Cover of Abraham: The First Historical Biography

Abraham: The First Historical Biography

By David Rosenberg, 2006, hardback, from the library

You should know

I was a theology minor, and have always done well with religion or theology classes in school. As a small child, my bedtime stories were Bible stories.

So?

This was an intriguing book. Rosenberg uses what has been discovered about ancient Sumer to construct a biography of Abraham and his family, their journey to Canaan, and their shifting relationship with God.

However, I took issue with a few premises.

Because of the culture, Rosenberg assumes Abraham was well-educated, and manages to justify this assumption fairly well - Sumer, as it turns out, was an advanced, literate society. However, Rosenberg takes it step farther, insisting that that Abraham’s father, Terah, was a sculptor of city idols (according to Wikipedia, this is a Midrash story, but Rosenberg doesn't get into this), and that Abraham was a scribe. The Abraham-as-scribe part is decently justified, but the rest is less so.

Another point I wasn’t sure about is the description of Abraham’s wife. Sarah is said to be Abraham’s half-sister (though Rosenberg is unclear which parent they share, one would assume it’s Terah), based on Abraham’s telling authority figures just that story in order to save his own life, as well as on a specific kind marriage contract that makes a man’s wife legally his sister as well. These are interesting points, but not points that have me quite convinced of the premise – then again, I’m not a history scholar, so I might be missing something. Also, Rosenberg claims that Sarah made the clothing for the city idols – based largely on the premise that she was part of Terah’s family, and that’s what the family did. Again, an interesting interpretation, but one I found lacking in evidence.

Of course, Lot is also once referred to as Abraham’s half-brother, and that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, with no justification – especially since Rosenberg agreed with scripture that Lot’s father was Abraham’s brother. The implications there… well, they're rather Oedipal.

One extremely interesting aspect of the book was the way the evolution of Abraham’s God paralleled Abraham’s own life. Rosenberg suggests that Yahweh was originally one of Terah’s household gods, which rose in both esteem and ability as Abraham found himself in a new land with a new role in life. A third parallel is the narrative of the narrative; that is, the tale of how the story as we know it got passed on. Rosenberg is an authority on at least this point: he is one of the translators of The Book of J, one of the proto-texts for the Book of Genesis we have now. Different storytellers recast the events for different audiences, leading to eventual inconsistencies of action and character on the part of both Abraham and Yahweh.

I don’t know whether to call it wise or cowardly (they’re hardly mutually exclusive), but Rosenberg is also very careful never to take a stand on Yahweh. I for one could not quite tell if he believed in the Abrahamic God of today or in a family statue that somehow gained worldwide worship. As a historian, he probably made the right choice, but given his speculation in other areas, this lack of solid stance was disappointing.

More disappointing, though, were a few errors I noticed – inconsistencies in the way proper names were spelled, for instance. This stood out as sloppy, and will hopefully be corrected in future editions.

Rating

Well, I liked it…
…But I don’t believe it’s everyone’s thing. It’s a slow read, and the information I outlined above barely scratches the surface of the subject material. If you’re interested in theology or history, or just want to soak up some random knowledge for a cocktail party, you’ll find plenty. But this is only a beach read if you like them mindful, rather than mindless.

The rest of the Internet

Abraham's Wikipedia page.
Entries on Abraham in the Jewish Virtual Library and Catholic Encyclopedia.
How much do you know about Abraham? I got a 100%, though I had to guess once or twice.
The book's page at LibraryThing.
A Publisher's Weekly interview with the author.
JD at Point Pleasant enjoys the book and reflects on his own patriarchy.

Kockroach: A Novel

By Tyler Knox, 2006, from the library

You should know

I first heard of this book after reading a review in the Inquirer.

And no, I haven’t read Kafka’s Metamorphosis.

So?

Kockroach is a cockroach who wakes up one day as a human.
Cockroaches are survivors, so Kockroach begins using his roachy instincts to survive in the human world. He learns to walk, then to speak. He learns to dress himself, to hold a conversation, and soon to make money, speculate in real estate, and dabble in politics. Every aspect of his live, from food to language to sex, is compared by Kockroach -- aka Jerry Blatta -- to its roachy counterpart.  He is joined by his disciple, Mite, and his sometime girlfriend Celia, from whose perspective several chapters are written – Mite’s chapters are even written in the first person.
 
At the bottom corner of each page is a little drawing that shifts, flipbook-style, from a roach to a man. I may not be up on my Kafka, but this is a device I recognize from the Animorphs series.

Now, just from browsing the Amazon.com page (linked above), it seems I would have benefited greatly from having read Metamorphosis. Even so, I really enjoyed the story. The major conceit is great, and the gangster story in which is unfolds is surprisingly compelling. It was slightly predictable, but that didn’t make it less fun.

Rating

Read it
It’s a very entertaining book, and I recommend it.
In fact, let’s make a deal. You read this, I’ll read Kafka, we’ll compare notes.

