This is the film I meant to get when I put Twelfth Night on the Netflix queue. I have something of a weakness for Kenneth Branagh Shakespeare movies. They're always wonderful and pretty and have superb actors.
Branagh picked up As You Like It from wherever it was originally set (this is one I have not read) and put it down in the middle of Japan, which made for pretty sets and very beautiful kimono costuming (or your average late 19th C dress with pretty kimono fabric and origami inspired folds as accents). Very pretty. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the details of the plot because Branagh always uses the original language and follows the plot almost exactly and, since I haven't read this one, I don't know if, how, or why he deviated. All of the actors are wonderful: Bryce Dallas Howard as Rosalind, Kevin Kline as Jacques, and Alfred Molina as Touchstone were my favorites. It was a tad slow and the epilogue is a bit odd but overall worth watching.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
We all know I have a thing for animated animals dancing. It's a strange ticklish spot for me the way Tina is for t. Anyway, animated animals doing kung fu, almost as good. Animated animals doing kung fu poorly while screaming "waaaaaaaaaaa!," hilarious.
So, Po the Panda (Jack Black) dreams (literally) of being a kung fu warrior. The problem is that he's a panda, a fat panda. Well, he gets his chance when the uber bad guy, Tai Lung, breaks out of prison and a dragon warrior has to be chosen by the ancient turtle kung fu master. The assumption is that the dragon warrior will be chosen from one of the five kung fu warriors under the tutelage of Shifu (Dustin Hoffman): Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), or Crane (David Cross). Well, that doesn't go as planned and Po is proclaimed the dragon warrior to be. That's slightly problematic, of course, because he's a panda, a fat panda. Kung Fu and hilarity ensues and, of course, the day is saved and bad guy vanquished.
Yes, it's formulaic. But I'm a little tired of critics using that as a reason a movie is supposedly bad. Do we want the panda to fail? No. Would we like the cartoon movie if the panda failed? No. So why is it bad when the panda doesn't fail? It's not. The movie is for kids. Despite having watched a bazillion movies with the same storyline since the beginning of time, kids will still be surprised when the less talented good wins out over the more talented bad. And, yes, it has a bit of an obvious moral. Again, it's for children. If this were a movie with real people and meant for adults with bloody battle sequences and actual weapons, a moral would be a huge mistake but this isn't that movie.
My one tiny complaint is that I think the Tigress needed to look a little more feminine--she looked like a boy, a boy that talks like Angelina Jolie.
Meanwhile, the movie is funny, well-animated, well-timed, and not boring. I liked it quite a bit--plus there was a preview for Madagascar Escape 2 Africa that included the dancing lemurs! What more could a girl want from animation?
So, Po the Panda (Jack Black) dreams (literally) of being a kung fu warrior. The problem is that he's a panda, a fat panda. Well, he gets his chance when the uber bad guy, Tai Lung, breaks out of prison and a dragon warrior has to be chosen by the ancient turtle kung fu master. The assumption is that the dragon warrior will be chosen from one of the five kung fu warriors under the tutelage of Shifu (Dustin Hoffman): Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), or Crane (David Cross). Well, that doesn't go as planned and Po is proclaimed the dragon warrior to be. That's slightly problematic, of course, because he's a panda, a fat panda. Kung Fu and hilarity ensues and, of course, the day is saved and bad guy vanquished.
Yes, it's formulaic. But I'm a little tired of critics using that as a reason a movie is supposedly bad. Do we want the panda to fail? No. Would we like the cartoon movie if the panda failed? No. So why is it bad when the panda doesn't fail? It's not. The movie is for kids. Despite having watched a bazillion movies with the same storyline since the beginning of time, kids will still be surprised when the less talented good wins out over the more talented bad. And, yes, it has a bit of an obvious moral. Again, it's for children. If this were a movie with real people and meant for adults with bloody battle sequences and actual weapons, a moral would be a huge mistake but this isn't that movie.
My one tiny complaint is that I think the Tigress needed to look a little more feminine--she looked like a boy, a boy that talks like Angelina Jolie.
Meanwhile, the movie is funny, well-animated, well-timed, and not boring. I liked it quite a bit--plus there was a preview for Madagascar Escape 2 Africa that included the dancing lemurs! What more could a girl want from animation?
Stardom (2000)
I'm going to stop allowing the Time Warner Cable tv guide thingamajig tell me what it thinks good movies are. This one had three stars (of 4 I assume because I've never seen one with 5). The same amount as Little Miss Sunshine--which I think is brilliant. This movie, not brilliant. Not even close. No shimmer of goodness about it.
