At first glance, this book checked a lot of boxes for me. (Which is why I picked it up to begin with.) The top has a quote from Jo Nesbo saying that the author is "the godmother of modern Norwegian crime fiction." Not only do I really enjoy Nesbo's books, but I also like modern Norwegian crime fiction. The front cover also says under the title that it is a Hanne Wilhelmsen novel. This is appealing to me because it means that if I like it, I can read others in the series and reasonably expect to like them too. (The top of the front jacket says it's the 9th book in the series, so that's a pretty deep catalog to mine.
Based on these characteristics, I added it to my stack of library check-outs and I was on my way.
Getting started with the book I was really disappointed. I just couldn't seem to get interested in it and it took me a really long time to get into it. In fact, I had to renew all the books I had checked out at the library before I was even half way through this one!
I can't put my finger on the real reason I couldn't get into it either. One possible reason is that there were very few section breaks in the beginning. Or at least there seemed to be. That was an issue because my main reading time is on the train home from work. It's only a short block of time and I always seemed to get to my stop and find myself in the middle of a long section. That meant that when I started the next day I was jumping right back into a conversation or description and I'd take me some time to get back into the flow of that section. Admittedly it wasn't much time, but my time was limited to begin with.
Another issue might have been the fact that I started with the 9th book in the series. I wonder if my experience would have been the same if I started with the first and had a well developed sense of the characters (at least the main ones) by the time I got to this one.
Anyway, all that changed about midway through the book. All of a sudden the pieces strewn about in the first part started to come together and I found myself really drawn in. I'm glad I stuck with it because I was close to moving on to the next book in my stack.
I wasn't so much interested in the "main" character (Hanne) which might not bode well for me in the rest of the series. However she seemed to be passing the torch of "Oslo's greatest detective" (my title) to a protege. And I really liked the protege character. A man of odd looks, with OCD and possible autism, and a decent ability to draw hypothesis from random facts. For the looks, the character mentioned that as an advantage because no one was ever scared of him if he showed up randomly at their door. The OCD and possible autism were the obvious conclusions a reader might draw, although the character mentioned that he had never received an official diagnosis from a doctor. The looks and quirks are part of the basic recipe for brilliant detective.
Overall, I'm glad I preserved through the first part and I will definitely be adding other books in the series to my reading list.
(I know that I didn't talk at all about the plot, but with the title that part shouldn't be hard to figure out.)
Friday, January 12, 2018
Friday, January 5, 2018
Archive 17 (novel)
I did not like this book. Although it literally says on the cover that this is "a novel of suspense" it was just plain not suspenseful. And what's with the weirdness of that phrasing? "A novel of suspense." Was there some reason the publisher didn't go with plain ol' "suspense novel?"
For transparency's sake, I read this a while ago and I'm just now getting around to publishing this review. I had a couple notes, but don't remember much of it so this will be brief.
One of the secondary characters is Stalin. Literally Stalin. And he's made out as some kind of horrible boss rather than a dictator who officially executed nearly 800,000 people and unofficially probably killed several million more. (I had to look up those stats...) In the novel though, Stalin plays practical jokes on his secretary by sawing the legs off of his desk and is constantly bellowing about stuff. Now, the practical joke thing may be a real thing that Stalin did, but I just don't picture him bellowing. Yelling yes. But bellowing? To me that choice of word evokes an image of some farcical character, rather than a real person. I don't know if I have ever witnessed someone doing something that I would describe as bellowing.
And then the writing was just bad in a lot of places. Here's an example of one paragraph from the book:
"In the center of the compound, a guard was kneeling on the ground, a rifle, with bayonet attached, propped against his shoulder." "But then he noticed that the rifle wasn't resting against Platov's shoulder as he had first imagined. In fact, Platov had been stabbed through the throat with the bayonet, which now protruded from the back of his neck. Platov was dead, propped up by the rifle, which had prevented him from falling."
I've tried to picture this scene a dozen times and I just cannot imagine how someone could think someone was holding a rifle only to notice "oh wait, that bayonet is actually through him. Silly me."
