The Hangover (2009) Guest Review

It’s been a couple months since my last guest review (The Social Network) on sgwordy, so I guess it’s time for another one.  I was in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago and it put me in mind to finally watch The Hangover.  Now that I’ve seen it I have a few thoughts to share, so let’s get to it!

Warning: This will be more of a deconstruction of comedies using The Hangover as the dominant example than a review, so all the typical spoiler warnings apply.  If you haven’t seen The Hangover yet and are planning to do so, give this column a miss for now and come back after you’ve watched it.  Also, it should be noted that comedy is probably the most subjective genre out there.  We all have a different sense of what is “funny” and what isn’t.  So take my thoughts simply as my own opinion…your mileage with this film will vary.

The Story in a Nutshell:

Doug is getting married in two days, which means it’s time for that most time-honored pre-marital tradition: the bachelor party.  To celebrate the impending nuptials, Doug heads to Vegas with his best friends Phil and Stu, as well as his soon to be brother-in-law Alan.  The boys are looking forward to a final night of drunken debauchery, but things go terribly wrong when they wake up the next morning to discover that Doug is missing and they have no memory of the previous night’s events.  With the wedding looming, Phil, Stu, and Alan slowly piece together what happened, as it becomes increasingly clear that they were involved in some strange activities…and now they’ll have to deal with the consequences if they ever want to see Doug again.

What Worked for Me:

* The R Rating – Not all comedies need an R rating to be funny for adults.  The Princess Bride is PG, and it’s one of the funniest movies ever made.  But a movie about four buddies going to Vegas for a bachelor party and getting into outrageous trouble has to be R rated, or it isn’t being true to the source material.  I guarantee that there was some point where an executive got his grubby paws on this picture and argued for toning it down to a PG-13 so they could score the teen audience that Hollywood so greatly covets.  Kudos to the filmmakers for refusing to give in and keeping the raunchy material in the film at the possible cost of a little box office largess.

* The Cinematography – Most movies filmed in Vegas show the city in a very similar way.  Lots of iconic casino facades, people gambling and looking happy, flashing lights, beautiful showgirls…we’ve all seen that montage before.  Now, I’ve been to Vegas many times and consider myself to be quite the aficionado.  While it’s fun to think of Sin City that way, the reality is that when you pull back the curtain a bit, it’s a blue collar city (most of the jobs are not exactly high paying) with more than a bit of a seedy underbelly.  The Hangover starts with a Vegas montage, but it’s shot in a darker way, with a lot of the iconic Vegas sights (ex. The Bellagio fountains) framed at a low, askew angle.  It’s a clever visual that parallels the events of the movie, in which the characters are seduced by the flashy exterior and find a more dangerous Las Vegas lurking behind.  Overall, I thought the movie was shot well.  It felt like the real Vegas and not the illusion that you normally get. 

* Ed Helms as Stu – Helms is probably best known for his work on The Office (American version).  He’s actually cut his teeth as a comedic actor, which gives him a leg up over his costars Bradley Cooper (better known for light action fare like Alias and the movie remake of The A-Team), Zach Galifianakis (better known for his stand up comedy), and Justin Bartha (better known for…hmm…being Nick Cage’s side-kick in the National Treasure films?).  It’s no surprise that Helms has the best comedic timing of the bunch and carries the movie for scenes at a time.  Also, of the four main characters in the film, Stu is the only one to have what could be considered an “arc.” 

Quick aside: I sort of hinted at this in my last review, but I’m old school in my movie tastes and look dimly on films without arcs.  A character arc gives the story, no matter how comedic or fantastical, a grounding with which the audience can identify.  If none of the characters experience any personal growth, if they don’t change their life situations, if no lessons are learned, the events of the film will often feel pointless and arbitrary.  To be fair, not all movies have to conform to this formula, and occasionally great movies can be made without any of the characters experiencing a significant arc (a recent example is Lost in Translation).  Still, it’s walking a wire to omit character arcs and most director/writers who try it end up falling.

Back to The Hangover…Doug, Alan, and Phil have no arc at all.  Stu, on the other hand, starts the movie as a meek coward who is terrified of Melissa, his vile harpy of a girlfriend.  He lies to her about going to Vegas (claiming that they’re actually going to wine country), he placates her on the phone every time she calls to “check in,” and he justifies her shrewish behavior to his friends.  Over the course of the movie, Stu becomes more self-confident and independent, ultimately dumping Melissa to take a shot at a more healthy (if odd) relationship with a stripper.  Okay, it isn’t MUCH of an arc, but it’s as close as we’re getting in this movie.

* Dan Finnerty! – The wedding singer at Doug’s ceremony is Dan Finnerty of the super-awesome Dan Band.  That likely means very little to anyone other than me…but I was stoked.

What Didn’t Work for Me:

* Pretty much everything else – There are so many misfires here, it’s hard to mention them all.  Just doing some freeform rapid-fire style criticisms:

- The plot is threadbare and ancillary to most of the action/humor.  The movie is just a series of comedic set pieces without a cohesive narrative.

- With regards to point #1, the “clues” that they follow to find Doug don’t make any sense and don’t lead to the final outcome in any sensible way.  Seriously, count the number of times in this movie where the plot moves forward through external coincidences rather than through actions taken by the central characters.

- The characters are flat, one-note stereotypes.  Rachel Harris should be embarrassed to play Melissa, an amalgam of every “controlling spouse/girlfriend” cliché in the book.  Every scene involving Melissa and Stu is cringe-inducing.

- Justin Bartha as Doug is one of the blandest zeroes in the history of film.  I realize that he disappears part way into the movie, but it still isn’t clear why Phil, Alan, and Stu think he’s such a great guy.  There are several points in the film where they sing (?!?) about how much they like Doug, yet there isn’t a single scene that would clarify why they’re such close friends.

