April 25, 2010

April 23, 2010

April 22, 2010

  • Several days ago (afternoon of April 18 to be exact), my wife noticed a cat running away from our front yard. Turns out she left six baby kittens on our yard when she took off. We actually had to even shoo a raven away, who was making an attempt to get one of the kitties. Well the first thing we thought about this baby kittens was that they were abandoned. So what were we going to do about them? We thought of going to the pet rescue people that we usually find at PetSmart, but they weren't accepting abandoned baby cats at the moment. We weren't going to call the pet shelter or the ASPCA either, because that's guaranteed death to the baby cats.

    I consulted the local vet, and they told me that those kittens were probably in the middle of being moved by her mom. The general advice was that we should leave them alone for the time being, until we are sure that the mommy cat really did abandon her kids. I wasn't sure how we could tell and were concerned as to whether the kittens were being fed at all by their mommy. The vet told us that if the kittens are not crying the whole time, then that means that they are getting fed by the mommy cat. Well, they definitely were not crying at that time, and were simply just asleep. Let nature take it's course I guess.

    Using gloves to avoid putting too much human scent on the kittens, we put them on a towel and in a carrying crate, so that they are a little bit out of the elements. The crate's door was left open, so that the mommy cat can still get to her kids. We then moved the crate to our front porch, so that they don't attract other animals too much (although we question how protected they really were). Several hours later, we find a seventh kitten that was added to the mix. I guess the mommy cat came back with another. The final total for that day ended up being five black and two orange kittens. One of them I dubbed being "punk" because it's a black cat with an orange streak of fur on it's head.

    A day passes by and there's no change to their status. Baby kittens were still at our front porch, but they were at least still alive and were not crying. Mommy cat must just come by sporadically then, but I still never saw her. At one point there was evidence that she did come by, based on how the towel was indented on one side, while the other side had the litter of kittens bundled up. It looked as if the mommy cat must have been lying next to them at some point of the day.

    Another day passes and things started to look grim. The kittens looked noticeably affected by the colder weather, and I did hear them cry a bit more than before. The kittens were starting to crawl out of the crate by themselves as well, but I didn't know what that signified. I wasn't around the whole time to watch them, but when I would return to check on them, they weren't crying anymore. Was the mommy cat really still feeding them? I got the impression that this was some domesticated house cat that only came back when she felt like it, and didn't visit her kids as often as she probably should have. We decided to give it one more day, and if things don't improve, we were going to take immediate action.

    The next day, we sadly find out that four of the seven kittens died (two blacks and the two orange ones). We figured that it was because of the cold. We decided there and then that we had to decide for the welfare of the remaining three kittens. My wife's friend's sister was studying to be a vet, so she took the last baby cats for the rest of the day. They took the cats to get checked up on by the vet, and of course fed them.

    As of this blog post, the three kittens are still alive. They are currently with another party who was interested in having cats, so the surviving kittens went to that person. I can only hope that they grow up healthy from then on.

    My wife said while I was at work at night, our dogs were barking at something outside at the front porch. Supposedly there was a cat outside, which we can only assume was the mommy cat looking for her kids. If that's the case, sorry about taking the cat's kids, but we were afraid that the whole litter would have died if we didn't intervene.

    I'm actually quite a bit saddened by this whole experience. I wish that we could have been able to get a happy ending with all the kittens surviving. At least the next time this happens to us again, we'll know better as to what we have to do.

April 21, 2010

April 20, 2010

  • Originality in movies is overrated.

    Who really cares if a movie looks like it has been done before? It's not like people really go out of their way looking for movies that actually are original in the first place. In fact, I've noticed people who actually avoid certain movies BECAUSE it looks too original. In some cases they are right to think that, because a movie that is original doesn't necessarily mean it'll be good. But still, if you act like a disciple of all things original, by all means I expect you to make an attempt to actually support "original-looking" movies.

