Author: Puppy

Semper Puppy

Thoughts While Watching The Stanley Cup Finals – 6/4/14

There’s an ad for a car where the only selling point of it is basically “you can get a little optional mini vacuum with this”.

That’s about as important as Ron Burgundy’s car commercial talking about the wonderful glove compartment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxWAFOVrYKA

10/16/16: Link Disabled. Apparently Ron Burgundy does not like to share. (housekeeping)

Equality WOW…and thank God (For the Equality, That is)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/brianne-altice-rape-charges-teacher-sex_n_5445390.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D484197

“Equality: The quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.” – Merriam-Webster.com

I mean, it’s such horsesh1t, the lawyer’s statement.  Here’s an equivalent argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIzw6KKZLgA

2:43-3:03

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clip from a great movie. (housekeeping)

Star Trek Generations (1994)

I like both beginnings: in space and at sea.

And this is a necessary link between old and new, both to announce the definite end of “old” and as a symbol of “unity” to bring fans of each together.

Sounds a bit silly, but it’s true.  And when I say that, I’m including myself in those that are glad it was done this way – with the symbolic handing-over of the torch.

Favorite parts:

– Data’s “emotion chip” insertion and subsequent results.
– Nexus experiences/emotions/discussions.
– Of special amusement: Data’s little song.
– Kirk/Picard interaction

Good transition, good movie.  Good…moving.  At times, at least.

Inspirational Quote: “Humor!  I love it!”

Grade: B

Butcher Boys (2012)

00:10 – Why don’t they look?

Begins with lots of mayhem and extreme character stupidity.

I watched it because I thought it might be a zombie-ish movie.

It’s not.  It’s about some cannibals, but only vaguely.  Mostly it’s about misogyny, bad dialogue, and gratuitous violence.

Both detestable and incredibly stupid.

‘Butcher Boys’ was filmed on location in a vacant slum.

Inspirational Quote: “AHHHHHHH!!!”

Grade: F-

A Necessary Death (2008)

Off Netflix Streaming 6/7/14.

WARNING: SPOILER

WARNING: Not fully viewed.

Ok, so I wrote this huge review for this film after stopping partway through due to moral concerns…and then I found out that it’s not real, as it pretends to be.

It’s people shown filming other people, but they’re all actors.  Subject of fiction: someone wanting to film someone suicidal up to the point of suicide.

So, if you want to discuss the subject of suicide/assisted suicide, the ethics surrounding it, etc…why not just discuss the subject?

Why does ANYONE need to see a group of (fake) people (that is, these people are all acting, to a SCRIPT) go through the obvious moral questions/concerns/dilemmas?

Unless you get off on the dark voyeurism of the whole thing – even though it’s fake – there really is no point, other than to be spurred into thinking about a subject that either a) doesn’t affect you anyway or b) has already occurred to you without prodding.

Note: I stopped when I was unsure if the portrayed-as-real filmmaker interviewed two little girls, one of whom said she wanted to be the subject of the film.  I started again once he revealed he called Social Services.  I stopped again when I realized it was all fake.

I suppose the argument is they had to pretend it was real to evoke real, strong emotions and reactions from viewers.  And it did succeed there.

And I did find myself asking…why WOULD you have watched it if it was real, but NOT continue watching knowing it was fake?

That’s an interesting question.  I can say with certainty that I was rooting for the subject, whoever it may have been, to NOT go through with it.  I was hoping for a realistic (as I thought it was real) story of someone who feels they want to kill themself, but gradually realizes that life (despite how horrible it sometimes can be) is worth living.  I wanted a voyeuristically POSITIVE result, as I believe this to be the case.  Finding out it was fake made it much less interesting…probably because it would require GREAT acting (which I hadn’t seen so far and wasn’t expecting), whereas if it had been REAL, there would be no “acting”…so it would seem real, because it WAS.

So I’m disappointed and a bit frustrated, because it would have been heartwarming to see someone realize that – despite how horrible your life may seem – it’s worth living…to never give up hope.

