Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen
Run time: 1 hour 32 minutes
Directed by: Tommy Wirkola
I'd like to begin this review by mentioning that I thought the movie gods were shining down upon me and would bless me with a fabulous viewing when they made me go to this one. I had arrived at the theater with plenty of time to spare and tried to buy a ticket to see Parker (starring Jason Statham and Jennifer Lopez) but the time shown on the website was apparently incorrect. The next showing for that movie wouldn't start for over an hour. The next closest one to my desired showtime was the one that I was hemming and hawing about - Hansel and Gretel. I figured what not. Shoulda waited an hour to see Parker. Really should have waited. There is no movie god but there is a movie devil. And he was laughing at me today.
This movie had so much promise, just from the title alone. The concept seemed pretty fun, too. I went to go see Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter months ago and loved it. I was hoping something with a similar title would bring the same results. I was wrong.
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters is the extended - and much more violent - version of the original fairy tale. Hansel and Gretel find themselves lost in the woods and come across a cottage made of candy. And this marks the funniest line of the movie (a rare gem) about no good can come from a cottage made of candy. Inside lives a witch. She stuffs Hansel full of candy, fattening him up, while she makes Gretel clean the cottage. On the day the witch plans to roast Hansel, Gretel is fed up with her capture and pushes the old woman into the oven. And then fast forward 15 years. Hansel and Gretel have made quite a name for themselves as witch hunters. Since they spent a couple of days with a witch, they apparently can tell a witch from a human, are expert warriors, and know all the tricks to fighting - and killing - a witch.
Jeremy Renner was nominated a few years ago for his role in The Hurt Locker. His performance in Hansel and Gretel was not Oscar worthy. He wasn't alone in bad acting. Gemma Arterton, as Gretel, was equally abysmal. Famke Janssen as the Grand Dark Witch had an English accent that came and went with no reason. The only bright spot was the character Edward, a giant troll. He merely grunted a few words here and there and they were best acted lines of the whole movie. I was also worried that Jeremy Renner would embody Hawkeye (from The Avengers) too much, as if it were just an extension of that character, because the costumes were similar. Not to fear. His Hansel is nothing like is Hawkeye character.
The plot was riddled with cliches and laden with predictability. Witches are ugly and evil. They steal your children. If member of Wicca want to protest this movie, I feel they're well within their rights. Hansel and Gretel's past is full of mystery. Apparently there's a deep, dark family secret. Give ya one guess as to what it is. The script was full of hokey, cheesy, predictable, and stilted dialog. It was like watching a high school play written by a middle school kid.
The best part of this movie is the use of 3D. Bravo! Somebody got it right. All movies seem to think a great use of 3D is have some sort of sharp weapon come jabbing out at the audience. Seen it. Been there. Done that. Ain't alarmed or impressed by it anymore. This movie had all sorts of things flying out at the audience - like debris spinning and whirling. I ducked and gasped a few times. I actually swatted at something because it seemed like it was going to hit me in the face. I don't think I've ever had that reaction before because I'm so used to that sort of thing. This movie did it right. It caught me off guard.
At first, I liked the opening credits. It felt very Grimm fairy tale-esque. It was dark, it was a little gory. It told the story (and caught you up to what Hansel and Gretel were up to). But it kept coming. At the first couple of headlines, I picked up on the fact that they were heroes and witch hunters and saved a few kids. Thirty headlines tacked to cartoon trees later and I was bored. Overkill. You don't need to hit me over the head. I got it. They're witch hunters. It's in the title of the movie, for crying out loud!
I was a little put off but the use of modern language in an old timey setting. It just didn't seem to fit. There are some movies that can make this work but not this one. The dialog just kept falling flat. And, at first, Hansel and Gretel's old timey but very modernly firing weapons were funny and cool. But at some point they just became lame. It just didn't work. There is a lot of gore in this movie. Witches explode, body parts go flying, heads get lopped off, and giant trolls stepping on heads makes brain matter go squish. I had to look away a few times.
So... this movie is not at all like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. That movie had style. That movie was smart. That movie was well acted. This movie was none of those things. One bright note: It's only an hour and a half. You won't waste a full night if you opt to see it. If you're still on the fence about whether to see it, just know this: it's called Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. It's about Hansel and Gretel and they're witch hunters. You just got the whole movie right there.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
January Movie #7: Django Unchained
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson
Run Time: 2 hours 45 minutes
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
I am NOT a Quentin Tarantino fan AT ALL. If you watch an interview with him, you'll find that he's rambling and incoherent. His movies seem to be the same way. I have yet to find a movie of his I actually like so that past few movies of his I've skipped. I don't mind the violence. Or the swearing. I can handle both, damnit. I just never find his movies cohesive enough. They fail to entertain me. But since this one is Oscar nominated... you know what that means.
There have been several movies where, as I've walked out at the end, I've overheard the people walking in front of me complain about the movie. For The Hunger Games, two older ladies complained about how violent it was. Um, did they not read the books or watch any reviews or even understand that the plot puts teenagers in an arena to fight to the death - only one will come out? There have been a few others, too, where I've thought, "Did you not know anything about the movie you came to see?" Sometimes, I purposely stay away from reviews and synopsis because I don't want to know too much (sometimes, shockingly, reviews give away too many plot points that then ruin the surprise for me). But I always know something about the movie. Even though I knew nothing about Amour, at least I knew it was in French (which, for some people, is a shock in itself). And being a little movie savvy also helps figure some things out - like a Michael Bay movie is going to be heavy on the soundtrack, lots of action, and geared towards 14 year old boys. A Quentin Tarantino movie is going to have lots of violence and swearing. I've heard people/reviews complaining about the liberal use of the "N" word. That was this movie's swearing. But I was not at all prepared for the carnage. Heads exploding is one thing (cue The Last Stand - read that review if you don't know what I'm talking about) but all forms of body parts exploding and blood squirting out like a geyser is a completely different thing. Geyser of blood. From already shot up bodies. That keep getting shot up. I turned away many, many, many times and said under my breath, "Enough already!" So. Be warned. Be VERY warned. Lots and lots of blood. River of blood. People dying in gruesome ways (the poor slave with the dogs ripping him apart... it wasn't even tolerable in flashbacks). Violent doesn't even begin to describe this movie.
So... on to the movie. I am completely baffled as to why this movie is nominated AT ALL for any Oscar categories. The acting was okay (although Jamie Foxx was excellent). Christoph Waltz (who played the bounty hunter Dr. Shultz) was a joy. Smooth talker. I didn't quite understand why his character chose to go down his final path (but that says more about Tarantino's inability to grasp a concrete character). I expected to like DiCaprio because I like him in pretty much everything. There were parts in this movie where he was completely overacting and parts where he seemed to be underacting, to the point where it almost seemed like a high school production (where the idea is "if I say this loudly, it will convey great power!"). I was not impressed with Samuel L. Jackson's performance, either. I think he played his character too cocky. Most of this could boil down to an ineffectual director. To see what I'm talking about, watch the last scene of the movie, where Broomhilda (played by Washington) claps. He wrote the character and yet he doesn't even seem to know the character.
This movie was not cohesive. To me, it was several movies in one, as if Quentin didn't know when to stop or what to leave out. The first part of the movie teams up Django, a now freed slave, with a bounty hunter (played by Waltz). They hunt down several wanted criminals and earn lots of money as the bodies stack up. These criminals are wanted "Dead or Alive" so Dr. Shultz (the bounty hunter) decides it's easier to kill them rather than haul a living person in to collect his reward (bounty). And then the pair decide to go save Django's wife, who is on a plantation owned by Calvin Candie (played by DiCaprio). And the third part of the movie involves Django wrapping things up that Dr. Shultz was unable to do. This is why this movie is almost three hours long. And you feel every moment of those almost three hours.
