State of Play (2009): Terrible, convoluted, nonsensical movie with faux "twists" (totally given away in the previews), mismatched character "development," and preachiness about print v. blogs.
Grey Gardens (2009): The HBO movie, not the documentary. Very well acted and interesting enough but it feels much longer than its hour and 44 minutes.
Blue (1993): The first part of the Three Colors trilogy. I like the idea of this movie much more than the actual execution. Nothing happens--at all--and that gets a little tiresome. Also, the use of the color gets a little heavy-handed and, therefore, trite.
You Got Served (2004): I have more street cred than this movie. And this movie so desperately tried to have it.
Wet Hot American Summer (2001): I love Paul Rudd and I newly love Christopher Meloni dancing but this movie just didn't appeal to me. It lost my attention because it seemingly went haywire about a third of the way in--like they all said, screw the script and plot, let's just be wacky. It didn't work for me.
Traitor (2008): Can we say preachy? And kind of wrong about terrorism?
27 Dresses (2008): Cute enough for a chick flick but also bad bad bad for women (as chick flicks are wont to be). And was it just me or was Katherine Heigl's hair a funny color?
In the Heat of the Night (1967): I used to watch the tv show when I was young but had never seen the movie. I liked it quite a bit. It's just a good, solid movie with solid acting that tackles an issue but doesn't so much beat you over the head with it repeatedly.
Made of Honor (2008): There is no honor in this movie. None. I don't know who is supposed to be made of honor but I have a feeling it's Patrick Dempsey since he's the "maid of honor." But, no, not realizing you love your best friend of the opposite sex until she goes away and then trying everything to ruin her engagement (I don't care if he was "infiltrating"--that's still ruining) and then only telling her the night before the wedding and only being able to say "I love you" to dogs until the exact moment the "hold your peace" line comes into play at which point you crash (literally and figuratively) the wedding to take the bride away because you're too selfish to realize that you've been an ass is not in any way imaginable having honor. The movie COULD have been saved IF the bride had backed out of her own wedding because SHE realized she was marrying the wrong person. It is in no way acceptable to have her HAVE to get married just because her retarded best friend can't open his eyes. AND it is in no way acceptable for her to have been silent about her feelings for him. Hello! Grrrrr. Stupid movie that manages to be bad for BOTH genders.
Sense and Sensibility (1995): I've seen this several times before but don't think I realized Hugh Laurie is in it in a tiny but perfect role. No wonder he was hired for House. Regardless, I like the movie a lot although I wish Kate Winslet would have been a little less red in the face the whole time.
For the Love of the Game (1999). I hated it. No, not even. I was so bored that I couldn't form much of an opinion. And I only made it halfway through before I couldn't watch anymore. So I won't say much about this one because it may have redeemed itself in the second half (doubtful) but the hour I watched felt like 4.
Star Trek (2009): Thank you. A good, solid, dramatic, funny, well-acted, fabulously cast (I can't say how much I enjoyed seeing Simon Pegg as Scotty), movie that both pays homage and its dues to the decades of original material and goes forward. Wonderful. I'll take a few more of these, please.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
6 Movies, 1 Book
Sunshine Cleaning (2009): I want it to be Sunshine Cleaning Company. I liked this one a lot but I like dark wry comedies and I love Amy Adams and Emily Blunt is only rising in my opinion. Adams does a good job of at once being completely pitiful, a little cheerleader annoying, but completely likable. I don't know what else to say, I like it.
In the Mood for Love (2000): Bleh. Not all that interesting. The premise is very interesting: a man and a woman in 1960s Hong Kong (the film is Chinese) find out that their respective spouses are having an affair with one another. The man and woman then decide to be friends but to never cross the line their spouses crossed. What develops, of course, is a very complicated relationship in which they play act conversations they might have with their spouses (confronting them about having an affair) or how they met/began the affair. All of that is, of course, sexually charged and intimate. The movie, however, fails to build much tension and then just falls off, dropping everything. I appreciate subtlety but too much subtlety and you have nothing.