Honestly, it just now hit me after re-reading this with fresh eyes that "propped against his shoulder" meant resting, like rifles are carried when marching.
Up until this point, I was picturing someone holding a weapon like they were going to shoot.
So you can understand my confusion about how someone with a bayonet through the neck could be confused with someone holding a rifle like in the second picture. So I guess it wasn't as bad as I originally thought. But I still didn't like this book.
For transparency's sake, I read this a while ago and I'm just now getting around to publishing this review. I had a couple notes, but don't remember much of it so this will be brief.
One of the secondary characters is Stalin. Literally Stalin. And he's made out as some kind of horrible boss rather than a dictator who officially executed nearly 800,000 people and unofficially probably killed several million more. (I had to look up those stats...) In the novel though, Stalin plays practical jokes on his secretary by sawing the legs off of his desk and is constantly bellowing about stuff. Now, the practical joke thing may be a real thing that Stalin did, but I just don't picture him bellowing. Yelling yes. But bellowing? To me that choice of word evokes an image of some farcical character, rather than a real person. I don't know if I have ever witnessed someone doing something that I would describe as bellowing.
And then the writing was just bad in a lot of places. Here's an example of one paragraph from the book:
"In the center of the compound, a guard was kneeling on the ground, a rifle, with bayonet attached, propped against his shoulder." "But then he noticed that the rifle wasn't resting against Platov's shoulder as he had first imagined. In fact, Platov had been stabbed through the throat with the bayonet, which now protruded from the back of his neck. Platov was dead, propped up by the rifle, which had prevented him from falling."
I've tried to picture this scene a dozen times and I just cannot imagine how someone could think someone was holding a rifle only to notice "oh wait, that bayonet is actually through him. Silly me."
Honestly, it just now hit me after re-reading this with fresh eyes that "propped against his shoulder" meant resting, like rifles are carried when marching.
Up until this point, I was picturing someone holding a weapon like they were going to shoot.
So you can understand my confusion about how someone with a bayonet through the neck could be confused with someone holding a rifle like in the second picture. So I guess it wasn't as bad as I originally thought. But I still didn't like this book.
Travelers (205 and 206) : Jenny and U235
The last sentence I wrote for my post on episode 204 was "We will see if Travelers can continue to keep me hooked."
After these two episodes, I'd say that's a pretty resounding "hell yes." With the previously mentioned caveat that I don't really remember the first season, I'm declaring that these were the two best episodes of the series so far.
I'm writing about them together because (1) it's kind of one long episode anyway and (2) we watched both in one night. Which is somewhat unusual per our normal viewing habits and reflective of (1) how good the first episode was and (2) the kids going to bed early.
Long story short, there is a mutated flu virus that the team is trying to stop. The twist is that it was actually caused by the travelers in the first place!! The gist is that at the end of last season it turned out that there was this kind of civil war happening in the future, with a group called the Faction trying to wrest control from the Director. Well it turns out they did and since then all new travelers have been members of the Faction and not true "good guy" travelers sent by the Director. Which explains why there haven't been any real missions and the team doesn't seem like they're really doing anything.
These two episodes really made me appreciate the first part of this season more, as it made me rethink everything that the team had done.
Also, it was pretty thrilling from a "wow it seems like a lot of people are actually going to die" point of view.
My favorite piece of dialog was from David (who, along with Trevor is probably my favorite character). After a long day working in a homeless shelter helping out his clients he was taking a break and talking to another worker. The other guy mentioned that it was getting bad and that people had started looting. David says something like "I don't understand that. 'Oh, I'm really sick and everyone's dying so I'm going to go steal this t.v.' I mean, t.v.'s don't even really cost that much anymore. I don't get it."
It was a perfectly rational response delivered in a time of a global pandemic in a world where time travelers exist and his kind-of/once girlfriend "recovered" from down syndrome.
