Movie review: Reservation Road

I have had a lot of time to be watching movies lately, hence the amount of movie review posts. The latest movie that I watched is called Reservation Road and it had one of the actresses from Requiem for a Dream in it and also Mark Ruffalo. The fact that I was at least somewhat familiar with these actors was part of why I decided to watch it, but I also thought the plot seemed interesting. The movie is about two families in New England, one of which has their son killed in a hit and run accident. The father of the other family is the one who was driving and killed the kid. The premise is rather interesting in and of itself; as the movie progresses we learn that these two men (the father of the dead kid and the guy who killed said kid but whose own son is still alive and well) end up crossing paths in interesting ways although the man with the dead kid is unaware that the other guy is to blame. 

I actually was rather impressed with Mark Ruffalo's performance in this movie and I was surprised by that. I didn't exactly expect that I'd think he did particularly well in this role. I think perhaps this was because of the writing rather than his acting ability - for example, I liked Tom Cruise in Born on the 4th of July but didn't enjoy Vanilla Sky. I like Vincent in Law and Order but I won't watch Men in Black because as far as I'm aware he has a rather cheesy role in that movie. I think Mark Ruffalo sort of perhaps looks better with shorter hair actually like he had in this movie rather than longer hair like in other movies. Although I think he should get his chest hair waxed or something... there was a scene where I caught a glimpse of it and there was a decent amount of it and personally I don't like lots of chest hairs. I wonder if he has back hair as well... 

Sort of interestingly, I found myself sympathizing with Mark Ruffalo's character (the one who hit the other guy's kid and just drove away) more so than the father of the kid who was killed. I'm not really sure why, honestly, because you'd think that one would sympathize with the man whose son was killed by a driver who then left the scene. Perhaps what influenced it was that Mark Ruffalo's character was divorced and only got to see his son sometimes, otherwise he was in the care of the ex wife. Mark Ruffalo's character definitely tried to be a good father/make his son happy (they shared a love of baseball) so perhaps that was part of it. Also, the other guy had a crop of facial hair and heavy eyebrows and honestly looked kind of creepy. And, he began to have problems in his marriage due to how he and his wife (played by the actress who played a drug addict in Requiem for a Dream) were trying to deal with the aftermath of their son's death - he was very angry at the unknown person who had killed his son and was dwelling on it and was contemplating taking justice into his own hands because he believed the police were inept. His wife on the other hand wanted to focus on their remaining child and being there for her rather than steeping in anger about the accident. SPOILERS to come. (highlight between the # symbols with cursor to read) 
# The man whose son was killed eventually does decide to take justice into his own hand and goes out to buy a gun which he then goes to Mark Ruffalo's character's house and threatens him with it (while his son is about to go to sleep in the next room), forces him into the trunk of his car, drives somewhere else and continues to threaten to kill him. A) that's called kidnapping and B) if this were Law and Order and I were Jack McCoy, I would totally prosecute the guy who kidnapped and threatened to kill Mark Ruffalo's character. I mention this because the other day I watched a Law and Order (original version) episode where a mother whose daughter was killed sneaks a gun into the courtroom and shoots the suspect while he testifies. McCoy wants to prosecute the mother because she ended up killing the suspect and people shouldn't take justice into their own hands. His colleagues tell him that no jury will convict the mother because they probably wanted the suspect to be dead as well. However, in Reservation Road, I found the man whose son was killed to be not that sympathetic and I would theoretically prosecute him for the kidnapping. I would build my case by portraying him as unhealthily obsessed with his son's death and unable to let go of his immense anger, which he took out by ruthlessly threatening/attempting to kill the man he believed was responsible. Of course, I'm not a lawyer so this is all just amateur theorizing. Regardless, it's kind of interesting to think about. 
# end spoilers.

All in all I would recommend this movie; I thought it was interesting and I thought Mark Ruffalo did a good job in portraying his role. It reminded me a little bit of the book/movie Charlie St. Cloud in that they both involved baseball fans and car accidents. 

To have or not to have an affair

(mind you, the title does not mean that I am the person considering whether to have an affair or not)

As you may know I am kind of a fan of reading advice columns. In the olden days, I used to read the two (I think) columns that run in the Style section of the Washington Post, one of which is written by a lady named Carolyn and there are interesting little cartoons to accompany the columns (some days, at least). Now, I mostly read Slate's advice column and sometimes the NYT's Ethicist column although I have not read that one recently. 