The rest of the Internet

Beware of spoilers...
A review at USA Today.
Lisa G at Estella's Revenge greatly enjoyed the book.
A great study guide at BookBrowse, if you decide to read this one with your book club.
The book's official site.
At Campaign for the American Reader, the Page 69 test is applied to the novel.
A fine review at The New York Times.
Evan Gillespie at WhatzUp did not seem very impressed.
Knox reflects on being Knox.

Bad Twin
2006, by “Gary Troup,” from the library

You should know
I like Lost. I own the Season 1 DVD. I suffered through Season 2 (what was the point of the Tailies, again?), and I’m enjoying post-hiatus Season 3. I read the spoilers, and I listen to a podcast every week.

In fact, I'm watching Lost right now! (Ok, it's actually a commercial break.)

But if you don’t, let me fill you in. Gary Troup was a passenger on Oceanic flight 815, the one that crashed into the mysterious island where the show takes place. Bad Twin is the author’s final work. Troup had a relationship with Oceanic flight attendant Cindy, and the book mentions such Lost-relevant names as Widmore, Hanso, and Paik. They may not be quite the same as on the show, but they’re close enough that you see the connections. And one character is constantly citing works of literature – reminiscent of when, in Season 1, fans would try to find mythological relevance in any book a character picked up.

So?
It’s a cute little detective novel. It helps to be a Lost fan so you get the subtle and not-so-subtle references; then again, these references jarred me out of the action more than once, so you may do just as well if you don’t follow the show.

The story is about a small-time private investigator who is hired by the heir to a major corporation. The job: to find the businessman’s twin brother. It’s a Prodigal Son story with a twist, and a theme of Evil Twins (hence the title) runs throughout.

Overall, I enjoyed it, but I’m glad I didn’t spend money on it. Then again, that’s partly a matter of pride: I’m a fan, but not a fanatic. I can read the message boards, or I can buy the merchandise, but doing both crosses that line.

Rating
Borrow it
If you’re a big enough fan to buy it, you’ve likely already bought it. If you’re a mild fan, or if you like an occasional detective story, though, it’s worth a read.

The rest of the Internet
Beware of spoilers...
Lostpedia discusses how the book fits into the Lost universe.
A review at USA Today.
Gary Troup's website.
A discussion of the book at Ain't It Cool News, and another at Th e Tail Section.
A review at Coyote Mercury (and they have a greyhound!).
Juliet Farmer at BlogCritics reviewed the book.
Travis "The Geek" Perkins at Calling All Geeks compares Bad Twin to Hannibal Rising.
HoiPolloi hated the book.
Troup's identity, revealed!
The first chapter, if you want to just check it out.

My Secret: A PostSecret Book
By Frank Warren, 2006, from the library.

You should know
I stumbled upon the PostSecret website just days before finding this book on the shelves. I decided to check it out.

If you’re not familiar with it, PostSecret is a project in which readers send in anonymous postcards spilling their deepest secrets. Warren then posts a selection online every week, and periodically publishes a collection of postcards in book form. Postcards with every kind of secret (from the silly to the cryptic to the completely heartbreaking) are sent in from all over the world.

So?
How voyeuristic are you? How empathetic? When people reveal their hidden dark sides – or their hidden light sides – how does that make you feel? If you don’t know, you’ll find out quickly while reading this book.

At 144 pages, it’s short – exactly half the length of the first PostSecret book.

The secrets included are touching, but if you’re a regular visitor of the site, you probably won’t find many that are surprising – apparently, several of them have even been on the website in the past. While I’m glad I read it, I’m not sure it holds up to a re-read – and I’m definitely glad I didn’t pay $20 for it.

Rating
Check it out
From the library, that is. And while you’re at it, check out the website. I can’t think of anything to send in, but if you do, more power to you.

The rest of the Internet
The New York Times on PostSecret as art.
Columnist Kelly Mescall hopes Warren will someday come to Purchase College.
An interview with Warren.
The Wikipedia page on PostSecret.
A story about PostSecret at CNN.com.
Warren writes up a piece for the LA Times.
Richard Beck at Experimental Theology considers how PostSecret fits in with the Church.

Symphony No. 8
Composed by Gustav Mahler, 1906. Conducted by Antoni Wit, 2006.

You should know
I listened to part of this symphony in a class a few years ago and fell in love with it. I received the CD set for Christmas, and finally got around to listening to it.

So?
Oh, I wish I understood German, or that my Latin wasn't so bad. The music is absolutely stunning, but since I cannot understand the words, I had a hard time devoting my full attention to certain tracks. Also, I was listening on my laptop, which has good but not amazing speakers.

The Symphony is broken down, one movement per CD. The first part is the Veni Creator Spiritus, a Catholic hymn; the second is based on the final part of Goethe's Faust. I suppose I should be able to tell that purely from the music, as one does when one attends symphonies or operas (or inserts CDs of such into one’s laptop), but I couldn’t, quite. That doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it a lot, though.

Rating
Listen if…
…You like classical music but haven’t heard this yet, or you like really, really good background music. Also, if you speak German and want to help me out.

