Category Archives: Reviews

Kagegiving:The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

INTRODUCTION: H.G. Wells The Time Machine is one of those classic novels that is always on some list as a “Must read”. I read it as a child and really enjoyed it, but I decided to give it a refresh and see if it was really worthwhile in this modern age.

SYNOPSIS:
It’s the 1800’s and a man creates a time machine, so this novel is steampunk and sci-fi.

PROSE:
Prose isn’t as great as I remembered it. It has its moments but it really falls short, especially in comparison to other books of its time frame. I know it was a normal thing back then to not include faces in Gothic horror novels and while this isn’t gothic horror, he doesn’t really give us anything but a description that is barley sufficient for a police sketch artist.

CHARACTERS:
The characters all fall flat. Wells couldn’t be bothered to even give them names, nor really develop them at all. They’re all just kind of there and the one Eloi that is mentioned in detail, also happens to be childlike by Wells’ own description.

DIALOGUE: Fantastic and about all that is really worthwhile about this book.

SUBTEXT: In today’s day and age, it is indubitably about the left (Eloi) vs the Right (Morlock) and is more relevant through a Trump American than it was when it was first published.

CONCLUSION:
I was hoping this book would hold up in my adult years as I fondly remember it, but it just doesn’t hold up to snuff. It is boring, but thankfully it is such a short read that would could let your child enjoy it and they would at least pick up some good vocabulary. Besides not being that good, it boarder lines the pedophiliac in nature, which, given Lewis Carroll among others, wouldn’t of been outside the realm of normal. I mean, an adult man who intended to kidnap a female Eloi and bring her back to his time and has the demeanor of a child? Come the fuck on, it doesn’t get more pedophilic than that! I don’t think I am reading too much into that at all and sadly, it is something that is never discussed about this book. Even worse, she is more developed in terms of looks than anyone, which is ironic, given the near age of the child would make her extremely underdeveloped. Sure, you could be pollyannaish and think he just wanted to be a dad, but why steal the Eloi? Really fucked up shit that I am shocked no one picked up on, until now. I am shocked I missed that as a child, but regardless, the only thing this book really has going for it is the discussion about the two distinct races, which, in today’s day and age, which more relevant than ever, as it seems like Wells was quite prescient about the potential for two diverges on the races and one look at the divide of this country, left and right, it is hard to not see the Left as Eloi and the Right as Morlock. The majority of Trump supporters are classic blue collar labors, whom sole reason for Trump is that he somehow understands them and wants to bring back these shitty industries, like coal. They feel unheard by the Eloi or Elites as they call them and that is a sad thing, because not only do they lack a sense of irony when they toss such piffle out, but they’re mal-adaptable malcontents. Which, while I can sympathize with the malcontent part, the anti-intellectualism aspect is a horrible way to live. So in that regard, this book is fantastic, but the rest of it is just plain lousy that one has to wonder why the fuck it is a classic.

2 ½ out 5.

Fashionably Late Book Reviews: Being Logical by D.Q. McInerny.

INTRODUCTION: I first read Being Logical when I was in my early 20’s. I absolutely loved it then, because it was a short and concise introduction to formal logic, which is sadly, no longer taught at the college level and hadn’t been for years by the time I was old enough to attend. This is the exact book that I thought was going to be a huge game changer if you could get enough people to read it. Sadly, I was unaware back then, that a majority of the United States was highly illiterate. So sadly, upon further inspection recently, I do not think as highly of this book, given this new data, as it would be closer to a collegiate textbook for the average American than I would hope, even though it was hugely inspired by Strunk&White Elements of Style, falls way short of that book and even invokes errors that the book would of warned against. So lets look at this book through a modern lens and see who the audience is and if it is worthwhile.

PROSE: The prose is fine, albeit a tad bit too complex for the average American reader. You can tell it is also heavily influenced by Aristole’s Oragaon, as McInerny’s expression of a quantification of a thing is nearly identical to Aristole’s. In fact, it was nearly verbatim. This is extremely confusing to the most readers who wouldn’t be able to discern such and why would they? If it was an attempt is to be a cheap collegiate text for those of us whom are autodidactic than it would be fantastic, but it was meant for the normal reader as an introductory text to formal logic and it fails miserably in that respect.

FORM: Book form is fantastic! It has a section on the formal fallacies, including their original Latin names and makes for a fantastic glossary. I’ve been using it for years, along with The Philosopher’s Toolkit as glossaries to look things up, should something slip my mind. I think the average reader is going to roll their eyes at the Latin and think of this as boring though and that is a negative for the book. Albeit, I and others of my ilk will find this to be a fantastic aspect, the intended audience would not concur with us.