The soundtrack is quite heavy. It over powers many scenes and definitely changes the mood. At first, I liked the opening Django theme song. It made it seem like it was a campy 50s spaghetti western (even an ode to Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles). But this movie is a not a campy spaghetti western so the theme song, after watching the scenes that followed, was out of line. The humor throughout the movie does lighten the violence and enhance the flow but it certainly doesn't make the movie better. It makes it different. Given the subject of the movie, the humor is also out of line. I did laugh a couple of times but I cringed over the violence more.
A couple of questions: If Django is a recently freed slave, how and why does he a). speak fairly eloquently and b). know how to read? Also, what was with Quentin Tarantino (he has a cameo at the end)'s Australian accent? Were there Australians in the US in 1858? I won't pretend to be very good about history, but that's about the time the British were colonizing Australia with convicts... Wouldn't think many of them were allowed to leave. Or if they did leave, if they had time to develop an accent.
I just did not like this movie at all. Parts were okay but it's definitely not Oscar worthy. The movie was all over the place. The plot just didn't gel. It was three movies in one. It was in desperate need of editing. Not because it was three hours but because I felt all three of those hours. A good movie makes you want more, not wish it would just end (and I looked at my watch a half dozen times and sobbed lightly when I realized how much longer I would have to endure). The acting was so-so. And the violence is gruesome and unnecessary. And too much of it. So, unless you like Quentin Tarantino movies, I highly suggest you skip this one. It will save you three hours of rambling bloodshed.
Run Time: 2 hours 45 minutes
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
I am NOT a Quentin Tarantino fan AT ALL. If you watch an interview with him, you'll find that he's rambling and incoherent. His movies seem to be the same way. I have yet to find a movie of his I actually like so that past few movies of his I've skipped. I don't mind the violence. Or the swearing. I can handle both, damnit. I just never find his movies cohesive enough. They fail to entertain me. But since this one is Oscar nominated... you know what that means.
There have been several movies where, as I've walked out at the end, I've overheard the people walking in front of me complain about the movie. For The Hunger Games, two older ladies complained about how violent it was. Um, did they not read the books or watch any reviews or even understand that the plot puts teenagers in an arena to fight to the death - only one will come out? There have been a few others, too, where I've thought, "Did you not know anything about the movie you came to see?" Sometimes, I purposely stay away from reviews and synopsis because I don't want to know too much (sometimes, shockingly, reviews give away too many plot points that then ruin the surprise for me). But I always know something about the movie. Even though I knew nothing about Amour, at least I knew it was in French (which, for some people, is a shock in itself). And being a little movie savvy also helps figure some things out - like a Michael Bay movie is going to be heavy on the soundtrack, lots of action, and geared towards 14 year old boys. A Quentin Tarantino movie is going to have lots of violence and swearing. I've heard people/reviews complaining about the liberal use of the "N" word. That was this movie's swearing. But I was not at all prepared for the carnage. Heads exploding is one thing (cue The Last Stand - read that review if you don't know what I'm talking about) but all forms of body parts exploding and blood squirting out like a geyser is a completely different thing. Geyser of blood. From already shot up bodies. That keep getting shot up. I turned away many, many, many times and said under my breath, "Enough already!" So. Be warned. Be VERY warned. Lots and lots of blood. River of blood. People dying in gruesome ways (the poor slave with the dogs ripping him apart... it wasn't even tolerable in flashbacks). Violent doesn't even begin to describe this movie.
So... on to the movie. I am completely baffled as to why this movie is nominated AT ALL for any Oscar categories. The acting was okay (although Jamie Foxx was excellent). Christoph Waltz (who played the bounty hunter Dr. Shultz) was a joy. Smooth talker. I didn't quite understand why his character chose to go down his final path (but that says more about Tarantino's inability to grasp a concrete character). I expected to like DiCaprio because I like him in pretty much everything. There were parts in this movie where he was completely overacting and parts where he seemed to be underacting, to the point where it almost seemed like a high school production (where the idea is "if I say this loudly, it will convey great power!"). I was not impressed with Samuel L. Jackson's performance, either. I think he played his character too cocky. Most of this could boil down to an ineffectual director. To see what I'm talking about, watch the last scene of the movie, where Broomhilda (played by Washington) claps. He wrote the character and yet he doesn't even seem to know the character.
This movie was not cohesive. To me, it was several movies in one, as if Quentin didn't know when to stop or what to leave out. The first part of the movie teams up Django, a now freed slave, with a bounty hunter (played by Waltz). They hunt down several wanted criminals and earn lots of money as the bodies stack up. These criminals are wanted "Dead or Alive" so Dr. Shultz (the bounty hunter) decides it's easier to kill them rather than haul a living person in to collect his reward (bounty). And then the pair decide to go save Django's wife, who is on a plantation owned by Calvin Candie (played by DiCaprio). And the third part of the movie involves Django wrapping things up that Dr. Shultz was unable to do. This is why this movie is almost three hours long. And you feel every moment of those almost three hours.
The soundtrack is quite heavy. It over powers many scenes and definitely changes the mood. At first, I liked the opening Django theme song. It made it seem like it was a campy 50s spaghetti western (even an ode to Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles). But this movie is a not a campy spaghetti western so the theme song, after watching the scenes that followed, was out of line. The humor throughout the movie does lighten the violence and enhance the flow but it certainly doesn't make the movie better. It makes it different. Given the subject of the movie, the humor is also out of line. I did laugh a couple of times but I cringed over the violence more.
A couple of questions: If Django is a recently freed slave, how and why does he a). speak fairly eloquently and b). know how to read? Also, what was with Quentin Tarantino (he has a cameo at the end)'s Australian accent? Were there Australians in the US in 1858? I won't pretend to be very good about history, but that's about the time the British were colonizing Australia with convicts... Wouldn't think many of them were allowed to leave. Or if they did leave, if they had time to develop an accent.
I just did not like this movie at all. Parts were okay but it's definitely not Oscar worthy. The movie was all over the place. The plot just didn't gel. It was three movies in one. It was in desperate need of editing. Not because it was three hours but because I felt all three of those hours. A good movie makes you want more, not wish it would just end (and I looked at my watch a half dozen times and sobbed lightly when I realized how much longer I would have to endure). The acting was so-so. And the violence is gruesome and unnecessary. And too much of it. So, unless you like Quentin Tarantino movies, I highly suggest you skip this one. It will save you three hours of rambling bloodshed.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
January Movie #6: Amour
Starring: Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva, Isabelle Huppert
Have I mentioned it's Oscar season? AMC Theaters announced their Oscar movie marathon days and line up. There are nine movies nominated. I have been sticking with seeing the five movie sessions because I'm not sure even I can handle NINE (or 10, some seasons) movies in a row. This year, both sessions have two movies that I've already seen and they seem to be smack dab in the middle. Previous years, if I had seen one, it was shown, luckily, at the end so I could simply leave early. In the four movie session, the two I haven't seen are playing locally. I decided I should try to see those two on my own. I could just see them all on my own. Maybe I will.
And that, folks, is the long, rambling introduction to why I chose to see Amour. Knowing nothing about it except that it's in French, this was my movie today. I probably should have read up on the plot, just so I knew what I was in for. I could have then brought some Kleenex. It's a tough movie. At least I knew it was in French. I thought that made me prepared for it.