- Speaking of which, Stu and Phil are supposedly very old friends, yet are polar opposites and seem to barely tolerate each other.  When people become friends, it’s usually because they have something in common, share similar values, etc.  It’s sort of implied that Doug is the keystone holding the whole thing together, but again, he’s portrayed as a total dud.  How are these people friends?

But the most damning thing of all?  It’s just not very funny.  At least, not to me.  And that’s kind of a deal breaker in a comedy.  So the question is, why did I not find it funny when so many people did?  After all, it made a lot of money.  It was popular enough to get a sequel.  I’ve thought about this, and I think I’ve hit on the answer.

Let’s take all the humor in comedic movies and split it into two broad groups: “jokes” and “gags.”  Jokes come in many forms, including brief one-liners, setups with clear punch lines, double entendres, and even referential humor tying the current situation to other material.  Gags also come in many forms, but are far more self-contained than jokes.  Most of the “shock” moments in comedies are gags, relying on people doing or saying things that are not appropriate for the situation.  How can you tell the difference between jokes and gags?  Imagine describing the humor to a person who hasn’t seen it.  If you can just straight up state the dialogue:

Dr. Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?

Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.

Dr. Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

…then you’re probably telling a joke.  If you have to describe the context of the scene in detail for it to make any sense:

“So then, Cameron Diaz’s character is sitting in the bar, and her hair is sticking up at a funny angle because she thought it was hair gel…”

…then it’s probably a gag.  Notice that in the first example, a person who hasn’t seen Airplane could still find the lines funny.  But a person who hasn’t seen There’s Something About Mary wouldn’t understand the context of the gag and would therefore not see the humor without a lot of explanation.

I don’t mind gags, and sometimes they can be really funny.  There’s Something About Mary had a lot of really funny gags (remember the zipper scene?), but it also had jokes to back up the gags, as well as sympathetic characters (one of whom has a fully realized arc).  That’s good comedy.

The Hangover is part of a recent trend I’ve noticed in films – comedies with no jokes.  I’m not kidding, there are almost no jokes in the whole movie.  I glanced over the IMDbsite for The Hangover before writing this piece, specifically looking through the quotes that people posted for the film (if a comedy is really quotable, that’s a sign of good jokes).  Of the entire list, there’s really only one or two that qualify as jokes.  The rest are things that people were saying during the movie’s various gags.  If you laugh at the quote, what you’re probably doing is remembering the gag that it’s matched with from the film.

Let me give some examples of the kind of humor that comprises The Hangover:

- Mike Tyson watches security footage of the guys peeing in his pool while they sit next to him looking uncomfortable.

- Alan finds a slice of pizza in the hotel room couch and eats it.

- Stu, Phil, and Alan get beat up by a naked man.

- Alan notices that there’s a tiger in the bathroom and pees all over the floor while escaping.

Or how about this comedic gem straight from the IMDb quotes page:

Alan Garner: I want you to know, Doug, I'm a steel trap. Whatever happens tonight, I will never, ever, ever speak a word of it.

Doug Billings: Ok, I got it. Thank you. I don't think that...

Alan Garner: Seriously, I don't care what happens. I don't care if we kill someone.

Doug Billings: What?

Alan Garner: You heard me. It's Sin City. I won't tell a soul.

That sort of looks like a joke, but notice that there’s no punch line, no wit, no meaning beyond the context of this scene.  Alan is a weird guy who blurts out inappropriate things.  Either you think that’s funny, or you don’t.  There’s no additional level to appreciate.  And that’s why this isn’t a joke, it’s a gag.

The Verdict:

I like comedies with jokes, and The Hangover wants you to be content with gags.  If you’re a big fan of films like Epic Movie (all gags and no jokes), then you will probably love The Hangover.  If you’re like me and prefer jokes to gags, then I’d pass on this one.  So with apologies to the many fans of this film, I can’t recommend The Hangover and I won’t be seeing the sequel.

Two movies in a row that I didn’t really like…  Maybe for my next review, I’ll make a point of choosing something that I actually enjoyed! 

 ____________________________________________________________________

Many thanks to Dr Musacha for his guest reviews. His real name might not be Musacha, but Dr is his real title. If you're interested in other ways the Doctor spends his time when not unraveling the secrets near and dear to a cardiologist's heart (ha!), check out The Doctor and the Dude Show. You can also find him here and here.

Under Pressure

(hat tip: Jed)

Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein

Title: Starship Troopers
Author: Robert A. Heinlein
Publisher: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1959)

Michael (who, unlike me, is not taking a wee break from the digital world and so continues to fill It Rains... You Get Wet with wonderful content) and I are serving up another sci-fi pair this month and, just as in the case of Jurassic Park, this one goes way back as one that I enjoy. My appreciation has morphed over the years, and not one re-read has captured again the blowing of my little teenage mind, but since it's a book chock full of philosophy I think I'd be a little disappointed in myself if my views on a philosophy didn't change as I did. Now, the movie is a different beast entirely and I leave it in Michael's capable hands.

Michael's film review of Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers opens as Juan Rico is about to drop for a raid on a planet inhabited by "skinnies" who are, at that time, allied with the Bugs. The first chapter outlines the tactics of a squad, gives you a great look at the suits worn by the infantry, and describes some really fantastic distribution of ordnance. After that first chapter it jumps back in time to how/why Rico joins the military and what boot camp was like. This is the backdrop for sharing a philosophy of how a military ought to function and what its place is within a nation. The responsibility of non-military is also nicely described.

Rico is a perfect sponge for the lessons the military wants him to learn. He rather reminds me of me when I was younger and thought that these were some pretty nifty and new ideas. I have no idea if they were new or not (I'm guessing not because new philosophies are thin on the ground these days) but they were new to me, as they were to Rico, and we both lapped them up with the excitement of youth encountering new knowledge. In fact, it's such a complete and impassioned philosophy that some of Heinlein's more irksome qualities aren't quite so obvious and irksome. I think this philosophy works much better if you're an idealist but, no matter, it's interesting and brings up some cool ideas. I particularly like some of the arguments regarding responsibility and authority. This is why I think it's one of the sci-fi greats. This is what science fiction is meant to do. Science fiction is meant to express the human condition in almost unimaginable scenarios. That's the beauty and appeal of it.