CONCLUSION:
This book, which should be for everyone, falls short of the mark. I’ve been pitching it for years and well, few seem to care about formal logic and thinking correctly. Typical human hubris that makes them think they’re thinking correctly, because as well all know with stupid people, they’re always correct and perfect. So, even though the audience this was intended for, would have very little use for it, it makes one hell of an introduction to Logic for everyone else. I would highly recommend this book to someone creating a high school or adult ed course on Logic and if Universities ever bring formal logic courses back, this would be a great 101 text. The average American is most likely not going to put much thought into this and probably toss it before they finished chapter one and that is a downright crime. On the textbook merits, I give it 5 out of 5 stars, even if it is a tad bit stuffy for some people. For the average American, though, I have to give it a paltry 3 out of 5. At least he tried to bring logic to Americans, and that would be commended. Thank you for such a fantastic book, even if it isn’t as appreciated as it could be.

Fashionably Late Book Reviews: Look Who’s Back

INTRODUCTION: I have wanted to read this book since 2012 when it came out. It appealed to me due to the fact that I also thought, that if Hitler like thinking was to ever make a true return, it wouldn’t come back under obvious and not so subtle attempts at re-branding the NSDAP as the Alt-Right or Institute for Historical Review have attempted and failed to do. I’ve also stated in the past that nationalism was a byproduct of the welfare state. Nearly all societies that have government run anything is going to become closed off and nationalistic society, given that human beings are primitive and see money as resources and as such, they’re evolutionary prone to “team playing” in these regards. In essence, the left’s screams at the right of “Racist” are not off in the fact that those looking to close the boarders are attempting to keep American resources for Americans. Where the argument 180’s today, is that Alt-right figures also want to reduce such resources, not just for emigrants, but also for Americans of different “races”. It important to keep this in mind, as America isn’t the only ones going through ye olde 1930’s pangs and Germany has been for years and at least extremely violently since 1989. So a book like this is a must in today’s day and age. Satire has always been a foremost way to ridicule bad ideas and Nazism is no exception to the rule. That said, does this book ultimately do that?

PLOT: Hitler awakens in 2011 and finds himself in a fish out of water story as he struggles to make sense of it all.

PROSE: Not bad. It isn’t purple, but it shows more than enough. Everything is through Hitler’s point of view, so I feel like it was a missed opportunity to possibly play with Hitler’s skewed perspective. I’m not saying he had to see the world like Gobles’ propaganda, but if you have ever seen Hitler’s art, you notice something isn’t quite right about his perception of the world and that could have been an interesting aspect to play with, like how Tim Burton has a unique visual voice.

DIALOGUE: Excellent.

CHARACTERS: Timur Vermes Hitler is spot on. The only exceptions are Hitler’s speeches, which seem off in tone and not nearly as exaggerative as they could be, nor do they reflect the content of Hitler’s actual speeches. You do not need to read too many of them to know these are not Hitler’s typical oratory approach. They primarily focus on the Middle East, specifically, Turkey. I keep up on German affairs as I am still working on my German, and Muslim immigrants are a huge talking point for right wingers over there, so this is Timur Vermes having Hitler speak in a modern way, which kind of contradicts his fish out of water story at the beginning. There are quite a few of these, how do I put this, non-Hiterlian idiosyncrasies that elude to him either being a severely delusion human or the best huckster show business has ever seen. One instance has Hitler showing humanity towards someone whom he is working with and finds out she is Jewish. While Hitler did have half-Jews working for him, this still seems out of character for the Jew hating sociopath that everyone has seared into their brains. There could be a multitude of reasons for this; one could argue that this is a typical trope of literature where you give the antagonist a positive trait to offset their negative intentions. Dr.No for instance loves his cat. Hitler was great with Kids and Animals, so if that was his goal, it was a redundancy, given what we actually knew about Hitler and could have used. There is another such scene when the same woman is pregnant and Hitler thinks she and her baby daddy want to name the baby after him. Weird he would be so cool with a Jewish woman naming a child after him or the union between a German with a Germanic Jew.

I don’t suspect that Timur is secretly harboring Nazi feelings or is in anyway trying to aggrandize the Nazi leader, because while Hitler was alleged to have a good sense of humor, he most likely would have called this book, itself, propaganda, since he is portrayed as kind of inept and more of a parody of Archie Bunker than the leader of the Third Reich.

The real reason I think those speeches are not as Hitler like as they could have been is that Timur was afraid this could incidentally act as a Turner diaries and so he didn’t go all in on the speeches, least he be accidentally responsible for making neo-nazis off a satire. While I can understand such a concern, when it comes to satire, my belief, you have to go all in as his Hitler does or not bother at all.

