Archive for May, 2013

Today, I’m happy to present a guest post by my fellow writer, Erica Dakin, who took time to write this post detailing her thoughts on writing as an art. As some of you may know, I wrote a call for guest posts earlier and Erica was the first to take me up on my offer.

In this post, she explains what she thinks about writing as a whole more eloquently than I could have. So, I hope you enjoy this post as much as I enjoyed reading it. 

When I first read Jian’s post about writing as an art form it actually surprised me a little, because I’ve never thought of writing as art. At least not in the sense of what I think of when someone mentions the word ‘art’, which is paintings and sculptures and stuff like that. However, if it’s a question of a technical craft or art, then I’m standing firmly on the side of art.

Why? Well, I have one main reason for that. It’s because if it were something technical, it would be something that can be learned, and I’m not convinced that writing can be learned. It can be honed, perfected, streamlined, but there has to be that innate spark, that talent, to make it shine. The best comparison I can come up with is a pianist. You can learn to play the piano, follow the instruction books, practice for hours and hours to get it right, but unless you have some innate musical talent, you will never make it to concert pianist, or you’ll never be a composer. It could be drive as well, the will to succeed and to constantly get better, but if you lack either the talent or the drive, you will never be more than a hobbyist.

If you compare that to writing books, then you can learn that by reading all the ‘how to’ manuals. You can read up on how to structure a story, how to build a believable plot, how to flesh out your characters, but I firmly believe that you need something extra if you want to lift your prose to something that doesn’t look like you’ve simply applied all the rules. You will never write a truly brilliant book by simply following all the rules and applying the correct formulas. There is a reason why there is a whiff of derision attached to the word ‘formulaic’.

My second reason for feeling this way is because if writing were a technical craft, I wouldn’t be a writer. Like Jian, I write from the gut. I don’t plot, I don’t outline, I don’t plan. I simply take an idea and see where it goes. It might stay in my head for weeks or months, where it ferments and grows and starts to take shape, but I don’t write down an idea as soon as I have it and then start writing an outline to go with it. I simply mull it over and over until I feel ready to put it down on paper, and once I do the idea takes off.

That’s not to say I’m not aware of the technical aspects of writing. I may not have read any books on the subject, but I have an amazing editor who also happens to be a good friend, and from her I have picked up some of the finer points on the matter which have made a huge impact on the quality of my writing. It’s just that the structured way of writing doesn’t work for me.

My third reason is that if writing were technical, it would be possible for it to be perfect, and there is no such thing as a perfect book. A book may be perfect to someone, but there will always be someone else who doesn’t like it or even hate it.

The only problem I have with the definition of writing as art is that it would make me an artist, and that just feels weird. I’m a writer, not an artist. I don’t sit in a brightly lit studio and wait for inspiration to hit, I sit at my computer desk in my little corner and bash on a keyboard. Every now and then I get disturbed by a cat or two, or I get the urge to make a cup of tea, or get distracted by a site like Cracked or Failbook, or I feel like slaughtering hordes of demons in Diablo, but I’ll always eventually return to what I’m writing. All that just doesn’t feel very artistic to me.

But then, I do have a drive, a compelling urge to write, and I’ve had it for as long as I can remember. It may sometimes go away for months on end, but it will always return, and once it does I have to write, because I’ll get irritable and edgy if I don’t. And then when I do, the words just keep coming. I have had weekends where I started typing as soon as I got home from work on Friday evening and didn’t stop (other than for the usual chores such as shopping and sustenance and stuff) until midnight on Sunday evening, by which point I’d be on a tally of around 22,000 words. I suppose that’s a pretty artsy thing to do.

Sometimes I also look at my own work and think ‘damn, did I write that? That’s pretty bloody amazing!’ Not often, but sometimes. And that’s the beauty of good prose. Sometimes it just hits you where it matters, and you can’t help but admire whoever put those words on paper. I usually get it with other writers, and sometimes they’re so good that they make me want to jack everything in and never write anything else ever, but thankfully those phases never last.