Even with its boundless imagination and futuristic ideas, it’s firmly grounded in the origins and socialization of Heinlein. This brings us to the main and recurring drawback in scifi for me. No matter the scope, the prejudices and the socialization of the author are lurking in the background. Pages can go by when you don’t notice but it can’t be completely ignored. I don’t know if there’s one work of scifi that transcends this problem (and if you can think of one please let me know) but it would be an amazing thing. Because, see, that’s the thing, you can’t escape human nature! And, see, that’s the thing, the beauty of scifi, it can’t escape human nature. And it shouldn’t. That’s the point. And that point is underlined in Starship Troopers. You may have to ignore some of Heinlein’s socialization but, if you can, you will find a satisfying portrait of human nature in extraordinary circumstances. And don't underestimate how cool the combat scenes are even if they crop up less often than one would expect in a book with "troopers" in the title.

 
rating: 4 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Wild Horses

 

Lake Charles by Ed Lynskey

Title: Lake Charles
Author: Ed Lynskey
Publisher: Wildside Press
Available: June 28, 2011


Brendan is trying to enjoy a relaxing weekend with his twin sister and his best friend Cobb. This is not as easy as it sounds because the fish aren't biting, his best friend is also his sister's estranged husband, Brendan is a murder suspect out on bail, and then, to top it off, his twin disappears. Brendan and Cobb start a systematic search of the lake's shores and become suspicious that foul play may be involved when they find evidence of the area being used for drug production.

Lynskey has a distinct style that starts right up on page one. This is the first of his novels I've read so it may be his usual style but I found it unusual in general. His language is direct, even raw at times, and colloquial which I found worked very well for the prose and internal thought processes of Brendan. However, it didn't always translate well to the dialogue. I should be more specific, it worked well in the dialogue when the dialogue was flowing between the characters but there were instances of info-dump that interrupted an otherwise consistent style.

The story is told just the way I like: without hand holding. Lynskey has a layered story to tell and he lets it unfold as the characters and the reader move through the narrative. I can clearly recall a couple times when I thought the plot had veered off in really random directions but the relevancy of these seeming tangents came clear for me as they did for the characters. He's also chosen an excellent backdrop for the type of story he has to tell. The local color of his Tennessee setting compliments the noir aspect of the novel.

The characterization doesn't hold together as well as the story, unfortunately. Brendan, his twin, and Cobb come off as much older than they are. In action, dialogue, and remembered events they do not seem like a trio in their late teens. For me, this undermined the authenticity of the characters. To be fair, Brendan makes some stupid decisions that might be a result of his youth (carrying and using weapons whilst out on bail for murder doesn't seem to be the type of thing to help your case), or it may just be that corruption in local law enforcement has made him feel his case is helpless. Cobb's dad, Mr. Kuzawa, is also a bit hard to believe at times. He goes along acting mostly normal (for him anyway:) and then these distracting sermons leak out making him almost comically melodramatic. A couple of the secondary characters worked out much better for me, most especially Ashleigh, the murder victim. She remains a pertinent character for a couple reasons but mostly because she appears to Brendan in dreams and visions egging him on to find her true murderer. I liked her attitude and the way she kept Brendan on his toes.

Ultimately, I think this will be a more satisfying read for those that like a distinct atmosphere and a nicely-plotted mystery than for those who prefer a character to latch on to as they move through a story. And the unusual style will definitely appeal to those looking for something different in crime fiction.

Learn more about the author here and here.


Note: This title kindly provided by the author.

Scientists at Work

I think we all remember the Great Wall of Poo. Who knew it had such artistic potential.

Jurassic Park, Part III: TMT

Title: Jurassic Park
Author: Michael Crichton
Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf (1990)

And for my final installment, inspired by this series: a Theatre... a Movie... and a Time.

Jurassic Park, Part I: One Fan's Love Affair
Jurassic Park, Part II: But What About the Science?
Jurassic Park, Part III: TMT


Theatre

Egyptian Theatre (state historical web site for Delta County buildings)

Movie

Time

June 11, 1993 may or may not have been the night I saw this movie. The theatre was packed but that's not saying much. Living in a town with a one screen theatre meant that it was packed almost every night in the summer. But this was in June and that meant the Tru-vu Drive-in was open and it showed two movies/night in the summer tripling the movie options of Delta's cinema goers. (And people wonder why I shudder at the thought of voluntarily living in Colorado - flashbacks, people, flashbacks!) However, I didn't spend my summers in Colorado (I spent them in Louisiana in a town with two theatres totaling 13 screens, bragging rights, I had 'em.) so I would bet I did see this opening night and probably caught a plane out of town soon thereafter. However, the night I saw this isn't really the point. The point is the feeling I had while watching and I was rapt. When that jeep was driving across the field and the camera panned over to the dinosaurs my thought was, "This changes everything!" I saw this with my dad and we couldn't stop talking about it the rest of the night. The effects absolutely blew me away and I am amazed that almost twenty years later movies often do not use effects with the realism and skill displayed in Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park, Part II: But What About the Science?

Title: Jurassic Park
Author: Michael Crichton
Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf (1990)

Since I'm about to nit pick like nobody's business on this novel I must first re-iterate how much I love it. Also, I think Crichton got one thing very right science-wise and I'll mention that last so stick around or skim down for it if you get tired of all the crabbing.

Jurassic Park, Part I: One Fan's Love Affair
Jurassic Park, Part II: But What About the Science?
Jurassic Park, Part III: TMT

In case you're interested in following along, I'm including page numbers from this edition:

I've worn many hats as a biologist but the one most relevant here is my molecular biology hat so I'm mostly focusing on those aspects, conveniently that's a large part of the science.