Grade: D-

6/3/14: Why didn’t I finish this movie, you may ask.  Laziness?  Fear? I just can’t bear to deal with the emotions involved?  No, no, and no.  For anyone that has any experience with extreme depression and/or suicidal ideation, it’s simply not necessary.  Their (and my) real ruminations are infinitely preferable to someone else’s fake ones.

If you have no experience at all with aforementioned subjects, you may find this extremely intriguing.  In that case, up it to a C- from what I saw before stopping, with possibility for a great rise or fall depending on the rest.

For anyone (like me) who has been in such a position and has decided, emphatically, that life IS worth living, and that suicide is NOT an option, it would be redundant at best. 

I’ll take my own genuine realizations and revelations, thank you very much.  Grade: D-

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984)

Without – for the most part – the two best characters from II (Spock and Khan), this is a fairly unremarkable, mediocre necessary link to IV – except maybe the last 10 minutes, which are all that’s needed.  And even then only as a warmup to IV if you want one.

The other cast members have to act more to compensate for no Spock, which isn’t so good as they invariably overreach themselves.

Tribbles good, dog putting up with Klingons bad.

Grade: D

Giving Liberals A Bad Name

‘Teacher Fired After Asking 4th Graders For Dating Advice’ – Title of recent online article

And she’s appealing. She’s also an “actress”, supposedly, I think…sad.
Great PR move. Maybe you’ll actually be in a movie soon.

Her cinematography clock is definitely ticking. Of course if it was a male plenty of people would be screaming bloody murder. But it’s a female, so it’s sort of “laughably naughty but no harm done” to a lot of those same people. I mean, come on…sexism goes both ways.

You know…”equality” contains the word “equal”.

The sign for equal is… =
 
1=1.  1+1=2.

Simple math…you CAN’T GET more basic.  So how do
crusading, science-worshipping Dawkian “intellectuals” miss this?

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Spider-Man (2002)

Wow…12 years ago.  And to me it seems modern.  Guess I’m getting old.

Parts I remember and parts I don’t…but the one thing I kept remembering throughout was that I liked 2 better.

It’s pretty d@mn fun in the beginning, especially Peter Parker discovering his abilities…cute, both lighthearted and serious.

Tobey Maguire is really good as Parker, but to me the only other standout is the gruff yet oddly charming greedy newspaper chief.  That’s not a good thing, since he has maybe 5-10 minutes total screen time.

Dunst and Franco I find decent but not much more, and the one actor I’d expect to like the most – Willem Dafoe – is actually pretty mediocre.  As the “good” side he’s fine, but the Green Goblin side is overacted and is far more annoying than menacing.  And that’s PRETTY annoying.  I’m not a fan of the comics and I don’t have anything else to go on, but I don’t care…even if Dafoe is portraying him EXACTLY as written, then he’s written pretty badly.

Some dramatic parts believable, others cliche/grandiose.

The camerawork is great, but the FX they capture are sometimes impressive/sometimes Ehhhh…

There’s too much sloooo-moooo, and especially near the ending (and at the ending) it becomes more persistently cliche – not innovative, not “felt”, and just plain not enjoyable.

And there’s far too much Basil Exposition for 2.

Off Netflix Streaming…in a few hours.  Or a few +24, if they show it ON the expiration date and not just TIL it.

Inspirational Quote: “With great power, comes great responsibility. Remember that, Pete…remember that.”

Grade: C

Alfred Hitchcock Presents – Episode 35 (The Legacy)

Yes, I’m still watching them.  Yes, I’m still trying to review them.  But precious little since 27 has interested me.

This one is particularly wretched, worse than the worst soap opera you’ve ever seen.  Included as an update, and a warning.

The ending is worthy of a 50’s prop short or ultra-cheezy MST flick that might make Joel Hodgson say: “Think about it, won’t you?”

Thoughts While Watching The Very End Of ‘NHL Top 10: Goalies’

Well, they got number one right.

It’s obviously Hasek, if you go by the only stat that really matters for a goalie (Save Percentage).