The rest of the Internet
Mahler's Wikipedia page.
The Symphony Wikipedia page.
Through this page you can read the original and translated lyrics.
A long breakdown of the symphony and various recordings.
Nathan's Daily Journal posts video of a performance.

American Bee: The National Spelling Bee and the Culture of Word Nerds

By James Maguire, 2006, from the library

You should know

I was a decent speller in grade school. I won a few class bees. And I’m good with English – at least, according to my still-unframed degrees, I am. Basically, I’m into it enough to enjoy a book about the history of spelling bees and profiles of some top young spellers, but not so much that I could, even today, kick much rear at a bee.

Not that I’m not tempted. Any bars around here have spelling nights?

So?

Maguire is a journalist, and it shows. His research is thorough, his reporting is extensive, and his profiles are windows into the lives of their subjects. However, the story is episodic. As I read this book, I found myself wondering if he had actually written a series of articles and then just shoved them together with a few chapters of exposition to tie them into a neat package.

While the cast of young spellers and adult officials (who used to be young spellers – the Bee’s director and pronouncer even competed against each other) is large, and descriptive references are helpful in reminding us who is who, Maguire tends to describe the same people in the same way every time – almost as if he were introducing them for the first time. This would make sense if each chapter was an independent unit, but as a longer book, it just doesn’t work.

Maguire also has a tendency to pun about the words the students spell:

Yet for all his kidding, the boy conjures up necromancy with no difficulty. (But in the next round he gets – appropriately – irreverent and tries to replace the i with an e.

Nice enough in isolation, right? But after a few times, it gets old… and then continues.

Also, there are two words Maguire keeps referencing: boeotian and rijsttafel (both of which were flagged by my spell-check). He even mentions them in his author’s profile on the book jacket. Yes, they’re hard words -- I got that the first two times. And speller Marshall Winchester nailed them in the 2004 Nationals, so they’re relevant. Even so, the constant repetition gets old.

Still, the history of spelling, and of spelling bees, is intriguing, and by the time Maguire tells the story of the 2005 Bee, I felt like rooting for some kids over others – a mark of effective profiles. Overall, the annoying tics are forgivable in the grand scheme of an amusing, informative book.

The rest of the Internet

Maguire’s blog.
The LibraryThings page.
StarStar at Literati Illuminations posts an enthusiastic review.
A review in USA Today.
A pleasant review at Jeremy Blachman's Weblog.
The Simplified Spelling Society, mentioned in the book, weighs in.
The Online Newshour at PBS did an interview with the author and other spelling-related personalities.
Sherry at Semicolon read to book to learnmore about her daughter's new ambition - to be a top speller.
Medulla Vesuvius at Word City enjoyed the book.
The National Spelling Bee's official site and Wikipedia page.

Alpha Dog
2006, in theaters

You should know
I don’t particularly like Justin Timberlake. I wasn’t even sure I wanted to se this movie. Dan and I had narrowed it down to this and Children of Men and Alpha Dog won the coin toss.

Also, just as a warning, if you are easily offended, you might want to avoid this movie. That said, beware possible spoilers ahead; while I’ll try to avoid major plot points, the movie is based on a true story, so it’s fairly easy to find out how it ends.

So?
Well, let’s get that part out of the way first. What offends you in a movie? Sex? Try nudity, promiscuity, statutory rape, and threesomes. Violence? Gunplay, beatings, and murder. Language? Obscenity, profanity, racial and religious slurs, misogyny, and homophobia. Drugs? Marijuana and alcohol are constantly present. This is an R-rated movie and acts like it. Do not bring your children.

OK, that’s out of the way. The film is based on the true story of a young drug dealer who kidnapped the brother of a man who owed him money. If you click on the link to the story, the title alone will give away the ending. That doesn’t matter, though; Dan and I spent the movie seeing how it happened, and even knowing the story, the ending is shocking. I didn’t want to like the characters, but I felt for them. If you ask me, that’s good moviemaking.

That said, there were elements of bad moviemaking, as well. The montages, the true-crime-style subtitles, the interviews, the split-screens... director Nick Cassavetes needed to pick a style and stick with it, because each worked in its moment, but as a whole didn't add up well.

Rating
See it if…
…You won’t be offended. I already outlined the potential for offense. The cursing and drug use are pretty much constant, and the violence gets pretty disturbing at times – and there’s a few disgusting scatological moments, as well.

After the movie, Dan and I looked up the actual case the movie was based on, and it was pretty messed up – not something I should have been reading right before bed.

Oh, and just as an aside, that’s why I was late with this review – I got home from the movie at 1 AM. Sorry about that.

The rest of the Internet
The IMDb entry.
The reviews at Rotten Tomatoes aren't great.
Salon didn't much like it.
Neither did Rolling Stone.
The Wikipedia entry.
Todd Gilchrist at ign.com, Ben Erwin at the Daily Egyptian, and Ryan at Reel Opinions review the movie.

