Spook Country — William Gibson (sff)

Spook Country
a book by William Gibson
Wiki | Amazon
Overall Rating: 7/10
Meets Expectations: -2
Apparent Rating: 5/10

In my opinion, William Gibson’s novels vary, sometimes one book will be amazing and really resonate then the next (whether a sequel or no) might be mediocre. I doubt Mr. Gibson considers Spook Country to be a sequel to Pattern Recognition but a number of similar entities occur, namely “Blue Ant” which appears to be some sort of hyper-real PR firm that creates trends even doing R&D on them.

In Spook Country, there is that common cyberpunk technique (which was adopted by most science fiction writers) of multi-threaded plots. What I mean by that is one chapter has a character experiencing some aspect of the story, the next chapter will have a different character experiencing a disjoint part of the story— without any knowledge of the first character. At some later climactic point, these threads converge in some manner, usually bringing the various characters in contact with one another. This book has a handful of these threads and the reader is jarred sequentially through them in endless repetition so none of the characters becomes familiar and the end of the chapter is something to be dreaded. The transitions in this book are harsh.

The contrast with the relatively mono-focused Pattern Recognition book, where the more lyrical tendencies Mr. Gibson has available is tremendous. Oft times while reading Pattern Recognition, I found myself nodding while reading something insightful, like the main character’s belief that jet lag is caused by the soul’s inability to be carried via airplane and the body feels disconnected in the new place, not because of the time change, but because the soul is missing. Regardless of spiritual beliefs, that explanation makes a lot more sense to me than it being about the time change, since it is possible to rearrange one’s schedule in advance but this does not stave off jet lag very well.

At several points in Spook Country, the currently focal character was in deadly peril and my reaction was extremely negative… “Just kill [him/her] already. They’re obviously not important enough to star in a whole book.” I admit that there were some lyrical moments, but my irritation with the storytelling style tended to overwhelm them before they could sink in. I did not recognize any of them as profound. I was annoyed by the constant transitions. Partially because of inept technique, but partially because they seemed so unnecessary. We see lots of detail for innocuous characters’ lives, making them seem disproportionately important.

In discussing this with others, the common complaint was a wish for an electronic version which could be sorted by character’s POV/thread. The chronological approach, where every chapter break really needs to start with, “Meanwhile, back at the ranch….” but just drops the reader into a new pot of soup, that made me want to hand the author 600,000 Scrabble tiles and claim to have found a plagiarized copy of his novel. I doubt Mr. Gibson would understand from that, that I think the story was ruined by a lack of appropriate organization. In further thinking, I am not certain that 4/5 of the threads were important at all. I think it would have been better served as a book if it had been told with some sort of omniscient overseer for the plot and had a single character stumbling through the plot and discovering the hidden aspects of the story.

If I had to do it again, I would not read Spook Country, I would reread Pattern Recognition, but I do not think my disappointment is an accurate reflection of the quality of the second novel in this particular world setting. I really think it was probably an average book, unless you were comparing it to something which had been more personally satisfying.

Charlie Wilson’s War

Charlie Wilson’s War
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 7/10
Meets Expectations: +2
Apparent Rating: 9/10

Again this was a movie where I queued it but did not think it was going to be worth watching. I rarely like movies that are based on real events. The usual way a “real story” is put into a movie is designed to make people cry and cry and cry, because nothing that isn’t miserable and painful is “real” to filmmakers out for an Oscar. Charlie Wilson’s War was surprisingly funny for a movie about a covert war.

There were scenes where the spy guy, Gus, was telling Charlie Wilson that a sex scandal is a good thing because the press sees sex in the left hand and you can hide a tank in the right hand. (Paraphrased, but you get the idea.) That was funny.

Tom Hanks was very good. He’s played so many “I’m the good guy!” roles that I wondered if he could pull off being a skeevy dude. He did. You totally believe that he loves being a politician but has no moral qualms about the freely offered sex of the 70s.

I really enjoyed the tension between the spy guy and Julia Roberts’ character who is the prissy churchy Texas lady with the money who was the impetus behind the original idea. I like it when the god-ridden are told to simmer down. I love it when a movie manages to portray the god-ridden as effracking insane and only nominally tolerated by thinking people, the same way any other kind of clinical madness would be if it wasn’t dangerous and the person had obscene amounts of money.

I did not like, however, the way the whole movie was done as an enormous flashback. I would have preferred them omitting the opening scene with the award.

I really enjoyed the discussion of the endgame after the covert war and how that has sabotaged our entire middle-east diplomatic mission ever since.

Overall, I considered it a mildly educational movie, with good acting, excellent writing, that told a story, which happened to be true (but would have made a good story regardless.) If you were a fan of The West Wing, the movie is written by Aaron Sorrenson who was the big guy behind that. If you like that kind of political drama writing, this movie should get kicked up to the top of your list.

