'August Rush' is basically just a retelling of Oliver Twist, only "Oliver" is a musical prodigy. Music and sound is what drives this film and, while there is nothing overly original about the plot or character development, the movie works. Freddie Highmore wonderfully portrays a child who is lost in the world, but who finds himself through the music of his own mind. Keri Russell and Jonathan Rhys Meyers both play their parts very well, but they remain firm secondary characters. In fact, pretty much everyone but August is a secondary character. This movie is about August's journey of self discovery disguised as his quest to find his parents.
As I said earlier, the movie works. The music is wonderful, which one would hope for in a piece as sound driven as this. The only aspect I found distracting, though interesting, was seeing/hearing the world through August's perspective. When this happens sound and movement overwhelm August and the viewer. Other than that, I heartily enjoyed the film and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys music.
December 11, 2007
'Compass" Translation Shines
Epic fantasy book + great cast + good effects + spice of scandal = intriguing holiday movie
I am sure that we all know by now that the more epic and the more fantastic the movie, the more I want to see it. I have been looking forward to seeing this movie all year long and I was not disappointed. I make this statement knowing very well that there has been little but Harry Potter worth getting excited over this year (much to Lunanshee's disgust).
Most of this movie was admirably faithful to the book; surprisingly. I agree with some of the edits that Chris Weitz made to the script, namely the removal of a few minor characters and Lyra's extended stay among the Gyptians (which was pretty unnecessary even in the novel, in my opinion). I didn't really see the need for the addition the weasley Fra Pavel (admittedly played well by Simon McBurney) except that it is just too confusing to have the original person who tried to poison Lord Azriel in the movie (I am still not very clear why the person in the book did it...). If anything, the addition of this character introduced more religion into the narrative. (I could actually go on about this a great length, but the short of it is that I don't think that Chris Weitz took out many religious references, but that he put even more in!).
One (professional) critic stated that this film succumbed to the typical device of making the battles bigger than they were in the book to give the story more excitement and 'draw' (LotR-The Two Towers/Battle at Helm's Deep, anyone?). I watched for this through the majority of the movie and didn't find it; in fact, I thought that the edits to the story helped the pacing of the movie while still maintaining the proportion of events. That is, until the last (and here) climactic battle between the hoards guarding The Station (did it remind anyone else of the White Queen's Narnian castle??) and the 'forces of good' (Gyptians, Witches, and Ice Bear). Still, I think the battle was done well and that the stakes were sufficiently high so that the viewers were engrossed by the action. They also did not linger to long and sufficiently obscured the majority of the carnage (easy to avoid blood-splatters if you are bundled up in sub-zero gear). Even the end of the ice bear combat was sufficiently tame, given it's potential for gore. I applaud the director for this, because he doesn't dwell on the bloodiness of the conflicts, but rather what they mean to the characters and the action of the series.
The casting was so spot-on that I can hardly believe it. I think I blogged before about how perfect Nicole Kidman and Sam Elliot are for their parts; they were MADE for these parts, and pull them of delightfully. I am still not sure how two beautifully blue-eyed parents produce a brown-eyed main character (could they not have had Daniel Craig wear contacts? He is imperious enough, no matter what color his eyes. Mrs. Coulter needs hers to be blue, I would contend)?!
Speaking of, I think Dakota Blue Richards was a marvelous Lyra! Really, she was the perfect hellcat for the character, without being off-putting, shrill, or whiny. I do hate it when children in movies are entirely too precocious; it is sickening, really. Nope, this actress was a great find, even though I didn't like her as much as I wanted to (I say this because we are trained to always have sympathy for the main character/hero).
--See 'Comments' for more discussion--
I am sure that we all know by now that the more epic and the more fantastic the movie, the more I want to see it. I have been looking forward to seeing this movie all year long and I was not disappointed. I make this statement knowing very well that there has been little but Harry Potter worth getting excited over this year (much to Lunanshee's disgust).
Most of this movie was admirably faithful to the book; surprisingly. I agree with some of the edits that Chris Weitz made to the script, namely the removal of a few minor characters and Lyra's extended stay among the Gyptians (which was pretty unnecessary even in the novel, in my opinion). I didn't really see the need for the addition the weasley Fra Pavel (admittedly played well by Simon McBurney) except that it is just too confusing to have the original person who tried to poison Lord Azriel in the movie (I am still not very clear why the person in the book did it...). If anything, the addition of this character introduced more religion into the narrative. (I could actually go on about this a great length, but the short of it is that I don't think that Chris Weitz took out many religious references, but that he put even more in!).
One (professional) critic stated that this film succumbed to the typical device of making the battles bigger than they were in the book to give the story more excitement and 'draw' (LotR-The Two Towers/Battle at Helm's Deep, anyone?). I watched for this through the majority of the movie and didn't find it; in fact, I thought that the edits to the story helped the pacing of the movie while still maintaining the proportion of events. That is, until the last (and here) climactic battle between the hoards guarding The Station (did it remind anyone else of the White Queen's Narnian castle??) and the 'forces of good' (Gyptians, Witches, and Ice Bear). Still, I think the battle was done well and that the stakes were sufficiently high so that the viewers were engrossed by the action. They also did not linger to long and sufficiently obscured the majority of the carnage (easy to avoid blood-splatters if you are bundled up in sub-zero gear). Even the end of the ice bear combat was sufficiently tame, given it's potential for gore. I applaud the director for this, because he doesn't dwell on the bloodiness of the conflicts, but rather what they mean to the characters and the action of the series.
The casting was so spot-on that I can hardly believe it. I think I blogged before about how perfect Nicole Kidman and Sam Elliot are for their parts; they were MADE for these parts, and pull them of delightfully. I am still not sure how two beautifully blue-eyed parents produce a brown-eyed main character (could they not have had Daniel Craig wear contacts? He is imperious enough, no matter what color his eyes. Mrs. Coulter needs hers to be blue, I would contend)?!
Speaking of, I think Dakota Blue Richards was a marvelous Lyra! Really, she was the perfect hellcat for the character, without being off-putting, shrill, or whiny. I do hate it when children in movies are entirely too precocious; it is sickening, really. Nope, this actress was a great find, even though I didn't like her as much as I wanted to (I say this because we are trained to always have sympathy for the main character/hero).
--See 'Comments' for more discussion--
November 20, 2007
'Riddick' Stalks Again?
Eye Heart Riddick
Yay! I saw this article on Rotten Tomatoes today:
So, here is the discussion: Is it worth it to make another Riddick move?
My answer: yes it is, but there are conditions. If Twohy will go back to the promises made by Pitch Black, I am there! If it is going to be another Chronicles of Riddick, I am out.
While I was amused and pretty pleased with the casting in "Riddick 2", the movie more or less ended up feeling as empty, shiny, cold and over-priced as a hugely ornate marble chess board. I hate chess, so perhaps you will understand the simile. But I love looking at the chess pieces--they are always so different and are usually all beautiful. That is how I felt about the actors in the second film, with the exception of Alexa Davalos. I like keeping an eye out for her in different places, like Angel. May I suggest her as one of the characters in the upcoming Watchmen? I think she is totally able to carry off being a super hero! On the other hand, Judi Dench? I have to resist the urge to gag when I see her character; a travesty.
Pitch Black is another matter; the story is small (as was the budget, apparently), but excellent. The effects are also pretty good, and at least adhere to some bounds of an alternate reality, unlike the sequel's. All in all, I like the less grand, but more sincere package, and I find the earnestness behind the filmmaking more appealing than the bombast that followed in Riddick 2.
I had heard that there was a trilogy in the offing, but I figured the third movie was The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. I meant to watch it, but never did. I think it was partially out of disgust; I thought it was a cop-out not to have another live-action movie to fill out the trilogy. I am happy to be wrong in this case.
So, my fingers are crossed. What do you think about a possible Riddick 3; worth the time?
Yay! I saw this article on Rotten Tomatoes today:
A Third Installment for The Chronicles of Riddick?: David Twohy prepares to enter the UnderVerse.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chronicles_of_riddick/news/1690384/So, here is the discussion: Is it worth it to make another Riddick move?
My answer: yes it is, but there are conditions. If Twohy will go back to the promises made by Pitch Black, I am there! If it is going to be another Chronicles of Riddick, I am out.
While I was amused and pretty pleased with the casting in "Riddick 2", the movie more or less ended up feeling as empty, shiny, cold and over-priced as a hugely ornate marble chess board. I hate chess, so perhaps you will understand the simile. But I love looking at the chess pieces--they are always so different and are usually all beautiful. That is how I felt about the actors in the second film, with the exception of Alexa Davalos. I like keeping an eye out for her in different places, like Angel. May I suggest her as one of the characters in the upcoming Watchmen? I think she is totally able to carry off being a super hero! On the other hand, Judi Dench? I have to resist the urge to gag when I see her character; a travesty.
Pitch Black is another matter; the story is small (as was the budget, apparently), but excellent. The effects are also pretty good, and at least adhere to some bounds of an alternate reality, unlike the sequel's. All in all, I like the less grand, but more sincere package, and I find the earnestness behind the filmmaking more appealing than the bombast that followed in Riddick 2.
I had heard that there was a trilogy in the offing, but I figured the third movie was The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. I meant to watch it, but never did. I think it was partially out of disgust; I thought it was a cop-out not to have another live-action movie to fill out the trilogy. I am happy to be wrong in this case.
So, my fingers are crossed. What do you think about a possible Riddick 3; worth the time?
Seriously?!?, part 1
Early 'Sesame Street' Deemed Unfit for Today's Kids
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-11-19/
DVDs of early seasons of Sesame Street bear a warning to parents that they may not be appropriate for small children, the New York Times observed today (Monday). Carol-Lynn Parente, executive producer of Sesame Street noted that in the early days of the show, a regular feature was a parody of Masterpiece Theater, featuring Alistair Cookie, played by Cookie Monster, who appeared with a pipe. "That modeled the wrong behavior," Parente observed. Oscar the Grouch appeared too grouchy. "We might not be able to create a character like Oscar now," she said. The Times also noted that in the DVDs (Volumes 1 and 2) Cookie Monster can be seen "in his former inglorious incarnation: a blue, googly-eyed cookievore with a signature gobble ('om nom nom nom')."
This is sooo beyond ridiculous! I had heard that the Cookie Monster's eating habits were sent to the health spa (read: fat farm) in the sky, but seriously! I remember Allistair Cookie, and he may have once or twice blown soap bubbles. Both Lunanshee and I were big Sesame devotees, but neither of us have ever smoked in our lives. While bingeing on cookies has likely occurred to both of us, it is likely the yumminess of cookies to blame, not a furry blue monster! And kids; they get grouchy. Why can't there be at least one person who gets to say what they are thinking without getting censored? Grouchiness was part of Oscar's charm, particularly when he sang a song to Santa on the Christmas special!
In my opinion, this is an over-sanitization of kids' lives, and utterly ridiculous! And even better yet, this article was considered bigger news than:
Kidnapped Iraqi TV Reporter Released
What is this world coming to? This is my rant for today; thanks for reading along.
PS- 'om nom nom nom'? Classic; sheer brilliance in onomonopoetic form. (How is that for a 25-cent word?!)
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-11-19/
DVDs of early seasons of Sesame Street bear a warning to parents that they may not be appropriate for small children, the New York Times observed today (Monday). Carol-Lynn Parente, executive producer of Sesame Street noted that in the early days of the show, a regular feature was a parody of Masterpiece Theater, featuring Alistair Cookie, played by Cookie Monster, who appeared with a pipe. "That modeled the wrong behavior," Parente observed. Oscar the Grouch appeared too grouchy. "We might not be able to create a character like Oscar now," she said. The Times also noted that in the DVDs (Volumes 1 and 2) Cookie Monster can be seen "in his former inglorious incarnation: a blue, googly-eyed cookievore with a signature gobble ('om nom nom nom')."
