L.I.M.B

Unfortunately I don't have much time to post, but I had to get some thoughts out before I head out to work.

How To Train Your Dragon 2 was AMAZING. It was great, as close to perfect as a movie gets. For a family friendly action packed movie, you can't really go wrong here. The pacing was great, the comedy was subtle and enjoyable, the animation was probably the best that I have seen in any film, and the plot was very fleshed out.

It really bothers me that a lot of these iconic movements are pro-choice, or to use double speak, pro-abortion. It is creating the idea that a woman can NOT be a feminist unless she is pro-choice. It creates an emotional backing for the abortion argument by implying that people who are against it are also against feminism.

To clarify, this is not an argument against abortion, because it is a very complicated ethical issue, and deciding that only one side is right is wrong and incredibly close minded. This is an argument in casting political agendas with social movements. 

I have seen many sources say phrases like "That literally just blew my mind," or "You are literally driving me crazy" incorrectly use the word "literally," and that "figuratively" should be used in its place. This would only be true if the intended use of the word literally was to mean literally. 

A cashier said to me, "are you old enough to where your nose hairs start growing out of your nose?" I laughed and said no, then he said, "Sorry if that was too random. To me, I thought it was random, but I thought it was really funny that he would have that conversation with a stranger, especially a customer. Most people would react negatively or standoffish to that question. Why is that?

Why aren't we allowed to say random comment in social setting. Everything has to be somehow in context for people to accept it. We should react with a positive "Where did that come from," instead of a negative one.

As I promised, an elaboration on this question.

It seems odd too me that the biggest obstacle women face in mainstream media is which man they will marry.

Between Titanic, Captain Corelli's Mandolin, The Notebook, Twilight, 10 Things I Hate About You, Pearl Harbor, Water for Elephants, Shakespeare in Love, and even The Hunger Games ALL feature love triangles.... and this was just naming a few.

Do women face more challenging issues ever? Are women just boring and is there nothing more interesting to base stories about women on?

This raises a "Chicken and the Egg" dilemma when it comes to this topic. Does the media just try to portray love triangles as the reality for women, or do women just love these types of movies so much that the media knows they'll throw away their money to watch them.

While I think that money and women being willing to spend money is part of the problem, a lack of variety is also a major factor. It is incredibly difficult to think of a movie about a girl/women where love, finding a man, or relying on a man are not the main elements. One that comes to mind is of course Brave, where miraculously the main character doesn't even get married by the end, and she is able to fill a more masculine movie role while still being feminine.

Now this is not to say that any movie with love is it is bad, and all future movies can't have a women falling in love, but it would be great to see something different every once in a while. It is VERY easy to generalize "love" as the main theme of all female targeted movies, whether its a comedy or a romance, which seems to be the only two types.

In order for more movies to be made, its up to women to stop throwing all their money towards romance movies. Boycotting movies with these themes will force them to create new ideas, and perhaps even make some inspiring heroines that don't only go shopping or desperately need a man.

The Dothraki are just mindless, waring barbarians with few redeeming qualities. I think their culture can be summed up by two things.

1) The moment where Khal Drogo, their leader who vowed to take over the seven kingdoms and who's son was prophesied to rule the world, was betrayed by the people sworn to protect him after he fell off his horse from getting a raging infection in his chest caused by a sword wound from a battle where he defeated at least two other Khals. The Dothraki don't follow weakness, and getting momentarily sick is enough to qualify any warrior as weak and unworthy if he should fall off his horse. I'd hate to see got knocked off his horse in a battle while fighting a dragon. Even if he managed to kill the dragon, people would just notice that he fell off his horse. You'd think they'd at least stick around to see if this warrior who's destined for greatness at least recovers from his infection before completely abandoning him.

2. The casual way one of Drogo's bloodriders says "it is the right of the strong to take from the weak" after the new Khals ride off with all of Drogo's men and horses. There is nothing they respect more than the soldier spirit, and note how I generously say "soldier" yet not "warrior," because a warrior is separated from a soldier by a code of honor. A warrior is lifestyle, a lifelong practice where a person upholds a code and seeks self improvement through knowledge. A soldier is someone trained to fight, though Dathraki are more barbarians who only don't kill when it is convenient for them, like when they get the chance to rape, make slaves, or follow someone who will lead them to more murder and rape.

I feel like everything in the expanded universe stories is both overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous.

Its so stupid I actually don't know where to start. For one, if you are not a Jedi, you are automatically a Sith. This makes no sense, the world is not so black and white. For example, people are not either Buddhist monks or Pirates. And just like in Harry Potter, "The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters. It seems rediculous that an order of bad guys was created to represent the opposite of the Jedi order. Its like Satanism, you can't take it seriously because it is not a unique philosophy but more on an invention to specifically counter Christianity. Much like in real like, Monks use martial arts to further their understanding of chi, and yet some people use martial arts to start fights or kill people. This perfectly mirrors what the force and the Jedi philosophy represented in the original movies.