It's supposed to be a mockumentary about a young Canadian girl who is plucked from obscurity (and a wealth of daddy issues) to become the next big super model (and referred to as American for the rest of the movie) who then has men line up to take advantage of her in various ways. It's not a mockumentary. That's just all there is to it. It does not fit the genre. It's also not funny. Or interesting really. Not even in a bad way. It's actually pretty boring and it's only 100 minutes long.
Give it a skip.
It's supposed to be a mockumentary about a young Canadian girl who is plucked from obscurity (and a wealth of daddy issues) to become the next big super model (and referred to as American for the rest of the movie) who then has men line up to take advantage of her in various ways. It's not a mockumentary. That's just all there is to it. It does not fit the genre. It's also not funny. Or interesting really. Not even in a bad way. It's actually pretty boring and it's only 100 minutes long.
Give it a skip.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Lady Windermere's Fan: A Play about a Good Woman by Oscar Wilde (1893)
I read this out of curiosity after watching the film A Good Woman (see post on Feb 24 2008). I thought the play might be better than the film. Eh. They're on about equal footing. Scarlett Johanssen's poor acting makes the latter not so great but the film is fairly faithful to the play.
It takes place in less than 24 hours, but overnight. It begins with Lady Windermere preparing for her birthday celebration--the birthday which brings her "of age" (since she's been married for 2 years and it's almost the 20th century, I'm guessing 21 but I could be wrong). Anyway, Lord Darlington hints at her husband's supposed unfaithfulness before another Lady enters and pretty much lays it out on the table. Lady Windermere, being young, naive, and highly morally black and white, doesn't believe the rumors until she rips into her husband's check book and finds he's been giving money to one Mrs. Erlynne. Lord Windermere then arrives home, catches her in the act of spying, tells her nothing is amiss, and orders her to invite Mrs. Erlynne. The Lady says no, the Lord invites her anyway, and the Lady claims she will hit the Mrs. with her fan. And then the supposed hilarity, mistaken identity, and etc ensues.
The play is slightly more subtle than the movie, only giving away Mrs. Erlynne's identity at the end and, of course, we are to question who the "good woman" of the title is (the starkly moral Lady Windermere or Mrs. Erlynne who is a tad amoral but who sacrifices a lot for another woman).
If you have a reason to read Wilde, it's fine and will take about half an hour to complete, but I don't see any real reason to seek it out.
It takes place in less than 24 hours, but overnight. It begins with Lady Windermere preparing for her birthday celebration--the birthday which brings her "of age" (since she's been married for 2 years and it's almost the 20th century, I'm guessing 21 but I could be wrong). Anyway, Lord Darlington hints at her husband's supposed unfaithfulness before another Lady enters and pretty much lays it out on the table. Lady Windermere, being young, naive, and highly morally black and white, doesn't believe the rumors until she rips into her husband's check book and finds he's been giving money to one Mrs. Erlynne. Lord Windermere then arrives home, catches her in the act of spying, tells her nothing is amiss, and orders her to invite Mrs. Erlynne. The Lady says no, the Lord invites her anyway, and the Lady claims she will hit the Mrs. with her fan. And then the supposed hilarity, mistaken identity, and etc ensues.
The play is slightly more subtle than the movie, only giving away Mrs. Erlynne's identity at the end and, of course, we are to question who the "good woman" of the title is (the starkly moral Lady Windermere or Mrs. Erlynne who is a tad amoral but who sacrifices a lot for another woman).
If you have a reason to read Wilde, it's fine and will take about half an hour to complete, but I don't see any real reason to seek it out.
Red Road (2006)
It was a strange international night on Sundance. After Sheitan (French), Red Road (Scottish) came on. It's better than the former, but still not good.
This one is about a woman whose family has apparently been killed: her husband and he young daughter. She hasn't allowed their ashes to be scattered or buried or memorialized, causing strife with her in-laws. She monitors surveillance cameras (of which Scotland seems to have a lot) as a job and one day sees the man who killed her family. She's upset because his jail sentence was apparently reduced for good behavior. She proceeds to stalk him, talk to him at a party she infiltrated, and then have a sexual relationship with him. After having sex with him, she beats herself up and cries rape. She then drops the charges because she, still spying on him at her work, sees his daughter try to find him at his apartment (on Red Road). She then confronts him about telling her exactly what happened when he killed her family. Turns out it was a drunk driving accident. That's it. No cold-blooded murder. No drug deal gone wrong. No husband dealing with bad guys behind her back. An accident. I know it must be traumatizing to lose a husband and a young daughter but, really, it's a movie, make a more interesting choice. She then decides that her in-laws can memorialize their son and granddaughter. The end.
