Committed acting + great effects + non-stop action = knockout sequel
Wow, it is hard to think of what to say about this movie, even two days after seeing it! It was fantastic and worth every single bit of high praise from the other 'critics'. Usually, a movie doesn't get such a strong word-of-mouth from 'established' sources, but it turned out to be true. I would have to say that this is one of the top 40 or so movies that I have seen; it's an all-around tight package. The plot was the weakest part of the entire production, but even that is hard to criticize. The acting in it brings to mind words like "fearless", on everyone's part, not just Heath Ledger's (more on him in a moment; see 'Comments')
I can't wait to see it again; I am already planning an IMAX venture. Normally, I would not pay $12+ to see anything except for Cirque du Soleil or one of my few favorite bands, much less a movie (Hey, when we are talking about a "volume" of film-going like mine, you have to pinch some pennies somewhere!). I cannot wait to see how the action unfolds, now that I am more familiar with the plot, and I want to watch it spin past in super-duper-widescreen format.
I can't comment on the technical aspects of the movie right now; I was too busy watching the characters to care about something like that. Usually, I only notice the film-making when I am
a) annoyed by the crud-iness of it,
b) bored
c) entranced by it's beauty and utterly charmed
this film didn't do any of the above for me because it is like Teflon; professionally slick.
Now, on to a discussion of the performances (which you can't help but notice):
Aaron Eckhart- Usually amusing, if not great, he really made it look easy to embody a golden-boy who is the reciprocal of Batman. I was very impressed and wished that they had left his conversion to Two-Face until the next movie so that it could have been relished at greater length. (As it was, I started to worry that Chris Nolan was falling prey to the same desire to stuff too many villains in one movie--ex: Batman Forever, Batman & Robin) The Two-Face make-up was horrifically grisly.
Maggie Gyllenhaal- Miles more convincing than Katie Holmes as a woman who could attract a nearly-sociopathic 'good guy' like Bruce Wayne and still hold her own. In particular, I admired her confident, sensual swagger--like any good weapon, she hid it away until she needed it. Continuity of actors is important to me, but in this case, I am all for seeing more of Ms. Gyllenhaal. I don't think the audience would have been nearly so involved if they had watched Holmes in the role, particularly in the warehouse scene (nope, no spoilers here).
Michael Caine- He brings such a posh elder-cool to Alfred Pennyworth that you begin to forget about his official 'butler' status while he is a calm touchstone and foil for Bruce's passionate convictions. Can I have a grandfather like him?
Christian Bale- I don't know why he can still surprise me with his acting ability (I should expect almost-flawless work from him by now), but even behind a mask, he can still carry the show while subtly stealing it. This in light of the fact that there was a greater 'Batman: Bruce' ratio in this movie than Batman Begins (nearly all 'Bruce: Batman'). Really, who else can be so pleasant to watch when all you can see is his teeth? And cute, pointy little teeth that they are...
Morgan Freeman- Also has a corner of the "elder-cool" market like Caine which he usually uses, even in disasters like The Big Bounce. This time he was not only bemused, but believably conflicted by his employer's antics. His character is one of the most human.
Sequels are typically not as good as the first movie, but this one blows its predecessor out of the water. maybe after I've had another viewing and more time to let it sink in will I be able to be more articulate than "Wow"...
For my commentary on Ledger's performance, see 'Comments'
July 22, 2008
July 8, 2008
Hancock
(Big-name acting + uneven story + explosions + laughable 3rd act villain) - stinky critics = satisfying summer movie
I liked the movie more than I thought I would, particularly in spite of the negative buzz.
I read the reviews for Hancock, and I went anyway because the trailer was engaging. What I came to realize is that the action in the trailer only covers about half of the plot; there is a lot more to this story. Perhaps too much; I wish there was a graphic novel that might elaborate on some of the ideas because I found them far more intriguing than the reluctant-hero premise that was trumpeted all spring. Unfortunately, loading exposition into the movie in the second and third acts makes for an unwieldy plot that tipped into the overwrought before correcting itself. Still, the twist that so many critics are excoriating made the movie more interesting, even if it was "too little, too late."
One thing about the trailer that puzzled me was the absence of Charlize Theron. Her talent is on par with Smith (even if her 'brand' is not), and I think a level above Bateman, therefore she deserved some 'teaser time' too. After the credits, I was pretty satisfied with her character and the amount of focus on her. It is always a pleasure to watch the beautiful Ms. Theron do anything---and the lady can act! Even though her climactic scene was more than a little over-the-top, she sold the action. Had a less capable actress been chosen, I admit the result would have been worth derision. The character's struggle was colossal but (for me) intensely relatable, which only served to draw me in further.
After seeing the trailer, I commented to Lunanshee that I thought there are very few people aside from Will Smith who could make Hancock a likeble anti-hero. After seeing the film, I still feel the same way, and I am positive that he is a big enough draw to entice moviegoers to ignore the "pooh-pooh's" 'official' critics. I do have to ask, "What was up with those pencil-thin sideburns?" They were a little too "inner-city" for me (I saw that kind of thing in high school), so it is a fashion that I am hoping does not catch on.
The most poorly drawn character out of all of them was Eddie Marsan's villain "Red". The guy can act, but he was not given much to work with. I thought his character was also "too little, too late", which minimized both his menace and his believability. I think the character was useful in the bank-robbing sequence, but after that, he should have remained in jail to fume, not to plot further. What came afterwards was ridiculously contrived and I feel that the screenwriters really could have brought about the climax in a more believable way. Instead, they invented a guy who was merely a tool, in both senses of the word.
Although it is flawed, I really liked Hancock. Sure, it is a BIG SUMMER MOVIE, full of explosions and chase scenes, but aren't those the best kind anyway?
I liked the movie more than I thought I would, particularly in spite of the negative buzz.
I read the reviews for Hancock, and I went anyway because the trailer was engaging. What I came to realize is that the action in the trailer only covers about half of the plot; there is a lot more to this story. Perhaps too much; I wish there was a graphic novel that might elaborate on some of the ideas because I found them far more intriguing than the reluctant-hero premise that was trumpeted all spring. Unfortunately, loading exposition into the movie in the second and third acts makes for an unwieldy plot that tipped into the overwrought before correcting itself. Still, the twist that so many critics are excoriating made the movie more interesting, even if it was "too little, too late."
One thing about the trailer that puzzled me was the absence of Charlize Theron. Her talent is on par with Smith (even if her 'brand' is not), and I think a level above Bateman, therefore she deserved some 'teaser time' too. After the credits, I was pretty satisfied with her character and the amount of focus on her. It is always a pleasure to watch the beautiful Ms. Theron do anything---and the lady can act! Even though her climactic scene was more than a little over-the-top, she sold the action. Had a less capable actress been chosen, I admit the result would have been worth derision. The character's struggle was colossal but (for me) intensely relatable, which only served to draw me in further.
