Humble Opinions

Introducing...

2010-06-14T18:33:00.003-04:00

Hello All,

Since the Grand Master Plan for Humble Opinions (you know, a reviews website where a group of people could come and share their thoughts on books, movies, music, television, and all things entertainment) kind of fizzled out, I'm going to soldier on with a new, improved and re-vamped site called Auds and Ends. (Get it? Auds? Heh heh.) I am going to keep Humble Opinions up, since it features not only my work but the work of other lovely writers and friends. I'll just be providing a link to this site for all one person interested in continuing to read what I have to write.

Speaking of what I have to write: I intend to cover not only reviews, but also thoughts on pop culture goings-on, WTF-ery in news and politics -- even though I swore off politics about five days ago -- and some mini-theses on my favorite (or not-so-favorite) entertainment thingamajigs. Expect some decent writing, a little (but not too much!) snark, fun times, perhaps some vlogging in the future and oh yeah, a teensy bit of Harry and Buffy loving and Twilight bashing, because that's how I roll. I'm challenging myself to write 1,000-3,000 words a week, whether it be in one long post or six tiny ones.

Any feedback at all would be GREATLY appreciated! Unless it's "Lay off the parenthetical asides." My love affair with parentheses will never die! You can't tear us apart! We love each other too much!

Adieu for now,

Audrey

Away We Go -- Weekend Rental Rec

2009-10-16T17:57:00.004-04:00

New to DVD this month is “Away We Go,” starring John Krasinski (The Office) and Maya Rudolph (Saturday Night Live), and directed by Sam Mendes. It was released in theaters in June and got a decent amount of buzz for Rudolph’s performance, and for the subject matter. It was a critics’ darling because of its quirky, low-key, self-assuredness and its “Juno”-esque feel.

“Away We Go” is a sweet, winding tale of Burt and Verona, a 30-ish couple who discover they are pregnant. Instead of freaking out about the human being growing inside of Verona (ala “Knocked Up” or “Juno”), the rootless couple are thrown a curve ball by Burt’s self-absorbed parents, who have decided to move to Belgium a month before the birth of their granddaughter. Free to leave their cold little shack of a home and strike their own way in the world, Verona makes an itinerary and the two are off to explore their options—living near Verona’s sister in Tuscon, her former boss Jill in Phoenix, a job prospect and Burt’s “cousin” LN in Madison, or college friends in Vancouver. Miami is added to the mix when Burt gets a call from his brother, who is in the midst of his own family crisis.

The guest performances by Catherine O’Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jim Gaffigan, (and a few others you’ll probably recognize) make the couple’s journey across the continent surprising and pleasant, as well as providing a few cringe-worthy moments.
Watching Krasinski squirm as Janney, who plays Verona’s former boss, says horrible things about her children while they are well within earshot, was fun. John Krasinski is great at letting everything his character is feeling come through in his facial expressions, and it’s an asset in this movie. More incredibly awkward is the dinner with Burt’s not-really-a-cousin LN and her family in Madison. Maggie Gyllenhaal gives an excellent portrayal of one half of the granola, family-bed-sharing, stroller-loathing yuppie couple who represent everything that Burt and Verona aspire not to be.

Krasinski makes Burt a lovable guy, trying to get Verona to marry him not because he feels it’s the right thing to do because of what other people think, but because he always wants to be there for her. She is ‘his everything,’ he tells her. It’s not hard to believe; he seems idealistic and passionate but stunted and immature. Verona is trying to deal with the difficulty of having no roots and the ever-present pain of her parents’ deaths, and Burt’s support is just what she needs, although she may be a little worried about having to take care of him as part of the deal (and perhaps annoyed at his penchant for letting everyone in on her secret tilted uterus). They play off each other so well it’s almost as if they’re speaking their own language. Their unofficial, spontaneous vows to each other on the trampoline outdoors erase any worries I had about them not being able to pull off the unmarried parents thing. Where in the beginning they were the offbeat oddballs floating through life and worrying about being ‘fuck-ups,’ after seeing their parental counterparts we realize they are solid as a rock while everyone else crumbles around them. They pull off the search for a new home, and the movie has a satisfyingly sweet and touching ending.

There are some charming sentiments and hilarious scenes in this movie, and while I cringed during the beginning, Burt and Verona’s laid-back charm had me relaxed by the end. The scenery is beautifully shot and the soundtrack never fails to set the mood perfectly. I highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a cute, slightly quirky bit of someone else’s reality. It would make a perfect DVD to rent this weekend!

