Muse's The Resistance.

I'm listening to this album on my ipod, since it came up on random. I pre-ordered the deluxe boxed set before I'd even heard anything from the album. I enjoy Muse, more and more each day, so I thought, "what the hell?" and "I'll regret not getting it", so I did. I've listened to it once all the way through, and enjoy it. I'm not sure how I like it compared to their other albums. The first one I heard was Origin of Symmetry. Its still probably my favorite. I love the pure rock and the breakup songs. Its so raw and powerful and great driving music. But in a review for this new album, the reviewer said Muse is a good up and coming band, but they get lost in their influences, such as Queen. And its probably sort of true. Several of these songs could be Queen songs, with soaring vocal harmonies and swelling guitars. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I mean, come on, its Queen. One of the best stadium rock bands ever. If Matt Bellamy can achieve 10% of the awesomeness of Freddie Mercury, he deserves an award. I mean, really, why not imitate the best? It would be like someone dismissing a band because they are heavily influenced by the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. I mean, nobody can say that Oasis is talentless. Sure, they may be overrated and at this point most of us are sick of them still sounding like the Beatles, but they've become immensely popular with that style, so if you don't like them, don't listen to them. I have (Whats the story) Morning Glory. Who didn't in the early 90s? Its like everyone of my generation also has Weezer's Blue Album, Ace of Base's The Sign, Silverchair's Frogstomp, Beck's Odelay, or Sublime's self-titled? Those are classics of our generation. If a band tried to mimic or borrow from those albums, and did it well, I'd give them credit, as they'd have made a damn enjoyable album. So, I say, carry on Muse.

Trick 'R Treat

Holy shit. This tries to be an horror anthology. But, holy balls, does it fail. This movie was a complete waste of time. The trailer showed potential, but it couldn't make up its goddamn mind as to what it was about. Was it a supernatural flick? Or was it a creepy story about a psycho killer who was actually a single father? Or a vampire/werewolf movie. It was all of these things. Not because they are all awesome and therefore the movie was awesome. No, it was because the screenwriter and director were shitbags. These douches couldn't decide what this piece of shit should be about, so it was about every goddamn thing imaginable. Therefore, it didn't make sense, wasn't scary, and was also terrible. Do NOT bother to watch this lame excuse for a movie. If you do, you will be sorry you wasted your time and your Netflix rental.

Backspacer

The new Pearl Jam is pretty good. The first three songs are probably the best. The energy is so high. My favorite track on the album is "The Fixer". To borrow an idea from the Rolling Stone review, this album feels like a breath of fresh air and party after the Bush years. That is the best way to describe it. The fuzz is still there, but the grim of the grunge has been washed away by the surfing. Its a album.

12 Rounds, with John Cena.

This movie was pretty excellent. I was told it was an 80s action movie, with all the cornball one-liners, the ridiculous action, and unbelievable plot. I was told right. But it strangely balanced the cheesiness and the fun. John Cena makes an excellent action star. He is physical, but also a complete ham. You never once dislike him, but his brand of do-good action is actually interesting. He's like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop, both a muscleman and a cornball. But I think he has potential as an actor to do that sort of role for the next twenty years. Yes, I would watch him do that. Yes, I would enjoy it. This movie has my seal of approval. A totally watchable and entertaining stupid action movie.

Passengers.

This movie was so mediocre, it took me three viewing to finish it. The twist was predictable and boring. This movie is not really worth your time. It was like the Sixth Sense meets a movie where there is a plane crash.

Bram Stoker's Dracula

I am watching this On-Demand. I don't know why. For the love of Jeff, it is bad. Its like Coppola didn't even read Dracula. The movie is so very unlike the book, while at the same time trying to be the book. It is not. The opening scene shows Dracula in the 15th century, fighting Turks, seeing his dead wife, and renouncing God. This is purely made up to make the character of Dracula more human and more sympathetic. I'm sorry to say, this is not the first misstep in the retelling of this story. Dracula is not a character to be humanized, he is a character to revile. He may be the titular focus, but he is not the hero. He is purist evil, and the Gothic horror of the novel stems from the vast, complete, and uncomphrensible terror he inflicts on the characters. On a few discrepancies. The character of Renfield was not Dracula's solicitor who went crazy, he was simply a lunatic loyal to Dracula. Additionally, Jonathan did purchase all of Dracula's London properties. In fact, he doesn't even know about multiple homes until three-quarters of the way through the book. Dracula did not have a wife who he thinks is reincarnated as Mina Murray/Harker, hence giving him a motive for going to London and killing Jonathan. The class differences between Lucy Westenra and Mina Murray are non-existent in the book, because they are all from the same social class. There was nothing about "aristocracy" or "rich" people. Its a stupid invention of this film. Additionally, the overtly sexual tones of the movie are also pure fabrication. The novel is far more subtle in its eroticism. Dracula's ferocity at seeing Jonathan's blood when shaving is completely removed when he sees/touches the cross given him by the Gypsy woman. In the film, it is not. He actually freaks out more upon seeing the cross. Also, Harker openly questions and contradictions Dracula, something the pure terror he inspires should have prevented. Jonathan never outright sees a baby given to the sister vampires, only a wriggling bag, implying the contents. The subtly makes the characterization far more interesting. It is unclear early on if Jonathan Harker is confused and insane, or Dracula is in fact behind the evil. Sex with a werewolf man? Really? This movie is terrible. The wolf that escapes from the zoo coincides with Dracula's arrival. The implication is that it is in fact because of Dracula or Dracula himself in animal form. However, this atrocity implies that it happened before his arrival. Ridiculous. Also, Van Helsing is apparently the movie's narrator. WHAT!? The book has multiple narrators. Now they are drinking Absinthe. Why? No reason other than to be wrong. Fangs did not sprout in the vampire. Stoker described Dracula as having high gums, that made his incisors look like fangs. They were not additional or preternaturally long teeth, as later incarnations would have us believe. Again, poor writing in the script and faithlessness to the source material. This whole eternal love story is retarded. The novel is about the horror of unstoppable evil, not the power of love. A word about the cast. Who on earth thought Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Gary Oldman would make good actors for this movie? Its well enough, because it would have been a colossal shame to have really excellent actors wasted on such a horrendous script directed in such a boring way. Finally, and most heinously, the ending is all wrong. [Spoilers] They do not kill Dracula on the Borgo Pass, on the way home, just before nightfall. He arrives home, and breaks out of his coffin to be accompanied inside by Mina. This, while less abrupt than the novel's end, is lame and stupid and unworkable. [/Spoilers] This is a terrible movie by a director who should have known better. Coppola did the Godfather, on of the best movies of all time. I guess after such a fantastic film, nothing could live up to it, but still, its like he didn't even try. I'm sorry I have once again sat through this bastardization of my favorite novel. For shame.

Knowing

I was surprised by this movie. Roger Ebert said it was excellent, as well as some friends, so I gave it a shot. Parts a hokey, but I enjoyed it. Alex Proyas has created another very good sci-fi movie tinged with philosophy. Not all of the acting was amazing, but Cage didn't bother me as much as I feared he would. All in all, this movie was worth my time.