After these two episodes, I'd say that's a pretty resounding "hell yes." With the previously mentioned caveat that I don't really remember the first season, I'm declaring that these were the two best episodes of the series so far.
I'm writing about them together because (1) it's kind of one long episode anyway and (2) we watched both in one night. Which is somewhat unusual per our normal viewing habits and reflective of (1) how good the first episode was and (2) the kids going to bed early.
Long story short, there is a mutated flu virus that the team is trying to stop. The twist is that it was actually caused by the travelers in the first place!! The gist is that at the end of last season it turned out that there was this kind of civil war happening in the future, with a group called the Faction trying to wrest control from the Director. Well it turns out they did and since then all new travelers have been members of the Faction and not true "good guy" travelers sent by the Director. Which explains why there haven't been any real missions and the team doesn't seem like they're really doing anything.
These two episodes really made me appreciate the first part of this season more, as it made me rethink everything that the team had done.
Also, it was pretty thrilling from a "wow it seems like a lot of people are actually going to die" point of view.
My favorite piece of dialog was from David (who, along with Trevor is probably my favorite character). After a long day working in a homeless shelter helping out his clients he was taking a break and talking to another worker. The other guy mentioned that it was getting bad and that people had started looting. David says something like "I don't understand that. 'Oh, I'm really sick and everyone's dying so I'm going to go steal this t.v.' I mean, t.v.'s don't even really cost that much anymore. I don't get it."
It was a perfectly rational response delivered in a time of a global pandemic in a world where time travelers exist and his kind-of/once girlfriend "recovered" from down syndrome.
Travelers (204) - 11:27
We're four episodes into this season and I'm a little lost. I can't really remember what happened last season. Something about a virus? They lost their memory? Or only Marcy did? I don't know.
I remember pieces of the season, although mostly that's because they've talked about it in the first few episodes of this season. There was a major mission related to an asteroid. They were kidnapped but got away somehow. Marcy shot a guy (through the ventilation system) who was holding David hostage. The guy Carly has a baby with (boyfriend, husband?) was abusive. (I guess technically he's the guy who had a baby with the women whose consciousness Carly replaced.) That's about it. Oh, and something about Trevor kidnapping his guidance counselor and getting her replaced with an old person from their time? Man, writing it all out like that makes this show seem confusing.
This episode was okay. One thing that seems to be missing from this season is the thread of an overall mission. It seemed that in season 1, all of the missions the team tackled each episode were to further their overall progress on their main mission. They needed some piece to make a machine they needed later. So far though, this season they seem to just be going day to day. Maybe that's the effect of their mission failing last season?
At one point (I can't remember if it was this episode or the last one) they even made a comment about not having a mission for a while. This was the first one where they had a goal that they were trying to accomplish though. Actually, it was two. They were blowing up the headquarters of an agriculture company who was about to release a genetically modified seed and timing it to cover an assassination of a politician. A politician who was also a traveler and someone the series introduced last season in a plane crash. (That was another thing I totally forgot about until they mentioned it in this episode.)
Something I really liked from this episode were the scenes between Trevor and Abby. I didn't see their little romance blooming and I thought it was really cute. Especially since Trevor's the only one that hasn't really had a relationship. Grant has Carly (and also his wife), Carly has "her" son and Jeff (sort of kind of), Marcy has David, and Phillip has heroin (also he started hooking up with this other traveler named Jenny this season). Well I guess Trevor had/has a girlfriend, but she hasn't been around at all this season except for a brief scene with him in the hospital in an early episode. And she seemed to be there more for uncomfortable humor since she wasn't really compatible with the "new" Trevor. But Abby seemed to be.
Which is why it kind of crushed me when she died. Or technically was killed. That may have been the point when I got re-hooked onto this series. We will see if Travelers can continue to keep me hooked.
