Once (2006) (nat)

I watched this one last night while Joel was being an invalid on the couch. He'd said before that he didn't want to see it especially but when I went to watch it he commented that he'd read good reviews and then (he came in the bedroom while I was watching) commented after I was finished watching it that he'd liked the music and wanted to watch it so if I could keep it instead of sending it back . . . . .

All that to say, it's a good movie with a good soundtrack--which is very important since the film is about music. I also like that imdb lists the main characters as "Guy" and "Girl." So, plot rundown is that the "Guy" is a singer/songwriter/guitarist and plays in Dublin's streets (what looks like Grafton Street--a shopping district with pedestrian streets--to me) after working in his father's hoover repair shop during part of the day. By day he plays covers but by night he plays his original songs which is what attracts "Girl" to stop and talk to him. She's a bit nosy--asking about why the guy wrote the song and about the ex-girlfriend that inspired it--and makes a plan to bring by her vacuum cleaner for him to fix the next day. They become friends with undertones of romance.

Anyway, I like the music--especially that first song they sing together in the music shop and I think the plot is cute and romantic while being realistic.

Seraphim Falls (2006) (nat)

This one may actually be worse than Amazing Grace (nothing can top Passion, yet). The basic plot is obscured by the stupidity of the movie. More or less you have Pierce Brosnan (Gideon, apparently, although I never would have remembered that from watching the movie) in the woods in the 1860s. We don't know why he's in the woods but he's near a pretty river in some mountains and it's snowing, a lot. Well he gets shot in the arm by Liam Neeson (Carver, apparently) and his gang of men who are apparently hunting Brosnan--we don't know why (see a theme developing here? apparently the theme of this movie is "I don't know what's going on or why it's happening). The chase continues for the whole movie with Brosnan killing at least two of the gang (one he guts but we're never told why even though Neeson seems to know because he knows that Brosnan didn't eat him as is suggested by another man in the gang--anyway, Brosnan kills all sorts of people with his spectacularly aimed large knife). We move from the snowy mountains to the snowy-ish plains where one of the gang may rape a woman. You literally can't tell. He has her bent over the table for long enough for something to happen but there's no real indication either way which really just makes it icky. Then we move to the not snowy plains then to the desert. Anyway, we finally find out that these two were on opposite sides of the Civil War and Neeson's wife and two young kids died in a fire that Brosnan ordered set. Problem is that Brosnan ordered his men to make sure the house was clear and then to only set the barns on fire. So not so much really his fault especially considering that it was a war and I'm sure his moron lackeys killed someone else that didn't need to be killed during the war. And I'm sure that Neeson killed someone or had someone killed so I'm positive he's got blood on his hands, too. And it seems ridiculous to track a man over a huge span of desolate country. Regardless, the movie is retarded so I'm going to spoil the ending. Throughout their little journey across landscapes, they meet various people--the Irish making the Chinese work on a railroad, Evangelicals who steal Neeson's bullets, a random Native American in a suit, and, finally, Angelica Huston in the middle of the desert. She barters with Brosnan to get his horse in exchange for a bullet--so he has one bullet in his gun--then she barters with Neeson for his water in exchange for a gun with one bullet--so he has one bullet (he just lets his horse wander off). So, two men, one bullet each, in a supposed Western. I wonder what might happen. Yeah. That doesn't happen. Brosnan shoots Neeson in the gut (you'd think he'd have better aim considering the way he handled the knife) and then gives Neeson the gun to shoot Brosnan. Neeson doesn't but lays back and looks like he dies. He doesn't. Brosnan gets him up so he can walk and then Brosnan drops his knife in the desert and the two walk off--in separate directions. So we have Angelica Huston as a thinly veiled devil then we have two wounded dehydrated men wandering the desert without horses, water, or weapons. Right. That's going to work out for them.

Music and Lyrics (2007) (nat)

This is a very cute movie. Cheesy? Yes. Silly? Yes. Predictable? Of course, it's a romantic comedy so it's not like they're all going to die at the end after a car chase and massive explosions. But it's worth a watch if for nothing but the send-ups of MTV and Vh1 programming.