The Jane Austen Book Club

The Jane Austen Book Club
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 7/10
Meets Expectations: +1
Apparent Rating: 8/10

My expectations for The Jane Austen Book Club were more than met, despite the completely unbelievable premise that all people will adore and bond over Jane Austen’s works. The story is flat-out, completely a woman’s fantasy world. It is, frankly, mental pornography.

In a number of really strange ways, this movie reminded me of The Breakfast Club because of its caricatures of personality and the way those characters try to rebel against those stereotypes by passing along behaviors as if the meeting was some sort of white elephant “secret santa” exchange. But The Breakfast Club was one of my favorite movies from the 1980s just because it admitted that there were other kinds of people beyond the popular types, The Jane Austen Book Club manages to talk about people who seem real.

Aside from the bizarre and unbelievable premise, the movie was surprisingly realistic-seeming in how the characters were portrayed. I like movies that talk about older people, where things are funny because they’re funny, not just because someone thinks there needs to be a joke there. I loved the scene where the man from the divorced couple shows up at his ex-wife’s house (their formerly shared home) and tries to mow her lawn. That was fundamentally funny to me. Jimmy Smits was really excellent as the ex-husband who gets a clue.

The lesbian daughter was interesting, but didn’t seem real. Her relationships did though.

Their friend who raises dogs and set them all up together, that was weird. And the way she constantly resists the guy who is perfect for her, well, Emma is my least favorite Austen book and that character got Emma in my nose like overly chlorinated pool water.

The man she brings, the quintessential Californian tech geek. I loved that stereotype. I was surprised they managed to portray it well since this was clearly a Hollywood movie and it was set in Sacramento— and Hollywood is never kind to geeks. He was just always a comic relief and seemed sort of conscious of his role in the group. I thought he was really ill-served by getting the Emma-like woman.

The French teacher who’s never been to France and whose husband has forgotten to try to compromise to her wishes because he can’t be an intellectual— he actively tries to hurt her feelings because he feels inadequate. That was really a neat person to bring in as the loner who hadn’t been part of the group before. I didn’t like how because the husband is forced to read a single page of Persuasion, he falls in love with Austen and thereby his wife. What?

My favorite part of this was how the older woman who has been around the block but still knows how to sprint for the goal found the French teacher woman when she was waiting in a queue for the Mansfield Park movie. I really adored how that relationship was built in subtle gestures and interactions. It seemed like such a beautiful friendship.

There was a lot of really nice stuff in this movie. Really nice stuff. The ham-fisted forcing people to line up with Austen main characters just sucked. The way that “Jane Austen makes everything better!” attitude was spoonfed was repulsive. And the whole fantastic premise bothered me. But those are things I could suspend disbelief over. I knew the movie was going to have those things and it surpassed them. But in terms of my enjoyment, they might as well have made the movie about people who all have red hair, or all like trumpet-jazz, or who wish Thai restaurants didn’t have so many mirrors plastered all over everything.

P.S. I Love You

P.S. I Love You
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 8/10
Meets Expectations: +0
Apparent Rating: 8/10

It’s hard to evaluate a fairly sad movie for how enjoyable it was. Going into P.S. I Love You, I knew it was going to be a sad movie. I put off watching it for several days because I just didn’t want to be saddened over something fictional.

The story as portrayed, though about a young widow, was a lot less sad than I expected. It was much more about her moving on and how she learns to deal with things after everything is all different now.

I really enjoyed the emotional range and real interactions between the characters. There was one point where the main character is asked if she’s hiding from her friends because she can’t bear that they’re all moving on and being happy when she can’t. I thought that was really realistic.

It was a New York movie. I think people who don’t have jobs, who don’t like their tiny expensive apartments, should live somewhere else. But instead they treat NYC like it’s Earth-the-planet, that no where else fit for human habitation has been discovered.

The main character obsesses about designer shoes. I can’t imagine wearing shoes like that on purpose. They look painful. Whenever I see women in the media who are wearing shoes like that, I immediately think they’re stupid and useless and self-destructive. It’s my own prejudice and I admit it. But then again, it might have been character exposition since the main character was insensitive and bitchy and inconsiderate and selfish and hateful to her beloved husband and then he died. So maybe she loves designer shoes because she’s just really not that nice of a person.

None of this is explaining why I liked the movie, which I really did. The flashback story elements were well integrated. They did a great job showing the depth of the love between these people. It showed how things were so weird with their in-laws on both sides. It was really amazing and because it was seamlessly done, it made the whole movie seem integrated.

I also liked how the “new love interest” thing isn’t the center of the story.

This was a movie about grief and it did a phenomenal job of showing that to us without being painful to watch.

Truth And Consequences — Keith Olbermann (non-fiction)

Truth And Consequences
Promo site | Amazon
by Keith Olbermann
(non-fiction)

Overall Rating: 6/10
Meets Expectations: +1
Apparent Rating: 7/10

Full title: Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration’s War on American Values

If you are a fan of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you are familiar with these rants of his. He calls them “Special Comments”. I am definitely a fan of the special comments, since a YouTube video of his rant about the complete destruction of the Bill of Rights without Habeas Corpus. I enjoy the actual news portions of the show as well, but almost never the things which are supposedly humorous. I did not have high expectations for the book because I didn’t see how it could be anything other than transcripts of what I had already seen prefaced with the jocular style that coverage of American Idol demands.

I found the introductions to each rant to be interesting and somewhat self-effacing. I think they do a good job of describing the mindset of the author at the given point in time. I even enjoyed reading the rants again. I got a lot more out of them with the actual text compared to merely listening passively.

Whenever I read a new rant, I was much more surprised that Keith Olbermann seems to be the only person decrying the current state of America’s political affairs. (But that isn’t true. The Daily Show skewers the administration regularly. And Countdown only seems to get away with really skewering the administration on days when they have extra “humor” segments.)

Overall, I would not recommend buying this book because a lot of the rants lose emphasis with temporal delay and because many of them were replayed for a holiday show. There are transcripts available (possibly only temporarily) via the “News Hole” blog on MSNBC. The amount of new writing prefacing each rant is really minimal. However, should you run across the book at your library, or if you were not already a regular viewer, this book might be worth your time.

Bear Cub

Bear Cub
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 5/10
Meets Expectations: -1
Apparent Rating: 4/10

Bear Cub is a Spanish film (in Spanish with average English subtitles) about a boy who goes to stay with his uncle while his mother goes off to India. The uncle is gay, fairly promiscuous, and determined not to expose the kid to that.

The beginning of the film has some comedic elements where attempts to hide reality occur and people make temporary adjustments.

The kid’s mother then winds up staying in India. (The reasoning makes her seem like the world’s lousiest parent ever.) While this is occurring the boy’s paternal grandmother shows up to play the wicked witch.

Some more stuff happens, but it’s all the kinds of things we’ve seen before. People who don’t talk to each other and let the evil person control choices because of their own embarrassment.

What was supposed to make this novel is that the gay uncle isn’t one of those pink and purple fanfare kinds of gay men. Maybe if you were living in Spain that would be new. But I have seen at least a dozen of those, French, German, Canadian, English, American. We’re also supposed to be impressed that the gay uncle turns out to be a decent parent. But honestly, in comparison? The mother has the IQ of a glass of water.

I had expected more and better. If you didn’t have those expectations, I think the movie was decent or so.

Sydney White

Sydney White
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 7/10
Met Expectations: -1
Apparent Rating: 6/10

I heard about Sydney White via a knitting blog. The post described the movie as being for teens and indicated a low-level of suckage. I found that this was relatively accurate.

I had expected a somewhat smarter-seeming main character and somewhat better handling of the “fairy tale” aspect. Sydney White… Snow White. A lot of the parallels were ham-handed. It could have been funny, but since the overall story didn’t seem particularly related, the allusions seemed mocking instead of humorous. I think there’s a difference between something I’m not supposed to take seriously and something that’s actually funny. But perhaps today’s teens are less sophisticated intellectually?

The main evil is with Rachel Witchburn. The love interest is Tyler Prince. One of the plot points is Sydney White’s computer gets a virus; her computer is a Mac laptop with the “bite out of the apple” logo; the tech says, “That’s one poisoned apple.” She moves into a house with 7 guys; one who sleeps all the time, one with allergies, one who picks fights with everyone, one who’s really really smart, one who is very shy, etc.

Stars Amanda Bynes. I have seen several of her movies and she does a good job in her niche roles. Just like she does here.

Many teen movies rely on a shared sense of humor that I don’t share. I didn’t think any of this movie was funny except the allusions to the Snow White story and it wasn’t until 2 days after I returned the DVD to Netflix that I realized why those struck me laughing. Whenever a movie makes you laugh in all the wrong places but seems to under-utilize the dramatic plot aspects, you have to wonder if you weren’t supposed to be watching this. That was my problem with the movie. I thought it would have been fine if it was played as a straight up drama. I thought it could have been funnier. I thought it could have drawn that fairy tale linkage more clearly no matter which way it went. In the end, I thought it was a half-assed drama with a few humorous moments that detracted from the story.

The plot itself is about how college fraternities and sororities band together to exclude everyone else from campus activities and interests. (They make the entire school about themselves even though they are a minority. And they aren’t interested in their education because they know life-after-college is about who you know.) But how someone who originally thought being a sorority member would be terrific decides to fight against them after they snub her.

It could have been much better than it was. But what it was isn’t terrible. It’s probably a good movie for age-appropriate children since there isn’t any cursing or adult situations. There was hazing and implied nudity.