The Prestige

2006, in theaters

You should know

One of my professors reviews independent films for Salon (Note: He didn’t write that review). He highly recommended this movie. Also, in class we had read an article about one of the actors, who is a magician himself.

I was in Philadelphia for the weekend, and saw this with Brian, Dan (who had seen it before), and a friend of Dan’s.

So?

So very awesome. Dan said it was actually better the second time, when you know what’s coming. I would love to find out.

Oh, what can I say that won’t give anything away? I’m not even going to risk it. You can spend the whole movie trying to figure out what the twist is, like when you go to a Shyamalan film, but when we all compared the point where we figured it out, it was never before the third act – which, like the movie’s title and the third part of a magic trick, was “The Prestige.”

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, in other reviews, but a magic trick has three parts: The Pledge, where the magician (and the movie) makes a promise, The Turn, where something extraordinary happens, and The Prestige, which is the shocking conclusion. For example, most of the action in this movie rotates around a trick called “The Transported Man.” In The Pledge, we find out that the magician is going to teleport himself across the stage. In The Turn, he disappears. Finally, in The Prestige, he reappears. How’d he do that? “Watch closely,” we’re told.

Rating

See this film
People claim to have had it figured out as early as 20 minutes in. I’ve heard the same about The Sixth Sense, and when they tell me that, I say, “No one cares. The rest of us enjoyed the movie.”

It’s a movie about magic, people. Suspension of disbelief is part of the package in both movies and magic. Play your part, and you’ll find this movie very enjoyable.

And if you want to go see it a second time, let me know.

The rest of the Internet

The IMDb page.
The book on which the movie was based.
Great Ratings at Rotten Tomatoes.
The Wikipedia entries. WARNING: very spoilery!
There are two other 2006 movies about magic: Scoop and The Illusionist
Christa Banister reviews the movie from a Christian perspective at Crosswalk.com.
M. S. C. Thompson offers advice for people watching the movie for the second time. WARNING: extremely spoilery!
There was a Twilight Zone episode about a similar trick.
Jeff at MovieHawk reviews the film.
Buy the DVD.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Up (reviewingwhatever.blogspot.com)

Man of the Year, 2006
Big-screen

You should know
There are certain actor/comedians that I only like in small doses, if at all. Adam Sandler is best when he isn’t writing the script. Will Ferrell is more tolerable when he’s the straight man. And Robin Williams is most enjoyable when he stays in character, and when that character is not Robin Williams.

So?
There are nitpicks. Oh, there are nitpicks. Some of them are spoilers, so they can wait.

Williams essentially plays Jon Stewart, which would be great in a universe where Jon Stewart doesn’t exist. But he does; William’s Dobbs cites Stewart more than once, in fact. If we’re supposed to believe that Dobbs is different and edgy, we shouldn’t be asked to accept that another player exactly like him already exists.

And, as I’m sure you’ve heard, the movie can’t seem to decide what genre it is. Comedy? Sure! Thriller? Why not? Romance? Well, you can’t have a movie without a romance.

And I really think it’s possible to have a movie hit on all three. But this isn’t that movie. It feels like three movies that intersect.

Still, Williams was restrained to the point of appearing like a real person, and Laura Linney was just deranged enough that the writers could have squeezed out yet another subplot, had they so chosen. I’m glad they didn’t, but still.

Now, if you’re a spoiler-phobe, start running. The rest of you, I’ll address shortly.
























We clear? Excellent.

Christopher Walken’s opening and closing monologues felt forced. I wanted to see Dobbs’s show, not hear one of his friends say how great it was – and while I think I get why he was giving the monologues (here’s a hint: consider the movie’s title), it wasn’t all that clear.

Also, let me address the computer glitch around which the plot turns. This is something that really bothered me, to the point of seriously taking me out of the action.

The computerized voting system ranks the winners in alphabetical order by the double letters in a candidate’s name. So in the states where Dobbs runs, he wins. In the other states, President Kellogg beats Senator Mills.

But line up Dobbs (2 B’s), Kellogg (2 L’s trumped by 2 G’s) and Mills (2 L’s), and… they’re in normal alphabetical order. All the writers had to do was make the Republican candidate Senator Hill, instead, and you’ve maintained your sneaky alphabetizing, but eliminated the troublesome standard alphabetizing.

Yes, I’m a geek for letting this bother me, but remember: there are far bigger geeks than I out there. If it bothers me, it’ll bother others. Perhaps badly.

On the plus side, the way they addressed the proper end result of the election was satisfactory. It was neither a dream come true nor a disaster. I can accept that.

Rating
Oh, why not?
Nitpicks aside, it didn’t suck. It wasn’t bad by any stretch. I’d rather not have paid $10.25 for my ticket, but if you can get student or matinee rates, or you’re looking for something decent to rent in a few months, check it out.

