|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| wednesday evening we had dinner with family at the old capital seafood in little saigon. the food was lovely, but more importantly, it capped off a 13-day stretch where either ma or i (or both) had commitments on weekday evenings and morning and evening commitments on the weekends. i'm not even counting ma going out for late evening tennis on thursday or the lads and ma going to see ponyo yesterday or jordan's buddy ethan staying over last night, cuz those didn't materially affect my schedule.
of course, all that busyness represented 13 days of outings to enjoy our family and NOC community, co-ordinate and celebrate ministries, share in the joy of a couple's newly-wedded bliss, celebrate marriage to my sweet petunia, hang with high school friends, defend katrys freehold from a small army of beseiging orcs, and even get some work done.
on the other hand, those same 13 days saw an old friend undergo cancer surgery, a friend's mother have a heart attack, uci.edu come crashing to a halt due to still-unidentified causes which required code to be re-written, many children around the world die of starvation, and more than one ill-conceived federal "stimulus" package go into effect.
it's just too much sometimes. so we pray. and then get some sleep. and this morning, cam and i visited a neighbor's yard sale and went to albertsons, which brings me to the free lunchables. essentially, the deal is this: buy $25 worth of selected product and get a $20 mail-in rebate and $5 towards your next purchase. various lunchables are on sale for $2.50, so we sort of got 10 lunchables free.
taking that (and a couple of coupons and sale items) into account, my receipt tells me that i bought $93.41 worth of groceries for $38.66. and that's after missing out on $10 off of a $100 purchase cuz i was too lazy to keep track of my total. and the $10 bouquet of flowers for my sweet petunia that cam picked out at no discount whatsoever.
and so life goes on. next up: velocity game night!
| | |
|  wow. ma had women's verge at 13:00, so we hit the 10:40 showing of up at the block. again, wow. this was not what i'd expected at all. but then, i can't conceive of a trailer that would adequately prepare you for this movie.
yes, there is a house and a gazillion balloons and flying, but that isn't it at all. this in an introspective journey, where all the movement occurs deep within the recesses of your heart. the first ten minutes alone packs in more pathos than most entire movies. this is maybe the most emotionally poignant pixar film to date, almost exclusively so. i mean, there's a plot. and there is action. but they are both greatly overshadowed by the raw sentimentality from the principals. by the end of the movie, you don't really know that much about these characters, but you do know where and how and how deeply they hurt in their innermost private selves. you know how the void they feel inside drives their motives and actions and perspectives. to be honest, it's a bit much at times. certainly, it's not something i would think to put into a kid movie. but then, just like in schindler's list (there's a comparison you didn't see coming!), when you've been at the very bottom and you've made it back up, you feel.... well, really, really uplifted. you feel free. you have a new lease on life and all the darkness in the past can't intrude upon the brilliant joy of today or the potential of tomorrow. when the (really thoughtful) credits start to roll, you realize that you're wildly, exuberantly happy and grinning like a fool despite the fact that the tears haven't even dried yet. and so i'm torn. it's powerful. it's also novel. seriously, i was looking in the credits for hayao miyazaki cuz this HAS to be his work (it isn't). it's an alternate reality which looks pretty normal until it's suddenly twisted a quarter turn and you realize that things just work differently here. it's nausicaa and kiki and a whole lot of laputa. and a bunch of talking dogs. i think from a creative concept perspective it's brilliant.
and of course, the voice acting is superb and the animation is stunning. the design of the characters makes them rather caricaturish, so you're always aware that you're watching a cartoon, but then the camera retreats and pans and you're fairly certain nobody drew all that detail by hand. cuz like, it would take them a million years.
it's just so.... HEAVY. for sure the lads didn't like it that much despite many obvious and wonderful hooks. it's just hard to appreciate the pretty colors when your heart is so heavy. and so... Overall: 7
Those seeking catharsis: 9 | | |
| the recent weeks have been marked by two changes in the cheung household. the first was to be expected: as the lads have gotten older and their attention spans a bit more durable, we've started watching more real movies, both on tv and dvd.
as i usually don't get to watch a ton of movies, this was been a great! one of the random things i happened to notice is that movies use the same actors an awful lot. so here are my favorite actors based on their multiple appearances in movies that i've seen recently:
#6 james phelps. he's fred weasley in harry potter and the order of the phoenix (2007), which i rate as good a movie as it was a book, meaning it's fair. j.k. rowling has stephen king syndrome: great ideas, but only mediocre writing skills. mr. phelps was also an uncredited runner (stagehand) in the da vinci code (2006), how do i know this? imdb.com told me so. i know, it's a reach, but no one else in any of the potter movies has done anything else i've ever seen! as for the movie, it was a better book than movie, although i can't put my finger on what exactly i didn't like. and it is, after all, a great book, although probably not the best of dan brown's.
