Love Never Dies....I wish this show would though....

So, after the many success of Andrew Lloyd Webber...Cats, Evita, Jesus Christ Superstar and The Phantom of the Opera, he thought to himself, let me try for lightning one more time and decided that the only way to do that would be to take the monumental success of Phantom and milk it for all it's worth. Thus the monstrous creation of Love Never Dies was born.

It might be ironic that I'm using "monstrous creation" to describe a show in which the main character could also be described as a "monstrous creation" but I don't know how else to put it. There are just so many things wrong with this show that I don't even know if I can put it all into coherent sentences. But I can try.

Where do I begin...? (SPOILERS)

+The original musical was set in 1881. Andrew Lloyd Webber (who I will be referring to as "ALW" from now on) decided that the new musical would be set "ten years after the original story" in 1907...now I don't know who decided to do the math on this one but they should fire that guy. Ten years in the future would be 1891. 1907 is 26 years in the future. By that time, Christine would be a matron of 40-something years of age and the Phantom would either be really old or a corpse already. Oooh, romantic. I think the only reason they decided to place it further in time was so that the costume and hair people could make Christine into a Gibson girl. Why else would they put it so far ahead?

+They changed the Phantom's age AGAIN. They wanted to make the Phantom closer in age to Christine so it wouldn't be creepy when he was all seducing her. They seem to forget...the Phantom is a creepy old man. He may be misguided and tragic and a musical genius but he is also creepy. It's part of his charm I suppose. Which actually makes sense, I mean considering he's so old and yet has never loved or felt loved, it makes it even more pity-inducing. He is the original 40-year old virgin.

But okay, obviously ALW changed the age from Leroux's original story. There the Phantom was closer to 60...so he's shaved off 20 years off his age. Why, Phantom, you are looking mighty good for a supposedly 60 year old. I get it, it makes it more of a love triangle if the Phantom is younger. But if you're gonna change something keep it consistent! Don't say all of a sudden, now the Phantom is only 10 years older than Christine because then it's like spitting in the wind. It's like everything I changed before is of no matter, what I do now matters. And changing his age alters who the Phantom is, it changes the amount of pity you have for him. It almost changes the most base thing about his character. It takes away some of the experiences he's had, some of his life which makes up who he is. How would he have made it to Persia and back in his short 30 year life span? I mean it's not like he could fly there.

+The fact that it takes place in Coney Island. Really? Coney Island? That's what you're gonna go with. He's gonna go from Paris, which has some of the most beautiful architecture, some of the best views, a beautiful city, to CONEY ISLAND? First of all, why would he go to America? It's not like he has friends there. Or anywhere. But out of all the places he could pick, why America? We know he's probably been to Persia. But why not England? Or Switzerland? Or Belgium? No one would look for him in Belgium...(Why do I pick on Belgium? Because as Hugh Laurie says, they're small.) It would be easier for him to disappear on a continent which house people that speak more the 2 languages rather than in a country where the citizens have problem speaking one. Or disappear to Asia, he could probably roam around and never be found out again. But if America is where he wants, then out of all the places he could go, why CONEY ISLAND? It says that he owns his own carnival called "Phantasma"...really? A carnival? It is said that he was in a cage at a traveling show before he escaped if we're taking the musical to be canon. If that's the case, then why in all things holy would he want to own a show of his own? Does it seem like he would be a good business man? That this business would be something he would be interested in at all? The way he's portrayed in the musical seems like all he cares about is music and Christine, there are no little boy aspirations to own a carnival of his own. He probably had horrible experiences at that show, I mean he escaped from it, didn't he? He didn't stay and have a grand ol' time being locked in a cage.

+The fact that Madame Giry and Meg helped him escape. I know it's convenient to have characters already know about him from the first musical but they never struck me as the type to actually want to get involved with the Phantom at all. Madame Giry helped Raoul get to a certain point underground but then said, "This is as far as I dare go..." and left him right quick. Meg made it all the way down there but she was just curious. And Meg and Madame Giry seem to have a pretty close and caring relationship. Why then would Madame Giry ever sell Meg off as a prostitute to make money for a guy she doesn't have any connection to? Doesn't she care about her daughter? And then Meg being jealous of Christine, she doesn't have ANY connection to the Phantom. It doesn't make sense. It wasn't like he was speaking to her in her dreams or tried seducing her and found out she had like a horrible voice or something and then decided "F*** that" and moved on. I doubt he even knew who she was.