The rest of the internet
The IMDb page.
Bad reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
A review at The Daily Skiff

Lady in the Water, 2006
Big-screen

You should know
I’ve been M. Night Shyamalan’s fan since seeing The Sixth Sense in 1999. I actually saw my now-closed local theater’s first showing of Unbreakable – it was the opening day matinee and I had a half-day at school. I loved those two movies, and found Signs to be decent but not as enjoyable, and The Village to be a lot better than most people thought it was.

Dan and I were bored, so we went to see what was in theaters. I had heard bad things about Lady in the Water, so I hadn’t seen it yet this summer, but it was the best-looking thing we could agree on, and I did want to see it in theaters rather than wait for the video.

So?

A guy and his wife are playing some golf. The guy hits his shot, but slices it really badly and can only watch as it flies into an open window nearby and makes a crashing noise.

The two of them immediately run over to the house to see the damage. Inside they find an old man near a broken vase. He looks at the couple and says, "Oh thank god! I'm a genie and I've been stuck in that damn vase for 10,000 years. As a reward for freeing me, I'll grant you 3 wishes."

The husband says, "This is awesome. I want a mansion."

The genie replies, "Go three miles out of town and you will find a huge mansion with your name on it."

The guy then says, "I wish I was a multi-millionaire."

The genie replies, "In the basement of your home you will find a vault filled with money."

The guy then says, "I wish I had an awesome car."

The genie replies, "In the driveway of your mansion you will see your dream car."

The guy is quite happy and thanks the genie for granting his wishes. The genie says, "Hey before you go could I have one favor? I've been cooped up in that bottle for almost 10,000 years and your wife is very, very beautiful. Would you mind if I slept with her?"

The guy thinks for a moment and says, "Well... you did grant me my three wishes... so I guess it’s ok."

The genie and wife go off to the back room and do their thing. Afterwards the old man turns to the wife and asks, "How old is your husband."

She answers, "42, why?"

He replies "Don't you think that’s a little old to still believe in genies?"

Dan told me this joke as we left the theater, saying that he was reminded of it all through the movie. “Where’s the skepticism?” he insisted, criticizing the characters’ actions and the writing driving them

Shyamalan has a lot of talent, and the story actually has a lot of potential. I really think he could have – and should have – done better. I don’t know if he’s burning out, or needs to try a completely different genre, or what. Maybe he should have stayed on with The Life of Pi, and taken the opportunity to step back from his own imagination.

I don’t have a problem with Shyamalan playing one of his own major characters. I do think the character wasn’t good for him. The writing was off, the acting was off, the directing was off, and it was all him. Put any one of the three into someone else’s hands, and it could have been better.

There was no giant twist, so those who go expecting The Sixth Sense will be disappointed, as they were when they saw The Village

(As an aside, I think the disappointment of The Village had a lot to do with expectations. The Sixth Sense, and to lesser extents Unbreakable and Signs were known for their plot twists. People complain about Shyamalan relying too much on plot twists, but when he finally backed off, they were still looking for them, and saw “failed surprises” in what were actually natural plot progressions. Add to that the fact that the ad campaigns were pushing a horror film, and Shyamalan himself did a faux documentary to push the movie, and only someone who goes in expecting to enjoy what’s put in front of them without bringing baggage can enjoy it.)

Rating
For fans only
If you’ve enjoyed the rest of Shyamalan’s work and want to keep up with his output, go see it. If you’re among those few of us who enjoyed The Village, then you might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not that good a movie, though, and if you’re not a fan of Shyamalan (or Bryce Dallas Howard, or Paul Giamatti), then you might not want to bother.

The rest of the internet
A site dedicated to Shyamalan.
The IMDb page.
The critics at Rotten Tomatoes were not impressed.
Watch out for spoilers at Wikipedia.
The reviewer at The Movie Binge has the same complaints I do… but far less sympathy.
The Blue Parrot takes issue with Shyamalan’s ego.
Jeff at Minutiae was more forgiving of Shyamalan's made-up creatures.
Matt at [sic] offers one of the few positive reviews for the movie that I've seen.

Snakes on a Plane, 2006
big-screen

You should know
When Dan first told me that the movie was being edited to conform to the internet hype, I jokingly referred to it as the “wikimovie.” I actually hadn’t wanted to see it opening weekend, but we were bored so… what the hey.

We saw it Friday; it seems most of the hard-core snakeheads (or whatever they’re calling themselves) saw it Thursday. There were no rubber snakes thrown around, no chanting along with “The Line” (note: not all of my links today are safe for work or young kids…), no condemnations of Kel Mitchell when Kenan Thompson’s character did something cool. Oh, there was plenty of inappropriate applause and laughter, and I have no idea what line came after “The Line” because everyone was applauding and cheering so loudly. It was a fun crowd. But I didn’t get the wild and crazy crowd many reviewers are reporting, and let’s face it: if you’re going based on my review, you probably won’t, either, this late in the game.

Now, normally I make sure to avoid or separate the spoilers in these reviews, but let me put it to you this way: Dan ran an online role-playing game based on the concept – not the movie, just the concept - months ago, and we predicted a good 80% of the movie. Everything we missed was filled in by the scene in which the cast is introduced. There are no spoilers, just predictable surprises. So I’ll be careful, but if I seem to give anything away, don’t worry – you would have figured it out during the first act anyway.

