No posts for a while

I'm in the process of moving, and seeing how one contract ends today and the other begins on the 24th, I'll be staying at somewhere not here. The place I'm staying doesn't really have internet that I can just plug into, and so because I cannot gaurantee regular updates I will just declare hiatus and call it that.

So from now until around the 24th I will not be updating the blog.

Should I watch Scrubs?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 2001

Bill Lawrence's brainchild started as a parody of hospital drama shows such as ER, but has grown into one of the greatest show on television. It deftly combines humor and drama, starting the show with characters who either didn't know each other or had lasting relationships and mixing them together in such a way that when, in later seasons, they all know each other it was real bonds of friendship, love, and hate, not tacked on relationships just ascribed to the character. Sure there is some contrivance (it's a comedy show) and realism is not always held to a high standard, but it is so charming that they can be easily overlooked.

The show is either still on air or just finished its last season (I don't receive television programming: any series I review has been borrowed on DVD), so it is still fresh in the minds of those who watch it. It is also popular among college kids who grew up when the show first started. It's combination of humor and drama makes it a favorite that gets passed around and shared everywhere.

Scrubs takes place in a hospital, and some of its humor revolves around that fact, but don't worry, there isn't a lot of jargon or tech speak muddling up non-nerds who watch the show. However, a great deal of focus is put on interpersonal relationships, but it isn't done in a horribly cheesy way like some other hospital dramas. There is one relationship that I have trouble believing, but I won't spoil it for you, and you might disagree. Now because this deals with adults in adult relationships there are some naughty jokes, so beware of those, but the show is relatively clean. So if you can't stand any sexual content or don't want to be amused, don't watch Scrubs. But if you want to see a hilarious and yet poignant show about love, laughs, and medicine, than get your hands on Scrubs as soon as possible.

This show is fantastic, I'm not going to lie. If you don't like this show it could only be for personal reasons. Sure it does suffer from some of the sitcom shenanigans, but usually when that occurs it's a lampshade. They're not afraid to play around and lampoon themselves, but the relationships remain true to form throughout it all. The relationship between Turk and JD is my personal favorite-its funny to see two guys who are incredibly close friends, epitomized by the song Guy Love (Guy love/He's mine I'm his/There's nothing gay about it in our eyes). In fact, that song is my favorite scene from the entire show. I can't get enough of it. Their relationship is what makes you start watching, but the ones that branch of from it makes you stay.

Should I read I am Legend?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1954

What's this? An undead apocalypse book? How passe! Oh why would anyone want to read another book like this? Because this is the original. Written by Richard Matheson, I am Legend is the book that spawned 3 movies and the entire modern zombie franchise. This is another case of Gandalf the Grey: it seems like a cliche because it established that cliche. It follows Robert Neville as he copes with the coming of the zombie (well, vampires. This isn't a modern pop culture book so the line is thinner than you'd think-I guess you'll just have to read it!) and with the crushing despair that isolation brings.

The recent Will Smith movie is a lot of people's first introduction to this book, but the book itself is very popular on the cult circuit because of its role in the beginning of the zombie craze. The book has actually had three movies based off of it, although I've heard only the original stays true to the book. The Will Smith rendition is close, but veers off wildly at the end. George Romero credits this book with inspiring his zombie work, so this is the book to read if you're looking for the first modern zombie book (and a modern vampire book that doesn't treat them like day-glow fairies).

Now the book is a zombie book, so it follows the pattern of slow story development pieces perforated with a few action sequences. However, odds are if you're reading the book you're a fan of the zombie mode of storytelling, and its not that different. Now this book deals with isolation and its effects a lot more than the movie, so at some points the action becomes intentionally monotonous to show the dangers monotony has: it is by no means dull, but it is something to be aware of. The book is not nearly as violent as many modern works about the undead, so even the queasy can read it easily. Now if you're looking for a non-stop zombie thriller full of exploding heads and a mortal bad ass fighting the horde, you'll be disappointed. But if you're looking for an "after the world has lost" kind of zombie survival horror with a few social messages, than look no further.