    There are far too many people crying that a movie is unoriginal, as if it really matters in the end. Take a movie like Star Wars "A New Hope," that helped bring us this fantastic story that is still being enjoyed by everyone, decades later after it's release. Was the story of that movie original? No, it really wasn't. Despite the characters and space fantasy setting, the basic premise of the movie has actually been done before. Most people don't care what elements Star Wars borrowed from though (Samurai, War films, King Arthur), because people have gotten over the fact that it isn't really original, and just enjoy it for what it is. In the end it's not that the story has been done before, it's HOW it's done is what matters.

    The most recent famous case about people complaining about originality is the 2009 blockbuster movie "Avatar." Avatar was brought up over and over again about how it's "unoriginal" and what not, but I don't see much people complain about some of the predictable plot elements in The Hurt Locker. How about other movies like Up In The Air, District 9, Up, Precious, or The Blind Side (THIS movie of all things)? In general, how about the stories in video games or anime, which has a high level of unoriginality and predictability. Why "Avatar" was targeted by the majority of complainers about originality I don't know. Maybe it was the "hip thing to do" at the time.

    People said that "Avatar's" story was predictable, and thus the story was bad. I completely disagree with that line of reasoning. Just because you are able to predict what's going to happen next, does not automatically mean the story is bad. If that's the case, then you may as well stop watching movies, because predictability is not going away anytime soon. This is more so true when you've seen a lot of movies (or read a lot of novels), and you learn to have an idea about how a story usually unfold in a movie. You start to notice particular themes or plot ideas that run through a lot of movies out there. Some times when I'm watching a movie at home with a group, there will be somebody wondering out loud what's going to happen next, and there are times when I'll just go "haven't you seen enough of these kinds of movies, that you should already know what's going to happen next?" Don't let predictability ruin what could otherwise be a fun viewing experience, 'cuz you'll just sound pretentious in the end.

    So while it can be valid to complain about a movie being unoriginal, that shouldn't be the be all end all that decides the overall quality of it. Judge a movie by it's overall product, and not just a portion of it. You'll be a better person for that.

    P.S. One thing I've observed is that mainstream movies are the ones that tends to get some people to proclaim that "it's been done before." It's like crying "The Simpsons did it already!" You don't normally see people make that complaint with "independent" films much, even though they are just as much to blame as others. Go figure.

April 19, 2010

April 18, 2010

  • This past night, I was at the "Bridges Auditorium" in Claremont College, to finally see stand-up comic Russell Peters live for the first time. Like most stand-up shows, I'm not going to do it justice trying to explain the jokes told to us; and there were tons of them. The majority of the jokes were pretty politically incorrect, but that's just the way we like it right? Well here's at least a brief recap of my night.

    Parking for The Bridges Auditorium was a little different from the usual venues I normally go to, because it's a "park wherever you can find parking" system there. I originally had my doubts about that fact, as Claremont is part residential neighborhood, college campus, and shopping district. Restrictions I figured would be abundant. I ended up parking a few blocks away and just walked it. Turns out that I probably could have parked closer if I wanted to afterall. Next time I'll know better.

    The Auditorium opened up it's doors by about 7:30PM, and they had a strict no camera or recording policy. Good thing I didn't bother to bring my camera. No alcohol was being sold though, but I did buy a t-shirt of one of Russell Peter's known catch phrase; "Be A Man." My seat was located near the center-stage left of the auditorium, and just waited until the show started... which was at 8:30PM.

    The opening acts were Joey Medina and Travon Free. They were both pretty funny and had some good comedy to warm up the audience. Joey Medina's humor mostly revolved around Latinos, while Travon Free was mostly about Black People. Seemed kinda obvious I guess, but still pretty funny guys there.