So?
When a movie runs its opening credits, it lists the stars, then the title, then the co-stars, then the directors, producers, etc. This was done well: first title, “Samuel L. Jackson.” Applause. Second title, “Snakes.” Wild applause and cheers. Third title, “On a Plane.” The movie has begun, and the tone has been set.

It’s delightfully stupid. It’s mindless and exciting and fun and occasionally scary but more often funny when it’s supposed to be scary. A couple fools around in a snake infested restroom. A snake fools around with a lei. There’s a scene that made me wonder if snakes caused the plane on Lost go down. There was only one person who died that I wanted to live, and only one person who lived that I expected to die.

Oh, and Dan would be disappointed if I didn't quote him: "Two fangs up!"

Rating
Skip it.
No, I’m serious. It was a ton of fun, but the mob mentality has probably faded even more in the last few days. Also, if you haven’t seen it by now, you probably weren’t planning to, and if you weren’t planning to see it, it’s probably for the very reasons that it was enjoyable: it was dumb, mindless, and predictable, and totally catered to the public’s expectations. And if that turns you off, nothing I say will change your mind – nor should it. Now, if you haven’t seen it and want to, or are on the fence, I’ll definitely concede that it’s a good time. Just go with a bunch of friends and hope you can get away with yelling back at the screen.

Oh, and if you do see it? Stick around for the music video that plays during the end credits. I still have that song stuck in my head.


The rest of the Internet
The Blanks on a Blank contest.
The parody trailer that inspired "The Line."
The IMDb entry.
Mixed reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes.
Urban Dictionary defines "snakes on a plane."
Fan-designed t-shirts, modeled by Jackson himself.
It was a struggle to review this film without just echoing Jeff at Minutiae.
And Safety Rule 4001 reports on actual snakes released in a theater during the show. Yikes!

Clerks.

1994, VHS

Clerks II

2006, big-screen

You should know

Sorry about the late update. I'm in New York looking at apartments for the upcoming semester, and was on the run all day yesterday.

Last week I mentioned that I hadn’t wanted to see Clerks II until I had seen the first movie. Fortunately, my brother owns a copy and was willing to let me borrow it. Dan came over, and we watched Clerks. with my parents, then headed out to the theater to see Clerks II.

So?

Watching Clerks. with my parents was awkward. My mom really appreciated most of the humor, but I couldn’t tell how my dad was reacting at all. Actually, it was a lot like that episode of That 70s Show where Eric and Kitty see a movie together – the whole time, each is hoping the other doesn’t understand the dirty jokes.

Also, and I know this is blasphemy against pop culture, I think the movie would have been much better had Jay and Silent Bob been cut. Yes, I know Silent Bob is Kevin Smith himself, and I know Jay is played by his friend. Even so, the only thing they really contributed to the plot was a bit of dialogue at the end that anyone could have spoken – and the comic relief wasn’t that funny or that relieving. Flame away, but that’s what I think.

Clerks II was really enjoyable. It was completely different from its predecessor, but still managed to capture the spirit of the first.

The introduction of color reminded me of The Wizard of Oz, and the new characters fit in perfectly. Even Jay and Silent Bob seemed more organic, although I didn’t always welcome them. I could spot several places where the sequel could have made references to the first movie perfectly naturally, but it didn’t suffer for wanting them; if I hadn’t just seen the movie that day, I probably wouldn’t have noticed.

And how can I forget the dance number? It never would have fit into Clerks. However, it was a fun moment in Clerks II. Like the rest of the movie, it was over-the-top in contrast to the lower-key first movie, but that just shows how cinema, Kevin Smith, and Dante and Randal have grown and changed in the last decade.

Rating

See them both.
Back-to-back, if you can. I considered recommending that you fast-forward through Jay and Silent Bob scenes, but you know what? Watch them and make your own call. They’re cultural icons, and me not liking them doesn’t make it not true. Of course, don’t watch it with your kids… and consider not watching it with your parents.

The rest of the Internet

IMDb entries for both movies.
Wikipedia entries for both films.
Rolling Stone reviewed Clerks II.
Movie Mistakes found continuity errors in both films.
Jeff at Minutiae enjoyed Clerks II.
Shameless but topical self-promotion: Attention, Shoppers! gives helpful hints that could keep cashiers from going the way of the Clerks.

Monster House, 2006
Big-Screen

You should know
Dan and I wanted to see a movie, as we do. There are many interesting-looking films out: Lady in the Water, Clerks II, and Miami Vice were all on the list. But I'm one of the few geeks of my generation to never have seen Clerks (to be fair, I'm more of a nerd), and the theater we stopped at first only had Monster House; I put it to Dan: "I don't care what we see, but we're already here, so if you don't care either, we might as well stay."

And at first, I doubted my judgement: the nice folks at the ticket booth gave us tickets first for the wrong show, then for the wrong time.