I thought the book was fascinating and worth every minute. I loved watching as Robert had to slowly stop living in the past and move onto the future: it is interesting to note how time wears away at him until he has become a man more fitting of the world in which he lives. I also enjoyed the ending much more than the ending of the latest movie: however, if you have seen the alternative ending apparently it is much closer to the book. Zombie horror thrives on suspense and not knowing the outcome, so I'll stop myself here so I don't give any spoilers. Suffice it to say, I think it is much more satisfying to find out firsthand why "I am Legend."

Should I watch Apocalypse Now?

The long and short of it: Maybe
When was it made: 1979

Famous for its long and arduous production, this Francis Ford Coppola film can be summarized in two words: too damn long. You see? Even my description of it went too long. The movie raises a lot of interesting points and makes you think about a lot of things. But I think that it suffers from that. It puts a whole lot of things in your head, but doesn't develop any of them. Perhaps the movie makes more sense if you were alive for the Vietnam conflict, and perhaps I just went in expecting it to be a shoot-em-up war movie.

This is a Vietnam war movie, which almost automatically grants it some level of immortality as this era of time is defined by controversial wars of assistance. It has a hefty stack of awards at its side and many call it a must see. Robert DuVall's performance is considered one of the most memorable in movie history, and the film is famous for exploring how war changes men.

Being a war movie there is lots of violence, and being a Vietnam war movie means there is a bit of nudity. The movie is dirty, hopeless, and rugged. People you want to live die, and those who live are forever changed. The movie does not really edit anything out in an attempt to emulate real war. If you are looking for a ra-ra America feel good war flick, go find a World War II movie. If you want a tiny window into the hell that is war and are willing to spend a long time doing it, go ahead and watch.

The movie had its good parts and its interesting parts. The beginning is fascinating, getting to see how war has made Willard unable to function when not in combat, and the entire Kilgore scene is gold, to see a man so enraptured with the thrill of victory that he laments the ending of war and "loves the smell of Napalm in the morning." We see people becoming less than human when confronted with horrible conditions, and we see that as Willard journeys further into Vietnam, he also travels further into the dark side effect of men killing men: insanity. You could travel with him and keep your mind intact, but only if you have the endurance to outlast this incredibly long movie.

Should I read V for Vendetta?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd, V for Vendetta explores the political extremes of fascism and anarchy. The main character is an enigma whose origins and state of mind are never fully disclosed. We see a human fighting against 'the man' for freedom, but committing violent atrocities to do so. In true Moore fashion there are no heroes and villains, only people going about their lives--a fact that the movie, although I found it good, missed entirely when they made V a hero.

The 2005 movie has introduced a new generation to the masked man, albeit an incorrect version of him. Hopefully as many as saw the movie have read the book, because although the stories are similar on the outside, they are fundamentally as different as night and day. Also, the Guy Fawkes masks (for those of us who live in America, Guy Fawkes is famous for attempting to blow up parliament with barrels of gunpowder several centuries ago) have made an appearance, being worn by protesters and activists the world over to preserve their anonymity while promoting their cause. Whether these people are the anarchists of the book or the freedom fighters of the movie isn't clear, but it is an interesting phenomenon.

Now the book is definitely a good read, but there are lots of words, so if you read comics because you hate to read a lot, than maybe this isn't for you. The story is also very political, and is a bit more controversial than the movie. In the movie there are good guys and bad guys, but the book is considerably more gray. So if you want a gritty dystopian political commentary, go ahead and read. If you want a simple story or the black and white of superhero comics, than look elsewhere.

I loved the movie (seeing as how much I've mentioned it in this opinion on the book should make that fact relatively obvious) but I dislike how it skewed my perceptions of the book. Their interpretation of V as a hero of the people really hindered my interpretation of his as a more neutral character. I love the books realistic depictions of fascism and anarchy. The old saying "Under Mussolini the trains ran on time, but nobody smiled" really show in a society where the people have peace but not freedom, and the negative effects of anarchy are seen in the crime and violence that explodes during the revolution. My favorite scene is when Evey realizes that V is more than the man behind the mask, but is the idea within the mask: it epitomizes the books use of people as representations of ideals. Those ideals of anarchy and fascism always circle each other in world politics, and V for Vendetta tries to get us to see them for what they really are when we decide under which banner to flock if any banner at all.