So yeah, I guess that writers really are artists, and if that makes me one too then I’ll have to grudgingly accept that tag. As long as people remember that I’m only a little bottom-feeder, one of those jobbing artists who does it on the side and has a long way to go before being able to live off my efforts.

And actually, I think the most compelling argument for writing as art is this: there have been many books that were so well-written and moving that they had me bawling like a baby. You’ll never convince me that that was because the writer followed all the right formulas; it will have been because the writer knew how to paint with words, and that takes instinct and talent, not the right manuals.

Well, first, I want to thank Erica for taking the time to talk about writing and for doing it as a guest post for my blog. Here’s the link to her blog where you can all Follow her: Theft and Sorcery

You can also follow her on Twitter, her username is: @TheftandSorcery

Finally, you can download her book over here on Amazon. Can’t believe I got a published writer to write a guest post for me, to be honest. But I managed to talk her into this.

Please remember to Like, Follow, and Comment. Hopefully, all three. And yeah. Thanks for reading.

~J.A. Romano

Advertisements

iron-man-3

 

 

At this point, a lot of you have already seen the movie, but I wanted to talk about it a little bit. In Iron Man 3, Tony Stark is essentially brought down to the basics. This is a tactic we’ve all seen utilized in long-running franchises. Most notably there’s Rocky Balboa (2005) where Sylvester Stalone essentially becomes an underdog again. Here, however, I feel that this is Tony Stark’s first time truly becoming ill-equipped. Sure, in the first Iron Man, he has to build his first suit of armor under duress.

But the difference here is that he spends a very long time in this movie without any of his usual gadgets, fighting against people that are essentially invincible. The movie starts out with Robert Downey Jr. narrating, and we go back to his past as an uncaring playboy. He’s in Switzerland, on New Years Eve 1999, and he’s hooking up with yet another girl. A botanist. A scientist, with a really bad limp, tries to convince him to fund his research, and he blows him off by telling him he’ll meet the guy on the roof in ten minutes.

Now, I could tell you the entire plot, but where would be the fun in that? Odds are, you all could easily find out the plot of the first half of the movie, so I’m just going to tell you what I liked and what I did not like. As always, the acting is very good in this movie. Robert Downey Jr. was born for this role. I’ve read a lot of reviews saying that the actor playing the villain was born for the role, too, but I disagree. I think it could’ve been done a lot better by another actor. That isn’t to say that the actor playing the villain does a bad job, but it could definitely be better.

What I truly loved about this movie is that Tony Stark has no armor for a third of the movie. He has to rely on gadgets he makes up from a Home Depot, and he’s forced to fight some nasty individuals. Why is he without his usual suit of armor? Well, his former bodyguard, Happy, is injured severely in a suicide bombing by this terrorist, the Mandarin. In a fit of rage, Tony Stark challenges the Mandarin and tells him his home address. Yeah, I think we can figure out what happens next.

Long story short, his mansion is destroyed, and Tony Stark is stranded in Rose Hill, Tennessee with his armor no longer functioning properly. Tony Stark is suffering from anxiety attacks since the alien invasion in the Avengers. What I liked about this is that they don’t make watching the Avengers a necessity in order to watch Iron Man 3. I will say this, though. I enjoyed Iron Man 3 more than the Avengers.

The Avengers had a good enough story, a great cast, and amazing special effects. Iron Man 3 has a great story, a great cast, and amazing special effects. The Avengers and Iron Man 3 are about the same length, but I was more aware of time passing when I was watching the Avengers than when I was watching Iron Man 3. And I am pretty sure that The Avengers is a lot more action packed than Iron Man 3.

Another thing I liked was the use of side characters that really appear onscreen for about three minutes, but are utilized for their full comedic value. This movie made me laugh in a good way, and I like laughing. So, I give this movie a lot of props for consistently making its audience laugh in the theatre.