I got to see it in the newly renovated Uptown Landmark theater and I have to say that the almost year long wait was not worth it. They took the charm out of the old, historic theater and replaced it with one that is new but awkward. In fact, it seems smaller. And they have the European style "assigned" seating (you have to choose your actual seat when you purchase the ticket). I don't think Minnesotans get it. Ushers were constantly telling people they were in the wrong seats and people seemed to not know, when choosing their seat on the screen, that the red X meant someone was sitting there... and that you don't need to choose the seat right next to them. But you can order some wine and sweet potato tater tots (perhaps not together) so some sort of quirkiness still lingers.
On to the movie. The plot. This movie is about an aging couple in France (I assume Paris). Anne, the wife, becomes paralyzed on the right side of her body ("It's just a symptom of aging," she explains to someone) and her husband Georges takes care of her at home as her health steadily declines. As you may have guessed, it's a tear jerker.
At first, Anne is in control of her faculties. She can speak, she can think, she can eat. She simply cannot move the right side of her body. With the aid of a wheelchair and her husband, she can get around their apartment. Some things like going to the bathroom and bathing and changing clothes have to be done with her husband's help. Anne is quite a dignified woman and these assisted tasks take a toll on her dignity. She occasionally accepts visitors but she does not leave the apartment. That's her way of hiding from her fate. She tries to do things by herself, to eliminate the burden she's putting on her husband, but those attempts usually add to his burden. Anne falls or gets trapped or breaks something in pursuit of her independence. Georges merely reminds her that all she has to do is ask. Anne contemplates ending her life. Georges won't hear of it.
This movie follows the couple through Anne's declining health, down to where she's incapacitated. She cannot move on her own and can barely speak. Her voice fails her; what she's thinking simply cannot come out intelligibly from her lips. For awhile, she's mentally capable, just physically incapable of expressing herself. And then her mind fails her. There are moments of clarity, moments of hope. Georges cherishes those moments and takes the rest in stride. The responsibility for taking care of his invalid wife weighs heavily on Georges, body and mind, whether he wants to admit it or not.
The way this movie unfolds is quite interesting. It is very non-Hollywood. I was struck by just how non-Hollywood this movie was with the opening credits. Plain, white credits on a black background. No music. No noise. No fanfare. Very simple. And quiet. Very unobtrusive. And it ends the same way. No fanfare. Quiet. Peacefully quiet. But there's a reason for that. The story is simple. There's not much to the plot. The movie is basically character development at its finest. All characters. Little plot. No fanfare. Very non-Hollywood. In a way, it's life. Not much happens, particularly when you're old and your spouse is dying. It's very beautifully told. It seems very real, almost like these people are not actors with scripts.
There are several scenes that struck me. One is a memory scene, or a fantasy scene. It took me a second or two to figure out that it wasn't real, it wasn't part of the current story. Anne was very much in deterioration at this point, mentally and physically. Her husband Georges sits staring at the piano and Anne begins playing. He's content. She looks beautiful. But she's not really playing. He's envisioning her sitting at the piano as she had for many, many years. He turns off the stereo that's been playing the piano music. The memory ends. There was another scene where Anne is moaning a word over and over again, with her left arm flailing about. That one reminded me of Ragna as she was dying and was the toughest to take.
This won't win Best Picture. It doesn't have enough bells and whistles to attract the vote. But it's a valiant effort. It's a tough movie to watch. If you've never been around someone elderly, watching their health deteriorate until they die, this movie will be an eye opener. It's also a reason to stay healthy. Some things are unavoidable, yes, but it will be my goal that I never have to put my husband - or family - through taking care of me (nor do I want someone to have to take care of me like that. I prefer to wipe my own butt, thank you very much). It definitely shines a light on the simple fact that it sucks to get old. Really sucks. But, I suppose, if I do have to be taken care of or have to take care of someone like this, I hope I do it with as much love and dignity as Georges did. I have happy little Ragna (my elderly neighbor), to whom everything was wonderful and never an unkind word ever left that woman's lips, as my role model and fictitious Georges now, too. Of course, my future most likely will involve a lot more yelling. But it is my goal to be gracious and dignified. Hopefully my crappy memory will store that away for future use.
Good movie. In French (with subtitles). Very realistic. Slow. Long (it's over 2 hours and it really takes a toll on you emotionally). Quiet. Moving. Sad. So sad. But honest. And scary. Very scary. No one should have to go through that. But some of us will.
Run Time: 2 hours 7 minutes
Directed By: Michael HanekeHave I mentioned it's Oscar season? AMC Theaters announced their Oscar movie marathon days and line up. There are nine movies nominated. I have been sticking with seeing the five movie sessions because I'm not sure even I can handle NINE (or 10, some seasons) movies in a row. This year, both sessions have two movies that I've already seen and they seem to be smack dab in the middle. Previous years, if I had seen one, it was shown, luckily, at the end so I could simply leave early. In the four movie session, the two I haven't seen are playing locally. I decided I should try to see those two on my own. I could just see them all on my own. Maybe I will.
And that, folks, is the long, rambling introduction to why I chose to see Amour. Knowing nothing about it except that it's in French, this was my movie today. I probably should have read up on the plot, just so I knew what I was in for. I could have then brought some Kleenex. It's a tough movie. At least I knew it was in French. I thought that made me prepared for it.
I got to see it in the newly renovated Uptown Landmark theater and I have to say that the almost year long wait was not worth it. They took the charm out of the old, historic theater and replaced it with one that is new but awkward. In fact, it seems smaller. And they have the European style "assigned" seating (you have to choose your actual seat when you purchase the ticket). I don't think Minnesotans get it. Ushers were constantly telling people they were in the wrong seats and people seemed to not know, when choosing their seat on the screen, that the red X meant someone was sitting there... and that you don't need to choose the seat right next to them. But you can order some wine and sweet potato tater tots (perhaps not together) so some sort of quirkiness still lingers.
On to the movie. The plot. This movie is about an aging couple in France (I assume Paris). Anne, the wife, becomes paralyzed on the right side of her body ("It's just a symptom of aging," she explains to someone) and her husband Georges takes care of her at home as her health steadily declines. As you may have guessed, it's a tear jerker.
At first, Anne is in control of her faculties. She can speak, she can think, she can eat. She simply cannot move the right side of her body. With the aid of a wheelchair and her husband, she can get around their apartment. Some things like going to the bathroom and bathing and changing clothes have to be done with her husband's help. Anne is quite a dignified woman and these assisted tasks take a toll on her dignity. She occasionally accepts visitors but she does not leave the apartment. That's her way of hiding from her fate. She tries to do things by herself, to eliminate the burden she's putting on her husband, but those attempts usually add to his burden. Anne falls or gets trapped or breaks something in pursuit of her independence. Georges merely reminds her that all she has to do is ask. Anne contemplates ending her life. Georges won't hear of it.
This movie follows the couple through Anne's declining health, down to where she's incapacitated. She cannot move on her own and can barely speak. Her voice fails her; what she's thinking simply cannot come out intelligibly from her lips. For awhile, she's mentally capable, just physically incapable of expressing herself. And then her mind fails her. There are moments of clarity, moments of hope. Georges cherishes those moments and takes the rest in stride. The responsibility for taking care of his invalid wife weighs heavily on Georges, body and mind, whether he wants to admit it or not.
The way this movie unfolds is quite interesting. It is very non-Hollywood. I was struck by just how non-Hollywood this movie was with the opening credits. Plain, white credits on a black background. No music. No noise. No fanfare. Very simple. And quiet. Very unobtrusive. And it ends the same way. No fanfare. Quiet. Peacefully quiet. But there's a reason for that. The story is simple. There's not much to the plot. The movie is basically character development at its finest. All characters. Little plot. No fanfare. Very non-Hollywood. In a way, it's life. Not much happens, particularly when you're old and your spouse is dying. It's very beautifully told. It seems very real, almost like these people are not actors with scripts.
