Stuck

Sheldon: I feel somewhat like an inverse tangent function that’s approaching an asymptote.
Kripke: Are you saying you’re stuck?

The above quote from The Big Bang Theory was in my mind as I was thinking about this post. At the moment I feel kinda stuck.
I'm not particularly happy with some areas of life and while I'm not powerless to change some things it seems I am lacking in the willpower, or 'get up and go' required.
The first is some frustration in having actually gained weight since I started going to the gym late last year. I had hoped to lose 3-4kg instead I've put that on and a little bit more. Some of it admittedly can be contributed to increase is muscle tone (not that you can tell for the most part).
Part of the trouble is that I seem to keep injuring myself in the gym - straining my back is pretty common - and what I think needs to be done is to have a proper program organised so that I'm not overdoing it rather than doing things on an ad hoc basis.
General exercise is something I also must commit a bit more to. I used to love taking a walk on most days now I don't do it nearly as often. I'd also like to get to the pool a bit more.
The second thing involves my attitude to money.
I'm fortunate to have a good job and one that I enjoy but I haven't been as vigilant as I should be, especially given the way things have been going not only in the media but economically in general, with saving. I definitely have saved a bit this year but events in the past couple of months have seen me undo some of that good work.
I've set myself a little goal to save a certain amount before I head off on my next holiday in a few weeks time so hopefully I can stick with it. I don't like the way it makes me feel when I realise I've blown money I could have been using for something better - even for paying bills.
Then there's the fact that I am 37 and no closer to not being single than I was at 27. Don't get me wrong I'm enjoying the freedom that it allows and having some fun along the way but, ultimately, I wonder whether 'settling down' is for me. Are children for me?
There are a couple of other issues that remain in limbo, only solidifying the feeling of being stuck. One in particular would be so easy to shove along but I'm not sure if it is actually a good idea given one of my above points.
So I'm stuck not knowing which direction is forward, what decisions are the right ones to move forward and to shake the occasional feeling of discontent.

The Dark Knight Rises

It's very hard to walk into a theatre with reasonable expectations of a film like The Dark Knight Rises because it's been pegged as a 5-star film and, in one review I saw, ''will restore your faith in the motion picture''.
It was never going to live up to the hype - and it doesn't.
That said, Christopher Nolan has done a fantastic job with his Batman trilogy.
I'll say up front that this is inferior to The Dark Knight and that has nothing to do with the mysticism surrounding Heath Ledger's now iconic performance as The Joker.
Here's my review of The Dark Knight .
Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a broken man as we rejoin Gotham City eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. Gotham now celebrates low crime thanks to the Harvey Dent law put in place when Dent was given credit for saving the city in the previous film. (We all know though what he was actually up to).
There's a mysterious series of 'Cat' burglaries in Gotham being staged by Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and there's a new terrorist on the loose called Bane (Tom Hardy).
Bane, who calls himself Gotham's reckoning, sets out to detonate a nuclear bomb which was created, sort of, by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Miranda Tagg (Marion Cotillard) in the form of a fusion reactor to provide Gotham with clean energy.
It's time for Batman to resurface but when he does he's pursued having taken the fall for Dent's crimes. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), injured early in the film, begins grooming a new detective John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who is one of the few people in town to still believe in 'The Batman'.
At 164 minutes there is a lot of ground covered so I won't go into the intricacies of the plot, but needless to say Bane wreaks havoc on Gotham and it's up to Batman to again come to the rescue.
What The Dark Knight Rises does well is ties up the trilogy though there are one or two ends left open, which I found interesting. We also get cameos from a couple of previous villains Ra's Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) and Dr Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) that I didn't think added anything although Murphy's cameo was amusing.
The main problem I had was with the villain Bane. He came across as more of a thug than a true evil genius which made him harder to warm to than The Joker. His voice was interesting, though.
There also wasn't nearly enough of Batman himself. After his early car chase with the police he confronts Bane and is beaten to pulp and then doesn't reappear until the climax.
However, I loved Anne Hathaway in her role. Though never actually referred to as Catwoman we all know that's who she was and her outfit was up there with Michelle Pfeiffer's. She also had an attitude that I've never seen Hathaway pull off before in her previous roles - she was the standout performance for me and in some ways made up for the absence of Batman.
As mentioned, even though Nolan's trilogy is wrapped up he does leave a loose end or two.
The main one surrounds the character of John Blake. We discover, after he tosses in his job with the police, that John is not his real first name - his name is actually Robin.
The ending will have you screaming - 'another sequel' or at least 'spin-off'. And from what I understand from my little knowledge of the comic books this is actually plausible. Though I can't understand why Nolan would want to 'conclude' something in this way.
From all of this you'll think I didn't like the film. Well, I did like it and I thought it was excellent.
But, it is absolutely not the best of Nolan's three offerings and I'm not even sure it is the second best. There's no doubt you'll enjoy it if you're a fan of the series - an 8 out of 10 - but be warned you might be a little let down if you're expecting a masterpiece.

Not Suitable For Children

The best way I can describe Not Suitable For Children  is like a puzzle that has all the right pieces but that's not put together properly.
I really wanted to like this one more than I ultimately did. Not just because it's an Australian film, it's an interesting story just one that didn't quite gel for me.
Jonah (Ryan Kwanten) is your average single twentysomething living in Sydney. He parties, hooks up and basically has no responsibility.
It's during one of his random hook ups that he discovers a lump on a testicle. It turns out he has cancer and must have the offending piece of anatomy removed. He'll be fine but the catch is that he won't be able to conceive a child. So Jonah sets out to find someone who wants to have a baby with him.
Jonah's housemates Stevie (Sarah Snook) and Gus (Ryan Corr) realise this is a bad idea but are seemingly powerless to stop him trying to convince ex-girlfriends and other random women he knows to carry his baby.
Stevie, who professes to never want children, eventually tries to set Jonah up with a lesbian couple and another friend from work who might be interested but to no avail. She then decides she'll make an arrangement and the burning sexual tension between the two finally gets the better of them, unbeknownst to Gus.
The cast is great. Ryan Kwanten plays the lovable Jonah brilliantly, in some ways he's not unlike the Griff character from his film Griff The Invisible a couple of years ago. Kind of vulnerable as well as confident.
Sarah Snook grows on you, perhaps it's her character that is a little slow to develop. Ryan Corr, who we know from Packed To The Rafters, is the ultimate sidekick. It's almost like they took Coby from Rafters, made him a little less bumbling, and planted him in the film. He's great and he gets most of the funny lines - including the very last one in the movie which is a riot - and seems oddly obsessed with seeing the cancerous testicle once it has been removed.
So why didn't it quite work? I think it spent too much time trying to decide what type of movie it is. They would have been better served going for a drama with elements of the rom-com rather than the other way around because it took too long to start to work in that way. You're basically inside the last half an hour before that all clicks.
It's an excellent story idea....a guy whose thoughts are so far from parenthood and settling down suddenly finds being a father his top priority, just as he's given up he finds love.
I wouldn't discourage anyone from giving this a go, you might get more out of it than I did or it might resonate more. A 7 out of 10, which is still good, but I was hoping for an 8 or more.

You always want what you can't have

I was going to write some kind of reflective poem or the like but why not be a little more straight forward.
The past few weeks have been quite eye-opening. In some ways I feel a bit like that six-year-old kid that wants a lollipop and jumps up and down in frustration when he's denied it.
I completely understand the concept of you can't always have what you want, but in this case it is clearly that I want what I can't have.
Actually, I'm not completely sure that I do want it but the opportunity would be great.
Then I'd have something to consider seriously, rather than let my mind continue to beat itself up as it works out how to handle situations.
Would I rather have the status quo and simply want something I can't have, or would I prefer to have the chance to be completely crushed?
Everything is really easy in theory.
Do I really understand what having that chance might actually mean? Or am I just chasing waterfalls? (Yes, that's a TLC song reference).
Again, is that what I really want? It's something I have expressed several times, while risking being a bit unfair and spoiling a very good and promising situation.
People are interesting creatures. And, despite protesting to the contrary a number of times, they can quite often surprise me. Books and covers and judging, you know what I mean.
In a place like Sydney superficiality rules. It's all about 'me', you only have to travel on public transport to work that out let alone getting among the so called A list.
Real people are out there, and I'm fortunate to know quite a few and to have met some who I, admittedly, had wrongly pegged as likely shallow types.
They haven't all made my life better, but some definitely have had an impact.
But they have also served to make me realise that I'm wanting what I can't have at the moment.