Monsters vs. Aliens (2009): I want it to be Monsters v. Aliens. We saw it in 3D and that was ok enough for a little while but it made my eyes go wonky (probably just a symptom of my particular eye dysfunctions). The 3D added some interest to the film and that was cool. Otherwise, it was cute. Probably better if you love the old monster movie genre and know those films well enough to catch all of the references.
Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry by Leanne Shapton (2009): I can never remember that title. The closest I get is "Personal Artifacts." Luckily that works in the B&N search engine when I look up the title for the bazillionth time. I had my doubts about this one. It's completely formatted like an auction catalog (so, photos of objects with brief descriptions), yet it is supposed to tell the story of the demise of Lenore and Harold's relationship. Strangely, it works quite well. There are a few letters, postcards, e-mails and whatnot included to give the object descriptions a slight push forward but, for the most part, the objects tell the story and you find yourself engrossed in the relationship. It's annoying only in the fact that I wished I'd thought of it and was talented enough to pull it off. There is supposed to be a movie made of it. I don't know how exactly that is going to work . . .
Rachel Getting Married (2008): No. No. No. I cannot stand people like Anne Hathaway's Kym in this movie. Perhaps I took the movie a little too personally but I really hated it. I didn't like the contrived faux-multi-ethnic, tragically hip wedding. I didn't like the bride having to coddle and bathe her sister on her wedding day. I didn't like the dynamics of the family. And the list goes on. The only thing I vaguely liked was Kym's mother punching her in the face and I wish that happened in the first scene. Terrible movie.
Role Models (2008): I'll watch just about anything in which Paul Rudd dances. My only complaint is that he didn't dance enough. I did, however, really appreciate him dressed as a Kiss-inspired Role playing game member (is there a more precise word for such people?). Not brilliant but a funny fulfillment of the genre.
I've Loved You So Long (2008): Here, Kristin Scott Thomas is a French/English woman (the movie is French) just released from a 15 year prison sentence, for murder, who begins living with her younger sister whom she has not seen in years (and the sister is much younger). The film is very very very well-paced, especially for a film in which nothing much happens and Thomas's performance is remarkably restrained and precise. Somehow I managed to figure out the motive behind the murder almost as soon as who was murdered was revealed but I don't think this was given away by the movie (maybe I just watch a few too many murder mystery oriented tv shows). Anyway, I liked it very much.
In the Mood for Love (2000): Bleh. Not all that interesting. The premise is very interesting: a man and a woman in 1960s Hong Kong (the film is Chinese) find out that their respective spouses are having an affair with one another. The man and woman then decide to be friends but to never cross the line their spouses crossed. What develops, of course, is a very complicated relationship in which they play act conversations they might have with their spouses (confronting them about having an affair) or how they met/began the affair. All of that is, of course, sexually charged and intimate. The movie, however, fails to build much tension and then just falls off, dropping everything. I appreciate subtlety but too much subtlety and you have nothing.
Monsters vs. Aliens (2009): I want it to be Monsters v. Aliens. We saw it in 3D and that was ok enough for a little while but it made my eyes go wonky (probably just a symptom of my particular eye dysfunctions). The 3D added some interest to the film and that was cool. Otherwise, it was cute. Probably better if you love the old monster movie genre and know those films well enough to catch all of the references.
Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry by Leanne Shapton (2009): I can never remember that title. The closest I get is "Personal Artifacts." Luckily that works in the B&N search engine when I look up the title for the bazillionth time. I had my doubts about this one. It's completely formatted like an auction catalog (so, photos of objects with brief descriptions), yet it is supposed to tell the story of the demise of Lenore and Harold's relationship. Strangely, it works quite well. There are a few letters, postcards, e-mails and whatnot included to give the object descriptions a slight push forward but, for the most part, the objects tell the story and you find yourself engrossed in the relationship. It's annoying only in the fact that I wished I'd thought of it and was talented enough to pull it off. There is supposed to be a movie made of it. I don't know how exactly that is going to work . . .