Her Forgettable Second Try

2009-10-06T23:27:00.008-04:00

Written by Audrey Leihser

If the “Her Fearful Symmetry,” the second novel by Audrey Niffenegger (author of the phenomenal “The Time Traveler’s Wife”) isn’t a resounding success, is it because of its over-reaching thematic elements, its stunted characters, or the inevitable comparison to the novel that captured the hearts of millions of readers?

It’s probably because of all three.

The novel begins with an ending: the death of Elspeth Noblin, lover of Robert, twin of Edie, former human, and future ghost. Elspeth has inexplicably left her estate to her twin nieces, Valentina and Julia, who are 20 years old and drifting through life. Their unhealthily co-dependent relationship (they share a room and often a bed, hold hands, dress alike and consider themselves two parts of a whole) is tested during their stay in Elspeth’s London flat. They must inhabit the apartment, which sits next to the expansive and historic Highgate Cemetery, for a full year before they can inherit the estate. Forbidden to enter the flat are their parents Jack and Edie, who share a secret with Elspeth that they have kept hidden for twenty years. Fellow residents of the building include Martin, the agoraphobic upstairs neighbor who introduces himself by scrubbing a hole in his kitchen floor that drips through the twins’ ceiling. Robert, Elspeth’s flame and downstairs neighbor, is simultaneously avoiding and stalking the twins until they finally take a tour of the cemetery where Elspeth is buried.

But Elspeth has not entirely vacated the flat; in fact, she finds herself confined to its walls in the afterlife, her ghostlike energy and soul floating from room to room. She attempts to read books and watch television, and learns she can affect the electricity and even communicate with the living. When the twins and Robert realize she has been haunting the apartment they strike up a relationship with ghost-Elspeth, and this is where things take a turn for the worse. There are more minor characters who essentially do nothing to advance the story, acting rather as ineffectual and inept background players—perhaps they are a misguided nod to the real-life friends Niffeneger may have made during her own time at Highgate. There is a deep-dark secret about the estrangement of Elspeth and Edie that in the end turns out to have been a secret to no one but Robert and the twins. And there is a deadly twist that is certainly dramatic, dark, and gothic, but also a perverse and perhaps unwittingly disgusting.

One of the things that is so bothersome about the novel is the cavalier way that Niffenegger treats death, as if it is not a finality at all, but a temporary vacation destination akin to Rome, Cancun, or Tokyo. Some characters are so cavalier about death that it becomes an extreme solution to a problem that is quite easy to solve .

Most of the characters are just that—characters; merely a compilation of fascinating-sounding personality traits given a name, sex, and age, but no humanity. They are one-dimensional and it feels as if Niffenegger doesn’t give them room to mature or learn from their many mistakes. The novel is as much about what the characters don’t do as it is about what they do. They seem to act in a vacuum, without thought or motive—especially Marijke, Martin’s wife, and Robert, who is continually “coming unhinged.” Dead Elspeth shows no remorse for her insanely damaging actions; Valentina has no thought for others as she constructs her outlandish and unnecessarily cruel and harmful plan.

While the beginning of the novel is full of sluggish introductions, explanations of idiosyncrasies and peculiar character traits, the second half is a journey into the dark recesses of Niffenegger’s mind. There is a seriously chilling scene toward the end involving a dead body that seems so bizarrely unlikely that it’s almost insulting to read. Yet the ending is such a happy little wrap-up, it seemed as if the book itself had a split personality.

The symmetrical theme of the twin daughters of a twin daughter was hammered home time and again, as were other symmetrical scenarios, but the book doesn’t really have a symmetry of its own. It seems disjointed and scattered, and the many twists and turns wear out the reader. Another premise involves the theme of what it is to truly know another person—lover, friend, twin. Yet it feels like the subjects don’t know themselves well enough to learn how to know each other. Is that the point? It’s difficult to determine.

Certainly, her first novel “The Time Traveler’s Wife” had some deep themes—Henry’s defective genes, alcoholism, amputation, depression and death. It also had a premise that required the reader to suspend reality, and a few wacky-dark plot points (Clare sleeping with a past-Henry in order to conceive their daughter; Henry’s repeated time-traveling back to the scene of his mother’s death by decapitation, and his one-time visit to the scene of his ex-girlfriend’s suicide). But “Her Fearful Symmetry” makes that look tame by comparison.

