
Whats this blog about?
I’m writing this review blog in order to expand my horizons in the areas of literature, films, music, and television. The big difference from other review blogs is that I will be breaking the demographic barrier of an 18-40 year old male and reviewing media outside my normal demo. I’m coming from the perspective of a non-English major that likes a lot of the same things a normal guy in his early 20’s likes. If this sounds too gimmicky don’t worry, because I’m not going to pander to stupidity in order to excrete machismo and/or masculinity. Enjoy.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Album Review: Tegan & Sara--Heartthrob
I won’t treat you like
you’re typical.

I know this is not a review of The Con album, but I just wanted to give context to why I was
disappointed with the new album. Folk-pop, pop-folk, indie folk, or whatever you
call it has really caught fire the past few years with bands like Of Monsters and Men, Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros,
and Mumford & Sons so I was
patiently waiting for Tegan & Sara’s
new album because I assumed that this was their bread and butter. When I heard
“Closer” before the album was released I was a little confused to why it was a
straight pop song. I told myself the record company probably released that song
to catch mainstream radio, but I was wrong. Every single song on the album is
exactly in the genre of mainstream pop without a hint of the acoustic drug I
hold dear.
When I first heard this song I was like: “This song sounds
like it should be playing during a women’s spin class.” I wasn’t surprised when
I looked up producers for the Heartthrob
album and saw they mostly hail from hip-hop and electronic genres. This venture
into highly produced pop is not new for Tegan
& Sara because they did do a song with Tiesto called “Feel It In My Bones,” but I thought I would end with
guest spots and not a whole album. I would have been okay with a combo pop and
folk album because they do it very well, but this album had no soul to it.
Every song sounded like the one before and I couldn’t wait for the album to be
done with. Skip buying the album on iTunes and stick to listening to it on
spotify. But do yourself a favor and buy The
Con on iTunes. Now I must wait for another few years and hope they go back
to the folk-pop they got me hooked on. GRADE:
4.5/10
Friday, March 1, 2013
T.V. Review: Girls (HBO)
There are so many
well-rounded opinions/reviews of the show so I will be only covering the scope
that catches my attention. This review works best if you are minimally familiar
with the show.

Hipster Entitlement.
The characteristic that bothers me the most with these characters is the sense
of entitlement that these women have. More specifically the characters of
Hannah, Marnie, and Jessa drive me a little crazy with this characteristic.
Maybe I’m defensive because I assume people believe entitlement is a
characteristic of this generation, but I disagree. Maybe it’s just my group of
friends, but post-undergrads in general do not have this sense of entitlement
the way the show would like you to believe. They are definitely spoiled
characters, but that characteristic is not a result of being in this generation.
It is a result of their personal life where they struggle yet adapt being away
from their parents.
![]() |
Adam |
![]() |
Hannah |
SPOILER ALERT: S2 E4
Here is a small cut of dialogue from my favorite scene in
the series when Jessa is arguing with her non-hipster finance husband:
Husband: “You’re
just some dumb fucking hipster that’s munching my hay!”
Jessa: “I’m embarrassed when we walk down the street because you are so fucking average. I tell my friends that you were born a test tube baby, so you have a little edge…you are ridiculous."
Husband: “And
you’re just a whore with no work ethic.”
Real Good. Realism.
These characters don’t have sexy/exciting personalities like network television
and I believe it works for the show. I don’t think the female audience wants to
be like these characters, but the female audience actually pities them. An
unsatisfying life is the real drama/comedy in the series covering the reality
of life in the mind of a confused young person. The show hits really good marks
in that respect.
Real Bad. Structure.
Some of the episode structures get under my skin some. The show really tails
off when an episode focuses on one or two characters only. The show is a lot
better when we are following the whole group as opposed to only Hannah. Maybe I
feel this way because Hannah, Marnie, and Jessa are truly annoying to my
sensibilities, but centric episodes make me hate them even more.
![]() |
Shoshanna |
Saturday, February 16, 2013
T.V. Review: Skins U.K. (Season 1 & 2)
Why Skins? Well up to this point I have entertained myself
with mediums older than my demo. So when thinking of something to watch for my
T.V. review I wanted to find something younger than my demo. Short of watching
the Disney Channel I decided to try Skins season 1 & 2. It’s probably
categorized as a teen drama more for women so I believe its worthy to review
for this blog.