Something that a lot of reviewers have had a problem with is the excuse for the Avengers not being utilized to fight the Mandarin. Apparently, it’s not a superhero problem, it’s an American problem…

Yeah. Don’t buy it. The villain basically says that he’s been forced to do things a lot smarter because “that god fell from the sky”. He’s referring to Thor. Then, in the end, he basically says: “Once I take down Iron Man, the world will be mine!”

Looks like you forgot about the rest of the Avengers. It’s these little things that tick me off, but the rest of the movie is good enough to make me forget about it until after I finish watching it. To be completely honest, I find it odd that S.H.I.E.L.D. didn’t get involved.

If we’re going by the comic books, they’re pretty nosy and pry into EVERYONE’S affairs. If we’re going by the movies… yeah, they’re pretty nosy and pry into everyone’s affairs. What makes the Mandarin so different?

Well, those are little nitpicks, really. That’s the thing about reviewing movies – I always feel obligated to nit pick about the little meh-ish things about it, and I really make it sound bad. But it’s not bad at all. Those little scenes that don’t really make sense? In all, they probably last for three minutes. Three minutes out of a two hour movie.

Think about it like that, and I guess you can say I’m drawing at straws here. Now, I know what you’re all dying to ask.

What about the final battle?

I mean. We all know there’s a final battle. This isn’t even a spoiler. Every superhero movie, or action movie, has a final battle. Unless it’s one of those movies that aim to literally set itself apart from the rest by defying convention. But yes, this movie has a final battle, and it is amazing. I cannot begin to describe it because the effects and the action are too great to spoil for you all.

Let’s just say that I found the final battle a bit more riveting than the Avengers. Now, I liked the Avengers. It’s not like I have something against Chris Evans or anything. However, it’s just in my opinion that Iron Man 3 is the better movie. Apparently, a lot of people agree. Iron Man 3 grossed more internationally than the Avengers. The overall box office receipts, however, lean more to the Avengers, but a lot more people internationally watched Iron Man 3.

It’s also been said that it is the best of the solo Avenger movies. Now, you could say that I’m just that much of a big fan of Robert Downey Jr. or Iron Man… and you would be correct. I am a big RDJ fan, and while Iron Man isn’t my favorite Marvel character, he certainly is part of the Top 20.

The thing is, though, I really think that if you like superhero movies, you will like Iron Man 3. If you don’t like superhero movies, then you’ll probably still like it if you like action movies.

The story is fast paced, the action is tense and riveting, the acting is superb, and the special effects are awesome. I suggest you watch it in 2D, though. The 3D visuals weren’t utilized for their maximum potential like in Avatar.

But like I said, I am nitpicking here. So, watch it. I suggest you watch it with a friend or a family member. It’s a lot more fun to discuss it with ’em afterwards.

This movie gets an 8/10 rating for me. This is an awesome movie. 

That’s all I have to say. Hope you enjoyed this review, I sure loved writing about this movie. If you liked it, remember to click the Like and Follow button. If you agree or disagree, please comment. I love to hear about other people’s opinion. And yeah. Thanks a lot.

~J.A. Romano

Image

Hannibal is the type of show where people already kind of know what to expect from the name alone. They would be wrong, though. At least, I was proven wrong. I came in expecting a story about Hannibal Lecter. Sure, the summary kind of said otherwise, but the name leaned into my expectations. However, Hannibal is about a genius FBI agent who can empathize with serial killers as easily as we… well, scorn serial killers.

Obviously, there are some pretty nasty side effects from his unique ability to understand the ‘design’ of the serial killers. He’s haunted every night by dreams of the serial killer’s victims, and he also cannot handle human interaction very well.

Now that we have that out of the way, I’m going to break one of the Reviewer’s Rules of Thumb , and start it off by saying that I like this show.(Think there’s a rule where you first have to list the reasons before saying you love/hate it.) I’ve stopped watching as many shows as I used to because they ceased being interesting. This show, however, keeps things interesting.