Perhaps it’s unfair to compare. It’s understandable that Niffenegger would want to stretch her legs and create something different. Her fans were probably anticipating a novel similar to “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” with moving, epic romance and touchingly flawed characters; but for some working authors, it’s important not to be boxed in and pigeon-holed as the time-traveling romance lady or the cat-detective lady or the decoding history’s mysteries lady. So what we get in “Her Fearful Symmetry” is a much, much darker, twistier, and death-filled tale. Yet even though she attempts to do something different, what she gives us is something unenjoyable and distasteful. It’ll haunt you afterwards, and not in a good way. As much as I wanted to like it, I have to urge you to skip this book – you can’t un-read it, but you’ll want to.

Zombies vs. Vampyres: Mr. Darcy Edition

2009-08-16T20:01:00.004-04:00

Pride and Prejudice, aside from being Jane Austen’s most popular and beloved novel, is also the subject of a plethora of fan-published fiction. Mr. Darcy’s Diary, Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy: Two Shall Become One, Loving Mr. Darcy: Journeys Beyond Pemberley, and Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife are some of the most popular titles in the Austen sphere. But although they are certainly well-written, careful postulations on the happenings of Elizabeth Bennet Darcy and Fitzwilliam Darcy, the lovebirds blinded by misunderstanding in Pride and Prejudice, I haven’t quite had time or volition to read them. To be honest with you, I’m satisfied with the ending of the original novel. One of the most feminine and yet independently-minded women of nineteenth-century British literature gets her man in the end, and all’s well that ends well.

Unless there are zombies or vampyres involved.

Breaking from the tradition of other published Austen fanfiction, the two latest adaptations of the famous tale don’t feature the happy endings and blissful depictions of the English countryside. Rather, they involve two of the darkest creatures of ancient folklore. Yet each novel takes its own distinct path and has its own unique tone, and in my own humble opinion, one comes out victorious. In Mr. Darcy, Vampyre, by Amanda Grange, Mr. Darcy hides a terrible secret from Elizabeth that casts a pall on their wedding tour across Europe and threatens to ruin their happy ending. And in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith, Austen’s work has been re-written to include—what else?—zombies, or more specifically, tales of Elizabeth and co. kicking some serious zombie ass.

Mr. Darcy, Vampyre, seems designed to capitalize on the popularity of Austen fanfic and the Twilight series, written by Stephenie Meyer, which I will not even try to explain because I will get too crazy and this article will go downhill fast. Needless to say, vampires are very in right now, and combining this hot literary trend with Pride and Prejudice, a classic English novel, probably seemed like just the thing needed to liven up the sometimes stuffy dialogue and unfamiliar social customs. But the title takes all the mystery out of what could be a seriously cool book, and if you were somehow so forgetful you didn’t remember the title (even though it’s stamped proudly at the top of every odd-numbered page in the book), the heavy-handed foreshadowing would certainly do you in.

By the time Mr. Darcy’s affliction is revealed in the thirteenth chapter of the seventeen-chapter novel, it’s become annoying that the intelligent and observant Elizabeth Bennet Darcy hasn’t figured it out yet. Instead of worrying that her husband doesn’t like to watch the sunset, hangs out with friends who have memories of the sixteenth century, hasn’t tried to consummate the marriage, and reeeeeaaaalllly doesn’t want to wear that silver crucifix around his neck (but she insists!) because he doesn’t LOVE her, she should be wearing cloves of garlic around her neck and avoiding dancing with any of his friends at masked balls. But alas, she does not catch onto the not-so-subtle hints and is oblivious to his vampyre-ness until three-quarters of the way through the tale, when he finally reveals his identity in order to save her from a competing, ancient vampyre who requires that all vampyre brides be bedded by him before their husbands. Ick. By then, it's time for Darcy to rescue poor Elizabeth and cloister her away in one of the many hunting lodges he has conveniently situated all across the European continent, and explain everything. He is, in fact, a vampyre; he begins to disappear in direct sunlight, so that is why he stays indoors during the day; and no, he doesn't eat humans--although the temptation is fierce--because each vampire has a choice, and he's of the set who believes it's best not to drink human blood. Sound familiar?

Listen, I’m not saying it’s as poorly written as Twilight (few novels are). At least she doesn’t beg him for ages and ages to turn her into a vampyre too. In fact, they find out that there’s a way for him to be un-un-dead, and they even succeed in turning him back into a normal human, so that they can grow old and die together. How romantic! Somehow, though, this just isn’t my kind of tale. I don’t like an oblivious anti-heroin; to me that smacks of setting the feminist movement back a few centuries, and you don’t have to do that to write about the 1800s. Austen didn’t, so why should a modern female author have to? Maybe I'm just prejudiced against vampires because I dislike Twilight, or maybe I'm just impervious to the charms of the cold, blood-sucking undead (much like the genetic mutation that has caused me to be the only female on the planet not attracted to Matthew McConaughey). Whether they sparkle or disappear in the sunlight, they just aren't for me. Mr. Darcy is aloof and detached enough without adding vampyrism to his list of problems.