This is sooo beyond ridiculous! I had heard that the Cookie Monster's eating habits were sent to the health spa (read: fat farm) in the sky, but seriously! I remember Allistair Cookie, and he may have once or twice blown soap bubbles. Both Lunanshee and I were big Sesame devotees, but neither of us have ever smoked in our lives. While bingeing on cookies has likely occurred to both of us, it is likely the yumminess of cookies to blame, not a furry blue monster! And kids; they get grouchy. Why can't there be at least one person who gets to say what they are thinking without getting censored? Grouchiness was part of Oscar's charm, particularly when he sang a song to Santa on the Christmas special!
In my opinion, this is an over-sanitization of kids' lives, and utterly ridiculous! And even better yet, this article was considered bigger news than:
Kidnapped Iraqi TV Reporter Released
What is this world coming to? This is my rant for today; thanks for reading along.
PS- 'om nom nom nom'? Classic; sheer brilliance in onomonopoetic form. (How is that for a 25-cent word?!)
November 15, 2007
Naps-a-Lots' All-Tme Favorite Movies
Naps-a-lot Bear's Usual Suspects
My list is more or less in order of how much I favor them all the time (I don't really have to be in a mood to watch movies, generally speaking. However, movies do vary for me in terms of the amount of times I could watch them end-to-end without hating them. I will indicate the ones that I could watch forever with a *).
The Usual Suspects* (1995) (most perfect movie ever made; please feel free to discuss)
Tank Girl* (1995)
The Princess Bride* (1987)
You've Got Mail** (1998)
Labyrinth (1986)
Clue* (1985)
If Lucy Fell* (1996)
Amelie (2001)
Bridget Jones' Diary* (2001)
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971; not the newer abomination)
Silence of the Lambs (1990)
The Secret of N.I.M.H. (1982)
A few of these movies I experienced for the first time with Lunanshee, like The Princess Bride, Labyrinth and Clue (and If Lucy Fell, I believe). It is interesting to me that we are each other's best movie buddies, but our tastes differ quite a bit.
--see 'Comments' for movies that almost deserve to be on this list--
My list is more or less in order of how much I favor them all the time (I don't really have to be in a mood to watch movies, generally speaking. However, movies do vary for me in terms of the amount of times I could watch them end-to-end without hating them. I will indicate the ones that I could watch forever with a *).
The Usual Suspects* (1995) (most perfect movie ever made; please feel free to discuss)
Tank Girl* (1995)
The Princess Bride* (1987)
You've Got Mail** (1998)
Labyrinth (1986)
Clue* (1985)
If Lucy Fell* (1996)
Amelie (2001)
Bridget Jones' Diary* (2001)
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971; not the newer abomination)
Silence of the Lambs (1990)
The Secret of N.I.M.H. (1982)
A few of these movies I experienced for the first time with Lunanshee, like The Princess Bride, Labyrinth and Clue (and If Lucy Fell, I believe). It is interesting to me that we are each other's best movie buddies, but our tastes differ quite a bit.
--see 'Comments' for movies that almost deserve to be on this list--
November 14, 2007
American Gangster
Two lead actors + great supporting cast + overly long running time = questionably truthful biopic
I am sure that we have all seen the very cooly-edited trailer for American Gangster; it has been showing forever, it seems. I liked the stylization that it employed, and it sold me on the movie. To be truthful, the actors did too, so I was eager (though not jumping up and down) to see this bio-pic.
Overall, I liked the narrative, even though I felt the movie was longer than it needed to be. It must be hard with a bio-pic to decide what to explore on-screen. There is a lot that makes up a life, particularly one such as Frank Lucas'. They skim over his troubled past by dropping bread crumbs such as a family heirloom of a bureau being confiscated when he was 5 years old, and another very tragic incident involving an older cousin. There are no mawkish montages of childhood difficulty that the main character must overcome, which is good, and these small glimpses are enough to help inform us about what helped to 'make the man'. I don't, however, think that they should have skimmed over the fact that Frank Lucas has"fathered 7 children, as far as he knows". I read this on the ridiculously short entry on Wikipedia (yes, I know that I did not go to the original source on this, but frankly this person is not worth the effort).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lucas_%28drug_lord%29
What I take from those words is that Frank Lucas sowed more oats than the movie implied. It never touched on his fidelity to his wife, or any of the 15 years he spent as his mentor's driver/bodyguard. There is only so much that can be brought to life on screen, and I think that the writers did a good job of covering ground, but keeping the action rolling along. Overall though, the movie felt more like a fictional story than a real one. Perhaps I feel this way because the 'rise and fall' story of a violent man, particularly a gangster, is nothing new, and this one is (for the most part) true. Reflecting on it now, it also seems a bit uninteresting.
The movie left me feeling conflicted the next day about how to reconcile Denzel's smooth and contained portrayal of a man who was most assuredly a monster. Granted, if Frank Lucas hadn't been there to provide the drugs, someone else would have (there is always 'some one else' waiting in the wings). Those people may not have been nearly so interesting, and may not have been as successful (yes, I know that there is an inherent oxymoron in that statement). The hardest thing for me is that I didn't despise Washington's Lucas at the end of the movie. Sure, he got a measure of justice, but I didn't hate his character. In a small way, I admired his ingenuity; using the war in Vietnam to facilitate keeping his costs down and his product moving--that was pretty clever. On the other hand, he must have been an supremely violent man to have stayed on top at all, as evidenced by his willingness to shoot competitors in the head on the street, etc. The movie shows us that he had his own brand of ethics, which may or may not have been true; I enjoyed watching how gravely serious Denzel was while placing a coaster under a sweating glass on an end table. His character was a smooth, sophisticated operator, and almost a joy to watch.
I looked Frank Lucas up on Wikipedia because the math for him being sentenced to jail at the end of the movie for 15 years and getting out in 1991 didn't compute for me. After looking online in the most cursory of ways, I found out that he was convicted of new drug charges after being released the first time. Obviously, the guy was not reformed at all. I value Wikipedia for presenting lists of the ways that movies diverge from their book-origins; why can't there be one for Lucas; obviously this movie takes a ton of liberties. I can overlook a few, but I think there are many in this case.
I really did like those last few seconds of the last scene, where Lucas is released from jail and looks as if he is grimly realizing that his world no longer matches how the outside world has moved on. My Significant pointed out that the final scene looks much 'dirtier' than the rest of the film, and he is right (although I hardly know how this is true, given the time spent in slums and apartments of junkies with festering needle wounds in the rest of the film). That last scene is a grim punctuation mark at the end of a film.
Which leads me to the question 'what was the mission here?' It could be that the filmmakers were attempting to package Lucas' story as a cautionary tale, showing in a(n only slightly) negative light how attractive the life of crime was to the younger and more innocent nephew who gives up his life-long dream of being a pitcher for a major league team to traffic drugs. There are kernels of this in the movie, but if there are moments of anti-drug/thug-life messages, there are also a lot of moments that glorify the pro-gangster aspects of this person's life. I think this explains my reluctance to commit to approving or disapproving of the character, and ultimately of the film.
--see 'Comment' section for more--
I am sure that we have all seen the very cooly-edited trailer for American Gangster; it has been showing forever, it seems. I liked the stylization that it employed, and it sold me on the movie. To be truthful, the actors did too, so I was eager (though not jumping up and down) to see this bio-pic.
Overall, I liked the narrative, even though I felt the movie was longer than it needed to be. It must be hard with a bio-pic to decide what to explore on-screen. There is a lot that makes up a life, particularly one such as Frank Lucas'. They skim over his troubled past by dropping bread crumbs such as a family heirloom of a bureau being confiscated when he was 5 years old, and another very tragic incident involving an older cousin. There are no mawkish montages of childhood difficulty that the main character must overcome, which is good, and these small glimpses are enough to help inform us about what helped to 'make the man'. I don't, however, think that they should have skimmed over the fact that Frank Lucas has"fathered 7 children, as far as he knows". I read this on the ridiculously short entry on Wikipedia (yes, I know that I did not go to the original source on this, but frankly this person is not worth the effort).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lucas_%28drug_lord%29
What I take from those words is that Frank Lucas sowed more oats than the movie implied. It never touched on his fidelity to his wife, or any of the 15 years he spent as his mentor's driver/bodyguard. There is only so much that can be brought to life on screen, and I think that the writers did a good job of covering ground, but keeping the action rolling along. Overall though, the movie felt more like a fictional story than a real one. Perhaps I feel this way because the 'rise and fall' story of a violent man, particularly a gangster, is nothing new, and this one is (for the most part) true. Reflecting on it now, it also seems a bit uninteresting.
The movie left me feeling conflicted the next day about how to reconcile Denzel's smooth and contained portrayal of a man who was most assuredly a monster. Granted, if Frank Lucas hadn't been there to provide the drugs, someone else would have (there is always 'some one else' waiting in the wings). Those people may not have been nearly so interesting, and may not have been as successful (yes, I know that there is an inherent oxymoron in that statement). The hardest thing for me is that I didn't despise Washington's Lucas at the end of the movie. Sure, he got a measure of justice, but I didn't hate his character. In a small way, I admired his ingenuity; using the war in Vietnam to facilitate keeping his costs down and his product moving--that was pretty clever. On the other hand, he must have been an supremely violent man to have stayed on top at all, as evidenced by his willingness to shoot competitors in the head on the street, etc. The movie shows us that he had his own brand of ethics, which may or may not have been true; I enjoyed watching how gravely serious Denzel was while placing a coaster under a sweating glass on an end table. His character was a smooth, sophisticated operator, and almost a joy to watch.
I looked Frank Lucas up on Wikipedia because the math for him being sentenced to jail at the end of the movie for 15 years and getting out in 1991 didn't compute for me. After looking online in the most cursory of ways, I found out that he was convicted of new drug charges after being released the first time. Obviously, the guy was not reformed at all. I value Wikipedia for presenting lists of the ways that movies diverge from their book-origins; why can't there be one for Lucas; obviously this movie takes a ton of liberties. I can overlook a few, but I think there are many in this case.
I really did like those last few seconds of the last scene, where Lucas is released from jail and looks as if he is grimly realizing that his world no longer matches how the outside world has moved on. My Significant pointed out that the final scene looks much 'dirtier' than the rest of the film, and he is right (although I hardly know how this is true, given the time spent in slums and apartments of junkies with festering needle wounds in the rest of the film). That last scene is a grim punctuation mark at the end of a film.
Which leads me to the question 'what was the mission here?' It could be that the filmmakers were attempting to package Lucas' story as a cautionary tale, showing in a(n only slightly) negative light how attractive the life of crime was to the younger and more innocent nephew who gives up his life-long dream of being a pitcher for a major league team to traffic drugs. There are kernels of this in the movie, but if there are moments of anti-drug/thug-life messages, there are also a lot of moments that glorify the pro-gangster aspects of this person's life. I think this explains my reluctance to commit to approving or disapproving of the character, and ultimately of the film.