The series first caught me off guard with the structure of
each episode, which centers around one (sometimes two) characters. There are
eight characters that the show focuses on (Tony, Michelle, Sid, Cassie, Chris,
Jal, Maxxie, and Anwar) who are in the equivalent of American upper high
school. It took me a few episodes to grasp the lingo of U.K. slang because
there are quite a few differences between U.K. English and American English. For
example, instead of calling it weed/pot they called it spliff. If anything I
learned some cool new words that I can now introduce into my vocabulary. There
is also the music, which is pretty awesome and an important part of the show.
At the end of the first season creative juices simmer when the characters go
somewhat Bollywood and lip-sync to Cat Stevens “Wild World.” I usually skip the
opening credits of a show, but in this show the credits are too catchy to miss.
Check it out for yourself:
![]() |
Cassie (Hannah Murray) |
![]() |
Tony (Nicholas Hoult) |
The story lines get more serious and the characters suffer
heavy emotional losses in season 2. One can see the evolution of high school
students to adults as well. They went from sex & drugs to death &
heartbreak quickly and I’ll let you decide if the evolution was too heavy. If I
were a teen I’d probably be upset at the change, but as a guy in his 20’s I can
appreciate the change.
The friends are kind of split between primary (Tony,
Michelle, Sid, Cassie) and secondary (Chris, Jal, Maxxie, Anwar) characters in
the first season, which is not a big deal because it depicts friendships in
real life, sort of friends within friends. The best part about the show is that
you can actually believe these are high school students. These are not models
in their mid-20’s playing high school students, but actors that look like
regular people. The show is sort of drenched in realism that is lost with
American teen dramas that try to depict teenagers as pretty white people with
problems. Of course the show has to pander to teens so there is a bunch of
ridiculousness, like walking in on an attractive teacher while showering in
school. The sex & drugs criticism is a little overplayed because I didn’t
see anything that was too bad or too graphic, but I will say that the nudity was
HBO-esque for a teen show. I guess I’m just used to American shows that don’t
really show so much nudity without being on a premium cable network.
As much as I wanted to go off on some of the negative traits
of these characters, I came to realize that we’ve all suffered from these
traits as teens even though it was probably to a lesser extent. After season
two the show spins off with new characters and although I don’t plan to watch
future seasons I’m glad I watched this pillar of late 2000’s pop culture. It
was refreshing to see a new window into the T.V. genre that has disappointed
and plagued T.V. entertainment. I can now see why this show is praised by fans
and hated by parents. Without influence I have come to recommend the first
season to your teenage sensibilities. GRADE: 7.5/10
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Album Review: Father John Misty--Fear Fun
![]() |
Fear Fun |
“Contrary to anesthetized neo-progressive sensibilities, what we celebrate as a culture is in some way related to the state of the individual.” – Josh Tillman
Does this quote make you marvel? Does it tickle your innermost consciousness and mirror your deepest insecurities to the world? I’m sure Tillman would think that’s’ how his fans would feel, but the former Fleet Foxes drummer is far from being the next Claude Levi-Strauss or Clifford Geertz. Tillman’s symbolic yet perplexing statements on modern civilization don’t tell us much about his art, but they do tell us that Tillman is an ardent character with passion equal to that of a West LA shaman. Tillman’s (current) personality shows in his recent solo work under the name “Father John Misty.” I may cringe at some of the one-liners Josh Tillman congers up in his head, but I’ll admit that I like his new album Fear Fun to be released on May 8, 2012.
There is an ongoing theme of Hollywood in the album that is sort of refreshing in the anti-industry bubble that has recently hit indie the past few years. The old Hollywood flavor is certainly present and makes itself known with themes and syntax that are similar to Buffalo Springfield, but with a modern flavor. The song being pushed early by his label is titled “Hollywood Forever Sings” and it resurrects listeners to the sounds of Old Hollywood found in the house bands of 1960’s Whiskey a Go Go and the Troubadour.
