Movie Project, aka Operation No Boredom

So, I haven't done much in the last couple weeks. It has been ungodly hot and humid here (really, people, we built a city on a drained swamp why, exactly?), and when it gets into the 90s and humid, and stays in the 80s and 90s late into the night, there is exactly one thing I want to do: stay put in my AC'd room and watch TV. Since I don't have TV here, I have been watching movies on Netflix and Amazon. It started one night with an inexplicable urge to watch Ghostbusters II, mostly because I wanted to watch the Statute of Liberty walk through downtown New York City. It has kind of grown from there. Since I have been watching a lot, I figured I would comment on them here, since many are old favorites.

Note: I am choosing these movies purely for their fun entertainment factor. Many of them are not what you would consider "high cinematic art" --there is no Schindler's List here-- they are movies to beat the heat. So please don't judge me for my movie taste :). Also, SPOILERS. I am going to post a clip of, and comment on, each of these videos. It will undoubtedly have SPOILERS. So if you have not seen these movies, this is your SPOILERS warning. In order of viewing:

1. Ghostbusters II

Full disclosure: I loved the Ghostbusters movies growing up. They were a legitimate feature of my childhood. I haven't watched Ghostbusters II as much as I have watched the first one, but it is definitely something I have seen before. I loved the movies because of their paranormal bent, and the sharp witticisms and wisecracks that only Bill Murray, Dan Ackyroyd, and Harold Ramis can bring. Apparently II wasn't well received at the box office. I am not sure why: it is not as good as the first one, which was basically comedy genius, but sequels rarely are. But it still had solid performances by the cast, and enough of that goofiness from the first movie to make it solidly entertaining. Also, the Statute of Liberty walks through downtown New York City, blaring Jackie Wilson. Awesome? I think so.

2. Analyze This

Mob movie as comedy. Starring Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal, is about a New York-area Mob boss (DeNiro, naturally), who has a personal crisis and starts seeing a square shrink (Crystal), so that he can once again be able to do the things that mobsters do. That is, whack people without crying about it. It was a thoroughly entertaining movie, and has some great gag scenes --such as the "hit a pillow" scene-- that play up the more ridiculous aspects of both the Mafia lifestyle, and psychotherapy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the movie was written by Harold Ramis.

3. Volcano

I wanted to watch a destruction movie, but I couldn't watch Independence Day yet (I'll get to that). So I chose Volcano, a movie from 1997 that asks, "what would happen if an active volcano emerged in downtown Los Angeles?" What happens is, a lot of people and things burning up, and the better part of Los Angeles getting covered in ash and lava (the native Northern Californian in me says: suck it, LA!). I hadn't seen the movie in several years, but it basically delivers what it promises: two hours of destruction and mayhem. So if that is what you are in the mood for, the movie does it pretty well. And while over-the-top, it does have strong performances, lead by Tommy Lee Jones (and a very young, pre-fame Don Cheadle, who I did not know was in the movie before I watched it this time). While definitely a "popcorn" flick, it (thankfully) doesn't stray too far into the melodrama and/or terrible acting trap that a lot of destruction movies get sucked into.

4. Deep Impact

Also known as the "other" apocalypse-by-huge-asteroid movie to come out the same year as Armageddon, this movie is about --you guessed it-- the peril Earth is put in when it is discovered that a huge asteroid is going to come crashing down and send us all into nuclear winter. Particularly since it came out around the same time as Armageddon, it is usually disfavorably compared to that movie. I can't decide if it is worse, better, or the same. Because while the premise is the same, they are very different movies. One, Deep Impact is much darker: (HUGE SPOILER ALERT) unlike in Armageddon, Earth isn't totally able to stop disaster. They are able to spare total extinction, but a part of the asteroid still hits Earth, and basically puts the entire east coast (and pretty much most of its inhabitants) under 1,000 feet of water. Also, Armageddon primarily focused on the oil workers sent up to blow up the asteroid, their training, and the salvation mission (and Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler). Deep Impact casts a slightly wider net: while it does tell the story of those sent to destroy the asteroid, it also focuses on other people who are involved in, and are effected by, the discovery of the asteroid. More than Armageddon, the focus seems to be on the way an "extinction-level event" would impact how we live what would be the last moments of our lives, and how it would effect the relationships with the people we care about. In that way, it is kind of interesting. Also, Morgan Freeman plays the president of the United States, because of course he does.

5. Sleepy Hollow

This movie is not that cartoon that we all grew up with. It's a bone fide horror movie. I love horror movies (not those crappy slasher movies, but things like The Shining or Amityville Horror). Starring Johnny Depp in a characteristically Johnny Depp-offbeat-creepy role in a creepy movie, the movie is really part horror and part Sherlock Holmes. It is 20 years after the American Revolution, and Johnny Depp (aka Ichabod Crane), a New York City police detective, is sent upstate to investigate the gruesome murders/decapitations of several prominent citizens of the town, Sleepy Hollow (which is actually a real place). He learns that the town citizens blame the murders on an evil spirit known as the headless horseman but Depp, a "modern man of the (almost) 19th century," is determined to use logic and science to discover what he believes to be the mortal murderer. So much of the movie is Depp following clues and piecing things together, all while the horseman keeps picking off victims. It was a really good mystery and horror movie, and it had me fooled: (SPOILER) like Depp's character, I assumed the supernatural horseman would be revealed, in the end, to be a mortal murderer, using superstition as a cover for his crimes. Nope, the horseman is definitely dead, and definitely an evil spirit. But, there is a mortal culprit behind the horseman's deeds. Depp leads a strong cast that includes Cristina Ricci and Michael Gambon (yes, Dumbledore). Also a brief cameo by Christopher Lee (yes, Saruman). I personally liked it because it combined three of my favorite movie genres: period, horror, and mystery.

6. Soylent Green

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! One of the most iconic movie lines from cinematic history. Starring Charleton Heston(fun fact: my grandmother starred opposite Charleton Heston in their high school play, (obviously) before he was famous), the now-familiar (and often cliched) movie tells of a dystopian future where there are too many people and not enough food to go around. So guess what they do to fix that? I have to admit, I am not usually a big fan of dystopian-future movies; particularly ones from the 70s give off kind of a weird (and dated) vibe, but it was worth it to finally see a movie that has become very ingrained in popular consciousness. It was an OK movie -- entertaining, a bit melodramatic, but ultimately not my favorite genre . It was interesting to see, as my dad would say, "what the future used to look like" -- that is, what people thought "the future" (which today would either be the present or the near future) was going to be like. Apparently, stylistically and in fashion, very much like the mod 60s and 70s. Obviously, they didn't get a lot right. One theme that was very prevalent in the movie was the effects of environmental degradation, particularly global warming, and how it exacerbates the dystopian human condition. This movie came out before environmentalism was "cool," and "going green" was mainstream, so I was curious whether or not it represented one of the earliest moves by Hollywood to get onboard with the whole "green" thing.

7. The Usual Suspects

Who is Keyser Soze? The Usual Suspects has become a modern classic and a cult hit, and for good reason. It is basically another detective/whodunit movie: After a boat blows up in a Southern California harbor, killing 23 people aboard, a federal detective from New York flies out and interviews Kevin Spacey, the only witness to survive the explosion, in order to figure out what went down. The story is very well put together, and leaves the viewer guessing --particularly in light of the ending-- what from the story is true, and what is fiction. Spacey does a great job as Victor Kint. I had seen the movie when I was younger, but I don't think I really "got" it; a lot went over my head. As far as crime mysteries go, this movie is really great. By now most people know the "big twist" --and I did going into it-- but honestly, I don't think it detracts too much from enjoying the film, because unlike a lot of movies that use the "big twist ending" device, the story leading up to and setting up the twist is compelling and well-done in and of itself. Like, it would be a good movie even without the twist ending. All the acting performances are strong, and it is just a very well put-togther film.

8. Independence Day

Independence Day. What is there to say? It is the megablockbuster alien invasion/destruction movie that really launched Will Smith into A-list stardom. For the five people who don't know the film, basically a hostile alien force descends on Earth, destroying its major cities, in the couple days leading up to July 4. Smith, along with Jeff Goldblum, are tasked with finding a way to fight back before all of humanity is wiped out. I really like the film: it has some good one-liners, has plenty of explosions and destructions, is a quasi-war movie, and features one of the better "inspirational" movie speeches (in my opinion) out there, right up with the "FREEEEDOMMMM!" speech given by Mel Gibson in Braveheart. A lot of people don't like the movie because they think it the plot, and how it is resolved, is ridiculous. And it is. But you know what? The movie is about rote entertainment: come in, watch, be entertained. Get lost in a movie for a couple hours. If the movie is compelling for other reasons, I don't need anything to make total, 100% logical sense. And for a movie that really is just about spectacle, some comedy, and aliens, it does its job well. I really like it for what it is. In fact, it kind of has become a mini tradition of mine to watch "ID4," as it has come to be called, on actual Independence Day (the final climatic battle between mankind and the aliens occurs on July 4).

