BEFORE: OK, I'm back from Las Vegas, and I'm exhausted. We did a LOT of walking around, though we took the tram when we could and Ubers when we had to. In the end we visited 23 casinos, 5 buffets (in both cases, my wife missed the last one or two, because she got sick and slept for about 30 hours straight, to rest up for the trip home) and don't get me wrong, we had a LOT of fun. We both lost money on the slots, which was disappointing - I usually win a bit in Atlantic City or Foxwoods, if I quit when I'm up. I was $200 up at the end of the first day in Vegas, but what was I going to do, quit playing for the whole rest of the trip? That would have been NO fun - but if I was looking to make money, that's exactly what I should have done. It's funny, usually in Atlantic City I see the casinos have giant promo displays that announce the latest jackpot winner - "HEY, everybody, Brenda C. just won $125,000 playing Super Slots!" or "Jackie R. just won $200,000 on our Mega Jackpot machine!" I never saw one such announcement the whole 8 days I was in Vegas, which leads me to surmise that just possibly, nobody has won a jackpot in Vegas - not in the last few years, possibly ever. I'm thinking maybe the games are rigged - not completely, just enough to give you a little payout, which makes you think that if you keep playing, you'll win a bigger one, which, umm, probably isn't true. If you keep playing, you will lose, if not right away, then eventually. (Hmm, that's a bit like life, isn't it?)
But what really struck me - and again, we HAD FUN, I want to stress that again - is that the entire city of Vegas has become a giant pile of advertisements - there probably wasn't a two-minute stretch of our vacation where we weren't being sold to or pitched to in some way. I rarely go through Times Square any more, for the very same reason. If all of New York City was like Times Square, I'd move away in a heartbeat. Yet everyone still seems to GO THERE, to Times Square and Vegas, because that's where it's all "happening", even though it's super-crowded, advertising is all around, and the place is (and has always been) teeming with con men, hucksters and other unsavory types. We spent two nights at the Golden Nugget on Fremont St., which has casinos, sure, but the main downtown drag is filled with cheapo souvenir shops, costumed characters posing for photos, and bars everywhere. Imagine Times Square where everyone can drink in the streets, and the smell of weed also permeates everything. By now I'm a hardened New Yorker, and generally it's "live and let live", if people want to drink or smoke pot, whatever, I can just avoid it. But I'd like to be able to walk down the street without being BOTHERED, not by people dressed up like the band KISS, or Elmo, Iron Man, or topless nuns even, who probably pose for photos with tourists and THEN tell them how much it costs. There simply has to be a better way for people to earn a buck, even busking or begging for money seems like it deserves more respect.
Things didn't really improve when we moved to a hotel on the Strip - when you walk in to any Vegas casino, you're now greeted by a casino representative who acts very nice, which is your first clue that they're probably selling something. They'll ask you where you're from, if you need any help checking in, and then if you want to see any shows while in town - though this is ALSO a scam, they will lead you to someone happy to sell you discount show tickets, provided you sit through a presentation about timeshare properties. JACKALS! And they're everywhere, eventually I had to learn to spot these well-dressed greeters early and give them the "No dice" signal or the "hardened NYC death stare". One guy was so persistent after I said, "No thanks!" that I came close to decking him. Can you please all just leave me alone for five minutes while I get my bearings in your casino? I just came here for the slots and maybe the buffet, why isn't that enough for you?
Things in general were also very overpriced, more so than I remember on our last trip there, in 2003. One night I got a slice of mushroom pizza, a sausage roll and a beer in a casino's food court, and they charged me $31! Are you kidding? That would cost me $17 or $18 at the best pizza shop in NYC, maximum! By comparison, spending $35 for a casino all-you-can-eat buffet seemed like a bargain! But the last time I was in Vegas, you could hit a buffet for $10 or $12 and really feel like you were coming out ahead, I guess those days are gone. I saw people buying cocktails for $49 and up, which come in a signature shape, and light up - and also provide FREE advertising for the casino, so in my mind, they should be much cheaper. Yard drinks were available at $25 and up, and in another casino we saw a robot mixing drinks in the $16-$18 price range. Better, but still overpriced. The problem is, enough people BUY these things, and then justify the high prices to the people who sell them.
My point is, this used to be the home of cheap buffets and $2 beers, but now it also caters to the high-end millennials with money to burn, or people who are there in town to party and don't care about the cost. So in addition to attracting dirtbags from all over, now they're bringing in the douchebags too. And people on both ends are all extremely self-entitled, they want what they want, and they get upset if they don't get it right away. Then they walk down the sidewalk (usually with a drink in hand) and they don't care where they walk, how they walk, if they're in someone else's way, it's all about THEM and how the world should revolve around them. I admit that I might occasionally act in my own self-interest, especially since I came to down with a list of things we wanted to see and places where we wanted to eat, but at least I understood that it might not be possible to do, see and eat everything. We got to eat at Hell's Kitchen (made a lunch reservation), and saw one show (more on that in a bit) but for the most part, we followed our noses and we had an adjustable plan. If something was closed, sold out or unavailable, we just moved on to the next best thing on the list.