After seeing the trailer, I commented to Lunanshee that I thought there are very few people aside from Will Smith who could make Hancock a likeble anti-hero. After seeing the film, I still feel the same way, and I am positive that he is a big enough draw to entice moviegoers to ignore the "pooh-pooh's" 'official' critics. I do have to ask, "What was up with those pencil-thin sideburns?" They were a little too "inner-city" for me (I saw that kind of thing in high school), so it is a fashion that I am hoping does not catch on.
The most poorly drawn character out of all of them was Eddie Marsan's villain "Red". The guy can act, but he was not given much to work with. I thought his character was also "too little, too late", which minimized both his menace and his believability. I think the character was useful in the bank-robbing sequence, but after that, he should have remained in jail to fume, not to plot further. What came afterwards was ridiculously contrived and I feel that the screenwriters really could have brought about the climax in a more believable way. Instead, they invented a guy who was merely a tool, in both senses of the word.
Although it is flawed, I really liked Hancock. Sure, it is a BIG SUMMER MOVIE, full of explosions and chase scenes, but aren't those the best kind anyway?
July 2, 2008
They Said What? vol. 1
...And here's another "news" item that I cannot refrain from commenting upon. Thus begins another blog-column!
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255124
To tell you the truth Dan, neither did we... (Please discuss)
Radcliffe: 'New Potter is like Trainspotting'
Actor Daniel Radcliffe has compared the latest Harry Potter installment to cult movie Trainspotting - insisting the new film contains "a fair amount of sexual energy and drug parallels".This "Huh?!?" moment can be found here:
Radcliffe recently finished filming the sixth Potter movie - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which is due for release in November.
And the star insists that there are moments in the picture which are very similar to scenes in Ewan McGregor's controversial 1996 film.
He says, "There's a fair amount of sexual energy and drug parallels. We have a couple of Trainspotting moments.
"That's two films I never thought would be mentioned in the same breath."
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255124
To tell you the truth Dan, neither did we... (Please discuss)
Signs of the Apocalypse, vol. 1
I've decided that this blog needs to have a place to comment upon/marvel at the ridiculous-ness of studio execs and the movies they plan to make. I am no fan of Will Ferrell (excepting Stranger than Fiction) and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle must be spinning in his grave. Really, this is even more egregious than the 2004 mishap that was Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan going Around the World in 80 Days!
In my opinion, it is all over when we start butchering our classics deliberately.
This little nugget of cultural destruction found at:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255126
In my opinion, it is all over when we start butchering our classics deliberately.
Ferrell and Cohen to star in Holmes Movie
Comedians Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron Cohen will star in a forthcoming film about fictional detective Sherlock Holmes.
Ali G funnyman Cohen will play the pipe-smoking sleuth, with Ferrell as his partner Watson in the as-yet-untitled film.
Matt Tolmach, co-president of production for Columbia Pictures, tells Variety.com, "Just the idea of Sacha and Will as Sherlock Holmes and Watson makes us laugh.
"Sacha and Will are two of the funniest and most talented guys on the planet, and having them take on these two iconic characters is frankly hilarious."
This little nugget of cultural destruction found at:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255126
June 30, 2008
The Fall
Pan's Labyrinth-like visuals - del Toro creepiness + Lee Pace x 2 storylines = a glorious mess
I wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer on Apple.com trailers months ago. Then it gets a very select release, which did not include Austin or Houston. Then it comes to the indie-theater in Austin and promptly gets slammed in the paper. Then, no one will go see it with me. So I went by myself. I liked the movie, but it is deeply, almost superbly flawed.
In fact, I feel like I need to see the movie again to try to understand it. I'm already looking forward to the DVD (but I will have to wait...some more...until Sept.) so that I can hear what the director has to say for himself. I've heard interesting rumors, like he piggy-backed filming this one on the backs of other, higher budget pictures, and that he allowed the 5 year-old star ad lib a lot. Those two facts kind of explain the dis-jointedness of the plot(s). I don't always have to understand what is going on (ex: Stay, a pretty stinky movie, but worth seeing once, for free. However, I do not understand what is so great about Mulholland Dr.) and the storytelling doesn't always have to be linear (ex: Pulp Fiction is a classic), and I can handle two plotlines simultaneously (I read Robert Jordan), but this topped all of that with a generous dollop of confusion. It is Tarsem's pet project; the one he sweated over for years. For his sake, I wish that this movie was slated for more box-office success, but sadly it doesn't live up to the promise of the intriguing trailer.
I will admit that it was pretty charming to have the story be re-written on the screen as it went--this happens in storytelling. Also as with real life, the inaccuracy of the teller is revealed (men from India don't have "squaws") and I like the movie a little bit more for that, even if it is tough to overlook at first.
All in all, it was a gorgeous exercise in cinema. The visuals in the film were stunning and are worth going for. I adore watching Lee Pace, with eye-liner and a mask or without, so I showed up for that reason. The movie was pretty much free for me, so I had nothing but time to lose, and I think it was well-spent for all of the movie's flaws. I would not suggest that other people spend the money to see it in the theater (unless they'd like to support said indie theater, because we need to have them around to cleanse our palates after gorging on huge mainstream movies); best to wait for video on this one, folks. I don't think most people would like the movie, but if you can be patient enough to let the story unfold, it is a rough-cut gem of a film. The biggest plus (in my opinion) was that it was not as dark and plain yucky as Pan's Labyrinth; that is a movie that was a waste of time. Storytelling movies like P's L and Big Fish were let-downs for me, while The Fall and Secondhand Lions were not.
One of these days, the perfect yarn of a movie will come along, but this is not it.
I wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer on Apple.com trailers months ago. Then it gets a very select release, which did not include Austin or Houston. Then it comes to the indie-theater in Austin and promptly gets slammed in the paper. Then, no one will go see it with me. So I went by myself. I liked the movie, but it is deeply, almost superbly flawed.
In fact, I feel like I need to see the movie again to try to understand it. I'm already looking forward to the DVD (but I will have to wait...some more...until Sept.) so that I can hear what the director has to say for himself. I've heard interesting rumors, like he piggy-backed filming this one on the backs of other, higher budget pictures, and that he allowed the 5 year-old star ad lib a lot. Those two facts kind of explain the dis-jointedness of the plot(s). I don't always have to understand what is going on (ex: Stay, a pretty stinky movie, but worth seeing once, for free. However, I do not understand what is so great about Mulholland Dr.) and the storytelling doesn't always have to be linear (ex: Pulp Fiction is a classic), and I can handle two plotlines simultaneously (I read Robert Jordan), but this topped all of that with a generous dollop of confusion. It is Tarsem's pet project; the one he sweated over for years. For his sake, I wish that this movie was slated for more box-office success, but sadly it doesn't live up to the promise of the intriguing trailer.