9. Labyrinth

Holy 80s, Batman! I loved this movie growing up as a kid, and would regularly watch it when it popped up on TV. Last night, when I was feeling a bit under-the-weather, I decided to watch it in the spirit of, how much does a movie from your childhood change when you watch it as an adult. You know what I mean: references, insinuations, jokes, and plotlines that kind of went over your head as a kid, that you "get" seeing it as an adult, and it changes your understanding of the movie (for better or worse). Granted, it has literally been probably a decade or more since I last saw the movie, but at least from what I can remember, a surprising amount of the movie, was about the same as I remember it. A few minor details about why characters did things were more clear than I remember them being as a kid, but for the most part it was the same movie. So either the movie didn't have a lot for adults-only things to "get," I was an unusually perceptive child, or I mentally haven't progressed beyond that of a 10-year-old. There were a couple major differences that I noticed now, though: first, wow is this movies from the 80s. I mean it was --it was made in 1986-- but if a movie could encapsulate the over-the-top pop culture of the 80s, this is that movie. Hello, copious amounts of syth music! Secondly, awkward sexual tension. So David Bowie plays Jareth, the Goblin King, and Jennifer Connolly plays Sarah, sent into the Labyrinth to find her baby brother, who has been kidnapped by the Goblin King (you had to be there). As she makes her way through the Labyrinth, Sarah has several run-ins with Jareth, before she ultimately reaches the castle where her baby bro is kept. And, at least on the part of Jareth, there is definitely an undertone of attraction and sexual tension towards Sarah. Which is cool... until you realize that Jareth/Bowie is like 30-something, and Sarah is supposed to be like 13. So, ew. I really liked the movie growing up; I can't say I like it as much after a more "mature" viewing, but it still held my attention, and is a good piece of fantasy moviemaking by the same guy that brought you the Muppets.

That's it for this addition of Operation No Boredom. I am sure there will be more movie viewings to come.

Young and Beautiful

Since seeing The Great Gatsby yesterday, I have become a little obsessed with one of the songs that recurred throughout the movie, particularly in the scenes with Gatsby and Daisy. The song is "Young and Beautiful" by Lana Del Rey. I think the song, while maybe not "period appropriate," is very evocative of the story between Gatsby and Daisy. I found the official music video on YouTube. I tend to be fond of trace-like music to begin with, plus it is just a great song -- musically, lyrically, etc. Rather than go on and on about it, though, I am just going to post the video, so people can see for themselves. Enjoy!

The Great Gatsby

Today was a grey, cool, drizzly and generally crappy day, so I decided to go see a movie. I had been wanting to see the new The Great Gatsby movie, directed by Baz Luhrmann (of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge fame), starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, and Carey Mulligan. I had read the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald in high school, and it is one of my favorite books. The 1970's version of the movie, starring Robert Redford and directed by Martin Scorsese, however, I found to be a dreadful bore and virtually unwatchable. So I was curious how Luhrmann's take would pan out. After seeing it, I say that I like it. Here are my observations about/review of the movie:

Spoilers alert!

The Pros

1. First, if you are a literary purist, stop now, because you probably will not like the movie. The movie's story, as far as movie adaptations go, is pretty faithful to the basic plot and overall arch of the original story. They did not change much about the major events that happen, the important plot points and climax moments. What they did change, however, was the details. Basically, the film embellished a lot of details and "extras," both scene-wise and dialogue-wise, that were not necessarily in the book. A lot of what was added made explicit things that were hinted at or implied in the original story (Jay Gatsby's backstory, Jay and Daisy's backstory, Nick Carraway's backstory, etc.), but never fully explored. The movie added more detail and "meat" to those stories. It also added additional details in the movie about the everyday goings-on of the various characters, such as Nick Carraway's (Tobey MaGuire) job as a Wall Street trader, Gatsby's business dealings, etc.

While adding things to a movie from a book can be risky, I think that it worked here, because the details they added were logical or in line with the overall original plot. Nothing that was added substantively changed the overall story, it just made it -- and the character's emotions/motivations/feelings -- more explicit. I also think that this embellishment was, frankly, necessary to the make the movie filmable. In the original book, honestly, not much happens. It is very internally-driven. The problem with the Robert Redford movie, I think, was that it tried to be too faithful to the original source material, and tried to just film what physically, externally happened in the novel. Which ended up making the film really boring. Plus, I think the fact that the director/writer of the new version added more details made the story richer, in the sense that there was more character development, motivation, etc. on display than in the older movie. Literary purists may not like that Luhrmann pulled out and made explicit the internal nature of the characters, but to make a movie, I think making this choice is necessary.

Carey Mulligan and Leonardo DiCaprio as Daisy and Gatsby in The Great Gatsby. Photo courtesy of dcmetrotheatrearts.com

2.Luhrmann made an interesting choice in framing the story, which is actually probably more in line with the original novel than the Redford version. The original novel is told as a memoir from Nick Carraway's perspective. If I am not mistaken (I might be, as the last time I saw that movie was in senior year of high school), the Redford movie kind of just plays out what happens in Carraway's story. In the new movie, the plot is framed as a story that a slightly older Nick Carraway is writing/retelling to his shrink (in the new movie, the frame is that the events of the story have made Carraway depressed and an alcoholic, so he is basically in rehab. He tells the story as part of his treatment, eventually writing it down and turning it into the novel). While the exact manner by which Nick telling his story comes about is an embellishment by the filmmakers, I think having it as a narrated/flashback-type mode of film, actually helps it stay closer to, or acknowledge, its literary source material. It is closer to the original in this respect because it remains essentially a (fictional) memoir. The film does a couple cool shots when Nick is typing his story on a typewriter, and there is an overlay of text as to what he is writing. The other nice thing about this technique, is that it allowed the film to pull and use some text from the original novel for the moments when Nick's character is narrating, without it being awkward or seeming out of place. I at least like this because in so doing, the film always has an acknowledgment of its original source material underlying whatever additions or embellishments the film thought necessary to tell the complete story. I think it allowed the filmmakers to change things when needed, without getting away from the story's core, which is the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel.

Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby.Photo courtesy of beyondhollywood.com

3.The music. A lot has been made of the fact that Luhrmann used anachronistic, modern, often hip-hop music in the score of the film. Obviously, there was not hip-hop, Beyonce, or Alicia Keys in 1920s America. Many people have complained about this, because the film is not fantasy, but is rather set in a real, historical time frame, and is generally trying to be realistic. Thus, to have hip-hop would be out of place and weird, or so the argument goes. I understand this argument, and I can see how people might object to the music's use. And I can also see this technique going horribly wrong. But, I actually think it works here. One of the things that the original novel underscores, is the frivolousness and the excess of the roaring '20s (and specifically, of the monied classes of the time). In a way, the Tom Buchanan/Daisy/Jordan characters portray or personify that shallowness and excess. The movie, while trying to be generally realist, was also trying to be evocative of that sense or impression that Fitzgerald conveyed in his novel. The hip-hop music, the use of hyper-realism when filming the party scenes and many of the scenes in New York City, I believe did convey that sense of living the carefree high life, the "bling," the party atmosphere. So while the music may not have been "correct," the mood or environment that it did create, was "correct" in the sense that it successfully created the "roaring" of the "roaring" 1920s. In fact, I think one of the failures of the older movie, was the fact that it failed to capture that extravagance: while there were party scenes, they weren't much more crazy or over-the-top than your average higher-end wedding. I think also the success of the modern music was that Luhrmann used it judiciously. There wasn't really any scene where you heard a full Jay-Z song. Rather, it would be maybe a 30-second clip of a recognizable song in the background (a good example would be a shot of New York City with a few bars of Alicia Keys' Empire State of Mind playing softly in the background). If extended music was used (for the party scenes especially), it had a modern beat, but didn't have words or wasn't a recognizable modern song, and the modern tune was often remixed with, or clearly derived from, 1920s-era jazz music. Full-on playing a whole P.Diddy song in the background would admittedly be "off," but I think the way in which Luhrmann used music in the film, while unconventional, was ultimately successful.