--see 'Comment' section for more--
November 5, 2007
Lunanshee's All-Time Favorite Movies
These are not in a rating order, since their rating depends on my mood. I may also add more later: ; )
- Legend
- Labyrinth
- Neverending Story
- The Princess Bride
- Goonies
- Braveheart
- Willow
- Practical Magic
- Gone with the Wind
- Beauty and the Beast (Disney version)
- Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
- LOR: Fellowship of the Ring
- The Last Unicorn
- Howl's Moving Castle
- Adventures of Unico
- Brotherhood of the Wolf
What are your favorite movies?
Seven Scary Movies...Or are they?
As I was trolling online I discovered the following link entitled:
"Seven Non-Horror Movies That Scared The Crap Out Of Me As A Kid"
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/10/13/cinematical-seven-non-horror-movies-that-scared-the-crap-out-of/
The movies listed in this link are:
1. Return to Oz
2. Neverending Story
3. PeeWee's Big Adventure
4. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
5. Labyrinth
6. Garbage Pail Kids Movie
7. Peanut Butter Solution
Now, let me lead off by saying that the only one of these movies that sort of disturbed me was Peanut Butter Solution (which I thought I had dreamed as some wacky nightmare since no one ever knew what I was talking about when I described the film). YAY, I'm not crazy! I didn't like Garbage Pail Kids Movie but that was mostly because I didn't like the Garbage Pail Kids.
I LOVE Return to OZ. LOVE IT. Did when I saw it in theatres (at about 3 or 4 years old) and still love it to this day. Same with Neverending Story and Labyrinth. Combined with Legend and Willow, those are probably my favorite movies from the 80s. So I wonder what it says about me that none of the movies scared me...
Anyway, I am now curious about what movies I saw as a kid that did scare me (although my parents were careful in what they allowed me to watch...). More later.
"Seven Non-Horror Movies That Scared The Crap Out Of Me As A Kid"
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/10/13/cinematical-seven-non-horror-movies-that-scared-the-crap-out-of/
The movies listed in this link are:
1. Return to Oz
2. Neverending Story
3. PeeWee's Big Adventure
4. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
5. Labyrinth
6. Garbage Pail Kids Movie
7. Peanut Butter Solution
Now, let me lead off by saying that the only one of these movies that sort of disturbed me was Peanut Butter Solution (which I thought I had dreamed as some wacky nightmare since no one ever knew what I was talking about when I described the film). YAY, I'm not crazy! I didn't like Garbage Pail Kids Movie but that was mostly because I didn't like the Garbage Pail Kids.
I LOVE Return to OZ. LOVE IT. Did when I saw it in theatres (at about 3 or 4 years old) and still love it to this day. Same with Neverending Story and Labyrinth. Combined with Legend and Willow, those are probably my favorite movies from the 80s. So I wonder what it says about me that none of the movies scared me...
Anyway, I am now curious about what movies I saw as a kid that did scare me (although my parents were careful in what they allowed me to watch...). More later.
November 2, 2007
La Belle et La Bete (1946)
Classic Fairytale + Awesome Costumes + Imagination = Wonderful Classic Movie
Turner Classic Movies rocks!
Note: I know there is an accent in "Bete" but I don't know how to get it like that in blogger...
So last night I was flipping through channels and what do I find, but a 1940s French version of Beauty and the Beast. (Thank goodness there were subtitles since I don't speak French.)
Anyway, the movie retells the story of B&B in a version much closer to that initially set down in print than that portrayed by Disney. Don't get me wrong, Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is one of my all time favorite animated movies. The B&B 1946 is surprisingly well done, with special effects that are both effective, magical and simple. La Bete's castle's magical inhabitants are portrayed by moving candelabras, mantles with faces and other interesting characters. I'm still not sure how some of the effects were done. The costumes were both lavish and beautiful, as were the different sets. The castle scenes are shot (at least somewhat) at actual palaces or estates.
If you like classic movies, or enjoy fairy tales, I would definitely recommend this film.
Turner Classic Movies rocks!
Note: I know there is an accent in "Bete" but I don't know how to get it like that in blogger...
So last night I was flipping through channels and what do I find, but a 1940s French version of Beauty and the Beast. (Thank goodness there were subtitles since I don't speak French.)
Anyway, the movie retells the story of B&B in a version much closer to that initially set down in print than that portrayed by Disney. Don't get me wrong, Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is one of my all time favorite animated movies. The B&B 1946 is surprisingly well done, with special effects that are both effective, magical and simple. La Bete's castle's magical inhabitants are portrayed by moving candelabras, mantles with faces and other interesting characters. I'm still not sure how some of the effects were done. The costumes were both lavish and beautiful, as were the different sets. The castle scenes are shot (at least somewhat) at actual palaces or estates.
If you like classic movies, or enjoy fairy tales, I would definitely recommend this film.
October 31, 2007
A Big (Fun/Hilarious) Waste of Time
I love reading Entertainment Weekly; I don't care if it is one step above US Weekly and therefore 3.5 steps "journalistically" above The Sun-- I still look forward to getting a new issue every week. I got a subscription initially for the 4 seasonal movie preview issues, but I find myself unable (and unwilling) to break the habit.
(Un)Fortunately I made the mistake of going out to their site today to fill out the survey for who is the greatest Entertainment/TV icon and got sucked into their photo-lists. Here are a few of them and links so that you can enjoy them too (hopefully the links work).
"Bad" Meaning "Good"
EW.com's staff recently confessed the critical duds we secretly love...
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_1549094,00.html
Critically Adored movies we just don't get
EW.com's staffers recently confessed the ''great'' films they just don't get -- now, see what our readers had to say on the subjecthttp://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_1543584,00.html
Intergalactic Legendary
On EW.com's PopWatch blog, we asked you to name the characters/creatures you'd love to hang out with...
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_20037930,00.html
A Guy Cry
Such geek-a-licious fun!
(Un)Fortunately I made the mistake of going out to their site today to fill out the survey for who is the greatest Entertainment/TV icon and got sucked into their photo-lists. Here are a few of them and links so that you can enjoy them too (hopefully the links work).
"Bad" Meaning "Good"
EW.com's staff recently confessed the critical duds we secretly love...
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_1549094,00.html
Critically Adored movies we just don't get
EW.com's staffers recently confessed the ''great'' films they just don't get -- now, see what our readers had to say on the subject
Intergalactic Legendary
On EW.com's PopWatch blog, we asked you to name the characters/creatures you'd love to hang out with...
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_20037930,00.html
A Guy Cry
...Here are the flicks that'll jerk tears out of the toughest guys.
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_20015186,00.htmlSuch geek-a-licious fun!
October 29, 2007
Resident Evil: Extinction - Another POV
Milla Jovovich + kicking zombie butt one more time, with feeling + fun companions + a dash of Mad Max = alright by me
I can agree with my co-writer that Resident Evil: Extinction (or RE3) was not quite as good as the other two films, but it was good enough. I would even raise that to pretty darn good for what it was (a videogame movie). Don't get me wrong; I am particularly amused by comics-to-screen- and game-to-screen translations, but they are never going to be included in the film cannon, and we all know that, even as we get excited about a movie's release. I don't actually play most of these games before I go to the films, but I think the medium is interesting, and the storytelling opportunities are pretty intriguing. (Maybe someday I will actually do an analysis of the transmutation of myths into videogame storylines, but that is geekdom that I will save for another day). It's a valid genre, in my opinion.
I like the Mad Max series; there is even a gawky-looking man who has a useful talent (here, adding a light moment while shaking label-less cans of "mystery food" to determine their contents (Joe Hursley, playing Otto), while Mad Max had the pilot (Bruce Spence, who has made quite a niche for himself in Sci-Fi, whether we recognize him or not). I love post-apocalyptic stories (even though I am pretty sure I would not be one of the survivors). Most of all, I love Milla Jovovich, and the types of projects that she has come to inhabit (yep, even UltraViolet), baring all for our amusement, if not for "art". I love seeing Oded Fehr; he is a manly-man, without being a chavanistic Rambo. (More about the gender-equity later.) I really do like his character in these films, and I like the affection for Alice's character that is revealed. I suppose in a world like this, anyone who you can stand, and who is willing to help you survive, is a friend.
If you check out the IMDB page for the references this movie makes to others, that is pretty amusing:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432021/movieconnections
I would like to add one: Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Was anyone else creeped out by the demented "family" broadcasting for survivors? I suppose if the world has ended, I will be too busy trying to survive, finding food and gas, to be worried about amusing myself by further whittling away at the number of people left. Still, I suppose it could count as "hunting", in a sadistic-sort of way.
I think the thing that I liked best about RE3 is that it was much more 'realistic' than the second movie; more like the first. Yes, I am aware that the previous statement is not without a touch of irony, but if you look at the "universe" created by the plot, the 3rd movie returns the scale of suspension of disbelief to more manageable levels, similar to RE1. (I mean, seriously, who was going to believe Sienna Guillory as a brunette cop? She manages to be almost as pathetically hideous as Asia Argento.)
I also liked the character of the White Queen; the idea is amusing. She could have had a bit of a larger role, but then again, too many ingredients can further unbalance an already-percarious recipe.
--See 'Comments' for more dish--
I can agree with my co-writer that Resident Evil: Extinction (or RE3) was not quite as good as the other two films, but it was good enough. I would even raise that to pretty darn good for what it was (a videogame movie). Don't get me wrong; I am particularly amused by comics-to-screen- and game-to-screen translations, but they are never going to be included in the film cannon, and we all know that, even as we get excited about a movie's release. I don't actually play most of these games before I go to the films, but I think the medium is interesting, and the storytelling opportunities are pretty intriguing. (Maybe someday I will actually do an analysis of the transmutation of myths into videogame storylines, but that is geekdom that I will save for another day). It's a valid genre, in my opinion.
I like the Mad Max series; there is even a gawky-looking man who has a useful talent (here, adding a light moment while shaking label-less cans of "mystery food" to determine their contents (Joe Hursley, playing Otto), while Mad Max had the pilot (Bruce Spence, who has made quite a niche for himself in Sci-Fi, whether we recognize him or not). I love post-apocalyptic stories (even though I am pretty sure I would not be one of the survivors). Most of all, I love Milla Jovovich, and the types of projects that she has come to inhabit (yep, even UltraViolet), baring all for our amusement, if not for "art". I love seeing Oded Fehr; he is a manly-man, without being a chavanistic Rambo. (More about the gender-equity later.) I really do like his character in these films, and I like the affection for Alice's character that is revealed. I suppose in a world like this, anyone who you can stand, and who is willing to help you survive, is a friend.
If you check out the IMDB page for the references this movie makes to others, that is pretty amusing:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432021/movieconnections
I would like to add one: Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Was anyone else creeped out by the demented "family" broadcasting for survivors? I suppose if the world has ended, I will be too busy trying to survive, finding food and gas, to be worried about amusing myself by further whittling away at the number of people left. Still, I suppose it could count as "hunting", in a sadistic-sort of way.
I think the thing that I liked best about RE3 is that it was much more 'realistic' than the second movie; more like the first. Yes, I am aware that the previous statement is not without a touch of irony, but if you look at the "universe" created by the plot, the 3rd movie returns the scale of suspension of disbelief to more manageable levels, similar to RE1. (I mean, seriously, who was going to believe Sienna Guillory as a brunette cop? She manages to be almost as pathetically hideous as Asia Argento.)
I also liked the character of the White Queen; the idea is amusing. She could have had a bit of a larger role, but then again, too many ingredients can further unbalance an already-percarious recipe.
