My blog

You asked us to explain what our blogs were about. However, I don’t really know what mine is about. I started off wanting to talk about stuff that matter, stuff that I think about and how I think and how it helps me explain life, helps me live. My first posts show that. But I was worried that I would not be able to spill out 1200 words a week, at least not ones that were good enough. I now see that the fear didn’t really matter because my blog is pretty much pointless anyway. It lacks substance and frankly, who cares what I think. I wouldn’t care what people think about movies and books and other forms of media. My writing is giberish and unimportant. I think this is mainly because it is an assignment, and you have forced me to write as such. My writing has no sincerity, and writing without complete sincerity will always be complete crap. I much rather have stuck with the writing notebooks because at least in those I could think. It was more natural, and my words flowed more easily. And each post was only like 100 pages so it was much more easier. Seriously though, are these blogs really necessary. After this class I doubt I will ever open it up again because it is embarrassing and I would like to not have to associate myself with such crap. I guess my blog that I have know is mainly a media blog I talk about books and movies and that’s pretty much it, sometimes TV shows. I watch at least one movie, read at least one book, and watch as least one TV show a week so it’s not hard to find material to talk about. But I am not a critic, so I don’t really know how to properly bash the items I talk about. I think I will change my topic though. I tire of this one and I hate doing things I hate and on such a regular basis, it’s almost hell.

Frankenstein

Gene Wilder is perhaps my favorite actor. Never mind, he IS my favorite actor. Ever since Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory, I have been in love with him. When Tim Burton criticized Wilder’s portrayal of Wonka I considered assassinating him. It has been a personal goal of mine to see every movie he has ever been affiliated. While I am a little behind on this task, I did make some head way recently when I watched Young Frankenstein. It is a movie directed by Mel Brookes. I wouldn’t call myself a fan of his work, however, I do like an occasional picture of his, Young Frankenstein being one of them. His films are usually associated with cheap laughs, this one was no different, however, I enjoyed them this time. They were actually funny enough for me to laugh at and make a noise while I usually suppress the laughs from his movies for fear that if I think something of his is funny I will undoubtedly become an idiot. The movie features such talents as Peter Boyle (who plays the monster), Marty Feldman, Cloris Leachman, Teri Garr and Kenneth Mars. The cast was wonderfully picked, each contributing to the cheap, but delightful humor. The movie started out with Wilder teachin his biology class, because he is now a professor. One of his students inquirers about Professor Frankensteins grandfather who is known for reanimating dead tissue a.k.a. bringing the dead back to life. The professor is clearly embarrassed by his heritage and scolds the student for bringing it up while claiming his grandfather was insane. Frankenstein then finds out that his grandfather has died and he has inherited his work, but must venture of where else but Transylvania. He arrives there and spends about 20 minuets of the movie all angry and bitter when he happens upon his grandfather’s work. One thing leads to another and he takes up where his grandfather left off and creates another monster. There’s a little life lesson involved and some sexualish scenes, so Mr. Ayres you will probably like it, even though Gene Wilder doesn’t really strike me as playgirl criteria, I think that you will be able to appreciate the beauty of him. I liked this movie so and I would recommend it to not only Gene Wilder and Mel Brookes fans, but anyone above the age of 15, 14 if you’re mature. 7.8.
more info here

The Ladykillers

So I watched this movie last night called the Ladykillers, except I think there are two of them, an original and a remake, and I watched the remake with Tom Hanks. It’s not that I have anything against Tom Hanks I rather enjoyed him in his Blockbusters like Castaway and The Da Vinci Code, but there is just something about his personality that makes him appear arrogant on screen and off. But anyway the movie was not bad, actually pretty funny mostly due to the other cast members including Marlon Waynes, who was also in White Chicks and Scary Movie, J.K. Simmons, who was in Thank You for Smoking and the Spidermans, Tzi Mia, Ryan Hurst, Lump Hudson, and Diane Delano who has been in a surprising amount of film however nothing I have seen. Anyway this movie starts off with G. H. Dorr who is played by Tom Hanks, and is the main character. He is disguised as a professor who wants to rent a room from this old church going women. The women believes his sincerity and allows him to rent the room. He says that he is apart of a music group and inquires if they can rehearse in the basement of her house. She agrees, setting up the perfect screen for the criminal scheme he is about to embark on. Hanks hires about seven other accomplices to help him in the task of robbing a bank. Each one is vital to the plan, each bringing something to the table. They set about digging the tunnel from the basement, their so called rehearsal room, to the vault of a not too far away casino. They eventually succeed in taking the money, but the land lord discovers what they are up to and threatens to turn them in if they do not return the money, and of course accompany her to church on Sunday. This is when the story really gets going. It is discusses among themselves as to what to do with the money, and consequently, the old women. It is decided that the old women should be “taken care of” mafia style. The only question is to who is supposed to carry out this evil task. The rest of the movie is ironic humor that provides for a good laugh. I would recommend this movie if you would enjoy something that doesn’t need a lot of thinking, or if you would like to see a side of Tom Hanks that hasn’t really been exposed. I was surprised that this man could be funny. Overall this movie wasn’t bad. It’s not the best, however I think I would watch it again. I think I will give it a 6.7.

Shop Girl

So I watched this movie right. Weird. so weird. It was with Steve Martin who I loved in the Father of the Bride movies but this was weird. It was some other actress I have never seen who goes by the name of Claire Danes who apparently was in Romeo+Juliet which now that I think about it I sort of remember her buy anyway. weird. Its about this chick who is really lame and has no friends and her life is so boring and then she meets this weird guy at the laundry mat and they go on a date, and he is weird too, so you would think they would go nicely together, however, he is the creeper kind of weird who tries to get with that but she’s all like no, but then she’s so lonely so he finally does get with that but then she meets this really old guy, enter Steve Martin. And he like wants her, but doesn't want to dat her, so he is sort of like her sugar daddy, but she really loves him, but he isn’t trying to have that so she gets all sad but then the creeper guy becomes not a creeper guy and they go out, and they are perfect together. But anyway its good for the fact that her relationship with Steve Martin is sort of Pretty Womanesgue, and her relationship is sort of Surendipacious but overall its a really weird movie. It gets a 4.2. I hope the novella is better. I did a really bad job explaining it so here.

Sorry

So I broke. I’m only human okay. And a teenage girl who seems to be quite susceptible to the bandwagon. I guess your curious as to what I’m talking about. I saw Twilight. You should probably just shoot me dead on the spot. But i don’t feel too terrible because i went when there were only like ten other people in the theater which means, no one saw me and hopefully the fad is over. But overall is wasn’t a bad movie. I don’t know if my word should be trusted however because the actor playing Edward Cullen, Robert Patterson, who also happened to be a playing a Ravenclaw dreamboat in the fourth Harry Potter movie as Cedric Diggory who ends up dyeing in the movie is so unbelievably attractive that he probably could have slaughtered a new born baby kitten, or even a baby and I would have loved it. Yes, that is exactly how sick I am. But the movie was really funny, and so cheesy. Its clear that Pattinson still has some work to do to reach the top ranks of actors. His performance, while extremely attractive was a bit overplayed with some overreacted reactions that ended up looking fake. The writers also overdid it a bit with a few out of place cliche lines. As for the actress who played Isabella Swan she was a better Isabella than I was expecting. I generally do not this actor because she always appears to be unhappy, or plagued with a constant bad taste in her mouth, however, in Twilight she was very good. I think that can for the most part be attributed to the fact that she is supposed to be in love with a vampire and since vampires are stereotyped with a less than hospitable personality, her look fits quite nicely. Aside from her poop mouth face, she was a really good Bella and contrasted the perfection that is Edward Cullen quite nicely. My fear that the movie would overshadow the book was forgotten after finishing the book. While the movie is good, the quality of it is nowhere near that of the book. I find myself feeling sorry for those fools who have only watched the movie and haven’t bothered with the book. If Jacob Black was slightly more attractive I would feel inclined to rate this movie at maybe even as high as a 9.5, but alas, the appearance of Mr. Black is not all that it indeed could be and I must leave you with a rating of let’s say 9.1