Should I watch Afro Samurai?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 2007

Fuminori Kizaki has managed to create an awesome and fun-filled action story in five episodes based on a manga by Takashi Okazaki. Afro Samurai is as campy as you would expect, taking its serious back story and placing that next to sex jokes, violence, and Samuel L. Jackson.

What more hype need I mention than Samuel L. Jackson? The man is himself an industry with a built in fan base. The series has spawned a movie and a video game, and along with Snakes on a Plane can be given as an example of why people love Samuel L. Jackson.

This is a violent show, full of killing. The story itself is little more than a backdrop to the fights. Afro wears the number two headband, meaning that anyone wanting to be the most powerful fighter in the world has to kill him, causing violence to erupt all around. The show has some points that cause introspection, where Afro contemplates the sacrifices he has had to make and losses he has incurred on his path, but whenever that starts to get heavy, he finds someone new to murder. If you want a violence filled fun show with only a few episodes, than get Afro Samurai. If you don't like sophomoric humor or require your stories to revolve around more than violence and the quest for more violence, than head for a different show.

I loved Afro Samurai because it has an incredible story behind it that somehow fits the weird world in which it is set. This is a world ruled not by armies and governments, but by warriors, and the story reflects it. There is a lot of group on one and one on one combat, and Afro always avails. In a lot of stories I would call it a Mary Sue character, but the world allows me to believe one super powered warrior can defeat an army. My personal favorite moment comes when Afro battles Kuma: it fleshes out these characters designed solely to kill more than some characters in serious work are. It is this juxtaposition of serious back story and silly and over-the-top violence that makes Afro Samurai work. Also, Samuel L. Jackson.

Should I watch Blood: the Last Vampire?

The long and short of it: Only if you're familiar with the franchise
When was it made: 2000

Hiroyuki Kitakubo directed the surprisingly short Blood: the Last Vampire. The movie was ok, with some fun lines and some good action, however if this is your first taste of the Blood universe (as it was for me) it is a little confusing and not very complete. The movie is not overly complex by any means, with a simple plot and a bit of killing, but confusion still arises from a lack of exposition.

Blood's hype has come mostly in the anime community, however the recent upward trend in followers of the vampire fandom will make this movie more appealing to a wider audience; in fact the live action adaptation of this series was recently mentioned in a New York Times article about fascination with vampires (I would send you the link, but I read it in the actual paper. You know, that big obsolete thing people use to start fires?). That itself-the live action adaptation, not the article-has generated a bit of hype to see the "original" movie.

We are back to not-for-children-cartoons. Blood is violent and contains a fair amount of, well, blood. The movie is short, less than an hour in length, so it doesn't have the same time investment that other movies have. Unfortunately all that extra time in most movies is used for exposition and universe exploration, of which there is little. Though the movie claims to be about vampires, they aren't really involved: there is only one character who you assume is a vampire that hunts monsters that drink blood, but aren't really vampires.So if you want to see a short violent action anime, check out Blood. If you thrive for exposition or love the classical dark-master-burns-in-sunlight vampire, this isn't for you.

Now that was the major problem to me, that they didn't use conventional vampires yet they expect you to know the rules of the universe. None of the characters are more than a list of character traits and a bubble graph linking certain characters. All you know is that it takes place in an alternate real world, and that whenever it is set there are still American occupational forces in Japan. Everything else is just dumped in front of you. The main character fights things that feed on blood and hide among humans. How do you kill them? You have to deal enough damage with a single blow (I think). However, guns are worthless? Sidearms, maybe, but a man unloading an assault rifle into a monster can cause equivalent bodily harm to a monster as a few sword strokes. Also, apparently the main character (who is a vampire) is seen striding about with no fear of the sun. After seeing that, there was a scene where she's in a burning building, and I didn't know if I should be suspenseful: did fire hurt her or not? I didn't know, because nobody told me how it works. That's what it really comes down to: if you're familiar with the universe, you'll probably love the movie. But the movies short length doesn't allow the exposition required to understand how the world works: you spend the time you should be worried about the action wondering why it matters instead.