It is, at its core, a game of cat and mouse, but it also shows the very thin line between a hero and a villain. At least, that’s the way I see it. The way Hannibal Lecter first meets Will, the main character, as portrayed awesomely by Hugh Dancy, is very interesting. I will try not to spoil anything for you, but Mads Mikkelsen takes on the difficult task of standing in Sir Anthony Hopkins’ shoes head on. He brings a rather different Hannibal than is shown on Silence of the Lambs. He’s quiet, introspective, but you can sense there’s a storm underneath the surface. Three episodes in, I have yet to see Hannibal really “loosen” up, and that is one of the many factors that keep me coming back.

I’m not really doing the show justice by describing to you the plot, though. It’s the type of show where you need to watch it to judge for yourself. All I can do is tell you what I like about it. And we all know how much I like to gush about things I love.

I’ll keep it to a short list.

1. The characterization. Every character feels fully fleshed out, and the dialogue between each character is very good. I haven’t seen dialogue like this in a Tv show since House of Cards’ season ended.

2. The atmosphere. Okay. I like mysteries, especially murder mysteries. I love shows like Castle, and my favorite movie of all time is Zodiac. That should tell you how much I like murder mysteries. The atmosphere of mystery and macabre murders portrayed in this show is just fantastic. In scenes of suspense, I wanted to skip the scene and find out who survives. In scenes of fear, I wanted to look away from the screen. And in scenes depicting murder… well, I couldn’t look away from the screen. It’s a very good show that way.

3. Plot. Yeah. It’s good. I can’t really say anything more than that. It’s good, I like it, and it keeps me at suspense. I want to both thank and strangle the writers. Trust me, that is a compliment.

What didn’t I like about it, you ask? Wait, you didn’t ask? Well, I’m still gonna give you my list.

1. Oh, the scenes of murder I was talking about? I was serious when I said I could not look away, but they’re rather excessive on the blood. I don’t normally have a problem with that, but with the combination of their awesome characterization, amazing atmosphere.. It can be very disturbing. As such, I sometimes just go: “Oh, c’mon. I’m about to go to sleep!” or “I’m eating my cereal!” The show is good enough without the excessive use of blood, if you ask me. I’m okay with blood, and this problem was only really an issue in the first episode… But yeah, that’s just a small nitpick for you.

2. Uh…. Can’t think of anything.

Yup. That is how much I like this show. Perhaps, I can add that it’s not really funny… but really, if I wanted funny, I would not be watching the prequel to Silence of the Lambs. So, I have to say, I was very much impressed by this show.

I would recommend it to anyone that likes the Following, or murder mysteries. I would suggest that you go in expecting to see some creepy stuff. Go in expecting a full blown horror movie, and you won’t be shocked at all. Unless you want to be shocked. In which case, I congratulation you on your bravado.

I’m a fraidy cat, and I can’t really handle stuff like that. I watched the Shining a few days ago before going to sleep. Ha! I know! Well, I’ll tell you about THAT experience later.

All in all, this is a spectacular Tv show. If this is cancelled, I will be very disappointed by NBC. First, they cancel Smash… if they cancel this, too, I’d probably lose faith in their executives.

I’m going to try to pick an adequate number for this show, and that number is… (drum roll)

8.9/10

There are only two shows that have a 9/10, for me, and those two shows are….

… something I will tell you in my reviews of them. Yup, I am devious like that. Anyways, I do hope you give this show a try. I really hope you do.

Please remember to Like, Follow, and Comment. Hopefully all three. And… Thanks. A lot.

~J.A. Romano

All right. In an earlier post, I mentioned that I write from the gut. And if I don’t feel very good about something, I don’t post it at all. As such, I actually have about seven unpublished posts that are actually complete. They’re well-written enough, but I don’t feel right about them. Thus, I have given them the status of ‘drafts’. The weird thing is… This is the first time I’ve ever done drafts. When I write a story, I don’t really set out with the mindset: “Well, this is going to have three drafts before the final. So, it’s okay to mess up.” I write it with the mindset that I should make as little mistakes as possible, and that it will be good enough to be the final draft.