Admittedly, even that stat can be misleading (some shots are harder to stop, some defenses lead to more of these, etc) but here’s a stat that immediately convinced me (and yes, I’ve seen Hasek play in his prime, and LOTS of other goalies in their primes…and without stats I’d say he’s the best.  The stats confirm, not make):

Dominik Hasek was born in 1965.  Career save percentage: .922

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but even a BACKUP goalie in today’s game has to have at least a .900 save percentage to be considered good.  There are lots of arguments about the reason for that, but consider this:

Going by the FACT that save percentages have gotten better and better in recent years (and even not THAT recent years), to have a high SV% is more impressive for Hasek’s era.

And, if the stats I looked at are correct, Hasek has the highest save percentage in the history of the NHL.

And here’s the sealer: NO OTHER GOALIE born before 1970 is in the TOP THIRTY-TWO all time in save percentage.

The closest?  Patrick Roy, born in 1965: 33rd all-time at .910

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

I was afraid to watch this again.  The first time (a LONG time ago) I really liked it, and I was quite concerned that it would be a huge disappointment now, for some nagging reason…

It wasn’t a huge disappointment.  But that’s mostly because I went in expecting it to be a huge disappointment, and it was ok.

The script is…ok.

The acting is decent, not great…Kline probably being the best.

The “drama” attempts fall short, and while it has some amusing moments certainly, it’s rarely “funny”.

Definitely dated.

Off NF Streaming 6/1/14.

Grade: D+

Birth Of The Living Dead (2013)

A documentary on the making of ‘Night Of The Living Dead’, with four sources of info: George Romero himself (dun dun DUN!), a voiceover guy and stock footage (Oh, the pretension…), various voices talking over scenes/stills of the movie itself, and lastly (and leastly) some “experts” giving their opinions on various subjects (OHHH, the pretension).

Before proceeding further let me be clear: this is a DOCUMENTARY.  It’s not a ‘Dead’ movie.  It’s not about a new ‘Dead’ movie.  There is NOTHING new here in terms of actual “movie”.  So if you’re looking for that, stop right here and look someplace else.

If you’re up for a ‘Night’ documentary, this is in some ways unique (quotes, stills) and in some ways lacking; leaving out important behind-the-scenes bits that I’ve seen in other documentaries on the subject.

If you think you might be up for it, here goes…

The Sources:

1: Romero – talks about himself, talks about the making, talks about the travails, makes some jokes, laughs, grins, smiles, rakes in the dough.  Hell, I’d be smiling.  “Screw you, copyright laws!” he may well have been thinking.  He also confirms some theories:
-The ending was, from the beginning of the script, intentionally as dark as possible – something they fought to keep, actually.
-The cause of the “zombies” is never given on purpose (I believe George could have concocted something solid if he really wanted to): “God changed the rules, no more room in Hell…” or whatever else you can think of.
-By what he says AND doesn’t say: there was no Vietnam message, no civil rights message, etc etc etc…(see the IQ below for George’s overall take on making the film).  The closest he comes to validating any of these (or any other) theories is to acknowledge that the fictional inspiration for ‘Night’ was about “revolution”. 

From his own commentary, he may have used little bits here and there of what he saw/heard/experienced of the times, but only in the same way that he used the already-dented car: it was there (physically or in his head), so it came out. 

According to Romero’s own words, they DO NOT explore the “racial issue” AT ALL…the script remains as it is despite the concerns of  (you guessed it) Duane Jones. 

A black man as a hero is great, and Duane Jones is a real actor…and the retroactive commentary is fun to think about/look at…but Romero didn’t cast Jones because he was black.  He wasn’t making a message.  He was hiring an actor.  So let’s not turn this into some great, brave revelation by Romero.  It simply was as it happened.

2: Voiceover guy and stock footage – lots of commentary about the 60’s, the civil rights movement, riots, unrest, violence, politics, Vietnam…none of which, I believe, had anything to do with ‘Night’.  I mean, was Romero AWARE of these events?  Sure.  Did they inspire him to make a movie?  Did they have ANYTHING to do with the movie?  No.  He just wanted to make a flippin’ movie.  Again, see the IQ below.  Trudging through this is often painful since it’s so obviously cr@p and it’s not even NEW cr@p…I’ve heard most of it before.