Alex Fletcher (Hugh Grant) is an 80s pop star dying on the state fair and theme park scene when he meets and falls in love with Sophie Fisher (Drew Barrymore) who seems to have a knack for songwriting and also seems like she can help him write a song for the Britney-esque pop starlet Cora by the only-a-few-days-away deadline. Typical romantic comedy plot-lines ensue and all is resolved accordingly. Anyway, cute and worth watching.

Amazing Grace (2006) (nat)

B. O. R. I. N. G.

And not at all about the creation/writing of "Amazing Grace" (as the tag line--"Behind the song you love is a story you will never forget"--title and previews indicated). It's about the main character's crusade against the British slave trade. The only connection to the song is that his childhood pastor was once a slave trader but quit, repented, and went into the clergy then wrote the song about what a horrible man he was/is. But the song writing was years before the action of the movie (no flashbacks or real attention paid to his story) and has nothing to do with anything really. The pastor and his whole story could be taken out of the film with no real consequence.

Meanwhile, the whole abolitionist plot is boring. Put me to sleep boring.

And, oddly, two of the supporting actors here (Romola Garai playing Barbara Spooner and Benedict Cumberbatch as William Pitt) are also in Atonement (Briony at 18 and Paul Marshall, respectively).

Juno (2007) (nat)

Joel and I finally went to see this last night. Joel was angry about it because the writer, Diablo Cody, claims that she wrote it in her free time as a hobby while she was stripping as a profession. We both doubt that she had no formal training after seeing the film.

Regardless, I've wanted to see it since seeing the first preview and I was rewarded. It's really very funny and cute and sweet. Some of the slang gets a little thick and trite but I love the snarky. The basic plot is that Juno (Ellen Page) gets pregnant by sleeping with her friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) and hijinks ensue. Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman as the Lorings (Vanessa and Mark)--the couple who wants to adopt Juno's baby--sort of fall into stereotype but not so much that the movie is derailed or even sidetracked, you just see what happens coming from a mile away (although Joel said some of the reviewers think/think people would think something different about what happens with those two--which I think is silly and a pretty shallow reading of the movie but whatever, I can't say anything about it here or it will spoil the end). Juno's dad (J.K. Simmons) and stepmother (Allison Janney) steal the show. Those two have of the best lines of the whole film and are both spot-on deadpan serious with their line delivery which makes everything all the more hilarious. The story progresses over several seasons and is punctuated by the high school track team (of which Paulie Bleeker is a member) running across the screen--it's funny, very funny, to see these boys in silly little outfits run across the screen and, surprisingly, it doesn't get any less funny as the movie goes on. Very much a must-see movie. Maybe a must-own.

Damn. It. (nat)

One of Johnny Depp's "in production" credits? Mira Nair's next film. Shantaram. Damn her.

Sweeney Todd (2007) (nat)

Johnny Depp. Perfect Movie.

Ok. So, there are a few more factors to consider, I suppose. But not really, right? Joel and I went to see this late Friday night. The Grove had it in a tiny theater--I was caught off guard when I went in to find seats while he got drinks. There are billboards for the movie every two feet in LA and they put it in the smallest theater in the place. Anyway, that has no real bearing on the movie.

It's a good movie. The opening is neat with some sort of computer animation telling the whole story in a vague way before we meet any of the characters. The atmosphere of the movie is what you expect of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp (and Helena Bonham Carter, for that matter) and it works perfectly. It's all muted with a few well-placed exceptions. The storyline is tight and the songs don't get in the way like they can in more ill-conceived musical to movie adaptations. The singing voices aren't perfect with the possible exception of the actress who plays Johanna (Jayne Wisener--her first on-screen role and her voice is very very pretty but under-used) but the less-than-wholly-musically-accurate voices add to the effect of the movie (and there weren't any terrible jarring moments in the singing which is something considering none of the actors was musically trained prior to this movie). You wouldn't expect the "demon barber of Fleet street" to sing like a canary so he doesn't. His first duet with Helena Bonham Carter is really very good. And, my goodness, even covered in white paint with purple around his eyes and blood spattered on his face, Johnny is . . . . well, the man is just sexy. The movie is gorey--lots and lots of blood. Lots. But nothing that I needed to cover my face for or anything. One teensey problem though . . . . plot spoiler below! (although hopefully in a different colored font--highlight it to read)