I will admit that it was pretty charming to have the story be re-written on the screen as it went--this happens in storytelling. Also as with real life, the inaccuracy of the teller is revealed (men from India don't have "squaws") and I like the movie a little bit more for that, even if it is tough to overlook at first.
All in all, it was a gorgeous exercise in cinema. The visuals in the film were stunning and are worth going for. I adore watching Lee Pace, with eye-liner and a mask or without, so I showed up for that reason. The movie was pretty much free for me, so I had nothing but time to lose, and I think it was well-spent for all of the movie's flaws. I would not suggest that other people spend the money to see it in the theater (unless they'd like to support said indie theater, because we need to have them around to cleanse our palates after gorging on huge mainstream movies); best to wait for video on this one, folks. I don't think most people would like the movie, but if you can be patient enough to let the story unfold, it is a rough-cut gem of a film. The biggest plus (in my opinion) was that it was not as dark and plain yucky as Pan's Labyrinth; that is a movie that was a waste of time. Storytelling movies like P's L and Big Fish were let-downs for me, while The Fall and Secondhand Lions were not.
One of these days, the perfect yarn of a movie will come along, but this is not it.
June 27, 2008
Kung Fu Panda
Skadoosh!
Gosh, that word covers so much, and it's hilarious (I couldn't resist). It'll probably be worn out by the end of the summer, but I think that it would be a good thing for kids to run around playing games about unlikely heroes.
Speaking of 'unlikely', I was not very optimistic about my chances of liking the movie when I went into the theater. I went more to accompany someone who is into martial arts (and to have another Angelina Jolie movie stub to add to my peg-board), but I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. I even giggled a few times, and I did not expect that either (It's not that it's hard to amuse me, but if something can make me laugh out loud, it's a good thing).
Instead of a movie that was over-stereotypical to even the untutored (that would be me), I thought it jumped through the usual hoops of "believing in oneself", 'teamwork', 'perseverance' and even 'the importance of paying attention to your teachers, even if they are telling you what you don't want to hear' with more agility than usual.
I found the fight scenes pretty astounding, for an animated film. The fun thing about animation is that a character can do just about anything (I am envious of the outrageous hang-time the characters managed), but animators don't always make sure that the motions are believable, particularly for kids' movies. Like I said before, I don't know much about martial arts, but I really bought the fight sequences (provided a dash of suspending disbelief to allow bouncing, for instance). If you have a more educated eye, please feel free to comment.
The whole movie was well-made (as one could only hope), neither wasting too much time on exposition or denouement, nor rushing the storyline. I particularly liked the various styles for the opening sequence, the main plot and the end credits. I was warned to stay until the end of them, but I don't think I've ever had so much fun watching them go by. The background art was intriguing and kind of educational. It did bug me, however, that I could not clearly see the symbols for each animal; I actually pay attention to that stuff and try to learn them. The scenes painted for background were cute and lasted the entire time; not even the Toy Story movies have bothered to do the same.
I think I could even stand to have this movie playing on the continuous loop that all kids adore, and that's saying quite a bit. (The same could not be said for the trailer--you know, that one that has been playing for the better part of a year?!)
Gosh, that word covers so much, and it's hilarious (I couldn't resist). It'll probably be worn out by the end of the summer, but I think that it would be a good thing for kids to run around playing games about unlikely heroes.
Speaking of 'unlikely', I was not very optimistic about my chances of liking the movie when I went into the theater. I went more to accompany someone who is into martial arts (and to have another Angelina Jolie movie stub to add to my peg-board), but I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. I even giggled a few times, and I did not expect that either (It's not that it's hard to amuse me, but if something can make me laugh out loud, it's a good thing).
Instead of a movie that was over-stereotypical to even the untutored (that would be me), I thought it jumped through the usual hoops of "believing in oneself", 'teamwork', 'perseverance' and even 'the importance of paying attention to your teachers, even if they are telling you what you don't want to hear' with more agility than usual.
I found the fight scenes pretty astounding, for an animated film. The fun thing about animation is that a character can do just about anything (I am envious of the outrageous hang-time the characters managed), but animators don't always make sure that the motions are believable, particularly for kids' movies. Like I said before, I don't know much about martial arts, but I really bought the fight sequences (provided a dash of suspending disbelief to allow bouncing, for instance). If you have a more educated eye, please feel free to comment.
The whole movie was well-made (as one could only hope), neither wasting too much time on exposition or denouement, nor rushing the storyline. I particularly liked the various styles for the opening sequence, the main plot and the end credits. I was warned to stay until the end of them, but I don't think I've ever had so much fun watching them go by. The background art was intriguing and kind of educational. It did bug me, however, that I could not clearly see the symbols for each animal; I actually pay attention to that stuff and try to learn them. The scenes painted for background were cute and lasted the entire time; not even the Toy Story movies have bothered to do the same.
I think I could even stand to have this movie playing on the continuous loop that all kids adore, and that's saying quite a bit. (The same could not be said for the trailer--you know, that one that has been playing for the better part of a year?!)
June 26, 2008
Sex and the City
Favorite characters + decent plot = fun Girls Night Out
Yes, I am one of those women who went in a group of more than three to see this movie, and I looked forward to doing so for weeks. It was a great experience.
The movie itself lived up to my expectations, and may have even edged into surpassing them. I think what most 'critics' didn't like about the movie is that it was more grown-up, which makes it "real", and therefore less entrancing than the fizzy antics of the TV show. But let's face it; did we really want to see The Girls toss aside more men? I didn't; they have to grow up some time (!). I was satisfied that the "happy-enough" endings for each of the characters on the show seemed probable while leaving more story to tell for the film. No one really explores what happens after "The End" but the movie braved that territory and conquered it thoroughly. A professor of mine recently pointed out that we (as a culture) are thrilled with weddings, but we don't get excited by marriages. She's right; watching that on a screen would be too much like "real life" (and I love my escapism as much as the next person). The reaction to the movie kind of proves that point. Miranda's plotline dealt directly with this, but she was always the most down-to-earth of all of them.
So no, the movie was not going to be as fabulously carefree as the show, but I think it required greater craft; it's really hard to make an outstanding small- to big-screen transition. Can you think of any? (Spin-offs & updates/remakes like Wayne's World and Mission Impossible are not to be considered, and I am thinking of adding "animated" to the list because that seems like cheating since one doesn't have to deal with aging of the characters.) I can't come up with any besides Firefly--> Serenity (I luv you, Joss Whedon!), but feel free to discuss. (RottenTomatoes.com has a really fun list compiled that does include the above types of shows/movies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_tv_adaptations/) I look forward to one day adding Veronica Mars to that list, however.