There are several scenes that struck me. One is a memory scene, or a fantasy scene. It took me a second or two to figure out that it wasn't real, it wasn't part of the current story. Anne was very much in deterioration at this point, mentally and physically. Her husband Georges sits staring at the piano and Anne begins playing. He's content. She looks beautiful. But she's not really playing. He's envisioning her sitting at the piano as she had for many, many years. He turns off the stereo that's been playing the piano music. The memory ends. There was another scene where Anne is moaning a word over and over again, with her left arm flailing about. That one reminded me of Ragna as she was dying and was the toughest to take.
This won't win Best Picture. It doesn't have enough bells and whistles to attract the vote. But it's a valiant effort. It's a tough movie to watch. If you've never been around someone elderly, watching their health deteriorate until they die, this movie will be an eye opener. It's also a reason to stay healthy. Some things are unavoidable, yes, but it will be my goal that I never have to put my husband - or family - through taking care of me (nor do I want someone to have to take care of me like that. I prefer to wipe my own butt, thank you very much). It definitely shines a light on the simple fact that it sucks to get old. Really sucks. But, I suppose, if I do have to be taken care of or have to take care of someone like this, I hope I do it with as much love and dignity as Georges did. I have happy little Ragna (my elderly neighbor), to whom everything was wonderful and never an unkind word ever left that woman's lips, as my role model and fictitious Georges now, too. Of course, my future most likely will involve a lot more yelling. But it is my goal to be gracious and dignified. Hopefully my crappy memory will store that away for future use.
Good movie. In French (with subtitles). Very realistic. Slow. Long (it's over 2 hours and it really takes a toll on you emotionally). Quiet. Moving. Sad. So sad. But honest. And scary. Very scary. No one should have to go through that. But some of us will.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
January Movie #5: The Last Stand
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Forest Whitaker, Johnny Knoxville, Luis Guzmán, Jaimie Alexander, Rodrigo Santoro
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Directed By: Jee Woon Kim
Ah, Oscar season. It's what propels me to certain movies. Since I've seen a lot of "good for me" movies in the past couple of weeks, I opted to see a "bad for me" movie this time around. When the previews started, I giggled to myself because I knew I wasn't going to be seeing any for independent movies or serious (and often boring) dramas. I loved each preview. I have a huge list of movies I'm going to see once Oscar season is over. Interestingly enough, hmm.... why did they show previews for a Stallone movie and a Bruce Willis movie (two, in fact, and both take place in Russia...)? Ah, the Planet Hollywood connection is alive and well.
The Last Stand is about a small town in Arizona that's about to get some big trouble from an escaped convict, a ruthless drug kingpin. When every bit of outside help that's en route to help this small police staff gets killed by the escaped drug lord and his team, the local sheriff and his deputies band together to stop the convict themselves before he crosses the border.
Okay. Whoever would have thunk that Forest Whitaker and Arnold Schwarzenegger would ever be in a movie together? An Oscar winner and Schwarzenegger. Very interesting pairing. But I think casting Johnny Knoxville evened it all out.
This movie has a lot of heart and is very well done. And you'd never really know that this is Schwarzenegger's first real movie in, what, almost 10 years? He's a fairly decent action actor, really he is. And he wasn't that rusty. He did seem a lot slower. There were several scenes where they'd cut away from him when he started something (like getting out of a car) and then cut back to him when he was finished so that you didn't notice how slow he was. That made me giggle. But his acting was fine. It surprised me. It made me happy.
This movie has a lot of cute, funny little lines. The humor adds to this movie's heart. And the humor is very much needed because there's a lot of gore. If there's an action movie quota for number of exploding heads, this movie exceeded it. Everybody's head exploded. Nasty. I turned away several times. There weren't that many violent scenes, thank goodness. Perhaps a half dozen, and each one many people exploded. Body parts were flying.
I think this movie played very well to the strengths of the actors. Schwarzenegger was tough and unyielding, with a quiet, commanding "take-charge, kick-butt" presence. Johnny Knoxville shined as the eccentric gun aficionado. Really Johnny Knoxville shined. He was funny. He was quirky. He provided a lot of comedic fodder. Luis Guzmán was a great sidekick, another source of humor.
All in all, this was a great little diversion of a movie. No thinking required (because the one time I did think, it was out of annoyance - um, why were there actual ears of corn left on the stalks in that dried up corn field? That's just not right!). Good action scenes. Well done. Good story. Acting was more than decent for an action movie. It moved well. A little gory for my taste but the humor removed that uneasy memory. So, if just want to watch something that allows for some escapism, this movie certainly does that trick.
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Directed By: Jee Woon Kim
Ah, Oscar season. It's what propels me to certain movies. Since I've seen a lot of "good for me" movies in the past couple of weeks, I opted to see a "bad for me" movie this time around. When the previews started, I giggled to myself because I knew I wasn't going to be seeing any for independent movies or serious (and often boring) dramas. I loved each preview. I have a huge list of movies I'm going to see once Oscar season is over. Interestingly enough, hmm.... why did they show previews for a Stallone movie and a Bruce Willis movie (two, in fact, and both take place in Russia...)? Ah, the Planet Hollywood connection is alive and well.
The Last Stand is about a small town in Arizona that's about to get some big trouble from an escaped convict, a ruthless drug kingpin. When every bit of outside help that's en route to help this small police staff gets killed by the escaped drug lord and his team, the local sheriff and his deputies band together to stop the convict themselves before he crosses the border.
Okay. Whoever would have thunk that Forest Whitaker and Arnold Schwarzenegger would ever be in a movie together? An Oscar winner and Schwarzenegger. Very interesting pairing. But I think casting Johnny Knoxville evened it all out.
This movie has a lot of heart and is very well done. And you'd never really know that this is Schwarzenegger's first real movie in, what, almost 10 years? He's a fairly decent action actor, really he is. And he wasn't that rusty. He did seem a lot slower. There were several scenes where they'd cut away from him when he started something (like getting out of a car) and then cut back to him when he was finished so that you didn't notice how slow he was. That made me giggle. But his acting was fine. It surprised me. It made me happy.
This movie has a lot of cute, funny little lines. The humor adds to this movie's heart. And the humor is very much needed because there's a lot of gore. If there's an action movie quota for number of exploding heads, this movie exceeded it. Everybody's head exploded. Nasty. I turned away several times. There weren't that many violent scenes, thank goodness. Perhaps a half dozen, and each one many people exploded. Body parts were flying.
I think this movie played very well to the strengths of the actors. Schwarzenegger was tough and unyielding, with a quiet, commanding "take-charge, kick-butt" presence. Johnny Knoxville shined as the eccentric gun aficionado. Really Johnny Knoxville shined. He was funny. He was quirky. He provided a lot of comedic fodder. Luis Guzmán was a great sidekick, another source of humor.
All in all, this was a great little diversion of a movie. No thinking required (because the one time I did think, it was out of annoyance - um, why were there actual ears of corn left on the stalks in that dried up corn field? That's just not right!). Good action scenes. Well done. Good story. Acting was more than decent for an action movie. It moved well. A little gory for my taste but the humor removed that uneasy memory. So, if just want to watch something that allows for some escapism, this movie certainly does that trick.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
January Movie #4: The Impossible
Starring: Naomi Watts, Ewan Mcgregor
Run Time: 1 hour 54 minutes
Directed By: Juan Antonio Bayona
As I've mentioned before, it's Oscar season. Naomi Watts is up for Best Actress for this movie, which is what drew me to it. It's probably not one I'd see without the Oscar pull. The Impossible is probably a movie you've never heard of. It's not a mainstream release (although I did see it at AMC now that they have an "Independence" offering). I only heard of it because of the nominations. And I'm not one for disaster movies (they give me nightmares) but again, since this one is nominated, I opted to see it.