3: Various voices + scenes/stills – Often interesting, mostly because of the movie supplying the footage, but occasionally due to some commentary that rises above mediocre/redundant (usually from George).  Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be able to decide on whether it wants to be THIS (an actual analysis of creation/scenes/etc) or an over-analysis of extremely debatable “motivations”/”themes”/”messages”…ultimately the latter wins out, which is too bad.

4: The only names I recall are Fessenden and Ebert, because everything else was just so unremarkable.  You’ve got George himself talking about it…who the fck cares what some random unrelated guy THINKS George was “trying to say”?  You’ve got the man himself there.  And the man himself seems to say, for the most part, “I was just trying to make a horror film”.  But for the good and the bad:
– Larry Fessenden tries to cast the movie as a willful defiance of Hollywood as a form of “critique” of “Hollywood” films…but that’s bullsh1t.  Romero shot it on a really worn shoestring because he
HAD to, not cuz he would have minded getting a few thousand from “mainstream cinema”.  So Fessenden stars as the guy that gets the most pretentious about the whole thing.
– As Roger Ebert (among others) attested to, and is quoted rather hauntingly around 1:02:00 as saying, this was NOT your typical B-grade 60’s cheezy “horror” flick – something which children found out rather painfully after going in expecting to see one.  His quote, as per usual with him and R.C., says it better than I ever could.

Other notes: Some good background info on the many contributors to the film that you may not have seen/heard/known before, some interesting little factoids in general, a completely unexplainable venture into Sidney Poitier films that makes me think they needed to pad out the length or were just REALLY stretching the whole (non-existent, IMPO) “civil rights” angle to the film, and LOTS and LOTS of over-analysis.

I think Romero himself summed up ‘Night’ and dismissed all the brouhaha surrounding it simultaneously with the best line of the doc.

Inspirational Quote: “It was no big thing, man.”

Grade: D

Christgau’s Consumer Guide: Albums Of The ’90s (2000)

I don’t like the change in format, which strikes me as lazy.

I also don’t like the further long-windedness, which strikes me as showboating.

It’s more love/hate than the previous two volumes, with entries that I could read over and over for eternity nestled amongst those that never cease to bore me.

But there’s too much good stuff for this not to be a good read.

Grade: B

Rock Albums Of The ’70s: A Critical Guide (1990)

Material originally published in 1981, but my version for review purposes was 1990.  I’d recognize that cover anywhere.

Here, as always, Robert Christgau states his opinions as facts and moves easily between fiercely positive and fiercely negative – with a vast rainbow of variations between the two.

He also writes better than most novelists.  He can laud beauty as well as he can rip trash, and he can make at least one person’s answer to “What do you wanna be when you grow up?” become “I wanna be a rock critic!”.

In general, it IS far easier to destroy than to create.  But Christgau’s reviews are often creations in themselves – tiny little blurbs of inspired yet seemingly offhand wonderfulness, even when they lay waste to more time-consuming “creative” efforts.

Some of the time I think he doesn’t have the slightest fcken idea what he’s talking about, but it’s telling that my reaction then is irritation instead of boredom.

He’ll teach you some useful words and phrases, he’ll piss you off, and (most importantly) he’ll make you grin devilishly at the perfect choice of words and phrasing that tears down X; which you knew was total sh1t all along but never could fully explain why.

Til now.

Grade: A

Good For Her

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/24/worlds-ugliest-woman-pursues-anti-bullying-film/20891976/?icid=maing-grid7|maing11|dl9|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D480287

For a quick summary on how I feel about bullying, see ‘Bullying – A Short Commentary’ and the guest review for ‘Fight Club’.

A bully in his natural environment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2YVyLLKRHw

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Typical of this movie, this is a good clip surrounded by a lot of mediocrity. (housekeeping)

Doomsday Book (2012)

Three Asian (Korean) short films: one “zombie” and then two artsy.

If you’re not in the mood to have (at least attempted) deeeeeep thoughts presented for your analysis/approval/disapproval/mockery, best to steer clear.

But generally not being a fan of pretentious artsy cr@p, I find the second and third films somewhat interesting and worth a view.  I don’t think they’re as “deep” as they want to be, but they don’t annoy me and they do, to an extent, intrigue me.