--See 'Comments' for more dish--
Mr. Brooks
Too many storylines + unsympathetic main character + pinch of Silence of the Lambs= tepid mess
I'll admit to being interested to see Mr. Brooks (obvi, since I rented it). I was even willing to overlook the not-so-positive reviews and give the movie a chance. I am pretty over Kevin Costner, but serial killer movies can be interesting. I did actually enjoy the part where his character is actually conflicted over being addicted to killing people; that aspect is not really explored. Over and over, however, I had the suspicion that the screenwriters had the script for The Silence of the Lambs in the back of their minds while they were writing the film. Granted, the main character is a rich girl with daddy issues, rather than a poor one, but that doesn't make Demi Moore's character correspondingly more interesting. None of the frisson between the killer and the cop is present between Det. Atwood and Mr. Brooks, even though they try to throw that it at the very last minute.
Nope, instead of having any of the elements that made Silence great, Mr. Brooks is an over-cooked modge-podge of storylines. It's as if the plot were dealt out with cards, and Mr. Costner and Ms. Moore needed to have nearly equal stacks (of course his is slightly larger, as he is the eponymous character, after all). Perhaps they had two movies that didn't quite stand alone, so the writers thought they would combine them. Take away any one of the too-many plot lines; daughter with a secret, messy divorce, trust fund, imaginary friend, serial killer who is out for vengeance, and the whole house of cards falls. But leave them all in, and there is just too much to cover while still managing not to get in-depth on much of anything. The end result is more unsatisfying that intriguing.
Some of the story lines are more interesting, I will give you that. Who wouldn't want to track down and kill the guy who cut you off in traffic? That was an amusing way to select a target for the irritating Mr. Smith. (Seriously, he was a jerk, and his storyline was satisfying. I liked how the opposing natures sorted themselves out. How did he think that he could compete?) The fact that the guy just so happens to be the soon-to-be money-grubbing ex is just a little too pat. (If you see the movie, this won't really count as a spoiler; you may not be able to see it coming from miles away, but this movie sure does let you see every "twist" from at least around the corner). It was pretty funny though, to follow Mr. Brooks' decision to observe the vengeful serial killer out to get the detective who is hunting him (instead of cat-and-mouse, the game is survival-of-the-most-predatorial).
I read on the IMDB trivia page for this film, that it was planned as a trilogy. What did they think would be left to mine for plot in the future? To follow up with the daughter? That would be interesting, if Mr. Brooks' fears come true. I admit to being truly baffled to the purpose of the last few minutes of the film, if there was not a planned follow-up. I half want them to do it, just to see if they could come up with an interesting story. The opportunity is too great, though, for another over-blown thriller with little satisfactory payout, so perhaps better just to leave it be.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
I'll admit to being interested to see Mr. Brooks (obvi, since I rented it). I was even willing to overlook the not-so-positive reviews and give the movie a chance. I am pretty over Kevin Costner, but serial killer movies can be interesting. I did actually enjoy the part where his character is actually conflicted over being addicted to killing people; that aspect is not really explored. Over and over, however, I had the suspicion that the screenwriters had the script for The Silence of the Lambs in the back of their minds while they were writing the film. Granted, the main character is a rich girl with daddy issues, rather than a poor one, but that doesn't make Demi Moore's character correspondingly more interesting. None of the frisson between the killer and the cop is present between Det. Atwood and Mr. Brooks, even though they try to throw that it at the very last minute.
Nope, instead of having any of the elements that made Silence great, Mr. Brooks is an over-cooked modge-podge of storylines. It's as if the plot were dealt out with cards, and Mr. Costner and Ms. Moore needed to have nearly equal stacks (of course his is slightly larger, as he is the eponymous character, after all). Perhaps they had two movies that didn't quite stand alone, so the writers thought they would combine them. Take away any one of the too-many plot lines; daughter with a secret, messy divorce, trust fund, imaginary friend, serial killer who is out for vengeance, and the whole house of cards falls. But leave them all in, and there is just too much to cover while still managing not to get in-depth on much of anything. The end result is more unsatisfying that intriguing.
Some of the story lines are more interesting, I will give you that. Who wouldn't want to track down and kill the guy who cut you off in traffic? That was an amusing way to select a target for the irritating Mr. Smith. (Seriously, he was a jerk, and his storyline was satisfying. I liked how the opposing natures sorted themselves out. How did he think that he could compete?) The fact that the guy just so happens to be the soon-to-be money-grubbing ex is just a little too pat. (If you see the movie, this won't really count as a spoiler; you may not be able to see it coming from miles away, but this movie sure does let you see every "twist" from at least around the corner). It was pretty funny though, to follow Mr. Brooks' decision to observe the vengeful serial killer out to get the detective who is hunting him (instead of cat-and-mouse, the game is survival-of-the-most-predatorial).
I read on the IMDB trivia page for this film, that it was planned as a trilogy. What did they think would be left to mine for plot in the future? To follow up with the daughter? That would be interesting, if Mr. Brooks' fears come true. I admit to being truly baffled to the purpose of the last few minutes of the film, if there was not a planned follow-up. I half want them to do it, just to see if they could come up with an interesting story. The opportunity is too great, though, for another over-blown thriller with little satisfactory payout, so perhaps better just to leave it be.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
October 22, 2007
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Grandeur + fantastic costumes + screen hotties = appealing look at 'history'
Lots of critics have stated that Elizabeth: The Golden Age is nowhere near as good as Elizabeth. I think they are flat-out wrong. I will concede that there is almost no way to repeat or top the impact of the first film, but they come pretty close.
(From here on out, I will have to borrow EW's critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's naming system: "E1" and "E2")
I find it a bit odd that a director with relatively little experience was handed E1 and its assuredly huge production budget in the first place. I guess that goes to show that you do not have to be born in a place to properly revere its history. (Although his following film, Four Feathers, was a real snore!) Whatever his background, I say "Let Shekar Kapur at it!" He did a fabulous job with the first film, revealing the shining Cate Blanchett and breathing new life in to the costume-drama and historical piece genres. I was in high school the first time around, and was also inspired to learn more about the vaunted monarch. Kapur says that he has a trilogy in mind and I can't wait to see the final installment. As long as he keeps making these movies, assuming he doesn't relax his standards, I am there to see them.
E2 represents the natural progression in the life of an extraordinary woman who was bounds ahead of her time. E1 focused on her climb to power, but E2 explores the emotional, personal, and political costs of staying on top. Here is a woman who has just about everything at her command, but she still wants more. Her wants, it turns out, are for the things that come with a more normal life. Not only that, but the stakes of the game that she is playing are her country and her life (for her, in that order). One critic said that this was the most expensive game of Barbie that they had seen. True, perhaps, but only in the way that it was Elizabeth who was the puppet master. It is fascinating to watch her fly in a rage at her lady in waiting for daring to yank some slack into her own strings, rather than depending on her mistress to allow it to her. The relationship between the two characters, rather, between so many of the characters is what drives this movie, not a succession of action-inducing murder. There are still intrigues and assassination attempts in E2, but this time it is about the person underneath the crown and the costs of bearing it.
So no, E2 is not going to be as thrilling as E1. That kind of magic is hard to repeat, but the second film is no less marvelous in many other ways. I still think that there should be Oscar nominations all around, and a certain win in the costume category. Geoffrey Rush has certainly given another terrific performance. I adore the paternal relationship that has sprung up between Walsingham and his sovereign; I hope that depiction was accurate, because anyone familiar with the life of the lady knows that her own father never gave her a positive model. Walsingham too has given up much for the sake of queen and country, and he is paying for it with his health. Like him, Elizabeth has known power and control, but cannot relinquish it no matter the personal cost. They reveal the addictiveness that such command can inspire, while also showing that it can eventually wear your down and come close to destroying the person inside.
...
--See 'comments' for more--
Lots of critics have stated that Elizabeth: The Golden Age is nowhere near as good as Elizabeth. I think they are flat-out wrong. I will concede that there is almost no way to repeat or top the impact of the first film, but they come pretty close.
(From here on out, I will have to borrow EW's critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's naming system: "E1" and "E2")
I find it a bit odd that a director with relatively little experience was handed E1 and its assuredly huge production budget in the first place. I guess that goes to show that you do not have to be born in a place to properly revere its history. (Although his following film, Four Feathers, was a real snore!) Whatever his background, I say "Let Shekar Kapur at it!" He did a fabulous job with the first film, revealing the shining Cate Blanchett and breathing new life in to the costume-drama and historical piece genres. I was in high school the first time around, and was also inspired to learn more about the vaunted monarch. Kapur says that he has a trilogy in mind and I can't wait to see the final installment. As long as he keeps making these movies, assuming he doesn't relax his standards, I am there to see them.
E2 represents the natural progression in the life of an extraordinary woman who was bounds ahead of her time. E1 focused on her climb to power, but E2 explores the emotional, personal, and political costs of staying on top. Here is a woman who has just about everything at her command, but she still wants more. Her wants, it turns out, are for the things that come with a more normal life. Not only that, but the stakes of the game that she is playing are her country and her life (for her, in that order). One critic said that this was the most expensive game of Barbie that they had seen. True, perhaps, but only in the way that it was Elizabeth who was the puppet master. It is fascinating to watch her fly in a rage at her lady in waiting for daring to yank some slack into her own strings, rather than depending on her mistress to allow it to her. The relationship between the two characters, rather, between so many of the characters is what drives this movie, not a succession of action-inducing murder. There are still intrigues and assassination attempts in E2, but this time it is about the person underneath the crown and the costs of bearing it.
So no, E2 is not going to be as thrilling as E1. That kind of magic is hard to repeat, but the second film is no less marvelous in many other ways. I still think that there should be Oscar nominations all around, and a certain win in the costume category. Geoffrey Rush has certainly given another terrific performance. I adore the paternal relationship that has sprung up between Walsingham and his sovereign; I hope that depiction was accurate, because anyone familiar with the life of the lady knows that her own father never gave her a positive model. Walsingham too has given up much for the sake of queen and country, and he is paying for it with his health. Like him, Elizabeth has known power and control, but cannot relinquish it no matter the personal cost. They reveal the addictiveness that such command can inspire, while also showing that it can eventually wear your down and come close to destroying the person inside.
...
--See 'comments' for more--
30 Days of Night
Faithful translation + convincing acting + claustrophobic isolation = decent vamp movie
Once again, I read the source material before I saw the film adaptation. They did a good job; bonus points for stretching one graphic novel into a 113-minute movie without straining story or the pacing too much. (I felt it was a bit slow, but I also knew about the twisty-ending, so I am not a fair judge. My sweetie said it moved along just fine, however.) I was curious going into the movie whether the writers would stray too much, as they tend to do when their inspiration is inked, not typed. Nope, they did a good job there, and the actors did a great job of really making their desperation relate-able. It's got to be pretty hard to be thrown into day-for-night for 70 days of filming. I would be jetting off to a Caribbean island where the only thing that I would have to be leery of is the local water and making a fool of myself after too many mini-umbrella-ed drinks!
When I first heard that the movie was being compared to 28 Days Later for the carnage-factor, I was curious. I mean, I know the movie was going to be about a town being slaughtered, but to me, the story is more about the cat-and-mouse game to be played out between the vamps and the survivors. They did a good job of spinning that out, but man, were those vamps wasteful with their initial glut! I would have thought that they would have kept a few more like cattle, to save for later. To me, the ripping rather than biting seemed like a waste; no wonder these vamps were hungry--they play with their food too much. What use is red snow?
What really impressed me was the birdseye view of the carnage; that was neat in its execution.
The leading actors, Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, did a really credible job as two butt-kickers who have fallen out, but once teamed up, are greater than the sum of their parts (or issues). I think they spent a tad too long on their strained relationship (seriously, after being locked in an attic together for more than an hour, I would have to talk things out! What else is there to do?). I am glad that the writers didn't make up any "issues" for them; this was not a relationship drama, it was a survival drama.