Deja Vu

Deja Vu
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 7/10
Met expectations: -2
Apparent rating: 5/10

I really abhor time travel as a plot device. Normally I avoid time travel movies. Deja Vu had a really good trailer and came with a recommendation from a friend who said the time travel was not annoying. This is completely true. The time travel aspect of this plot is not very annoying.

However, the movie is not very good. 90% of the interesting parts of the movie are shown in the trailer. The trailer makes it look like there is a lot of complicated plot. There is not much complicated plot. The plot seems to be that everything has already happened and the main character just needs to get with the program.

I was bothered by one thing. Denzel Washington was the main character. The love interest is a black woman (I would say “African American” but I didn’t look her up to find out if she’s American.) Why? Now, I’m not going to say that the actress chosen wasn’t good in her role (though she resembled Natalie Portman in those Star Wars prequels) but isn’t it racist of movies to always match people up by race?

This movie has Val Kilmer. He’s not looking so good, but did a tolerable job in his supporting role. It wasn’t enough that his name should have been in the big letters though.

I did not particularly enjoy this movie. It was longer than it needed to be and was a lot less detailed and developed than I wanted it to have been.

Tadpole

Tadpole
(no links will be provided because I didn’t like it.)
Overall Rating: 4/10
Met expectations: -3
Apparent rating: 1/10

Tadpole was touted as a comedy about a really smart young man who happens to have a crush on his stepmother. I could see that crushing on an unrelated family member could be comedic and would be something only a really smart person would do.

However, the movie was about this average-seeming kid who crushes on his stepmother to the point that he has (apparently unprotected) sex with her best friend.

In the meantime, we see the kid talking to his best friend. There might have been some comedic elements there, “Stick to your own mom.” But the whole thing was overshadowed. The kid says his stepmother is not a biological relation. This is true. There shouldn’t be an inherent taboo there. The kid’s friend is appalled because in his own mind the taboo doesn’t bind via incest but via familial relationship. Both boys go to the same private school, so on one hand we’re supposed to believe the main kid is totally smart, but we’re supposed to see the kid’s friend as a dumb loser. It doesn’t work like that.

There was a lot of New York in this movie. Not in terms of scenery, but in terms of attitude. No one questions how an underage kid could end up having sex with his parents’ consent. Even when they find out it was with a 40+ age woman, no one seems upset about it. He’s barely 15. The father and stepmother are completely hands-off in terms of raising the child, even though he’s only there on holidays. It’s like they didn’t want a kid at all, so they expected him to parent himself. But even though this is completely obvious at the party, none of the other adults seem surprised. This movie made it easy to negatively stereotype New Yorkers and wonder why contraception wasn’t more universally practiced.

John Ritter was in this movie as the father who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about his offspring. Sigorney Weaver was in this as the stepmother. The kid was some no-name with a retro 50s geek hairstyle.

Humor value was zero. It was very dramatic, but since all the characters were horrible people, it was not something I would recommend to anyone.

Violet’s Visit

Violet’s Visit
Netflix | Amazon
Overall Rating: 6/10
Meets Expectations: +0
Apparent Rating: 6/10

The story is about a 15 year old Australian girl who comes in from a small town to meet her father. Her father is gay and living in Sydney. He didn’t know he had a child. There are some plot events crammed into the story, but the largest part of it is character development.

Unfortunately the character development is where this movie falls short. Violet wavers between being a royal bitch and a regular kid. She alternates between being extraordinarily mature for her age and complete naiveté. It just seems unlikely that anyone would want a child who cuts the sexy bits out of art books and attaches them to her posters and then runs away because a gay man she thought she was “dating” turns out to have another lover. There is a scene where the father says he’s treated his boyfriend badly, but we didn’t see that at all. If anything it was the opposite, the boyfriend treated the father badly first by insisting that the daughter be taken in and kept, then by walking out because the girl was staying.

This movie does not have subtitles. I understand that Australians speak English, but I find it very difficult to understand and subtitles would have helped me to parse some of the conversations where several people are talking simultaneously. Generally a DVD should have subtitles. This was a low-production values movie, it was shot like the after-school specials from the 1970s, giving it a kitschy sort of vibe which is really rather high in the ew! factor when we see the girl pasting cut-outs from explicit magazines onto posters of Brad Pitt and other famous male pin-ups. This could not be shown on television in the US without some editing, but the amount of actual sex in it was appropriate for children. No one did much of anything beyond kissing and hugging. Sure, it was two guys, but it wasn’t graphic.

I enjoy the sort of “fish out of water” and “coming of age” stories, but this movie did not manage those very well. I did not feel anything for Violet. I didn’t see that her instant welcome was anything other than miraculous for her. We just didn’t see anything which might indicate that this shouldn’t be easy for them. All the conflict was manufactured so they could have a story instead of there being a story inherently.