I guess it's possible that I was just spoiled by Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which I read first and loved dearly. This is a novel that gives a playful re-imagining of the P&P story some zest and zeal, with ass-kicking Bennet sisters trained in a private home dojo by their father in the ancient ninja ways of slaying the zombies who have overrun the English countryside and threaten the lives of all those who travel its roads. Zombies attack the ball at Netherfield, they infect poor Charlotte Lucas, and they bring Elizabeth and Darcy together to fight against a common cause instead of each other. My favorite character in this adaptation is actually my least-favorite in all others: the villainous villainess Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy’s aunt. She’s an old-school master of ancient fighting secrets with a personal army of ninjas, and she is seriously intimidating. But Elizabeth bests her, and her ninjas, in the end, winning her favour.

This book is delightfully tongue-in-cheek. It’s easy to giggle at the jokes and the image of Elizabeth pulling a dagger from her shoe to use in self-defense. It’s an excellent combination of prim English society manners and zombie slaying (they’re referred to as “unmentionables”), and it’s even greater upon re-read. And there are dirty jokes! You still end up rooting for Elizabeth and Darcy to get together, still end up loathing the obtuse Mr. Collins and loving the flawed Mr. Bennet. I’d certainly call it a successful mash-up.

So if it’s between these two novels to satisfy your P&P craving, I’d definitely recommend the perky, quirky Pride and Prejudice and Zombies over the somewhat lethargic and obvious Mr. Darcy, Vampyre. Zombies has punch and panache, and it even has people who have never liked, read, or understood the source material enjoying and loving the hell out of it. Now that’s what I’d call a killer book.

The Hangover

2009-06-07T18:15:00.006-04:00

Written by Audrey Leihser

For those looking for an enjoyable departure from everyday life, and reality in general, this summer’s first guilty pleasure comedy, “The Hangover” is as hilarious as its trailers and previews promised. It delivers in the shock-and-awe department, and serves up some absurd “I can’t believe they did that!” moments. Although the film basically requires you to leave your thinking cap at home, some of the scenes carry that slow-burn: the more you think about what just happened, the more funny and disturbing it becomes.

“The Hangover” stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifinakis, as three-fourths of a bachelor party gone awry in Las Vegas, and has great appearances by Heather Graham, Jeffrey Tambor, Mike Epps, and Ken Jeong (who you may remember as the doctor who delivers the baby in “Knocked Up,” or the creepy guy in Funny-Or-Die’s “What’s It Gonna Be?”). The trailer alone was enough to get me excited to watch the film—I love a good buddy comedy, even if they tend to be pretty sexist and raunchy and as full of the cheap laughs as they are of the truly inventive wild moments. And the premise is a nice twist on the classic bachelor-party-gone wrong film, because of the fact that the main characters cannot remember a single thing that happened the night before and must piece together the night’s events in order to find their missing best friend and get the groom back in time for the wedding. But if you’re expecting Frank the Tank moments from the creators of the now-classic comedy “Old School,” think again. A lot has changed in blockbuster summer comedy since 2003.

“The Hangover” serves as a true testament to the changes that have taken place in comedies in this decade alone. Where we once had the weird friend who liked to strip naked and go streaking, we now have the weird friend who isn’t allowed within 50 yards of a school, wears a jock strap in place of underwear, and has done so much ecstasy that he’s brain-damaged in the social interaction department. Enter Alan, the brother-in-law-to-be, played brilliantly by Zach Galifianakis. Alan’s got zero friends and no clue how to behave around men his own age. His stirring and adorably awkward rooftop speech after the guys do their shots of Jagermeister on the roof of Caesar’s Palace is sweetly funny, only to be immediately replaced by his disturbing attempt to become blood brothers with his almost-brother-in-law Doug (played by Justin Bartha) and his two best friends, Phil (Cooper) and Stu (Helms). Galifianakis is great in this movie because he’s so weird, but also because, if you’ve seen his comedy before (I’ve been a fan of his since I saw the Comedy Central docu-series “The Comedians of Comedy”) you know how he always tends to stick out like a sore thumb anywhere he goes, even if it’s in a bus full of off-beat comedians. His quips are certainly the most memorable, and the most mind-boggling. Just exactly what did he do that caused him to be banned from being anywhere a schoolyard or Chuck E. Cheese? (I suggest you go read the EW.com interview before you get all offended and uppity about the movie trying to play pedophilia for laughs.)