Should I watch My Neighbor Totoro?

The long and short of it: Yes if you have kids, Most likely otherwise
When was it made: 1988 (Japan), 1993 (English dub)

Directed by anime superstar Hayao Miyazaki, My Neighbor Totoro is one of the biggest titles put out by Studio Ghibli and in fact the titular character is now their mascot. It is definitely a kids movie, and definitely not a mainstream American title. The story revolves around the situation (or milieu, as the case may be) and how the characters react in that situation as opposed to revolving around the events- this is rare in movies today, as even adaptations of books famous for being milieu stories (The Lord of the Rings in particular) are usually changed to event movies (alright, a lot of movies are question stories, but for simplicity's sake I'm only going to mention event stories). This is both a good and a bad thing: good because it snaps us out of out traditional movie going mindset, bad because the audience will probably not expect a milieu story and that may have a negative effect upon their opinions.

My Neighbor Totoro is noted as one of Hayou Miyazaki's biggest hits. The Totoro and Catbus characters are famous in Japan and have appeared in numerous cameos--Totoro's popularity is such that he has even gotten his way into some appearances in western animation. With the re-release of several children's anime by Disney, My Neighbor Totoro has recirculated the market, making it easily available yet again.

I have heard some people say that My Neighbor Totoro has no plot, but that is not true. Its plot is simply of a different kind. Unfortunately, this is not the action packed thrill-ride kind of plot that most movies deliver. The movie moves at a much slower pace because its rising action does not revolve around conflict, it revolves around exploration. So if you want to see a fun kids movie (yes, this one is actually a kids movie) that gives a peek into the fantastic world of King Totoro and has a happy ending, then watch My Neighbor Totoro. If you can't watch a movie that doesn't revolve around conflict or hate kid's movies and happy endings, than this isn't for you.

Now this is one that I've broken one of my guidelines: I saw the movie as a child in 1993 when the original translation came out. I felt I could make an exception, however, because I didn't really like it then and I don't remember it. Having watched it again, I must say I like it a lot better, mostly because I see so many movies where everybody is killing everybody and the world is going to hell that it's nice to see a few innocent children exploring a fantasy world and seeing that the world isn't all bad. It's also nice to see a side of fantasy that has been almost completely eradicated in this modern age. The rise of franchises such as the Lord of the Rings movies and World of Warcraft have relegated the world of fantasy to action movies with orcs instead of Russians. That's why I enjoy movies like this more than I used to: we get to see a world where trolls exist not to eat children, but to be their friends. To see a fantasy world where the inhabitants are physically completely different from humans, but socially have many human characteristics, and where the interactions between the human world and their world is extended beyond the battleground.

No post tomorrow.

I am going camping with family so there will be no Friday post this week. However, I may do 2 posts on Saturday to make up for it. Sorry for any disappointment, and I'll see you on Saturday!

Should I watch Ghost in the Shell?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1995

Based on the manga by Masamune Shirow, Ghost in the Shell is a post-cyberpunk action movie directed by Mamoru Oshii. That means you get to see cyborgs and robots battling each other with blazing guns and cutting tech, but you don't get the angsty exposition on how the rise of technology will shatter society. Instead you get to follow government agents as they attempt to solve the mystery surrounding the best hacker in the world, replete with explosions and intrigue.

Ghost in the Shell is another movie back from the beginning of the second wave of popularity: in fact Ghost in the Shell has ridden the wave so hard as to spout 2 animated series (even though they include the same cast, it actually does make since to call them individual series), a sequel, and some video games, just to name a few of it's spawn. Ghost in the Shell is renowned for dealing with the nature of the soul and how AI may change our definition of it. Admittedly, this has been done before (the short story Article of Faith by Mike Resnick is my favorite) but there are two reasons Ghost in the Shell is so popular, and they're both on the cover shown above. One is the gun, and the other one, well, let's just say it could be called the other two reasons.