Party scene from The Great Gatsby.Photo courtesy of pagetopremiere.com

4.Performances. Not much to be said here, with the clearly strong cast. The acting was very good, but then with a cast headlined by Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey MaGuire, anything less would be surprising. Tobey MaGuire in particular did a very good job playing the the naive newcomer to the New York scene; as essentially an observer of the stories of those around him, you see him get sucked into this crazy, hyper-real world, and you can see how, through the movie, his greater understanding of and involvement with that world turns his naiveté into disillusionment. I think it also helped that MaGuire, in whatever role he plays, just kind of comes off as that naive guy, so it worked. As for DiCaprio, 'nuff said. Did a great job. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when he is preparing to see Daisy, the lost love of his life, for the first time after five years. He gets that awkward, embarrassed, doesn't-know-how-to-act-in-front-of-someone-he-still-has-feelings-for run-up to the big meet down to a frickin T. I can't really explain why it is so good, except for the fact that any of us who have ever been in that kind of situation will recognize and identify with it immediately. He channels the nervous 17-year-old asking his crush to prom, basically perfectly. Carey Mulligan as the confused, heartbroken, but ultimately shallow Daisy displays remarkable complexity; you see her emotion, and she conveys her affection for Gatsby realistically. It is clear that she loves the man very deeply, which makes her final decision to retreat back into the money and what is easy all the more maddening. And I got to hand it to Joel Edgerton, who played the antagonist Tom Buchanan: while the audience may not (and is not really supposed to) like Daisy's husband, there a few moments in the movie where, through the shallow, lusty and generally douchey character that is Tom Buchanan, the audience actually sees his humanity, his feelings and some of his vulnerability. While the audience may not like him, there are moments where it can sympathize with, or at least understand, him. Considering the character, that is quite the achievement.

Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby. Image courtesy of screenrant.com

Since it is still too early I think for there to be clips of the movie available on YouTube, I am putting in a clip of the trailer, so you can get an idea of the performances:

The Cons

1.Timing. One thing that I found "off," was the pacing of the movie. Namely, it was very uneven. A lot of the scenes with the additional details and dialogue were quite extensive relative to the movie, and yet some of the scenes of real importance (such as the car accident scene), felt kind of rushed in comparison. Also, the party scenes and New York City scenes were often sped-up, done in a hyper-real or almost fantastical way. And yet a lot of the rest of the movie was paced more like your standard drama, more subdued and slower. While I think the craziness of the party and some of the other scenes was intentional, the differences in the pacing, and the often-abrupt changes in pacing, could be somewhat jarring. Plus there were a few moments where the hyper-real came in to a scene that was otherwise "normal," so that was also somewhat off-putting.

2.Somewhat related to the above, but some of the sequential storytelling was off. The movie added a lot of necessary detail to the characters' stories, often through flashbacks. While I think these were necessary, sometimes the place in the story which a lot this backstory or explanation happened, was kind of random, or seemed somehow out of place. I guess what I am trying to say is that, in places, the story was jumpy. I think this came from the fact that the filmmakers were trying to add in the necessary details, but I think they could have been more successful in so doing, without creating this kind of hopping-back-and-forth sense that could take the viewer out of the current story. There were several places that flashed forward to Nick's telling of the story; while breaks back and forth like that are necessary for the storyteller frame narrative, sometimes where the break happened, was kind of random. So more logical transitions between the shifting time frames would have helped the movie.

Overall, I really liked the movie. I think that Luhrmann did, ultimately, make a version of Gatsby that could be filmed and watched (and enjoyed) by audiences. He had to do this by essentially creating "more" to the story, but I think that, in the end, it worked. If I had to give the movie a rating, I would say 7/10. Purists may not like the changes that were made, but from a storytelling perspective, I think it made the myth of Jay Gatsby much more accessible and "real."

One of the interesting things about the movie, is that it captured an element of the story that I hadn't noticed or remembered from the book. Namely, it is pretty clear that in the Daisy-Tom relationship, they are both clearly married to the wrong person. While it is clear that they care (or cared) for one another, and at least at one point had some kind of love for each other, their true, (at risk of sounding hokey) soul mate love was elsewhere. In Daisy's case, she obviously should have been with Gatsby. Tom's case is interesting, though. A major plot point is his affair with the wife of a lowly auto mechanic; when she ends up dying, and Tom looks over her dead body, the audience sees the kind of emotion, love and sadness on his face, that he never really shows around Daisy. While he may have loved Daisy, he loved this lowly woman. But, due essentially to their social positions (Gatsby was poor when Daisy met him, the wife is just a working-class woman), neither Tom nor Daisy can pursue the love that would truly make them happiest, instead relegated to clandestine affairs that are doomed to tragic failure (it is interesting to note that, in the end, both the "other" paramours vis-a-vis the Tom-Daisy marriage -- the mechanic's wife and Gatsby -- end up dead). I don't know how much of this was originally in the book (it's been a while since I read it), and how much was Luhrmann playing up that angle, but I do think it was an angle or bent to the story that ultimately worked in the overall plot or "point" of the movie.