Bradley Cooper does an excellent job playing the asshole friend here, and has moments that call back to Zachary “Sack” Lodge from “Wedding Crashers.” Cooper certainly has that edginess and bite in his tone that sometimes causes moviegoers both to laugh at him and fear him just a bit. It was hard for me to like his hypocritical and stereotypical I-hate-marriage-because-I’m-married-and-it-sucks-sometimes character but couldn’t help but warm to him by the end of the movie; he does redeem himself somewhat. And Ed Helms has a fantastic turn as Stu, the uptight dentist with a trifling fiancé who really cuts loose on the night that no one remembers. Helms has really perfected that earnest WASP-y type guy who just wants to live life the right way, even if it means proposing to a shrill and controlling woman just because they’ve been together for three years and it’s time to “take it to the next level.” Both as Andy on “The Office” and as Stu here, he really has that naïveté necessary to make him likable and pitiable instead of just pathetic.

Be prepared to be somewhat grossed out while watching this movie, especially during the much-hailed credits at the end of the movie. While some thought this was the funniest part of the entire film, and they certainly do deliver the best laughs, I found them a little over-the-top and more distasteful than anything I’ve seen in guy-centric comedies in recent memory. But, it really doesn’t seem worth the energy to get too worked up over them; it’s a silly movie, not a documentary or a guidebook on how to treat women.

What I found most interesting about this movie was that it seems to be only the latest addition to a whole slew of buddy comedies or ‘bro-mance’ flicks that have an ever-increasing occurrence of drugs and violence. The evolution of comedy from 2003’s now seemingly innocent “Old School,” to this movie demonstrates how the stakes have been raised when it comes to getting laughs out of the audience. Having a just-married guy do beer bongs and streak just won’t cut it with today’s edgier audiences who have grown used to seeing car chase scenes, gunshot wounds, and explosions ala last summer’s “Pineapple Express,” full-frontal nudity like in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” bad drug trips such as the one in “Knocked Up,” and truly gory action and racial tension presented in “Tropical Thunder.”

It’s also worth mentioning that it’s a statement on the potential futures of these comedic actors that Will Ferrell, star of “Old School,” had a movie opening the very same weekend as “The Hangover” that was his most family-friendly to date and probably will go on to make less than half than what “The Hangover” made. “Land of the Lost” seems to cement Ferrell in the ranks of comedic stars who start out making dumb movies and end up churning out lighter family fare just to secure a big paycheck and keep their name out there: see also Ben Stiller (from “Zoolander” to “Night at the Museum”), Adam Sandler (“Billy Madison” to “Bedtime Stories”) and Eddie Murphy (gigantic tool). But that’s another topic for another day.

The bottom line is that this movie is as hilarious as its trailers, previews and sneak-peeks promised it would be; it's not one of those films that puts its best laughs out front, leaving you disappointed with the results. The scenes that I was most looking forward to and thought would be the funniest ended up being only a tease for what really exists in the movie (although I must admit that Mike Tyson's tone-deaf sing-along to the best and cheesiest Phil Collins song in existence, ending with a punch-out, definitely lived up to the awesomeness). There are surprise moments I won’t ruin; times you’ll almost pee your pants from laughing too hard; and head-scratchingly absurd scenes that almost defy logic. And in the end, while they may get the groom back on time (duh, it’s all got to work out in the end), you never will find out what was with that smoking armchair or the chicken in the hotel room. And that’s just the way I like my comedies.

Travel Books Part I: Curious Incident

2009-05-16T01:01:00.002-04:00

Written by Ray Kirby

Picture this: You are in a busy airport. You arrived early because you were so excited for your upcoming trip. You check in using one of the nearest check-in stations and you are thru security in no time at all. You glance at your ticket, and find your gate, only to see a big red sign that reads "delayed".

Since it's too early in the day to hit the airport martini bar, you sit down and rummage through your over-sized bag, pulling out your shiny iPod. But instead of hearing the sound of music, you see a black screen: you forgot to charge the battery, but could have sworn you did the night before. With three hours to spare before boarding time, you head to the airport book store.

Having been to many airport book stores I can tell you they are all the same—best-seller after best-seller with the occasional classic thrown into the mix. So you may wonder - what are the "must-have" books for those unexpected, but not surprising, delays? What are the truly good books that can be conveniently found at nearly every airport bookstore? My first pick is "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Marc Haddon. This novel won the 2003 Whitbread Book of the Year and the 2004 Commonwealth Writers' Prize for Best First Book.