Outside of that gripe, the other characters are not as developed as they could have been, which kind of makes sense for this novel, since he seems to be attempting to put you into the perspective of someone in Hitler’s inner circle at the time or a fan of Hitler and attempt to get you to see why people liked him in the first place, allowing you to feel that stature historians and those who knew him have claimed Hitler exuded in your presence.

SUBTEXT: I do not think it is really subtle, but ultimately Hitler is more of an analogy of Germany in this book than actually there in person. He is a spectre looming over Germany and showcases Germany’s struggle with dealing about the holocaust. This is shown in the movie as well, which is why I said it isn’t really subtle. It is kind of shoved down our throats and literally said pretty much the same way I put it. Timur also wrote the screenplay, so I would presume that is the actual intent. Always appreciated when the “subtext” is shoved in our face so we cannot have our own interpretations. Multiple interpretations, like with Dracula or Frankenstein is normally one of the ways these books have longevity, so I feel that hurts it from potentially becoming a classic, even though it could be. The accidental Rocky Horror Picture show reference as Hitler’s new slogan is pretty epic and rings of an abuse boyfriend, coming back around to the honeymoon phase to repeat the cycle, so there is at least something we could come up with ourselves or discern from the book.

CONCLUSION: While the subtext is thrown in our face and the book has a few flaws, ultimately, the book is excellent. I read it in about 16 hours and I only downloaded it last night. While I wanted to read it in the German, I couldn’t pass up the deal on Amazon, so I Kindle bought it. I am very glad I did as it still have a lot to offer and is very poignant.

To be fair, never mind the criticisms above, I feel like there is a stronger version of this novel that never came to light. Had I been writing it, I would have set it in 1986, when the fall of the Berlin wall was about to happen in 1989 and racial tensions in Germany were probably even higher than they are today, along with the impeding fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Hess would of even been alive to have given the rouse more of a “is he, isn’t he?” kind of vibe and the idea of potentially driving Germany back into that type of state might of made the book have a bit more gravitas as a social commentary than a kind of buffoonish Conan O’Brian skit. Still, it works and it deserves

4 out of 5 stars.

A Review of Rocko: Static Cling

Introduction:
It is hard to believe that it has been 20 years since Rocko’s Modern Life showed up on Nickelodeon. Now, not my favorite cartoon of the time period, it was far from the worse thing ever. It had its moment, both memorable and dull, it style was similar but different from other cartoons of the time period, like Ren and Stimpy. So Netflix decided to make a modern episode that is about 45 minutes long and called it a movie. Let us take a look at it.

Synopsis:
Rocko comes back to earth after 20 years in space and a lot has changed. He has trouble adapting to the new world and in the process brings back his favorite cartoon to help save o-town from the brink of destruction.

Characters:
Still the same, except that Filburt is no longer neurotic. There is a joke at the end that seems to come round circle to this and it is brilliant if you pick up on it.

Voice acting:
Still spot on, with minor sound differences here and there, its been 20 years since they voiced these characters so it is a testament to their talent to nail it pretty 100%.

Writing:
Very Rocco with all the right beats in place and very retro jokes that is filled with fun while having a slightly meta aspect on top of a very fun nostalgia pop.

Subtext:
Rife with subtext, it takes millennial culture to task in the most loving way and also attempts to help them grow as people. Everything is right from the inability to adapt to the modern world because Rocko (Your avg. Millennial) has been stuck in space or in this case, have had their heads up their ass for 20 years and don’t care for anything but things from their youth, like cartoons. It isn’t disrespectful, but a fun ball bust.

Easter eggs:
So many, I have to watch it again. Look for the old Nickelodeon orange tape to make an appearance. Along with other fun nods to past episodes.

Conclusion:
This really could have been a horrible nostalgia pop that simply cashed in on the craze of retro everything, because people want to live in bubbles and never grow up. It pay cared to be everything the original show was and more. It felt familiar and yet fresh. I’m glad they did it overall as this seems to be the thing the world needs right now.

5 out of 5.

Fashionably Late Movie Reviews: Scream

INTRODUCTION:
With all the reviews I do, sometimes I don’t get around to reviewing old movies, especially ones I love and have impacted me a lot. One of those movies is Scream. I loved it back in 1996 and I love it today. I am reviewing some twenty three years after the fact and I am not going to hold back on my thoughts, because all is fair for a skewer or praise, even my own favorite things. So what is your favorite scary movie? One of them is Scream!