Part of the reason is that I hate rewriting things. Not because I cannot deign to see a single word of my “genius” erased from this world, but because it feels anti-progress. It’s like when a ninth grader goes back to 2+2 because he thinks he may have gotten it wrong the first time around. I like moving forward, and I feel that drafts are backwards. Now, I’m not saying that you’re a bad writer if you do drafts. Not at all. In fact, I commend you for doing drafts. This mindset only works for me because I don’t take notes, plot, or outline. I do everything ‘brashly’ and I just write. 

My first book? Who needs a plot? Am I right? My second book? Who needs a coherent plot? Now, my third book… I got it right this time. So, I guess you can say my first and second books were trial runs. They prepared me to adapt to the circumstances. I managed to come up with a plot for the third book while I was writing it, and I was surprised when it actually made sense.

DRAFTY

 

 

I used to wonder, actually, what the difference between writing drafts and editing was. I found out a year ago, though, that they are actually very different. In editing, I just change a few grammar errors, and maybe delete a few continuity errors. Then my family reads through it, deletes some thousand words worth of spelling mistakes, and it’s all set to go. However, writing several drafts of the same book means that you have to set each one ( this is from my Point of View ) from each other. I mean, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

So, you need to change either the characters, the plot, or maybe a few fights. You just need to make it different. The risk here is wasting a lot of time. It’s why writing books don’t necessarily take a year, but writing drafts will take a lot more time. It is this exact reason that I find them unnecessary. I’m not a patient guy, and while I understand the necessity of editing, basically rewriting my book does not sound very appealing. 

I know, writing drafts is different for each person. But for me, that’s what I would basically have to do in order for it to be a draft, instead of it just being an extreme version of editing. 

That’s what my thoughts are on drafts when it comes to books and actual stories. What are my thoughts on drafts when it comes to articles?

They’re actually necessary. You see, articles normally consist of about a thousand words. Maybe two thousand words, so it’s not the same as rewriting a 100k novel, obviously. And in articles, just by altering the way we say things (or by altering the tone), it could either make the article better or worse. That’s how it works with blogposts. We have to find our own voice, like with our books, in order to convince people to click the Like and Follow button.

We have to offer a unique perspective on a topic that has probably already been done before. If we can’t manage that, we probably won’t get a lot of visitors or followers. So, that’s why I think it’s helpful for blogposts. With books, I think it’s a way of dwelling in the What-ifs. If I had simply written several drafts of my first book, it would be better. Yeah, exponentially better. But I would not have been able to write Line of Corruption. It would have taken up a lot of time, and I would be too creatively drained to have written a full length novel. 

Part of the issue with this was that the core idea of Xenon Bane (my first book) was bad. And thus, no matter what I did, it would still stay that way. So, what did I do? I just wrote a new book,recycled a few names, and maybe took a few of the magical attacks from it. My point is – you have to know when to jump ship, and when to take a pen to it and cross out a few commas or add in a couple of apostrophes. There’s a big difference, I am telling you, between writing the drafts of a good book, and writing the drafts of a bad one. 

I hope you liked this post. I sure enjoyed writing about my thoughts on this whole process. I’m not telling you to give up or anything, but I’m just telling you my thoughts on this whole thing. And I’m definitely against giving up on writing altogether. Check out my post Failure is actually an Option to find out my thoughts on giving up. 

Thanks for reading this, and see you all soon!

PS: Would appreciate it a ton if you took the time to Like, Follow, and Comment. Hopefully, all three. That’d be great. Thanks again.

~J.A. Romano

Recently, I stumbled upon a post about writing being art. Sorry I can’t link it to you, but I cannot seem to find it in my search history. Anyways, I want to talk about what I think of writing. I’ve never actually thought of writing as an art. In a lot of ways, I saw writing as something that can be as formulaic as being a contractor. Am I saying that writers and contractors have the same job? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean writers don’t have to jump through some hoops, too.