+Raoul being a drunk and a gambler with no love for Christine. Okay, just to get this straight, I'm not a Christine/Raoul shipper or a Christine/Erik shipper. I just go with whatever the actual story says. He may be a fop, pompous and not as passionate but give the guy some slack. If there was one thing that was undeniable, it's that he loved Christine. He had to, to compete at all with the Phantom. He had to be sweet, endearing, stable, the light side of love, everything the Phantom seemed to lack. So for him to be angry all the time, a drunk and a gambler, goes against his character and sells him short. The audience has to believe that they are in love. While we're obviously siding with the Phantom, we have to understand why she leaves him. Only someone worthy can be the "other man" or else we wouldn't even consider him as the other side of this triangle and then the whole story would sort of implode on itself. Every time he would say "I love you" or "Don't throw your life away for my sake," the audience would just laugh.

+Christine loving the Phantom and having a child with him. The only way this story works is if Phantom's love for Christine is unrequited. You have to pity the man and understand why she can't be with him. There are many different kinds of love and I think the kind of love she had for the Phantom was not a romantic one. Actually I don't think she loved him at all. I think she pitied him in the end but pity isn't love. She made her choice, and it was with Raoul. I don't like how they changed that part of the musical to make a smoother transition between it and the sequel. Really, it's contrary to the words they are singing. Christine is angry at that part. She doesn't understand why the Phantom has such an infatuation with her or why he's doing all these things to hurt her now. She had never given him any such reason for this abuse or a sign that she loved him back. Those hypnotized scenes during "Music of the Night" don't count. Every time afterward she is scared of him or in awe of him. She knows she could never return the amount of intensity he has when it comes to her. And she and Raoul have a past together. So when she leaves the Phantom in the Final Lair scene it's feeling of relief that she can just leave all this behind. When she comes to return the ring she is not crying her eyes out and needing Raoul to physically take her away, it's more of a look of pity, of a returning of something she cannot possibly receive. And then she hurries away and lives her life! She doesn't have a son with the Phantom...how was that even...when did that even occur? If she can't look at the man without his mask on, how did she do something that requires physical intimacy? That is one thing that annoyed me about Kay's book. Christine goes back to visit the Phantom who is on his deathbed, the result of years of drug addiction and she somehow conceives a child with him. On his deathbed. How did they possibly get it on? He's supposed to be dying, and I don't know about you but I thought sex took energy. Energy he doesn't have...while he's DYING. Anyway, even in Leroux's original novel Erik tells her that he knows she loves Raoul. So even the Phantom in his rage induced delusions could see it. ...argh.

+The music was...not ALW's best work. There isn't anything exciting about the music. It's actually very boring stuff and very repetitive. It's been done before, it doesn't need to be done again, to such a horrible plot too. The Coney Island Waltz was one phrase over and over again and I don't need to hear it over and over again. I just wanted it to be over and then the title song "Love Never Dies"...dear Lord in heaven...Even if you have training it's difficult to sing. After a while it just sound like screeching. I don't know what ALW was thinking when he started composing these melodies but sometimes the human ear needs to rest from the highnotes or else you feel like your nose is going to start bleeding or your eyeballs will burst or something from the pressure. And for every song that "Christine" sings, she always has the most ear splitting high notes. In Phantom of the Opera, he knew how to utilize those highnotes as triumphant moments like at the end of "Think of Me," to show that Christine is actually an amazing singer like at the end of "Phantom of the Opera" or moments where there needs to be clarity like "Yet in his eyes..." or emotional moments like at the end of "Wishing you were somehow here again" not for the whole damn song. Which is how it is for "Love Never Dies" at least during the extensive and very long chorus section. In other songs too like "Once Upon Another Time" her whole part is extremely high as well as in "Beneath a Moonless Sky". The songs are TOO operatic in my opinion and I'm not one to say that since I love love love classical music but it just doesn't fit with the setting and how can half the songs be operatic and yet the other half be carnival music? At least with "Phantom" they were all in an opera house so it makes more sense and the songs balanced on a fine line between too opera and too musical theater. I would even argue that the original musical had actual songs that were all musical theater and less opera with just hints of opera to set the tone like with the addition of the made up Operas "Hannibal" and "Il Muto".

This is going to get sort of technical--I've noticed that ALW likes to reuse musical phrases. Much of his music is a repetition of specific phrases. (This means I've listened to this musical a LOT to notice). For example, "Music of the Night" if you actually sing it, it's a very repetitive song. There are about five verses, three times to sing something like a chorus and two bridges or in letter terms it would look something like this: AABCABCABB1. It's long and if you're actually singing it, it can get kind of boring without any acting behind it. But when you watch a good actor take the song and put everything behind it, you forget about the repetitive nature of the song and just go with it. Which is how it is in the original musical. Take a similar type of song like "Til I Hear You Sing" from Love Never Dies and it's extremely boring. Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good song, but it takes way too long to build to any sort of climax, especially at the snail's pace everyone seems to sing it. "Music of the Night" there's a peak in the song by the first "C"and then a second one by the second "C" which takes you on a roller coaster of emotion. "Til I Hear You Sing" starts off really slowly to save all the emotion for the end but by that time I'm already sleeping. Three verses and a chorus goes by before any sort of emotional stirring goes on. But in the original musical ALW puts in all of these hints of beautiful melodies on top of the songs. In opera terms you would call them Recitativos, the sections before the Arias start that are just sung dialogue. A lot of times they are really beautiful melody snippets and ALW puts those in too which shake up a score that could be, if not careful, extremely repetitive. Parts like "Yet in his eyes..." or "Twisted every way" or "I have brought you...", the very beginning of "Point of No Return", "Little Lotte" etc. Even his overture, when I had listened to it again more closely, had added flourishes that I hadn't even heard before. A far more complex and intricate musical score than Love Never Dies. "Prima Donna" alone had seven different parts with people singing over each other and the melodies cascading in and out to give the listener a different type of musical experience. And it pains me to say these things because ALW is such a great composer who can write all kinds of music. It's amazing that he can go from Starlight Express and Jesus Christ Superstar which are more rock based music to Evita and Cats which are more traditional musical theater to freaking writing his own OPERA even if it was only a few snippets of it (Il Muto and Hannibal). To go from electric guitars to writing for a pipe organ! I mean only this man could do it. The amount of talent he has always astonishes me. So to go from that to writing "Bathing Beauty"...is extremely sad. (And supposedly the Phantom composed the little gem that is "Bathing Beauty"...he would have rathered skewer his ear drums than compose that sort of musical drivel.)

+The casting--well people know how I feel about Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess. I must say that Ramin has an amazing range though. He truly can go all over the place on the scale but how many times do I have to say it? The Phantom is a TENOR. He has a beautiful voice and has a great range but I still think that his voice should be a tenor voice. So to write a song for the Phantom where most of the notes are low...I don't know. It's just wrong to me. I know a lot of people say that Ramin is a baritenor but I think he sounds best at the lower notes that have some power behind them rather than higher notes. He's always a bit thin at the higher notes or he blasts them out and gets off-key which I don't like. And he's not a classically trained singer which I also don't like. I can hear it in his voice how he uses his throat more than his diaphragm. He's better than Gerard Butler (of course a lot of people are better than Butler...but I digress) but he isn't as polished as the Phantom's voice should be. He's supposed to be pitch-perfect and have a bell-like clarity which Karimloo does not have.

And Sierra Boggess's voice is just too screechy for me. Of course, with those songs it's easier to be. She did redeem herself with the acting though so that's good. Just not a fan of her singing.

Ugh. This musical just makes me so annoyed. It's like he just threw out his original one and I hate it when people try to change something that is so great already. It gives me all sorts of evil glee to know that it will never come to Broadway. Good for you Broadway, give that theater space to a musical that is actually good and leave this show to die.

The X Factor: Review

The show is rather bad isn't it?

I don't know what there is about it but I just wasn't that impressed. While I had little love for American Idol, I feel I still prefer that show to the one I watched last night. Maybe it's because of the simpering flattery of four judges who aren't that famous to deserve such words of reverence or the very bewildeirng song choice or maybe the contestants themselves who aren't up to snuff but I had no love for the show yesterday.

Let's start with the Judges. Paula Abdul, Nicole Scherzinger, L.A. Reid and Simon Cowell would not know a great voice if they got bludgeoned with it. Either that or they are under contract to be extremely nice to every contestant which seems more likely the case. Because each singer was not the greatest ever. Maybe saying that on national TV was more like a confession in the judges' own inadequacies for none said anything of the sort, the artists were all praised to high heaven. The song choices were horrid and quite confusing. The need to "label" a singer as something one-dimensional, sickening. How is anyone supposed to be a musician when they are only allowed one type of music? Why pick songs that are either so out-dated or so out of touch with the artist? Why not allow the singers to pick songs they feel are the best suited to their OWN personality? What is the purpose of these so called "coaches" who are just leading them down the wrong path? It just seems like one big ego trip for Simon Cowell and maybe a little for the rest of the judges, so they can be in control of everything.

And the singers! What sort of travesty are they? Most of them weren't even on tune. Maybe it was the extremely bad choice of song with which they were forced to contend with or a deep-rooted nervousness at being live, but half of the singers were not on key. I kept waiting for them to become aware of their backing track, of the fact that they were not with it but they always disappointed. The only artists worth noting were Melanie Amaro, Rachel Crow, Drew, Astro and Marcus Canty. The rest could go, in my humble opinion.

This just shows how much of a judgemental person I am. I think if I was a jugde on that show I would be the meanest one there. I can hear off-key singing from a mile away and that would be my ultimate concern and ultimate fixation. I also have read way too much Phantom books so the title character's acerbic wit is now imprinted on my brain for now.

Let's hope they start getting better and that America doesn't vote the best off or else there will be no hope for this show.