The human characters met or exceeded my expectations, although I was a little underwhelmed by the vamps. In the graphic novels, I took their demarcated speech to mean that it was sibilant, not some Slavic-tinged language. C'mon, it's got to be hard to talk around those teeth, so they still would have needed the subtitles. I guess it was easier to make the actors unintelligible in a systematic way than to have them speak English.
...
--More to follow, as a 'comment'--
Once again, I read the source material before I saw the film adaptation. They did a good job; bonus points for stretching one graphic novel into a 113-minute movie without straining story or the pacing too much. (I felt it was a bit slow, but I also knew about the twisty-ending, so I am not a fair judge. My sweetie said it moved along just fine, however.) I was curious going into the movie whether the writers would stray too much, as they tend to do when their inspiration is inked, not typed. Nope, they did a good job there, and the actors did a great job of really making their desperation relate-able. It's got to be pretty hard to be thrown into day-for-night for 70 days of filming. I would be jetting off to a Caribbean island where the only thing that I would have to be leery of is the local water and making a fool of myself after too many mini-umbrella-ed drinks!
When I first heard that the movie was being compared to 28 Days Later for the carnage-factor, I was curious. I mean, I know the movie was going to be about a town being slaughtered, but to me, the story is more about the cat-and-mouse game to be played out between the vamps and the survivors. They did a good job of spinning that out, but man, were those vamps wasteful with their initial glut! I would have thought that they would have kept a few more like cattle, to save for later. To me, the ripping rather than biting seemed like a waste; no wonder these vamps were hungry--they play with their food too much. What use is red snow?
What really impressed me was the birdseye view of the carnage; that was neat in its execution.
The leading actors, Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, did a really credible job as two butt-kickers who have fallen out, but once teamed up, are greater than the sum of their parts (or issues). I think they spent a tad too long on their strained relationship (seriously, after being locked in an attic together for more than an hour, I would have to talk things out! What else is there to do?). I am glad that the writers didn't make up any "issues" for them; this was not a relationship drama, it was a survival drama.
The human characters met or exceeded my expectations, although I was a little underwhelmed by the vamps. In the graphic novels, I took their demarcated speech to mean that it was sibilant, not some Slavic-tinged language. C'mon, it's got to be hard to talk around those teeth, so they still would have needed the subtitles. I guess it was easier to make the actors unintelligible in a systematic way than to have them speak English.
...
--More to follow, as a 'comment'--
Sleuth: 1972 version
Two great actors + stage script + killer set = appreciably classic film
If you've been following this blog for a while, you will have noticed that I have a fondness for reading the book a movie is based on. In this instance, I wanted to see "the original" before deciding whether or not to see the remake.
First of all, I adore Michael Caine; I want him to be my great uncle (since he's a tad too old to marry). I very much enjoyed watching him be Milo Tindle, even if the character is supposed to be a "jumped-up pantry boy". (Will they put that great line in the remake? I hope so!) The best part was listening to him drift back into his Cockney accent and lingo during his lines; what fun! He does it in such a way that you are not sure at first whether he means to do so. On the other hand, since I find the actor so likable, it was difficult to find his character as despicable as one is supposed to. With Jude Law, however, I feel that I will not have that problem. His bobble-headed self is going to be a person I love to hate. Will the ending be the same? I was disappointed in the original, but I would probably take great satisfaction in the remake. I also think he is going to sink his teeth into being the older character and shred the scenery. I can't wait to see/hear him verbally eviscerate the pretentious Milo; it's going to be fantastic!
I don't have a lot of appreciation for Sir Olivier, since I have not yet had the time to work my way back to his era of cinema. However, based on this movie as my sole evidence, his character was a little over-blown to me, but I think that the actor was having a fantastic time. I can't wait to see what Michael Caine does with the role; hopefully he will be a little less manic, but I can imagine that the scene of him tearing around the house in search of clues is going to be quite satisfying. Olivier played it with a little too much game-ness for what was happening, and not enough desperation for me to really believe that he was in fear. I think that Caine will be better at adding the terror the character is supposed to feel.
I did like the set, even though I found all of the mechanized trinkets more than a little creepy. Their cacophony in the final moments of the movie was perfect, however, and more than a little hellish. I can't wait to see what they are going to do with the Euro-fashionably-bare decor in the update. I will also be pretty interested in seeing whether Inspector Doppler makes his appearance. He is on the cast list, so he must. Who will be in the new portrait of the wandering wife? I really did like the wink-nudge-nudge of the cast list for the original (IMDB-trivia it after you have seen the movie, so as not to spoil things), which has been carried over.
I am ready to see the remake, but I am a tad skeptical. As I mentioned in my blog on The Dark is Rising, some things are just better set in Britain, and I hope that they don't transplant the story to this side of the Pond. Also, will they update Milo's job? There is very little more despicable to a blue-blood Englishman than a hairdresser putting on airs. Is there a more modern equivalent that they will trot out, or will that remain the same? We shall see.
If you've been following this blog for a while, you will have noticed that I have a fondness for reading the book a movie is based on. In this instance, I wanted to see "the original" before deciding whether or not to see the remake.
First of all, I adore Michael Caine; I want him to be my great uncle (since he's a tad too old to marry). I very much enjoyed watching him be Milo Tindle, even if the character is supposed to be a "jumped-up pantry boy". (Will they put that great line in the remake? I hope so!) The best part was listening to him drift back into his Cockney accent and lingo during his lines; what fun! He does it in such a way that you are not sure at first whether he means to do so. On the other hand, since I find the actor so likable, it was difficult to find his character as despicable as one is supposed to. With Jude Law, however, I feel that I will not have that problem. His bobble-headed self is going to be a person I love to hate. Will the ending be the same? I was disappointed in the original, but I would probably take great satisfaction in the remake. I also think he is going to sink his teeth into being the older character and shred the scenery. I can't wait to see/hear him verbally eviscerate the pretentious Milo; it's going to be fantastic!
I don't have a lot of appreciation for Sir Olivier, since I have not yet had the time to work my way back to his era of cinema. However, based on this movie as my sole evidence, his character was a little over-blown to me, but I think that the actor was having a fantastic time. I can't wait to see what Michael Caine does with the role; hopefully he will be a little less manic, but I can imagine that the scene of him tearing around the house in search of clues is going to be quite satisfying. Olivier played it with a little too much game-ness for what was happening, and not enough desperation for me to really believe that he was in fear. I think that Caine will be better at adding the terror the character is supposed to feel.
I did like the set, even though I found all of the mechanized trinkets more than a little creepy. Their cacophony in the final moments of the movie was perfect, however, and more than a little hellish. I can't wait to see what they are going to do with the Euro-fashionably-bare decor in the update. I will also be pretty interested in seeing whether Inspector Doppler makes his appearance. He is on the cast list, so he must. Who will be in the new portrait of the wandering wife? I really did like the wink-nudge-nudge of the cast list for the original (IMDB-trivia it after you have seen the movie, so as not to spoil things), which has been carried over.
I am ready to see the remake, but I am a tad skeptical. As I mentioned in my blog on The Dark is Rising, some things are just better set in Britain, and I hope that they don't transplant the story to this side of the Pond. Also, will they update Milo's job? There is very little more despicable to a blue-blood Englishman than a hairdresser putting on airs. Is there a more modern equivalent that they will trot out, or will that remain the same? We shall see.
October 15, 2007
Michael Clayton
Psychological Drama + splash of Legal Thriller + George Clooney = arresting film
Let me tell you, George Clooney was made to wear suits! I can't explain it better than he just looks fabulous and at home in them, even if he is hauling it up a wooded hill. (No spoilers, but when you do get to that particular scene, I think you will find it tense, but also emotionally satisfying and perhaps oddly compelling; I did.)
"Legal Thriller" is not my cup of tea. I have never read a John Grisham book (although I seem to have seen almost all of the movie adaptations of them.) and don't really intend too. I didn't think A Civil Action was particularly noteworthy, nor did I go gaga over The Insider. Nope, high fantasy is more to my taste. Even though I walked in to the film more than a little biased, I realized that the movie was more an exploration of the characters than a story bogged down in Erin Brockovich-ian chemistry details, minus the flip, sassy fun. "Exploration of character" sounds terribly boring, but Clooney manages to keep his "legal bag man" role real; this guy is actually relate-able and not smarmy, as one would expect.
Tom Wilkinson is cringe-worthy in his manic madness, which only proves to me that he is a good actor, even if I don't always enjoy seeing his characters (Normal, anyone?!? What a spiritually yucky movie). I do have to ask; what was up with the 6 bottles of Lysol on his butcher's block of a kitchen counter? I think they served two purposes:
1) To show how bonkers his character was and
2) To secure more product-placement revenue to offset the production budget.
I personally kept waiting for him to down it all in a fit of suicidal madness, but it wasn't really that kind of movie.
Tilda Swinton was great, as always, but how in the world did they make her look fat? Seriously, she is almost bone. The jacket she was wearing in her last scene did the trick, and was horridly atrocious. Her acting, however, was fantastic! It was fascinating to see her tightly controlled exterior come crashing down. Along the way, we were treated with snippets of scenes of her prepping for her day, working through her carefully-delivered wording as Head Councilor for a multinational corporation. I think Ms. Swinton turned a character who could have been an automaton on the page into someone the audience can almost feel sympathy for.
To me, she is a magnetic curiosity; I feel compelled to watch her. My favorite role of hers was the splendidly andogynous Gabriel in Constantine, but judging from IMDB, she is the go-to actress for indy gender-bending. Terrific; I can hardly think of a better person to do it (although Cate Blanchett may give Tilda a run for her money in I'm Not There.)
--Note: There is more text to follow, but I have recently been informed that my posts are "insanely long", so I will break off here and add a "comment" that contains the rest of my review. I also promise that it will be less gossip-y from here on out, focusing more on the plot and structure of the movie.--
Let me tell you, George Clooney was made to wear suits! I can't explain it better than he just looks fabulous and at home in them, even if he is hauling it up a wooded hill. (No spoilers, but when you do get to that particular scene, I think you will find it tense, but also emotionally satisfying and perhaps oddly compelling; I did.)
"Legal Thriller" is not my cup of tea. I have never read a John Grisham book (although I seem to have seen almost all of the movie adaptations of them.) and don't really intend too. I didn't think A Civil Action was particularly noteworthy, nor did I go gaga over The Insider. Nope, high fantasy is more to my taste. Even though I walked in to the film more than a little biased, I realized that the movie was more an exploration of the characters than a story bogged down in Erin Brockovich-ian chemistry details, minus the flip, sassy fun. "Exploration of character" sounds terribly boring, but Clooney manages to keep his "legal bag man" role real; this guy is actually relate-able and not smarmy, as one would expect.
Tom Wilkinson is cringe-worthy in his manic madness, which only proves to me that he is a good actor, even if I don't always enjoy seeing his characters (Normal, anyone?!? What a spiritually yucky movie). I do have to ask; what was up with the 6 bottles of Lysol on his butcher's block of a kitchen counter? I think they served two purposes:
1) To show how bonkers his character was and
2) To secure more product-placement revenue to offset the production budget.
I personally kept waiting for him to down it all in a fit of suicidal madness, but it wasn't really that kind of movie.
