Category Archives: Quick Review

Quick Review: Inception

Posted on by

I recently saw Inception starring Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Christopher Nolan. Some thoughts about this movie about dreams which has done well in theaters (according to Box Office Mojo, #6 this year in earnings):

1. I would call it a “science fiction thriller.” Compared to some science fiction films (like Minority Report), this has a much more innovative story line. Within a story line that involves different times happening at the same time, it has some typical thriller scenes including car chases and lots of shooting. It brings together some of the best of both types of movies.

2. Even though the story is confusing in the end, it was remarkably easy to keep track of the various time levels. More and more movies try to play around with the timeline and not all succeed at keeping the audience along for the ride – this one does.

3. The movie has a lot going on but doesn’t provide a lot of explanation or backstory. How did it start that people could get into other people’s dreams? How is being in someone’s mind linked to their memories? How exactly do all these levels of dreams work together? At the same time, the movie doesn’t wallow in explanations at any point – it is briskly paced and the action quickly engages you even if you have questions.

4. Two quick comments on film-making. First, everything seemed very vivid. Movies today really do draw viewers right into the action. Second, I was reminded in this movie that modern films include never-ending music. Every scene seemed to have some music in the background – this is too much.

Overall, an exciting and engaging film. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to think of the twist at the end but I can definitely say I enjoyed the experience.

(The film has been well-received by critics: it was 87% fresh, 220 fresh out of 254 reviews, at RottenTomatoes.com.)

Quick Review: You Never Give Me Your Money

Posted on by

This book by Peter Doggett, which shares its name with a Beatles song from the Abbey Road album, is about the interactions between the Beatles from 1968 through today. While most of the information about 1968 to 1970 can be found elsewhere, the rest of the book was illuminating what happened between the four after the break-up.

Once the Beatles broke up (unofficially in 1969 and officially in 1970), the four members went their separate ways. In the forty years since then, the relationships have been primarily marked by two types of events:

1. Squabbles.

2. Brief moments of friendship.

The squabbles began in the late 1960s as Apple Corps started falling apart and the group couldn’t agree about who should handle the business end of their relationship. Reading about all this took some of the tarnish off what I knew about the Beatles. The author kept hinting at this as well; despite all the great music and idealism, the band couldn’t even be friends after breaking up.The Beatles, heroes to many, were reduced to sniping at each other over money and control.

The brief moments of friendship were pretty consistent. However, a lot of the talk about possible reunions (and they received a number of large offers) tended to push them apart rather than pull them together. It seems that they eventually realized that once they were Beatles, they couldn’t stop being Beatles. But they also chafed at being remembered together, as if they didn’t exist as competent individuals.

Ultimately, the events recorded here say much about human frailty – even some of the best musicians are just human. In fact, it is remarkable that the individual members were able to produce some of the fine solo work that they did while the business and personal fights were taking place in the background.

So while the Beatles will remain known for their music, innovation, and idealism, they can also be remembered for their faults.

Quick Review: The Young Victoria

Posted on by

The Young Victoria chronicles the early years of Queen Victoria’s monarchy, particularly her relationship with and marriage to Prince Albert. Some quick thoughts on the movie:

1. The scenes are lush, bright, and well-shot. Victorian era England looks sharp.

2. The world of the royals is an odd one. Victoria and Albert are subject of the scheming of their parents when they are young and manipulative politicians when they are on the throne. One aide remarks about the fickle nature of the public as they swing from love for the monarchy to hatred. I wonder if any semblance of a “normal life” is possible in such a setting.

3. The main theme of the movie is the love that develops between Victoria and Albert. As she becomes Queen at a young age (18 years old), she finds that she needs support and wise counsel. Albert helps provide this and coming from a royal background himself, is able to understand her.

3a. I wonder what the position of Albert must have been like. On one hand, he was a very powerful man as he was married to the Queen. On the other hand, he was clearly second in power, even in his own household, since he was married to the Queen. The movie suggested he was very understanding about all this but also illustrates some tension when he feels he has little to do.

