![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Sigh, Let's Do the Time Warp Again
I don't know about anyone else? But regardless of what I do? I'm always thrown sideways by the time change. It's dark out - and I keep thinking it's 6:58 or almost 7pm, when in reality it's only 5:58 pm and almost 6. (I really wish they'd stop doing time change back and forth.
It just occurred to me that maybe this is the inspiration behind the song (or not as the case may be? I don't really want to know either way, and regardless - I posted it on FB too, so an annoying relative will most likely tell me) - Time Warp.
2. Watched the Associate Minister's last hurrah - so to speak - or her last sermon. The church really needs to acquire a Director of Religious Education who isn't interested in becoming a minister - this is the second one they've lost to the Minister path. There's clearly something about Religious Education that calls people to become Unitarian Minister's? That and yoga.
I didn't go in person - for various reasons - I had ambivalent feelings about the Minister in question, and my church isn't the most accessible on the planet? It has lots of steps. And I have a sciatic nerve and a weird knee. I think they installed a wheel chair lift or ramp, but they also have a ton of scaffolding - seriously everything in NYC is constantly under construction. The sidewalk curbs or the portion of the sidewalk that ends prior to hitting the street and crossing to the next sidewalk - are being replaced in my neighborhood. So walking around isn't exactly something I want to do right now? And I wasn't exactly close to the Assoc Minister, actually I'm kind of relieved she's leaving? And I can't say I didn't agree with her sentiment that letting go of this congregation and moving on to one out on Long Island, (the Assoc Ministers always go out to Long Island for some reason - the last one went to Huntington, this one to Shelter Rock), was a good idea for all involved? The church really needed to jettison the prior leadership - the music is fine, they can keep that, but the management of the church needed to be reconfigured.
Have you ever met people that you feel you are supposed to click with or should click with - and just don't no matter what you do? Or that you do sort of like, but sense that they don't really like or understand or see you - and wish you'd go away?
That's the energy I always kind of felt from the Associate Minister? I'm learning the best approach in these situations is to - back away and give that person plenty of space. It happens to me online as well. So it's not relegated to in-person interactions.
Also I'm irritable folks. I did feel guilty though for not being unhappy about her leaving. Also for not joining in the love and going to her going away party - where she gave them all tiny parting gifts. (I don't know what they were - don't really care.) But at the same time - the whole bit about being loved and loved into being which was her final sermon rang false somehow? And that was my difficulty with her - I didn't believe her? I feel at times, that people use emotional words like love and hate too loosely. Until the meaning feels stripped from them?
I don't know if any of that made sense. Perhaps it did? Perhaps it didn't?
3. Television
* I've given up on Outlander. It's not my cup of coco. I don't like it and there are too many other shows to watch instead.
* I finished Rainmaker S1 finally - this is on Netflix. It's a legal procedural. And among the better ones. There are a lot of twists and turns.
It's more serialized than most - and far more character centric. It's based on the book by John Grisham, except instead of a big Insurance firm being the bad guy, it's a law firm. So a blending of The Firm and Rainmaker, I think? It has a lot of Grisham's legal tropes in it. Grisham hates the big law firms, and tends to prefer the small law firms or guys who hang out their shingle. This may seem like a standard cliche to folks who don't have much experience in the legal profession? But there's a reason most of the lawyers who turned into fiction writers - tend to write about evil corporate law firms? They are actually evil. I liked most of the characters in the show, with the exception of Sarah Plankman, the rich entitled girlfriend of the protagonist, who chooses the evil law firm. Rich Bitch Trope - annoys me. I was done with the character by the mid-way mark.
John Slattery however as the head of the evil law firm - worked - his unflappable charm, and nonchalance - kind of makes me like him in spite of myself - he did the same thing in Mad Men. Slattery makes the smart choice to play the character as a hero not a villain. He's right hand man also impressed me - in that he is quietly charming until he's really not.
But the true standouts are Bruiser, Deck, and Melvin Pritcher. Who stole every scene they were in.