Rachel Getting Married (2008): No. No. No. I cannot stand people like Anne Hathaway's Kym in this movie. Perhaps I took the movie a little too personally but I really hated it. I didn't like the contrived faux-multi-ethnic, tragically hip wedding. I didn't like the bride having to coddle and bathe her sister on her wedding day. I didn't like the dynamics of the family. And the list goes on. The only thing I vaguely liked was Kym's mother punching her in the face and I wish that happened in the first scene. Terrible movie.
Role Models (2008): I'll watch just about anything in which Paul Rudd dances. My only complaint is that he didn't dance enough. I did, however, really appreciate him dressed as a Kiss-inspired Role playing game member (is there a more precise word for such people?). Not brilliant but a funny fulfillment of the genre.
I've Loved You So Long (2008): Here, Kristin Scott Thomas is a French/English woman (the movie is French) just released from a 15 year prison sentence, for murder, who begins living with her younger sister whom she has not seen in years (and the sister is much younger). The film is very very very well-paced, especially for a film in which nothing much happens and Thomas's performance is remarkably restrained and precise. Somehow I managed to figure out the motive behind the murder almost as soon as who was murdered was revealed but I don't think this was given away by the movie (maybe I just watch a few too many murder mystery oriented tv shows). Anyway, I liked it very much.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Center Stage: Turn It Up (2008)
That's right a straight to dvd sequel to a little known Australian dance movie. And I L.O.V.E. it. The first one is one of my go-to cheesy dance movies and this one just gets added to that list. It manages to do what the Step Up duo didn't in that the Center Stage pair are separate entities that don't immediately relate to each other. Cooper shows up in the second but there is no awkward moment where we sort of have to explain what the last movie was all about--that's right Step Up 2: The Streets, I noticed your pitiful writing in of a dance-off between characters past and present and Center Stage is better, much better. This one also pulls in street dance with the ballet without making either seem stupid or uptight. And, of course, there is the end dance number that re-tells the whole thing. G.E.N.I.U.S. I need to own it immediately.
Coraline (2009)
Cute! I loved the stop-motion animation and the story is fun. There are some things to forgive or overlook--a few forced plot points and Dakota Fanning being involved with anything--but it's essentially a kids' movie so you have to move on and understand kids would like it. Anyway, there isn't much to say other than I loved the cat, I love Neil Gaiman, the movie is cute, and now I sort of want to read the book . . . although I bought Neverwhere so that will be first (not to mention the still-not-finished-and-still-sort-of-not-totally-engaging 2666).
Friday, March 6, 2009
6 Movies and a Book
A bunch of satisfying fluff, three disappointing Oscar nominated movies, and a frustrating book.
Step Up 2: The Streets (2008): Not as good as the first one but good enough and great for 30 minutes of Wii Fit's free step. Nothing like people dancing to get you to forget your calves hurt a lot. The plot isn't genius but it's standard and satisfying. I thought it ended a bit abruptly.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962): I've never been a Sinatra fan and this didn't change my mind. I figured it out, for what that's worth, early on and it simply failed to have much of an impact. I'm vaguely curious to read the book to see if it is more successful in terms of suspense.
Persepolis (2007): Eh. Interesting enough I guess but it doesn't quite go far enough. Something crucial is missing to form a complete story arc. I am interested in this book, too, just to see if the movie misses something. I do, however, love the animation and the use of color.
Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008): If they showed that gum one more time! And the vomit? Gross. The movie was cute enough but it could have been brilliant. The problem, well one of them, is that is just gives up at a certain point. Someone who has some influence thought "Dude! Wouldn't be it super cool to have them have sex at Electric Lady Studios and have the equalizer register the noise!" Problem is from the moment she falters and then goes into the studio, the whole movie falters and the moment looks incredibly contrived, as does the moment at the party where they confront the toxic-boy/girlfriends, as does the escalator moment. So this movie filled with cute honest moments winds up looking hollow. Just for a quick look at an equalizer.
Alfie (1966): Ugh. I only made it to the halfway mark, well not quite even the halfway mark. I just couldn't tolerate it and, on top of that, it was immensely boring. I always hear how likable Michael Caine makes the character. How great it is that this complete womanizing cad can be made human. Um, no. I hated him and I didn't like the women he was involved with so I didn't care about any sort of relationship they were having. And I was particularly annoyed with his use (or lack thereof, rather) of pronouns. All women were "birds" so apparently the appropriate pronoun is then "it." I can get past "birds." Whatever. But "it"? Even birds have genders. And it's just so sickeningly sexist. Especially for 1966! Ugh. Gross.
Shall We Dance? (Shall we dansu?) (1996): This is the Japanese movie, not the JLo/Richard Gere movie. I think the plot is the same (I've not seen the American one) but I also think it makes more sense in the Japanese context in which ballroom dancing is really seen as odd. It's cute and funny but a little long at over 2 hours for a basic romcom.
Firmin by Sam Savage (2006): A fluff book that was to be a reward for slogging through 3 of 5 books of 2666. It's a cute premise and cute packaging (there is a bite taken out of the side of the book--albeit one too large to have been taken by a rat). I hated it until page 74. The book is only 164 pages long. The first 74 pages is nonsense. Pure nonsense. So, the book is about a rat named Firmin who somehow knows how to read and just happens to be born in a used bookstore. Ok. Whatever. But the first 74 pages are filled with nonsense. I can't even explain how stupid some of it is. But at page 74, it all turns around because Firmin is taken in by a hippie deadbeat author and the book has a relationship around which to revolve. That makes all the difference. The book actually becomes endearing at this point. Too bad it's almost half over. The second half, the endearing half, moves a little too quickly. I wish the whole book were like the second half.
Step Up 2: The Streets (2008): Not as good as the first one but good enough and great for 30 minutes of Wii Fit's free step. Nothing like people dancing to get you to forget your calves hurt a lot. The plot isn't genius but it's standard and satisfying. I thought it ended a bit abruptly.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962): I've never been a Sinatra fan and this didn't change my mind. I figured it out, for what that's worth, early on and it simply failed to have much of an impact. I'm vaguely curious to read the book to see if it is more successful in terms of suspense.
Persepolis (2007): Eh. Interesting enough I guess but it doesn't quite go far enough. Something crucial is missing to form a complete story arc. I am interested in this book, too, just to see if the movie misses something. I do, however, love the animation and the use of color.
Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008): If they showed that gum one more time! And the vomit? Gross. The movie was cute enough but it could have been brilliant. The problem, well one of them, is that is just gives up at a certain point. Someone who has some influence thought "Dude! Wouldn't be it super cool to have them have sex at Electric Lady Studios and have the equalizer register the noise!" Problem is from the moment she falters and then goes into the studio, the whole movie falters and the moment looks incredibly contrived, as does the moment at the party where they confront the toxic-boy/girlfriends, as does the escalator moment. So this movie filled with cute honest moments winds up looking hollow. Just for a quick look at an equalizer.
Alfie (1966): Ugh. I only made it to the halfway mark, well not quite even the halfway mark. I just couldn't tolerate it and, on top of that, it was immensely boring. I always hear how likable Michael Caine makes the character. How great it is that this complete womanizing cad can be made human. Um, no. I hated him and I didn't like the women he was involved with so I didn't care about any sort of relationship they were having. And I was particularly annoyed with his use (or lack thereof, rather) of pronouns. All women were "birds" so apparently the appropriate pronoun is then "it." I can get past "birds." Whatever. But "it"? Even birds have genders. And it's just so sickeningly sexist. Especially for 1966! Ugh. Gross.