Tilda Swinton was great, as always, but how in the world did they make her look fat? Seriously, she is almost bone. The jacket she was wearing in her last scene did the trick, and was horridly atrocious. Her acting, however, was fantastic! It was fascinating to see her tightly controlled exterior come crashing down. Along the way, we were treated with snippets of scenes of her prepping for her day, working through her carefully-delivered wording as Head Councilor for a multinational corporation. I think Ms. Swinton turned a character who could have been an automaton on the page into someone the audience can almost feel sympathy for.
To me, she is a magnetic curiosity; I feel compelled to watch her. My favorite role of hers was the splendidly andogynous Gabriel in Constantine, but judging from IMDB, she is the go-to actress for indy gender-bending. Terrific; I can hardly think of a better person to do it (although Cate Blanchett may give Tilda a run for her money in I'm Not There.)
--Note: There is more text to follow, but I have recently been informed that my posts are "insanely long", so I will break off here and add a "comment" that contains the rest of my review. I also promise that it will be less gossip-y from here on out, focusing more on the plot and structure of the movie.--
October 12, 2007
The Dark is Rising 2.0
Classic YA book - Arthurian legend + cinematic liberties = pretty good time
As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.
The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.
That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.
--See 'comment' for more.--
As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.
The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.
That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.
--See 'comment' for more.--
October 10, 2007
Pushing Daisies
I was watching a re-run of the Pushing Daisies premier last week, when I realized that a couple of things were tickling my memory, as well as my sentimental attachments.
First of all, the visual style reminded me of something...the movie Amelie. Great; I loved that movie. No really-- I have seen it in French, Italian and German, I loved it so much. There is the same prevalence of the color green, and the vividness of colors, not to mention quirky characters living in a 'fantastic' atmosphere in which anything can happen. It doesn't hurt that Anna Friel (supporting character Chuck) reminds me strongly of the whimsy that Zooey Deschanel imbues all of her characters with. I also loved the appearance of Ellen Greene (Audrey, from the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors) as one of Chuck's aunts. As an aside, I loved her as Sylar's mummy dearest on Heroes and I can't believe it was her in Leon/The Professional! I had no idea, until I just IMDB'd her.
Secondly, I was caught by the narrator's soothing and airy voice. I knew I had heard it before, and as the opening credits appeared at the bottom of the screen, I realized that it was Jim Dale, narrator of the Harry Potter audio books. I adore Mr. Dale's readings of the magical series. I think he does a truly worthy job, and there is only one other (male) voice actor who really comes close to being competition; Roy Dotrice. Incidentally, Mr. Dale has the record for the greatest number of character voices.
In any case, it was delightful to hear a voice I enjoy do the narration for the show, kind of like Ian McKellan's on Stardust.
So, you are probably wondering if I actually liked the show. I did, at least enough to want to watch a little more. It won't supplant Grey's Anatomy or Battlestar Galactica on my Tivo or anything, but it was a good time. I will tune in for more, and I am happy to see that ABC is taking some chances with their programming. I don't, however, believe that the show will make it more than a season. I am happy to be proven wrong though--at least there is no "reality" to the show (read: contest, like Dancing with the Stars).
First of all, the visual style reminded me of something...the movie Amelie. Great; I loved that movie. No really-- I have seen it in French, Italian and German, I loved it so much. There is the same prevalence of the color green, and the vividness of colors, not to mention quirky characters living in a 'fantastic' atmosphere in which anything can happen. It doesn't hurt that Anna Friel (supporting character Chuck) reminds me strongly of the whimsy that Zooey Deschanel imbues all of her characters with. I also loved the appearance of Ellen Greene (Audrey, from the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors) as one of Chuck's aunts. As an aside, I loved her as Sylar's mummy dearest on Heroes and I can't believe it was her in Leon/The Professional! I had no idea, until I just IMDB'd her.
Secondly, I was caught by the narrator's soothing and airy voice. I knew I had heard it before, and as the opening credits appeared at the bottom of the screen, I realized that it was Jim Dale, narrator of the Harry Potter audio books. I adore Mr. Dale's readings of the magical series. I think he does a truly worthy job, and there is only one other (male) voice actor who really comes close to being competition; Roy Dotrice. Incidentally, Mr. Dale has the record for the greatest number of character voices.
In any case, it was delightful to hear a voice I enjoy do the narration for the show, kind of like Ian McKellan's on Stardust.
So, you are probably wondering if I actually liked the show. I did, at least enough to want to watch a little more. It won't supplant Grey's Anatomy or Battlestar Galactica on my Tivo or anything, but it was a good time. I will tune in for more, and I am happy to see that ABC is taking some chances with their programming. I don't, however, believe that the show will make it more than a season. I am happy to be proven wrong though--at least there is no "reality" to the show (read: contest, like Dancing with the Stars).
Too amazing not to share
I know that we are supposed to be discussing movies on this forum, but my coworker who loves art found this page for me. He knows that I could just eat up this style of art and that I have an Alphonse Mucha calendar hanging in my office each year. This jewelery is so fantastic that I cannot resist! The photos are excellent, as one would expect of a gallery.
http://www.tademagallery.com/ALL_ArtNouveau.htm
Becoming engaged recently has exposed me to more jewelry than I usually look at. Nothing that I have seen in the stores evokes a reaction as strongly as these pieces do, which makes me wonder if modern is really 'better'. I was astonished, practically floored, by looking at these pictures. Please let me know if you have seen anything lately that reminds you of these; I would love to be wrong. Now I am curious about how much jewelry like this goes for...better not to think about it!
http://www.tademagallery.com/ALL_ArtNouveau.htm
Becoming engaged recently has exposed me to more jewelry than I usually look at. Nothing that I have seen in the stores evokes a reaction as strongly as these pieces do, which makes me wonder if modern is really 'better'. I was astonished, practically floored, by looking at these pictures. Please let me know if you have seen anything lately that reminds you of these; I would love to be wrong. Now I am curious about how much jewelry like this goes for...better not to think about it!
October 8, 2007
Crank sequel?!?!
Seriously? Ick!
I just picked up this little tidbit of instant-IQ-drain at:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/crank/news/1678451/
In the article, they say (about making a sequel's action live up to the first)
"You have to go twice as hard. So that's what we're going to do. "
Gross! What are they thinking?
There is also a comment about how this movie will get made next spring, writer's strike or no. My thought is "Well, you guys don't really have to worry now do you? A poo-flinging monkey can come up with a script better than the original. It is actually in the writer's best interest to be on strike rather than to write such a steaming pile of drivel."
And that's all the mental energy I am going to bestow on so worthless a topic!
I just picked up this little tidbit of instant-IQ-drain at:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/crank/news/1678451/
In the article, they say (about making a sequel's action live up to the first)
"You have to go twice as hard. So that's what we're going to do. "
Gross! What are they thinking?
There is also a comment about how this movie will get made next spring, writer's strike or no. My thought is "Well, you guys don't really have to worry now do you? A poo-flinging monkey can come up with a script better than the original. It is actually in the writer's best interest to be on strike rather than to write such a steaming pile of drivel."
And that's all the mental energy I am going to bestow on so worthless a topic!
Dark is Rising
Seeker: The Dark is Rising is the story of a boy who discovers that he is a key figure in the fight between the Light and the Dark. The film is based on the novel The Dark is Rising (first in the DiS series) by Susan Cooper. Having not read the book, I cannot say exactly how well the adaptation was, but the film was entertaining nonetheless. The acting was decent, not the best I've seen, but by far not the worst and the special effects were very well done. My only real complaint about the film is that there is not very much character development and the story jumps around a bit. However, considering that the intended audience is kids 10-15 years old, I think it is a well done movie. All in all a decent kids' fantasy.
September 25, 2007
Resident Evilist?
A fitting end to Resident Evil Trilogy is executed in "Extinction". Although not as strong as the first one, the movie itself is a decently satisfying conclusion to the story arch. Don't look for a deep, or emotionally involving movie; come on, it is zombies in Vegas. All the elements are there: kick-butt shero, monsters, evil scientist, genetically mutated monsters, guns, knives, mutated birds, firestorms. In general some to like and some to dislike. All the elements are there, but somehow the movie never truly grabs the audience's attention. Yes it is as likable as a zombie movie can be, but it isn't anything to write home about.
"Extinction" occurs five years after "Apocalypse" and, while global events of the past time are touched upon, most of the characters from the last movie are not addressed. Valentine is not in the picture, nor is the the virus creator's daughter. We never know what has happened to them. Alice is now a loner whose telekinetic powers are growing exponentially. A few character from the last movie, Carlos and L.J., have joined a caravan of survivors trying to stay alive.
As I said earlier; all the elements are there for a pretty solid movie, but somehow what the movie should have been was never tapped. There is something dissatisfying about this movie (besides the fact that a chain-linked fence can somehow hold back hordes of the animated dead). I cannot state specifically what the dissatisfying element is, but it is there. (Sorry I can't be more specific than that.) In many ways it is like Van Helsing, a satisfying beginning but disappointing end.
Over all a decent, if not fabulous, end to the trilogy. While the possibility for another movie suggested in the final scene of "Extinction", I hope that they let the series end here on a adequate note.
"Extinction" occurs five years after "Apocalypse" and, while global events of the past time are touched upon, most of the characters from the last movie are not addressed. Valentine is not in the picture, nor is the the virus creator's daughter. We never know what has happened to them. Alice is now a loner whose telekinetic powers are growing exponentially. A few character from the last movie, Carlos and L.J., have joined a caravan of survivors trying to stay alive.
As I said earlier; all the elements are there for a pretty solid movie, but somehow what the movie should have been was never tapped. There is something dissatisfying about this movie (besides the fact that a chain-linked fence can somehow hold back hordes of the animated dead). I cannot state specifically what the dissatisfying element is, but it is there. (Sorry I can't be more specific than that.) In many ways it is like Van Helsing, a satisfying beginning but disappointing end.
Over all a decent, if not fabulous, end to the trilogy. While the possibility for another movie suggested in the final scene of "Extinction", I hope that they let the series end here on a adequate note.
September 24, 2007
Dragon Wars will slay you, but not the way it intended
Monster-movie + Geek-tastic effects - sensible plot = amusing mess that should wait for video
I went to see this movie for Jason Behr, and to see some effects, but for nothing else, and that is exactly what I got. I took a friend with me who owns all of those Godzilla, Mothra, Godzilla vs. Mothra, etc. movies, thinking that at least he would enjoy it and give me someone to discuss the movie with. My dearest wish is that we could have been in one of our apartments, throwing popcorn at the screen and laughing out loud at the preposterous "acting" and lines of the characters. Seriously, this movie is best viewed while imbibing a little and being as loud as you want; it would be terrific fun that way.
Not an option for us, unfortunately. The theater wasn't exactly filled with parents and their eleven-year-old sons, but they made up all of the rest of the audience besides the two of us. I saw the movie for free (never a sign of a high-grossing movie if they will let you use a pass the weekend after a movie comes out; it means they are desperate to get some behinds in chairs), so I figured it was all gravy.
The effects were actually pretty cool; my favorite was the evil snake-dragon wrapped around LA's Liberty Building. The downtown LA-decimating battle was interesting to watch, even though I would not have been surprised to see a Transformer run through on its way to tackle a Decepticon. (Where were they anyway? Seeing them square off against the mini-dragon-ish beasts or the snake would have been worth the price of admission!). Some of the creatures in their battle-formations reminded me so much of both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars that I had to admire Hyung-rae Shim's brass for opening himself to intellectual-property litigation. We know what his geek-pedigree is! My favorite creatures were the aptly-named Dawdlers.