#5 sammy jackson. i know, i know, you're thinking, "how did sammy jackson get that low? chris LOVES samuel effing (sorry if that offends [like it did my wife]) jackson!" here's how: xXx (2002) and star wars: the clone wars (2008). to its credit, xXx wasn't as bad as i thought it would be, vin diesel is just cool, and you know you liked the whole snowboarding-the-leading-edge-of-an-avalanche bit. while not particularly good, the clone wars cartoon is better than the lucas fiascos except maybe for revenge of the sith, but here's the kicker: the series is REALLY good. thankfully, my parents have both satellite and a dvr, so the lads and i are able to watch it. jedi faithful absolutely need to check it out.
#4 bernie mac. what's the worst that could happen (2001). transformers (2007). more on both of these later.
#3 danny devito. he gets credit for get shorty (1995) and what's the worst thing that could happen (2001). i really like get shorty. it's a stream of consciousness movie where the plot is secondary and the characters are the thing and crazy stuff happens, but it's all good, cuz the it fits the characters. think pulp fiction without all the f-bombs or oceans 11/12/13 without a goal. pacing and characterization is key to overcoming the lack of a set purpose and get shorty handles those well. there's a great cast of recognizables who all play their part.
what's the worst thing that could happen is a similar movie with a lineup with greater comedic leanings. unfortunately it doesn't gel well, although martin lawrence and danny devito have good chemistry.
#2 shia lebouf. color me surprised. previously, the only movie i'd seen this fellow in was the regrettable indy 4. this past week i watched transformers (2007) and holes (2003). i passed on transformers in the theaters cuz i had zero confidence in the film to not suck. after liking the look of the t2 trailer (including megan fox), i decided to rent it and i enjoyed it. i especially liked that the transformers could be killed, which made all the action more credible.
what i'm hoping now is that marvel D.C. [thanks andy!] makes the wonder woman movie and casts megan as diana, catherine zeta-jones as hippolita (her mother), and angelina jolie as the evil villanness (besides nazis, of course :).
holes was surprisingly good. it is an adaptation of a children's book but contains unexpected depth. imagine big fish mixed with lord of the flies and tom and huck. i know, i know, but it works. it is very well written, although it suffers from the same malady as wicked: in its zeal to connect every last loose end, it becomes quite predictable. probably a better book than movie, but still a good movie. actually, a really good movie.
#1 john travolta. travolta voiced the lead in bolt and nailed the role as chili palmer in get shorty. both movies are good and travola is great in both roles. bolt is fairly conventional children's fare. of course, when i say this, i'm using the yardstick that pixar has put up in the past decade. casting and voice acting are very good. the story, while generally lacking the wrinkles that make some of pixar's movies classics, is good enough. music and original songs are good. characterizations are very good, which is an area where i think children's films have really come along. but what sets this movie apart from lots like it is rhino, the manic, obsessed, potentially show-stealing hamster, and the way he fits into the story rather than dominating or distracting.
| | |
|  as my parents are in scotland and ma's are in norcal, today we celebrated mothers day by going to see star trek and hitting sagami-tei. yes, it was my idea and yes, it was self-serving. don't be a jealous hater.
simply put, star trek was fabulous. story, dialog, casting, music, effects. faboo. the long takes of the original series are replaced by the choppy, disorienting cuts so common today, and there's a rather lackadaisical commitment to real physics, but really, any criticism or suggestion for improvement seems petty compared to the amazing accomplishment that is this movie.