Seeing the movie was like a reunion with girlfriends; joyful and comforting. Do men turn out for movies in groups? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that...(yep, I'm a nerd) Does it have something to do with expectations of machoism? How often does is phrase "lone wolf" applied to a woman? Points to ponder, or comment upon, if you wish.
Who doesn't dream of getting married at the NY Public Library? Oops, I think my "geek" is showing again...
Yes, I am one of those women who went in a group of more than three to see this movie, and I looked forward to doing so for weeks. It was a great experience.
The movie itself lived up to my expectations, and may have even edged into surpassing them. I think what most 'critics' didn't like about the movie is that it was more grown-up, which makes it "real", and therefore less entrancing than the fizzy antics of the TV show. But let's face it; did we really want to see The Girls toss aside more men? I didn't; they have to grow up some time (!). I was satisfied that the "happy-enough" endings for each of the characters on the show seemed probable while leaving more story to tell for the film. No one really explores what happens after "The End" but the movie braved that territory and conquered it thoroughly. A professor of mine recently pointed out that we (as a culture) are thrilled with weddings, but we don't get excited by marriages. She's right; watching that on a screen would be too much like "real life" (and I love my escapism as much as the next person). The reaction to the movie kind of proves that point. Miranda's plotline dealt directly with this, but she was always the most down-to-earth of all of them.
So no, the movie was not going to be as fabulously carefree as the show, but I think it required greater craft; it's really hard to make an outstanding small- to big-screen transition. Can you think of any? (Spin-offs & updates/remakes like Wayne's World and Mission Impossible are not to be considered, and I am thinking of adding "animated" to the list because that seems like cheating since one doesn't have to deal with aging of the characters.) I can't come up with any besides Firefly--> Serenity (I luv you, Joss Whedon!), but feel free to discuss. (RottenTomatoes.com has a really fun list compiled that does include the above types of shows/movies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_tv_adaptations/) I look forward to one day adding Veronica Mars to that list, however.
Seeing the movie was like a reunion with girlfriends; joyful and comforting. Do men turn out for movies in groups? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that...(yep, I'm a nerd) Does it have something to do with expectations of machoism? How often does is phrase "lone wolf" applied to a woman? Points to ponder, or comment upon, if you wish.
Who doesn't dream of getting married at the NY Public Library? Oops, I think my "geek" is showing again...
June 17, 2008
The Happening
Dippy characters + ecological terror + true suspense = mixed bag of tricks better left until video
I like Shyamalan's movies; they are a good, clever thrill. I'm not one of those people who will claim to "see it coming"--he 'gets me' every time and I like him better for it. I'd also like to give the guy credit for being brave enough to make an ecological thriller--how many other people could pitch a plot like that successfully?
I'm glad that I was there to see the movie opening weekend, before someone ruined the plot twist for me. The problem was that the "twist" was more of a "swerve" and that we had all heard about it before we entered the theater. I'm not sure what I was expecting, other than to be thrilled by the suspense, but I didn't leave feeling satisfied. Yup, there were some very stressful moments in that movie that had me cringing in my seat (in a that delightfully tense way that has you worrying about the characters in peril), but I don't really feel like that was enough to satisfy even the vaguest of expectations.
Undoubtedly Lunanshee will expound on our shared opinion that there was too much gore in the movie. Part of what makes Shyamalan so good is that he leaves us to imagine the boogeyman; he doesn't show it (think The Village). Showing the horror is cheap, but leaving it up to our imaginations is the higher art (thank you, Hitchcock).
Zooey Deschanel is fabulously zany (think 2nd season of Weeds) and lovely in a remote and ethereal way (Almost Famous), but none of that really worked here. Her character didn't deserve that much sympathy, in my opinion. She did grow throughout the narrative, but the pitch of things was slightly off, particularly any time her character and John Leguizamo's interacted. I did expect a better performance than she gave.
Mark Wahlburg did a great job of being an Everyman who thinks through the problem to find a solution. Sometimes characters are just too smart to be believable (I love you Harry Potter, but you are guilty of this, even if you are emotionally stunted), but his science teacher was just right, I think.
My favorite character was Frank Collison's Nursury Owner; a little "out there", but a likable guy reacting as best he could to an unthinkable situation. I think his exit came too soon, but that I was more affected by it because I liked his character.
My prediction is that word-of-mouth will kill this movie, kind of like Lady in the Water. I expect that the box office for this movie in its second and subsequent weeks will taper off really quickly. Having said that, I will most likely be in the theater for Shyamalan's next outing, even though I didn't care for this one.
I like Shyamalan's movies; they are a good, clever thrill. I'm not one of those people who will claim to "see it coming"--he 'gets me' every time and I like him better for it. I'd also like to give the guy credit for being brave enough to make an ecological thriller--how many other people could pitch a plot like that successfully?
I'm glad that I was there to see the movie opening weekend, before someone ruined the plot twist for me. The problem was that the "twist" was more of a "swerve" and that we had all heard about it before we entered the theater. I'm not sure what I was expecting, other than to be thrilled by the suspense, but I didn't leave feeling satisfied. Yup, there were some very stressful moments in that movie that had me cringing in my seat (in a that delightfully tense way that has you worrying about the characters in peril), but I don't really feel like that was enough to satisfy even the vaguest of expectations.
Undoubtedly Lunanshee will expound on our shared opinion that there was too much gore in the movie. Part of what makes Shyamalan so good is that he leaves us to imagine the boogeyman; he doesn't show it (think The Village). Showing the horror is cheap, but leaving it up to our imaginations is the higher art (thank you, Hitchcock).
Zooey Deschanel is fabulously zany (think 2nd season of Weeds) and lovely in a remote and ethereal way (Almost Famous), but none of that really worked here. Her character didn't deserve that much sympathy, in my opinion. She did grow throughout the narrative, but the pitch of things was slightly off, particularly any time her character and John Leguizamo's interacted. I did expect a better performance than she gave.
Mark Wahlburg did a great job of being an Everyman who thinks through the problem to find a solution. Sometimes characters are just too smart to be believable (I love you Harry Potter, but you are guilty of this, even if you are emotionally stunted), but his science teacher was just right, I think.
My favorite character was Frank Collison's Nursury Owner; a little "out there", but a likable guy reacting as best he could to an unthinkable situation. I think his exit came too soon, but that I was more affected by it because I liked his character.
My prediction is that word-of-mouth will kill this movie, kind of like Lady in the Water. I expect that the box office for this movie in its second and subsequent weeks will taper off really quickly. Having said that, I will most likely be in the theater for Shyamalan's next outing, even though I didn't care for this one.