This list is crazy-long so it's under the cut.

Jurassic Park, Part I

Title: Jurassic Park
Author: Michael Crichton
Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf (1990)

Michael and I are once again bringing you the joint post series you've come to know and love. This selection is a personal favorite of mine and, in celebration of my deep and abiding affection for Jurassic Park, I'm pulling out all the stops with three(!) posts about Jurassic Park. To start off, this post will be what it always is: a review here of the novel and a review of its film adaptation at It Rains... You Get Wet. However, as the Memorial Day Weekend unfolds, parts II and III will be posted.

Michael's film review of Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park, Part I: One Fan's Love Affair
Jurassic Park, Part II: But What About the Science?
Jurassic Park, Part III: TMT

Jurassic Park is my favorite Crichton novel and the one I still read today. My favorite characters and scenes have changed over the years but what hasn't changed is my enjoyment of the story, my continuing patience with the technical errors, and my personal conviction that if I was in charge of the Park I could have done it right. The story is pretty simple: some super smarties have cloned dinosaurs from recovered DNA to make money off a dinosaur zoo. The folks who have ponied up sizable chunks of money for the project are getting worried about things on the island so an audit of sorts is being conducted by various experts.

As was his way, Crichton sets the whole scene up with enough fancy words and interesting graphs to make you really think what is happening could happen. Or at least it gets you excited to believe in it because you want to be smart and use big words and make nice graphs and be a part of the cutting edge. The experts are always the best in the field who remember every random tidbit of information that has ever been uttered in their presence. And that's cool because it's nice to root for smart people. Also, Crichton does a great job of keeping his characters on task. As in, when an expert is running around experting I don't have to worry about him or her suddenly breaking down for a melodramatic moment of personal back story. You'll get some back story as the book progresses but the main focus is always about the expertise and the action: sgwordy likes!

I remember fondly that this was the first book I read that started outside the action and circled in. I'm sure Crichton didn't invent the technique but I dug it and will always remember getting ever closer to the heart of the story. These days books are more likely to start in the middle of someone falling off a cliff and it's rare that you'll get a lot of talkie talkie at the beginning as a way to pique interest. Crichton does it well here (and in his other novels I think) so it's not boring, it's just not immediately full of action.

This is certainly not a perfect book but my love is so great that I tend to ignore the annoying instances when the "other" is marked, the over-use of 'shocking' as a descriptor, the cliche of men not being able to behave professionally when exposed to an attractive woman in a professional capacity, the creation of the world's most annoying character in Lex (this is probably the book's worst sin if I had to give a vote) and a glaring plot device that I will leave for Part II. In the end, it's a great yarn and that's what keeps me coming back. The action is well-paced and filled with variety due to the behavior of the dinosaurs; the characters are easy to buy into because they react to the situation as you would expect given their backgrounds and personal agendas; and the writing is good enough to mostly stay out of the way of why you're there: to see dinos rampage and to puzzle over whether or not Jurassic Park could happen.

Speaking of dinos rampaging, there are some really cool scenes in this book but one of my favorites has got to be the rather ridiculous (but still scary as shit) scene with the T-rex and the kids hiding behind the waterfall. That nasty tongue acting as kid snatcher is creepy and a cool way to think of a T-rex trying to explore despite the tiny arms. Even with rampaging dinos there is still the impressive ability of Crichton to make a computer system failure full of dramatic tension. The pacing is well-served by the various groups not having equal access to information and by the groups trying to solve problems in various locales (like in the aviary vs. the control room vs. the maintenance shed with the raptors).

As you can see, I've got a lot of love for this novel. But, in addition to the spiffy action and the nifty (if flawed) science, an awesome aspect of this book that I don't think gets a lot of comment is its highlight of how the expected can hinder one's ability to observe. Character-wise, this is best exemplified by Hammond (owner of the Park) with his hubris and arrogance. Scene-wise, the critical danger of being focused on expected outcomes reveals itself when the computers are asked to start looking for more dinosaurs than have been released from the laboratory. The scene is a good one in and of itself but the underlying message of observation being the most important tool for assessment is clear. If one only looks for what one expects one might miss the reality.



If you haven't already read Jurassic Park, I'd say 2011 is as good a year as any to do it. In the meantime, don't forget to head over to It Rains... You Get Wet for the film review.

I'll leave you with my favorite quote from this book.

So they [scientists] are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something.

See you soon for Part II: But What About the Science?
 

rating: 4 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Reading Roundup

I've got a baseball game queued up on my oh-so-loved mlb.tv so I'm ready to finally catch up on what I've been reading lately. In no particular order:


Title: Moneyball
Author: Michael Lewis
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc (2003)

I don't think there are words to express just how much I liked this book. I think I liked it so much because I have an interest in baseball but even without that interest it's still good. The book is about the general manager of the Oakland A's, Billy Beane, and his unconventional way of running a baseball team. When the book first came out there was much to-do between the Old Skool and the New Skool of thought re how to assess baseball talent. In fact, it might be what partly inspired one of my favorite blogs which is, sadly, no longer active. (The archives are super awesome though so it's worth perusing.) Two major selling points here have everything to do with Lewis' writing. First, he seems to realize that the material with which he is provided by baseball folks is a friggin' gold mine so he stays out of its way and lets it speak for itself. Second, Beane has quite a temper which renders him slightly ridiculous on the page. Lewis handles this perfectly and keeps what might be a very wearing aspect of Beane's character completely under control. Very highly recommended!

rating: 5 of 5 stars


Title: The Merlin Conspiracy
Author: Diana Wynne Jones
Publisher: Greenwillow Books (2003)

This is a cool set-up of alternate realities colliding and I definitely enjoyed the world but I continue to not understand why I don't like Jones' books more. I haven't read very many but I keep going in with very high expectations due to her fan base and then not really enjoying the stories all that much. Any Jones' fans want to set me straight? Or at least recommend some favorite titles?

