Month: June 2005

A layer cake – Layer one

Writer guy

I started this blog three times, chucked out each attempt, and settled at last on this version. Caveats in place, let’s consider a new pet theory of mine – layering. To the graphics gurus, this is not an Adobe photoshop tutorial. Perhaps an eclectic name might be more impressive. I like this one best. Layering is a way of approaching a situation or problem and requires more ink than a single entry, so I’ll blog more in the future. The first principle is perspective.

Over the past few years I’ve shifted from seeing life as a balance between happiness and less happiness, and where my head doubles as the fulcrum supporting a see saw of highs and lows. Before the see saw model, my attitude was even more brusque, but that’s another blog and a few bottles of good scotch. My doctor warned me to lay off the Chivas, so we’ll not go there. Anyway, my view now is that a life is more journey based, with the goal always moving along on the path, rather than gunning for a specific destination without thought for what is happening. Once en route the direction, rate of travel and distance vary and change by the day, but as long as the journey continues – a traveler in motion never fails. Even when a traveler gets lost, strays, or pursues a “bad” lead, in the end every effort forms an experience and possible lesson.

So far layering is very close to Zen in practice, yet I doubt the great masters will sue me over the strong and coincidental similarities.

More tomorrow. I have to get some writing done….

Monster in Law

Writer guy

Like most of America, I cringed at the amount of Bennifer 1 press. The national nightmare seemed it might never end. Months after the split, talk of the Bennifer 1 effect on films that starred either Jenifer Lopez or Ben Affleck hounded both actors. Some movies flopped, some did well. Ben Affleck hasn’t moved past the stain of overexposure yet. Jenifer Lopez has. Monster in Law proved it.

She was everything in this film once assumed she was not: likeable, funny, charming and down to earth. I liked her character, I liked her performance, I liked this movie.

The plot – Love Story-esque – common girl falls for a rich only child of an overprotective mother who disapproves of the new love, and railroads the relationship. Jane Fonda, the monster, was al dente. While I disliked her years ago for other reasons, she’s back on the will watch list. Oh her character was mean and vicious and calculating, and it worked for her very well in this role.

What’s good about Monster in Law:

1)Casting. Every character who matters in this flick is cast properly. Good performances. Aloha, Hanoi Jane!

2)Plot. Tight. The writing works for it, the characters are consistent. Conflict keeps the story interesting.

3)Execution – everything comes together.

Verdict: A good date film. Matinee, DVD rental.

Crash

Writer guy

A better title for Crash would be Bomb. Stink Bomb that is. From the very first scene until the final credits, the stench only increases.

Besides the fact that the characters are wretched, save the locksmith, who is the only reasonable and believable individual, it’s a “themeâ€? film. I’m of the opinion that if you want to send a message, try Federal Express. If you want to tell a story, write a book, a play, or make a movie.

What is this magnus theme? We are all racists. We must be, because every character says nasty and derogatory things about other ethnic groups. When the actors are mouthpieces for a writer with a mission statement, they must break character and accommodate those pearls of wisdom. The net effect – each actor sounds and acts the same – bitter and bigoted.

What’s good about this movie.

1)All cameras are in focus.

2)Soundtrack is hopping.

3)The color processing is correct.

4)The cast is varied and diverse, and effective. Just not in this film.

Verdict: No stars, no cookies, no thumbs up. Avoid Crash. See it on an airplane and don’t rent the headset. Or buy the soundtrack, where available.