I'd watch a second season of it. I even suffered through commercials for it. The characters, with the exception of Sarah, are interesting and likable. I liked Rudy, and I found his character engaging and likable, even if he's a rather overdone Grisham trope. The actor pulled him off rather well. And I liked the other characters. The writers do a good job of giving all the characters layers, and making them complicated. The only one I struggled with was Sarah, who fell a wee bit too much into the poor little rich girl trying to please Daddy trope - she's there mainly as a counter-point to Bruiser, who also became a lawyer because of Daddy, and joined Daddy's firm. The two are counter-points to each other. Rudy doesn't appear to have one, outside of maybe Deck and Slattery's right-hand man.
Anyhow, recommend, the above doesn't really have any spoilers, or only vague ones.
* Watched two more Angel episodes from S1, She and I've Got You Under My Skin
A. "She" is the episode with the comedic dancing from Angel and Wes, and manages to get across both characters personalities with it. Also the humor of the writers - I think they were going for Seinfield's comedic bit with Elaine and the dancing? Hollywood writers like to make fun of how people dance for some reason? I'm not much of a dancer - so it tends to be a trigger for me. (I don't find it funny. Cringe, yes. Funny, no. My brother and his wife on the other hand adore it and find it hilarious.) Also demonstrative of how most people just hop up and down or wobble on dance floors. If you do anything more than that - you get noticed.
But, this round - when I saw it - I didn't cringe or leave the room or fast forward - I watched and thought, oh, that's an interesting take on Wes and Angel, and explains their relationship and helps explain why they become best friends. They actually have a lot in common. Both have Daddy issues, both want to prove something, both have been down on their luck, both are hot - but horrible at dating, and awkward dancers. Angel watches Wes make a fool of himself dancing, yet appear to be oblivious to it - then when Cordelia asks Angel to dance and enjoy himself, he imagines himself doing the same thing Wes is - and states, simply, "I don't dance."
It's a small tiny scene - and it's notable that it is mainly from Angel's perspective - but we understand Angel better. It also explains part of Angel's issues with Buffy. That Angel wasn't putting Buffy off - he just didn't want to make a fool of himself. In some respects, Wes is more secure in himself than Angel? Or less vain? Wes doesn't care that he's making a fool out of himself. He's just having fun, but Angel does care how others see him - having no reflection, he's constantly looking for it in others.
"She" gives us a boatload of info on who Angel is - and does it subtly. I was impressed by how well they did it. Angel unlike Spike isn't into food, but he does drink alcohol. And he's an artist - not good with words or dance, but good with visuals - with an adept visual memory, and an eye for detail. He states on more than one occasion - he's not much of a talker. And in one great scene - he analyzes a painting in the art museum for a crowd of onlookers, explains that Baudelaire - the art critique and poet is in the painting, and recites part of Baudelaire's poem about a vampire, stating it's possible that the poem was about a real vampire. (And more than likely the vampire in question was Angel.) Also, Baudelaire was shorter than he is in the painting, and much drunker. Throughout the series, both in Buffy and Angel - we get glimpses of Angel's artistic talent.
The plot is stupid, doesn't make a lot of sense, and isn't well explained. And the demon of the week - which was being chemistry tested as a potential love interest for Angel - didn't work. They don't to my knowledge revisit "Jifera". The plot also is a retread of various science fiction plots - done far better on Star Trek. This is however the beginnings of the demons as metaphors for human racism, misogyny and sexism, which I'm not sure really works? But has definitely been done a lot, particularly in Marvel comics. They are broadening the universe, and showing that demons aren't evil - it started with Doyle and the episode Hero, and this is yet another episode that focuses on it. The weaker episodes in both Buffy and Angel are unfortunately the ones that depict demons as not evil but metaphors for racism, xenophobia, etc. That said? It does make the series more interesting, in that it expands on the world, and makes the world a little less clear cut, and the villains more complicated. Also, much like Buffy, in the later seasons, Angel starts introducing humans as the real evil - with I've Got You Under Your Skin (Angel) and Buffy's Initiative.