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Title: Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West
Author: Hampton Sides
Publisher: Doubleday (2006)

This is an absolutely fantastic book about US Expansion into the West centered around Kit Carson's lifespan. He is the thread that binds the timeline of the book but there is much more here than a straight-up biography. The scope is impressive and wonderfully handled. Very highly recommended for anyone with an interest in American history.

rating: 4 of 5 stars


Title: A Bride for His Convenience
Author: Edith Layton
Publisher: Avon (2008)

The difference between Layton's Signet line and her Avon line is so huge that I'm stunned these books are by the same person. I was lured into another of her Avon's due to the close-out sales at Borders but I am now firmly committed to not even being enticed by a FREE Layton Avon.

rating: 2 of 5 stars


Title: The Two Minute Rule
Author: Robert Crais
Narrator: Christopher Graybill
Publisher: Brilliance Audio (2006)

Dr M and I listened to this one as we drove to SoCal and back. This is one of Crais' titles that does not include Cole or Pike. I liked it well enough but was most impressed with Crais' ability to depict a loser as a sympathetic protag. He depicted the character that is nearly impossible for me to get behind and did it in such a way that I was almost converted. In the end I didn't wish the protag ill but I really didn't wish him well either. Criminals and dead-beat parents are very, very hard for me to want to stick with as a character.

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Title: The Amulet of Samarkand
Author: Jonathan Stroud
Publisher: Hyperion Books (2003)

This is the first of a trilogy centered in a world with magicians. This one is set in London and a magician in training calls a djinni before he's allowed to. The djinni, Bartimaeus, is an absolute gem of a character but I don't think I'll be reading further in the series. I'm fairly anti-series right now anyway (what has happened to the stand alone?????) but the entire time I was reading I couldn't ever shake the annoyance of how sucky all the female characters were. The two main characters had a fairly small realm of activity that was male-dominated (which is fine, that was the set-up) but whenever this small realm would brush up against female characters they were all so one dimensional. meh.

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Title: The Spellman Files
Author: Lisa Lutz
Publisher: Simon and Schuster (2007)

This is a neat hook featuring a family of private investigators. The only problem was that the family drove me nuts. If the main character (eek, I've forgotten her name) was doing her thing and interacting with non-family members I enjoyed myself. Whenever the family was around (which is a lot, it's sort of the point of the book) I was annoyed or bored.

rating: no idea, how do you rate a book when you liked half the words and really disliked the other half?

Title: The Thief-taker's Apprentice
Author: Stephen Deas
Publisher: Gollancz (2010)

I don't know if this one is available in the US on anything other than Kindle (or poss other e-formats?) just as fyi. This is pretty standard fantasy fare with a thief-taker adopting a local hooligan as his apprentice. What is not standard is the pace and build of the story. Refreshingly done. Also, Syannis (thief-taker) is hard core. He's not one of these final-speech-giving, motive-recapping, dilly-dallying types of enforcers: when he comes, it's with the thunder and it's awesome!

rating: 3 of 5 stars



What have you been reading lately?

L.A. Times Festival of Books

One hard drive back-up, hard drive wipe, and re-customization of a laptop later and I'm finally back in business (sort of, it's amazes how far behind one can get in one's 'digital life' without a computer for several days). So even though it's now been two weeks since the LATFoB I'm still going to report back on my first time attending. The great thing about being late to post is that others have already done great summaries of the panels I attended so I can be lazy link to panel summaries.

I was already planning a week long trip in SoCal and Michael kindly tipped me off to the festival so I made sure that was part of my week. My initial plan was to walk around soaking up all the book awesomeness and attend the Robert Crais panel. Things only got better when it turned out that another favorite of mine, Megan Whalen Turner, would also be a panelist that day. The festival really is like a complete overload of fantastic for book lovers.

Since this was my first time attending I can't speak to the difference between having it at UCLA and USC but I can attest to the fact that the layout was odd. It was almost like there were pods of activity/booths and you had to shift between them rather than just walking down one long line of booths or similar. For me, it made it hard to wander around and still feel like I saw everything. I spent a lot of time trying to find stuff rather than looking at stuff. Whether that was layout or just me, I don't know. However, I do know that I liked the panels much more than the wandering so if I make this an annual event (which I'm hoping to be able to do) I'm going to load up on panels and do less of the meandering.

So if you'd like to know how the panels went I'll direct you to the excellent summary of the Robert Crais panel done by Pop Culture Nerd here and another great summary here of the Young Adult: Worlds Beyond Imagination panel featuring Megan Whalen Turner (and this might even be a direct transcript).

As is probably obvious from the links I was able to meet up with other fans of my favorite authors and that was probably the most rewarding part of the event. An almost universal trait of book lovers is that we love to talk about the books we love and so meeting up with fellow fans is always a wonderful experience.

One final link before I sign off with a few photos. I went ahead and used the festival as a subject for my bookish travel column which can be found here.

some days are $#*tier than others

Sometimes there is nothing glamorous about being a scientist.

Conversations Rendered Moot

some time in the not so recent past...


sgwordy: You know, it actually says "unbelievable."

[redacted]: No, it doesn't. **continues singing "you're ugly to the bone."**

sgwordy: I'm serious. It definitely is not "ugly to the bone."

[redacted]: There is no way that says "unbelievable." That wouldn't make any sense.

sgwordy: And "ugly to the bone" does?

[redacted]: I'm gonna set a tape up in the stereo and record this next time so we can listen to it closely.




Reason #1,000,935,647,001 why the internet is so dang rad. How I love the webbie.