For fun you should definitely count the number of references to Los Angeles and the Hollywood area in this album. Tillman may be a lost soul that belongs in the 1960’s but this album hits modern keys and tones that fans of indie will like today. You don’t have to be an old man with fond memories of classic Sunset Boulevard to appreciate this album. I’ll admit that personally I like Father John Misty more than Josh Tillman, but I seem to be banking on the hope that Josh has a split personality disorder. One personality is a rich ex-drummer from a popular indie band that says the most pretentious pseudo-philosopher shit in the world (don’t follow him on twitter) and the other (Father John Misty) is a smart music historian whose mind is deprived with the once majestic Sunset Strip.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Movie Review: Anna Karenina (2012)

Keira Knightley’s portrayal and look of Anna Karenina was
exactly how I pictured the character. I probably cheated a little before I read
the book because I knew she was playing her, but Keira added a certain depth I
never pictured before. Keira’s Anna was a lot funnier than I imagined in the
book. She has perfected this period character that is soaked in the divine
comedy. The character of Anna is very overdramatic, but I like how Keira toned
it down to a more realistic version of Anna. I’d give Keira and the writer
Stoppard an A+ for matching and exceeding my expectations for Anna.
Jude Law played the sour victim Karenin, which I’m still
murky about. The character is very bland and lacks passion so it’s hard to say
that Jude Law played the character great when the character is dry to begin.
With that said Jude Law matched the book character perfectly so I’ll give him
an A, but not an A+ because he didn’t add anything new to the character.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson played the character Vronsky, which I
think would be the hardest character to portray. I was shocked when I found out
after the movie that Aaron was the same guy in the movie Kick-Ass. Aaron in Kick-Ass
looked nothing like Vronsky so I’ll give the make-up people in Kick-Ass a lot of credit or the make-up
people in Anna Karenina credit for
the transformation. Aaron did give Vronsky some personality that I thought
lacked in the book, but Aaron’s look was a lot more boyish than I had pictured.
In the book I was a little confused about how Vronsky moved on from Kitty to
Anna so fast, but Aaron’s portrayal answered that question for me perfectly
without words. I wouldn’t say Aaron met my expectations, but he gave me a
different scope to see the character of Vronsky. In the end, I have no
complaints on his portrayal of a hard character so I’ll give him an A+ for
giving a solid performance.
![]() |
Anna Karenina |
The character of Levin I thought would be the easiest to portray because he suffers with a lot of internal conflict and he doesn’t really show his emotions. I’m sorry to say that I was sort of disappointed in Domhnall Gleeson’s portrayal of Levin. Domhnall’s Levin was so wimpy compared to what I had pictured in my head. I know Levin had some sort of social anxiety, but Levin is stubborn and Domhnall was portraying a man who wears his emotions on his sleeves. I think Domhnall was just a victim of the cuts in the screenplay because Levin’s storyline was not filled with as much tension and drama than Anna’s. I would have to give Domhnall’s portrayal a solid C because I don’t think justice was given to Levin’s character.
My favorite character in the book was Stepan
(Oblonsky/Stiva) and I’ll gladly give actor Matthew Macfadyen and A+ for just
filling in the blanks to an already easy/funny character.
![]() |
Macfadyen |
I will admit that I’m not a really creative person;
therefore the action in my mind while reading the book was very tedious. The
first half of this film was pure brilliance because it brought life to the
story and it was hitting every important plot point. Obviously the director
couldn’t put in every scene in the book into the movie, but they gambled and
kept the film true to the book for the first half. I’m not going to break down
the plot, but just comment on what I thought was important. They cut out some
long parts of the book that I was okay with like Kitty in Germany, Anna/Vronsky
in Italy, and Anna/Vronsky living on the country estate. There were some parts
they included in the movie that I think they could have shot better. For
example, I thought Kitty caring after Levin’s brother was a big scene in the
development of the character in the book, but in the film it was shot like a
montage. That upset me a little bit because it wasn’t giving Kitty the credit I
thought she deserved.