I’m sure many of you have seen the movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s. If not, I’ll give you a little synapses. It’s about this chick named Holly Golightly who is known as sort of a playgirl around the city of New York. Paul Varjak moves into the building that Holly is in and they become quick friends. The movie just kinda goes on like that for a couple of hours with a few twists that I would rather not give away. But anyway, I don’t want to talk about the movie although you should see it if you haven’t because I think it’s one of the best and most practical love stories except for the ending, but anyways. The book starts out with Paul talking about his experience with Miss Holly Golightly. It has been some time since she has left, and the bartender that they both knew and Paul are talking about her, and then the bartender shows Paul a picture of a carving that looks exactly like Holly Golightly and says that when he was in Africa, he saw it, and asked the man who carved it about it and the man said that it was a lady who had shared his mat with him. I thought this was a weird way to start out the book; however, I liked the original way it brought the main character into the book. The book then goes on to talk about Paul’s first encounters with Miss Golightly. The first introduction he had with her was when she kept ringing his doorbell extremely early in the morning. The one night, she snuck into his window, which is weird seeing as its New York, I would be scared, but anyways they started talking and she told him about her brother Fred who she clearly loves very much. This shows her vulnerability, and sets up a scene later in the novella. It sort of ends badly I guess and they don’t speak to each other for a while until she has a party but whatever I don’t really want to talk about the book too much cause I can never explain things very well so I usually try not to, however I can tell you that the book is really amazing and so much better than the movie. Holly quickly becomes a favorite fictional character, and its hard not to fall in love with her. She’s something of a roll model for me, discarding all her negative attributes. I think that she’s one of the few people who really know how to live life. She never takes things too seriously and she couldn’t care much what people think about her and her choice of lifestyle. The fly by night set up of her house and the traveling sticker on her mailbox that is described shows that she doesn’t plan too much into the future, that she keeps an open mind, and I like that. The ending is so much better than the movies. The movies is completely cheesy, but of course, people love a happy ending, so I can’t imagine them keeping it the same as the book. The book’s is more real, and leaves it open to interpretation, which I generally don’t like in books because I like to know everything, but in this case, it really did work. It’s only 110 pages which is so tiny so I would highly recommend it, just saying. If you would rather have a better idea of what the book is about, or your seeking a second opinion, its called google, look it up. And there’s this.

Twilight Protest

So I read the famous twilight books like two years ago when fear people knew who Edward Cullen. I loved the books, and I will embarrassingly admit that I most likely secretly vowed to become Edward’s betrothed. But after about the end of last year, I quickly took that back. It’s so ridiculous the amount of people who are now obsessed with him. Not only that, the people who are only obsessed because they have seen the movie and haven’t even bothered with that book. I’m not sure why I am bothered so much more by that, but I just think that if you are going to give yourself eternally to a fictionally character, you might as well have some respect and read his book. Because of this new Twilight mania that has swept the nation, I have decided to boycott the movie, at least until all the buzz goes down. I’m sick of people coming into class and being like, oh my god I just saw the movie and I love him. It makes me embarrassed to be of the same gender. I can’t even read the books in public anymore. I’m not one to care much about what people think, but to have people see me reading the book, and think to themselves, oh, she’s just like the rest of teenage America. Forget that, I don’t want to be pegged with those crazies. And I have reached my 1200 so peace. 