So?
Fortunately, I made the right call. To be honest, I think the theater people gave us the wrong tickets so that we'd end up seeing an earlier show -- we were the only people in the theater for what appeared to be the last show of the night. If we hadn't shown up, they might have been able to go home earlier. Oh well. You do what you're paid for, right?

As I said, we were the only ones in the theater. This was awesome, in that we could make loud (and admittedly inappropriate) comments. It didn't make the experience, though; it merely enhanced it.

The main characters are fairly stereotypical, but there are nice touches -- for instance, when Chowder is asked where his parents are, he casually mentions that his mom is on vacation with her personal trainer. That's the kind of joke a little kid won't get, an older kid would laugh at, and an adult just might say, "Aw, how sad," to... before laughing at the next gag.

Rating
See it. Don't bring kids.
Yes, it looks like a kids' movie. And if it weren't for that fact, I think it could really appeal to the tweens, preteens, and young teenagers who are the main characters' peers. But it's a cartoon about kids, so it may not have the "cool" factor necessary for these groups. I don't know; I've never been cool.

It's definitely not for little kids. There was a nightmare scene that made me jump, and there was plenty of sexual innuendo, which of course Dan and I completely ripped on ("I think he's gay for the vacuum." "...Dan!" "I know, I went there too."). Plus, it was a lot of fun playing Hey, It's That Guy with the voices -- no Cars, mind you, but fun all the same.

The rest of the Internet
The IMDb entry.
It went over well at Rotten Tomatoes.
Richard Roeper loved it.
Eric D. Snider at DVD Talk wasn't as impressed.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, 2006
Big-screen

You should know
I saw Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl in theaters about a week after getting my wisdom teeth removed, so I wasn’t at 100% strength and desperately needed to get out. Even so, I enjoyed it very much and thought it held up to repeated viewing.

I saw this movie with Dan, as usual.

So?
Do you remember the Matrix trilogy? An excellent, fun, popular movie that stood alone with no trouble, but that sparked the imaginations of fans who waited eagerly for a sequel? A fun but inferior sequel that was known ahead of time to be a setup for part three? A dismal, pointless conclusion that was notable only for its special effects?

Let’s just say I have a bad feeling about this trilogy.

It’s no spoiler to say that this movie sets things up for part three. To be honest, I was shocked that Dan didn’t see the ending coming, and he was as angry as he was surprised. Virtually all of the characters from the first movie returned (though I was surprised that Anamaria did not return), but they had to be reintroduced. There are no nods to the audience, just moments when the audience is grabbed by the shoulders and shaken. Jack Sparrow and friends eat up the scenery and wash it down with plenty of rum; a draw for Sparrow fans, but wearying if, like me, you’re one of the seemingly few people in the theater who isn’t there for Jack and Jack alone.

There was, of course, a spectacular swordfight, but it went on too long and was too far in the background, without nearly enough variety. The original fight, in Will Turner’s shop, was exhilarating. This one was impressive, then amusing, then… still going. And going.

Rating
See it if….
You enjoyed Black Pearl. Pirate movies are not art; this is a fact of moviegoing. And sequels are rarely as good as originals. And let’s face it, this is the sequel to a pirate movie based on an amusement park ride. Let’s face it: there’s really only so much we can expect.

Now, I said that I’m concerned about the whole Matrix factor. And that’s part of what’s bringing me down on this film: the movie was fine, but it sets you up for part three, and I just don’t have high hopes.

Then again, if they do manage to get Keith Richards to play Jack Sparrow’s father, I’ll gladly revise my expectations.

The rest of the Internet
The IMDb entry.
A fanlisting.
A Pirates quiz (I'm Jack Sparrow? How'd that happen?).
The folks at Rotten Tomatoes weren't all that impressed.
The Critical Gamers reviewed the Pirates version of Monopoly.
Super Edco at Litany of Schist loved the movie.
Jeff at Minutiae was less impressed.

Superman Returns

2006, in theaters

Related articles by Zemanta

• Assorted Graphic Novels (reviewingwhatever.blogspot.com)
• DVD Review: Super Friends! - Season One, Volume One (blogcritics.org)
• Will Disney buy Superman? (christophercocca.wordpress.com)

Cars , 2006
Big-screen

You should know
I don’t follow NASCAR or any other form of car racing. I saw the movie with Dan, who is slightly more knowledgeable than I am.

So?
I think it would have helped if I had been more familiar with the racing scene. There were some cameos by drivers whom even I recognized – Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Mario Andretti both played themselves in car form. They weren’t the only car-related cameos, though; my personal favorite was by the Car Talk guys.

Because this was a Disney-Pixar film, big names and in-jokes rule the day. If you pay attention, you’ll notice that the tires the cars use are made by Lightyear. George Carlin, Tony Shalhoub, and Cheech Marin populate the small town. The love interest (and one of only three females in the town – don’t get me started) has a vehicular version of a tattoo on the small of her back -- and if you’ve seen Wedding Crashers, you can imagine the (literal?) gears turning in the mind of Owen Wilson’s Lightning McQueen. And if you pay attention, you might catch some familiar-looking birds sitting on a telephone wire.