The Hulk (2.0)
Better actors + better direction + less complex plot = successful series re-boot
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
May 28, 2008
Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
LOVED IT!!!!!
Darker and more complex than LWW, Prince Caspian will likely appeal to a wider audience range. Relative newcomer Ben Barnes gives a wonderful performance as the orphaned and betrayed Prince. William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes, and Georgie Henley reprise their roles as the Pevensie siblings. The acting is solid and I personally enjoyed that the script writers made Susan's character stronger than I remember her being in the book. While parts of the film diverge from action in the novel, I feel that the movie remained true to the spirit of the novel.
Definitely recommend - a must see adventure!
Darker and more complex than LWW, Prince Caspian will likely appeal to a wider audience range. Relative newcomer Ben Barnes gives a wonderful performance as the orphaned and betrayed Prince. William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes, and Georgie Henley reprise their roles as the Pevensie siblings. The acting is solid and I personally enjoyed that the script writers made Susan's character stronger than I remember her being in the book. While parts of the film diverge from action in the novel, I feel that the movie remained true to the spirit of the novel.
Definitely recommend - a must see adventure!
Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Indi + Cate Blanchett + Fast Action + Humor = A Satisfying Conclusion to the IJ Series
In the newest IJ film, Dr. Jones and his cohorts head to South America searching for the El Dorado and a crystal skull of mythical power. Cate Blanchett shines as the evil Dr. Spalko, while Harrison Ford and Karen Allen wonderfully reprise roles that made them famous. Shia LaBeof's character, Jones's son, could easily have become the annoying new sidekick, but instead provides entertainment and a touch of youth.
The film starts at a fast pace and roars onward until the unbelievable but very "jonesian" ending. Recommended for fans of the IJ series and those who enjoy a well-constructed action film.
In the newest IJ film, Dr. Jones and his cohorts head to South America searching for the El Dorado and a crystal skull of mythical power. Cate Blanchett shines as the evil Dr. Spalko, while Harrison Ford and Karen Allen wonderfully reprise roles that made them famous. Shia LaBeof's character, Jones's son, could easily have become the annoying new sidekick, but instead provides entertainment and a touch of youth.
The film starts at a fast pace and roars onward until the unbelievable but very "jonesian" ending. Recommended for fans of the IJ series and those who enjoy a well-constructed action film.
March 26, 2008
Thundercats 2010!
Well, I've found enough rumors that I actually believe that Thundercats if FINALLY going to make it to the big screen. YAYAYAYAYAYYAYAYAYAYYAYAYAY!
Can you tell that I am a Thundercats fan?
Anyway, rumor has it that Warner has scrapped the idea of a live action version and is planning a CGI (which in many ways is actually a good thing). Anyway, I'll post more as I find out more.
Can you tell that I am a Thundercats fan?
Anyway, rumor has it that Warner has scrapped the idea of a live action version and is planning a CGI (which in many ways is actually a good thing). Anyway, I'll post more as I find out more.
March 17, 2008
Penelope
Fairytale story + great casting = warm-hearted, fulfilling movie
First off, I don't understand why Penelope has gotten such rotten reviews! The movie set out a plan to make a movie whose plot is a twist of the Beauty and the Beast tale and it is wonderfully executed! (Okay, enough exclamation points now...)
Truly, in this Beauty is the Beast film, I was entertained the entire time. Sure, it is not wholly original (what legend, myth or fairytale is?) but that didn't matter since the film is character, not plot driven. Christina Ricci plays the title character with a wonderful mix of charm, etheral appeal, naivity and cynisism. I highly enjoyed this movie and think it achieved exactly what it set out to do. Also, loved Christina Ricci's wardrobe!
February 28, 2008
In Bruges
Talented actors + twisted morals + fairytale setting = Theater of the Obscene
This movie created several mixed reactions for me. First of all, I liked the dark comedy, particularly to poking of fun at American tourists, but the violence was too much, too sudden, and too cavalier for me. I could suspend my disbelief, but not as far as the script writer wanted. I giggled at many of the jokes, but then I immediately felt bad about it, as many of them were racial and all of them very un-P.C. (I am not sure whether this is a truly negative thing, but I won't expand on our (Lunanshee feels this way too), that political correctness does go too far).
All in all, I would tell anyone who wants to see it that if they can wait until video, I will be fairly certain that they will enjoy it. Lunanshee said that she wasn't at all interested, and I am glad now that I did not make her see it with me.
I think that all of the best parts of the movie were included in the preview. Curiously enough, this is not really a bad thing. I still think that Colin Farrell's line about why Bruges does not impress him is the best in the entire script, given his snarky delivery.
The characters were definitely different, particularly from each other. The one thing that unified them is that they all clung to their ideas of "what is right", despite being in professions that demanded that they kill people. It was a bit surreal watching them cling so fiercely to their 'morals' while being so brutal at other times. The ending is a product of this, as absurd as it felt to watch. I would like to hear from someone else whether they think that the person being put into the ambulance at the end lives or not. I would like to think that he doesn't.
--see Comments for more--
This movie created several mixed reactions for me. First of all, I liked the dark comedy, particularly to poking of fun at American tourists, but the violence was too much, too sudden, and too cavalier for me. I could suspend my disbelief, but not as far as the script writer wanted. I giggled at many of the jokes, but then I immediately felt bad about it, as many of them were racial and all of them very un-P.C. (I am not sure whether this is a truly negative thing, but I won't expand on our (Lunanshee feels this way too), that political correctness does go too far).
All in all, I would tell anyone who wants to see it that if they can wait until video, I will be fairly certain that they will enjoy it. Lunanshee said that she wasn't at all interested, and I am glad now that I did not make her see it with me.
I think that all of the best parts of the movie were included in the preview. Curiously enough, this is not really a bad thing. I still think that Colin Farrell's line about why Bruges does not impress him is the best in the entire script, given his snarky delivery.
The characters were definitely different, particularly from each other. The one thing that unified them is that they all clung to their ideas of "what is right", despite being in professions that demanded that they kill people. It was a bit surreal watching them cling so fiercely to their 'morals' while being so brutal at other times. The ending is a product of this, as absurd as it felt to watch. I would like to hear from someone else whether they think that the person being put into the ambulance at the end lives or not. I would like to think that he doesn't.
--see Comments for more--
February 22, 2008
'Twilight: the Movie
Decent book + talented young actors = likelihood of a bloody good time
...just in time for the Christmas break.
I'm currently in the middle of reading the 3rd (Eclipse) of a projected 4-5 book series written by a vampire-lore neophyte, and it is actually pretty good. The characters wear a bit sometimes, but the movie translation of the first novel (Twilight) should be good. I'm pretty hopeful.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/
The site shows that the movie is already in production, and I am only just now hearing about it (!)