this is a movie in grand original series fashion, modernized flawlessly and hopefully sucessful in capturing a whole new generation for a franchise that i thought was out of steam. the story is compelling and actually makes sense, which is a tricky thing when you start to bring time travel into the equation. it is even an action movie, yet accomplishes very rich characterization of the bridge crew some of us are so familiar with. and it's not just homage, either. these are new people, yet instantly recognizable, each the best at what they do, all in one place, on one ship, as one crew. the dialog is so much better than everything else not done by quentin tarantino or william goldman (for the princess bride). i even absolve my boi alex for crying in this movie. any star trek fan who doesn't AT LEAST tear up is ready for kolinhar.
i hesitate to give this movie a 10, as that makes it likely to be one of my 10 favoritest movies ever, but after a couple more viewings i'm thinking that's what it's gonna get. i walked out with the same feeling of amazement that i did leaving the shawshank redemption and the usual suspects, both of which make my top 10 list. so, without further ado: Overall: 9
For Star Trek fans: 10*
* pending further review...
This movie even turned sagami-tei into an afterthought. steve was behind the counter and our $18.95 each got us 7 cut rolls, 3 hand rolls, baked mussels, tempura, edamame, and miso. happy mothers day indeed.
| | |
|  a month ago, the ladies from our small group and our sister organization, pat and tom's small group, went out together. tonight was the manly men's turn. we convened in rowland heights for korean bbq. now my palate is very unrefined and inexperienced when it comes to korean food. typically, i just go to AYCE places and make a pile of kalbi and bulgogi over rice and leave it at that. so tonight others ordered and i just ate, which was just fine by me.
of course there was marinated short rib, but without the bones. then there was a very spicy pork and what i can only describe as korean bacon. finally we had unmarinated short ribs cut off the bones, but we bbq'ed the bones anyway and for a gnawer like myself, it was quite the happy place. the house soup was served blazingly hot in a small metal cauldron that i'm not certain was intended for sharing, but we all dug in. i'm told we also ordered a killer soup, but the waitress forgot about it and we had to roll to the main event: x-men origins: wolverine.  now before i talk about wolverine you have to know that i am a long-time, (once) fairly committed wolverine fan. for example, i happen to know that incredible hulk #180 is sort of his first appearance as he appears in the cliffhanger panel. i have that one and #182, but i was too cheap to acquire #181, where he actually fights the hulk. i know that barry windsor-smith wrote and drew the seminal treatment of the weapon x program. i know that wolverine has/had (comics can be confusing) a babe in japan and is always struggling between his inner beast and inner samurai.
i've also read a lot of different types of literature and i'm more nitpicky than most when it comes to the writing in movies, which i think is often sacrificed for the visuals.
first of all, hugh jackman is really great. female fans should know that he is absolutely ripped in this movie and has a butt naked romp through the countryside. i imagine he is the for-the-ladies equivalent of megan fox in denim shorts from the new transformers trailer, which we also saw. jackman also brings to the role tons of personality and energy. if you liked him in the x-men movies, you'll love him here. the production values are very high, again like the x-men movies. the sets and locations are all very good, the camera work is steady, if unspectacular, and the use of light and shadows is about what you'd expect for this sort of flick.
after that, things drop off (for me) rather quickly. changes to marvel canon were made (IMHO) for no good reason, character development (besides wolverine) was very shallow, casting was iffy in some spots, and many of the little things made no sense to me (some of the side characters are just downright dumb), although the primary story is handled well enough.
speaking of which, the primary story is an original construction that cites many portions of the wolverine mythos. the opening scene borrows from wolverine: origin. there is team x. there is weapon x. there's lots of sabretooth, a bit of gambit and cyclops, and a cameo by jean luc himself! there's even silver fox from those old Marvel Comics Presents stories. the problem is that each and every one of these references is radically altered to little good effect, effectively making this a movie "based on the character Wolverine from Marvel Comics," rather like disney's pochahontas which is "based on a true story." there is a character "based on deadpool" and a mutant "based on the latest incarnation of the white queen" and on and on.
the acting is uneven as well. i draw an analog with the star wars prequels: you've got liam neeson, ewan mcgregor, sammy jackson, a cg character..... and a bunch of stiffs (sorry natalie portman, but even you sucked). same thing here. there's jackman, liev schreiber (sabretooth)..... and, yeah. add danny huston (col. william stryker) and lynn collins (silver fox) if you're feelin' charitable, bub. Overall: 7
Hardcore comic book fans: 5
| | |
|