At first glance, I almost did not buy this book simply because of the title. For some odd reason it reminded me of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which I had read the previous week. Did I really want to be left curious, and even more so, did I want to read about dogs? Either way, I needed a book for a flight to Malaysia and I decided to pick this one up off the book shelf. When looking for a book to travel with, I try to find one that looks like it could be a quick read, but also something that will be enjoyable to read. I always scan the introduction on the back of the book, too! I have to admit I started to read it before I even left for the airport and had it finished before my trip. I love a book full of irony and it left me curious for more!

Christopher, the protagonist, is a fifteen year old boy who suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism that makes it difficult to act in social situations. Right away I felt connected to Christopher, but maybe that is because I use to be addicted to America's Next Top Model and one of the contestants had the same syndrome. The plot thickens early when Christopher finds his neighbor's dog, Wellington, dead on the lawn. It looks as though a pitch fork was used to kill the dog. When a neighbor calls the police, the police try to accuse Christopher of killing the poor innocent dog. Christopher, in an attempt to clear his name from the police, goes on a search for the real killer. During his own "investigation" he keeps of journal of his findings. If you ask me, this was a pretty smart decision. Now-a-days we all keep track of our personal lives using some type of online forum.

After his father discovers the journal, he takes it away from him. While Christopher searches for his journal he comes across letters that were written to him from his mother, whom Christopher's father had told him had died of a heart attack. Christopher, who is rather confused at this point, reads the letters and decides for himself that his mother is still alive, and confirms this after confronting his father. During this confrontation, another secret is revealed too, but you should read the book to find out!

The reason I really enjoyed reading this book was because it was told in a very different style than many other novels. Christopher, who is also a math genius, writes it from his own vantage point. He labels the chapters using prime numbers, and from the beginning his road of discovery is quite mysterious and takes him on quite an extraordinary journey. After Christopher realizes that his mother is still alive, I really began to wonder if Christopher would find her. Deep down inside I really hoped that he would take the necessary steps to find out where his mother was, and I was glad when he used the address from the letters that his mother had written him and headed to London to find her.

This is a great travel companion because just like Christopher, you are off on your own journey too. Every trip we take helps us to learn more about ourselves, our capabilities, and about others too. If you have ever known a special needs child, you know that they have a very tender heart, and Christopher is no different. I immediately fell in love with the characters and the story. If you are looking for a quick read, this is a great one to start with. Just make sure you're willing to spend the afternoon with Christopher because you will not want to put this story down.

Family Movie Night: The Goonies

2009-05-16T00:36:00.003-04:00

Written by Shannon

Those of us who proclaim ourselves to be ‘children of the 80s’ recall The Goonies with a certain fondness and nostalgia. After all, we remember Sean Austin before he was Sam Gamgee and Josh Brolin before he was “W.” And now, more than twenty years later, many of us are sharing this movie with our children and reliving one of the quintessential movies of the 1980s.

The story is centered around Mikey Walsh and his group of misfit friends, who affectionately refer to themselves as ‘the Goonies’ and are being evicted from their homes in order for a heartless real estate developer to level them and build a golf course. The Goonies takes its audience on a bumpy ride—an escapade complete with gangsters, secret passageways filled with booby traps, a treasure map, a hidden treasure, and a pirate known as ‘One-Eyed Willie.’ At the same time, it provides a few tender, coming-of-age moments, including two first kisses and the true beginnings of a friendship between brothers with very different personalities. Add in an upbeat soundtrack featuring Cyndi Lauper, one of the premier 80s divas, and you have a movie that still rings true with kids today and takes their parents back to their own childhoods.

Be forewarned, however, that the movie is rated PG for a reason. To be sure, there is a fair amount of profanity by the age fourteen to seventeen main characters. There are also a few sexual references/innuendoes that older children (tweens, teenagers) are likely to pick up on, although younger children will most likely not understand them. Additionally, there is a bit of violence and a few moments that young children might find slightly frightening (my own six-year-olds had several such moments). For example, one of the boys, Chunk, is trapped in a freezer with a dead body for a few moments, and the gangsters chase after the kids, making one of them ‘walk the plank’ late in the movie. There is also a disfigured character, Sloth, who my girls thought was frightening at first, but because he was such a kind soul, they were rooting for him at the end of the movie.

The majority of the movie, however, is a fun-filled, exciting journey in which ‘the Goonies’ are out for one last adventure before they all move. All in all, The Goonies is a movie about the importance of friendship and following your dreams, both of which ring true for any generation and all ages.

Evan and Jaron: 52 Sundays

2009-05-16T00:30:00.005-04:00

Written by Grace McGarry

Quick: Name as many Orthodox Jewish identical twin genre-challenging singer-songwriters as possible in the next ten seconds. Aaaaand...go!