![]() |
Kitty |
Of course in the movie version Anna meets the same fate, but
Anna is portrayed more positively in the film version. I don’t know if this was
because they cut out the scenes that portray Anna negatively or if this was deliberate.
In the book, Anna’s treatment of Dolly at the estate, her lack of mothering
with the daughter, and her views on Levin gave Anna some antagonist traits.
This could also be because those scenes were in the second half of the book and
the film didn’t invest heavily in the second half.

After Anna’s demise the film wrapped up pretty quickly just
like the book. We didn’t see Vronsky going to war, but we did see a little of
Levin. It seems that the ending scenes of Levin were just leftover cuts,
because unless you read the book the scenes were out of context. I believe they
should have ended the film after Anna’s demise instead of limping to the finish
line with Levin’s ending. I think it would have given the audience a shock to
the system. Instead we were left with Karenin caring after Anna’s children in a
meadow.
My overall review of the film is positive one because the
beginning makes up for the weak finish of the movie. I hope in the extended DVD
version they have those awesome scene transitions throughout, because it made a
huge difference in me liking the film. If I were giving advise, I would say to
watch the movie first then read the book to help fill in the gaps. Although if
one does do that be prepared to read a lot and have patience. GRADE: 8.5/10
I'm officially done with the Anna Karenina franchise. Look for my book summary and book review if you want to read more.
I'm officially done with the Anna Karenina franchise. Look for my book summary and book review if you want to read more.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Book Review: Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Finally done with it. It's wordy, but only because it was a long book so I do not expect other reviews to be this long.
Tolstoy caught me off guard immediately because there was no sign of the character the book was named after. I was starting to believe Anna was going to be a small character and Stepan was the true main character, because Anna didn’t show up until chapter 8. My first impression of Levin was of a man that was very insecure and socially awkward, yet he had enough confidence to ask Kitty for a marriage. After her denial one could see Levin’s self-esteem crash and he suffered with it for about half the novel. Vronsky didn’t make a strong impression at the beginning inferring that when he was with Kitty he was just of shell of his true self. The ball in Moscow was one of the most important scenes in the book where Vronsky was flirting with Anna and as a strait male I thought Vronsky did quite a good job playing the pick-up game with Anna. Kitty saw immediately that Vronsky had eyes for Anna and was very hurt because she saw too that Anna was beautiful. I think Anna played around with Vronsky at the expense of Kitty in order to have a little drama in her life. Although when Vronsky showed up on the train on the way back to St. Petersburg she realized that this was no longer a game. I’m going to give Stepan and Dolly’s relationship some analysis as well because I think Stepan is a funny character. Early on Dolly is pretty weak in her convictions and I honestly believe that Dolly was just milking attention at the beginning of the novel in order to be relevant. I will say that Dolly does make a comeback later in the novel and transforms into a character that is extremely likeable.
Before we go to St. Petersburg to see how Anna and Vronsky
are doing we are taken to Levin’s farm. Levin is quite a farmer and very
passionate about it. But I did think he was sort of dry in this part of the
book. You would think Levin would be quite humble because of his dislike for
the city, but he has strong opinions about peasants to put it lightly. I would
probably have to read this section again in order to get a sense of Levin’s
theories of agriculture, because it was hard to pay attention with St.
Petersburg coming up. Kitty tries to change her personality in Germany so she
may gain certain clarity to her life. I have to say that she comes off kind of
phony and displays her immaturity in dealings with a local family she almost
breaks up, but it’s in Germany where she learns how fragile and complicated
adult relationships really are.
While Vronsky courts Anna in St. Petersburg we get a better
sense of how Karenin thinks. He is a man with little personality and passion,
which is the exact opposite of Anna. You could feel the tension in the room
when Anna was talking to Vronsky and Karenin entered the party. Tolstoy does a
great job setting up the context in which you can hear the whispers of people
talking about this inappropriate relationship. The short chapter in which Anna
and Vronsky have sex was sort of weird. I read the chapter and was very
confused about what just happened because there was crying and the exaggerated
dialogue of Anna moaning the word “murderer.” I thought they had just broken
off their relationship, but I looked online at a chapter review and it said
that they just had relations. I read the chapter again with this in mind and I
could see it, but I thought it was more comical than emotional. My favorite
scene in the book was the horse race because it was just filled with tension
and I could see the plot potentially pulled in many different directions.