SYNOPSIS:
Woodsboro is a quiet town where not much happens. It has seen better days then the murder of a young mother, but a year after that, things become hectic, and Woodsboro is never the same again.

CHARACTERS:
Shallow as puddles. I mean, exposition attempts to give us back story, but not really in a way that is needed, since it is being shown. For instance. Dewy saying to a smoking chief, “I thought you quit” when he is smoking, yet the body language is enough for us to see he is tense, his past doesn’t make this scene more poignant than it already is. A longer movie that build up the relationships better or better chemistry between the actors would of helped a lot. Otherwise, you really don’t care for most of them.

DIALOUGE:
Not bad at all. Although I do have some issues with one aspect and that is Randy’s Rules for a horror movie and one other aspect about the boyfriend always being a suspect. First about the boyfriends, what movie was it ever the boyfriend? It never was! I’ve seen 1000’s of horror movies and this was never a thing and while I haven’t seen every single horror movie made, I still can’t even find movies where it turned out to be the boyfriend. This seems like made up bullshit that found its way into the series. Second are the rules are never actually real rules. Let’s take rule one, being a virgin. Not a single survivor girl is ever labeled a virgin, we’re just presumptuous because usually the survivor girl is typical girl next door, reads books, but the question must be asked, whose perspective are these written from? I would expect a popular chick to not want to bang the nerdy kid, but not a single man picking up the easy nerdy female ass? I get if a killer is on the loose not to run off to a room to get off, because you’re going to be venerable, but Come on now, to think every character that ever went up against a killer in these movies couldn’t get laid or never did, well, this insults my intelligence. The other two make sense, but they really aren’t rules for a horror movie, more like, how to survive period. Don’t get intoxicated for instance. Well no shit Randy Meeks! How about, always have a gun? The “I’ll be right back” aspect also barley happens in movies. It seems to me that screams meta aspect, while there, is over inferred and whatever movies Williamson was watching were not movies I was watching nor anyone else. One of the weaker parts of the movies that is never discussed.

ACTING:
When I first saw this, I hated Officer Dewey, but David Arquette is really the guy who jumps off the screen with the best acting of them all. He never hams it up on screen or has an uneven performance. I have to appreciate David and his acting through this series more now than I ever did in the past. He is really good! The rest of the cast are uneven and one wonders if this is the first acting gig for most of them or if they were too cool to bother putting in the effort on such a low brow film. The answer is probably a mixture of both. Courtney Cox gets an honorable mention, even though Gail is over the top, she seems to have taken this seriously and brought an A game perforce and she is another character I loathed in the series.

PRODUCTION:
Production is weird on this. Scream, regardless of what some think, is not Wes Craven’s finest hour. It features weird 1960’s batman angles which not only look like shit, but add nothing and I noticed this was nixed later on in the series. A poor choice that, thankfully, didn’t hinder this movie or his career, because it seems so amateur. The set style attempts to be so not 90’s that somehow it is even more 90’s than being dated would have been, if that makes sense? The clothes are not teenage choices of the era, the set dressing barley have anything 90’s about them. I would presume they wanted to go “evergreen” so it looked good no matter the year, but somehow made it look like this was created by two out of touch old men. Then there is the police, which are all dressed like 70’s California Highway patrol. I don’t know where Woodsboro is, but it seems like it should be in New England, given that Dunkin Doughnuts outside of the region where hard to come by back then, so I don’t know how these Eric Estrada fanboys were getting it.

KILLS:

Awesome! They’re just right for the film series. Gory but not over the top and weird.

SUBTEXT: None

CONCLUSION: Scream worked well in its time frame because few movies were like this. You had Jason Lives with the meta aspect and that was all. It still mostly holds up, even though the cloning of cell phones was a dated reference even then, the fact Sid manages to make a 911 call on a system that never existed in the 90s, right after she tries the phone. Back then, this would have disconnected her from the net and she would have been frustrated waiting to reconnect via dial up. Kudos to her for being the first woman to ever have DSL before it existed. The production seems to be done by out of touch old men and the acting is typical fare for these films of any era, never mind the shallow cast of character. Scream’s charm lies not in how original it was or wasn’t but in how real it was, especially in the original decade of school shooters. It could happen anywhere and that is where the really scary part comes into play. It’s a movie that, had I seen as an adult, I don’t think would of influenced me as much, but because I was the right age and right time, it ultimately is one of my favorite horror movies and I am glad that I had the chance to see it then, because it really is a great and fun movie, despite all its flaws.

3.5 out of 5.

Elysian Space Dust IPA Beer Review

https://twitter.com/Bestinyourgirl/status/1131687848510394368