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Lemme help you out here.

Evan and Jaron Lowenstein, better known sans last name, fit the bill. After three independent album releases, they made a splash with their self-titled release in 2000, which featured their guaranteed-to-be-played-at-senior-prom mega-hit “Crazy For This Girl.” And now that I’ve said that, I’ll bet you know the guys I’m talking about.

Renaissance men to the core, the brothers Lowenstein developed a truly revolutionary idea in the fall of 2007. Every Sunday for one year, they released one Evan and Jaron song over the internet – available for listening via their MySpace page and for purchase via Snocap (less than a buck apiece) – along with a blog entry giving a mini-biography of the song and/or its production. The result is “52 Sundays,” a collection of 52 songs from Evan and Jaron’s fifteen-year career in music.

For those of you who’ve been living under a rock and have no clue what’s going on in the music business or the economy in general right now, 52 songs for less than fifty bucks is a frigging steal.

It may sound cliche, but it’s true: “52 Sundays” is such an eclectic mixed bag that there really is something for everyone in the selection of songs Evan and Jaron compiled here. I’ve always had trouble categorizing E&J into one specific genre, and anyone who listens to this project will understand why. Those looking to rock will love the beats behind “Lady” and “In A Bad Dream,” while E&J’s country influence (c’mon, they’re from Georgia!) is heard most strongly in “Our Little Secret” and “Tennessee.” Pop fans will unquestionably love “Leaving,” “Nothing More Than This,” and “You Put Your Beautiful in Me.” Some songs have a full band; some have the guys, their guitars, and nothing else. Longtime fans such as myself drooled over hearing oft-talked about songs from the infancy of E&J’s career that were never heard in full – “Farewell to the King, “Confidential Information” – whereas fans of their earlier eponymous album got the treat of hearing the demo versions of such songs as “Crazy For This Girl,” “From My Head To My Heart,” “Luckiest of the Lucky Ones,” and a spectacular “Make It Better,” the demo of which is arguably superior to the album cut.

One of my favorite parts of the entire project came when “Falling Into Place” was released twice – once with Jaron singing, backed by piano and guitar; and the following week with Evan, backed by guitar and cello. I still can’t make up my mind as to which was better. (Jaron wins in the vocals department, but the arrangement on Evan’s version would make a grown man cry.)

With such a massive base of tunes, it pains me to admit that not every one of them is a hit. Alas, some were noticeably recorded on substandard equipment – “Never Mind,” one of the standout songs of the bunch, has substantial ambient noise, which is a shame – and it distracts and detracts from the quality of the music. “Where Do You Go” is a confusing little ditty that kind of makes me suspect that they had too many ideas and too few sheets of paper to split the ideas into other songs. “Did You Think That You Were Mine” has all the potential in the world, but the synth-strings took me right out of it. And while I cannot get enough of the song as a whole, have some patience at the end of “Buddy Buddy” with its 17 seconds of drum track and no fade!

I’ve been a fan of Evan and Jaron for nine years now, and I’ve seen them take on some pretty extraordinary challenges, from opting to leave Columbia Records and release their fifth album independently in 2004, to bringing Evan’s toddler on the road with them (she’s now nearly six); but this endeavor, I have to say, is one of the most extraordinary things I’ve seen them do. Taking advantage of all available media – in this case, MySpace – enables E&J to release these songs in an incredibly cost-effective manner for them, too. It’s really quite a brilliant business tactic, but beyond the business, it’s remarkably rewarding for the fans to have access to such a huge base of new material, and all that for less than a kidney, which I can’t say for some other mainstream artists.

And no, for the millionth time, I am not telling you which one is single.

Standout, download-them-now songs from “52 Sundays”: “Lady,” “Come Over Here,” “Our Little Secret,” “Don’t Forget the Roses,” “Somehow,” “Make It Better,” “Drive All Night,” “If Only They Knew,” “Hey Beautiful,” “Other Side of Good,” “51st Way To Say Goodbye,” “The Girl In Her Jeans.”

Kelly Clarkson: All I Ever Wanted

2009-05-15T23:27:00.006-04:00

While normally I eschew (bless you!) anything having to do with American Idol, and secretly mock anyone who says they’re a fan of the cheese-tastic show, I will whole-heartedly admit to being a Kelly Clarkson fan. How anyone who watched her win the show’s first season and sing with emotion in her voice and tears in her eyes could help but love her is beyond me. Her first album was decent and her second album, “Breakaway,” with its consistent tone, power ballads, and catchy pop anthems sealed the deal for me. While “My December” wasn’t exactly my cup of tea, her fourth album, “All I Ever Wanted,” which was released a few months ago, marks a return to the Kelly Clarkson we all know and love.