Who wanted a second season?? ...

Tamora Pierce's "Mastiff" --Book Review (SPOILERS)

I have always loved Tamora Pierce's books. I remember reading them since I was in 7th grade and one of my friends came in with it and was giggling and sort of scandalized that anyone would write about periods in a book meant for pre-teens and teens. But I started reading Alanna and was hooked ever since.

I've kept up with reading Pierce's books even as I grew older. There's something about them that goes deeper than the demographic they are geared towards. I love the gritty realism that she places in all of her "fantasy" books. They talk about mud and guts, all matter of vomit and piss and dung, the unfortunate reality of periods and puberty, hormones, you name it. Something that other books don't really go into for probably good reason. It takes away the "glamour" of the book. But for someone who knows that the medieval ages weren't all kings and queens, funny hats, gleaming jewels and sharp swords but a place where there was filth everywhere and disease running rampant in the city streets, Pierce's books (all placed in another world but during a period much like our Medieval Era) bring a startling amount of truth to the conditions of how humans lived back then. Now, her characters have the added comfort of magic to help ease their tough lives but she's careful to keep the setting as practical as possible.

She also writes all about women power and I love love love her for that. These are the books that little girls should be reading. They inspire strength and power in women, that girls can do anything no matter how much men may try to put us down, that we are worth something, not meant to be just stuck in the kitchen "barefoot and pregnant" but can do something worthwhile with out lives. I have to say I get some of my "women power" streak from her books. Her heroines are all people to look up to, overcoming adversity and society's norms with determination, perseverance and a steel will to do what is right, to not stand down for the sake of their fellow women and men. All lessons that should be learned by women today really. That we are not second class citizens, that we should not let our bodies be exploited, that we need to fight for our equality and change men's thinking of what a woman is or what women should be. We are strong. Not the lessons from books like Twilight where the woman is there to be helpless and the damsel-in-distress. Where she is only meant to be the girlfriend or wife of a "powerful" man.

Tamora Pierce's Beka Cooper series is about a Provost's Guard named Beka Cooper. The Provost's Guards are like the cops of the bigger cities. They are nicknamed "Dogs" because well I don't know why. Throughout the series, the audience gets to watch Beka grow up from trainee to full-fledged Guard. In Mastiff she is a fourth year Dog and on her biggest "Hunt" yet. The King's son gets kidnapped and made to be a slave. There's all sorts of politics involved like the fact that the King is trying to wage a bigger tax on the nobles and mages of the land so they kidnapped the Prince to gain leverage on the King before plotting to kill the King, Queen and Prince and put the King's brother on the throne, someone who can be more easily controlled.

It's an engaging book and I couldn't put it down. She weaves the fantastical and the hyper-real together in a such a way that the magic almost seems real. The characters are inventive and amazing. There are a lot of them though, and hard to keep track of. I felt the pace dragged a bit because a lot of it is truly a hunt, where they're on the road a lot, camping and searching for the missing Prince. Because it is written from Beka's perspective, a lot of the book is Beka's thoughts or observations which can get bogged down in directions of where they are or what her deeper emotions may be. There was a bit less action this time around. I thought the traitor plot was the most interesting. Once there was even a hint that there might be a traitor, the whole time you're trying to guess who it is. The end was a shock to me. I had a feeling Tunstall might die from a bit of foreshadowing in the beginning but I didn't think he was going to be the traitor. That was the only part that upset me the most because two books are spent with him being a great person and in this one he turns out to be one of the bad guys. I felt that it went against his personality actually and when he dies I was feeling extremely upset. I didn't think he had it in him to be a childkiller or a traitor to the Kingdom. He ends up dying and everyone doesn't feel that bad. Beka spends a few paragraphs grieving for him and then that's it while I'm still reeling from the shock. At the end no seems to feel bad for him at all. He was Beka's partner and he's just forgotten, just like that. It seriously felt like he was out of character for the end of the book. But what I like about Pierce is that she does add things like that, that people are not as good as everyone thinks or not as bad especially in the subsequent novels that she has been publishing. Everyone has a bit of both in them and she's right to try to make as complex a character as she can. It's upsetting but I'm sure Benedict Arnold was a great guy before he decided to become a traitor.

That doesn't mean I don't still feel really upset. I shouldn't be this upset about a fictional character but I do get attached to them. And none of her other books in this series had meaningless deaths of people that I cared about so I guess it was due. But she has a tendency of killing off people that I've grown attached to. In Alanna, Faithful dies or er returns to his rightful place and I was extremely sad about that, as well as her brother Tom, Master Si-Cham and Liam. In Daine's books, she killed off Rikash. In Kel's books, who didn't she kill off...? There was a high death toll in those books and each one was meant to be like a stab to your heart.