Kristen Stewart will be a decent Bella; a pretty, clever, precociously mature high school student who consistently undervalues herself without really straying from 'simpathetic' to plain 'pathetic' character. I think she is pretty 'right' for the part.
I'm also pretty amused with the casting for Edward, the love-interest. I adored Robert Pattinson's Cedric Diggory in HP: GoF, so I am optimistic that the movie won't come off as childish (the books don't, but we all know how movies don't always maintain the text's original magic). I think that is part of the magic of Meyer's writing, is that her characters are believable teens without being belittled by it.
...just in time for the Christmas break.
I'm currently in the middle of reading the 3rd (Eclipse) of a projected 4-5 book series written by a vampire-lore neophyte, and it is actually pretty good. The characters wear a bit sometimes, but the movie translation of the first novel (Twilight) should be good. I'm pretty hopeful.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/
The site shows that the movie is already in production, and I am only just now hearing about it (!)
Kristen Stewart will be a decent Bella; a pretty, clever, precociously mature high school student who consistently undervalues herself without really straying from 'simpathetic' to plain 'pathetic' character. I think she is pretty 'right' for the part.
I'm also pretty amused with the casting for Edward, the love-interest. I adored Robert Pattinson's Cedric Diggory in HP: GoF, so I am optimistic that the movie won't come off as childish (the books don't, but we all know how movies don't always maintain the text's original magic). I think that is part of the magic of Meyer's writing, is that her characters are believable teens without being belittled by it.
February 21, 2008
I Heart Kristen Bell
There is a long and pretty-detailed rumor-sheet posted on Rotten Tomatoes about "planned" films. Who knows if they will ever materialize? It might be fun to look back in two years and see how many of these 'predictions' (that is how I think of them) will come true.
Here is the article:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_4/news/1710042/
I will discuss shortly the two comic book and videogame movies promised by the article, but Kristen Bell deserves top-billing. This actually looks cute, if you can believe that someone as adorable and young as the former Ms. Mars can be a 'successful real estate agent'. I would think that this movie would play better with a 40-something lead, but I will look forward to seeing more of Rome any time!
When in Rome
Scheduled Start Date: March 31
Shooting Location: New York, Rome, Italy
Producer: Benny Medina, Jeff Pollack, Gary Foster, Andrew Panay, Rikki Bestall
Writer/Director: Mark Steven Johnson
CAST: Kristen Bell
Bell will play a successful real estate agent in New York who can't find a lasting relationship. When her younger sister impulsively marries in Rome, she flies out for the wedding and, after picking up coins from a reputed "fountain of love," finds an overabundance of suitors waiting for her back home.
Here is the article:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_4/news/1710042/
I will discuss shortly the two comic book and videogame movies promised by the article, but Kristen Bell deserves top-billing. This actually looks cute, if you can believe that someone as adorable and young as the former Ms. Mars can be a 'successful real estate agent'. I would think that this movie would play better with a 40-something lead, but I will look forward to seeing more of Rome any time!
When in Rome
Scheduled Start Date: March 31
Shooting Location: New York, Rome, Italy
Producer: Benny Medina, Jeff Pollack, Gary Foster, Andrew Panay, Rikki Bestall
Writer/Director: Mark Steven Johnson
CAST: Kristen Bell
Bell will play a successful real estate agent in New York who can't find a lasting relationship. When her younger sister impulsively marries in Rome, she flies out for the wedding and, after picking up coins from a reputed "fountain of love," finds an overabundance of suitors waiting for her back home.
A New 'Clue' Movie?!?
First of all, I just want to say, there can be no 'better' Clue film made (or re-made)!
I just saw an article suggesting that at several Hasbro games could be made into movies. Yep, you heard me right. Check out the article here:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clue/news/1710069/
I can just see someone like Michael Rooker, shaved down to his Daddy Warbucks chrome-dome, evily plotting from his Boardwalk penthouse office to remove the hard-working, blue-collar residents of his Connecticut Ave. row houses. We can cast Renee Zellweger as the optimistic and crusading debutante-who-must-prove-herself-a-humanitarian who needs to figure out that she should 'merge assets' with the rascal of a up-and-coming real-estate broker played by...Matthew Goode to defeat the malicious profiteer Uncle Pennybags. Add a "convenient" fire that raized the Baltic Ave. slums and you've practically got a picture right there!
Well, at least it would be just about as good as what has been coming out lately. I am looking forward to very few movies in the near future.
I know that "multi-media" and viral ad campaigns are the way to go right now, but I don't need to have an "immersive experience" with my board games; that's kind of why I like them. Call me "oldschool", but that is my opinion. I think they got inspired by the "little amusement park ride that could" franchise....
I just saw an article suggesting that at several Hasbro games could be made into movies. Yep, you heard me right. Check out the article here:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clue/news/1710069/
I can just see someone like Michael Rooker, shaved down to his Daddy Warbucks chrome-dome, evily plotting from his Boardwalk penthouse office to remove the hard-working, blue-collar residents of his Connecticut Ave. row houses. We can cast Renee Zellweger as the optimistic and crusading debutante-who-must-prove-herself-a-humanitarian who needs to figure out that she should 'merge assets' with the rascal of a up-and-coming real-estate broker played by...Matthew Goode to defeat the malicious profiteer Uncle Pennybags. Add a "convenient" fire that raized the Baltic Ave. slums and you've practically got a picture right there!
Well, at least it would be just about as good as what has been coming out lately. I am looking forward to very few movies in the near future.
I know that "multi-media" and viral ad campaigns are the way to go right now, but I don't need to have an "immersive experience" with my board games; that's kind of why I like them. Call me "oldschool", but that is my opinion. I think they got inspired by the "little amusement park ride that could" franchise....
February 15, 2008
Jumper
Really interesting idea + mediocre acting and script + great special effects = mediocre sci-fi movie
Jumper tells the story of a kid who figures out that he can move from place to place at will (think teleport) and runs away from home at the age of 15. This is the first 15 or so minutes of the movie. From there we are "jumped" 8 years later where the kid has grown into a smug and spoiled young man who, for me at least, isn't very likable. Enter the opposition. Samual Jackson (which white painted hair that isn't very scary) is the leader of a special group called Paladins. This group's origins and methods are never really explained; all you need to know is that Paladins hunt Jumpers and have been doing so for a couple thousand years. Into this not very well defined mix add a love interest that isn't that believable, since the last time he saw her was when they were about 15 and she just goes along with whatever he says while attempting to show some spin by whining about what is going on and where they are going and who ARE those people!?