Here we go again

For once it isn't me that's going around in circles but I'm pretty sure I don't want to be taken along for the ride again.
It's hard enough to personally try and move forward.
While I still don't know what I want exactly, I do know that there is only so long you can hit your head against the wall before you work out it's doing you damage.
Am I in a position to change anything? Absolutely I am. However, I'm not overly willing to make knee-jerk reactions even though it is something that has been at the forefront of my thinking for a little while now.
Why the hesitation? Once you make changes you can't go back. I know that flies in the face of what I'm guessing I'm commenting on right now but they call it 'comfort' for a reason.
I'm trying hard to change a few things about myself and I'm finding that it isn't as easy in practice as it is in theory. No pain, no gain....that's pretty true. My pain thresh-hold when it comes to some things isn't overly high, though.
I recently watched the classic 1980 film The Blues Brothers (for the first time, I might add) and what struck me was that I really don't allow myself to have much fun.
To keep the movie references going, there's a scene in Six Degrees Of Separation where a two sided Kandinsky painting is held up and described as representing Chaos and Control. I like the illusion of being in control.

The Amazing Spider-Man

I felt a profound sense of deva ju watching The Amazing Spider-Man for obvious reasons.
I've seen it before!
It was only 10 years ago that Marvel brought Spider-Man to the big screen starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, and only five years since Spider-Man 3 which was, admittedly, a bit too filled up having two villains on the scene.
In their wisdom, Marvel decided to do a 'Batman Begins' on the Spider-Man franchise and here we are with Andrew Garfield taking over the lead role.
Mary Jane has been brushed aside and we have Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), a character which was in Spider-Man 3 played by Bryce Dallas Howard, as the major love interest.
We kick off a little differently in the 2012 reboot learning that Peter Parker's father was working on a top secret project with Dr Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) involving spiders which was hoped would help people who have lost limbs (like the doctor).
He disappeared shortly after leaving Peter with his aunt May (Sally Field) and uncle Ben (Martin Sheen).
After sneaking into a intern visit at Oscorp (yes, owned by Norman Osborn) to visit Dr Conners, Peter is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider and pretty soon starts discovering all these weird and wonderful powers.
The following things happen as they did in the first Spider-Man: Peter allows a criminal to get away with robbing someone and then the robber kills uncle Ben; the Dr, just like Norman Osborn, experiments on himself and is transformed into the villain (in this case The Lizard); Peter has a fight with the school bully Flash; Peter decides he needs a mask to fight crime and is tagged 'Spider-Man' by someone else; he's seen as a bad guy this time by the town police chief (Denis Leary), who is also Gwen's father; there's a major fight with the villain on a bridge; there is a funeral at the end.
What is done differently is the character of Spider-Man in that he's a bit more of a teen than Maguire's and seems to enjoy it more and makes more sarcastic comments.
The action scenes aren't particularly new or even very different from the 2002 version which is odd given the improvements in CGI.
Anyway, we all know the story. What this one does well is develops the characters a little better, though Garfield's Parker didn't seem to change physically after being bitten as Maguire's did. That said he was possibly a bit more likeable.
The Lizard was about the same as the Green Goblin and he even talked to himself like that character did.
Overall, I have to say it was a good movie but I'm certain it isn't the definitive Spider-Man film. It wasn't any better than the 2002 version which also had Willem Defoe and James Franco in the cast.
Having said that it will be interesting to see where they move now for the sequel (there will be a sequel, the scene during the credits would confirm that) because if the Green Goblin is the next villain, or Dr Octopus for that matter, then it's a bit of a cop out.
I'd have preferred them to move forward with Spider-Man, I don't know why they felt the need to go back to the start so soon.
It's good but if you've seen the 2002 film and its sequels you'll definitely have the same deva vu feeling I had with me for the two hours or so. My expectations weren't high, right from the time I heard they were making a new series, and it was pretty much as I anticipated.
I think I gave the original trilogy 9s or thereabouts, this one gets a 7 out of 10.