[I was going to skip it - glad I didn't - you kind of need to see it, to understand the Wes/Angel and Cordy dynamic. Also, it has great character moments. I think I kind of skipped over it the first two or three times I'd watched the series. I've not watched or rewatched since roughly 2005 or thereabouts. I think the only season I've rewatched since then was S5.]
B. In I've Got You Under the Skin - the writers pull an interesting twist, actually two twists. It's another episode written by Jeannine Renshaw - who was also responsible for co-writing I Will Always Remember You, and Parting Gifts. She's known for writing for The Cleaning Lady, In the Dark, and Grey's Anatomy, among others. The episode comments heavily on The Exorcist, and kind of makes fun of it - even has the name of the priest being the same name as the director of the Exorcist, and dead. It also furthers the bond between Wes and Angel. The writers are working over-time to develop Wes and Angel's bond to equal Doyle and Angel's. And it does work in another way - if anything far better than with Doyle, since Wes excuses less of Angel's behavior, is more wary, and isn't in competition with Angel, like Doyle was for women or envious of Angel's good looks. Wes is tall dark and handsome too, with a sexy accent. He doesn't care and isn't looking for romance. Nor is he interested in Cordelia. The dynamic is a bit more interesting and the friction is slightly different - since Wes is aware that Angel can kill him, and if Angel becomes Angelus - they are screwed and he needs to form a plan to take care of Angelus. It's actually why Angel likes having him around. Angel even tells him that - "That you are willing to kill me is a good thing." What makes Angel and Buffy work so well is a combination of the snappy dialogue, and the character moments. The plot doesn't really matter - in these shows the characters come first, with world building second, and plot third. Although some of the plots are good and work very well. Better than most mystery procedurals actually.
This episode does a good job of misleading us by planting us solidly in the characters perspectives. Angel, Cordelia and Wes have father issues and parental issues. So all three leap to the conclusion initially that the "parents" are the problem, not the kids. And the father appears to be rather creepy, while the mother is over-protective and kind of nuts about angels. There's a nice joke about Angel - being like her collection of Angels, and Angel rolling his eyes. Religion is often mocked or struggled with in both series, the characters struggle with it, use it, or handle it in varying ways.
Convinced the father is the one possessed by the Ethros demon, which is shown to be almost impossible to kill and horrible beyond measure, to the point that it killed a priest - they seek to expose him by feeding the family brownies with powder that will pull out the demon hidden inside them. (It's made clear that Cordy can't cook - in that her brownies are almost inedible, only the kid possessed by the demon seems to enjoy them.)
Angel watches the father - only to be surprised by the kid being possessed by the demon.
So, the Exorcist - Take 2, right?
Wrong. At the end of the episode, when they finally pull the demon out - it's made clear that the demon wanted to be saved and was begging for them to yank it out and kill it. Since true hell was being stuck inside the kid - who had no soul, there was nothing in the kid, no conscience, no soul, nothing - a call back to the Judge being able to touch Angelus - who had no soul, no conscience, nothing in Buffy S2 (Passion). Horrified the team rushes back to the house, after killing the demon, to save the family from the kid - they make it just in time, with Kate Lockley (the detective) taking the kid away to social services for evaluation.
The episode is frightening partly because there aren't demons and in reality it's the person, who lacks conscience or a soul. The human monster is always more frightening.
One draw back of Angel - is Cordelia doesn't come along on the fights. She just provides the intel. They had to switch the visions from Doyle to Cordy, to give her something to do. In later seasons, she's more active, and less in the background.