First: Zombie-ish outbreak film.  A few darkly humorous touches, otherwise totally generic at best and terrible (in dialogue and acting) at worst.  And more the latter.

Second: A robot appears to have achieved “Consciousness” – a sense of identity and a pattern of “thought” beyond what was programmed into it.  Some revere it, some want it destroyed.

The dialogue and acting are generally decent, and it’s at least somewhat thought-provoking; with a definite Buddhist leaning to its philosophizing.  Parts are dull, but parts are interesting…and I was surprised and pleased (quality-wise) by the ending.

Third: After an online order, everyone prepares for the end of the world via a meteor collision.  Like the first, a few darkly humorous touches…more, probably; and better.  More in line with
the second in terms of the acting and dialogue being relatively decent.  A hell of a lot better than ‘Melancholia’, and less fcken gloomy.

Grade: D+

Unreviewed Series Episodes – An Explanation

Similar to a post I made about a year and a half ago, an explanation on why some episodes of television programs I review are skipped:

Basically those skipped are by default reviewed as “Not worth your time”.  I’m at least somewhat of a fan of every series I review…if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t bother reviewing it (unlike movies). 

So it’s not someone that doesn’t like ‘Star Trek’ or ‘The Twilight Zone’ saying “it stinks”…it’s a FAN saying “I like X…but this particular episode of X sucks, skip it”.

Yes, I watch them all.  If I’ve reviewed up to episode 50 that means I’ve watched all 50 episodes, even if I’ve only reviewed 20-25.  An effort to save fellow fans time by avoiding dulllights.  And if it’s borderline I usually include it just in case you might feel differently.

As for programs that I review completely, it’s either because I REALLY like them (‘Flying Circus’), they’re REALLY short-lived (‘The Vacant Lot’) or I just felt like it.  But the only difference between an episode that I review as “This sucks” and one that I skip is that I saved keystrokes, basically.

It’s sh1tty work, but somebody’s gotta do it.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

The Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983)

Having read this version, the 1979 edition, and the 1992 ‘Album Guide’ from cover to cover (literally) more than once I can say with educated, informed certainty (well, as far as subjectivity
goes) that this is the superior version.

As for the 2004 edition, it either was too boring to remember or I gave up hope after reading 92’s reviews.

Of course, in terms of music reviews, this book – and indeed all printed review guides – is irrelevant; made so by the internet and the “age of information”.

But to me, it holds more than a nostalgic charm.  I don’t even care about MANY of the musicians/groups reviewed, but the reviews themselves are often, to me, works of art in themselves.  They are written, much like R. Christgau’s printed guides, with REAL feeling; very subjective and very opinionated. 

Why is that better than a completely objective approach?  Because an “objective” approach to music is sterile.  It is clean, logical, unemotional…everything that most music is NOT.

Music is about feeling, and so is this.  Something that many people need to be reminded of.

Superior to the ’79 version because it’s more expansive and references changes in reviews from 79-83.

Superior to the ’92 version because it has spirit, spark.  You know…soul.

As I’ve said to/about more than one entity, if you want a camp follower’s A+++ for every recording, best to get a camp follower to write it…not a critic.  And if you want a sterile, objective “analysis”…you have my pity. 

And, to paraphrase R. Christgau: Why are you reading this blog?

Grade: A

A Strong Argument Against Poetry

Just imagine if this came to be the norm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAobK3fyGDI

And, as a bonus, an argument against ballet PLUS inspiration for the classic ‘Maximum Overdrive’:

(Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “Killer Cars”)

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clip from one of the best episodes of a great show. (housekeeping)

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 60)

This Would Make A REALLY Cool Concoction, If Done Properly…

This song: (X)

Plus sampling the words and perhaps sound FX from this: (Y)

Just the first minute or so, the “deserve” lines, maybe the others, the sound of the gunshot at the end perhaps?

Great contrast, the words fit, could be epic.

If you do it, at least give me a heads up, huh?

Make sure it’s legal first too.

4/22/16: Linksdead. A great idea forever lost.