The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Football

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Football  by Mike Beacom, 2/5

This book was an entertaining read, but not nearly as informative as I had hoped.  The shortage of diagrams/illustrations made it hard to understand formations and trick plays.  The information was not presented sequentially – many terms were not explained at all or were explained at random points in the book.  Also, the writing style was unfittingly panegyrical and subjective.  For example: “It’s been said that Ginger Rogers could do everything Fred Astaire could do, only she could do it backward and in heels. Well, that’s how cornerbacks think of themselves compared to wide receivers – without the heels, of course” (166).  Ha bloody ha.

War and Peace

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, trans. by Constance Garnett, 5/5

I approached this classic with trepidation, having somehow got the notion in my head that it was prohibitively long and complex, and was shocked by how accessible and absorbing it really is.  The scope of this book is staggering – it seems to cover every single aspect of the human existence, with an insight, skill and thoughtfulness that I am at a loss to describe and cannot praise enough.  This book is touching, inspiring, challenging, informative and (despite the awkwardness in style that is inevitable in many translated works) is the best novel I have ever read.

Mine

Somewhere
You tilt backwards in your chair,
Head thrown back, unaware
Of your peril, and laughing.

Somewhere
You turn pages, sip sweet tea
And prove ability
To replace sleep with reading.

Somewhere
As Beethoven’s Seventh plays,
In beauty and pain’s maze,
Your old soul is transforming.

Somewhere
On a mountain top you stand,
So tall, crowned with life and
Sceptered with all life’s meaning.

Somewhere
You jealously guard your space
But still scan each new face,
Half-hopefully and searching.

Or perhaps it’s only me

.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier by Alan Moore and Kevin O’Neill, 1/5

This graphic novel substituted sex and nudity for plot, so I didn’t even finish it.  Also, in comparison to Watchmen the lettering was harder to read and the artwork lifeless.

The Film That Changed my Life

The Film That Changed my Life: 30 Directors on Their Epiphanies in the Dark by Robert K. Elder, 5/5

Two things must accompany the reading of this book, besides an appreciation of the more technical side of films: immediate access to imdb.com and an empty list entitled “Films to watch.”  For me, this was a good introduction to many iconic directors with whom I am regretfully unfamiliar and a fascinating glimpse into how others watch, enjoy and are influenced by a variety of films.  An example of the book’s power… after reading the interview about Citizen Kane, I am inspired to re-watch the movie (despite hating it the last three times I saw it).  The only thing I didn’t like was the inevitable inclusion of spoilers for many of the movies.

The Ninja Handbook

The Ninja Handbook by Douglas Sarine and Kent Nichols, 4/5

If you have a somewhat violent and immature sense of humour (and even if you don’t like Ask A Ninja, with whom this book is affiliated) you will enjoy this funny guide that takes you from a “Level 1 Nonja” to a “killersapien” fully worthy of “ninjaship.”

Watchmen

Watchmen by Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons and John Higgins, 5/5

The first graphic novel I’ve ever read, this work displays an impressive synthesis of art and prose, along with an interesting storyline, complex characters and variety of presentation.

Notion

Little girl, leans back, hair flowing,
Gaining momentum, feet don’t touch the ground –
The swing carries her up and down.

Eyes closed, the world sways,
Tree leaf shadows flicker on her face.
Warm summer days.

Time, the persistent pendulum works
Legs grow long, feet drag on the ground.
Work to go forward, work to go back
A little motion sick perhaps.

Eyes wide open, the world jolts past,
Clutching the chains doesn’t prevent
Long week days, and short ends.

Dusty shoes, with many passes
Wear ruts in the ground.
Perhaps a place to land or
Perhaps to hover gently,
A paper’s width between life and childhood.

Firefly

Well, I just finished watching Firefly and quite enjoyed it, with only a few caveats.

Likes:
1. The characters were interesting and displayed some development as the series progressed.
2. The SFX were more than acceptable – better than some shows now (I’m thinking of Eureka in particular), which is especially remarkable given that Firefly was from 2002.  The only exception would be all the battle scenes from Malcolm and Zoe’s back-story.  For some reason, those felt really cheezy.
3. Some of the writing was downright excellent, with occasional one-liners that were laugh-out-loud funny.  I especially appreciated the way that “native” languages and colloquialisms were incorporated (mostly successfully) into the script.  Also, the writers somehow managed to use poor grammar to good effect.
4.  I liked the music in general (especially the unusual use of fiddles) but thought the theme song was a little tacky and unprofessional sounding.
5. The acting was quite good in general, with even some memorable performances from auxiliary characters, such as the bounty hunter in the last episode.
6.  I liked how the makers didn’t let the futuristic setting take over – instead of trying to make every aspect of the show feel futuristic, they kept it to a more familiar-but-different level.  For example, the kitchen in Serenity was very homey…but then you realise that it’s on a space ship.
7.  The season was very cohesive – there were references to the events of past episodes and the writers’ main goal didn’t seem to be to make episodes that would simply stand on their own.

Dislikes:
1. I passionately hated Kaylee and her stupid “romance” with stupid Simon.  Seriously – could she be any more obnoxious?  In fact, almost all of the sexual tension in Firefly seemed really cliche, predictable and poorly executed.
2. Serenity is hideous looking – possibly the ugliest space ship I have ever seen.  It looks like an arthritic, pot-bellied praying mantis.
3. I know that some will argue that the whole “space western” thing is what makes the show unique, but I think that, while fun, the western themes made the show unrespectable.  It felt like they were looking for something cheap and handy that would utilize an excess of western props –  a cop-out.
4.  At times, the cinematography was absolutely horrid.  In one scene in the first episode, I actually stopped and went back to see if my computer had glitched out or something, but no – the shoddy cuts and disorienting voice overs were built in.