Additionally, I feel like because they need to make books to sell for the time in between the movies, they add needlessly complicated plots. I feel like these stories take away from the grandness of the movies, and make them seem less significant.

And most important of all, the books and back stories all lack creativity, or "lack of vision." Luke starts a new Jedi academy, and all they specialize in is training with light sabers. Whenever sith appear, they use red light sabers. Whenever people fight, all they use is light sabers. If they need a haircut, they just whip out their light sabers. Light sabers, light sabers, light sabers, light sabers. Do they need to literally take Obi Wan's words that "the weapon of a Jedi Knight." It doesn't mean the only weapon, and it certainly doesn't mean that they need to use it every time they see each other. Jedi have become so Super Human that they can block a billion battle droids shooting lasers, and its not even exciting anymore to see them in a battle because you know they can just block everything. And I don't understand why every person in the universe who wields a light saber has an ego so low that whenever they see someone else with a light saber they need to rely solely on the light saber to fight people. They fights become even more boring because physics are completely obliterated, and the Jedi or Sith can just do 20 back flips and block each others' attacks.

None of the fights in the original series were just "you're bad, I'm good, lets fight." Obi vs Vader was about their original rivalry and Obi distracting Yoda AND proving that the force goes beyond the physical. Luke vs Vader was Luke trying to save his friends and prove his new Jedi skills while Vader toyed with Luke and tried to bring him back to the Emperor. Luke vs Vader again was Luke conflicting with his anger, trying to stop the Emperor, and save his father, while Vader was trying to seduce Luke to the dark side. Much more than just "hey, I'm Darth Maul, you are two Jedi, lets fight because the movie needs a light saber fight."

The people who make all of this crap need lessons in both complexity and simplicity.

First of all, let me start by saying that this review is based solely on the Netflix series, and that I haven't read the book and therefore have difficulty comparing it.

But after the disappointing Arrested Development season 4, I was hesitant to watch another Netflix original series. But I must say that I was pleasantly surprised (surprised, not amazed) by the series.

Hemlock Grove is a Supernatural/Sci-fi thriller about a gypsy boy named Peter who just moved into town and a spoiled rick kid named Roman. Though a very limited summary of the series, I honestly don't want to spoil more than that because I found this story interesting to discover as the plot unfolds, and don't want to ruin it for anyone else.

My first impression before watching this was that it was going to be some crappy Twilight/True Blood knock off, which it was and wasn't. The first episode starts off with sex and boobs visible within the first minute. Literally, I checked, I went back and confirmed it. I usually take this as a sign of desperation to get attention, because what screams "keep watching," better that boobs. I was also very off put by a lot of the dialogue. One such example is something along the lines of... - "I can't explain it. Its like trying to explain dancing to someone with no legs."

- "Well I have two legs, and they never stop moving."

I don't know whether dialogue like this comes from crappy writing or by the writers' choice to include dialogue from the book that doesn't translate well to film.

I have two other main complaints about this series. One is that the mother of the rich kid, played by the woman who plays Jean Gray in Xmen, has a terrible English accent. I know that English isn't her first language, but it is really distracting when you can hear her slipping between an American and English accent. My other problem was that I can't watch any relationship between any two characters and not think of it in a sexual way. I mean EVERY relationship. Roman and Peter, Peter and Roman's cousin, Peter and the little writer girl, Peter and Roman, Peter and his mom, Peter and his cousin, Roman and his mom, Roman and his cousin, all seem like there is sexual tension there. This had more of an incest vibe than a good Game of Thrones episode. I'm not sure if that is a subtle comment on our true sexual natures and a tap into the taboo side of our humanity or what, but it was interesting, entertaining, and distracting at the same time.

Despite this problem, which were enough to make me think this series was a joke, I kept watching and actually grew to really like the story. The characters became more interesting, their relationships were fascinating, and I couldn't honestly guess what would happen next. It was unpredictable without being too crazy.

I really liked the characters, and thought they were all very well cast and that the chemistry was great. And though it may sound odd, I thought the sets were great because nothing stood out. There was no scenery that I thought looked fake, it really looked like an small steel town, and perhaps it was, which I really appreciate considering we are in the age of putting every actor on a blue screen.

Vampires and Werewolves seem like a played out theme, but it odd to say that I really think it works here. Is it cliche to say that this series has a great subtle comment on human nature with supernatural creatures as the metaphor. I think the reason why it works here is because the story is about character development, and the social commentary is just for views to judge for themselves. The relationships aren't so simple that you watch the series and immediately say "geez, I wonder if those two are going to hook up... wow, what an unexpected plot point this is." I think that is why I never got into True Blood because the relationships just seemed to forced or predictable, and characters were either not complex enough or the complexity wasn't genuine. Most importantly, the series wasn't about hooking up, there was a bigger picture that everyone was involved in.