I remember pieces of the season, although mostly that's because they've talked about it in the first few episodes of this season. There was a major mission related to an asteroid. They were kidnapped but got away somehow. Marcy shot a guy (through the ventilation system) who was holding David hostage. The guy Carly has a baby with (boyfriend, husband?) was abusive. (I guess technically he's the guy who had a baby with the women whose consciousness Carly replaced.) That's about it. Oh, and something about Trevor kidnapping his guidance counselor and getting her replaced with an old person from their time? Man, writing it all out like that makes this show seem confusing.
This episode was okay. One thing that seems to be missing from this season is the thread of an overall mission. It seemed that in season 1, all of the missions the team tackled each episode were to further their overall progress on their main mission. They needed some piece to make a machine they needed later. So far though, this season they seem to just be going day to day. Maybe that's the effect of their mission failing last season?
At one point (I can't remember if it was this episode or the last one) they even made a comment about not having a mission for a while. This was the first one where they had a goal that they were trying to accomplish though. Actually, it was two. They were blowing up the headquarters of an agriculture company who was about to release a genetically modified seed and timing it to cover an assassination of a politician. A politician who was also a traveler and someone the series introduced last season in a plane crash. (That was another thing I totally forgot about until they mentioned it in this episode.)
Something I really liked from this episode were the scenes between Trevor and Abby. I didn't see their little romance blooming and I thought it was really cute. Especially since Trevor's the only one that hasn't really had a relationship. Grant has Carly (and also his wife), Carly has "her" son and Jeff (sort of kind of), Marcy has David, and Phillip has heroin (also he started hooking up with this other traveler named Jenny this season). Well I guess Trevor had/has a girlfriend, but she hasn't been around at all this season except for a brief scene with him in the hospital in an early episode. And she seemed to be there more for uncomfortable humor since she wasn't really compatible with the "new" Trevor. But Abby seemed to be.
Which is why it kind of crushed me when she died. Or technically was killed. That may have been the point when I got re-hooked onto this series. We will see if Travelers can continue to keep me hooked.
Friday, April 29, 2016
The Alphabet House (book)
This was an interesting book to read. In some parts, it was incredibly slow, while in others, (notably the end) it was a veritable page turner that I couldn't put down.
The premise sounded promising enough for me to pick it up at the library. In World War II, a pair of British pilots are shot down over Germany and to survive, they steal the identities of two high ranking SS officers being sent to a mental institution deep in Germany. Once in the institution, they have to maintain their sanity while convincing the nurses and doctors of their insanity. Oh, and some of the other patients may also be faking insanity, for reasons not yet clear.
Sounds interesting doesn't it? I would add that to the read pile based on the description. (Which, obviously I did.)
And it did start off interesting. It was obvious that the author, Jussi Adler-Olsen, had done plenty of research. In fact, Adler-Olsen (in a note in the beginning of the book) said that his father was psychiatrist who worked in Danish mental hospitals in the 1950's. So he knows what he's talking about.
The "pilots getting shot down" part was pretty exciting, as was there attempts to evade the German patrols. Even the first few days in the mental hospital were edge of the seat type stuff as they struggled with their deception. One quickly realizes that a mental hospital is probably a great place to hide out, because basically anything goes. For example, only one of the pilots speaks German. That might be a problem in a regular hospital, because his blank, uncomprehending looks when spoken too by the doctors and nurses are exactly what is expected of someone with mental issues. Also, it's easier to explain the lack of physical ailments.
But then you run into the same problems as were covered in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Pretending to be insane is pretty hard work. And that's when it starts getting slow. The book spends probably a third of the pages inside the heads of the two pilots. They can't speak and they can hardly move because they don't want to appear to able. So they just lay there. Nothing happens for a long time, but the author wants the reader to experience that time. It picks up a little because one of the pilots starts to suspect that others in the institution are faking as well. So there's this weird cat and mouse game where the two groups are trying to force the others to do something that will prove to the hospital administrators that they're not insane, but do it in a way that they don't also implicate themselves.