4. This is an important era in British history – but most of the outside world is ignored in favor of the story line between Victoria and Albert. (See the lengthy Wikipedia entry on Victoria here.)

5. After watching the movie, I learned that Queen Victoria later became known as the “Widow of Windsor” after Albert died at age 42. Yet the movie portrays a vibrant Queen Victoria who was stubborn and instinctive. Perhaps part of the goal of the film was to show this early part of Victoria’s life.

Overall: an engaging film portraying a devoted relationship between Victoria and Albert. However, something seems lacking – perhaps an issue of great significance that would help give the plot line more heft.

(The reception from critics: on RottenTomatoes, 134 reviews with 107 fresh/76%.)

Quick Review: The Field Museum

Posted on by

My wife and I recently visited the Field Museum in Chicago. She had never been there and while I have been there a number of times, my most recent visit was about 10 years ago. We didn’t see everything but there was a lot of variety in our five hours. Some quick thoughts about one of the major museums in Chicago:

1. The museum has a range of exhibits, from ancient Egypt to modern Africa to animals to dinosaurs to gemstones to plants. There is a lot to take in and hold the interest of a variety of people.

2. We both agreed on the best exhibit: a temporary exhibit titled “Mammoths and Mastodons: Titans of the Ice Age.” While the main attraction here was a recently discovered young mammoth named Lyuba, the whole exhibit was informative and interesting. We saw plenty of tusks, video presentations about different kinds of research involving these animals, bone and tooth casts we could touch, and more. This exhibit it well worth seeing.

3. We both felt some exhibits were much more interesting (and modern) than others. The exhibit “The Ancient Americas” was great from early peoples through Northwest and Arctic peoples. However, the displays for Native Americans was stuck in the 1960s (or perhaps earlier) and is lacking compared to the others. The gemstone exhibit had been updated since I last saw it and both the modern Africa and Pacific Spirits galleries were interesting. The stuffed animals on the first floor from Africa and Asia look dated plus a number of the animals are in local zoos. Overall, it looks like the museum has worked hard to update a number of exhibits but some still need some work.

4. The price seems to be getting out of hand. We paid $22 a person for the Discovery Pass, a ticket that allows you into one special exhibit (and we choose the Mammoths and Mastodons). Even the Basic Admission is $15. If one were taking the family of four to the museum, it would cost at $60 for tickets (up to $116 for four All Access tickets) plus $19 for parking in one of the museum’s lots. Add in a quick meal at the Corner Bakery or McDonald’s (both inside the museum) and this is an expensive day at the museum.

For those looking to learn more about other cultures, animals, and nature, the Field Museum is an enjoyable place to visit.

Quick Review: The Stepford Wives (1975)

Posted on by

I recently watched the original version of this film from 1975 as opposed to the 2004 version with Nicole Kidman and others. The movie starts with a family of four moving from New York City to the suburbs where the mother, Joanna, starts uncovering some of the secrets of Stepford. The film attempts to make some pointed commentary in two main areas: gender relations and suburbia. Some quick thoughts:

1. On gender relations. Released in the mid 1970s (and based on a book published in 1972), the movie clearly draws upon a growing feminist movement. The heroine is married to a lawyer and has two children but also has dreams of becoming a recognized artistic photographer. Her husband seems sympathetic but then is drawn into a secretive men’s club in Stepford. Many of the women in town are supposedly what men want in wives: women who clean, cook, care for the children, and generally aim to please their husbands in all they do. Of course, Joanna eventually finds why the women are this way and is horrified.

2. Closely tied to these ideas about gender is the setting. In the city, Joanna seems to find life but feels trapped in the suburbs and comments on the lack of noise. In Stepford, the men do the important work while the women are expected to do traditional female tasks. New York City represents freedom and choices; Stepford is about repression and servitude. The film is clear: suburbia may be good for men (particularly those who high-status jobs) and children but it certainly bodes ill for women.