This one is no good at all and there isn't an interesting reason to watch it.
This one is about a woman whose family has apparently been killed: her husband and he young daughter. She hasn't allowed their ashes to be scattered or buried or memorialized, causing strife with her in-laws. She monitors surveillance cameras (of which Scotland seems to have a lot) as a job and one day sees the man who killed her family. She's upset because his jail sentence was apparently reduced for good behavior. She proceeds to stalk him, talk to him at a party she infiltrated, and then have a sexual relationship with him. After having sex with him, she beats herself up and cries rape. She then drops the charges because she, still spying on him at her work, sees his daughter try to find him at his apartment (on Red Road). She then confronts him about telling her exactly what happened when he killed her family. Turns out it was a drunk driving accident. That's it. No cold-blooded murder. No drug deal gone wrong. No husband dealing with bad guys behind her back. An accident. I know it must be traumatizing to lose a husband and a young daughter but, really, it's a movie, make a more interesting choice. She then decides that her in-laws can memorialize their son and granddaughter. The end.
This one is no good at all and there isn't an interesting reason to watch it.
Sheitan (2006)
After we watched Dan in Real Life, we watched this movie like it was a train wreck in our living room. It's bad. Really really bad.
It's about a group of remarkably racially diverse French kids (a white guy, a black Muslim guy, a Mid-Eastern Muslim girl, and an Asian guy) who somehow run into a girl who takes them to her house in the middle of nowhere (have to move sheep in the road to get to the house) where her "housekeeper" Vincent Cassel is super creepy. Apparently, Cassel was possessed by the devil or some nonsense and impregnated his sister (who is, uber creepy, Vincent Cassel in a wig). For whatever reason, Cassel has to get things from these kids--clothes, eyeballs--in order to make a doll for the baby his sister is carrying. It seems as if this is a repeating thing because the town is also filled with strange and creepy malformed people. Meanwhile, all of the kids are attempting to hook up with one another--yep, there is a shortage of girls in that situation so two guys make-out with the one at once.
It's not a good movie. Only watch it if you have a strong desire to see Vincent Cassel at his creepiest.
It's about a group of remarkably racially diverse French kids (a white guy, a black Muslim guy, a Mid-Eastern Muslim girl, and an Asian guy) who somehow run into a girl who takes them to her house in the middle of nowhere (have to move sheep in the road to get to the house) where her "housekeeper" Vincent Cassel is super creepy. Apparently, Cassel was possessed by the devil or some nonsense and impregnated his sister (who is, uber creepy, Vincent Cassel in a wig). For whatever reason, Cassel has to get things from these kids--clothes, eyeballs--in order to make a doll for the baby his sister is carrying. It seems as if this is a repeating thing because the town is also filled with strange and creepy malformed people. Meanwhile, all of the kids are attempting to hook up with one another--yep, there is a shortage of girls in that situation so two guys make-out with the one at once.
It's not a good movie. Only watch it if you have a strong desire to see Vincent Cassel at his creepiest.
Dan in Real Life (2007)
I liked this one quite a bit. I thought it smart, funny, and genuine. And, of course, I love anything that has Steve Carell and especially love anything in which he dances.
This one is about Dan (Carell) who writes a family advice column for the local paper. He has three daughters, two old enough to cause trouble, and is widowed. He's poured all of his effort into his daughters and work that he hasn't really considered his love life. That is until he takes his daughters on their usual trip to the family's house (we're talking a LOT of family) and he randomly meets a woman in a book store. He likes her, really likes her. But, of course, there's a slight problem: she's the new girlfriend of his younger brother. So that's a problem. It turns into a hilarious avoidance story (I especially liked the shower scene) and then into a love story with sweet moments.
Very much worth watching.
This one is about Dan (Carell) who writes a family advice column for the local paper. He has three daughters, two old enough to cause trouble, and is widowed. He's poured all of his effort into his daughters and work that he hasn't really considered his love life. That is until he takes his daughters on their usual trip to the family's house (we're talking a LOT of family) and he randomly meets a woman in a book store. He likes her, really likes her. But, of course, there's a slight problem: she's the new girlfriend of his younger brother. So that's a problem. It turns into a hilarious avoidance story (I especially liked the shower scene) and then into a love story with sweet moments.
Very much worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)