Full of up-tempo songs, “All I Ever Wanted” is a solid effort. Nearly every song in the first half has release potential, and you can feel Kelly’s influence in most of the tracks. Yet upon each subsequent listen-through, the album seems to showcase her need to appeal to a wider audience than she had to reach for her second and third albums. Not only are there standard Kelly-esque songs like the first single, “My Life Would Suck Without You,” follow-up single “I Do Not Hook Up,” and “Save You,” “Long Shot,” “Impossible,” but there are plenty of tracks on the record that seem heavily influenced by other artists’ genres, and by the slew of different industry experts she collaborated with. Striving for universal appeal is admirable and definitely necessary in today’s musical world, but it doesn’t always guarantee success, as most of the songs on the latter half of the record will show.

Take, for example, “If I Can’t Have You.” With its techno-like beat and instrumentals and somewhat shrieky (sorry, Kelly) vocals, “If I Can’t Have You” sounds more like a karaoked version of a wannabe Lady GaGa song. Then there is “I Want You,” which feels like her attempt at tackling the Duffy sound; and, with its somewhat more lethargic chorus, “I’m Ready Now” could easily pass for a Carrie Underwood single—provided there were a little more guitar and a little less computer-generated instrumental. “Already Gone” has the synth-pop thing down and sounds like a stab at Leona Lewis or OneRepublic (which makes sense, because the lead singer of OneRepublic worked on “Bleeding Love” with Leona Lewis, and OneRepublic’s producers helped out on Kelly’s new album).

The worst attempt at reaching into a different section of pop has got to be “Whyyougottabringmedown,” in which Kelly shouts a one-note verse and then belts out the short chorus. This is the song I always skip because it’s the least enjoyable and most frustrating song on the disc. It feels like an outreach to Avril fans (or perhaps ‘fan’ is more like it), a “please like me!” plea to punk rock princesses.

But aside from those few misfires, it’s a solid album. The lyrics on her best songs are full of heart and an independent, self-sufficient message—in “All I Ever Wanted,” she sings: “I’d rather walk alone/ don’t wanna chase you around.” This message is repeated on “Don’t Let Me Stop You,” when she sings “If that’s not what you’re lookin’ for/ nice knowing you but there’s the door/ ‘cause I know I can find someone to give me what I want.” No longer is she the broken-hearted break-up anthem queen from “Breakway.” Her new album shows her growth not only as an artist who shares songwriting creds on roughly half her songs (a feat for any pop artist these days), but as a woman who has realized that it’s not worth it to stay in a relationship just for the sake of having someone to call your significant other.

Ms. Clarkson has once again managed to offer us a fun, catchy, and entertaining record. IMHO, this is her second-best release, next to “Breakaway.” But you don’t have to take my word for it. Here is what EW.com reviewer Leah Greenblatt has to say; and you can find another excellent review of the album here on ign.com. If you’re only going to buy a few select tracks, I’d recommend downloading “My Life Would Suck Without You,” “I Do Not Hook Up,” “Don’t Let Me Stop You,” “Long Shot,” and her first self-produced track, “If No One Will Listen.” But just to be on the safe side, and to get a better feel for the entire thing, I’d buy it all.

First Post -- Welcome to Humble Opinions!

2009-05-15T23:18:00.006-04:00

Everyone who has gone to see a movie, purchase a CD, or check out a book has, at one time or another, considered what a professional critic would think about the choice. It's natural to wonder whether the time and money we invest in our entertainment will be rewarded by something that's well, actually entertaining. Maybe you've even been burned by a good review -- let's say a critic who was head over heels over "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" or "Glitter" -- or a bad review -- perhaps the critics all said that "The Lizzie MacGuire Movie" wasn't worth your time, so you didn't see it (and missed out on an amazing, thrilling, charming and wonderfully cheesy 90 minutes of fun).

Well, when it comes down to it, critics are getting paid to write something that's interesting to read, to make statements that will be quoted on the back cover of a novel or the front cover of a DVD, or perhaps even controversial statements that will be talking points for filler time on the morning news. But we here at Humble Opinions are not professional critics. We're just normal people who like to write and also happen to love to be entertained. We have opinions, sure, but we're not so arrogant as to think that we're 100% right, all the time. Hell, some of us don't even agree with each other.

We just want to get our voices out there. We want to write about what we like, diss what we don't, and let you make the decision. We've got different perspectives and points of view, different styles and voices, and we think that gives us just a little more street cred than the professionals.