* Watched Jurassic World: Rebirth on Peacock - this is the latest Jurassic World flick. I have a weakness for these movies and have seen all of them. I saw roughly three of them in theaters. My favorites are 1, 3, and 5, or all the ones with Sam Neil and Laura Dern in them. Film 4 wasn't bad, and slightly better than film 2. But this film is horrible. It's not the cast - Scarlett Johanassen, Marshalla Ali, Jonathan Bailey - but the direction and writing, which are abysmal. I was bored, my attention wandered, and I didn't care about the characters. The writers didn't give me enough to care. And the dialogue fell flat. Movies like Jurassic Park sink or swim based solely on dialogue. It's action, dialogue. The dialogue shows us the characters and explains the problem that requires solving. Also the plot did not work. They journey to an island below the equator in the Atlantic, that no one was supposed to visit, to collect dinosaur DNA, from mutated dinosaurs, abandoned to their own devices on the island. The DNA they wanted - was to provide a cure for heart disease - which an evil corporation would create a monopoly on. Unfortunately they have to save a dumb family that is sailing between two locations in the ocean waters that are near the island, and have various large water dinosaurs from the island swimming in it. Most of the conflict is between the corporate guy - who doesn't want anyone to know they are there - or for anyone to call for help, when they get in trouble at sea and people die, and the others who want to get help, survive, and get the DNA to save people.
It tried. But it didn't quite work for me? And I didn't care. Also Scarlett was phoning it in, along with Jonathan Bailey. The best thing in it was Marshala Ali.
Skippable.
* Welcome to Derry - this was on HBO. It's a prequel to IT. And I can't tell if it's a satire of Stephen King horror films and books or supposed to be taken seriously? It's a bit over the top? Even the credits are over the top and tongue in cheek. It's screaming satire or parody to me? And it's not real subtle about it. Reminds me a little bit of Fallout in that respect. It has an obviously fake mutant baby with wings attacking folks. When it said the origins of the shape-shifting "IT" would be revealed, I was expecting a spider - so was relieved to find a very fake, naked mutant baby complete with umbilical cord and wings ravaging Derry instead. It also surprised me by killing all the annoying child characters within the first episode. I thought, okay, that's fast. You didn't even give me time to care about the kids. I thought I'd get at least five episodes with them. But no, it took out everyone but the three teenage girls. I almost felt sorry for the child actors playing the boys - short roles.
There's a more serious and less entertaining and somewhat overdone story about strange goings on at the military base. It reminds me of Stranger Things - and I'm thinking, okay, we already have Stranger Things - are you trying to do your own version? And is the true origin of IT from the military base? Please no. This has been kind of overdone by now?
So, not sure if I'll continue. They said it was scarier than IT? Idk. I found it kind of ridiculous and hilarious in places. I have a feeling it's intentionally funny. Because there's no way they meant me to take the obviously fake mutant baby flinging little kids around a movie theater seriously?
***
Off to bed, have to get up early for eye doctor's appointment tomorrow.
I don't know about anyone else? But regardless of what I do? I'm always thrown sideways by the time change. It's dark out - and I keep thinking it's 6:58 or almost 7pm, when in reality it's only 5:58 pm and almost 6. (I really wish they'd stop doing time change back and forth.
It just occurred to me that maybe this is the inspiration behind the song (or not as the case may be? I don't really want to know either way, and regardless - I posted it on FB too, so an annoying relative will most likely tell me) - Time Warp.
2. Watched the Associate Minister's last hurrah - so to speak - or her last sermon. The church really needs to acquire a Director of Religious Education who isn't interested in becoming a minister - this is the second one they've lost to the Minister path. There's clearly something about Religious Education that calls people to become Unitarian Minister's? That and yoga.
I didn't go in person - for various reasons - I had ambivalent feelings about the Minister in question, and my church isn't the most accessible on the planet? It has lots of steps. And I have a sciatic nerve and a weird knee. I think they installed a wheel chair lift or ramp, but they also have a ton of scaffolding - seriously everything in NYC is constantly under construction. The sidewalk curbs or the portion of the sidewalk that ends prior to hitting the street and crossing to the next sidewalk - are being replaced in my neighborhood. So walking around isn't exactly something I want to do right now? And I wasn't exactly close to the Assoc Minister, actually I'm kind of relieved she's leaving? And I can't say I didn't agree with her sentiment that letting go of this congregation and moving on to one out on Long Island, (the Assoc Ministers always go out to Long Island for some reason - the last one went to Huntington, this one to Shelter Rock), was a good idea for all involved? The church really needed to jettison the prior leadership - the music is fine, they can keep that, but the management of the church needed to be reconfigured.