And the end was a bit rushed. It was unfortunate that she didn't expand the ending just a bit to Beka and Farmer's wedding. I did like her subtle building of their relationship though. It wasn't too all off a sudden that they loved each other and there wasn't the overdone underlying sexual tension that's been prevalent in a lot of fiction lately. It was more gradually built like how most relationships are and then there was a revelation about the other person that is more in line with how a lot of relationships are today.

All in all, I would recommend this book for all Tamora Pierce lovers. It was a solid addition and ending to the series but I wouldn't consider it her strongest work. It was a bit too convoluted in description and plot with too many threads of story trying to come together in one cohesive book which I don't think worked as well.

I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Blonde vs. Blonde

Two of my favorite shows have added new characters to their line ups. Morgan Brody, a plucky young CSI from LA joins the Las Vegas Crime Lab and a Lori Westin, the leggy NSA (?) Agent who joins the Five-0 team. Both are obviously additions to up the male viewership of their respective shows but both are used in different ways. Well, different way really. One is a full fledged character and the other one is only placed in the show to be a potential love interest for a main character and to attrach more male eyes.

Morgan Brody, the CSI audiences met last season in LA, is the estranged daughter of Ecklie, the sometimes misguided leader of the LV Crime Lab. She's plucky (There's that word again), feisty and altogether up for anything. She's a charming addition to the team. A little annoying sometimes, like in the recent episode where she was dumb enough to say she'll place the altogether very injured and very crazy victim into custody on her phone right in front of the guy who was regaining full consciousness and letting his hand fall near her gun. Now I know she probably didn't think he was going to go full Rambo on her but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have been on her guard at all times. Really, it was partly her fault that everyone ended up dying. But that doesn't mean it wasn't acted well. Elisabeth Hanois gives her character a cheerfulness and a gung-ho attitude that makes her not...painful to watch. And her whole character arc with a bit of flirting with Nick and a bit of competition (her side) and flirting (his side) with Greg gives the show a little bit more of a personal touch in a show that is notoriously known for keeping characters' private lives under wraps until the very last moment (CoughSaraGrissomCOUGH). The character centric episode was alright, seemed a little forced at trying to get the audience to like her (practically begging for the audience to like her, please like her) but overall well acted and just a little heartbreaking. Especially at the end when Morgan loses it because of her stressful day. She walks away from everyone, keeping up a strong facade until far enough away to let her emotions catch up. You gotta respect that.

Lori Westin on the other hand is a mystery. A one-note mystery. She's introduced as a blonde-haired object of flirtation for the strong-armed macho man that is Steve McGarrett. She's in a nice blouse and pencil skirt for her meeting with the acting Governor and she looks like she would break in half let alone be able to hold a gun. The Governor assigns her to the team and McGarrett puts up a hissy fit and so on and so forth until she's working in the same blouse and pencil skirt and one wonders if she just didn't have enough time to change or if that's just how she's gonna be for the rest of the season. Running after a suspect in heels is even worse and then one sighs because it seem like it will be. But the place where the writers' ask us to suspend the most disbelief is when she disarms the man that has a shotgun on her. Really? Really? She's half the size of that guy and you're telling me that her arm strength is enough to disarm him. Sometimes I feel like that with Kono too, where the suspension of disbelief is just too much. I can understand if she kicked the guy, women's legs are usually stronger but with her arms? No way unless she's got some Kung Fu moves that I don't know about. Unless her arms are the size of my cousins and she can bench press more than a hundred pounds will I believe it. Or maybe she just has wiry muscles? (More like...no muscles....) When will TV shows pick actual actors that look like they can do what they do on camera? Not just stunt work but someone who actually looks like they can punch you out? Why does she have to be so stick thin? The actress in Captain America said in an interview that she tried to look like she could actually pick up a gun and shoot it, that she wanted to have the physique of someone who could throw a punch and the bad guy would stay down. That's the kind of body type these women need to have to make it believable.

And so the episodes go on and she's believe it or not really hard to pin down. As an audience member, you're not quite sure if you even like her. She's not very friendly or cheerful, not charming, doesn't have an interesting backstory like Jenna, not an overeager rookie or a witty drawling veteran. And then the ahah moment comes when one realizes, she's just there to look pretty. There's no need for the writers' to be consistent with her because she can be whatever they need her to be. It's not a complexity of character, it's more like a lack of character. They don't know what to do with her. She's stoic and distant in one episode, witty and smirking in another, and then, the most out of character, gossipy and flustered. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she shouldn't be given something more substantial. I don't know what angers me more, the fact that she's just placed as eye candy or the fact that she's not a minority.