The Impossible takes place in Thailand, on December 26, 2004. If you think back, you'll remember why this date & region are so important - it's where and when the worst tsunami hit. Maria Bennett (played by Watts) and her family - comprised of husband, 10 year old son Lucas, 7 year old son Thomas, and 5 year old son Simon - are on vacation, relaxing by the pool when the first tidal wave hits. This is the true story of what happened to her family.
Bring a box of Kleenex to this movie. Wow. There are so many horrible images and trying moments. I kept thinking I knew what was going to happen to each member of the family throughout the movie but, thankfully, I was wrong each time.
The way the story is told, how it unfolds, was very well done. There's not much leading up to the tsunami so at first, I was annoyed with how little time was spent on character development. But then when all the drama and trauma and action began spewing out, I was glad they didn't waste time with getting to know each character. The drama took a painfully long time to play out. Every few minutes a new heartache would emerge. The suspense was agony. "How will everything turn out?" "Who lives? Who dies?" The questions keep coming. My anxiety kept building.
The acting. All excellent. The actors spent a lot of time wet and grimy, which can't be fun. Since I haven't seen every movie with a nominated actor or actress, I can't compare. But, unfortunately, there's probably someone who will win over Naomi Watts. She does deserve her nomination, if only for the scene where she's being dragged towards help. I know I felt every bump for her. And Ewan Mcgregor deserved his Golden Globes Best Actor nom. There are a couple of anguished scenes for him that were sorrowfully riveting. The little boys were also quite good.
This movie does a wonderful job of depicting the magnitude of despair. The hospital. Wow. To survive the tsunami and then have to be one of a thousand people seeking medical treatment. First, the floors of the hospital were absolutely dirty. There's a lovely closeup as a boy peels an orange and the rind drops on the floor. Wow. A hospital with a dirty floor. A disgustingly dirty floor. And thousands of people need this hospital to survive. And that's just it - thousands of people need this hospital to survive. There are people on stretchers in the halls, in the supply closets, anywhere there's space.And then pan out onto the hospital grounds and see all the tents - more people. And each one with an absolutely ghastly injury. Have a broken leg? Well, you're going to have to wait a few days for treatment because there are people missing a limb, who have shrapnel sticking out of their torsos, whose faces are so swollen that you can't make out one distinguishing feature. It's a wonder that people actually found those that they were looking for.
One thing this movie made painfully clear: You can never prepare for a disaster. There's no hard and fast rule that applies to every kind of disaster. When I travel, I always bring Band-Aids and Benadryl and Advil and an ace bandage. Jeff always brings photocopies of our passports. We always have a bottle of water in our backpack when walking around. But none of that matters when a tidal wave drags you out to sea. And then the test really begins. How do you meet up with your travelling companions who were dragged under water and carried along water that 10 minutes ago wasn't there? How do you get help when all you see for miles is mountains of debris, things that used to be houses and gardens and cars, and no other people? The unknown is overwhelming and only adding to the pressure is the life and death situation.
The ending really hit me when the people sitting on the plane, who are on their way to a hot shower, a clean room, and an end to the nightmare they've endured, look out the window and see all of the destruction, see what they lived through. Normally, when you look out the window after leaving a vacation, there's a bit of nostalgia. I had to wonder, A). "Would they ever go on vacation again?" and B). "How does one truly ever recover from that?"
After the movie, it suddenly hit me why this movie was called The Impossible.
So... in sum, an incredibly harrowing tale. If disaster movies give you nightmare (which they do to me), you might want to stay away from this one. I know I'm going to have nightmares about tidal waves now. And I'm never going to be able to look out the window of a plane after a vacation quite the same way again. It's painful (in a good way). It's bleak, depressing, distressing, and just plain sad. But it's well done (the despair and agony). And well acted. And well told. You really feel what these people went through. That's a good thing and a bad thing. So... if you have nerves of steel and bring a box of Kleenex and someone to hug after the movie, it might be a good one to watch. If you can't do that, just take note that disasters suck. They make you stronger. They do a lot of damage. And you don't want to be caught in one. Hug your loved ones now.
One question: Why were there so few people on the plane at the end? With all that turmoil, you'd think they'd only fly full - or almost full - flights.
One observation: This movie is based on a Spanish family's experiences during the tsunami and yet the family in the movie are British (the husband's real name is Enrique but in the movie it's Henry...). With Naomi Watts' strawberry blond hair, I assumed that's what the real Maria had looked like (since she normally has platinum blonde hair). Why go to the length to change it? At the end, there was a picture of the family as they had looked in real life and Maria had black hair. Not that it matters but I thought it was an interesting change - from Spanish to British - that didn't seem necessary. This fact changes how a few scenes may have really happened - did the real life children speak fluent English?
Run Time: 1 hour 54 minutes
Directed By: Juan Antonio Bayona
As I've mentioned before, it's Oscar season. Naomi Watts is up for Best Actress for this movie, which is what drew me to it. It's probably not one I'd see without the Oscar pull. The Impossible is probably a movie you've never heard of. It's not a mainstream release (although I did see it at AMC now that they have an "Independence" offering). I only heard of it because of the nominations. And I'm not one for disaster movies (they give me nightmares) but again, since this one is nominated, I opted to see it.
The Impossible takes place in Thailand, on December 26, 2004. If you think back, you'll remember why this date & region are so important - it's where and when the worst tsunami hit. Maria Bennett (played by Watts) and her family - comprised of husband, 10 year old son Lucas, 7 year old son Thomas, and 5 year old son Simon - are on vacation, relaxing by the pool when the first tidal wave hits. This is the true story of what happened to her family.
Bring a box of Kleenex to this movie. Wow. There are so many horrible images and trying moments. I kept thinking I knew what was going to happen to each member of the family throughout the movie but, thankfully, I was wrong each time.
The way the story is told, how it unfolds, was very well done. There's not much leading up to the tsunami so at first, I was annoyed with how little time was spent on character development. But then when all the drama and trauma and action began spewing out, I was glad they didn't waste time with getting to know each character. The drama took a painfully long time to play out. Every few minutes a new heartache would emerge. The suspense was agony. "How will everything turn out?" "Who lives? Who dies?" The questions keep coming. My anxiety kept building.
The acting. All excellent. The actors spent a lot of time wet and grimy, which can't be fun. Since I haven't seen every movie with a nominated actor or actress, I can't compare. But, unfortunately, there's probably someone who will win over Naomi Watts. She does deserve her nomination, if only for the scene where she's being dragged towards help. I know I felt every bump for her. And Ewan Mcgregor deserved his Golden Globes Best Actor nom. There are a couple of anguished scenes for him that were sorrowfully riveting. The little boys were also quite good.
This movie does a wonderful job of depicting the magnitude of despair. The hospital. Wow. To survive the tsunami and then have to be one of a thousand people seeking medical treatment. First, the floors of the hospital were absolutely dirty. There's a lovely closeup as a boy peels an orange and the rind drops on the floor. Wow. A hospital with a dirty floor. A disgustingly dirty floor. And thousands of people need this hospital to survive. And that's just it - thousands of people need this hospital to survive. There are people on stretchers in the halls, in the supply closets, anywhere there's space.And then pan out onto the hospital grounds and see all the tents - more people. And each one with an absolutely ghastly injury. Have a broken leg? Well, you're going to have to wait a few days for treatment because there are people missing a limb, who have shrapnel sticking out of their torsos, whose faces are so swollen that you can't make out one distinguishing feature. It's a wonder that people actually found those that they were looking for.