It was at this stage that I was close to putting the book down for good. I could only read a few pages at a time, and then I'd get depressed looking at how many pages I had left. I'm glad I stuck with it though, because one of the pilots manages to escape. At this point, the book jumps 30 years (I don't remember exactly, but it was something like that) into the future. This pilot is now a wealthy doctor, but is haunted by the fate of his friend and co-pilot, who he had to leave in the hospital. A chance encounter with someone sparks a renewed interest and sets off a chain of events that reminded me a lot of the movie Serendipity.
I make that comparison because the author switches points of view to a bunch of the connected characters as their arcs slowly spiral together. As the omniscient reader you see how they all interact, but the characters keep missing slightly missing each other or meeting but not knowing it. At this stage the plot was moving pretty rapidly and it became something I couldn't put down. The only problem was that with all the character switching, it kind of became hard to keep track of who was who.
Apparently Adler-Olsen is well known for his "Department Q" series. Although this book wasn't a part of that group, it was good enough to make me want to see what those books are about. But it wasn't good enough that I'm going to run out tomorrow to find them.
The premise sounded promising enough for me to pick it up at the library. In World War II, a pair of British pilots are shot down over Germany and to survive, they steal the identities of two high ranking SS officers being sent to a mental institution deep in Germany. Once in the institution, they have to maintain their sanity while convincing the nurses and doctors of their insanity. Oh, and some of the other patients may also be faking insanity, for reasons not yet clear.
Sounds interesting doesn't it? I would add that to the read pile based on the description. (Which, obviously I did.)
And it did start off interesting. It was obvious that the author, Jussi Adler-Olsen, had done plenty of research. In fact, Adler-Olsen (in a note in the beginning of the book) said that his father was psychiatrist who worked in Danish mental hospitals in the 1950's. So he knows what he's talking about.
The "pilots getting shot down" part was pretty exciting, as was there attempts to evade the German patrols. Even the first few days in the mental hospital were edge of the seat type stuff as they struggled with their deception. One quickly realizes that a mental hospital is probably a great place to hide out, because basically anything goes. For example, only one of the pilots speaks German. That might be a problem in a regular hospital, because his blank, uncomprehending looks when spoken too by the doctors and nurses are exactly what is expected of someone with mental issues. Also, it's easier to explain the lack of physical ailments.
But then you run into the same problems as were covered in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Pretending to be insane is pretty hard work. And that's when it starts getting slow. The book spends probably a third of the pages inside the heads of the two pilots. They can't speak and they can hardly move because they don't want to appear to able. So they just lay there. Nothing happens for a long time, but the author wants the reader to experience that time. It picks up a little because one of the pilots starts to suspect that others in the institution are faking as well. So there's this weird cat and mouse game where the two groups are trying to force the others to do something that will prove to the hospital administrators that they're not insane, but do it in a way that they don't also implicate themselves.
It was at this stage that I was close to putting the book down for good. I could only read a few pages at a time, and then I'd get depressed looking at how many pages I had left. I'm glad I stuck with it though, because one of the pilots manages to escape. At this point, the book jumps 30 years (I don't remember exactly, but it was something like that) into the future. This pilot is now a wealthy doctor, but is haunted by the fate of his friend and co-pilot, who he had to leave in the hospital. A chance encounter with someone sparks a renewed interest and sets off a chain of events that reminded me a lot of the movie Serendipity.
I make that comparison because the author switches points of view to a bunch of the connected characters as their arcs slowly spiral together. As the omniscient reader you see how they all interact, but the characters keep missing slightly missing each other or meeting but not knowing it. At this stage the plot was moving pretty rapidly and it became something I couldn't put down. The only problem was that with all the character switching, it kind of became hard to keep track of who was who.
Apparently Adler-Olsen is well known for his "Department Q" series. Although this book wasn't a part of that group, it was good enough to make me want to see what those books are about. But it wasn't good enough that I'm going to run out tomorrow to find them.
Monday, April 18, 2016
The Barkley Marathons
It's not usual that I see something and doubt whether I could do it. Now, that doesn't mean that I could actually do it. But I usually at least think I could. The Barkely Marathon is not one of those things. Which of course makes me want to do it.