Basically they took a really good idea (I am interested in reading the book, since I have a feeling it will be much better) and produced a luke-warm movie with plot holes you could break a leg in. My advice, watch a matinée if you must see it in theaters, but ultimately you won't miss much if you wait for cable.
January 4, 2008
'Charlie Wilson's' Wake-Up
Questionable retelling of historical/political events + Tom Hanks = decent holiday movie
If one had asked me, I would have said that this movie made an odd choice for a Christmas holiday movie. However, if anyone can do it, it is Tom Hanks (I will even take him as Robert Langdon, if reluctantly). For me, the topic is what was most unusual for holiday fare; this type of movie is usually reserved for January, when the heavier, more Oscar-groomed fare is trotted out. Admittedly, though, we need to be shown this kind of thing. After watching the movie, I started to wonder what other world events I should know about; what other remarkable stories have fallen out of the national consciousness. We were certainly not taught about the incidents that were depicted here in school.
It is a little hard at this time to feel like Russia was ever a threat to the safety of the Free World. After all, I was barely conscious of the larger world when the Berlin Wall fell, so the anxiety of having these events be 'current' is pretty alien to me. That doesn't lessen the fact that there are valuable lessons to be gleaned from the outcome in Afghanistan, given our involvement in Iraq these days. The end of the movie pretty much spells this out, although some of my companions arrived at the conclusion before the narrative did (perhaps they are either more worldly or clever than I am). In any case, I can't dismiss this biopic, no matter how much sugar the lesson is coated with (I'm thinking Julia Roberts here).
I don't think I will turn down a chance to see Amy Adams from now on, but I think that Julia Roberts' post could have been ably filled by someone else. Sure, she has a 'presence', but for me, that's all she amounted too. Though her involvement in the project probably was the clincher for a fair amount of funding, so I am not complaining too loudly.
I was pretty astounded by Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance. I tend to underrate him because of his physical appearance and the annoying tone of his voice, but every now and then, he astounds me (and no, I have not seen Capote, although I should at some point, I suppose). I believed his bluff, blustery character very much, and even enjoyed him. I was particularly amused with his stunts regarding his superiors, although to actually work with the guy was likely pretty difficult.
All in all, I liked the movie and am content that I went to see it, but I am not sure that I will watch it again for some time, if ever.
If one had asked me, I would have said that this movie made an odd choice for a Christmas holiday movie. However, if anyone can do it, it is Tom Hanks (I will even take him as Robert Langdon, if reluctantly). For me, the topic is what was most unusual for holiday fare; this type of movie is usually reserved for January, when the heavier, more Oscar-groomed fare is trotted out. Admittedly, though, we need to be shown this kind of thing. After watching the movie, I started to wonder what other world events I should know about; what other remarkable stories have fallen out of the national consciousness. We were certainly not taught about the incidents that were depicted here in school.
It is a little hard at this time to feel like Russia was ever a threat to the safety of the Free World. After all, I was barely conscious of the larger world when the Berlin Wall fell, so the anxiety of having these events be 'current' is pretty alien to me. That doesn't lessen the fact that there are valuable lessons to be gleaned from the outcome in Afghanistan, given our involvement in Iraq these days. The end of the movie pretty much spells this out, although some of my companions arrived at the conclusion before the narrative did (perhaps they are either more worldly or clever than I am). In any case, I can't dismiss this biopic, no matter how much sugar the lesson is coated with (I'm thinking Julia Roberts here).
I don't think I will turn down a chance to see Amy Adams from now on, but I think that Julia Roberts' post could have been ably filled by someone else. Sure, she has a 'presence', but for me, that's all she amounted too. Though her involvement in the project probably was the clincher for a fair amount of funding, so I am not complaining too loudly.
I was pretty astounded by Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance. I tend to underrate him because of his physical appearance and the annoying tone of his voice, but every now and then, he astounds me (and no, I have not seen Capote, although I should at some point, I suppose). I believed his bluff, blustery character very much, and even enjoyed him. I was particularly amused with his stunts regarding his superiors, although to actually work with the guy was likely pretty difficult.
All in all, I liked the movie and am content that I went to see it, but I am not sure that I will watch it again for some time, if ever.
Diablo Cody intrigues with 'Juno'
Unrealistically snappy dialog + teen pregnancy = delightful surprise
Teen pregnancy is nothing to laugh at, but I couldn't help being really amused by Juno. I got exactly what I wanted from the movie; several laughs, witty dialog, and a chance to see some actors I really like (Janney, Page, Simmons, and Garner-in that order) do what they do best.
Yes, I do realize that the quick wit of the characters is pretty far from what the rest of us sound like, but I could tell from the preview that even though my suspension of disbelief might be a bit challenged, that it would be worth it to hear the really interesting things coming out of the actors' mouths. The friend I went with found this really off-putting, but I knew what I was in for, so perhaps that made it easier to take in stride. Besides, I grew up watching Dawson's Creek; I may have missed the over-articulate banter of Gilmore Girls, but I know about super-chatty teens from watching Katie Holmes (before she was brain-washed and while she still had my respect).
I liked the overall plot, even if I don't really believe it whole-heartedly. Still, it did give me a bit to chew over, particularly the interaction between the married couple (Garner & Bateman). After a while, you begin to see that there might have been more to the conversation about "cold feet" than you initially inferred. I thought that both actors did a really good job of relating to each other, although they were a tad stiff with each other for people who are supposed to be spouses. Still, that could have been a reflection of Garner's buttoned-down wife.
Page is ADORABLE; I could watch a lot more of her (even though I haven't been brave enough to watch Hard Candy yet). Simmons is his wryly dry self, but quite endearing as a dad who tries, but who may not quite 'get It' when it comes to his daughter. I always like Allison Janney, so that was easy. I especially lked how she tore into the Sonogram Technician. Again, my friend didn't appreciate that development, but I found the escalation in emotion about on pitch with what I might feel if I were Janney (although my lines are tons less cool).
I had heard from the reviews that Olivia Thirbly was a joy to watch, and that was mostly true. While she made good use of her screen time, she doesn't take away from Page's talents, but she does have a teen-sultry air that reminds me of Scarlett Johansen. I am looking forward to seeing more of her and Page together in Jack & Diane, out later this year. The plot of the movie might not suit everyone, but I will probably be there to see it, eventually. I could have used more of Rainn Wilson's presence, though. I suppose he is a busy man, but he is really good a being hilariously awkward and a joy to watch.
I find Diablo Cody herself to be pretty interesting. I was knocked out by an EW interview, and I love what she does with her hair. In more than a few ways, she reminds me of a playwriting friend of mine; not only are they both good at creating stories, but they shared another profession for a while. I will be watching for Cody's next project, but I do think she runs a danger of being the new It-Girl; expectations could be built of pretty high. I also think that some people think she's overexposed even now. We will see what happens, and I will be paying attention.