Free Fall by Robert Crais

Title: Free Fall
Author: Robert Crais
Publisher: Bantam Books (1993)

I'm posting from the road this week as The Great SoCal Ballpark Road Trip continues. Ballpark Road Trips are a staple of my travels but I've not once ended one at a celebration of books. So in excitement of a week ending at the L.A. Times Festival of Books (featuring tons of authors, including the estimable Robert Crais), Michael and I are serving up a joint post this month that may surprise you. You'll want to surf on over to It Rains... You Get Wet  for a Free Fall film review.

Michael's review of Free Fall

Free Fall is the fourth novel to feature the World's Greatest Detective, Elvis Cole. Adding to his body of work starring Elvis Cole and Joe Pike, Robert Crais continues to defy conventions, such as the emotionally unapproachable PI, and expectations of employment, such as payment.

That Crais.

Our story begins when a nervous client seeks Cole's help in discovering the source of her fiance's anxiety. Quite literally, that sentence sums up our scenario. Of course, things get complicated pretty quickly. The fiance is a cop and he shows up soon after the client leaves (not so pleasantly drunk partner in tow) giving excuses for his anxiety. Despite the excuses, Cole does his job and digs deeper. It appears the explanation is infidelity but our plucky client - in what I think is a mighty hilarious scene - doesn't accept that explanation. The plot thickens, Pike is called, cue the World's Greatest in action.

****some comments below contain mild spoilers****

Right out of the gate, we've got the Cole we've come to love: Irreverent, persistent, susceptible to sob stories in pleasant packages, adroit at B&E, incurable romantic, etc. (And when he describes how people are acting he says things like "She clutched the purse even tighter and gave miserable." I enjoy that "gave" business.) However, around the first turn it becomes clear that there's a seriousness to this story which invites a closer analysis of the story and its outcome.

Free Fall is very much informed by the tragedy of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots that followed the trial. Several times while reading I got the impression that this was a vehicle for RC to express his idea of a more just outcome for despicable people who do despicable things. Whether this is true or not, he certainly was able to present a story that incorporates the complicated and touchy issues of duty, loyalty, redemption, forgiveness and retribution. (On a personal note, I wasn't satisfied with the book's outcome but that's not really the point of this post.)

In the midst of a topic as huge as this, RC keeps his main characters true to form. I actually had to set the book down for a few minutes just to get a good laugh out during the scene where Cole is being questioned after he and Pike are arrested.

Micelli leaned forward across the table and gave me hard. "You're holding out for nothing. Your buddy's already come clean."
"Pike?"
Micelli nodded. ...
I gave them the laugh.

I can't imagine Cole was laughing even remotely as hard as I was. And it's not just that Pike wouldn't do this, it's that RC is so damn good at writing the character he's created in Pike.

"That makes it, what, ten or twelve blocks from here? Might as well be in Fresno."
Pike said, "If we have limits, they are self-imposed." Always count on Pike for something like that.

Or like this:

I had left the Farmer's Market before Pike, and I had made good time, but when I got home there he was, as if he had been there for hours, as if he had been here and there at the same time...
I said, "How'd you beat me?"
Pike put down the cat. "I didn't know it was a race." You see how he is?"

And this isn't even going into RC's wonderful use of "whir" as a way to get us to understand the physicality of Pike. It's Cole's head I prefer to be in but as a person who appreciates the creation of a pitch perfect character, it's Pike who makes my mind salivate with imagination-envy.

The supporting characters were interesting, however, I found them more representative than fully-realized. This was one of the things that gave me the impression that this was RC trying to say something specific (along with Chapters 17 and 18). No matter how much I might have enjoyed a secondary character I never lost the feeling that they were an expression of a perspective rather than a natural part of the story. This didn't affect my enjoyment of the book, but it was something I never lost my awareness of.


I enjoy RC's work so much that I tend to focus on what I enjoy but there are a couple things that I don't like so here's my short list. I'm always curious about what other fans think of my quibbles.

1. Lack of distinction between the dialogue of different characters. Stylistically, I often can't tell the difference between characters when they speak.

2. It irks me when only certain groups of people speak in dialect. If dialects are going to be used as descriptor "tags" then every character should be in dialect.

3. Crais relentlessly marks the "other" which relentlessly assumes a "default." This is, by far, the thing that bothers me the most when I'm reading.



Free Fall isn't at the top of the list of my favorite Cole/Pike novels but there is quite a bit to enjoy here. Its ambitious paralleling of real world events gives it a depth that kept me turning over scenes and issues in my mind for the length of the book, and any book that gets you thinking that much is worth a read. And, as always, Cole and Pike are irresistible to anyone looking to follow a couple great characters as they solve a mystery.

Off to discuss the "movie" ... see you there!

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Hell, It Be Frozen Solid Now

Not only have the Saints been Super Bowl champs but I have been described as stylish! Holy damn! Michael, my partner in crime joint posting, included me in a wonderful group for this fun blogiverse award. Thanks for the ht, Michael - and for highlighting some very nice blogs I was excited to check out for myself. And, now, to play along...

1. I'm goofy-footed.

2. I dream of taking sword fighting lessons but spend most of my spare cash on all things horse so the lessons never materialize.

3. I am a pacifist by nature but I never miss an opportunity to visit militarily influenced museums (and, of course, there's #2).

4. Of the first 23 years of my life, 15 did not include television (the 8 TV years were not in chronological order) resulting in massive and often humorous gaps in my pop culture knowledge.

5. Even though I am about to celebrate 5 years in a happy partnership, I have friends who still can't believe I got married.

6. I've been a vegetarian since conception. This trait has taught me that a large segment of the population takes people's food choices personally. (Vegetarianism has not always had the advantage of its modern popularity.)

7. With frightening accuracy, I can judge the amount of feces it takes to equal 0.3g (bet they never have to extract DNA from poop on CSI - but I don't have to wear stilettos to work either so it's probably a fair trade-off).