I'd seen this documentary on Netflix for a while and then someone I work with sent me a link to an article about the Barkley and said she immediately thought of me when she read it. The next day, another coworker stopped me in the hallway and said "Hey, I just watched this thing on Netflix and it totally looked like something you'd do. Have you heard of the Barkley Marathon?" It was then that I decided that I needed to watch the thing post haste. And then a few days after I watched it another coworker stopped me to tell me about this crazy documentary they just watched on Netflix...The Barkley Marathons.
And crazy it is. O.M.G is it crazy. In case you haven't heard of it and are wondering, the plural on "Marathon" is not an accident. This is not a single marathon. It's 5 marathons. In the mountains. Off trails. And racers have 60 hours to finish.
I thought the movie did a good job of showing the character of the race, the man that puts it on, and the people crazy enough to attempt it. One of the things that struck me while watching the runners was how absolutely selfish it all was. Now maybe this was a early attempt at making excuses for never actually doing this race myself, but I couldn't shake the thought. The guy that won the race the year the documentary was filmed was out there with his wife, mom, and young (toddler age) son. These people that care about about, and whom he likely cares about, were out in the woods for probably more than three days with him.
Being out in the woods for three plus days isn't the worst thing in the world you can ask your loved ones to do, but it's not like they were really on a vacation. Every time he completed a loop they hovered around him getting him food, clean clothes, and encouragement. And people can't use phones, so it's not like he can call and say "Hey honey, I should be back at camp in about 2 hours." It's not like it could be anytime, since he is running 20+ miles in the elements. Once he heads out you can assume he won't be back for a couple of hours. But it could be 10 hours, or 13, or 9. Personally, I'd hate to assume it was 10, but my loved one comes back in 9 and I'm not there to do the job I'm supposed to do. And then what about if there's an injury? Or he quits (as most people do) and comes back after only a few hours.
What I'm saying is it's not like you can say, "I'm going to head back to town for a bit, but I'm sure I'll be here when you need me." You're there the entire time, sitting on your hands waiting. And it's one thing if he eventually wins, since then you can at least say that it was worth it. But most people don't finish. The stat I heard is something like only 1% of all the people who have ever entered the race have finished.
Then there is everything that goes into this en-devour. There's the travel to and from the race, which is minor compared to the thousands of hours of training and preparation that go into something like this. And this guy had a toddler son. How much of that boys life did this guy miss because he had to train. It's not like it's a local 5k and you can knock out a 30 minute run early in the morning. You're running hours and hours each day. Sure, the kid can probably go with for some of that, either on a bike or a running stroller. But I doubt he could go for all of it, every time.
I know that I said in the first paragraph that this is something that I want to do, but I don't think I can ask my family to support me while I do it. Caveat: At this time. In a decade or so, my kids will be old enough that I can go for hours-long runs and they can take care of themselves. Who knows, maybe they'll even be running with me at that point. Wouldn't that be great? Sure, my body will be a decade older, but the Barkleys is not a race of speed. It's a race of endurance. Mental and physical. And a lot of times, those come with age. Or so I've heard.
I'd seen this documentary on Netflix for a while and then someone I work with sent me a link to an article about the Barkley and said she immediately thought of me when she read it. The next day, another coworker stopped me in the hallway and said "Hey, I just watched this thing on Netflix and it totally looked like something you'd do. Have you heard of the Barkley Marathon?" It was then that I decided that I needed to watch the thing post haste. And then a few days after I watched it another coworker stopped me to tell me about this crazy documentary they just watched on Netflix...The Barkley Marathons.
And crazy it is. O.M.G is it crazy. In case you haven't heard of it and are wondering, the plural on "Marathon" is not an accident. This is not a single marathon. It's 5 marathons. In the mountains. Off trails. And racers have 60 hours to finish.
I thought the movie did a good job of showing the character of the race, the man that puts it on, and the people crazy enough to attempt it. One of the things that struck me while watching the runners was how absolutely selfish it all was. Now maybe this was a early attempt at making excuses for never actually doing this race myself, but I couldn't shake the thought. The guy that won the race the year the documentary was filmed was out there with his wife, mom, and young (toddler age) son. These people that care about about, and whom he likely cares about, were out in the woods for probably more than three days with him.
Being out in the woods for three plus days isn't the worst thing in the world you can ask your loved ones to do, but it's not like they were really on a vacation. Every time he completed a loop they hovered around him getting him food, clean clothes, and encouragement. And people can't use phones, so it's not like he can call and say "Hey honey, I should be back at camp in about 2 hours." It's not like it could be anytime, since he is running 20+ miles in the elements. Once he heads out you can assume he won't be back for a couple of hours. But it could be 10 hours, or 13, or 9. Personally, I'd hate to assume it was 10, but my loved one comes back in 9 and I'm not there to do the job I'm supposed to do. And then what about if there's an injury? Or he quits (as most people do) and comes back after only a few hours.
What I'm saying is it's not like you can say, "I'm going to head back to town for a bit, but I'm sure I'll be here when you need me." You're there the entire time, sitting on your hands waiting. And it's one thing if he eventually wins, since then you can at least say that it was worth it. But most people don't finish. The stat I heard is something like only 1% of all the people who have ever entered the race have finished.
Then there is everything that goes into this en-devour. There's the travel to and from the race, which is minor compared to the thousands of hours of training and preparation that go into something like this. And this guy had a toddler son. How much of that boys life did this guy miss because he had to train. It's not like it's a local 5k and you can knock out a 30 minute run early in the morning. You're running hours and hours each day. Sure, the kid can probably go with for some of that, either on a bike or a running stroller. But I doubt he could go for all of it, every time.
I know that I said in the first paragraph that this is something that I want to do, but I don't think I can ask my family to support me while I do it. Caveat: At this time. In a decade or so, my kids will be old enough that I can go for hours-long runs and they can take care of themselves. Who knows, maybe they'll even be running with me at that point. Wouldn't that be great? Sure, my body will be a decade older, but the Barkleys is not a race of speed. It's a race of endurance. Mental and physical. And a lot of times, those come with age. Or so I've heard.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Max (movie)
I watched this with the kids on our normal pizza and a movie night. It was a while ago and I'm just now getting around to this post about it so I'm not 100% on the details. But I know that the kids really liked it, mostly because it had a cool dog in it. And even though I probably wasn't the intended audience that the makers had in mind for the movie, I didn't think it was all that bad. My only problem with it was that I hated the parents.
The mom was okay, but had this "I'm doing the best thing for my kids but is actually only making it worse" kind of thing. It made her really annoying, but my true anger was saved for the dad. He was this ex-Marine tough guy but he was just so frustrating. He had his "favorite" son and was not subtle about expressing that. The only way he could have been less subtle was by literally saying "I like your brother more than you." And of course, for the sake of the plot, that "favorite" son is not the main character.
Beyond that though, the dad was just a dick. It was kind of implied that he was a racist. He was also mean. In the sequence that made me me realize I hated him, he almost shoots the dog because...wait. I probably need to give a brief plot summary because that'll be make it easier to explain the scene.
So the "favorite" son follows in his fathers footsteps and joins the Marines. He is serving as a dog handler in Afghanistan when his unit is attacked and he dies. The dog survives, but is so grief stricken that it that the Marines can't rehabilitate him so they give him to the family. The younger brother, initially portrayed as a slacker (more on that later), resists the responsibility of caring for the dog, but eventually the two help each other and save the day. Also, the older son's best friend (who joined the Marines with him and was in the attack) was actually smuggling guns out of Afghanistan to sell illegally and may have actually been the one that killed the older brother. So the dog doesn't like him.
Anyways, the friend is home on "leave" and gets a job working at the dad's self storage business. The dad asked him what happened to his son, and the friend tells him that the dog freaked out in the firefight, turned on him, and killed him. The dad's like, "sure that makes sense", and he goes home and tries to shoot the dog but is stopped by his other son who now likes the dog.