Have you ever met people that you feel you are supposed to click with or should click with - and just don't no matter what you do? Or that you do sort of like, but sense that they don't really like or understand or see you - and wish you'd go away?
That's the energy I always kind of felt from the Associate Minister? I'm learning the best approach in these situations is to - back away and give that person plenty of space. It happens to me online as well. So it's not relegated to in-person interactions.
Also I'm irritable folks. I did feel guilty though for not being unhappy about her leaving. Also for not joining in the love and going to her going away party - where she gave them all tiny parting gifts. (I don't know what they were - don't really care.) But at the same time - the whole bit about being loved and loved into being which was her final sermon rang false somehow? And that was my difficulty with her - I didn't believe her? I feel at times, that people use emotional words like love and hate too loosely. Until the meaning feels stripped from them?
I don't know if any of that made sense. Perhaps it did? Perhaps it didn't?
3. Television
* I've given up on Outlander. It's not my cup of coco. I don't like it and there are too many other shows to watch instead.
* I finished Rainmaker S1 finally - this is on Netflix. It's a legal procedural. And among the better ones. There are a lot of twists and turns.
It's more serialized than most - and far more character centric. It's based on the book by John Grisham, except instead of a big Insurance firm being the bad guy, it's a law firm. So a blending of The Firm and Rainmaker, I think? It has a lot of Grisham's legal tropes in it. Grisham hates the big law firms, and tends to prefer the small law firms or guys who hang out their shingle. This may seem like a standard cliche to folks who don't have much experience in the legal profession? But there's a reason most of the lawyers who turned into fiction writers - tend to write about evil corporate law firms? They are actually evil. I liked most of the characters in the show, with the exception of Sarah Plankman, the rich entitled girlfriend of the protagonist, who chooses the evil law firm. Rich Bitch Trope - annoys me. I was done with the character by the mid-way mark.
John Slattery however as the head of the evil law firm - worked - his unflappable charm, and nonchalance - kind of makes me like him in spite of myself - he did the same thing in Mad Men. Slattery makes the smart choice to play the character as a hero not a villain. He's right hand man also impressed me - in that he is quietly charming until he's really not.
But the true standouts are Bruiser, Deck, and Melvin Pritcher. Who stole every scene they were in.
I'd watch a second season of it. I even suffered through commercials for it. The characters, with the exception of Sarah, are interesting and likable. I liked Rudy, and I found his character engaging and likable, even if he's a rather overdone Grisham trope. The actor pulled him off rather well. And I liked the other characters. The writers do a good job of giving all the characters layers, and making them complicated. The only one I struggled with was Sarah, who fell a wee bit too much into the poor little rich girl trying to please Daddy trope - she's there mainly as a counter-point to Bruiser, who also became a lawyer because of Daddy, and joined Daddy's firm. The two are counter-points to each other. Rudy doesn't appear to have one, outside of maybe Deck and Slattery's right-hand man.
Anyhow, recommend, the above doesn't really have any spoilers, or only vague ones.
* Watched two more Angel episodes from S1, She and I've Got You Under My Skin
A. "She" is the episode with the comedic dancing from Angel and Wes, and manages to get across both characters personalities with it. Also the humor of the writers - I think they were going for Seinfield's comedic bit with Elaine and the dancing? Hollywood writers like to make fun of how people dance for some reason? I'm not much of a dancer - so it tends to be a trigger for me. (I don't find it funny. Cringe, yes. Funny, no. My brother and his wife on the other hand adore it and find it hilarious.) Also demonstrative of how most people just hop up and down or wobble on dance floors. If you do anything more than that - you get noticed.
But, this round - when I saw it - I didn't cringe or leave the room or fast forward - I watched and thought, oh, that's an interesting take on Wes and Angel, and explains their relationship and helps explain why they become best friends. They actually have a lot in common. Both have Daddy issues, both want to prove something, both have been down on their luck, both are hot - but horrible at dating, and awkward dancers. Angel watches Wes make a fool of himself dancing, yet appear to be oblivious to it - then when Cordelia asks Angel to dance and enjoy himself, he imagines himself doing the same thing Wes is - and states, simply, "I don't dance."