During the race the reader was as nervous for Vronsky as Anna was, so when
Vronsky fell you could understand why Anna wept. The revelation of the affair
to Karenin had to be done after the race because it was becoming ridiculous how
clue less Karenin was acting. The reveal was odd because Karenin scolding Anna
for weeping in front of everyone and Anna seemed frustrated at the lack of
passion in Karenin’s voice. I’m
sure Anna would have respected Karenin more if he just said what was on his
mind instead of holding it in and talking like a constitutional lawyer.
Although Karenin was the one being cheated on he played up his role as the
victim way too hard and set himself up for embarrassment.
The reconciliation of Kitty and Levin was not as tense as
St. Petersburg, but you felt like the stakes were higher than with Anna and Vronsky.
One could guess that Vronsky and Anna would not last, but you really wanted
Levin to shut-up about farming and just settle down with Kitty. The ridiculous
way that they got together was so symbolic that one could tell that Tolstoy was
commenting that their relationship was magical and impossible for anyone else.
Back in St. Petersburg we first encounter supernatural
themes when Anna and Vronsky have dreams that foreshadow Anna dying in
childbirth. This caught me a little off guard because Tolstoy stood pretty
consistent about letting anything seem too mysterious. There is probably
something to fact that dreams and miracles only happen in Anna’s storyline
rather than Levin’s. One positive trait that Anna tested Vronsky with was the
news of the pregnancy. I always read the Vronsky character as having maturity,
but Anna couldn’t see that until this news. Reading the chapters with Anna on
her deathbed was sort of an enigma. They were very emotional powerful chapters,
but then almost immediately Anna was recovering causing a lot of confusion
within the culture of the novel. I’m sure Tolstoy did this to keep the reader
on their toes in order to infer that any character may die or survive at any
moment. Vronsky’s attempted suicide kind of came out of nowhere because he was
in the middle of an inner dialogue. I’m not going to dig too deep into the
reasons of the suicide, but assume that Vronsky was emotionally damaged from
Anna dying. I think that Vronsky didn’t want to kill himself, but he wanted to
feel pain as Anna was feeling.
Tolstoy tested my patience and nerves with the wedding of
Kitty and Levin. Tolstoy knew that the wedding couldn’t go on without drama so
he threw in some wedding day uncertainty. When Anna and Vronsky were in Italy I
kind of hated their fakeness that they played up with art. This was the
equivalent of Kitty’s little trip to Germany where the characters try to “find
themselves,” but they are really just running away from their problems.
Tolstoy sort of played up Kitty as the spoiled youngest
daughter, but her character had her best moment in my opinion when she cared
for Levin’s dying brother Nikolai. I don’t think she cared for Nikolai because
she liked him, but because she saw how Levin was afraid of death.
I thought that maybe Anna’s negative flaw in Italy was a
one-time thing when she had the very emotional reunion with her son. It was a
very bittersweet moment because you could feel the connection she has with her
son, but you know that it would be short-lived. Meeting her son gave her a
blind confidence to go back into her former social life led by her nourishing
quality of naïveté. Anna first displays her irrational behavior after the embarrassment
of the play where she tries to blame Vronsky for not stopping her from going.
This becomes common practice with her as she realizes that her social mobility
becomes stagnant.
Tolstoy gives a not so coy test to Levin and Vronsky in the
character of Veslovsky who is a young philanderer. Levin fails miserably
showing a flaw in his otherwise solid character, because he becomes
irrationally jealous of Veslovsky. Kitty doesn’t get mad at Levin, but tries to
help support and comfort him with his problem. On the other side of the coin
Vronsky displays that he is not the jealous type. His self-confidence is at its
height and he just wants to settle down with Anna who is grasping at any drama
she can drum up in order to seem relevant.
Anna’s most disappointing moment in my view was when Dolly
came to visit the country estate. Anna behaved like a snob in front of Dolly
who was obviously uncomfortable. This was quite an evolution of Anna who was
very supportive of Dolly earlier in the novel. This was also the point when we
realize that Anna is not a good mother to her daughter. This is probably
because she blames the new child for ruining/stealing the affection of her son.