Slaughterhouse Five

So I finished my first Vonnegut book. I was pretty excited. The book that I read was Slaughterhouse  Five which is a pretty well known book. I have heard of it, but it didn’t really seem like it would interest me much but I have to say it wasn’t half bad. My friend was reading it, and he finished it fairly quickly and told m about it and it sounded really trippy. He suggested that I read it, and since everyone has, I thought what the heck, ill try a little conformity. The book starts off with Vonnegut talking, which is pretty much the whole book, because he is narrating, but he is talking about how this book will be bad, and he knows it, he expects it. Then he goes into talking about how it is an anti-war book and how ridiculous it is to write an anti-war book because as long as there is life there will be war, which indeed is a wise statement. He seems to view war and not a necessary evil, but one that will always exist, and I can’t say that I can argue with that. But then he moves on into the book and he talks about how he meets up with his old war buddy and they are talking and sort of reminiscing to try and get some ideas for his book but they can’t really think of anything to talk about because it has been so long. I don’t know that was kinda the boring part. But then it gets into the good stuff and he starts talking about how he was abducted by aliens and how he was taken to their planet as an animal on display. These aliens talk to him though and they ask him various questions and then they start talking about themselves. They talk about how on their planet they don’t feel sad when one of them dies because they are supposed to. Everything has already happens, and every time it happens the same way. If you do something, that is how you were supposed to do it. There are all these different dimensions i guess, and you can go to a different anytime you want and see whatever you want. It’s okay if someone dies, because they are really still alive, only in another time. I think this thinking makes sense, and although it may not be true, I wouldn’t be opposed to trying it. So Vonnegut pretty much spends the whole book going back to different times where he learned different things, and I am not really sure why it is an anti-war book, but regardless, it makes you think, and it is a really short book so I would recommend reading it. I think one of my favorite parts in the whole book is when Vonnegut is on the alien planet and he the aliens who are observing him get to ask him some questions. Vonnegut is responding to the questions and he thinks its a really smart answer, but in fact he says something really stupid and all the aliens are upset. He said something about how the world ends and he wished he could know or something, and all the aliens think he is retarded because they know how the world ends. Vonnegut asks how and they say that they blow it up because they were testing some new jet fuel. Vonngeut is like, well if you know, then why don’t you stop it and the aliens are all like, its already happened, it will always happen, you can’t change it. I just think that that is a cool way to look at life. 

Naked

So for some time I have heard of an author named David Sedaris which I am sure almost all of you have heard of. He seemed like an interesting writer, and since I had heard nothing but good things from him, I took it upon myself to purchase one of his books. Fitting with my immature personality, I chose the book that I thought best suited me. I picked Naked. While at Barnes and Nobel searching for the section where he would be under, I found him in the essay section. Now I can handle some essays that are about maybe 10 pages, I would even go so far as to say I enjoy them depending on the author and the topic; but a whole book of an essay, that seems to be pushing it. I have to admit this did slightly impact my view of this book, and maybe I did write it off before I had read it with my prejudice towards essays, however once I had started, I simply couldn’t stop. The first chapter was decent, nothing spectacular, but as the book goes on, it not only presents you with a completely new individual, but one who has actually seen things, and has had experiences that have shaped his life the way each of us have. The book provides you with a sense of knowledge, while not missing out on the humor of the situations the author seems to find himself in. David Sedaris seems to have taken these hilarious, as well as meaningful experiences he has had, and has used them and has taken the lessons from them. This is how an individual should be. Anyone who has experienced the stuff even close to what he has should be allowed to not only write a book, but for it to be published. I cannot count the amount of times I laughed, actually laughed from this book. I don’t mean I thought something was funny and said that in my head. I mean I hahaha enough for people to look at me like a crazy, and if they had been reading this book, and had at least an ounce of a sense of humor they would have done the same. I don’t want to completely ruin the story, because in no way am I even close to the storyteller Sedaris is, but my favorite story was the one of his friend he had met at work who brought him home to hang out. And let’s just say, it was not what I expected, but it made for a very hilarious story.