We visited the Mob Museum, the Neon Sign graveyard, went to the top of the (fake) Eiffel Tower, rode the High Roller (largest observation ferris wheel), dined at Oscar's Steakhouse at the Plaza for my birthday, saw the Bellagio fountain show, upgraded my phone at the Apple Store in Caesar's Palace, went to the flamingo habitat at the Flamingo, the Titanic artifact exhibition at the Luxor, dropped in on the m&m's store AND Hershey's Chocolate World - like I said, we had a lot of fun, packed a lot of activities into 8 days. But always, always, when we weren't spending money, we were being advertised to and encouraged to spend more money. When is it enough, why couldn't we, as tourists, just be left alone to do what we wanted?
And eventually, after visiting casinos that were reproductions of other places, like New York, Paris, Venice and ancient Egypt, I started to realize that perhaps the whole city is not real, being in essence just smaller versions of other places. Is anything there real, like REALLY real? Jesus, I spend most of my spare time watching movies that aren't real, and reading comic books that aren't real, and still I found myself wondering if there was anything truly real and honest in that whole damn fake town of fake places, fake people and fake interest in customers. Ironically, I think I finally found it when we went to see "Legends in Concert", the long-running show featuring impersonators of famous music acts, like Elvis Presley and Freddie Mercury (the show we saw also included Joan Rivers, Pat Benatar and Lady Gaga tribute acts). It's more fakery, right? Only at least they were HONEST about the fact that we weren't seeing the original performers, just simulations. The rest of the city, with its strippers, showgirls, and gambling, is all there to sell a fantasy, but they're always claiming that the fantasies are real, but they're just not. That whole city is just going to implode in a giant bubble of unreality some day, mark my word.
Perhaps I'm too old for this sort of thing, I've seen too much fantasy in my life and when I go away on vacation, I'm often looking for something real, like a good BBQ dinner, or when we went to the NASA Space Center in Houston or visited Graceland. That's all, just let me see a little bit of a historic place and don't try to snow me or rope me into a sales pitch of some kind, plus don't overcharge me for everything.
I've been on cruises three times, and that's probably where you expect to meet the most self-entitled people, who eat 8 meals a day and are looking for luxury. But god damn, Vegas tourists are the worst, now that the selfie-obsessed culture has taken over. Sorry, correction, the hucksters that encourage them are the worst, the tourists are the second-worst. By day 6 I just wanted to punch everyone I encountered, the way I felt on the last day of NY Comic-Con, only I couldn't just leave and come home this time. Maybe I just need to stop being around other people for a while. OK, vacation rant over.
Chloe Grace Moretz carries over from "Dark Places". See, I could have dropped in the new "Addams Family" film here, because she's the voice of Wednesday Addams, but I'm choosing to continue without seeing that. It's got a weird production design, and I'm sure I'll see it eventually, plus rushing out to the theaters now to see that would cause me to have to drop another film, and I want to see all 12 films I've got slotted for the rest of the year.
I had this one linked to "The Killer Insider Me" for a long time, with the Elias Koteas connection, but then that required watching that movie about golf to get back to horror films - those two films have now been removed from the 2019 viewing schedule, and I think this year's horror chain is stronger for it. Anyway, you can probably see how this is all going to re-link up with "Dark Phoenix" now. Essentially I'm a day behind right now, but posting the "Dark Phoenix" review that I already wrote is going to get me caught up with Halloween just fine - it's almost like I planned this...
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Let the Right One In" (Movie #2,185)
THE PLOT: A bullied young boy befriends a young female vampire who lives in secrecy with her guardian.
AFTER: AND, now I'm even further behind, because I spent so much time complaining about my vacation that I barely have any time to talk about this film. Which doesn't really matter, because I've already seen and reviewed the original Swedish film that this is based on, and they didn't really make THAT many changes. Well, one key change, really, which is the fact that the vampire in this film is a girl, like she was born a girl, and though they don't really say how long she's been a vampire, she's been stuck at the age of 12 for "a long time". What's a long time to a vampire, anyway? And NITPICK POINT, how come vampires can turn into bats or mist but they can't turn into an older version of themself from the moment they got turned into a vampire? And didn't we already see this sort of thing in "Interview With the Vampire"?
(SPOILER ALERT: Plot points from this film, the first Swedish version, and perhaps the original novel revealed below...turn back now if you have to.)
