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.
January 4, 2008
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.
December 11, 2007
August Rush
'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.
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.
'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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)