So, my one issue with the movie is that the story between Johanna and Anthony is left hanging a bit. I guess we are to assume that he returns with the coach and they escape--although probably to a less-than-ideal life as they have little to no means but I wanted one more shot of the two of them together and was frankly shocked that we didn't return to them, even if just for a tiny second to see them reconnect. It's just baffling that the subplot was left hanging. But I looked it up and it seems like the Broadway show ends the same way . . . . odd to me though. It doesn't ruin the movie for me but it gives me pause, especially when the rest of the movie was pretty tight and everything else was tied up pretty neatly (and it's odd for a Broadway show to leave a partially loose end)

Anyway, great movie. Worth watching every single day for a week ;-)

Mr. Brooks (2007) and Interview (2007) (nat)

I really liked Mr. Brooks. The basic plot is that Mr. Brooks (Kevin Costner) is addicted to killing and agged on by Marshall (William Hurt) who is sort of his alter-ego. Brooks is blackmailed by "Mr. Smith" (Dane Smith) to take him on as an apprentice as sorts. Meanwhile, trouble is brewing at home with his wife Emma (Marg Helgenberger) and daughter Jane (Danielle Panabaker). And detective Atwood (Demi Moore) is hot on his trail, sort-of. Costner is actually really accurately creepy and mechanical here and his interaction with Hurt is fantastic. They are strangely in-sync which just makes it work all the more. And it all just fits together really well. I did figure out one of the twists long before it happened but not the details of what would happen and there are some startling moments in the thriller. Definitely worth a watch, maybe a purchase.

Interview, on the other hand, is only good in comparison to Passion. Almost all of the movie is just an "interview" between Pierre Peders (Steve Buscemi), a demoted political journalist, and Katya (Sienna Miller), the hot new untalented party girl actress on a Sex in the City type show and slasher flicks. He's dismissive, she's rude, then he's in a minor car accident and she takes him to her loft. And there ends the probability of this film. What hot young actress takes the middle-aged rude journalist who didn't read any of the info on her given to him and is dismissive of her career to her loft? Anyway, the dialogue is terrible, the ideas are trite, the logic resembles something of a freshman paper. For example, we see Katya snorting coke or heroin and Pierre almost leaves the loft (for the bazillionth time)--ten seconds later, we learn that his daughter died of a heroin overdose. Another example, Pierre asks Katya what makes a man attractive, she says scars (good answer but she gives a stupid reason--"because most women have them, too")--guess who has a scar?? Pierre flashes his stomach later and he has a massive scar on his abdomen. Katya says she's good at crying and then later Pierre is shocked at her lies and faux-crying. It's only 84 minutes long but it felt longer than the over 2 hour Mr. Brooks. It's not paced well and it doesn't make much sense as a story. I didn't care about the characters. Only watch this if this and Passion are your only choices.

The Namesake, again (nat)

One more thing. A movie should really avoid glaring impossibilities, especially in what are supposed to be poignant moments. Here, Gogol has gone to his father's temporary apartment (the father accepted a semester-long teaching appointment at another college) to collect his things after identifying his father's body at the morgue (the father died of a heart attack without warning). Gogol has a vision of his father leaning his hand against the wall above his shoes, sliding on his brown oxfords, and walking out the door. This vision mimics what we see happen earlier, before his father goes to the hospital. After the vision, Gogol walks over to the wall and slips on the same shoes and walks around the apartment. What should be a poignant, nice, symbolic "walking in his shoes" moment is severely undercut by the fact that the father walked out the door in those shoes and, therefore, Gogol should have brought them back in a bag of his dead father's belongings--they could not have been at the wall.

There was something else like this that was wrong but I can't think of it at the moment . . . .

The Namesake (2006) (nat)

Like most things I really want but am denied for ages, this movie did not live up to my expectations. My little internal pictureshow while reading the book did not match up with Mira Nair's. And I think I've decided that I am not a fan of her movies (Joel and I watched Monsoon Wedding the other week).