Saying "its just a movie seems to be used a lot to judge every piece of crap movie on planet Earth."Its just a ____" can be used to devalue anything. The Mona Lisa is just a painting, the New World Symphony is just a collection of noises, and we are just a pile of atoms and therefore no crime is at all a big deal.

I got a question for James Cameron. Why is Pandora covered in so much greenery?

I recently saw the film drive, and had wanted to see it for a long time, because a lot of people, including other film reviewers said that it was a good movie. I completely agree with them.

Drive is the story about a guy who is a getaway driver for criminals. He gets the criminals away from the police after they do their crime. By day, he works as a stunt driver for movies, which helps explain why he so good at driving. He also works as a mechanic, and through this he is able to meet a neighbor of his, an attractive young woman with a son. Eventually, her husband is released from jail, and he has resolved to make a change, become a better husband/father, and stay far away from crime. There is just one problem, the husband is in debt thousands of dollars of protection money from back in jail, and he must find a way to get that money. The Driver (we are never told his name) sets up a job that will get them all thousands of dollars and get the family in the clear. But the plan goes south when it turns out the place they rob is actually owned by the mob, and now the Driver must fight to save himself and the family from the mob.

There was a lot to like in this movie. I am a huge fan of subtly and nothing too typical in movies, and this had those elements, which I will get into. But the main element that this movie had for it is TONE, which this movie maintained beautifully. This is a suspense/action movie, and as such, it had a good slow pace. The film started off with a chance scene, a job was just done, and he has to escape from the police cars and helicopters. It really illustrated what this guy does for his job. There is no talking, its dimly lit, and you quickly feel the excitement of hoping the cops don't spot him.

The driving scenes where he is escaping from the police and the mob were not overdone, a great bonus as well. He never jumped across a raised bridge, never dodged a train, and didn't race between cars with too much ease. It would have taken out of the real tension. It always takes the fear that something bad might happen to the main characters when they can flip their car and magically land upright. The violence all feels real too. Its in your face, there's blood splatter, and nothing is so overdone that it looks fake. You feel the tension throughout this whole movie.

Back to subtly, I really like the relationship the Driver had with the family. There is a lot of sexual tension between him and the young woman, and its left to the viewer if they did anything about it off screen. When the husband is released from jail, he's not portrayed as some complete jerk to allow the audience to sympathize with the wife and have them want her and the Driver to fall in love. He is a normal guy, and he's actually pretty nice. There is definitely a lot of tension between him and the driver after they first meet, but you'd imagine this because the driver is really moving on his territory, and he has no idea if his wife and the driver slept together while he was in jail.

I also liked the Christina Hendrix had a role in this movie, but that's purely personal fandom, because I like her from other movies or shows. But she has a great scene where a job goes south, and the driver gets pissed off and suspects that she had something to do with it and he smacks her around a bit to get information out of her. I REALLY liked this, because I felt like it was very realistic. I think because its only wrong if a woman gets beaten in movies, they only make scenes where women get hit if they are trying to illustrate how bad a character is or if they are trying to get the audience to sympathize with the woman. But this movie was unafraid to have the main character, the guy we are supposed to love, be flawless and never hit women. But when a job goes south, and people die and you are afraid for your life, it is probably that you would beat the crap out of the other people in the job to get them to admit that it was a setup. Props to this movie for having the balls to include that. (I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE ON WOMEN, I AM APPLAUDING THIS MOVIE FOR BEING REALISTIC AND ALSO COMMENTING ON THE CHEAP PLOT DEVICE OF HAVING SOMEONE ABUSE WOMEN TO MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE A JERK.)

If I had to pick out one flaw in the movie, I would say that the main character feels too perfect. He is the perfect fantasy guy for women. He's played by Ryan Gosling, he drives incredibly well, he's good with kids, he's a mechanic, he's a great strategist, he doesn't cheat with the wife, he says all the right things, and he has such an aura of mystery surrounding him, what with his name never being revealed or him ever saying much other than one word answers. The whole time while I was watching this movie, all I could think was, "wow, he hard is it for women not to immediately fall in love with this guy." It just seems unrealistic that he'd have SO MUCH going for him and that he wouldn't be flawed or that he wouldn't be in a better position in life. The female equivalent to this is how they Megan Fox a complete fantasy in Transformers, a perfectly hot girl who just so happens to work on cars and falls in love with the nerdy main character But this is fine, because the story isn't about character development. I could get over this annoyance and just enjoy the suspense or action.