Shall We Dance? (Shall we dansu?) (1996): This is the Japanese movie, not the JLo/Richard Gere movie. I think the plot is the same (I've not seen the American one) but I also think it makes more sense in the Japanese context in which ballroom dancing is really seen as odd. It's cute and funny but a little long at over 2 hours for a basic romcom.
Firmin by Sam Savage (2006): A fluff book that was to be a reward for slogging through 3 of 5 books of 2666. It's a cute premise and cute packaging (there is a bite taken out of the side of the book--albeit one too large to have been taken by a rat). I hated it until page 74. The book is only 164 pages long. The first 74 pages is nonsense. Pure nonsense. So, the book is about a rat named Firmin who somehow knows how to read and just happens to be born in a used bookstore. Ok. Whatever. But the first 74 pages are filled with nonsense. I can't even explain how stupid some of it is. But at page 74, it all turns around because Firmin is taken in by a hippie deadbeat author and the book has a relationship around which to revolve. That makes all the difference. The book actually becomes endearing at this point. Too bad it's almost half over. The second half, the endearing half, moves a little too quickly. I wish the whole book were like the second half.
Monday, February 16, 2009
2666 by Roberto Bolano (2008); "2. The Part about Amalfitano" and "3. The Part about Fate"
I reassert my opinion that this book is very uneven. I enjoyed parts of each section but skimmed through others.
Part 2 focuses on Oscar Amalfitano, who appeared briefly in Part 1 as a tour guide of sorts for the critics, and his family. Here I must, again, complain about the fact that women's voices in this novel are not regularly heard except through letters to men with whom they have abruptly severed sexual relationships. Amalfitano's wife, Lola tells her life's story through letters to him after she has left him and their daughter, Rosa. Lola's life is interesting and parallels the search for an author in Part 1 as she goes in search of a poet but we don't get her story first hand. Because this is the second instance and echoes the silencing of Liz, it bothers me all the more. The remainder of the section follows Amalfitano as he moves with his daughter from Spain to Mexico and as he goes through something of a mental break. Not incredibly interesting
Part 3 focuses on Oscar Fate (a little trite given Amalfitano's first name is Oscar . . . not to mention Fate as a last name . . . . ) who is an African-American journalist working for an Af-Am-centric publication. This section gets very boring very quickly as Oscar is working on a report about a founding member of the Black Panthers--the entirety of a speech the man gives is documented and I find that incredibly boring and unnecessary. Bolano seems to lack a certain grasp on the idea of brevity and synopsis. Anyway, Oscar then gets recruited to cover a boxing match in Mexico in Amalfitano's city (the same city to which the critics chased Archimboldi) and gets tangled up in some dubious dealings involving Amalfitano's daughter Rosa and her shady friends. This section is interesting but ends on a strange note with narratives bouncing back and forth between times and possibly points of view, not a narrative strategy in the book so far. So far, this is the best book in terms of consistency and being concise and honestly making me want to continue the book (after the Black Panther speech that is). Maybe the rest of the book will follow? I look forward to seeing how these narratives come together, or don't. At any rate, I've only read 349 pages of 898 so a lot is left to happen.