At the end of the movie, scratch that, during the entire movie, I was stuck wondering what this film says about Korean moviegoers. I have hears all about how this movie is a smash-hit over there, and I know that it is flopping over here. I didn't expect much, but I certainly did not expect such sub-par acting from Amanda Brooks. I have only seen one other movie that I cannot recall her in, but given this evidence, I hope never to see here again. I wish her well as a person, but she got her chance to impress me, and she blew it so spectacularly that I don't think I will ever look at one of her characters without wanting to laugh scornfully. Jason Behr managed well enough, given the drivel that he had to work with. Roswell showed me that he could be more than a pretty face (and nice abs, sholders, etc.), but this movie does not give him much of a chance to be more than not-bad. (If you are not going to let him act, will you at least allow him to shrug off those 70's-terrific button-down shirts? I know that the costume designer is hiding his wonderful physique on purpose. Could I at least have the joy of a clinging- t-shirt? Please?)
Seriously, Mr. Shim, this is not your first film! I think it's great that you can both write and direct a movie, but seriously, you need to think about letting someone else put words into the mouths of your characters; you are awful at it! Maybe this mush of over-wroughtness makes tons of sense in Korean (a language I know nothing about), but it doesn't translate at all into English. I can do better. I know how pompous that makes me sound, but I can tell you that while I am not particularly good, I am at least not as stultify-ingly bad as this script showed him to be. The exposition was so heavy-handed that I had to ask my buddy "What? I've lost the plot." (Plot? <>) I can put up with a lot, and suspend my disbelief, but I abandoned that within the first 5 minutes of the movie. Shame on you, and your investors.
Could someone also explain to me how Korean dragons can fly with no wings in evidence? I suppose that they are meant to be so magical that they don't even need to be propelled. I'll take a nice Western mythical creature like an pegasus anyday; at least they pretend to obey the laws of physics.
I knew walking into this movie that I would have to be entertained mainly by the monster-effects, which I was. I had no idea how much of a let-down it would be to have one of the human characters speak up during the climactic battle scene. If this movie had been made entirely out of graphics, like the Final Fantasy movie, I would have been fine, but in this case, the real world should have minded its own business. The mix of the two was entirely inappropriate and distracted me from my enjoyment and appreciation of the costly special effects. A giant snake slithering down the streets of LA, knocking cars, trees and everything else out of the way with each sinuous coil? Cool!
Now, all this having been said (and I know I am not the only one; other people have touched on these points too); wait until video and have an awesome night excoriating the awful dialog and cheering the effects with your friends in the freedom of your own home!
I went to see this movie for Jason Behr, and to see some effects, but for nothing else, and that is exactly what I got. I took a friend with me who owns all of those Godzilla, Mothra, Godzilla vs. Mothra, etc. movies, thinking that at least he would enjoy it and give me someone to discuss the movie with. My dearest wish is that we could have been in one of our apartments, throwing popcorn at the screen and laughing out loud at the preposterous "acting" and lines of the characters. Seriously, this movie is best viewed while imbibing a little and being as loud as you want; it would be terrific fun that way.
Not an option for us, unfortunately. The theater wasn't exactly filled with parents and their eleven-year-old sons, but they made up all of the rest of the audience besides the two of us. I saw the movie for free (never a sign of a high-grossing movie if they will let you use a pass the weekend after a movie comes out; it means they are desperate to get some behinds in chairs), so I figured it was all gravy.
The effects were actually pretty cool; my favorite was the evil snake-dragon wrapped around LA's Liberty Building. The downtown LA-decimating battle was interesting to watch, even though I would not have been surprised to see a Transformer run through on its way to tackle a Decepticon. (Where were they anyway? Seeing them square off against the mini-dragon-ish beasts or the snake would have been worth the price of admission!). Some of the creatures in their battle-formations reminded me so much of both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars that I had to admire Hyung-rae Shim's brass for opening himself to intellectual-property litigation. We know what his geek-pedigree is! My favorite creatures were the aptly-named Dawdlers.
At the end of the movie, scratch that, during the entire movie, I was stuck wondering what this film says about Korean moviegoers. I have hears all about how this movie is a smash-hit over there, and I know that it is flopping over here. I didn't expect much, but I certainly did not expect such sub-par acting from Amanda Brooks. I have only seen one other movie that I cannot recall her in, but given this evidence, I hope never to see here again. I wish her well as a person, but she got her chance to impress me, and she blew it so spectacularly that I don't think I will ever look at one of her characters without wanting to laugh scornfully. Jason Behr managed well enough, given the drivel that he had to work with. Roswell showed me that he could be more than a pretty face (and nice abs, sholders, etc.), but this movie does not give him much of a chance to be more than not-bad. (If you are not going to let him act, will you at least allow him to shrug off those 70's-terrific button-down shirts? I know that the costume designer is hiding his wonderful physique on purpose. Could I at least have the joy of a clinging- t-shirt? Please?)
Seriously, Mr. Shim, this is not your first film! I think it's great that you can both write and direct a movie, but seriously, you need to think about letting someone else put words into the mouths of your characters; you are awful at it! Maybe this mush of over-wroughtness makes tons of sense in Korean (a language I know nothing about), but it doesn't translate at all into English. I can do better. I know how pompous that makes me sound, but I can tell you that while I am not particularly good, I am at least not as stultify-ingly bad as this script showed him to be. The exposition was so heavy-handed that I had to ask my buddy "What? I've lost the plot." (Plot? <
Could someone also explain to me how Korean dragons can fly with no wings in evidence? I suppose that they are meant to be so magical that they don't even need to be propelled. I'll take a nice Western mythical creature like an pegasus anyday; at least they pretend to obey the laws of physics.
I knew walking into this movie that I would have to be entertained mainly by the monster-effects, which I was. I had no idea how much of a let-down it would be to have one of the human characters speak up during the climactic battle scene. If this movie had been made entirely out of graphics, like the Final Fantasy movie, I would have been fine, but in this case, the real world should have minded its own business. The mix of the two was entirely inappropriate and distracted me from my enjoyment and appreciation of the costly special effects. A giant snake slithering down the streets of LA, knocking cars, trees and everything else out of the way with each sinuous coil? Cool!
Now, all this having been said (and I know I am not the only one; other people have touched on these points too); wait until video and have an awesome night excoriating the awful dialog and cheering the effects with your friends in the freedom of your own home!
'Eastern' is full of 'Promises'...
...just not very pleasant ones...mostly death threats.
Viggo & London-sexy+depression=gritty good time
Wow, after watching this movie, I am glad that I am neither Russian, nor living in that particular section of London. And hats off to David Cronenburg, who can make even a naked Viggo Mortensen uninteresting; that takes some talent. The talent though, lies with Viggo for making the bathhouse scene look so desperate and un-staged. You know the fight scenes I am talking about, where the good guy never gets more than a scratch while fending off a horde of baddies? Not so here; he barely crawls away. I hope the dude stretched first, and I bet that the two days it took to film that scene were pretty long and exhausting.
But back to Mr. Cronenburg; even though the movie is somewhat centered on a Russian sex trading ring (among other things), there is no titillating material here. In fact, I think the director despises flesh and sex in general. I have A History of Violence to back me up here. The level of contempt that he shows for the act of copulation and for naked humans spreads his disinterest of flesh to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that gangsters aren't wont to cuddle the nameless, faceless recipients of their carnal attention, but the sex scene between the husband and wife of Violence made very little sense to me, and was almost as cringe-worthy as the one in Monster's Ball (bleck!).
I imagine that working for such a director would be both exhausting (particularly in the emotional sense) and a bit depressing. And why does Naomi Watts' character look surprised when it rains? She lives in London, and has for all of her life, as far as we can tell.
Hats off to Viggo, who really put a lot of effort into his character. And what a character! You don't know whether or not to fear him, or to look for the heart of plated gold. Once the audience learns more about his character, the reasons behind certain of his actions are more apparent, but still more of them are made even more inscrutable (the ending, anyone? What was that about? To what purpose?). The overall effect for me is "wow", and I have to admire the time the actor put into researching his character. Some information on that can be found here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765443/trivia
The worry-beads are a nice touch.
--see 'comment' for more--
Viggo & London-sexy+depression=gritty good time
Wow, after watching this movie, I am glad that I am neither Russian, nor living in that particular section of London. And hats off to David Cronenburg, who can make even a naked Viggo Mortensen uninteresting; that takes some talent. The talent though, lies with Viggo for making the bathhouse scene look so desperate and un-staged. You know the fight scenes I am talking about, where the good guy never gets more than a scratch while fending off a horde of baddies? Not so here; he barely crawls away. I hope the dude stretched first, and I bet that the two days it took to film that scene were pretty long and exhausting.
But back to Mr. Cronenburg; even though the movie is somewhat centered on a Russian sex trading ring (among other things), there is no titillating material here. In fact, I think the director despises flesh and sex in general. I have A History of Violence to back me up here. The level of contempt that he shows for the act of copulation and for naked humans spreads his disinterest of flesh to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that gangsters aren't wont to cuddle the nameless, faceless recipients of their carnal attention, but the sex scene between the husband and wife of Violence made very little sense to me, and was almost as cringe-worthy as the one in Monster's Ball (bleck!).
I imagine that working for such a director would be both exhausting (particularly in the emotional sense) and a bit depressing. And why does Naomi Watts' character look surprised when it rains? She lives in London, and has for all of her life, as far as we can tell.
Hats off to Viggo, who really put a lot of effort into his character. And what a character! You don't know whether or not to fear him, or to look for the heart of plated gold. Once the audience learns more about his character, the reasons behind certain of his actions are more apparent, but still more of them are made even more inscrutable (the ending, anyone? What was that about? To what purpose?). The overall effect for me is "wow", and I have to admire the time the actor put into researching his character. Some information on that can be found here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765443/trivia
The worry-beads are a nice touch.
--see 'comment' for more--
September 21, 2007
Labyrinth - "This is not an ordinary gift for an ordinary girl"
Goblins, mazes, fairies, ballrooms, bogs of eternal stench; all portrayed with the joy, enthusiasm and ability only found in a team like Jim Henson and George Lucas. This musical, comedic-fantasy is one of my all time favorite movies. The music is true 80s David Bowie, full of synthesisors and echoes and the special effects are "old school" but effective. I will be clear in stating that I am bias, I love this movie and can find few faults with it. Goblins are done by the same puppeteers that created some of the best loved characters of all time. Costumes are wonderful (who could take their eyes of Bowie's codpiece?) expecially in the ballroom scene. That scene "when the world falls down" has fueled costume ball fantasies in my brain for years. In fact, many of this movie's elements have fuled my fantasies.
David Bowie and Jennifer Connely shine. Bowie plays the Goblin King, who is somewhat creepy and not human, but finds himself in love with a human girl. The girl, Sarah, is played by Connelly (I believe this is her first big role) with just the right amount of innocence and adolescence to create a sixteen-year-old with a preoccupation for fantasy and fairytales. Perhaps some of my love for this movie comes from the fact that, growing up, I related very well with the character of Sarah (even though my life had nothing in common with her).
All told, the puppetry, acting, special effects, attention to detail and wonderful story create a magical movie that shouldn't be missed. However, if you didn't see it as a child, some of the wonder will probably be missing.
David Bowie and Jennifer Connely shine. Bowie plays the Goblin King, who is somewhat creepy and not human, but finds himself in love with a human girl. The girl, Sarah, is played by Connelly (I believe this is her first big role) with just the right amount of innocence and adolescence to create a sixteen-year-old with a preoccupation for fantasy and fairytales. Perhaps some of my love for this movie comes from the fact that, growing up, I related very well with the character of Sarah (even though my life had nothing in common with her).