Disclaimer: Along with sharing seven things about me, I am supposed to pass this along to seven other bloggers. However, my blog consumption has been extremely limited of late and so those I would recognize have already been recognized with various blogiverse awards. Instead, you get a bonus piece of information...

8. I am a closet delinquent (see disclaimer).

The Social Network (2010) Guest Review

sgwordy asked me to do a guest review for one of the most widely recognized movies of the past year: The Social Network.  And when sgwordy asks, who am I to refuse? [editor's note: well played, Dr Musacha, well played]

I resisted seeing TSN for quite some time.  First of all, I’m not a Facebooker.  I don’t “book” the “face” or whatever it is that people do on that site (find old college acquaintances and swap baby pics?).  Nothing about the trailers made the movie seem that intriguing to me.  And the word on the street is that the makers played fast and loose with the facts (“based on a true story” doesn’t mean much).  That doesn’t really bother me, and I won’t go into the details of what the movie gets wrong (a Google search will clear that up quickly), but it seems odd to watch a biopic that I know is half baloney going in.

Then a funny thing happened: everybody and their brother started talking about what a travesty it was that TSN didn’t win the Oscar for Best Picture.  King’s Speech?  A cute, folksy little throwaway tale.  But TSN was supposed to be this generation defining masterpiece.  I was dubious, but my time isn’t so valuable that I can’t sacrifice a couple hours to see what all the fuss is about.

Warning: I’ll try to avoid out-and-out spoilers, but if you like to see movies completely fresh, you might want to wait until you’ve checked it out before reading.  Also, there’s a little harsh language below, though nothing too offensive I hope.

The Story in a Nutshell:

Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg is a socially inept computer whiz who, after breaking up with his girlfriend Erica, inadvertently launches a website that becomes a campus phenomenon using his hacking and programming skills.  His efforts attract the attention of Harvard’s elite (in the form of the Winklevoss twins), who conscript Zuckerberg to code for their fledgling social website.  But Mark instead teams with his best friend Eduardo to create the basis of what becomes Facebook.  The rest of the movie involves the rise of the world’s most famous social networking site superimposed with the temptation of Zuckerberg (in this case, by former Napster founder Sean Parker) away from the people who truly care, leading to his eventual fall in the form of a pair of lawsuits that form the backdrop of the film.

What Worked for Me:

* The Story Structure – For a movie ostensibly about website construction and corporate litigation, TSN plays out at a fairly rapid clip without getting bogged down in boring details.  Credit Director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin for focusing most of the attention on the characters themselves rather than detailing the formation of Facebook itself in too much detail.  By keeping things tight and character-oriented, the film really gives you a chance to get to know these people (as interpreted by the actors/script) so you can develop a vested interest in what happens to them.

* The Dialogue – I heard a lot about the first scene in this movie…some have suggested that it’s the best opening scene in film history.  I think that’s a ludicrous claim, but the opening is well done and establishes the main character quickly.  What it really shows is the snappy, intelligent dialogue that infuses this movie with a lot of energy.  There are a number of great and memorable lines, though one of the two best was heavily featured in the trailer (“If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook.”)  The other?  The last line of the opening scene, and I won’t ruin it.

* Justin Timberlake – I never cared for his music, but Timberlake is on the brink of making my short list of actors that, in the right role, would compel me to see a movie just due to their presence.  Here he is outstanding as the slimy, spineless, conniving Sean Parker and absolutely steals every scene he’s in.  The final confrontation between him and Eduardo in the Facebook offices was so note-perfect, it was worth seeing the movie just for that.  Speaking of…

* Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin – Garfield was BY FAR the most sympathetic character in this movie (more on this in a second) and was its true protagonist in my eyes.  Without him, I doubt I would have finished TSN.  His character arc, starting from a geeky, unsure computer nerd who partners with Zuckerberg to create Facebook, only to slowly find himself being cast aside, is heartbreaking to watch.  The lawsuit involving the twins is a crock of nonsense…they contributed nothing to the formation of Facebook and are portrayed as motivated by their injured egos.  But Eduardo’s lawsuit is very personal.  His contributions to Facebook bring Eduardo respect and social acceptance…that his best friend would strip that credit away is tragic.  One gets the impression that Eduardo is less interested in money than in setting the record straight and receiving the credit he deserves.

That’s a lot that worked, but it’s strongly counterbalanced by two major strikes.

What Didn’t Work for Me:

* Zuckerberg – It’s not the portrayal.  Jessie Eisenberg does a fine job of bringing the character to life.  And it’s not anything about Zuckerberg’s story, which is plenty compelling.  The problem is that Zuckerberg (the movie version…I’m not familiar enough to comment on the real life person) is a complete jackass.  This movie owes its roots to 80’s style films where a nerdy guy with a heart of gold starts out unpopular but wins the respect of everyone when he demonstrates what a swell person he is.  But Zuckerberg is not a swell person…he’s an unsympathetic jerk with a caustic personality from the very start.  There’s not much of a character arc to speak of, no great life lesson learned, no personal growth or maturation, not really even a background that would explain why Zuckerberg holds everyone around himself in such contempt…it’s the story of a talented asshole who invents something cool and treats everyone he knows like crap.  That’s the lion’s share of the movie, and your enjoyment of TSN will hinge on whether you can get personally involved in something like that.

* The Sexism…my God, the Sexism – If you’re a believer that all of human civilization is fueled by the increasingly elaborate efforts of men to impress the opposite sex, thus marginally increasing their chances at being granted access to their lady parts, then you and your caveman sensibilities will definitely enjoy TSN.  Now let me say upfront that I’m not some oversensitive, hippy drippy whiner baby who gets offended at the drop of a hat, but the treatment of women in this film is disgusting by any objective standard.  According to TSN, women are not people, but rather trophies with breasts that can be acquired through advancement in the social and financial worlds.  No woman ever contributed in any meaningful way to the rise of Facebook, though there were plenty around to give lap dances as a reward for success.  And remember, most of the women involved in this movie (at least at the beginning) are students at Harvard.  So apparently the country’s most respected academic institution has a student body comprised of male geniuses and female arm candy.  Nice.  In retrospect, I notice a lot of these “Social Network got robbed at the Oscars!” articles came from young to middle aged male internet writers, none of whom bothered to mention the misogynistic undertones of the film.