Prometheus

A movie like Prometheus was always going to have a lot to live up to given it has been widely reviewed as a prequel to the classic 1979 film Alien.
In some ways it is most definitely intended to precede that film but I think director Ridley Scott has done well to put some distance between them.
Because of this connection to a legendary film a lot of critics have been pretty savage in their disdain. Indeed the reviews I was told by others who had seen it ranged from no good to outstanding.
I'm not going to go into the intricacies of the plot and what planet the ship lands on etc, you can find that out elsewhere.
Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are scientists who discover a link to the origins of mankind and their discovery prompts rich tycoon Peter Weyland (an unrecognisable Guy Pearce) to fund a trip to a faraway galaxy in search of answers under the guidance of Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron).
When the crew of the Prometheus arrive they discover a strip of land that has been cleared and several dome shaped buildings erected.
Naturally the crew checks out their finding and they discover a strange labyrinth with a large number of dead creatures and a room that seems to be a tomb or a temple.
When the ship's android David (Michael Fassbender) smuggles something from the room back onto the ship and gets Holloway to consume some of the strange substance he has discovered all hell breaks loose.
Being spoken in the same terms as the Alien series is a bit unfair but you do get insight into the origin of the species seen in the original series. You do have to wait for it, though.
Fassbender is particularly good in his role. David, being an android, can't feel emotion and the actor does an outstanding job of appearing cold, aloof and very calculated in his moves as he carries out the wishes of his master Weyland.
There's enough tension in there to keep you on your toes and a little of the horror that you'd expect from an Alien movie (think more movies 1 and 2, not 3 and 4). Given the trail blazed by those films and our general desensitisation to gore the movie isn't as unsettling as it could have been say 20 or 30 years ago.
I think it might benefit from a second viewing, there is so much to work out in so little time (even though the film is over two hours long) you don't really pay a lot of attention to the characters.
Overall, if you can manage to see Prometheus with an open mind and not associate it too closely to Alien (let's face it, Rapace's character is no Ripley) then you'll go a long way toward liking it.
The ending is a little weak, I might add, but really, how do you top 'get away from her, you bitch'?
I thought a 7 out of 10, and I'll say it was a lot more interesting than I was expecting.

Ted

If you've seen the TV show Family Guy then you'll know what to expect from Ted which is the first movie from its creator Seth McFarlane.
The voice of narrator Patrick Stewart tells us the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) who as a young boy made a Christmas wish that his bear Teddy could be a real friend.
As it always does, his wish is granted and Ted comes to life.
We flash forward some 27 years and John and Ted are still together ('thunder buddies for life' is their hilarious (wait and see it) bond) much to the frustration of John's girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis).
Ted is far from the innocent child's play buddy he was when John was eight. He's now a surly, offensive, pot smoking ex-celebrity.
The last straw for Lori comes when Ted has invited four hookers over one night to party and one of them crosses many lines in what she is dared to do. I just can't bring myself to say what it is.
So Ted's forced to move out and get a job and his own apartment but the fact that John still spends so much time with him continues to gnaw at his relationship with Lori.
For extra plot we also meet Ted's girlfriend Tami Lynn (Jessica Barth) and a weird father (Giovanniu Ribisi)and son pair who want to buy Ted from John. They're responsible for a few pretty funny scenes.
Given what he produces with Family Guy, you know that Ted is a pretty lowbrow comedy but it is very funny and does have a heart. There's even a Peter Griffin reference and a rather hilarious uncredited cameo from Ryan Reynolds plus, oddly, singer Norah Jones.
I had pretty high expectations going into the film, because the trailer was just so funny, and it lived up to them. I wasn't blown away by it but there's enough here to keep you chuckling throughout most of the movie as well as several very, very funny scenes.
One of the more original comedies to come out for a while, Ted is definitely not for the young ones but if they already watch Family Guy then this will be nothing new. I thought it was funnier than American Pie 4 and up there with The Inbetweeners Movie. A 7.5 out of 10, and a good laugh.

Turmoil

OK, this is going to be a bit personal.
I'm not really sure where I am at the moment, things are a bit strange. I could argue that some of it is not necessarily bad or unsettling, but it is significant.
It's been a while since I've experienced thoughts and feelings like I have recently (I should note, I'm not talking anything negative here) and not only has it come as a surprise it's causing a bit of turmoil.
That's an interesting word, really.
In some respects it's awesome that I can feel like this, for a long while I kind of felt numb or at least indifferent.
Perhaps getting off the anti-depressants, if only for a little while, was a good thing to do.
But the problem is that I don't know what to do with all this. And I don't know what I'm looking for, if anything at all.
Where should my energies be directed? I've spent a lot of time trying to work it out in my head and it just seems to get harder.
I have to say in one way all this is pretty great, if difficult to compartmentalise. I don't really do that, though, put things in different segments - perhaps that's another issue.
I think I'm rambling a bit now. In a way it's a good problem to have.
There are other side issues that need to be addressed, but I was hoping at least one or two of them would work themselves out naturally. Seemingly, though, this hasn't been the case.
So there are a couple of things in a bit of limbo and changes I'm in some ways ready to make but in other ways a fair way off considering. Perhaps July 1 isn't the day to be comprehending that.
I just wonder in what exciting direction this experience could take me....