So, my main issue with Nair's version of The Namesake is that she seems to miss the point of the novel. The story is a simple one about an American-born child, Gogol, of Indian immigrant parents (who immigrated when adults) and that child's struggle balancing his Indian culture (which he tries so hard to deny because it makes him odd in a McDonald's world) and the American culture he knows and loves. It's a typical coming of age story with the rebellion from parents, denial of inheritance, etc but with the addition of the cultural aspect. Nair makes the movie way too much about the parents and India. She's in love with giving the viewer random, unrelated (to each other and what's going on in the film) shots of India. She's in love with India, which is fine and lovely and beneficial to that country. What is not fine, lovely, or beneficial is when she takes a story of the struggle of an Indian-American to be American and makes it about India. There is very little of Gogol out in the world, which is what the majority of the novel is and what we need to see in order to see the child come of age.

While the novel covers all of the information presented in the movie, a good book adaptation (unlike my last viewing of the adaptation of the Good Book) should strike a balance between including too much of the source material and cutting out too much of what makes the story. Nair actually managed to include too much and cut out too much. By giving too much time to the parents' story, she gives us quite a bit of the necessary back story but does so to the detriment of the current story. We understand the parents' love story much more than we understand what's going on with Gogol. While the whole movie is devoted to the older love story, we breeze through two of Gogol's long term affairs, both of which are reduced to stereotypes.

Further, any story that is trying to dissect the clash of cultures, whether on a grand scale or a personal internal scale, has to be super careful to avoid such stereotypes. Instead, Nair's movie exalts the traditional Indian and the more traditional Indian-American woman but shuns (1) the white, blonde, bohemian, selfish, call your elders by their first names, bring truffles as a gift, fail to understand culture differences and wear black to an Indian funeral girl and (2) the Indian-British-American girl who tries too hard to be Anglo in that she sleeps with a whole slew of men, has one fiance leave her almost at the altar, and cheats on her husband. So, while this movie isn't as racist/anti-peoples as Passion, it ends up being racist.

All in all, Nair manages, in all three of her movies that I've seen (Monsoon, Namesake, and Vanity Fair), to make an oddly scattered, disjointed story that lacks any real heart--it ends up being like a freshman paper or what you end up with if you ask MS Word to summarize a document (it just picks out the first sentence of each paragraph)--most of the information is there but you're lacking argument and explication and you end up not caring at all. Sadly not really worth a watch to me (but I'm also in an odd position in that I'm stacking it up against the book and a long wait).

Control (2007) (nat)

This one is a biopic of Joy Division's frontman Ian Curtis. Shot entirely in black and white (well, shot in color and converted to black and white), it's a really good movie. Unlike Passion, you don't have to know a thing about the guy, the band, the scene, anything, to be able to appreciate and follow the story. And it's compelling--despite Curtis being doomed and a bit of a cad at points you want him to succeed and escape his demons. It's a very simple story of his rise and fall and it manages to avoid be starstruck by Curtis or the British post-punk scene. It is also very artsy without falling victim to the inclination. Sam Riley's performance is impressive (even more so considering it's his first role of any sort of import) and the others fall in line without overwhelming Curtis as the point of the plot. Definitely worth a watch.

Passion of the Christ (2004) (nat)

I didn't want to see this movie. I'd avoided it when it first came out and patently refused to watch it otherwise. Then the book included it. Damned book. But I put it pretty far down on the Netflix queue and kept moving other things up thinking I would never get through 1001 anyway so this may as well be one that I missed. Well, with the packing and moving and the post office forwarding my mail much earlier than I asked them to, I failed to pay attention to the queue and the damned thing showed up in Los Angeles to await my arrival. Yick. Joel wanted to watch it because he's working on a new movie about an exorcism and thought it might help. So we watched it.

It's terrible. Worse than terrible really. It may be the worst movie I've ever seen.

First, there is the Aramaic. Just absurd. And it's mixed in with Hebrew, Latin, and something closely resembling Italian. Just odd. And it fails to translate all of the lines. At several points, people say things and they're not subtitled. Why did the actor learn that line and say it if I don't need to know what the guy is saying?