When it comes to writing, I rely on my gut. I’ve written maybe four posts this week, but I’ve only saved them as drafts. Why? Because I didn’t feel right about them. So, obviously, I don’t think writing is very technical, and a lot of it depends on the writer and him/her alone. To explain to you why I never really thought of writing as an art, I’ll explain to you my regular definition of art.

The first things that pop up on my mind are: Mona Lisa. The Thinker. The Scream.

You know, the normal stuff. Paintings, statues – but I’ve read a lot of posts calling writing one of the highest art forms. I already know that creative writing, in certain (if not all colleges) is part of the Arts program. Or whatever that’s called. But, for some reason, it just never occurred to me that what I was doing was art.

I write. That’s what I call what I do. I may edit, from time to time. I may plot. An artist, though? I guess I’ve always been a bit hesitant to call myself an artist, but I am very curious to hear what other people think. What do other people think writing is? Is it art, or is it completely technical?

A fun example of this, which will flatter people in the former and the latter, is the book-length interview between Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock. Truffaut basically analyzed, from what I read, the artistic parts of Hitchcock’s films, and sought out the subtext. Hitchcock (again, from what I read) made it all seem technical and… effortless, I guess. So, if you think of yourself as an artist, then you’re in the same category as one of the most critically acclaimed French critics/directors ever. If you belong in the latter, like me, then… well, you get to say you’re in the same category as the guy who made Rear Window!

It’s a bit of a stretch, but that’s the closest example I can think of. For the next few weeks or even months, I’ll be asking people to do guest posts where they talk about which category they belong to. Do they consider themselves an artist, or are they a techie? (I wish I was a real techie. I can barely use my computer!)

If you’re interested, email me : hunter.nobody@gmail.com

Or comment below that you’re interested and provide an email address.

You can also contact me via Twitter: @Jilliano_Romano

Facebook is also an option: https://www.facebook.com/TheUnsung?fref=ts

 

Thanks a lot for reading, and hope you hit me up with an email for a guest post!

I’d really appreciate it if you Liked, Commented, and Followed. Hopefully all three.

~J.A. Romano

Image

The poster above is my computer’s wallpaper. It is a reminder to me that I don’t have to be funny to be good. I’m going to start this off by saying that Zodiac is my all time favorite movie.   It is a great movie. The story is about the most infamous murders in the San Francisco Bay area during the 1960’s.

Don’t go in expecting a gore fest. In the director’s own words (David Fincher), he did not want to market this like Seven, because it was completely different, all things considered. And he did direct Seven, so it’s not like he has an agenda against his own movie.

The first few murders in Zodiac are amateurish, and it’s portrayed quite… realistically. This isn’t like in most movies where you shoot a guy once, and he’s dead immediately. Considering the guns, and the fact that the human body was made to be resilient, people here do not die very easily. The rest of the murders occur offscreen, and the viewer only finds out about them through either the detectives, or the reporters.

We are introduced to a political cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), as he finds his way into a meeting of reporters discussing the Zodiac killer. The Zodiac killer has sent them a letter, saying that if they do not publish a cipher – containing his real identity and whereabouts – that he will go on a killing spree. We see Robert Graysmith make up a copy, and we expect him to solve it.

In fact, I rolled my eyes. “What? A cartoonist is gonna solve this cipher that baffles the FBI?”

Nope. The cipher is solved by a married couple that likes to solve puzzles. Again, this movie is based on a true story, and the director and the writer spent months trying to get it as accurately as possible. I find this quite admirable, because the temptation to throw in a ton of Dirty Harry-like shoot outs, and a ten minute car chase for good measure must have been quite strong.

I have to be honest with you. I cannot, in good conscience, even attempt to explain to you the plot. The fun in this movie is trying to figure out the mystery for yourself, and trust me, you will not regret it. Throughout the movie, I had the urge to just search the Zodiac killer on Google. But, I persisted. I wanted to solve it on my own, and most of all, I wanted to see our heroes solve it.