In conclusion, my main reaction is surprise that this show was canceled.  It seems superior to many other popular scifi shows and, if it continued, I would watch it.

Public Enemies

*SPOILERS*

I mentioned spoilers above, but please realize that the only way I could spoil this movie is by suggesting that you watch it. Picture this: fedoras, 1930s cars, submachine guns, pretty women, and Christian Bale clenching his jaw while inexorably tracking down an insouciant and gallant Johnny Depp. There. You just experienced the best this movie has to offer and if that were all, I would probably be its biggest fan. Unfortunately, there is more and, what is more, more to hate.

This movie is more self-conscious than a bald man in a barbershop. The camera was so distracting that it should have been given a name and listed in the credits in the role of “drunken eyewitness.” I could speculate that the director was going for a docudrama style, but that would be mere guesswork. What is certain is that there were several scenes, throughout the movie, where the action was framed in an incredibly distracting way. For example, twice, a straightforward walking dialogue shot was framed so tightly that the actors bounced up and down in the screen. Not only did it make them look like they were walking on springs, it distracted from the actual dialogue. I literally gasped in horror at later instances of camera shake so severe that I immediately pictured the camera operator, jacked up on energy drinks and suffering from muscle fatigue looking down at his watch and heaving a sigh as he realizes that lunch is still two hours away. This is an example of the medium distracting from the message in an unacceptable way. Watching it was like reading a book printed on insect wings – it’s hard to pay attention to the story when you’re wondering what the heck the publisher was thinking.

The camera work was not the only thing that marred the movie for me. Throughout, I kept noticing that the locations were sets, the clothes were costumes and the characters were modern actors – it all just wasn’t believable to me. At first, I couldn’t figure out why, since there was nothing really wrong with the props and acting, but just now, I had an epiphany! The reason I wasn’t convinced by Public Enemies is because I have watched so many movies that were actually made in the 1930s and ’40s. Compared to the acting styles of that age, modern actors’ mannerisms, intonations and body language seem blaringly anachronistic when set in the ’30s. At various intervals, a character would appear in Public Enemies who would be jarringly 21st century, despite a convincing costume. Why is this? I think it bears further analysis, but by someone more informed than I. I would be interested to hear the opinions of other people on this topic. Have others watched movies and noticed actors that do not fit the time period for some indefinable reason?

You may consider the previous points to be demented rantings on issues that don’t affect the average moviegoer, but let me give you a real rant about an issue that almost everyone would consider irrelevant. At the end of Public Enemies, Dillinger goes to see a 1930s Clark Gable gangster movie, Manhattan Melodrama. Clark Gable is cool, but I was more excited by the fact that this movie also starred William Powell and Myrna Loy, two of my favourite 30s actors, whom I have seen in numerous movies. I couldn’t believe it when Public Enemies included spoilers for Manhattan Melodrama in the scene! Why is that okay? How would Michael Mann feel if a director of the future included pivotal scenes from Public Enemies in a movie? It’s a disrespectful and cheap act.

Overall, I think that Public Enemies makes a good poster – crisp, pretty, atmospheric, and two-dimensional. The lack of character development and prevalence of clichés makes it seem that the main goal was to cash in on the popularity, action, romance and drama of the gangster genre. The characters were all archetypes we’ve seen a million times before – the morally ambiguous antihero, the loyal moll and the hardnosed lawman. If you want to watch a gangster movie with classic characters and storyline, then why not step outside your comfort zone and watch the originals. Sure they’re in black and white and the actors are unrecognizable, but consider it an education.

But wait, there’s something more!
Rules for living…in Dillinger’s world, but feel free to apply them to your own life, for maximum hilarity:
1. Tinted glasses and a tiny mustache shall be sufficient disguise for notorious criminals.
2. Ammo is unlimited and the enemy are bad shots, but keep in mind that your friends, unlike you, are not playing on God Mode and will be killed at regular intervals.
3. Women transform into willing accomplices if called “Doll,” “Sister,” or “Darling” and given a hideous fur coat.
4. Wanted. Bank Manager. Must be skilled at unlocking vaults under coercion and being used as a human shield.
5. Females with criminal friends may, with minimal interference from the authorities: date them, harbour them, lie to the police for them, spend their stolen money, or betray them. However, females must under no circumstances accompany them on missions, carry a gun, or help them escape from jail.
6. Notorious criminals on the run should under no circumstances significantly alter their appearance, such as by cutting their hair.
7. All you need to break out of jail is a wooden gun and a large man with a stick (sounds like the beginning to a great country song).
8. As a general rule of thumb, you must offer a lady your coat once for every four men you murder in order to keep in the public’s good graces.
9. If the new guy says about a hideout, “Don’t worry, no one will find us here,” he really means, “Don’t worry, no one will find us here until very early tomorrow morning.”
10. It is good form to have at least one epic train robbery in the works. Whether the heist actually happens is entirely irrelevant.
11. Three men in dark suits and fedoras can strut into a bank with their hands in their jacket pockets, look around forbiddingly and spread out to cover left, right and center without raising suspicion.
12. Even hardened killers like to snuggle sometimes. Just remember, it doesn’t have to be with you. Unless he says it does.
13. Your escape vehicle should have approximately four too few seats, since some of the gang members are required to stand on the running boards, clutching the vehicle with one hand and ineffectually shooting Thompsons with the other.
14. The guys with the chevron moustaches are up to something.
15. A movie theatre is an acceptable place to meet and hatch schemes.
16. If your double shoulder holster suddenly seems too formal, throw a handgun into your trouser pocket.