Which brings me to another point. Why are both these new characters blond and white? Can't people from other ethnic backgrounds be love interests too? I guess the majority of people are white, oh wait...it's not the FREAKING 18TH CENTURY. America's got a lot more diverse if anyone hasn't noticed. How come the other ethnic groups aren't really being shown in TV land? Most title characters are white. Most more ethnic characters are relegated to the asian mob, the hokey sidekick, the real sidekick or just second best. The only mainstream movies I know where the main characters are not pale white is the Harold and Kumar series. Is it really that hard to get other races as main characters? Yes, yes it is.

Take John Cho for instance. He's a great actor, diverse, versitile, funny, dramatic, he's been around since '97 with 67 titles to his name and yet only recently has he been in the spotlight. Now, people might say things like, oh but that's just the business, a lot of actors have that if not more. And that's true, it partly is the business of being an actor but he's had to be "Parking Valet" or the "Sales House Man #1" in more mainstream stuff. Or be in comedies where he might get an actual name or in some indie movie about a specific culture where he'll actually get a name. Even now being the more household name he is for Star Trek and FlashForward, he's still not getting more title parts. Which again, might just be the business but compare his acting chops to Channing Tatum and I'll ask again, which is more fair? (GI Joe was a horrible movie and no one can convince me otherwise.)

Now one could say, Sandra Oh made it. She's been in more substantial movies than American Pie and Harold and Kumar and she's in a hit TV Show. Which is true, but that's only one out of, what, more than 2 billion Asians (and that's just counting India and China's populations) in the whole world? Sort of a sad statistic I would think.

We need to do something about it. And I think people are. Websites like youtube and tumblr make it easy for budding filmmakers to post videos and gain popularity. Wong Fu Productions comes immediately into mind. People from all ethnic backgrounds (even "white" people), joined together to express their outrage at the casting announcements for The Last Airbender. Hopefully we can get to the point where anyone, no matter what color their skin, or what race they're from or their ethnic background, will be able to be as popular as the next person based on what really matters, talent.

It's nice to see Asian people in the spotlight for once. Hopefully it'll keep going.

Blast from the Past: Star Trek Review

If you don't want to know what happens in the Star Trek Movie stop reading NOW. Because this thing is gonna be filled with Spoilers. Actually...I might not have that much to say other than it's AWESOME and everyone should watch it.

Chris Pine as Kirk is FANTASTIC...he has the cockiness and the bravado and the gut instinct that is totally Kirk. He's less womanizing than Shatner's Kirk I think mostly because there weren't really any women in the movie other than Uhura. He also brings a sort of vulnerability, an intelligence, a sense of nobility and a sweetness that Shatner didn't really have. I think it's his sweetness that is really different. He has this young sense of being cocky but not annoyingly so. He's not annoying...which is odd. Not one time in the film did I think he was annoying as a womanizing jerk or as a cocky cadet or anything. I was on his side for the whole time, rooting him on, feeling his pain. He was very likable, that's the word. And boy does he feel pain in this film. He's always beaten up, the only reason he's still alive is because he can take it more than everyone else can. I mean he gets beaten up...like 5 times in one day, I should count next time.

Zachary Quinto as Spock was...OMFG NINJATASTIC....that's not even a word, well we'll make it word now. Seriously...seriously...he held his OWN in scenes with Leonard Nemoy playing Spock. And like the sexiness factor!! It should be impossible to make a Vulcan sexy but he managed it! I mean even with the bowl haircut and the pointy ears...he is DAMN sexy. And I love his fight for control...and being the good guy this time. We only ever see Zachary Quinto as the bad guy in Heroes and now he gets to play the good one. And when he was standing up to that Vulcan Council!! Omgggg he was just so perfectly subtly insulting...and when he said "Live long and prosper," giving just the hint of inflection on the words, it made me have shivers. And when he fights for control...it was heartbreaking. Gah...

Simon Pegg as Scotty only came in the second half of the movie but he was still GREAT! He had greattt linessssssss omgggg and he was so perfectly enthusiastic about everything. And I liked his Scottish accent even though it wasn't perfect, it wasn't like...a BAD Scottish accent.

John Cho as Sulu finally got to be MANLY...GOOO FOR MANLY ASIAN GUYS FINALLY, he pulled out this collapsable sword which sounds kinda hokey and it was kinda cuz it was like he just pulled it out of nowhere but he could FIGHT with it like NOBODY'S BUSINESS. And how cute he was when he couldn't get the Starship to move. Haha...He also got to be more serious...instead of the more college humor comedies he was making.

Karl Urban as Bones...WAS....OMG SO DIFFERENT BUT STILL GOOD. I mean he played Eomer in Lord of the Rings and then he played a lot of like darker action roles but this time he got to be FUNNY and he was funny!!! I mean the sequence where he gets Kirk on the ship by injecting him with this like almost toxic vaccine is one of the FUNNIEST SEQUENCES IN THE WHOLE MOVIE...HAHAHAHAHA. Omggg..I laughed so hard. And I like how he has this sort of dead panned humor.

