and soldiers; and Erudite, who are the intelligent and responsible for science and technology. Am I the only one who notices that there is no entertainment, art, or creativity in the society?


{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Spoilers but also very predictable}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Tris and her destined love, Four, played by Theo James, who turns out to be a divergent as well (which you probably figured out from the trailer)  must face off against the evil Eruidite leader, Jeanine played by Kate Winslet.  Tris, who was raised as Abnegation, is incredibly good, has chosen to become Dauntless, and can fight well only when she is in danger.  Four is the perfect Dauntless fighting machine, and it is love at first sight for Tris and Four.  Jeanine is apparently evil because ... well ... she just is.  Surprise, Tris's mom, played by Ashley Judd, turns out to have been raised Dauntless although she is now Abnegation.  Four turns out to be the son of the leader of the Abnegation,  and yet even though Tris's dad is the Abnegation leader's right hand, Tris has no idea that Four was once Abnegation.  Complexity is nowhere to be seen.  Characters die, but because they are two dimensional, we really have nothing invested in them, haven't really got to know them, and so we don't really feel that bad when they are lost.

At one point' for example, another divergent is roaming around the Dauntless lair after the most of the members of Dauntless have been taken over by mind control by the evil Jeanine.  He keeps asking over and over what's going on.  Apparently, when he tested, no one noticed he was divergent or he was fortunate and someone did notice warning him to pretend as had been done for Four and Tris.  So either the test is terribly inaccurate or for some reason this divergent had failed at "pretend you are Dauntless" which gets this unknown Divergent killed.  Logic anyone?


See what I mean about not thinking about it too much? It is enjoyable, but lacks the rich nuances of Hunger Games.  The sets are all one color, and there is no real comparison for each of the groups.  I am still trying to figure out why farmers would dress like medieval peasants in an advanced world?  I am also curious as to how a society with seemingly no creativity or curiosity  would survive?

Divergent will hold your attention, but that is about all. With Divergent's big money opening weekend, there is little doubt that sequels will follow, and I will probably go see them.  While it clearly wants to be the next Hunger Games, it isn't going to happen.

Muppets II the Seventh Sequel?

I know the question your dying to have answered is: Is Muppets: Most Wanted as good as The Muppets? The answer is "no" but it is fun, clever, and contains all the things we've come to love about the Muppets.  If you love the Muppets and their shtick then Muppets: Most Wanted is worth the time. Kids will like it, and there are enough gags for grown-ups too.  I found myself laughing out loud with the rest of the theater audience more than one.

Let's face it.  If you grew up when I did, you love the Muppets.  Like most Muppet movies, there are songs, surprise guests spots, a bad guy, visual gags galore, and an extremely loose plot.


The plot is that Kermit is replaced by the evil Constantine, the world's most dangerous frog.  Kermit ends up in a Russian gulag being run by Nadya played by Tina Fey. Meanwhile, the rest of the gang are easily fooled by the bad impression of Kermit  by Constantine and taken on a world tour lead by Constantine's secret "Number 2" Dominic Badguy played by Ricky Gervais.

There is a great song and dance number from Gervais and another fun one from Tina Fey.  Even Ty Burrell, who plays Interpol Inspector Jean Pierre Napoleon, gets a song, although I must admit, the whole Sam the Eagle and Jean Pierre riff on Inspector Clouseau was a fairly weak running gag.

The movie hearkens back to the Muppets' original roots with the first movie being getting the group together as was  the case in 1979's The Muppet Movie and then a world tour and stopping a jewel heist as was done in the next movie, 1981's The Great Muppet Caper.  The Muppets still have it.  Now if we can just convince Disney to release the rest of The Muppet Show onto DVD.