Independence Day Post of, "Awwwwwww"

Today is the Fourth of July, and I have been quite thoroughly enjoying my day off. I took advantage of the whole not having to get up for work "thing" today, and got quite the late start. It was wonderful. But because I got such a late start, I was looking for something I could do that would only take a couple hours. So, I decided to do something that has been on my NYC "bucket list," and went to the Central Park Zoo. It was absolutely amazing and adorable, so much so that I didn't mind the sweltering heat. There was a regular zoo, and a petting zoo. PS: Petting zoos are pretty much the best things, ever. It was a great was to have a relaxing holiday and day off.

But rather than have you all listen to me blabber on, I am going to let the cute critters speak for themselves, at least in pictures. Below are some photos of the cuties that I took while there. Some photos are better than others; the animals, it seems, were the smart ones, trying to stay out of the heat (unlike their human counterparts). Hope you enjoy!

Warning: Ridiculous cuteness ahead

A puffy Puffin! These lil dudes had the right idea: stay in the water

Poor polar bear. He was probably miserable in today's heat

Mongoose: The Animal that Kills Cobras. For such a BAMF animal, he cure is a cure lil critter

Turtle from the Southwestern United States

Lemur: Straight-up Chillin'. Like a Boss.

I don't know what kind of tropical bird this was, but he was very big, and very handsome

More Lemurs! Lemur Lemur!

This was at the petting zoo. I believe it is a bull. Dude was big

Sheep! On a hot day like today, it must suck to have a permanent wool coat...

I got to feed some hyperactive goats. They are bigger chow-hounds than the dogs I have owned. Jumping up, crawling all over each other to get treats from the tourists. I wonder if they get fat from all the snacks fed to them?

In conclusion: Zoos are awesome. I wish I had fluffy, furry animals in my life. Maybe not these animals, because they are, ya know, wild, but they turn me from kind of a grump, serious person, into a giddy 5-year-old. Not a bad way to spend the day at all.

If you are interested, the Central Park Zoo is located at:

64th Street and 5th Avenue, New York, New York. You can also access it from within Central Park. General Admission for adults is $12 (or $18 if you want the "4D" theatre pass), $7 (or $13 to add the 4D ticket) for children 3-12. General admission will get you into the Main Zoo and the Tisch Children's Zoo. Summer hours are 10:00a.m.-5:30p.m. daily, open 365 days/year. About 2- 2.5 hours should definitely be enough to see both the main zoo and the children's petting zoo.

I really like Central Park. It is just a very calm, nice area. As much I love NYC and big cities, it is nice to have a respite from the concrete jungle and the go-go-go it entails. It is nice to be able to see forest-type animals live in the ponds and lakes that have been created for them. And, it's just so pretty. All the old stone bridges and things, designed back in the day where people really took the time to make intricate sculptures, brick facades, all to make a very picturesque, tony atmosphere. It is very nice.

I also love the Upper East Side, at like Park/Madison/5th Aves and ~90s-50s street. It's so clean, and the buildings are all like old,stone or brick Empire or Victorian-style apartment houses. And for the buildings on 5th Ave, they have a great view of Central Park, being right across from it. I am sure, however, that those apartments and condos are tres cher. Like, I am thinking they pretty much cost this:

and a

Images by illuminator999 on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons

Alas, I am afraid my tastes are too expensive for my own good. I will probably have to get some stressful-yet-high-paying job so I can keep up with myself.

So, that was about it for today. The sun is going down, and they just did the fireworks over the Hudson River, which I was able to see from my dorm window, so that was nice. I thought about going, but I didn't want to fight the crowds, plus from being out all day in the sun I am tired and a little dehydrated, so it was best for me to stay where it is air-conditioned. I should find dinner, but I ate kind of late today anyway. Will probably just stay in, maybe get takeout.

And finally, since it is Fourth of July, I thought ending this post with the following would be suitably appropriate, because it is a July 4 holiday classic, and just so epic, and so good:

President's Speech from Independence Day, copyright 20th Century Fox, 1996

Damn. Now I really want to watch that movie. Hulu? Anyway, I hope you all have had a happy and safe Fourth of July!