One thing this movie made painfully clear: You can never prepare for a disaster. There's no hard and fast rule that applies to every kind of disaster. When I travel, I always bring Band-Aids and Benadryl and Advil and an ace bandage. Jeff always brings photocopies of our passports. We always have a bottle of water in our backpack when walking around. But none of that matters when a tidal wave drags you out to sea. And then the test really begins. How do you meet up with your travelling companions who were dragged under water and carried along water that 10 minutes ago wasn't there? How do you get help when all you see for miles is mountains of debris, things that used to be houses and gardens and cars, and no other people? The unknown is overwhelming and only adding to the pressure is the life and death situation.
The ending really hit me when the people sitting on the plane, who are on their way to a hot shower, a clean room, and an end to the nightmare they've endured, look out the window and see all of the destruction, see what they lived through. Normally, when you look out the window after leaving a vacation, there's a bit of nostalgia. I had to wonder, A). "Would they ever go on vacation again?" and B). "How does one truly ever recover from that?"
After the movie, it suddenly hit me why this movie was called The Impossible.
So... in sum, an incredibly harrowing tale. If disaster movies give you nightmare (which they do to me), you might want to stay away from this one. I know I'm going to have nightmares about tidal waves now. And I'm never going to be able to look out the window of a plane after a vacation quite the same way again. It's painful (in a good way). It's bleak, depressing, distressing, and just plain sad. But it's well done (the despair and agony). And well acted. And well told. You really feel what these people went through. That's a good thing and a bad thing. So... if you have nerves of steel and bring a box of Kleenex and someone to hug after the movie, it might be a good one to watch. If you can't do that, just take note that disasters suck. They make you stronger. They do a lot of damage. And you don't want to be caught in one. Hug your loved ones now.
One question: Why were there so few people on the plane at the end? With all that turmoil, you'd think they'd only fly full - or almost full - flights.
One observation: This movie is based on a Spanish family's experiences during the tsunami and yet the family in the movie are British (the husband's real name is Enrique but in the movie it's Henry...). With Naomi Watts' strawberry blond hair, I assumed that's what the real Maria had looked like (since she normally has platinum blonde hair). Why go to the length to change it? At the end, there was a picture of the family as they had looked in real life and Maria had black hair. Not that it matters but I thought it was an interesting change - from Spanish to British - that didn't seem necessary. This fact changes how a few scenes may have really happened - did the real life children speak fluent English?
Friday, January 4, 2013
January Movie #3: Les Misérables
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Eddie Redmayne
Run Time: 2 hours, 40 minutes
Directed By: Tom Hooper
Les Misérables is a story written by Victor Hugo and adapted into a musical. It's the story about redemption even in the most trying of times. Jean Valjean serves 19 years as a slave in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Upon his release, he is given papers that document him as a criminal and must report to parole once a month for the rest of his life. Although he has his freedom, his papers marking him as a criminal make sure he has nothing else. After a priest saves his life, Valjean decides to turn his life around. Years later, he's a mayor, owns a factory, and is wealthy. Fantine is an employee of his. When the other workers find out that Fantine has an illegitimate daughter, Fantine is fired (although Valjean does not know that she was fired). Fantine takes to the streets as a prostitute to earn money to send to her daughter. When Valjean finds her sick and dying in the streets and saves her from being arrested, he vows to help her daughter Cosette after Fantine dies. Valjean adopts Cosette and lives a modest life until they move to Paris. There Cosette meets the young rebel Marius and falls in love. The Revolution kills all of Marius' comrades but Valjean saves Marius, who has been badly injured in the battle. Knowing that Cosette will be in good hands with Marius and that his past will catch up to him, Valjean leaves... and then dies. Oh yeah, and all this time a cop named Javert has been trailing Valjean, trying to capture the parole breaker.
The musical was big when I was in high school. I had forgotten how much and how many of the songs I knew and that they stayed in my memory. No wonder I don't know who the 23rd president was. I have Les Mis songs bouncing around in my memory.
A musical is nothing without the music. And since there are really no spoken lines in this musical, the voices must be strong. It's singing all the time. I'm a fan of Hugh Jackman. I have Boy From Oz on my iPod. I chose his version over the Glee version so that has to say how much I like Hugh Jackman. I did not, sadly, like him in this performance. I found that some of the songs were either out of his range or just not suited to his voice. I cringed a couple of times. Not Pierce Brosnan in Momma Mia cringe but cringe nonetheless. I was amazed at how much I didn't like him. Perhaps I was so pleasantly surprised by the other strong voices that Hugh's paled in comparison. I wondered briefly to myself why Russell Crowe was cast as Javert, if he could sing and then I remembered that he's in a band. At first, I didn't quite think Russell Crowe suited the part... and then he sang The Confrontation and hit several wonderfully solid notes that I became a fan. Anne Hathaway was absolutely fabulous as Fantine. Fabulous. I was blown away by her voice. She has an amazing voice. I was sad when I realized that Fantine doesn't have many songs. She was seriously the best part of the movie. I wasn't a fan of Amanda Seyfried's Cosette. Too shrill. I hate that. She has a lovely voice but I wasn't enamored with how she handled the songs. The actress who played Éponine was an incredible voice. I preferred to listen to her during Rue Plumet – In My Life (a song that both sing).
This movie is almost three hours long (two hours, 40 minutes, to be precise). There was a moment towards the end where I thought, "Just another half hour to the end" but it just kept going. There's a lot more after Javert's suicide (to me, this isn't a spoiler because the story is well known, however, if I ruined something by mentioning this, I'm sorry). There were parts that were shortened or eliminated altogether so I'm unsure why the moments after Javert's suicide weren't abridged. Perhaps it's because I had to potty that my angst for closure was exaggerated.
Les Miserables was made into a movie in the 90s, starring Liam Neeson as Valjean and Geoffry Rush as Javert. I couldn't help but wonder if there'd ever be another role that Liam Neeson played that Hugh Jackman would remake. It was a weird thought, a weird feeling.
One note of annoyance: Why is it that these versions tend to have actors who speak with British accents? Gavroche, the little street urchin, had a downright Cockney accent. Um, this is about France... with French people... who should have French accents. Just sayin'.
I'm not quite certain if I like this movie or not. Several parts were rushed; several parts were elongated. Some of the singing wasn't quite polished and disturbed my ears. I was in tears over Fantine's death. I was in tears over Valjean's death (although there were moments of Hugh Jackman overacting). At first, I liked Sacha Baron Cohen's Thénardier and Helena Bonham Carter's Madame Thénardier, particularly in Master of the House... but then they annoyed me the longer they were in the movie... which may have been the point. And the sets looked like sets. Horrible sets from the 50s (cue West Side Story). Perhaps they were trying to make it look as though they were on Broadway... but then the water scene for Javert's death didn't align with that idea. Bizarre.
This movie is worth seeing simply for Anne Hathaway's performance of Fantine. The girl really can sing. Of course, feel free to leave after her death (although she does make an angelic comeback at the end).