One column that I read recently on Slate was about a person whose relative had gotten drunk and killed someone in an accident while driving. Obviously, this is an unfortunate situation to be in for both the relative and the person seeking advice. Another person was seeking advice on whether or not she should have an affair with a friend because her husband never wants to have sex with her even though she prances around in expensive fancy underwear. Firstly, an affair is very usually not a good idea which I would assume most people are aware of just due to common sense. Apparently this lady is not and thinks it could possibly have the chance of turning out well. The best solution, with the information given, is probably that she should get a divorce so she can sleep with people however often she likes. Maybe she could become a prostitute if she's so starved for sex. (please realize I'm being a little facetious here.) And she'd even be able to make money off of it that way. Although, it would definitely be a good idea for her to perhaps talk with her husband about this situation - perhaps he could offer some insight on why he doesn't want to have sex with her. Maybe he doesn't find her attractive. Or maybe he needs a prescription for Viagra. Maybe he finds it unappealing how clamorous she is about wanting to have sex and that puts him off even more from wanting to roll around naked in bed with her (or maybe not in bed. Maybe they are the type of people who like to do it in the shower, or in a tent underneath the night sky, or in a public place, etc). Etc. In my personal opinion, being married to someone like that (the wife, not the husband) would decidedly be a nightmare. It would be just unappealing to be married to someone who's always begging to have sex. Our advice column lady says she "doesn't see how he can be a good husband" if he doesn't have sex with his wife barely ever. Maybe he just doesn't like it. Some people aren't particularly fond of physical affection. 

In any case, this lady wouldn't have this problem in the first place if she hadn't married him - presumably she was aware that he didn't like to have sex that often before she married him. If it was so important to her to have sex a lot then maybe she should have married someone else who had similar desires. I guess she could always become a prostitute... although of course, I can't say that that would have any better of an outcome for her marriage as having an affair. She could just tell her husband that it's strictly business... I wonder if she has considered that option, to become a prostitute. It seems like it would satisfy her desire to have sex, at the very least. And like I said before, she could get paid for doing it, so... it couldn't really be all that bad. Or... assuming she fits his type, she could try to have an affair with Donald Trump because he really loves the ladies as various things that have come to light have revealed. And she would get lots of publicity for this, probably, assuming the affair became public knowledge, and it could be like Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton and Donald Trump could end up getting impeached! I see no losers here. Due to the publicity, she could find even more men to sleep with. She seems like the kind of person who wouldn't be totally opposed to having an affair with Donald Trump (never mind his orange wrinkly skin and those tiny hands.... he says there's no problem, but is he being honest??) because she apparently sees no issue with the concept of having an affair, so does it really matter who it's with? Are some affairs more wrong than others? A theoretical scenario: say you are a secretary of a large company and you have an affair with a married coworker. Or, say you are still a secretary but in this scenario you have the affair with the CEO of the company, but he's not married (although he is perhaps dating someone else). Which affair is more wrong? Or are they both the same amount of wrong? Are some animals more equal than others??

Also

Some miscellaneous additional thoughts on Requiem for a Dream.
I decided to watch it again (I must be an emotional masochist) and anyways the second time around for watching anything you can pay attention to all the little details more.
One thing I wonder about is how Jared Leto got to be so pale for that movie. He's quite pale in this movie. I wonder if there was any intentional action on his part to obtain the pale complexion - did he stay indoors for the summer? (I guess if I looked at what time of year it was filmed it might give me some insight into if Jared Leto potentially had to spend a whole summer indoors so as to palen up for the role)
In addition to being pale, he was also rather skinny which I didn't particularly take a lot of note of the first time around because that's kind of my type. I guess a normal person might have noticed it more that he was that skinny. Here is a relevant quote: "I don't like good looking guys. I like them skinny and pale, like they're dying." Believe it or not, this is a quote that someone else other than me said originally. Anyways, in one scene he's looking rather ribby because you can see his ribs a little bit through the back of his shirt. Additionally, I'd bet that he had some nice prominent spine bones while filming that movie, in addition to the ribs. Spines. Ah. He was not bad looking in this movie even though he was portraying a drug addict. Drug addicts apparently tend to not have a lot of extra fat on them.
I don't think I like the way he looks nowadays though. As far as I'm aware he has been tending to sport long hair and facial hair which does not look good. Alas. But still, if I desire pale and skinny look like they're dying type of people, there's always male models. I wonder if any of them also happen to be drug addicts. I would not like to become a drug addict although I realize that the possibility is there, even if it's minimal.