It's a small tiny scene - and it's notable that it is mainly from Angel's perspective - but we understand Angel better. It also explains part of Angel's issues with Buffy. That Angel wasn't putting Buffy off - he just didn't want to make a fool of himself. In some respects, Wes is more secure in himself than Angel? Or less vain? Wes doesn't care that he's making a fool out of himself. He's just having fun, but Angel does care how others see him - having no reflection, he's constantly looking for it in others.
"She" gives us a boatload of info on who Angel is - and does it subtly. I was impressed by how well they did it. Angel unlike Spike isn't into food, but he does drink alcohol. And he's an artist - not good with words or dance, but good with visuals - with an adept visual memory, and an eye for detail. He states on more than one occasion - he's not much of a talker. And in one great scene - he analyzes a painting in the art museum for a crowd of onlookers, explains that Baudelaire - the art critique and poet is in the painting, and recites part of Baudelaire's poem about a vampire, stating it's possible that the poem was about a real vampire. (And more than likely the vampire in question was Angel.) Also, Baudelaire was shorter than he is in the painting, and much drunker. Throughout the series, both in Buffy and Angel - we get glimpses of Angel's artistic talent.
The plot is stupid, doesn't make a lot of sense, and isn't well explained. And the demon of the week - which was being chemistry tested as a potential love interest for Angel - didn't work. They don't to my knowledge revisit "Jifera". The plot also is a retread of various science fiction plots - done far better on Star Trek. This is however the beginnings of the demons as metaphors for human racism, misogyny and sexism, which I'm not sure really works? But has definitely been done a lot, particularly in Marvel comics. They are broadening the universe, and showing that demons aren't evil - it started with Doyle and the episode Hero, and this is yet another episode that focuses on it. The weaker episodes in both Buffy and Angel are unfortunately the ones that depict demons as not evil but metaphors for racism, xenophobia, etc. That said? It does make the series more interesting, in that it expands on the world, and makes the world a little less clear cut, and the villains more complicated. Also, much like Buffy, in the later seasons, Angel starts introducing humans as the real evil - with I've Got You Under Your Skin (Angel) and Buffy's Initiative.
[I was going to skip it - glad I didn't - you kind of need to see it, to understand the Wes/Angel and Cordy dynamic. Also, it has great character moments. I think I kind of skipped over it the first two or three times I'd watched the series. I've not watched or rewatched since roughly 2005 or thereabouts. I think the only season I've rewatched since then was S5.]
B. In I've Got You Under the Skin - the writers pull an interesting twist, actually two twists. It's another episode written by Jeannine Renshaw - who was also responsible for co-writing I Will Always Remember You, and Parting Gifts. She's known for writing for The Cleaning Lady, In the Dark, and Grey's Anatomy, among others. The episode comments heavily on The Exorcist, and kind of makes fun of it - even has the name of the priest being the same name as the director of the Exorcist, and dead. It also furthers the bond between Wes and Angel. The writers are working over-time to develop Wes and Angel's bond to equal Doyle and Angel's. And it does work in another way - if anything far better than with Doyle, since Wes excuses less of Angel's behavior, is more wary, and isn't in competition with Angel, like Doyle was for women or envious of Angel's good looks. Wes is tall dark and handsome too, with a sexy accent. He doesn't care and isn't looking for romance. Nor is he interested in Cordelia. The dynamic is a bit more interesting and the friction is slightly different - since Wes is aware that Angel can kill him, and if Angel becomes Angelus - they are screwed and he needs to form a plan to take care of Angelus. It's actually why Angel likes having him around. Angel even tells him that - "That you are willing to kill me is a good thing." What makes Angel and Buffy work so well is a combination of the snappy dialogue, and the character moments. The plot doesn't really matter - in these shows the characters come first, with world building second, and plot third. Although some of the plots are good and work very well. Better than most mystery procedurals actually.