The Verdict:

The Social Network did a lot right.  The screenplay and direction were excellent, the narrative is about as compelling as the source material would allow, and there are a couple classic characters in here.  But the main plot is a character study of an unapologetic douche bag, which is going to get tiresome for many viewers before the film is complete.  And I don’t see how a film that was “robbed” of Best Picture can be more blatantly sexist than most teenage sex romp comedies.  If you’re a 25 year old hipster who is entirely convinced that you’re part of the most clever generation to walk the earth, then you’ll love this movie to death.  On the other hand, if you’ve got a modicum of sense in your head then the best case scenario is you’ll find it to be a well-written, well-directed flick with some glaring flaws.  Best Picture it is NOT.

 ____________________________________________________________________

Many thanks to Dr Musacha for his guest reviews. His real name might not be Musacha, but Dr is his real title. If you're interested in other ways the Doctor spends his time when not unraveling the secrets near and dear to a cardiologist's heart (ha!), check out The Doctor and the Dude Show. You can also find him here and here.

My First Audiobook Completed: L. A. Outlaws

Title: L.A. Outlaws
Author: T. Jefferson Parker
Read by: David Colacci and Susan Ericksen
Publisher: Brilliance Audio (2008)


I've decided to report from the trenches. So...

(Post the First can be found here.
Post the Second can be found here.)

Location: Disc 10, Track Finished
Chapter: Whichever was the last.


I promise that I had all kinds of best intentions to post periodically as I made my way through my first audiobook but, due to one thing and another, it didn't happen. So then I thought I'd just do a nice review of the book at the end but I don't have very many nice things to say about the book; and the weather is just too darn good to say mean things right now. It's finally stopped raining, the wind has died down, the sun has come out and my mood is too good to waste on detailing all the reasons why L.A. Outlaws and sgwordy were not meant for each other. Instead, let's focus on the positive...

1. I finished an audiobook.
2. I've already tried a second audiobook.*
3. My third audiobook is queued up for my bike ride to work tomorrow.
4. I finally adjusted to the readers and let them take care of the story for me.
5. A bunch of people generously shared their audiobook tips with me which helped a great deal in accepting the format.

* My second audiobook I abandoned fairly quickly. I didn't like all the choices by the reader but (huge step here) he was not the reason I stopped. I gave up on it because I wasn't enjoying the story at all. The book was Going Bovine by Libba Bray and if some of the going bovine could have shown up sooner I might have tried to stick with it but it just wasn't working for me. It's an odd business between me and Libba Bray. I love pretty much everything she writes except her books. She is so dang funny but I can't seem to get in to her books. Ah well... moving on...

My third audiobook is The Red Badge of Courage. This must be a short book because it's only 4.5hrs of audio (unabridged). Here's hoping I have better luck with this one. The important thing here, though, is that I can do the format, I can focus on the stories and take or leave them dependent on the story and not the audio. Success!

Many thanks to Michael for all his encouragement with the format and help in picking some books. He got me started and my library's inventory took me the rest of the way.


What audiobook have you been listening to lately?

We've All Been There

The Hakawati by Rabih Alameddine

Title: The Hakawati

Author: Rabih Alameddine

Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf (2008)

This is one of those books that, when I am finished, I hardly know how to describe it or what I thought of it. The short, short summary would be: Osama al-Kharrat returns to Beirut to be with his family and severely-ill father. During this time he remembers many stories that were told to him and many stories about his family, especially his grandfather who was a hakawati - a professional storyteller. This book is full of stories within stories within stories; at times super engaging and, at times, a bit boring. I'm not sorry I read it but I can only think of one person I know for sure would like it. Many others would probably like it but I'm only guessing at that point.


The publisher describes the book: In 2003, Osama al-Kharrat returns to Beirut after many years in America to stand vigil at his father's deathbed. As the family gathers, stories begin to unfold: Osama's grandfather was a hakawati, or storyteller, and his bewitching tales are interwoven with classic stories of the Middle East. Here are Abraham and Isaac; Ishmael, father of the Arab tribes; the beautiful Fatima; Baybars, the slave prince who vanquished the Crusaders; and a host of mischievous imps. Through Osama, we also enter the world of the contemporary Lebanese men and women whose stories tell a larger, heartbreaking tale of seemingly endless war, conflicted identity, and survival. With The Hakawati, Rabih Alameddine has given us an Arabian Nights for this century.

My copy of Arabian Nights remains unread on my shelf so I can't attest to that but it certainly can be bewitching. But, as I said, it can also be boring. I would imagine that a book filled with so many stories will rarely fully satisfy one person. I do think the book has the ability to appeal to a wide audience... I just can't quite figure who that audience is specifically. So, I liked it for the most part and I think there is a lot of beauty and interesting bits to be found within the pages. Alameddine includes quotes between the sections of the book and I'm going to share a few of my favorites here (in lieu of an actual review apparently).

...stories do not belong only to those who were present or to those who invent them, once a story has been told, it's anyone's, it becomes common currency, it gets twisted and distorted, no story is told the same way twice or in quite the same words, not even if the same person tells the story twice, not even if there is only ever one storyteller...  --Javier Marias

Man is eminently a storyteller. His search for a purpose, a cause, an ideal, a mission and the like is largely a search for a plot and a pattern in the development of his life story--a story that is basically without meaning or pattern.   --Eric Hoffer

Literature is the most agreeable way of ignoring life.   --Fernando Pessoa

Bumper Sticker Humor

"At least the war on the environment is going well."