Second, there is this strange devil type androgynous character--who IMDB tells me is a woman--who just appears all over the place, only talks the first time, had a creeeeeeeeeppy baby another time, pitches a fit in hell when Jesus dies . . . . The character is just odd and never explained or given any sort of recognition.

Third, Mary Magdalene and John are never identified by name--I managed to figure out the former while watching but just now figured out the latter with IMDB. And I have no clue who some of the other characters are. That's largely a lack in my religious knowledge, but I shouldn't have to have read any book in order to know a character's name in a movie.

Fourth, Jim Caviezel is not that good. And he creeped me out in the last supper scenes.

Fifth, it's unnecessarily violent and gruesome. I did not need to see Jesus' skin ripped from his body at all much less a few dozen times, I did not need to see the nails being hammered in, I did not need to see a crow rip an eye from another crucified man. And I covered my face for most of these scenes so I didn't even see the most violent parts--Joel exclaimed audibly several times.

Sixth, it's reductive as well as historically and scripturally inaccurate in parts. Mary Magdalene is still portrayed as a whore. And the film claims that Jesus was the one to invent the table with chairs. Right.

Seventh, I didn't care about Jesus in the film. It's horrible that a person was tortured and etc but nothing was done to make me care about the man in the film.

Eighth, it relied waaaaaay too much on its audience having an intimate (if inaccurate) knowledge of scripture--ex. not identifying characters, too little background info, etc.

Ninth, despite what anyone may say, the movie is terribly anti-Semitic. It's really terrible anti-anyone who isn't Christian (in the way that Mel Gibson and his cronies are Christian, of course).

Tenth, it played only to it's own crazy Christian wacko audience--"Hey let's celebrate how wonderful we think this guy is and how terrible everyone who doubted what we would have never doubted are and let's just have this little inside story that chastises any and everyone else"--instead of sharing a message in a, oh, let's call it "Christian" way.

Eleventh, it's even incredibly condemning of it's audience. When Jesus dies, Mary looks straight at the camera while holding her son as if to say, "see what you did."

Twelfth, it's terrible in it's "portrayal" of God/pathetic fallacy. Throughout the movie, Jesus and other characters look to the sky in a Halle Berry/Oprah ruining Their Eyes Were Watching God way. At the Crucifixion, one of the other two nailed up pledges himself to Jesus and Jesus blesses him. The other says "no way you're the son of God, you're still nailed on a cross and you're going to die"--he then promptly gets his eye pecked out by a crow (despite the fact that Jesus is the bloodier and closer to death of the three by a long shot). Then what really stuck in my craw is when Jesus is dying, the heavens start to cloud over. And, at the moment of his death, the camera suddenly shows us the scene from above, from God's supposed p.o.v, an angle from which none of the rest of the movie has been shot, and a single massive raindrop falls. Yick. Just YICK. That's right before Mary looks at you accusingly.

The movie is about 4 hours too long and it's only 2 hours 7 minutes.

Monsoon Wedding (2001) (nat)

Lots of a plot and lots of little plots swirl all around in this one. It's not bad and it's pretty and fun to watch because of the different culture and all. And the main storyline is interesting with the Dubey/Alice subplot sticking out for me because it's so sweet and cute. Basically, it's the story of an arranged marriage, focusing on the bride and her family. She's consented to the arrangement because she's tired of playing second fiddle to her boyfriend's wife. Her father is super anxious and worried because he's giving away his daughter to another family and to America and because of money concerns as well. Meanwhile, there are subplots about a cousin's abuse, the younger brother's sexuality, a budding romance between a set of cousins, a romance between the event planner and the maid, the tense relations between the bride's mother and father, the joys and stresses of a large family, etc. It all gets a bit jumbled and some of it seems a bit watered down. Not terrible, just not that inspiring.

The Golden Compass (2007) (nat)

I liked the movie just fine. Joel calls it preposterous.

It's not perfect, isn't neat, has some plot holes. But I expect such things from movies with talking, fighting, armored bears and whatnot that are essentially meant for children. It's clearly setting itself up for sequels and this is the foundation movie that leaves a lot to be filled in with the subsequent movies, if they're ever made. If you can forgive the movie that, it's entertaining. I went in only wanting to see Daniel Craig and the polar bears. I got those things.