I won’t spoil the ending for you, but I found it quite satisfying. A lot more satisfying than most Hollywood endings. I’ll just make a short list of what I liked about it and what I did not like about it.

1. The plot. I am a sucker for murder mysteries, as I’ve said numerous times in my previous blogposts. In fact, I would be a mystery writer if I, well, could write a decent mystery. Unfortunately, I’m not very good at making up mind-boggling cases that Holmes himself would take at least an entire book to solve. So, I give this movie a ton of props for being able to keep me guessing and in suspense. Awesome job.

2. The characters. The movie is based on true events, and on real people. Yet, I was surprised that each and every one of the characters was fully fleshed out and real. For example, the lead detective of the case is Dave Toschi. At the time, the real Toschi was quite famous because he trained Steve McQueen in Bullitt, and was the role model for Clint Eastwood’s character, Dirty Harry.

In fact, the villain in Dirty Harry is sort of based on the infamous Zodiac killer. I have to say, this has a pitch perfect cast, and memorable characters. I’m not very good at remembering names, but these characters will stay with me for a very long time.

3. The theme. Oh, I don’t mean the music, though I like the music, too. Zodiac isn’t really about the serial killer.. Zodiac is about obsession. Robert Graysmith becomes obsessed with trying to solve the Zodiac killings because he believes that no one else cares. His wish is to just look him in the eye and know it’s him. It was inspiring. To think that a cartoonist would go to such lengths. The good nature of Graysmith makes it very easy to root for him, and that means that in one of the most suspenseful scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie, my heart was actually pounding and I was jumping out of my seat.

Obsession, it shows, is not without cost. And what a great cost it is indeed.

4. The realism. I was reading a review of this movie before I watched it. And it was one of the few negative reviews that I’d come upon thus far. The reviewer, and I’ll paraphrase a bit here, knocked a few points off the film for the simple fact that the writer and director did not add the obligatory car chase scene, and some shoot outs involving the serial killer and the SFPD. I was baffled by this.

I love car chases, I love shoot outs, and I love action movies. But, this is not an action movie. This is not a traditional serial killer movie. No, this is a movie based on real events, and it won’t simply fabricate a car chase to get a few more bucks at the theatres. The reason why I love this movie so very much is the fact that it stays true to the story. I was reminded of another movie, Adaptation. In Adaptation, Nicolas Cage plays the real life screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. He’s approached by a producer to write the script for a book, and he gets flustered explaining that he wants to remain true to the story. He doesn’t want to write in a romance, a car chase, or a hostage crisis at the building your wife works in. (Like if you get that movie reference.)

And that’s what the movie does. It’s true to the story. And it’s a lot more satisfying for it.

Okay. What didn’t I like about it?

1. … Hold on. Let me think of something…  I’m serious. I can think of something. It doesn’t have any computers in the movie? Nope. Cannot think of anything.

This is not a perfect movie. I don’t think there will ever be a perfect movie… or a perfect anything, really. It’s not that I think it’s flawless, it’s just that the things I like about the movie completely outshine all the mistakes that there may be in this film. Think of it like this. There’s a huge blinding spotlight on all the great things about it, and there’s a tablecloth on all the bad things about it.

I don’t really want to remove the tablecloth and see the problems. I want to watch it again, and enjoy the spotlights. So, I suggest you watch it for yourself, and find your own spotlights within the movie. If I were to nitpick, there was a slight problem, I think, in the movie. Robert Downey Jr.’s character, a reporter, is playing the old video game, Pong. I think that’s what it is called. Anyways, he stops playing, and the computer keeps scoring against him. Yet the score remains the same: 15-9.

So, I guess that’s a minor mistake. Or maybe it isn’t. I’m not sure. Maybe video games in those days only counted up to a certain number? That’s one tablecloth removed for you. I hope you do watch this movie. I certainly loved it, and I hope you like it, too.

Please remember to Like, Follow, and Comment. I’d appreciate it a lot if you do all three. And… Thanks a lot. For just reading this. I really appreciate that.