Part 2 focuses on Oscar Amalfitano, who appeared briefly in Part 1 as a tour guide of sorts for the critics, and his family. Here I must, again, complain about the fact that women's voices in this novel are not regularly heard except through letters to men with whom they have abruptly severed sexual relationships. Amalfitano's wife, Lola tells her life's story through letters to him after she has left him and their daughter, Rosa. Lola's life is interesting and parallels the search for an author in Part 1 as she goes in search of a poet but we don't get her story first hand. Because this is the second instance and echoes the silencing of Liz, it bothers me all the more. The remainder of the section follows Amalfitano as he moves with his daughter from Spain to Mexico and as he goes through something of a mental break. Not incredibly interesting
Part 3 focuses on Oscar Fate (a little trite given Amalfitano's first name is Oscar . . . not to mention Fate as a last name . . . . ) who is an African-American journalist working for an Af-Am-centric publication. This section gets very boring very quickly as Oscar is working on a report about a founding member of the Black Panthers--the entirety of a speech the man gives is documented and I find that incredibly boring and unnecessary. Bolano seems to lack a certain grasp on the idea of brevity and synopsis. Anyway, Oscar then gets recruited to cover a boxing match in Mexico in Amalfitano's city (the same city to which the critics chased Archimboldi) and gets tangled up in some dubious dealings involving Amalfitano's daughter Rosa and her shady friends. This section is interesting but ends on a strange note with narratives bouncing back and forth between times and possibly points of view, not a narrative strategy in the book so far. So far, this is the best book in terms of consistency and being concise and honestly making me want to continue the book (after the Black Panther speech that is). Maybe the rest of the book will follow? I look forward to seeing how these narratives come together, or don't. At any rate, I've only read 349 pages of 898 so a lot is left to happen.
Catching Up Again: 5 Movies
The MacKintosh Man (1973):
My love of Paul Newman is certainly a documented fact. I just wish all of the movies he was in could measure up to his acting ability. The MacKintosh Man (whose tagline gives away a piece of information not revealed (or true) until the middle of the movie) is a mess of a spy movie. If you were the dumbest person alive, you might not figure out the whole thing before it's done but, with even a tiny bit of sense or experience with spy movies, you'll know the grand secret long before the movie thinks you should. All of that, of course, results in a spy movie with a significant lack of suspense. No need to see it.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975):
No, I hadn't seen this one in its entirety until recently but I had seen most of it. I liked it well enough but will admit to falling asleep in the middle of it for a bit . . .
The Pianist (2002):
I am not a devotee of Adrian Brody. I just don't really get it. And The Pianist really failed to connect with me on an emotional level. I just didn't care. And I didn't believe that he was tortured by not being able to play piano for all of those years. It's fine but not wonderful.
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946):
Wow, the movies I've seen recently are lackluster or just plain bad. This one falls into the just plain bad category. It's long and boring. Very long and very boring which resulted in me only making it through half of it.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008):
This is a beautiful movie. Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt have to be two of the most beautiful people alive. It has it's problems and isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, which is only magnified by all of the hype surrounding it even before it was released. It is, for example, not as good a movie as The Dark Knight. But, on its own merit, it is a good, enjoyable movie.
My love of Paul Newman is certainly a documented fact. I just wish all of the movies he was in could measure up to his acting ability. The MacKintosh Man (whose tagline gives away a piece of information not revealed (or true) until the middle of the movie) is a mess of a spy movie. If you were the dumbest person alive, you might not figure out the whole thing before it's done but, with even a tiny bit of sense or experience with spy movies, you'll know the grand secret long before the movie thinks you should. All of that, of course, results in a spy movie with a significant lack of suspense. No need to see it.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975):
No, I hadn't seen this one in its entirety until recently but I had seen most of it. I liked it well enough but will admit to falling asleep in the middle of it for a bit . . .
The Pianist (2002):
I am not a devotee of Adrian Brody. I just don't really get it. And The Pianist really failed to connect with me on an emotional level. I just didn't care. And I didn't believe that he was tortured by not being able to play piano for all of those years. It's fine but not wonderful.
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946):
Wow, the movies I've seen recently are lackluster or just plain bad. This one falls into the just plain bad category. It's long and boring. Very long and very boring which resulted in me only making it through half of it.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008):
This is a beautiful movie. Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt have to be two of the most beautiful people alive. It has it's problems and isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, which is only magnified by all of the hype surrounding it even before it was released. It is, for example, not as good a movie as The Dark Knight. But, on its own merit, it is a good, enjoyable movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)