3. The ending is not very hopeful. I imagine the filmmaker (and book author) thought the suburbs were dragging down life across America. Of course, this film is not alone in these thoughts; there are plenty of books(fiction and non-fiction), TV shows, movies, and more that present a similar perspective. It is not too far of a leap from this film to the world of Desperate Housewives.

4. I was reminded by this film how far movies have come since the mid 1970s. The pace of the film was rather slow with some longer scenes and many took place without any music in the background. (It is hard to find movies these days that are conservative with their use of music – today, it generally seems to be amped up in order to enhance the emotional pull.) The camera shots and angles seem primitive and some of the zoom-ins were clunky. The story still comes through but the presentation these days is much smoother and manipulative.

Though the film is clunky at points, it is interesting for its attempt at commentary in the mid 1970s.

Quick Review: Gran Torino

Posted on by

Gran Torino is a film containing a number of common archetypes: the grumpy old man who finds hope, the coming-of-age teenager, the well-kept old car that symbolizes hope, the decent people versus the gangs, and the grieving and broken person who finds redemption in self-sacrifice. I think the movie pulls the pieces together successfully.

Clint Eastwood plays a Korean war vet (Walt Kowalski) who is the last white resident in a run-down Detroit neighborhood that is now home to many Hmong immigrants. The movie opens with the funeral of Kowalski’s wife and Eastwood is seemingly mad at the whole world early in the film. But, Kowalski finds meaning by the end.

Some quick thoughts:

1. Kowalski is an ancient relic in modern Detroit. At one point, his elderly Hmong neighbor asks him why as a white person he is still living in this neighborhood in Detroit. He used to work in an auto factory and believes in hard work and (excessive) insults to interact with other men.

2. The movie is named after a car but it is mainly a plot device. The real center of the movie is the relationships that Walt forms with his neighbors.

3. There is a lot of commentary on today’s world built into this movie.

a. Diversity and immigration are key themes. Even with seemingly important outward differences, Walt, despite his politically incorrect language, is able to find common ground with his new neighbors.

b. The younger generation vs. the older generation. Walt may look old and act in confounding ways but he knows what true virtue is. The two main Hmong teenagers in the film come across as kind and industrious even as the Hmong gang members (and gang members of other backgrounds) are portrayed as losers. Walt’s kids and grandkids are made out to be rather horrible. One female teenage grandchild is particularly singled out as she can only think of what she might get when Walt dies. The young Catholic priest is virtuous but ultimately naive about matters of life and death.

This movie attempts to do a lot in 116 minutes but is ultimately likable.

(The film was generally well-received by critics: on RottenTomatoes, 210 reviews with 168 fresh/80%.)

Quick Review: Amoeba Music

Posted on by

Perhaps there are better sites to see on the West Coast but I always thoroughly enjoy visiting Amoeba Music, the best used music store I have ever seen. Prior to this month, I had visited two of the locations (San Francisco and Berkeley). On a recent vacation to California, my wife and I visited the Hollywood location, the biggest store of the three.

The selection is beyond what I have found in any other music store. In the world of music retail that has seen the closure of Tower Records and Virgin Megastores plus the decline in CD sales, Amoeba stands out as a place where you can find everything. The pop/rock section is extensive but so are the other sections which include electronica, soul, jazz, Latin, and classical. I don’t know where they get all their used music but this isn’t like most used music stores that have been taken over by DVDs and video games.

My only complaint is that some of the used CDs are pricey ($8-10). However, this is offset by the extensive selection: I have found numerous CDs that I have never seen in any other American retail store.

I particularly like the initial sight of walking in past the registers and seeing the large sales floor and the many people happily milling about. An enjoyable experience for all music fans.

Quick review: In-N-Out Burger

Posted on by

Prior to traveling to California, my wife and I kept hearing good things about In-N-Out Burger, a California based fast-food chain.