To sum up, this movie was exactly what I wanted, and even a little more. As unrealistic as it might be, the movie is not as empty as a person might expect--there are some really cute moments that still manage to be just sarcastic enough not to be smaltzy. This movie should also be safe to bring a guy to; there is humor for both sexes to be found.
Teen pregnancy is nothing to laugh at, but I couldn't help being really amused by Juno. I got exactly what I wanted from the movie; several laughs, witty dialog, and a chance to see some actors I really like (Janney, Page, Simmons, and Garner-in that order) do what they do best.
Yes, I do realize that the quick wit of the characters is pretty far from what the rest of us sound like, but I could tell from the preview that even though my suspension of disbelief might be a bit challenged, that it would be worth it to hear the really interesting things coming out of the actors' mouths. The friend I went with found this really off-putting, but I knew what I was in for, so perhaps that made it easier to take in stride. Besides, I grew up watching Dawson's Creek; I may have missed the over-articulate banter of Gilmore Girls, but I know about super-chatty teens from watching Katie Holmes (before she was brain-washed and while she still had my respect).
I liked the overall plot, even if I don't really believe it whole-heartedly. Still, it did give me a bit to chew over, particularly the interaction between the married couple (Garner & Bateman). After a while, you begin to see that there might have been more to the conversation about "cold feet" than you initially inferred. I thought that both actors did a really good job of relating to each other, although they were a tad stiff with each other for people who are supposed to be spouses. Still, that could have been a reflection of Garner's buttoned-down wife.
Page is ADORABLE; I could watch a lot more of her (even though I haven't been brave enough to watch Hard Candy yet). Simmons is his wryly dry self, but quite endearing as a dad who tries, but who may not quite 'get It' when it comes to his daughter. I always like Allison Janney, so that was easy. I especially lked how she tore into the Sonogram Technician. Again, my friend didn't appreciate that development, but I found the escalation in emotion about on pitch with what I might feel if I were Janney (although my lines are tons less cool).
I had heard from the reviews that Olivia Thirbly was a joy to watch, and that was mostly true. While she made good use of her screen time, she doesn't take away from Page's talents, but she does have a teen-sultry air that reminds me of Scarlett Johansen. I am looking forward to seeing more of her and Page together in Jack & Diane, out later this year. The plot of the movie might not suit everyone, but I will probably be there to see it, eventually. I could have used more of Rainn Wilson's presence, though. I suppose he is a busy man, but he is really good a being hilariously awkward and a joy to watch.
I find Diablo Cody herself to be pretty interesting. I was knocked out by an EW interview, and I love what she does with her hair. In more than a few ways, she reminds me of a playwriting friend of mine; not only are they both good at creating stories, but they shared another profession for a while. I will be watching for Cody's next project, but I do think she runs a danger of being the new It-Girl; expectations could be built of pretty high. I also think that some people think she's overexposed even now. We will see what happens, and I will be paying attention.
To sum up, this movie was exactly what I wanted, and even a little more. As unrealistic as it might be, the movie is not as empty as a person might expect--there are some really cute moments that still manage to be just sarcastic enough not to be smaltzy. This movie should also be safe to bring a guy to; there is humor for both sexes to be found.
How long does it take to catch on?
At least/last, they admit it...
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-12-28#film4
At least the figures are taking into account the inflation provided by the holiday movie-going habits of all us 'regular folk'. Also, I like that this blurb also acknowledges that while the numbers look good, they are not as good as they look. Finally, some recognition of the rising price to go sit in the cinema.
It occurs to me that the increasing cost of going to the movies (much less getting a snack once you are there) is headed the same direction as airline ticket prices; 'if you raise it, they will fail to come.' I am not going to pay more with greater frequency folks; this is a self-fulfilling prophecy with the end result that theater-goers are going to reach their limit (both in terms of finances and patience) and wind up staying home. Blockbuster Online is a pretty good deal (even though they just raised their prices for the second time in about 4 months!), and is beginning to look even better given that I can indulge my guilty pleasure; TV-on-DVD!
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-12-28#film4
Hollywood studios are expected to report a grand total of $9.7 billion in ticket sales for 2007, a rise of about 4 percent from last year, according to Media by Numbers. But the box-office tracking service noted that gains were due to higher ticket prices, not increased admissions. Moreover, it was only in the past several weeks that the box office posted significant gains, with such movies as I Am Legend and National Treasure pushing weekly sales 30 percent or more above last year's. "Those movies really turned things around, giving us a nice boost at the very end of the year," Paul Dergarabedian, president of Media By Numbers, told Reuters. Total admissions for the year remained flat at 1.42 billion, down significantly from the 1.6 billion posted in 2002.
At least the figures are taking into account the inflation provided by the holiday movie-going habits of all us 'regular folk'. Also, I like that this blurb also acknowledges that while the numbers look good, they are not as good as they look. Finally, some recognition of the rising price to go sit in the cinema.
It occurs to me that the increasing cost of going to the movies (much less getting a snack once you are there) is headed the same direction as airline ticket prices; 'if you raise it, they will fail to come.' I am not going to pay more with greater frequency folks; this is a self-fulfilling prophecy with the end result that theater-goers are going to reach their limit (both in terms of finances and patience) and wind up staying home. Blockbuster Online is a pretty good deal (even though they just raised their prices for the second time in about 4 months!), and is beginning to look even better given that I can indulge my guilty pleasure; TV-on-DVD!
Giggle of the Day
I got this little gem from:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-12-24
Jessica Simpson Sets Box-office Record
I can't really sum it up better than that, except to add "Are you really all that surprised?" and "Boy, they must think that Texans are dumber than everyone else!" I don't owe Jessica Simpson anything for growing up in the same state as I have; her stupidity has alienated me faster than anything.
I hope you guys get at least a little grin out of this one--I did.
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-12-24
Jessica Simpson Sets Box-office Record
Jessica Simpson may also have set a record at the box office. Her latest film, Blonde Ambition, co-starring Luke Wilson, took in just $1,190 over the weekend. True, it was shown in only eight Texas theaters, but that's still an average of less than $50 per theater per day, meaning about six people showed up to see it in each location each day. On his TV Guide Online blog, film critic Ken Fox asked, "Doesn't someone like Jessica Simpson have more than 48 friends? What about that big Texas family of hers? ... Just how bad is this thing anyway?"
I can't really sum it up better than that, except to add "Are you really all that surprised?" and "Boy, they must think that Texans are dumber than everyone else!" I don't owe Jessica Simpson anything for growing up in the same state as I have; her stupidity has alienated me faster than anything.
I hope you guys get at least a little grin out of this one--I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)