There was also the chapter in which Anna met Levin and she took pride in
knowing that she could have corrupted Levin. I’m not sure what Tolstoy was
trying to show us in this scene, but to portray that Anna was temptress.
It was at this point in the novel where I was getting sort
of impatient because it seemed that this book was never going to end. This
feeling was heightened because Tolstoy takes the reader out to the countryside
to the elections. Levin and Vronsky are again compared to each other in regard
to their social and political prowess. It would seem that Levin again failed
this test while Vronsky thrived in that capacity. Levin is really just a simple
man who wants to live away from the political world that everyone seems so
caught up in. On the same subject Vronsky understands how to play the social
game and use his skills to thrive in this world.
Karenin’s religious crusade against Anna is aided by the
fact that Countess Lydia is pulling his strings. Which seems very odd to me
because it seemed he resented Anna’s independence, yet he is now fine having
another woman tell him what to do. I also don’t understand the obviously
allegorical character in the clairvoyant French boy who advises Karenin. It was
a weird scene to read when Stepan was in the room and this Frenchman just doses
off. I’m severely lost as to the significance/virtue of this character.
The fall of Anna was a little hard to follow because at this
point I was reading really fast in order to reach the conclusion. Anna felt
that Vronsky was the only person she had so when Vronsky was associating with
another woman, Anna just collapsed emotionally. When she did ultimately kill
herself I was actually kind of relieved because she was bringing Vronsky down
with her. The coming suicide was evident for this once charming woman that
fought the standards in her world, but she was not strong enough to resist the
esteem that came with these standards. Whether or not Vronsky was actually
having an affair was meek because Anna became selfish and betrayed the
characteristics that made me respect her. After her death the novel was pretty
much over.
Tolstoy added salt in the wound of readers who were sad over
Anna’s death when we found out what happened to Vronsky. I was hoping that
Vronsky would move on with his life, but when Anna died so died his soul. I
don’t know what else Vronsky could have done to help Anna, but literally hold
her hand the entire last third of the book. Tolstoy also left us with a little
humanity when he gave Lenin a boring, yet pleasant ending.
My favorite theme in the novel was the change of
circumstance. While Kitty and Levin were miserable, Anna and Vronsky were
happy, but in the end Kitty and Levin were the ones at peace. Passion does not
equal happiness. It’s only an investment to be paid out with agony.
I read this book with no expectations of what I was getting.
I was pleasantly surprised how sometimes Tolstoy threw in a curveball and got
me to quickly flip every page. This was my first book I read of Tolstoy, but do
I have the patience to read War and Peace?
I will only say maybe and that’s only because he writes quick resolutions
installed in very short chapters for the most part.
I will have a review of the 2012 film Anna Karenina coming up soon.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Favorite and Least Favorite in Anna Karenina
I'm almost done with the review, but until then here is a small write-up about my favorite and least favorite character.
Favorite Character
My favorite character was actually Stepan (aka Stiva or
Oblonsky). Although he always
cheats on his wife he just loves life.
While everyone else is struggling with his or her own neurosis he just
wants to eat, drink, and talk. In
any conversations the other person is always nervous talking with Stepan. Karenin for example seems generally
afraid of Stepan because Stepan will convince him to come out of his
shell. I can honestly see how Anna
and Stepan are related. They are
very chatty people who know how to play the game of Russian Socialite, although
it’s at the expense of their partners.
After Anna dies one can be sure that Anna’s passionate personality will live
on in Stepan.
Least Favorite Character
I would have to say its Countess Lidia Ivanovna. She is some religious nut that Karenin
respects and after Anna leaves Karenin she acts like a vulture and picks up the
pieces of Karenin’s dead personality.
She basically turns into Karenin’s harsh rule enforcer. All we really know about her is that
her husband left and she has no kids.
She is basically living vacuously through Karenin, but why? There was no sexual desire between the
two, but they were tied hand in hand in the second half of the book. The Countess also brought in that weird
French character that has visions and those visions told Karenin not to get a
divorce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)