This episode does a good job of misleading us by planting us solidly in the characters perspectives. Angel, Cordelia and Wes have father issues and parental issues. So all three leap to the conclusion initially that the "parents" are the problem, not the kids. And the father appears to be rather creepy, while the mother is over-protective and kind of nuts about angels. There's a nice joke about Angel - being like her collection of Angels, and Angel rolling his eyes. Religion is often mocked or struggled with in both series, the characters struggle with it, use it, or handle it in varying ways.
Convinced the father is the one possessed by the Ethros demon, which is shown to be almost impossible to kill and horrible beyond measure, to the point that it killed a priest - they seek to expose him by feeding the family brownies with powder that will pull out the demon hidden inside them. (It's made clear that Cordy can't cook - in that her brownies are almost inedible, only the kid possessed by the demon seems to enjoy them.)
Angel watches the father - only to be surprised by the kid being possessed by the demon.
So, the Exorcist - Take 2, right?
Wrong. At the end of the episode, when they finally pull the demon out - it's made clear that the demon wanted to be saved and was begging for them to yank it out and kill it. Since true hell was being stuck inside the kid - who had no soul, there was nothing in the kid, no conscience, no soul, nothing - a call back to the Judge being able to touch Angelus - who had no soul, no conscience, nothing in Buffy S2 (Passion). Horrified the team rushes back to the house, after killing the demon, to save the family from the kid - they make it just in time, with Kate Lockley (the detective) taking the kid away to social services for evaluation.
The episode is frightening partly because there aren't demons and in reality it's the person, who lacks conscience or a soul. The human monster is always more frightening.
One draw back of Angel - is Cordelia doesn't come along on the fights. She just provides the intel. They had to switch the visions from Doyle to Cordy, to give her something to do. In later seasons, she's more active, and less in the background.
* Watched Jurassic World: Rebirth on Peacock - this is the latest Jurassic World flick. I have a weakness for these movies and have seen all of them. I saw roughly three of them in theaters. My favorites are 1, 3, and 5, or all the ones with Sam Neil and Laura Dern in them. Film 4 wasn't bad, and slightly better than film 2. But this film is horrible. It's not the cast - Scarlett Johanassen, Marshalla Ali, Jonathan Bailey - but the direction and writing, which are abysmal. I was bored, my attention wandered, and I didn't care about the characters. The writers didn't give me enough to care. And the dialogue fell flat. Movies like Jurassic Park sink or swim based solely on dialogue. It's action, dialogue. The dialogue shows us the characters and explains the problem that requires solving. Also the plot did not work. They journey to an island below the equator in the Atlantic, that no one was supposed to visit, to collect dinosaur DNA, from mutated dinosaurs, abandoned to their own devices on the island. The DNA they wanted - was to provide a cure for heart disease - which an evil corporation would create a monopoly on. Unfortunately they have to save a dumb family that is sailing between two locations in the ocean waters that are near the island, and have various large water dinosaurs from the island swimming in it. Most of the conflict is between the corporate guy - who doesn't want anyone to know they are there - or for anyone to call for help, when they get in trouble at sea and people die, and the others who want to get help, survive, and get the DNA to save people.
It tried. But it didn't quite work for me? And I didn't care. Also Scarlett was phoning it in, along with Jonathan Bailey. The best thing in it was Marshala Ali.
Skippable.
* Welcome to Derry - this was on HBO. It's a prequel to IT. And I can't tell if it's a satire of Stephen King horror films and books or supposed to be taken seriously? It's a bit over the top? Even the credits are over the top and tongue in cheek. It's screaming satire or parody to me? And it's not real subtle about it. Reminds me a little bit of Fallout in that respect. It has an obviously fake mutant baby with wings attacking folks. When it said the origins of the shape-shifting "IT" would be revealed, I was expecting a spider - so was relieved to find a very fake, naked mutant baby complete with umbilical cord and wings ravaging Derry instead. It also surprised me by killing all the annoying child characters within the first episode. I thought, okay, that's fast. You didn't even give me time to care about the kids. I thought I'd get at least five episodes with them. But no, it took out everyone but the three teenage girls. I almost felt sorry for the child actors playing the boys - short roles.
