La Belle et La Bete (1946)

Classic Fairytale + Awesome Costumes + Imagination = Wonderful Classic Movie

Turner Classic Movies rocks!

Note: I know there is an accent in "Bete" but I don't know how to get it like that in blogger...

So last night I was flipping through channels and what do I find, but a 1940s French version of Beauty and the Beast. (Thank goodness there were subtitles since I don't speak French.)
Anyway, the movie retells the story of B&B in a version much closer to that initially set down in print than that portrayed by Disney. Don't get me wrong, Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is one of my all time favorite animated movies. The B&B 1946 is surprisingly well done, with special effects that are both effective, magical and simple. La Bete's castle's magical inhabitants are portrayed by moving candelabras, mantles with faces and other interesting characters. I'm still not sure how some of the effects were done. The costumes were both lavish and beautiful, as were the different sets. The castle scenes are shot (at least somewhat) at actual palaces or estates.
If you like classic movies, or enjoy fairy tales, I would definitely recommend this film.

Resident Evilist?

A fitting end to Resident Evil Trilogy is executed in "Extinction". Although not as strong as the first one, the movie itself is a decently satisfying conclusion to the story arch. Don't look for a deep, or emotionally involving movie; come on, it is zombies in Vegas. All the elements are there: kick-butt shero, monsters, evil scientist, genetically mutated monsters, guns, knives, mutated birds, firestorms. In general some to like and some to dislike. All the elements are there, but somehow the movie never truly grabs the audience's attention. Yes it is as likable as a zombie movie can be, but it isn't anything to write home about.
"Extinction" occurs five years after "Apocalypse" and, while global events of the past time are touched upon, most of the characters from the last movie are not addressed. Valentine is not in the picture, nor is the the virus creator's daughter. We never know what has happened to them. Alice is now a loner whose telekinetic powers are growing exponentially. A few character from the last movie, Carlos and L.J., have joined a caravan of survivors trying to stay alive.
As I said earlier; all the elements are there for a pretty solid movie, but somehow what the movie should have been was never tapped. There is something dissatisfying about this movie (besides the fact that a chain-linked fence can somehow hold back hordes of the animated dead). I cannot state specifically what the dissatisfying element is, but it is there. (Sorry I can't be more specific than that.) In many ways it is like Van Helsing, a satisfying beginning but disappointing end.
Over all a decent, if not fabulous, end to the trilogy. While the possibility for another movie suggested in the final scene of "Extinction", I hope that they let the series end here on a adequate note.

Labyrinth - "This is not an ordinary gift for an ordinary girl"

Goblins, mazes, fairies, ballrooms, bogs of eternal stench; all portrayed with the joy, enthusiasm and ability only found in a team like Jim Henson and George Lucas. This musical, comedic-fantasy is one of my all time favorite movies. The music is true 80s David Bowie, full of synthesisors and echoes and the special effects are "old school" but effective. I will be clear in stating that I am bias, I love this movie and can find few faults with it. Goblins are done by the same puppeteers that created some of the best loved characters of all time. Costumes are wonderful (who could take their eyes of Bowie's codpiece?) expecially in the ballroom scene. That scene "when the world falls down" has fueled costume ball fantasies in my brain for years. In fact, many of this movie's elements have fuled my fantasies.
David Bowie and Jennifer Connely shine. Bowie plays the Goblin King, who is somewhat creepy and not human, but finds himself in love with a human girl. The girl, Sarah, is played by Connelly (I believe this is her first big role) with just the right amount of innocence and adolescence to create a sixteen-year-old with a preoccupation for fantasy and fairytales. Perhaps some of my love for this movie comes from the fact that, growing up, I related very well with the character of Sarah (even though my life had nothing in common with her).
All told, the puppetry, acting, special effects, attention to detail and wonderful story create a magical movie that shouldn't be missed. However, if you didn't see it as a child, some of the wonder will probably be missing.

'Speechless' with laughter

Romantic Comedy of Errors+ 2 good actors' chemistry+wit=Speechless
You know what movie I would really like to watch? Speechless, the 1994 comedy with Geena Davis and Michael Keeton.

I haven't seen this movie in about 8 years, but I remember really liking it straight off. Perhaps if I saw it again, I would not find it nearly so engaging. I have the IMDB page up right next to this blog, and it is hard to believe that I would like the movie any less today than I did then, particularly with a cast such as Ernie Hudson (sadly, always an underdog), Christopher Reeve at his dry-comedian best, and Bonnie Bedelia. How many thirty-something comedies come along? Or comedies about political campaigns? Comedies are usually the territory of people in their twenties, like Just Friends or Old School (in that case, people who are acting like they are in their twenties, which is even sadder and less entertaining). Why do rom-coms these days all seem like You, Me and Dupree? Or, if they address more 'mature' characters, you get things like Must Like Dogs. Bleh!

Nope, I loved the sparkling chemistry between Geena and Michael and sizzling wit of Speechless's dialog. Unlike other relationship movies featuring people older than 22, these characters have just enough baggage to make things interesting, without making them "damaged goods." This movie has been on my mind for almost a week, and I need to go hunt down a copy. I hope you like it too; if not, I would be interested in why you didn't. Maybe I will even add a post as an "after", so that what you read now is the "before" column.
In any case, I am off to the video store to see if my initial affection for this movie has stood the test of time.

Stardust

First, let me say that I really enjoyed this movie. Cleaver plot, well-defined characters and wonderful actors really brought this movie to life. Definitely one of the best fantasy movies I have seen in years. There is some predictability for anyone who is familiar with the fantasy genre; you know how the witch will die, who the hero ends up with and how the story will end. In many ways Stardust is a fairytale, but the film is so well done that you don't mind the bit of predictability.
Many have compared this movie to The Princess Bride but, while they are both in the fantasy epic genre, I believe this is a mistake. The Princess Bride is the ultimate parody and requires a certain level of intelligence from its audience to recognize it's brilliance. Stardust is a different type of film. It is not a parody, but rather a sometimes comedic fantasy adventure. Sure there are amusing moments on par with anything found in TPB, but it is not the same type of comedy.
Danes plays a disdainful Yvaine well, while Pfieffer and De Niro each play their characters to the hilt. However, it may be relative newcomer Charlie Cox who truly carried the show. Cox's character grows from a humble, bumbling shop boy to a confidant, intelligent man. The transformation is almost as magical as the story itself.
Bottom Line: This is a must for any fantasy lovers.

Shoot 'Em Up

Why? Really. Why? Three great actors in a pretty worthless movie. Other critics are correct in that the title accurately describes the movie; for all intents and purposes this flick is nothing more than a string of improbable and frivolously violent action scenes. Shoot 'Em Up is rated "R" and certainly earns that rating. This movie encompasses everything from carrot killings to non-traditional "houses of ill repute" and the fondling of corpses. Once again I ask: Why? The three main actors are all wonderfully talented, but the script demeans their ability. I think they may have lost a bet, or owed someone some money. That is the only reason I can think that these people would be involved in production of this kind. There were a few light moments and some funny lines, but not enough to redeem the film. Don't waste your time. Wait for video, or better yet, wait until it comes on television and don't waste your money. (I have much better hopes for Clive Owen in Elizabeth: The Golden Age.)