Let's take a second to think about that. If the dog really did kill his handler, do you think the Marines would just give the dog to the family of the guy the dog just killed? Not only would that be a huge liability for them if the dog attacked someone else, but they wouldn't have spent all the money bringing the dog back from Afghanistan. They would have just killed him there.
Also, if it were all true and this is a killer dog, how could you let your son convince you not to kill it then? (Well, maybe not then then, but give it back to the Marines or have a vet put it down.) Sure your son likes the dog and he would be totally bummed, but he's 15 years old. He doesn't get to make those decisions, especially when he's not objective about it. Your job as the father is to make those tough decisions. But I bet if the dad had called a family meeting and told them what he knew, instead of just pointing a gun at the dog like a crazy person, then they might have even agreed that he needed to be put down.
As it happened though, the dad is getting ready to shoot the dog that killed his son (the war dog trained to fight by the Marines I remind you) but his son says "no Dad! I love him" (paraphrased), and the dad says "fine, but don't let him in the house." What?!?!
Anyway, that, plus the racist stuff, plus just generally bad parenting decisions by the dad really took me out of the movie. But that stuff was over the heads of the intended audience as both my boys really liked "the dog movie."
The mom was okay, but had this "I'm doing the best thing for my kids but is actually only making it worse" kind of thing. It made her really annoying, but my true anger was saved for the dad. He was this ex-Marine tough guy but he was just so frustrating. He had his "favorite" son and was not subtle about expressing that. The only way he could have been less subtle was by literally saying "I like your brother more than you." And of course, for the sake of the plot, that "favorite" son is not the main character.
Beyond that though, the dad was just a dick. It was kind of implied that he was a racist. He was also mean. In the sequence that made me me realize I hated him, he almost shoots the dog because...wait. I probably need to give a brief plot summary because that'll be make it easier to explain the scene.
So the "favorite" son follows in his fathers footsteps and joins the Marines. He is serving as a dog handler in Afghanistan when his unit is attacked and he dies. The dog survives, but is so grief stricken that it that the Marines can't rehabilitate him so they give him to the family. The younger brother, initially portrayed as a slacker (more on that later), resists the responsibility of caring for the dog, but eventually the two help each other and save the day. Also, the older son's best friend (who joined the Marines with him and was in the attack) was actually smuggling guns out of Afghanistan to sell illegally and may have actually been the one that killed the older brother. So the dog doesn't like him.
Anyways, the friend is home on "leave" and gets a job working at the dad's self storage business. The dad asked him what happened to his son, and the friend tells him that the dog freaked out in the firefight, turned on him, and killed him. The dad's like, "sure that makes sense", and he goes home and tries to shoot the dog but is stopped by his other son who now likes the dog.
Let's take a second to think about that. If the dog really did kill his handler, do you think the Marines would just give the dog to the family of the guy the dog just killed? Not only would that be a huge liability for them if the dog attacked someone else, but they wouldn't have spent all the money bringing the dog back from Afghanistan. They would have just killed him there.
Also, if it were all true and this is a killer dog, how could you let your son convince you not to kill it then? (Well, maybe not then then, but give it back to the Marines or have a vet put it down.) Sure your son likes the dog and he would be totally bummed, but he's 15 years old. He doesn't get to make those decisions, especially when he's not objective about it. Your job as the father is to make those tough decisions. But I bet if the dad had called a family meeting and told them what he knew, instead of just pointing a gun at the dog like a crazy person, then they might have even agreed that he needed to be put down.
As it happened though, the dad is getting ready to shoot the dog that killed his son (the war dog trained to fight by the Marines I remind you) but his son says "no Dad! I love him" (paraphrased), and the dad says "fine, but don't let him in the house." What?!?!
Anyway, that, plus the racist stuff, plus just generally bad parenting decisions by the dad really took me out of the movie. But that stuff was over the heads of the intended audience as both my boys really liked "the dog movie."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)