There's a more serious and less entertaining and somewhat overdone story about strange goings on at the military base. It reminds me of Stranger Things - and I'm thinking, okay, we already have Stranger Things - are you trying to do your own version? And is the true origin of IT from the military base? Please no. This has been kind of overdone by now?
So, not sure if I'll continue. They said it was scarier than IT? Idk. I found it kind of ridiculous and hilarious in places. I have a feeling it's intentionally funny. Because there's no way they meant me to take the obviously fake mutant baby flinging little kids around a movie theater seriously?
***
Off to bed, have to get up early for eye doctor's appointment tomorrow.
no subject
Date: 2025-11-03 07:34 am (UTC)And, yeah, the latest Jurassic Park/World/whatever movie was largely missable, it didn't make much sense and I didn't care who died.
no subject
Date: 2025-11-03 09:33 pm (UTC)I didn't even understand why the last film was entitled Jurassic World: Rebirth - what was being reborn exactly? I felt sorry for the actors trapped inside that movie - I hope they were paid very well.
no subject
Date: 2025-11-03 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-11-03 09:31 pm (UTC)Also it didn't help that every single lead character's arc is furthered with rape. And varying types of rape, sexual assault, and how they handle it. The writer of the books and the television series kind of lean into the sexual violence and the violence of the time period a wee bit too much. I had the same issues with Game of Thrones. It's not that I can't watch violence - I can and have? But I prefer that it not be exploitative or overused.
no subject
Date: 2025-11-03 07:41 pm (UTC)Also good to know not to bother with the new Jurassic Park. I'm not sure I've been taken with any of them since the first, they just all seem like clones of one another.
And that was my difficulty with her - I didn't believe her? I feel at times, that people use emotional words like love and hate too loosely. Until the meaning feels stripped from them?
I agree with you on this, they're just overused. And I feel like they're sometimes expected, even when it's false or misleading. Saw that at a funeral not long ago and felt it robbed the process of any real use, when you're just going to spout platitudes about someone.
no subject
Date: 2025-11-03 09:26 pm (UTC)I don't care for horror anyway, but I do get sucked into movies that have a mystery to them.
I am much the same way? I don't really like horror in of itself - I like the problem solving/puzzle aspect or mystery aspect to it. Stranger Things, Supernatural, Surreal Estate, Buffy, Angel all have the problem solving aspect. Haunting of Hill House has that - as did the Woman in Black. I get curious and want to see how they resolve the problem or figure out the mystery? I also like supernatural soap opera ...so there is that. But not horror per se?
Derry is just - how can we shock and gross out the audience? And it is a bit over the top, and feels very much like a parody or satire. I liked Fallout better?
True on Jurassic - like I said the only ones I enjoyed are the ones with Sam Neil and Laura Dern in them, mainly because Sam Neil adds a kind of credibility and charm to it (also, he's an actor I have a crush on and I like him in these films). They are also the only ones that don't feel like copies of each other, and are a bit better written. They are first one, the second with William H Macy and Tea Leoni - who hire Grant to help them save their idiot kid who went water skiing with Leonie's second hubby near the island, and the fifth one with Pratt, Bryce-Dallas Howard, the two kids from the original flick, Neil, Dern, Goldblume - and that's about saving the dinosaurs from the evil corporation. All the others are forgettable - and the last one is just gadawful. (And that's coming from someone who actually enjoyed the Pratt films, even if I can't remember the plot of either of them.)
See? That's a horror film/monster film that I enjoy - because they are solving a problem, and it has the science fiction component, ethical question. 1, 3, and 5 do at any rate. I'm not sure about the rest.
And I feel like they're sometimes expected, even when it's false or misleading.
Agree. Wales ended every phone call with I love you - and it irritated me, because it felt manipulative. I didn't believe her. And the Minister's use of "love" or being "loved into being" rang false as well?