Run Time: 2 hours, 40 minutes
Directed By: Tom Hooper
Les Misérables is a story written by Victor Hugo and adapted into a musical. It's the story about redemption even in the most trying of times. Jean Valjean serves 19 years as a slave in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Upon his release, he is given papers that document him as a criminal and must report to parole once a month for the rest of his life. Although he has his freedom, his papers marking him as a criminal make sure he has nothing else. After a priest saves his life, Valjean decides to turn his life around. Years later, he's a mayor, owns a factory, and is wealthy. Fantine is an employee of his. When the other workers find out that Fantine has an illegitimate daughter, Fantine is fired (although Valjean does not know that she was fired). Fantine takes to the streets as a prostitute to earn money to send to her daughter. When Valjean finds her sick and dying in the streets and saves her from being arrested, he vows to help her daughter Cosette after Fantine dies. Valjean adopts Cosette and lives a modest life until they move to Paris. There Cosette meets the young rebel Marius and falls in love. The Revolution kills all of Marius' comrades but Valjean saves Marius, who has been badly injured in the battle. Knowing that Cosette will be in good hands with Marius and that his past will catch up to him, Valjean leaves... and then dies. Oh yeah, and all this time a cop named Javert has been trailing Valjean, trying to capture the parole breaker.
The musical was big when I was in high school. I had forgotten how much and how many of the songs I knew and that they stayed in my memory. No wonder I don't know who the 23rd president was. I have Les Mis songs bouncing around in my memory.
A musical is nothing without the music. And since there are really no spoken lines in this musical, the voices must be strong. It's singing all the time. I'm a fan of Hugh Jackman. I have Boy From Oz on my iPod. I chose his version over the Glee version so that has to say how much I like Hugh Jackman. I did not, sadly, like him in this performance. I found that some of the songs were either out of his range or just not suited to his voice. I cringed a couple of times. Not Pierce Brosnan in Momma Mia cringe but cringe nonetheless. I was amazed at how much I didn't like him. Perhaps I was so pleasantly surprised by the other strong voices that Hugh's paled in comparison. I wondered briefly to myself why Russell Crowe was cast as Javert, if he could sing and then I remembered that he's in a band. At first, I didn't quite think Russell Crowe suited the part... and then he sang The Confrontation and hit several wonderfully solid notes that I became a fan. Anne Hathaway was absolutely fabulous as Fantine. Fabulous. I was blown away by her voice. She has an amazing voice. I was sad when I realized that Fantine doesn't have many songs. She was seriously the best part of the movie. I wasn't a fan of Amanda Seyfried's Cosette. Too shrill. I hate that. She has a lovely voice but I wasn't enamored with how she handled the songs. The actress who played Éponine was an incredible voice. I preferred to listen to her during Rue Plumet – In My Life (a song that both sing).
This movie is almost three hours long (two hours, 40 minutes, to be precise). There was a moment towards the end where I thought, "Just another half hour to the end" but it just kept going. There's a lot more after Javert's suicide (to me, this isn't a spoiler because the story is well known, however, if I ruined something by mentioning this, I'm sorry). There were parts that were shortened or eliminated altogether so I'm unsure why the moments after Javert's suicide weren't abridged. Perhaps it's because I had to potty that my angst for closure was exaggerated.
Les Miserables was made into a movie in the 90s, starring Liam Neeson as Valjean and Geoffry Rush as Javert. I couldn't help but wonder if there'd ever be another role that Liam Neeson played that Hugh Jackman would remake. It was a weird thought, a weird feeling.
One note of annoyance: Why is it that these versions tend to have actors who speak with British accents? Gavroche, the little street urchin, had a downright Cockney accent. Um, this is about France... with French people... who should have French accents. Just sayin'.
I'm not quite certain if I like this movie or not. Several parts were rushed; several parts were elongated. Some of the singing wasn't quite polished and disturbed my ears. I was in tears over Fantine's death. I was in tears over Valjean's death (although there were moments of Hugh Jackman overacting). At first, I liked Sacha Baron Cohen's Thénardier and Helena Bonham Carter's Madame Thénardier, particularly in Master of the House... but then they annoyed me the longer they were in the movie... which may have been the point. And the sets looked like sets. Horrible sets from the 50s (cue West Side Story). Perhaps they were trying to make it look as though they were on Broadway... but then the water scene for Javert's death didn't align with that idea. Bizarre.
This movie is worth seeing simply for Anne Hathaway's performance of Fantine. The girl really can sing. Of course, feel free to leave after her death (although she does make an angelic comeback at the end).
January Movie #2: Silver Linings Playbook
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver
Run Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes
Directed By: David O. Russell
Silver Linings Playbook follows Pat (played by Bradley Cooper) after he's released from a mental institution. He moves back in with his parents (played by Robert de Niro and Jacki Weaver) and tries to pick up the pieces of his life. In order to do that, he has to keep the issues that landed him in the mental hospital under control. He meets a wacky girl named Tiffany (played by Jennifer Lawrence) who helps him slay his demons.
I went to this movie because Bradley Cooper was nominated for a Golden Globe award for his portrayal of Pat. I'm hoping it will get an Oscar nom, too (and I can cross one more movie off that Oscar viewing list). I'm glad that Bradley Cooper is getting noticed for this role. It's a little different than what he normally plays. There's more meat to this character, more depth. He handled it well... although I think there was just a little something extra missing that would have made me a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination. I hope Jennifer Lawrence also gets nominated for something. They both do a great job in this movie.
I wasn't sure I was going to like this movie but I did. It starts off slow. Not sure if it was the acting or the lack of lead up to the drama but I didn't buy Bradley Cooper as crazy/having anger issues - at first - which is weird because in every other movie when he yells, I always think he sounds too angry. But the non crazy moments were good and I eventually got into his performance. I always wonder when actors are in scenes with great actors like de Niro (and in Lincoln, Daniel Day Lewis if the other actors are nervous or think, "Oh, my god, I'm in a scene with Robert de Niro!" because I'm always nervous for that person, feeling it for them, thinking it for them.
I like Jennifer Lawrence. I think she held her own. I liked her fleeting, spontaneous sudden bursts of crazy.
It was an interesting plot. A guy gets hospitalized for beating up his wife's lover... And yet he spent his whole life watching his own family's distinction, their own violence. It seems hypocritical. I'm glad he didn't focus on it, blame it. He was painfully aware of the irony, the hypocrisy. It was sad. And yet he really didn't hold it against his father. It was just there. There was a lot of crazy in that family, mostly with his father but also that his mother allowed it to continue. I did feel bad for Pat because it didn't seem as though people were really trying to help him with his issues. I think his mother was in denial - and so was his father - and other people tiptoed too much around him. I didn't really see anyone steering him in the right direction. He needed compassion and he needed someone to flat out tell him why what he did was wrong. Tiffany, while battling her own issues and psychosis, was the closest. I was frustrated at the lack of support he received. But I suppose that's why he really ended up in a mental hospital.
All in all, this is a decent movie and well acted. A lot of people in denial about their own mental issues but only one person who has been forced to deal with them. Frustrating. Good ending. I hope this movie gets more attention because it is a good one.
Run Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes
Directed By: David O. Russell
Silver Linings Playbook follows Pat (played by Bradley Cooper) after he's released from a mental institution. He moves back in with his parents (played by Robert de Niro and Jacki Weaver) and tries to pick up the pieces of his life. In order to do that, he has to keep the issues that landed him in the mental hospital under control. He meets a wacky girl named Tiffany (played by Jennifer Lawrence) who helps him slay his demons.
I went to this movie because Bradley Cooper was nominated for a Golden Globe award for his portrayal of Pat. I'm hoping it will get an Oscar nom, too (and I can cross one more movie off that Oscar viewing list). I'm glad that Bradley Cooper is getting noticed for this role. It's a little different than what he normally plays. There's more meat to this character, more depth. He handled it well... although I think there was just a little something extra missing that would have made me a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination. I hope Jennifer Lawrence also gets nominated for something. They both do a great job in this movie.