Movie review: Vanilla Sky

I don't really have a lot to say about this movie because it was really really weird and not in a good kind of way. Not even in the Full Metal Jacket kind of way because in this movie I don't think I even really understood the plot that much at all. Even other movies that have been kind of a mindfuck I ended up understanding by the end (think: Dot the i, Dream House, Shutter Island) but this one I just... it left me mostly just thinking wtf. And not in a good way, like I said. Anyways I'm off to read about it so I can find out what the plot was actually supposed to be because I certainly didn't grasp it just from watching the movie. And to think that I anticipated this coming on Netflix today so I could watch it because I thought it would be good. It had Tom Cruise in it is all I can say. 

If you're curious, below is some information on what it was supposed to be about. I don't recommend this movie nor do I recommend Apocalypse Now. Anyways I think I'm off to watch Requiem for a Dream again sometime in the nearish future. 

From Wikipedia: 

According to Cameron Crowe's commentary, there are five different interpretations of the ending:

• "Tech support" is telling the truth: 150 years have passed since Aames killed himself and subsequent events form a lucid dream.
• The entire film is a dream, evidenced by the sticker on Aames' car that reads "2/30/01" (February 30 does not occur in the Gregorian calendar).
• The events following the crash form a dream that occurs while Aames is in a coma.
• The entire film is the plot of the book that Brian is writing.
• The entire film after the crash is a hallucination caused by the drugs that were administered during Aames' reconstructive surgery.

Crowe has noted that the presence of "Vanilla Sky" marks the first lucid dream scene (the morning reunion after the club scene)—all that follows is a dream

Being selective

Again on the topic of the online dating website. My general rule for messaging people is that if they're too old, too boring, too ugly or any combination of the three I won't message them or won't respond to them if they messaged me first. Sadly (or maybe just indifferently) this rules out a large majority of people on the website. But whatever. I think I can afford to be selective. It's not like I'm deathly desperate to find someone to date. And anyways, I don't want the theoretical person that I end up dating to be ugly, or boring, or like 35. Also, I have the feeling that a prospective date might be put off by the fact that I'm quite taken with eyelashes guy's eyelashes and really let's say face in general as well. "If she's so interested in that guy's eyelashes then how can she be interested in me??" is my assumption of a possible thought that might go through a person's head. In any case, like I said before, there is a very large amount of people on the website that I am decidedly NOT interested in. Also, ideally I would date someone who is/looks like they could be a model (and is additionally not boring and not too old). Which does not comprise a lot of people on the online dating website. There, I'm done being shallow (at least in this post). 
Also, I don't know if I would enjoy dating someone who is a computer programmer or a physicist. I think I might not like having the idea that the person is smarter than me and that kind of thing. Even if perhaps that's not true, I think I would have the perception that it is. I think I would enjoy dating someone whose profession is one of the humanities or something. At least that's my guess. Since that is what I tend to prefer. I think it could be interesting to date a sociologist or something like that. Or a linguist. Just a thought. It would be interesting to know (even if not in a dating type of relationship) someone who is like Goren as I think he's a very interesting character. I wonder if I'll ever meet someone like that. 

Suspension of disbelief

Suspension of disbelief is a concept that applies to works of fiction (books, movies, tv shows, short stories). Wikipedia says that it can be defined "a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment." For me, I can suspend my disbelief to enjoy shows like Law and Order, or movies like James Bond (which I think is somewhat higher on the scale of unrealisticness), although I draw the line when it comes to superhero stuff that has been pervading tv and movies in the last few years. It's part of the reason why I won't watch that Netflix show that Vincent D'Onofrio sort of recently was in as the main villain. The other part of the reason is that in the show he is fat and bald and it's unsightly and he looked better 15 years ago. 15 years ago (or even earlier, minus in Full Metal Jacket) he looked rather nice in fact. In any case, I can't suspend my disbelief enough to be able to enjoy fantasy books/movies or superhero things. I think it's kind of part of the reason why Harry Potter never interested me as a kid and to this day I still haven't read the books or seen the movies and honestly have no plans to (can you believe it??). 

I think the premise of detectives trying to solve crimes is much more believable than superheroes doing similar things. Plus, with the whole superhero thing there also is probably the issue of making sure the public thinks there's nothing amiss despite the impossible things that happen regarding the superhero and whatever other fantastical elements are present in the story. In addition, superheroes come with the concept of this supernatural being that's magically able to fix things/solve crimes/etc. And that simply isn't how things work in the real world. There are no superhero beings who are going to come and fix things/prevent terrorism/etc/what have you. On the other hand, detectives/police officers do exist. 