Anyway, it's apparently a way watered down version of the watered down American versions of the British series of children's books. It's getting slammed for being anti-religion which is basically nonsense. The movie can have religious overtones if read as such (as could just about any Tom Cruise movie or any other movie for that matter) but the Magisterium reads as more of a government thing to me (in the film, at least--apparently the books are more explicitly death of God, etc).

The polar bears are cool, the witches are cool, the daemons are cool, the architecture is cool, Daniel Craig is good as is Nicole Kidman and I like the little girl playing the lead role. I did not like the ugly child they found to play her best friend not did I like Kidman's character's daemon monkey. Creepy. There is also an odd two second use of Christopher Lee that is misleading as he doesn't show up anywhere else in the movie. And there is quite the graphic scene for a children's movie but I won't say anymore because it would give something away. Anyway, I liked it just fine. I was entertained.

Atonement (2007) (nat)

Well. This was not as good as expected. I think because it's getting soooooooo much hype that I just expected brilliance. Instead it's mediocre with flashes of good and one of the worst endings I've ever experienced. Literally, with one camera shot the movie was ruined for me. I haven't read the book yet--I'll probably trot my butt across the street tomorrow to get myself a copy--but if it ends like the movie does, I hope it's handled much much better. There are very pretty scenes, very pretty shots, funny moments, the love story is touching and poignant and heartbreaking and I was on board all the way until about five minutes before the movie ended when it just shattered for me. I was taken all the way out of the movie and felt cheated. Really cheated out of the whole experience.

Joel has a whole rant, it went something like this:
J (as we're leaving the theater): So what did you think about the movie?
N: I liked it until the end. I think the end ruined it.
J [in a stern but not overly loud voice]: UNDERACHIEVING. SELF-DELUDED. AND. MANIPULATIVE. UNDERACHIEVING. SELF-DELUDED. AND. MANIPULATIVE. UNDERACHIEVING. SELF-DELUDED. AND. MANIPULATIVE.
Throw in trite, silly, ridiculous, the sort of movie I'd want to write until they fucked it up with the end, etc. and you have the rant that lasted from the movie theater to the grocery store across the street and over the length of a strip mall. It had a brief reprisal as we left the grocery store and then again when I just yelled downstairs to ask him his exact words.

I'd be interested what you think, Tracy, since you read the book first and loved it.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) (nat)

Joel and I once again procrastinated about the unpacking and ran to a movie almost as soon as we were up and moving today. This one is loooooooooooooong. Two hours and forty minutes. And it feels that long (but, thankfully, not in a Kingdom of Heaven way). The movie is beautiful. Really very stunning. Casey Affleck does a good job as does Sam Rockwell and Pitt is pretty good. Mary Louise Parker is under-used as James's wife. The story is ok, not as interesting as it could be especially if you happened to have caught 15 minutes of a History Channel show that detailed the assassination (it's not as interesting when you know exactly when James is going to be shot). And it should have ended about 4 times before it did. But the film is gorgeous. Some it is fuzzy about the edges and some of it looks as if it were shot through an old piece of glass with waves in it. The color is fantastic as is the play of light and dark. But there are some strange still shots at the end that are a bit off. Like No Country (but for very very different reasons), this one is worth a watch but be prepared for a long watch that doesn't pay off as much as it should or could.

No Country for Old Men (2007) (nat)

Not my first choice of a movie to see but I saw it because it seems like it may come into play come awards season and Joel was willing to watch it again with me (and what better way is there to avoid unpacking than going to a movie?) Anyway, I can't say there is anything wrong with the movie. It's beautifully filmed with very interesting shots, the acting is superb, the storyline is tight. Well, the exceptions are a vomit scene, a scene involving multiple needle injections, a dog being shot, and a good bit of gore but none of that is particularly gratuitous or played for shock. But it's just not a movie I especially like. It didn't speak to me at all really even though I was never bored while watching it. Worth seeing but I'm not promising it will be a favorite although Joel liked it a good deal.