You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste death?
Or: I am a consumer whore! I bought too much stuff this weekend. Four shirts at Old Navy (yeh Sara), mostly for work, one of which has the consistency of a raincoat. Matrix action figures from KayBee, 'cause they were marked down to $5. The inevitable overproduction and subsequent collector's-market collapse of 90% of action figure lines is great-- I haven't paid more than five bucks for an action figure in years. The Modest Mouse CD for myself, more on that in a second. And most egregiously, a ticket for Shrek 2.
I keed. It's not a bad movie. It's just a strange experience for me, seeing the good reviews it's getting and all the crazy money it's making. I wasn't a big fan of the first Shrek, although I liked it well enough-- I was expecting something Pixar-level and it just wasn't there. Similarly, while Toy Story 2 is probably the best sequel I've ever seen, Shrek 2 is very sequelly; it's basically the same story, retold with some new characters.
I would actually compare it most readily to typical action or comedy sequels like Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or Rush Hour 2 or stuff like that: There are individual parts that are better than the original, but the movie as a whole is pretty much the same minus novelty. I would think this comparison would actually flatter the creative team behind Shrek 2, because they really seem to aspire to basically be like any sort-of good Hollywood movie, only animated. Pop-music montages-- the kind you see in teen comedies-- are not sophisticated just because they're in a cartoon! Neither are obvious movie references. Wow, the kissing scene from Spiderman! Hey, a shot from Lord of the Rings! Great, another elbow in the ribs!
There are parts. "Knights," a pop-culture reference that's actually funny because it doesn't just repeat something. The gingerbread man. Puss. N. Boots. The secret ending. All of that stuff made for a good time. But those are moments, not full-fledged scenes. Even Puss-n-boots, easily the best character in the movie, is kind of in the background for chunks of the movie. And Cameron Diaz, who can be very funny and is a terrific actress in general, is absolutely wasted in this movie. She plays the whiny girlfriend. She has zero good lines. It's sad to say, but Fiona could've easily been voiced by Jennifer Love Hewitt.
Compare the sporadic charms of Shrek 2 to the feeling of breathless invention in The Emperor's New Groove or A Bug's Life. It's just not the same level of intelligence or creativity (or even design; I still think a lot of the visuals in these Shrek movies are really bland, if well-executed).
I did like Melvin Goes to Dinner-- very naturalistic dialogue that actually works!
On Sunday, I went with Marisa and her mates to see Michelle graduate from Wes. She did it, no problems. When they asked "if anyone here objects to this graduation..." no one said anything. Then we went and chilled in my old house, 76 Lawn. It was weird and nice and sad. There was also a lot of really good, really free food that I wish I had with me right now, perhaps in some sort of knapsack. I actually haven't spent any money since Saturday. And I've taken a shower for five consecutive days. But I'm still not a better person, what gives?
And now:
The Best Buy Under-$10 CD Challenge
Modest Mouse, "Good News for People Who Love Bad News" ($8)
Pros: "Float On," "Blame It On the Tetons," "Ocean Breathes Salty," "One Chance,"
Cons: Isaac is overly fond of chanting in funny voices; occasionally brings to mind either Tom Waits or "You'll Miss Me" by TMBG, whichever you'd want to listen to less.
Snow Patrol, "Final Straw" ($7)
Pros: Is pleasant; sort of like Idlewild.
Cons: Has nothing on the order of "Ask Me How I Am"; Idlewild is sort of boring; haven't listened to it in weeks.
Franz Ferdinand, self-titled ($9)
Pros: "Take Me Out"; "Matinee"; sounds sort of like a less bored Strokes album
Cons: Like Strokes albums, consists mainly of songs that basically sound the same, no matter how good they sound individually; lyrics resemble prattling
The Winner: Modest Mouse by several squeaks.
I keed. It's not a bad movie. It's just a strange experience for me, seeing the good reviews it's getting and all the crazy money it's making. I wasn't a big fan of the first Shrek, although I liked it well enough-- I was expecting something Pixar-level and it just wasn't there. Similarly, while Toy Story 2 is probably the best sequel I've ever seen, Shrek 2 is very sequelly; it's basically the same story, retold with some new characters.
I would actually compare it most readily to typical action or comedy sequels like Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or Rush Hour 2 or stuff like that: There are individual parts that are better than the original, but the movie as a whole is pretty much the same minus novelty. I would think this comparison would actually flatter the creative team behind Shrek 2, because they really seem to aspire to basically be like any sort-of good Hollywood movie, only animated. Pop-music montages-- the kind you see in teen comedies-- are not sophisticated just because they're in a cartoon! Neither are obvious movie references. Wow, the kissing scene from Spiderman! Hey, a shot from Lord of the Rings! Great, another elbow in the ribs!
There are parts. "Knights," a pop-culture reference that's actually funny because it doesn't just repeat something. The gingerbread man. Puss. N. Boots. The secret ending. All of that stuff made for a good time. But those are moments, not full-fledged scenes. Even Puss-n-boots, easily the best character in the movie, is kind of in the background for chunks of the movie. And Cameron Diaz, who can be very funny and is a terrific actress in general, is absolutely wasted in this movie. She plays the whiny girlfriend. She has zero good lines. It's sad to say, but Fiona could've easily been voiced by Jennifer Love Hewitt.
Compare the sporadic charms of Shrek 2 to the feeling of breathless invention in The Emperor's New Groove or A Bug's Life. It's just not the same level of intelligence or creativity (or even design; I still think a lot of the visuals in these Shrek movies are really bland, if well-executed).
I did like Melvin Goes to Dinner-- very naturalistic dialogue that actually works!
On Sunday, I went with Marisa and her mates to see Michelle graduate from Wes. She did it, no problems. When they asked "if anyone here objects to this graduation..." no one said anything. Then we went and chilled in my old house, 76 Lawn. It was weird and nice and sad. There was also a lot of really good, really free food that I wish I had with me right now, perhaps in some sort of knapsack. I actually haven't spent any money since Saturday. And I've taken a shower for five consecutive days. But I'm still not a better person, what gives?
And now:
The Best Buy Under-$10 CD Challenge
Modest Mouse, "Good News for People Who Love Bad News" ($8)
Pros: "Float On," "Blame It On the Tetons," "Ocean Breathes Salty," "One Chance,"
Cons: Isaac is overly fond of chanting in funny voices; occasionally brings to mind either Tom Waits or "You'll Miss Me" by TMBG, whichever you'd want to listen to less.
Snow Patrol, "Final Straw" ($7)
Pros: Is pleasant; sort of like Idlewild.
Cons: Has nothing on the order of "Ask Me How I Am"; Idlewild is sort of boring; haven't listened to it in weeks.
Franz Ferdinand, self-titled ($9)
Pros: "Take Me Out"; "Matinee"; sounds sort of like a less bored Strokes album
Cons: Like Strokes albums, consists mainly of songs that basically sound the same, no matter how good they sound individually; lyrics resemble prattling
The Winner: Modest Mouse by several squeaks.