On that note, while the film’s designers were very good in explaining the world they presented to us, there are certain situations in which you can’t imagine cars functioning. After all, most gadgets in the movie are controlled by pedals that are easy for the cars to operate – but who makes the pedals? Who builds the gadgets? But this is a kids’ movie, so logic and theology can take a break.

Rating
Check it out
Now, I’m not going to echo everyone else and say that Pixar can do no wrong. A Bug’s Life didn’t impress me, and Finding Nemo, while cute, is no Toy Story. But Cars is a fun movie, and is probably a lot more fun to people who are familiar with racing. Even so, I can vouch for the fact that a background in NASCAR isn’t necessary to enjoy a good story and an amazing set of animation.

The rest of the Internet
The IMDb entry for Cars.
A thorough review and good discussion at kottke.org.
GameSpy reviews the Cars video game.
Users liked the movie better than critics did at Rotten Tomatoes.
Jeff weighs in at Minutiae (and I agree with him about the DeLorean).
The Movie Blog talks about the expectations associated with Pixar.

X-Men: The Last Stand

2006, in theater

You should know

Sorry about the delay. I've been in Canada. Don't worry, trip-related reviews will follow in the near future.

So, I’m not a comic book person. I’ll skim a trade every now and then, but as much as I enjoy superheroes, I get mine from cartoons and movies. I’ve seen both previous X-Men movies, and I watched both the 1992 and 2000 cartoons from time to time, but I never read the comics. My friend Brian has probably seen fewer episodes of the cartoons than I have. My friend Dan, on the other hand, is a big comic fan and recently won big at a HeroClix tournament. He was also extensively “spoilered” as to the outcome of the movie.

So?

Lots of explosions, lots of fighting (including a few chick-fights), a little philosophy – in other words, a good summer movie. However, as in the case of all good summer movies, it’s important to not think too much. Brian and I both thought the ending felt wrong, somehow, and Dan could pinpoint every last detail that might have contributed to that feeling (“Juggernaut is not British!” is an example that should not spoil anything for you). So if you’re a hard-core X-Men fan, you may have a hard time ceasing to think.

Rating

See it if…
…You saw the two previous movies and/or like X-Men but can bite your tongue. If you haven’t seen the movies and don’t like the X-Men, you probably won’t know what’s going on (not that it’s all that complicated, but enough exposition was missing that having a background in the material helps). And if you’re a stickler for comic continuity, just don’t bother – your head will explode.

Even so, it was a fun movie. Dan told me afterward that he went in expecting to hate it, and actually kind of liked it. I liked it too, and you probably will as well.

UPDATE: I just wanted to add: make sure you stay through the credits. Too many people have left as soon as the credits rolled and then had to find out what happened online.

The rest of the Internet

Beware of Spoilers…
An X-Men fan site.
Rotten Tomatoes wasn’t thrilled.
DJ Coffman at Yirmumah reviewed the movie, and took issue with some of the language.
Awesomelord at House of Awesome seems to agree with me about the “don’t overthink” thing.
Jeff at Minutiae, as always, wrote up a great review, which sparked an intelligent conversation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 3.5 year index (reviewingwhatever.blogspot.com)
• Will Disney buy Superman? (christophercocca.wordpress.com)

Cast Away

2000, VHS from the library

You should know

I’ve honestly never seen this movie before, but I am a big fan of Lost. In fact, between Lost and Girl Scouting, I kept yelling at Tom Hanks’s character for his survival tactics. Not that I think I’d do any better.

So?

I’m not sure I bought the romance between Chuck and Kelly, at least in the opening scenes. Tom Hanks had more chemistry with Wilson the Volleyball than with Helen Hunt. Every scene did its job, but the understated scenes were definitely the more powerful, such as when Chuck and Wilson discussed the suicide test run.

The lack of score wasn’t noticeable until it returned, and even though Tom Hanks does all the acting for most of the movie, the portion that takes place on the island speeds by. His return to civilization is jarring and awkward, which is obviously the point, but it’s not the right kind of awkward. It’s more the awkward of leads who don’t click and a supporting actor who seems to be made of cardboard.

Rating

See it once.
I’m glad I saw it. It’s a powerful movie, and well-done. Wilson, at the very least, is a cultural icon, and you’d have a hard time convincing me that Cast Away didn’t, on some level, inspire Lost. Still, I don’t regret missing its theatrical run, nor do I feel the urge to run out and buy the DVD. If you haven’t seen it and are at the rental place or the library, pick up a copy. Otherwise, no rush; it’ll be on TV soon enough.

The rest of the Internet

Decent reviews from Rotten Tomatoes.
Wikipedia talks themes.
Movie Mistakes lists a lot of continuity errors that, I admit, I didn't catch.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Source of Frugal Misery (thesimpledollar.com)
• 3.5 year index (reviewingwhatever.blogspot.com)