    When it comes to the main act, Russell Peters of course while being Canadian Indian, is all about humor involving many multi-cultural races, from India, Irish, Japan, Philippines, America, etc... He is like an anthropological comedian, that's able to do some awesome impersonations of cultural accents as well. He is also quick on his feet and plays with the audience a lot. In fact, the majority of his stand up this past night, was by picking on certain individuals at the front of the audience, and then create comedy from the answers he gets, which could be as simple as somebody's name. He's got tons of stories about his many travels around the world, and he's great for being able to find the comedy from his experiences.

    Russell Peters is one of the most phenomenal stand-up comics currently out there, and I suggest that if you ever have an opportunity to see his act, go see it! I know I'm most likely going to see him again whenever he is in the area.

April 17, 2010

  • There's several talks online regarding the comparisons between the movie adaptation and the graphic novel original of "Kick-Ass." Without giving out too much spoilers, the main difference is that some plot twists from the book were not taken advantaged of, one particular character's origin was different between the book and movie, the abilities of the 11 years old vigilante prodigy "Hit-Girl" were a bit more exaggerated on film, plus the conclusion for the movie was much more in the positive optimistic light compared to the books more negative depressing resolution.

    Much to my surprised, there are MORE people who prefer the movie OVER the book. How often does that happen? Usually it's the other way around. In general though, there are a lot of people who enjoyed the "Kick-Ass" movie, so people in the minority who didn't like the film is going to be singled out by those who loved it. In one particular famous example, movie critic Roger Ebert gave the movie 1 star out of 4. That's pretty low coming from Ebert, and a lot of people on the internet are upset with him for that.

    - Roger Ebert reviews "Kick-Ass" (link) Warning : He actually spoils the movie!

    After reading his review, I've got to say that he completely wore his heart on his sleeve when he wrote that. He just couldn't get pass the fact that an 11 year old girl is murdering adults left and right. It seemed that he was misled into thinking that this was suppose to be a lighthearted superhero movie, but was put off by some of the more grittier aspects of the story. On that note, I agree with Ebert, that IS a problem with the tone of the film, which will have to be blamed on director Matthew Vaughn, and possibly the confines of it's independently produced "low" budget of $30 Million.

    The more specific problems that Ebert seems to have with the movie is actually dealt with in the comic book, which the movie changed. Notice how he thought the first half showed promise, which coincidentally enough were the parts that mostly resembled the book (2nd half, not so much). He thought there was an odd tonal change at the second half when the grittier aspect of the story was more obvious in the first half. The book had a consistent balance of grittiness and humor throughout the story, which the movie didn't handle as well. Ebert thinks that Hit-Girl didn't show enough emotions when she was mowing down the bad guys? Well the book was more obvious on what was going on with her psyche at that time, than the more subtle approach the movie took.

    Flame him for hating on a currently popular movie, but I thought he had good points in his review, despite fixating too much on the controversial Hit-Girl topic.

    Personally, I enjoyed the movie a lot. I don't think it's necessarily a "superior" super hero movie, because the changes made to the story kinda made the movie a much more conventional comic book film than it should have been. I would go as far and say that the movie "sold out." The question at the beginning of the movie was why nobody tries to be a superhero. The way the book answered that question is because it is a foolish idea to try and do. The way the movie answered it, you'd think it actually encourages people to try it. The book simply gave you that wish-fulfillment of being a superhero but brought you down to reality by the conclusion, while the movie kept you in that fantasy world of being.... super.

    It is a fun movie to watch, but it's definitely not "realistic" as some people would have you believe; which was part of the strength of the book. I clearly like the book, but it can be a bit of a downer once you get to the end of the story, so the happier ending of the movie is a welcome change. This is possibly the reason why a lot of people seem to like the movie more than the book.

    P.S. There are actually people bringing up the "Watchmen" movie when talking about "Kick-Ass," and actually arguing which one is better? Two different style comic book movies people. One does not have to be better than the other. It's all subjective.

    - Kick-Ass the graphic novel hardcover edition (link)
    - Kick-Ass the movie on the Internet Movie Data Base (link)

April 16, 2010