Anton Yelchin as Chekov is sooooo cute!! His little Russian Accent and not being able to say V...he always says it as a W. So Vulcan is Wulcan and invisible is inwisible. Awww he's so cute. And everytime he said something I burst out laughing because he was SOO cute!! I don't know why they put him on Com though...hardly anyone can understand him. Haha.

Uhura kicks ASS. Omg she's so STRONG...and she can totally take care of herself. When she finds out she's not on USS Enterprise and tells Spock with this attitude and TELLS him that she's on the Enterprise he's like...Ooohhh well lookie here...must have gotten it wrong somehow...heh...yes, you're on the Enterprise and she's like "I thought so, bitch." haha...well okay not so much like that...but LIKE THAT....and yeah.

Things that surprised me or I didn't like: The skirts on the uniforms of the girl cadets in Star Fleet...like...SHORT MUCH?? Seriously?? Even in the military today the skirts are WAYY longer...they're like MINISKIRTS on the girls...and anyone who's a girl would know, we can't run in miniskirts!! How in the HECK are we supposed to do jobs in miniskirts?? At least make it longer...or let us freaking wear pants!...Class A's for women in the military have skirts wayy longer, I mean it's not about looking at the legs of the female it's about uniformity...geez Louise. Another thing that threw me for a loop was Spock and Uhura's relationship...it kinda all of a sudden was there. And I didn't see it coming...and I thought it was awkward at first but it kinda grew on me. I mean when she comforts him in the Elevator...that was a good sequence but...I don't know...all of a sudden it was there but before it wasn't...sooo it was weird. Maybe we'll see it evolve more. I kinda thought Uhura was gonna be with Kirk though. I felt like Spock and Uhura didn't really match that much...at all, personality wise...maybe that's why I thought it was weird. Uhura's feisty, I thought she would be with Kirk. Spock is kinda androgynous that way...haha...it's hard to imagine him with anyone even though he's sexy in this movie. Another HUGE plot point was the longggg thin line that holds the drill up...seriously...the Romulans couldn't think of a better way to secure it?? I mean didn't they think someone could just cut the line with some lasers and then bye bye drill?? I mean that's what Spock did and that was it!! It was kinda anti-climactic. I mean they should have known that someone would do that...and it was only ONE line. I mean they could have secured it with more or something.

Moments that made me laugh: Nearly the whole movie but to narrow it down, Scotty saying "I'm giving it all she's got Captain," and "She canna take anymore!" [I may have made that last line up...because I thought it was in the movie and it might not be...haha] And when Bones goes, "I'm a doctor, not a physicist." And any line by Chekov...that boy is so cute, "I CAN DO IT, I CAN DO IT..." haha Any line by Scotty actually. I love Simon Pegg as Scotty.

I loved the whole first sequence, it was so good.

AND THERE IS GONNA BE A SEQUEL...I KNEW IT. Because of the way they made this movie, they don't have to follow canon at all because it's an alternate universe, so of COURSE there's gonna be a sequel because now the writers can do whatever they want, and make up whatever they want and no one can be like OH NO THAT'S NOT CANON because it doesn't have to be now.

JJ ABRAMS...I want to take off my hat to you. You have made a Star Trek that Trekkies can be proud of. Seriously, this is what the Star Trek franchise has culminated in. I mean I saw the potential it had to be REALLY good, to be Star Wars level good, to surpass Star Wars, in effects, acting, set design, script and story, and overall feel but everyone had kept making Star Trek that hokey, corny, never-want-to-be-seen-with second cousin of the more polished Star Wars. The premise was there, it had everything but it just needed that push to be EPIC. Now Trekkies everywhere can take pride in the fact that their beloved story/premise/world has been taken care of and one upped Star Wars. Seriously...the sleek lines, the epic feel all are attributed to you JJ Abrams. It is truly an epic piece of SciFi. Thank you, man, thank you.

I love how old SciFi shows are getting an upgrade to something sleeker, or more grittier, or more realistic. I LOVE THAT...Battlestar Galactica, now Star Trek, and old shows as well. Batman, Transformers, Bond. GAH! Makes me soo happy.

Blast from the Past: Harry Potter 6 Review

Saw Harry Potter 6.

It was okay. I mean better than some other of the Harry Potter films and stuck pretty close to the book but it wasn't THAT great. It was like every other Harry Potter, mediocre. Just the story making it something more than just ordinary.

On the good side:

Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy was pretty good. I mean he brought a sort of humanity to the character I guess. Although there were some shots where he was very good looking...and I liked his suit....but other shots where he wasn't good looking at all.

Oliver and James Phelps as the Weasley Twins were GREAT! I know have a thing for the Weasley Twins. I mean seriously. It's kinda like that for every Harry Potter fan who likes boys. First they like Harry and then move on to Secondary characters and then maybe back to Harry and then back to a secondary character again. I liked their shop. It was like a dream....for all mischief makers.