I was however able to enjoy the Twilight series back in middle school or whenever so that seems to contradict some of the things here, but I guess it wasn't too unrealistic or at least it wasn't for me back then. I'm not sure if I'd enjoy the books were I to read them again now, but at the time I did. Plus the cover design is pretty nice and they look good all in a line on my bookshelf. To some degree, scifi/dystopian books can be good but not all of them are. The more classic ones (1984, Fahrenheit 451) I've read I've enjoyed but I wouldn't touch a book like say, the Divergent series. I did read the Hunger Games series (a little before it was cool! And yes I know I'm being snobby here by mentioning that) and enjoyed them but then the deluge of similar books that the success of that series unleashed I have not read any books from. It was a few years ago that I read that series so it's possible that my tastes have changed perhaps in that time. I still never have been a fan of fantasy books/etc and I don't think I'll be one in the future either.  

The thing that compelled me to write this post is that lately my mother has started watching the show called The Flash, which is about a superhero named that who... does superhero stuff basically I guess which is what I've garnered from semi-paying attention to 2 episodes (1.18 and 1.19). From what I gather it's a run of the mill superhero thing and does not interest me for reasons mentioned above. Plus, I don't get how the guy is supposed to hear with that silly looking suit that covers his ears (why do so many superhero suits look so silly and ridiculous? That might be part of why I don't like superhero stuff as well). Also, from what I have seen the writing comes off as not particularly good (read: bad) and the show seems to me to be rather cheesy, which is at least in part because of the bad writing. Some of the dialogue I heard makes me want to cringe. Plus, the format is more cheesy serial drama about a superhero and I'm at least sort of partial to the procedural format or at the very least, a serial drama minus the cheesy superhero stuff. I think maybe I could enjoy the show The Wire (which is supposedly very good) and I did enjoy what I watched of the Scandinavian serial crime drama The Bridge. 

To close, even though I am not super familiar with the nature of the content of The Flash, it seems kind of hypocritical that my mother would enjoy that show when some of the same ideas (bad guys doing bad stuff) are present in Law and Order which she decidedly does not like (on the reasoning that it has violence and crime). But violence and crime (perhaps to a lesser degree; I'm not completely sure about it since I've only just semi-watched about 2 episodes) are also at least sort of involved in the plot of The Flash. I don't really want to watch more of it to determine the exact nature/severity of the violence and crime and therefore the extent of my mother's hypocrisy, but I think the point still stands. 

Song review: Point Blank

I saw a little bit of the lyrics of this song and I was kind of intrigued so I decided to listen to it and look at the full lyrics to it. It is a song by Bruce Springsteen called Point Blank. You can read the lyrics here. Personally, I didn't really like this song. The lyrics aren't particularly bad in and of themselves, but I'm just not really a fan of the way this song sounds - Springsteen's voice isn't my favorite. I don't really know any of the other songs that he's written/sung so there's a possibility that I might like some of his other work better, but this song I just didn't really like all that much. I know he's famous and well regarded but this song was just not my thing. I've heard a couple of his other songs but I don't know them because I never have particularly paid attention to his music. In terms of singers whose voices I do like, I would say that (in no particular order) Matt Bellamy of Muse, Gerard Way (formerly) of My Chemical Romance and Dan of Augustana would be my favorites. Matt has a very interesting voice - pretty much any Muse song will demonstrate this (Hysteria or Citizen Erased, for example). Gerard also has an interesting voice - listen to, for example, MCR's Famous Last Words or Demolition Lovers. I can't choose an Augustana song to recommend because I pretty much like all of them. 

So, sorry to Bruce Springsteen and people who laud his singing ability, I just don't really like it at least based on this one song that I listened to. Although the lyrics aren't bad, so based on this song he's not a bad songwriter, at least. My interpretation of the lyrics is that it's a song about drug addiction, but maybe that's just because I watched Requiem for a Dream the other day and the topic of drug addiction is on my mind. I wonder what other people think that song is about. I also wonder what the song Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen is supposed to mean like I mentioned in a previous post. I did some reading about that which was kind of interesting and gave me at least a little bit of insight into that song but not completely. 

From Wikipedia (looks like I was right!!) : "In its 1978 incarnation, the lyrics dealt with the singer's girlfriend's drug addiction." Apparently the later version of the song had some lyrical changes, but even then I still could see it being about drug addiction. Interestingly enough, as I write this post, I'm listening to another song that also had a previous version which was more explicitly about drugs.