Now Ghost in the Shell is an anime, but it is one of the better ones as far as monologues go. Usually they actually try to have another participant, and I'm ok with rambling exposition as long as two people are doing it. It is also incredibly violent, showing at least one head explosion, some dismemberment, and a few bone breakings-also, boobs. Now this movie gets my vote for best done nudity, because it is never done for sensuality, and they do it in such a way that you never feel like your looking at a naked person, but like your just seeing a naked barbie-it really fits with that whole "what makes a person a person" issue the movie deals with. So if you want an action flick with a good moral that makes you think a bit, watch Ghost in the Shell. If you can't stomach violence and can't stand the sight of boobies, than read Article of Faith or see Short Circuit.

I love this movie. I will admit that every once in a while I just want to see stuff explode and people firing guns, and this movie has that. I also like to see people discuss issues with a deeper meaning, and this movie has that. If you read my Akira review, you'll remember that I discussed that my problem with Akira is that it didn't get me interested enough in the movie to care about the deeper meaning. If you didn't read it, I just gave a synopsis of the pertinent point I am going to reference. Ghost in the Shell has a story that, while convoluted, actually made sense the first time I watched it and made me feel positively towards watching it again. The next time I watched it for the awesome fights, I picked up a layer of meaning, and the movie expanded to me. Then the next time I watched it for the story, I picked up another layer of meaning. And even the last time I watched it just because, I picked up another layer of meaning. If more symbolic movies did this, more people would watch symbolic movies. Ghost in the Shell focuses on giving us a good movie (though I will admit the plot is still a bit too convoluted for my normal tastes) and then allowing us to pick up the symbolism at our own pace, making us actually care about, and therefore think about, what we learned.

Should I watch Akira?

The long and short of it: I don't think so
When was it made: 1988

Directed by co-writer Katsuhiro Otomo, Akira was a perplexing movie to me. I have since read reviews afterward that explained how it was full of symbolism and meaning and that I should have been very impressed with it, but I just didn't see it. That's why I only say I don't think you should watch it: there's a chance that you may watch it and recognize it for the epiphany that it apparently is. I'm not saying it was bad, and in fact when something is as popular as Akira is I believe it is because it is good, but this just wasn't the kind of movie I watch. It suffers from one of the biggest problems with anime, which I will discuss later.

The movie is generally credited for starting the second wave of anime popularity in America, a wave that has expanded to the point of sheer ridiculousnes. It is well received still to this day and Roger Ebert gave it thumbs up, so that's good I guess. Also, because it started the wave, it was one of the first anime titled sold in America, so many people's first anime experience may well have been Akira, and so it gets passed down to those of us newer to the anime scene.

So, should you see it or not? If you are a self-proclaimed anime fan, this is a must see just like Star Wars or Star Trek is a must see for sci-fi fans: love it or hate it, you need to do it to be part of the club. For the rest of us, however, we can be a bit more objective. Once again, this is not a cartoon for children, as it deals with adult issues and is riddled with violence and a little sexual content (for a kid's version check out Happy Harry's American trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafd97yJFOI. If you've seen the movie it's hilarious). So if you are looking for an anime classic to expand your library, than go ahead and see it. However if you hate it when an anime piles a movie full of issues and makes the story incomprehensible, than avoid Akira.

And that was the issue I referred to earlier in this opinion: too many anime have a story that doesn't make any damn sense, but because they deal with important issues everyone sits around and talks about how great they are. I hate that! You can make an anime that has an actual story and still deals with an issue. Ghost in the Shell is about the nature of the soul and how ever advancing AI affects it. But it's also about a cyberterrorist and the government agencies trying to cover it up. You still get the annoying show stopper monologues, but I'm ok with that because five seconds before there were gunfights and explosions! All I'm saying is that if I'd watched Akira a few more times, maybe that symbolism would have made more sense and it would have been a great experience--maybe that's why it became popular, because when it was one of the only movies around people had to watch it multiple times, or they had to watch it with someone who could explain what was going on. I was alone, though, and the movie gave me no reason to watch it again. It didn't make me want to spend the time to understand it like Ghost in the Shell did (which I may give an opinion of tomorrow, since apparently this is anime week). Honestly, my favorite thing about the movie Akira is that American Akira short I referred you to earlier. It's hilarious to the extreme, especially Kaneda's bike. So maybe you'll get Akira, or you have someone to hold your hand through it, but for me I'd rather watch something that makes sense, and when I come back because I like it I'll look for symbolism.