Alan Rickman as Snape was wonderful as usual. I like his sort of low-key approach to Snape. Not the sort of seething, frothing at the mouth madman that other people seem to think of him as.

Dumblerdore's death was done with great clarity and emotion. When Snape all of a sudden said Avada Kedavra I nearly cried right then and there. The look in his eyes was perfect. I almost did cry when Dumbledore died. I wish they would have put in Dumbledore's funeral though with the white tomb.

The fumbles at love were really funny and rightly so. But I feel as if they didn't really expand on it. Like Ginny and Harry. He was supposed to kiss her after a Quidditch match in front of everyone and he didn't. I feel as if they cheated us out of a moment. Blegh.

Cormac McClaggen was perfect. Whoever he was.

Hermione's hair in the potions scene...it should be that fluffy all the time!

LUNA'S LION HEADDRESS THING IS GENIUS.

Kinda fishy about Snape and Draco....especially when he pushes him against the wall. I foresee many slash fics popping up in the future.

And Harry being kinda....loopy after drinking the Felix Felicis....

Bad things:

There was one moment when Harry looked like Michael Jackson. NO JOKE. I mean his face was really really pale and he looked like he had eyeliner on and his lips were really red.

Bonnie Wright as Ginny was eh...it was like Ginny had no personality. Everything was said as a monotone. And the director seemed to put her in at the most randomest of times.

They didn't really expand on the Half Blood Prince even though that's what the movie is named. They could have just named it Harry Potter and Dumbledore's Quest for all I cared and that would have been a more truthful title.

They didn't put much of the meat of the book in it....other than Dumbledore's Quest.

Harry mouthbreathed wayyy too much. I don't know...do I even like Daniel Radcliffe anymore?? The world might never know.

Bellatrix's kiss on Draco's neck...bleghhh....incest.

All in all it was an okay movie. I still love Harry Potter and I love the fact that the stories were put in visual form but the books are still better.

As usual.

Rant: Vampires

Vampires are jokes now in the fictional world. What used to inspire fear and loathing in the minds of men have now become soft, pretty, love inducing (or vomit inducing) figures of "marble" that every fan girl from here to Timbuktu have their hearts set on. What has happened to these Nosferatu? Once one of the most feared monsters of our time, fictional or not (They are fiction, other people don't think so, I think those people are crazy but so goes the world) have become a laughing stock...or something to be lusted after.

I must say it started with Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire. Casting Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt as whoever they were made vampires one step closer to Edward Cullen. (Although I don't think many people took the movie that seriously as I'm pretty sure it wasn't that popular? People back then had their brains still. Interview with a Vampire is very close to Twilight in the prettiness factor and people rejected it then which only means the generations have gotten dumber, but I digress.)

In the beginning, when Vampires were first put on celluloid, Dracula was bald, ugly, old, and hunchbacked. No woman in their right mind wanted to become on of those. Or get bitten by one of those. He looked like a bat, all pointy ears and teeth. Dracula the book is written like a horror story, not a romantic one. It's supposed to be gruesome. Dracula was based on a Count that used to, according to legend, impale his victims and stake them outside to the horror of his enemies. Edward Cullen is obviously not Dracula, being neither bloody nor insane and altogether too human, no matter how many times Stephenie Meyer tries to prove otherwise with her descriptions of his pale skin, amber eyes and marble-Adonis-perfectly sculpted body.

Unfortunately, vampires are back in style with a protagonist that is NOT a villain like he's supposed to be. True Blood, the Twilight series and countless of other Young Adult books about vampires (MY GOD, WILL IT STOP? Seriously, when I go to the bookstore it's like every other book is about Vampires? Can no one think of anything better to write about?) and seemingly NEW movies about vampires as well! Soon Dracula himself will have sparkly skin and an affinity for animal blood.

Contrary to what I've been writing, I'm not a huge fan of the Vampire genre, I just seem to know a lot about it. I've never read Anne Rice's books, nor Bram Stoker's Dracula, nor most of the Young Adult books. I've never seen the Old Dracula movie or Interview with a Vampire. But from the little I've gleaned off the internet, pictures, and clips, the history I know of Vlad the Impaler, the vampire is not something to be admired but something to be feared! I know the whole tragic hero is appealing but it's a MONSTER not a HUMAN. No matter how much you spin it, that person is not a person anymore, it's DEAD. It might as well be a zombie! But you don't see fangirls for Zombies do you? Rotting flesh and an appetite for brainzzz would put anyone off, but it's alright if the dead person has flesh like "cold marble" and appetite for blood? I don't get you human nature!

But on a hypocritical note, I think Johnny Depp would make a very good vampire.