In the original novel, and I think in the first film, there's a strong implication that the girl was once a boy, and got castrated at some point after (or possibly before, I don't know...) becoming a vampire. And so instead of aging into a man, the boy was stuck as an immortal 12-year old and started dressing like a girl. Sweden does have a reputation for being ahead of the curve on these gender issues, right? I remember when I was a kid if people talked about going to Sweden for an operation, they were probably talking about a sex change. Since this version was made in 2010 for American audiences, naturally all references to this were removed - so when Abby tells her young friend, "I'm not a girl", she means that she's no longer a human girl, she's something else. That's typical for the U.S. attitude about transgender issues back in 2010, right? It's one thing for Abby to be a vampire, but a transgender one? THAT somehow seemed like the "too scary" part?
The rest of the story sort of follows along with what I've seen before - Abby is living with an older man who kills people to obtain fresh blood for her. (Couldn't he just make a withdrawal from the blood bank? Sorry...) But he's not very good at it, so when it seems like he's about to be caught by the police, he douses his face and hands with acid so he can't be identified, so the cops won't go to his apartment and find his young vampire companion. I wish the film would have given us some insight into how this man and young vampire found each other, and why they have some kind of connection. Then again, maybe some things are best left to the imagination. I think in the original film there was something about the man being an ex-teacher who got in trouble for possessing child porn, and that lends a whole subtlety to the relationship that doesn't even get explored in the remake. Again, too scary, probably - we don't want to understand pedophiles, only prosecute them.
They tried to do that thing in the remake where they start with the most provocative action scene, then jump back two weeks and show the events leading up to it, only that didn't really work here, because by the time they got back to the original scene, with the cop investigating the man in the hospital with acid burns, everything had been over-explained by this point, and so there was no point in messing with the time-stream, I think.
Meanwhile, Owen is the young boy who lives in the apartment next to the man and little vampy - and he's got a thing for spying on the neighbors, but he's also being bullied at school by tougher kids who call him a "girl" because he can't swim well or play sports well. Meeting Abby allows him to make a friend for once, and she also gives him advice on how to deal with his tormentors - unfortunately, that message is that he has to fight back physically, even if he's scared to do so. No, no NO, this is 100% the wrong message to send out - why can't Hollywood ever get this right? By fighting back against a bully physically, a kid is not only entering a losing game (because the bully is probably tougher, stronger and a better fighter) but psychologically the bullied kid is then reduced to the bully's level - and if fighting is wrong, then so is fighting back. There are much better ways to deal with a bully, as I've said many times on this blog. Report them with evidence to the principal or superintendent, get video of the abuse and make that video go viral if you have to. File a restraining order, get the bully charged with a hate crime or file a lawsuit for financial damages based on emotional pain and suffering. Or do what I did, when I was bullied I bought the other kid's comic-book collection, and he never bothered me again. $50 from my paper-route money solved my little problem quite nicely. Any of these are better than "you have to fight back". Umm, no, you don't.
As shown here, Owen hitting one of the bullies with a hockey stick, damaging his ear, only leads to more retaliation from the bullies, and then the bully's older brother. Physical violence only begets larger physical retaliation - but damage the bully's reputation or give them a criminal record, that's some real lasting damage. But as we all know, every bully got created after being abused by someone else, so honestly, that's a cycle that needs to be broken, for everyone's sake. Get that bully into therapy and get him in touch with his feelings, that's the real solution. That's the only way we're ever collectively going to solve this issue. Siccing your vampire friend on the bullies might feel good in the short term, but in the long term, it's just not practical. Plus I think it might be morally wrong, even worse than the bullying itself. Just sayin'.
Owen's also a child of divorce, he lives with his mother and his father's no longer in the picture. At one point he calls his father for advice, and I was secretly hoping that he'd say, "Dad, my girlfriend is a vampire..." only to have the father respond, "All women are, son..." OK, so that didn't happen, but it would have been humorous. Aside from that, there's some interesting stuff here when they mix the vampire stuff with kids becoming "blood brothers", and Owen misreads vampire Abby being unable to enter a house unless invited with some kind of childhood game. I guess that's possible if you're a kid who keeps to himself and doesn't have many friends.
Still, the original Swedish film is just a shade better than the remake - I've had friends praising the original and warning me away from the remake, but I don't think it's THAT bad. Maybe some people don't like reading subtitles, and that's OK, too. It's all subjective - that's what Hollywood does, anyway, they remake things. Anyway, I needed the linking to get me one step closer to "Dark Phoenix".
Also starring Kodi Smit-McPhee (last seen in "Deadpool 2"), Richard Jenkins (last seen in "Cheaper By the Dozen"), Cara Buono (last seen in "Kicking and Screaming"), Elias Koteas (last seen in "Gattaca"), Sasha Barrese (last seen in "The Hangover Part III"), Dylan Minnette (last seen in "Goosebumps"), Ritchie Coster (last seen in "Blackhat"), Jimmy Jax Pinchak (last seen in "Hostage"), Nicolai Dorian (last seen in "Hesher"), Colin Moretz, Dylan Kenin (last seen in "Only the Brave"), Brett DelBuono, Chris Browning (last seen in "Bright"), and archive footage of Ronald Reagan (last seen in "Race to Witch Mountain").
RATING: 5 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment