Quick Hits – March 2016

When I came up with the idea for this blog feature, I envisioned reviewing everything that I watched or read during the month.  I have come to realize this is unrealistic.  Although some months may be a bit light on the entertainment options, usually I watch/read more things than I have time to review.  Therefore, I am limiting myself to no more than six reviews in a month.  If my options allow for it, I will do two TV shows, two movies, and two books.  If they do not, then I will substitute or skip as needed.  Everything else consumed during the month will just be listed with a quick yes or no recommendation at the bottom.

Warning:  Although I tried not to delve into plots too deeply, there are potential spoilers in the reviews below.  Read at your own risk.

TV Series:  One Tree Hill:  Seasons 1-4 (2003-2006)

I had such a restricted TV routine when I was growing up that as an adult I feel the need to watch all these shows that were on when I was a teenager.  One Tree Hill is my current nostalgic foray into the past.  I have watched the first four seasons over the past few months.  I really enjoy the show, but I cannot say that it is one of my favorites.  When it sticks to the more conventional high school drama format, I think it really shines.  I like the majority of teenage characters, the majority of the time.  I have fun living with them through the requisite love triangles and awkward social moments.  What brings the show down for me is the overkill drama they include all the time.  A show like this obviously needs some conflict to keep things interesting, but I think they pack too many things into it and take storylines too far.  For a few examples, these characters have been in the hospital every single season at least once, and the fake-Derek stalker story was just too much unnecessary craziness given everything else packed into season 4.  I plan to keep going, at least for now, but it is sometimes hard to watch it.  I much prefer something light-hearted like Dawson’s Creek or Gilmore Girls.

TV Series:  Flesh and Bone (2015)

I loved this series.  I was drawn to it by the ballet backdrop and the inclusion of Sascha Radetsky (Charlie in the 2000 movie Center Stage).  I watched the whole thing in a 24-hour period because of the gripping story.  I did not know much about the TV show when I got the first DVD in the mail.  I honestly assumed it would be something similar to Center Stage, a feel good show about beating the odds in the competitive ballet world.  While Claire did in fact struggle to prove she earned her special place in the American Ballet Company, the ballet portion of the show was much more of a backdrop.  The show actually focused on Claire’s personal background, involving incest and sexual abuse, which greatly shaped her perspective on life and her ability to navigate social interactions.  The show was extremely dark, gritty, and intense.  I could not tear myself away.  I even ordered a free trial of Starz to be able to watch the second half immediately without having to return the first DVD to Netflix.  I highly recommend this show if you like weirdly interesting stories.  Plus, you do get some great dancing along the way.  Also for those from Pittsburgh, there are some nice hometown references since Claire originally lived there before moving to New York City.  I really wish they were going to do a second season.

Movie:  Boyhood (2014)

I enjoyed this movie, but I do not think it is for everyone.  It is an indie film that follows the life of one boy over a span of twelve years.  The director actually filmed over the same span of time, so he could use the same actors as they aged naturally into the plotlines of the film.  As a piece of art, this movie is phenomenal.  The creative inspiration to allow the actors to grow throughout the film was genius.  It gives the movie a very authentic feel which is missing from most movies that attempt to age characters, especially children.  I also appreciate the dedication required from the director as well as the actors that participated in the project.  As a piece of entertainment, this movie is limited in the audiences that will find it appealing.  It has a very low budget independent feel to it.  The story is slice-of-life blandness, being much more about an average boy’s growth than any kind of conflict resolution.  It is also a bit on the lengthy side, going for more than two and a half hours.  If you are drawn to character sketches then this is worth watching.  The movie is beautifully done, well cast, and attention holding.  However, if you are looking for big storylines, over-the-top cinematography, and fast action, this is not for you.

Movie:  St Vincent (2014)

This was a recommendation from my boss, and I am not sure it would have crossed my radar otherwise.  Taken at a glance, this is a movie you have seen before.  The storyline is something fairly common place, grumpy old man is softened by vulnerable boy in need.  The ending is utterly predictable.  In fact, it is blatantly revealed by the title of the film before you even start watching.  What makes it worth watching is the execution of the story.  It boasts an all-star cast with Bill Murray as the grumpy old man, Jaeden Lieberher as the vulnerable boy, Melissa McCarthy as his mother, Chris O’Dowd as a school teacher who provides narrative background, and Naomi Watts as a prostitute because why not.  Despite some big names in comedy, the actors turn in very understated performances for their characters.  They hit the perfect balance between comedy and drama that left me laughing and crying throughout the film.  Even though the ending is obvious, you are cheering for it just the same when you finally get there.  It serves as a good reminder to go beneath the surface and evaluate people as a whole and not to write them off because of rough first impressions.  Please do not discount this movie because you think you have seen it before.  It is worth watching, and I recommend it to everyone.

Book:  The Brightest Star in the Sky by Marian Keyes (2009)

I needed something light for the weekend, so I went back to another Marian Keyes book.  Although this one was much better than This Charming Man, this was still not one of my preferred reads from her.  This book is about a spirit as it follows the inhabitants of an apartment building.  The spirit has a mission to fulfill with one of the tenants, but it does not know which one yet (and we do not even find out what the mission is until later in the book).  Over the course of two months, it follows the occupants of each of the four floors of the building narrating to the reader the life events of each one and evaluating which one is best suited for its purpose.  The occupants lead fairly mundane lives, relatively separated from each other, until a crisis brings them together one night toward the end.  These characters were a bit more likable and knowable than the last book, though I do think Ms. Keyes does better when she focuses on one character instead of bouncing between multiple.  The weird thing about this book though was the spirit’s purpose once it was revealed.  The story was based on an Irish fairytale, and I just did not take to it.  Maybe I am just not Irish enough to appreciate it.  Still not a bad book, but I will stick with my recommendations of Sushi for Beginners or Watermelon if you want to give Marian Keyes a try.

Book:  The Wilderness by McKay Coppins (2015)

I read this book based on its fairly lengthy subtitle, Deep Inside the Republican Party’s Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House.  Although I would consider myself independent, I lean more conservative in my voting practices.  The past year has been a whirlwind of candidates popping up and dropping out of the republican primaries.  I cannot keep them all straight, and have no idea who I would want as the eventual Republican nominee.  When I learned about this book, I thought it would be perfect to give me more familiarity with the candidates.  I do feel I learned about the personal history of some of the viable candidates while I read it.  However, the book is already a bit dated from where the process is today.  It barely mentions John Kasich who is still in the race, and it details much about Bobby Jindal who dropped out at the end of last year.  It did provide some interesting glimpses into the two men at the top of the Republican field currently:  Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  I would recommend it if you are interested in learning more about some of the Republican candidates.  I would not recommend it if you are looking for a breakdown of Republican politics.  The book does focus more on personalities than policies, though you get a general feel for some of each person’s pet issues.  I would also warn that the author does put his own color into his coverage of the people.  While I could not tell you if Coppins is republican or democrat, I can tell you there were people he admired more than others.  I did use this to fill in some information on the candidates along with what I have gathered from other media outlets when I chose how to vote in the March 1 Republican primary.

Overflow:

Movie:  The Overnight (2015) – Yes, but only if you are not easily offended by nudity and weird sexual situations.

Movie:  Madam Bovary (2015) – Yes

Movie:  Life of Pi (2012) – Yes

Movie:  Dysfunctional Friends (2011) – No

Book:  The Shining by Stephen King (1977) – Yes.  I still get scared by the bathtub scene even though I have read the book before and watched the TV mini-series.

Book:  Doctor Sleep by Stephen King (2013) – Yes.  This sequel to The Shining is less scary than the original and more weird, but weird is where Stephen King excels.

Book:  A Long Fatal Love Chase by Louisa May Alcott (wrote 1866, published 1995) - Yes

That is it for this month.  I watched a lot of movies this time around, though truthfully some of those are from the end of February when I had the week off.  Do you have any good recommendations for what I should watch or read in April?

See you next week!