All told, the puppetry, acting, special effects, attention to detail and wonderful story create a magical movie that shouldn't be missed. However, if you didn't see it as a child, some of the wonder will probably be missing.
Atonement
Young hot actors+tragedy=bearable Atonement
Here is another book that I have 'read' in preparation for the film version. I don't think that I would have picked it up if the lovely Ms. Knightly hadn't seduced me in to it. First of all, I don't like stories that are too tragic; the book seemed like a big downer, and in some ways it is (sexual assault, particularly of a minor, is never fun to me). On the other hand, it is also a beautiful character-study for so many of the main players and I am content with the time I spent listening to the audiobook.
I think James McAvoy is going to be a great Robbie and Romola Garai is good enough to make the audience not totally despise Briony, the younger sister whose misunderstanding instigates the the tragedy. I am in; this cast has sold me on the hope that the sadness of the story and the bittersweetness of what little redemption the book affords will not turn into a lachrymose mush on-screen.
I can tell you right now that my best movie buddy will not be interested in seeing this with me, so I may have to review it all by myself. While I think it is too early to talk about a movie's chances at an Oscar (it is always too early, particularly if a movie hasn't even come out yet. Wait until November, people!), this movie seems like a jury-pleaser, from what I know of the book and the actors. Admittedly, the actors are still the biggest draw for me, but the cinematography also looks fantastic. We shall see.
Here is another book that I have 'read' in preparation for the film version. I don't think that I would have picked it up if the lovely Ms. Knightly hadn't seduced me in to it. First of all, I don't like stories that are too tragic; the book seemed like a big downer, and in some ways it is (sexual assault, particularly of a minor, is never fun to me). On the other hand, it is also a beautiful character-study for so many of the main players and I am content with the time I spent listening to the audiobook.
I think James McAvoy is going to be a great Robbie and Romola Garai is good enough to make the audience not totally despise Briony, the younger sister whose misunderstanding instigates the the tragedy. I am in; this cast has sold me on the hope that the sadness of the story and the bittersweetness of what little redemption the book affords will not turn into a lachrymose mush on-screen.
I can tell you right now that my best movie buddy will not be interested in seeing this with me, so I may have to review it all by myself. While I think it is too early to talk about a movie's chances at an Oscar (it is always too early, particularly if a movie hasn't even come out yet. Wait until November, people!), this movie seems like a jury-pleaser, from what I know of the book and the actors. Admittedly, the actors are still the biggest draw for me, but the cinematography also looks fantastic. We shall see.
Going to see it: No Country For Old Men
I just finished the audiobook for this title, in preparation for the movie coming out. I prefer to read (or 'read', in the case of audiobooks) the text a movie is based on, before I see it. This may not be the best plan, since I am usually a little disappointed with the movie's comparatively limited scope, but I do have fun agreeing or disagreeing with the casting choices (Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon? Please!).
I liked the book a lot. Tom Stechschulte's voice did the gritty landscape of the novel justice, and from the previews, the movie will too. Javier Bardem (a great actor, even if I don't appreciate him very much) is super creepy, even in an awful haircut. I think he is going to be terrifyingly good as the psychopath Chigurh (on cd, pronounced more like a deeply southern slur of "chigger" than "sugar"). Josh Brolin is not an actor that I think very highly of, but he certainly looks the part, as does Tommy Lee Jones (a great actor, who makes some unfortunate choices). I adore Kelly Macdonald, so I will see her in almost anything. I will be even more impressed if she can pull off the deep-southern vulnerability of Carla Jean without being overbearinly needy. I am not so sure about Woody Harrelson; I can't take the guy seriously, even if he is set up to be the 'problem solver' deployed to reign in Chigurh's killing spree.
Now all I have to do is hope that the producers don't try to 'update' the setting; for me, that would ruin it, even though all the way through the book, I was dying for a good CSI team and some DNA-tests.
We'll see how well the translation from the page to the screen works out. I am prepared to like it, although I don't think that Lunanshee will be eager to see the movie, much less like the ending. I think the dark, gritty, rangy prose of the novel will come to life on-screen.
I am glad that I read the story first, because I know what a deliciously unsettling scare I am going to be in for with the killer's calm application of the cattle stun-gun. Maybe the metallic chunk of a high-pressure tank being set down on concrete will make me jump for years to come. (Darn, and I really like to scuba-dive!)
I liked the book a lot. Tom Stechschulte's voice did the gritty landscape of the novel justice, and from the previews, the movie will too. Javier Bardem (a great actor, even if I don't appreciate him very much) is super creepy, even in an awful haircut. I think he is going to be terrifyingly good as the psychopath Chigurh (on cd, pronounced more like a deeply southern slur of "chigger" than "sugar"). Josh Brolin is not an actor that I think very highly of, but he certainly looks the part, as does Tommy Lee Jones (a great actor, who makes some unfortunate choices). I adore Kelly Macdonald, so I will see her in almost anything. I will be even more impressed if she can pull off the deep-southern vulnerability of Carla Jean without being overbearinly needy. I am not so sure about Woody Harrelson; I can't take the guy seriously, even if he is set up to be the 'problem solver' deployed to reign in Chigurh's killing spree.
Now all I have to do is hope that the producers don't try to 'update' the setting; for me, that would ruin it, even though all the way through the book, I was dying for a good CSI team and some DNA-tests.
We'll see how well the translation from the page to the screen works out. I am prepared to like it, although I don't think that Lunanshee will be eager to see the movie, much less like the ending. I think the dark, gritty, rangy prose of the novel will come to life on-screen.
I am glad that I read the story first, because I know what a deliciously unsettling scare I am going to be in for with the killer's calm application of the cattle stun-gun. Maybe the metallic chunk of a high-pressure tank being set down on concrete will make me jump for years to come. (Darn, and I really like to scuba-dive!)
'Speechless' with laughter
Romantic Comedy of Errors+ 2 good actors' chemistry+wit=Speechless
You know what movie I would really like to watch? Speechless, the 1994 comedy with Geena Davis and Michael Keeton.
I haven't seen this movie in about 8 years, but I remember really liking it straight off. Perhaps if I saw it again, I would not find it nearly so engaging. I have the IMDB page up right next to this blog, and it is hard to believe that I would like the movie any less today than I did then, particularly with a cast such as Ernie Hudson (sadly, always an underdog), Christopher Reeve at his dry-comedian best, and Bonnie Bedelia. How many thirty-something comedies come along? Or comedies about political campaigns? Comedies are usually the territory of people in their twenties, like Just Friends or Old School (in that case, people who are acting like they are in their twenties, which is even sadder and less entertaining). Why do rom-coms these days all seem like You, Me and Dupree? Or, if they address more 'mature' characters, you get things like Must Like Dogs. Bleh!
Nope, I loved the sparkling chemistry between Geena and Michael and sizzling wit of Speechless's dialog. Unlike other relationship movies featuring people older than 22, these characters have just enough baggage to make things interesting, without making them "damaged goods." This movie has been on my mind for almost a week, and I need to go hunt down a copy. I hope you like it too; if not, I would be interested in why you didn't. Maybe I will even add a post as an "after", so that what you read now is the "before" column.
In any case, I am off to the video store to see if my initial affection for this movie has stood the test of time.
You know what movie I would really like to watch? Speechless, the 1994 comedy with Geena Davis and Michael Keeton.
I haven't seen this movie in about 8 years, but I remember really liking it straight off. Perhaps if I saw it again, I would not find it nearly so engaging. I have the IMDB page up right next to this blog, and it is hard to believe that I would like the movie any less today than I did then, particularly with a cast such as Ernie Hudson (sadly, always an underdog), Christopher Reeve at his dry-comedian best, and Bonnie Bedelia. How many thirty-something comedies come along? Or comedies about political campaigns? Comedies are usually the territory of people in their twenties, like Just Friends or Old School (in that case, people who are acting like they are in their twenties, which is even sadder and less entertaining). Why do rom-coms these days all seem like You, Me and Dupree? Or, if they address more 'mature' characters, you get things like Must Like Dogs. Bleh!
Nope, I loved the sparkling chemistry between Geena and Michael and sizzling wit of Speechless's dialog. Unlike other relationship movies featuring people older than 22, these characters have just enough baggage to make things interesting, without making them "damaged goods." This movie has been on my mind for almost a week, and I need to go hunt down a copy. I hope you like it too; if not, I would be interested in why you didn't. Maybe I will even add a post as an "after", so that what you read now is the "before" column.
In any case, I am off to the video store to see if my initial affection for this movie has stood the test of time.
September 19, 2007
Stardust
First, let me say that I really enjoyed this movie. Cleaver plot, well-defined characters and wonderful actors really brought this movie to life. Definitely one of the best fantasy movies I have seen in years. There is some predictability for anyone who is familiar with the fantasy genre; you know how the witch will die, who the hero ends up with and how the story will end. In many ways Stardust is a fairytale, but the film is so well done that you don't mind the bit of predictability.
Many have compared this movie to The Princess Bride but, while they are both in the fantasy epic genre, I believe this is a mistake. The Princess Bride is the ultimate parody and requires a certain level of intelligence from its audience to recognize it's brilliance. Stardust is a different type of film. It is not a parody, but rather a sometimes comedic fantasy adventure. Sure there are amusing moments on par with anything found in TPB, but it is not the same type of comedy.
Danes plays a disdainful Yvaine well, while Pfieffer and De Niro each play their characters to the hilt. However, it may be relative newcomer Charlie Cox who truly carried the show. Cox's character grows from a humble, bumbling shop boy to a confidant, intelligent man. The transformation is almost as magical as the story itself.
Bottom Line: This is a must for any fantasy lovers.
Many have compared this movie to The Princess Bride but, while they are both in the fantasy epic genre, I believe this is a mistake. The Princess Bride is the ultimate parody and requires a certain level of intelligence from its audience to recognize it's brilliance. Stardust is a different type of film. It is not a parody, but rather a sometimes comedic fantasy adventure. Sure there are amusing moments on par with anything found in TPB, but it is not the same type of comedy.
Danes plays a disdainful Yvaine well, while Pfieffer and De Niro each play their characters to the hilt. However, it may be relative newcomer Charlie Cox who truly carried the show. Cox's character grows from a humble, bumbling shop boy to a confidant, intelligent man. The transformation is almost as magical as the story itself.
Bottom Line: This is a must for any fantasy lovers.
September 17, 2007
Shoot 'Em Up
Why? Really. Why? Three great actors in a pretty worthless movie. Other critics are correct in that the title accurately describes the movie; for all intents and purposes this flick is nothing more than a string of improbable and frivolously violent action scenes. Shoot 'Em Up is rated "R" and certainly earns that rating. This movie encompasses everything from carrot killings to non-traditional "houses of ill repute" and the fondling of corpses. Once again I ask: Why? The three main actors are all wonderfully talented, but the script demeans their ability. I think they may have lost a bet, or owed someone some money. That is the only reason I can think that these people would be involved in production of this kind. There were a few light moments and some funny lines, but not enough to redeem the film. Don't waste your time. Wait for video, or better yet, wait until it comes on television and don't waste your money. (I have much better hopes for Clive Owen in Elizabeth: The Golden Age.)
September 13, 2007
Purpose
Lunanshee and Naps-A-Lot Bear are movie fanatics. We watch scores of movies, old and new, and for years have despaired over the state of movie reviews. Together we decided to begin reviewing movies together, since we often have different opinions on movies. And in doing so, offer the public a chance at balanced movie reviews. Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)