I wasn't sure I was going to like this movie but I did. It starts off slow. Not sure if it was the acting or the lack of lead up to the drama but I didn't buy Bradley Cooper as crazy/having anger issues - at first - which is weird because in every other movie when he yells, I always think he sounds too angry. But the non crazy moments were good and I eventually got into his performance. I always wonder when actors are in scenes with great actors like de Niro (and in Lincoln, Daniel Day Lewis if the other actors are nervous or think, "Oh, my god, I'm in a scene with Robert de Niro!" because I'm always nervous for that person, feeling it for them, thinking it for them.
I like Jennifer Lawrence. I think she held her own. I liked her fleeting, spontaneous sudden bursts of crazy.
It was an interesting plot. A guy gets hospitalized for beating up his wife's lover... And yet he spent his whole life watching his own family's distinction, their own violence. It seems hypocritical. I'm glad he didn't focus on it, blame it. He was painfully aware of the irony, the hypocrisy. It was sad. And yet he really didn't hold it against his father. It was just there. There was a lot of crazy in that family, mostly with his father but also that his mother allowed it to continue. I did feel bad for Pat because it didn't seem as though people were really trying to help him with his issues. I think his mother was in denial - and so was his father - and other people tiptoed too much around him. I didn't really see anyone steering him in the right direction. He needed compassion and he needed someone to flat out tell him why what he did was wrong. Tiffany, while battling her own issues and psychosis, was the closest. I was frustrated at the lack of support he received. But I suppose that's why he really ended up in a mental hospital.
All in all, this is a decent movie and well acted. A lot of people in denial about their own mental issues but only one person who has been forced to deal with them. Frustrating. Good ending. I hope this movie gets more attention because it is a good one.
January Movie #1: Lincoln
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, John Hawkes, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Run Time: 2 hours, 30 minutes
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Lincoln takes place during the Civil War with Lincoln's struggle to end the war and abolish slavery.
I went to this movie because it's sure to be an Oscar contender. I can see why. There are sure to be several categories nominated, particularly for Daniel Day Lewis as Best Actor. I marveled at how much Daniel day Lewis resembled Lincoln. At first, his voice didn't seem to fit (too high) but he just had humble mannerisms that fit the character. Sally Field (as Mary Todd Lincoln) was a bit overtaxed in some scenes. I didn't think she worked. Almost but not quite right. I didn't see as much desperation and crazy in her as there hinted to be. I did find a lot of Tommy Lee Jones' (as Thaddeus Stevens) acting to be over the top/ bad. I thought he worked too hard at it. You could see the effort. But he has a great sullen face that conveyed the mood without words. I'm glad his character commented on his wig in the movie because it was a bad wig. A really bad wig. Laughably noticeable. It kept pulling me out of the moment until he made the comment about it.
But the acting (and wigs) is just part of the movie. The story is another aspect. These types of movies always make me realize that I'm not as smart as I think I am. I'm also not as culturally sophisticated as I hope to be. I was a bit bored at the first 15 minutes of this movie during all the oration scenes. I kept thinking that the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter movie was better because it highlighted actual historical facts with a lot of cool vampire action. I kept waiting for the vampires - and action - in Lincoln. Vampire Hunter kept me entertained. It moved. I had to work at liking Lincoln.
What drew me into the movie was characterization. Lewis had such a wonderful handle on Lincoln. He played him as a humble man. Subtly funny man. I loved all Lincoln's stories. Some of the other characters didn't but I did. They were interesting and funny and well told by such a sincere man. Interesting the things he went to - toured battle sites - and things he handled - dealt with seemingly petty disputes. Presidents today don't stoop to that level. Also thought the way he interacted in public - travelling in an open carriage with no visible security - was brazen, considering people drew pistols (as witnessed by the aide procuring votes who had a pistol drawn on him) with abandon. Complex man. Seemed to take things to heart, a lot of emotional burden on him, but yet didn't interact with his wife with emotion on the level she needed, a level that might have kept her from going insane. He had reckless abandon with threatening her with a nut house and yet seemed so tender with her during most other interactions. He was kind... Until his wife really needed him to be kind. Interesting to see her stress level, her emotional demise. How intelligent Mary Todd was. How intelligent Lincoln was, with self proclaimed little education (although he was a lawyer). I did like his interaction with his oldest son and how if only he had reached out to his son, or let his wife see his emotions, it might have spared her the turmoil of her son enlisting. Although his enlistment made sense and I was disturbed at how neither of them wanted him to enlist. Good movie...
I liked it. I didn't love it. It was an interesting telling of the drama without caving to theatrics - like the amendment count. Most movies would have made the last vote the deciding vote. But the scene cut away from the vote count before the tally, thus adding further drama to the situation. The drama built to the action of the count, rather than a verbal disclosure of the count. The movie also didn't show the assignation scene. Tad's reaction to hearing his father was murdered was drama enough. It did play to what you think is going to be the assassination but wasn't. Interesting diversion. Spielberg should probably win for Best Director... but I'm basing that on solely this movie and not comparing it to what might be nominated.
One final note: Why is it that I'm the only one laughing at movies these days that aren't comedies (which, oddly, I don't laugh at)? Do people not get subtle humor, is that they're not paying attention, or is that moment really just not funny? I like to think it's not me. I seriously laughed many times at slight lines and was the only one laughing.
Run Time: 2 hours, 30 minutes
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Lincoln takes place during the Civil War with Lincoln's struggle to end the war and abolish slavery.
I went to this movie because it's sure to be an Oscar contender. I can see why. There are sure to be several categories nominated, particularly for Daniel Day Lewis as Best Actor. I marveled at how much Daniel day Lewis resembled Lincoln. At first, his voice didn't seem to fit (too high) but he just had humble mannerisms that fit the character. Sally Field (as Mary Todd Lincoln) was a bit overtaxed in some scenes. I didn't think she worked. Almost but not quite right. I didn't see as much desperation and crazy in her as there hinted to be. I did find a lot of Tommy Lee Jones' (as Thaddeus Stevens) acting to be over the top/ bad. I thought he worked too hard at it. You could see the effort. But he has a great sullen face that conveyed the mood without words. I'm glad his character commented on his wig in the movie because it was a bad wig. A really bad wig. Laughably noticeable. It kept pulling me out of the moment until he made the comment about it.
But the acting (and wigs) is just part of the movie. The story is another aspect. These types of movies always make me realize that I'm not as smart as I think I am. I'm also not as culturally sophisticated as I hope to be. I was a bit bored at the first 15 minutes of this movie during all the oration scenes. I kept thinking that the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter movie was better because it highlighted actual historical facts with a lot of cool vampire action. I kept waiting for the vampires - and action - in Lincoln. Vampire Hunter kept me entertained. It moved. I had to work at liking Lincoln.
I liked it. I didn't love it. It was an interesting telling of the drama without caving to theatrics - like the amendment count. Most movies would have made the last vote the deciding vote. But the scene cut away from the vote count before the tally, thus adding further drama to the situation. The drama built to the action of the count, rather than a verbal disclosure of the count. The movie also didn't show the assignation scene. Tad's reaction to hearing his father was murdered was drama enough. It did play to what you think is going to be the assassination but wasn't. Interesting diversion. Spielberg should probably win for Best Director... but I'm basing that on solely this movie and not comparing it to what might be nominated.
One final note: Why is it that I'm the only one laughing at movies these days that aren't comedies (which, oddly, I don't laugh at)? Do people not get subtle humor, is that they're not paying attention, or is that moment really just not funny? I like to think it's not me. I seriously laughed many times at slight lines and was the only one laughing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)