Should I watch Grave of the Fireflies?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1988

Directed by Isao Takahata, Grave of the Fireflies is based on a novel written by Akiyuku Nosaka. It follows two children and the effect the war has on them and the people around them. I was honestly not expecting this. I assumed it would show the war from soldier's perspectives and show the great tragedies and loss of life caused directly by the war. However it focuses on a little tragedy that goes almost entirely unnoticed in the troubled times surrounding it.

Grave of the Fireflies is one of those Anime movies that has an audience outside the stereotypical market-everyone can sympathize with its message. It is one of the premiere anti-war movies in the world, which I think is made more fascinating by its lack of real world examples-something that our millenia of wars have provided plenty of.

First things first, this is an anime and therefore excluded from a large audience due to the largely American belief that cartoons are only for children (and let me just say that this is not one for little kids). It is not a war movie, and there is very little action. It deals mostly with interpersonal relationships, and it is not a happy movie. So if you want a war flick with plenty of action or are looking for something for the kids, then stay away. If you want a low tempo anti-war movie and don't mind sad movies, then you should see it.

I think the movie was very good. I won't say I enjoyed the movie mostly because that has a connotation that it was happy. It wasn't. It was depressing. That was the point. Often time when we see the catastrophes that occur during wartime we can justify them as being necessary: for example the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were performed because the United States estimated more lives would be lost in a land invasion (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, that is simply an example of justification). However, this little event here has no justification. Most memorable to me is how their own aunt begins to turn against them because of her loyalty to the government. I didn't cry during this movie (which does happen) but it did impart a sense of malaise that hopefully I will remember the next time I feel the need to meet any situation with violence.

Should I watch Rambo: First Blood Part II

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 1985

Hey y'all, remember that review I gave of the first Rambo movie, and how I said everyone should see it? How I assumed Rambo was a sweaty shirtless man killing Charlie in the jungle? How I was wrong to think Rambo was just a stupid action flick?

Well, Rambo II went ahead and fell square into that category of being a incredibly cheesy action flick. It's like the writers sat down together and said "hey, do remember that Rambo movie? That was really good, and the action was kick-ass! We should make another movie that's just Rambo killing people! Oh wait, the first movie had a point and dealt with a pertinent issue in a realistic way? Uhhhhh... POWs! We'll send Rambo after some POWs and tack on a little speech on the end! What? No, don't worry. We won't let the story and character development get in the way of dead Vietnamese people."

Now I have no trouble with stupid action movies-I think that everyone wants a stupid action movie every now and then. But don't take a preexisting character with real depth and emotion and turn him into a cardboard cutout. The first Rambo was a man failing to adjust to civilian life and was shown as a someone the government had made into a killer and an animal but who wanted to go back being a human. The second Rambo is a killing machine with little regret or respect for life.

Alright then, let's ignore the fact that they destroyed the character of Rambo and imagine it's someone else. Do remember that scene in the Weird Al movie UHF, where he's having the daydream that he's Rambo, and he gets in the helicopter and just starts blowing everything up, roaring like a primal beast? Yeah, that actually happens. Or the gag where the soldier is shooting at him while he stands out of cover and shoots the guy with an exploding arrow? Yeah, that actually happens. The ending is so incredibly cheesy that I was laughing the whole time. He went from a semi realistic hero given a little boost to make a good action movie to a god of death spraying arrows down upon the earth. Oh, and that's another thing. He uses a bow and arrow almost the entire time because it's a silent kill, yet for some reason every time he shoots somebody they dub in a loud noise-I guess it's so we can tell the guy who has an arrow jutting from his chest got shot, in case we didn't notice the giant arrow.

Long story short, it is a poorly done sequel to an excellent movie. Instead of establishing a realistic character and dealing with serious issue respectably, they jump on the table, get drunk, and start waving their phalli around whilst yelling " USA! USA! USA!"

Oh and by the way, POWs.