After having two meals there (once outside Sacramento, once in Burbank), we both agree that the good reviews are justified. The hamburgers are excellent – juicy and fresh-tasting with crispy lettuce and fresh tomatoes and onion. The vanilla milkshakes are quite thick and the french fries are good but slightly different than the crispy fries one typically finds at fast-food places.

Several downsides: a limited menu (no chicken, fish, special burgers), a longer wait for your food as it is prepared fresh, and the restaurants are only limited to four Western states.

Overall: very good and fresh fast-food.

Quick Review: The Matthew Effect

Posted on by

Sociologist Daniel Rigney tackles the “Matthew Effect” in a book published earlier in 2010. The “Matthew effect” refers to a situation where those with more get even more and those with less continue to get less so that there is a growing gap. The effect is captured in the phrase “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”

The “Matthew effect” was coined by famous sociologist Robert Merton and refers to a Biblical saying of Jesus (Matthew 13:12): “Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”

My quick thoughts:

1. The book is a quick overview of the “Matthew effect” within different fields like science, technology, and politics. The book is not very deep and the examples are not fully explored. The primary goal seems to be to argue that Matthew effects are found throughout human activity.

2. Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell tackles the same subject. Gladwell’s book is mentioned by Rigney and I wish Rigney added more sociological insights as Gladwell already provided a good overview.

3. The implications section (Chapter 6) raises some interesting questions but does not provide a sufficient discussion. An intriguing question: is the Matthew effect a law or a social construction?

4. Overall: I found some good examples of how social inequality develops to use with future classes. Beyond that, the book is simplistic and would benefit from deeper discussions regarding specific Matthew effects and their implications.

Quick Review: An Education

Posted on by

An Education is set in Britain during the early 1960s. It begins with a 16-year old British girl  (Jenny, played by Carey Mulligan) studying hard in order to pass her exams to get into Oxford. But she soon meets an older man (Daniel, played by Peter Sarsgaard) who introduces her to a new world of jazz, art, vacations to Paris, and general excitement.

Quick thoughts:

1. This might be a period piece…but it might not be.

On one hand, the film takes place in the early 1960s, an era just before Britain moved from post-World War II austerity to the Swinging Sixties. Jenny’s parents are of the previous generation: her father is provincial and blustery (but only willing to stand up to his family members) and her mother fades into the background. Jenny starts the film wanting to go to Oxford but spends much of the film chasing a more exciting life. In a key scene involving Jenny and the headmistress of her private school, Jenny explains these differences: “It’s not enough to educate us anymore, Mrs. Walters. You’ve got to tell us why you’re doing it.” Without having a “why,” Jenny is unwilling to go on.

On the other hand, this movie is similar to numerous other stories that have simply taken place in other settings. Jenny is a typical middle-class girl and expects to go to college. She thinks she wants what her parents want, a good education. But all this changes as she “grows up” by interacting with the outside world. This is a classic “coming of age” tale as Jenny overcomes adult obstacles. Some of the characters are a little stale: the parents are typical suburban parents who fall apart when confronted with the complexities of the world.

2. I enjoyed the atmosphere of this film. I could feel the drudgery of the middle class home. I could see the excitement when Jenny went beyond the walls of her home and private school. Britain is shown as both dull and alive, as surely most places are.

3. There are a number of enjoyable short and sharp dialogues between Jenny and her parents.

4. Daniel is somewhat creepy, not quite of the Lolita variety but is still an older man chasing a teenager. We are never really told what motivates him or how he got to this position. Perhaps this is the case because Jenny is the main character and she never digs very deep into who Daniel is. Since Jenny just sees Daniel as a source of excitement, the audience doesn’t need to know much about Daniel either.

5. The overall question of the film is one that everyone can relate to: what kind of education are we seeking? One based in books, thinking, and analysis? One based in experiences? Or something else?

(The film was well-received by critics: on RottenTomatoes, 170 reviews with 159 fresh/94%.)