February Movie #7: Snitch

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Susan Sarandon
Run Time: 1 hour 52 minutes
Directed By: Ric Roman Waugh

Snitch is based on a true life story where a father becomes a drug dealer in order to get his son out of jail. When the son stupidly accepts a package sent from a friend that he knows contains drugs, he walks into a trap. The Drug Enforcement crew arrest him and he's put in jail. Even for a first time offender, the minimum jail time is 10 years. He can reduce his sentence if he gives the names of other drug dealers. He doesn't know any. His father then decides to find a big drug dealer and in order to do that, he becomes a drug dealer himself.

Forget what you know of The Rock's movies. This ain't like nothing he's done before. There's acting involved here... And very little action.


Not sure I liked it. The movie was decent. It really was well done. Well acted. Decent amount of action. The Rock gave a fine performance, one that doesn't involve him blowing things up or punching people, despite what the previews show (queue the end "chase" scene with cars shooting at the rock in a truck and cars flipping over). I did think it interesting that Susan Sarandon was in this with The Rock. At the start of his acting career, I don't think anyone could have predicted this pairing. But I just don't know if the movie really sucked me in. I think it was missing a bit of magic, that "gotcha" moment. I walked out of the movie feeling "Eh."

Although I felt "eh" (or, if you prefer a different term - "blah" or blasé) after watching this movie, I did have a bunch of thoughts. When a film gives me too much time to let my mind wander to its own devices, it can't be a good movie. My thoughts:

Whenever I see guys standing next to The Rock and they're taller than he is, it pulls me out of the movie. He's 6'4. Are there really an abundance of people out there taller than 6'4? I assume they're trying to make him seem more like an "everyday" man to make him shorter than others but it has the opposite affect on me. I find it jarring and am very conscious that this is a movie, of the decision.

I did find the end text very telling. There was definitely opinion there. There's a note at the end stating that the minimum sentence for a first time drug dealer is higher than for rapists. While this movie focused on an innocent kid setup by his friend, that's probably the exception to the rule. There has to be evidence that drug dealing, even when starting off fresh, leads to other crimes. Their current crime may be just drug dealing, but if left to their own devices would that expand to robbery and murder? Drug dealing is bad. Rape is bad. They're all bad. There's no reason to highlight that one gets more jail time than the others. Should they all be minimum 10 years?

One thing that bothered me - The Rock's character kept mentioning that he was in construction. I didn't see thar. Seemed to me that he was in Transportation. Is that such a hard industry for people to understand ? Even if he moved construction materials, he was still in Transportation. His trucks were branded to him, which is not something a small construction operation would do (privatize their transportation). Of course, this is just a sensitive area for someone ib Transportation... :-)

So... It's a good movie, not great. It's just missing that little something extra. It's a little different from The Rock's normal movies (which is not what makes this an "eh" movie). He's always been a decent actor in his action movies. This one gives him a chance to shine. Maybe his next acting movie will encompass more.

February Movie #6: Zero Dark Thirty

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler
Run Time: 2 hours 39 minutes
Directed By: Katherine Bigelow

Zero Dark Thirty is about one CIA agent's quest to find Osama Bin Laden. This quest takes 9 years.


I hated this movie. Hated it from the moment it started. It starts off with a black screen with emergency calls from 9/11. It goes on for several minutes. There is not a person in that theater - or a person who would see this movie - that doesn't remember 9/11. I found the whole opening scene - which is designed to make you fearful, make you remember, make you sad, make you emotional - a crutch. And when your movie starts off with a crutch, that means it's going to limp the whole way through. AND it does. Dragging its injured limb the whole way, slowing you down.

After the September 11, 2001 opening, the movie jumps to 2002. Enter the woman who ultimately finds Bin Laden. It then feels as though we follow this movie in real time to 2011. It feels like it takes those 9 years to get to the point. This movie is SLOW. Nothing happens... Except a lot of talking and sitting behind a desk. Well, that and the torture scenes. Ugh. In theory, I'm okay with this sort of thing... In the movies... When it's fake. When you think that this actually happened, that's horrible. I would hope my government was above that sort of thing. But they weren't. And that doesn't make me happy. And then to say, "Hey, this is what we did" to the world is even worse. That makes us a bigger target for revenge. Too soon to show this. Too soon.

And then as soon as the torture stops, nothing else happens. NOTHING. God, this movie is slow. And boring. Yes, it was the finale to 13 hours of movies (Oscar movie marathon) but the day was going so well up until this movie. Bleh.

As I watched this movie, I picked what scene they'd use as  Jessica Chastain's Oscar clip. It was the only scene with emotion. I shouldn't be able to pick the Oscar clip.

Finally, the snipers set out to go get Bin Laden. I felt as though the helicopter ride to the compound was real time again. Twenty minutes of not much going on while a bunch of guys sit in the dark in a helicopter. And then one crashes just feet from the compound but the guys go in super quiet so that no one would know they were there. Um, a helicopter crashed feet away fro. The compound! I'm pretty sure everyone inside knew something was up!

Ugh. Can't stress it enough. Boring, boring, boring. Nothing happens. It was really painful to watch. Even if you like war movies, this one will probably not be one you'll enjoy. I guess if you like watching movies about someone talking and sitting behind a desk, you might like this one.

February Movie #5: Life of Pi

Starring: Irrfan Khan, Suraj Sharma
Run Time: 2 hours 6 minutes
Directed By: Ang Lee

Life of Pi is based on the book by Yann Martel. It follows the journey of Pi, the sole survivor of a shipwreck that claimed the lives of his entire family. He floats adrift in a life boat for over 150 days. As if that weren't bad enough, Pi's companion on the boat is an adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Pi fights to feed himself, feed the tiger, get drinkable water, and not get eaten by the tiger.

I read this book in anticipation of the movie.  Because I had read the book, I was disappointed by the movie's version of the story. I think if you go into the movie not having read the book, you won't be disappointed. A lot of things were left out of the movie. I was disappointed with that. Some were just little things left out - like the meerkats sleeping on him, Richard Parker and his burning feet, how he truly discovered the island was carnivorous, the blindness, the bumping into the Frenchman, the end of the orangutan, eating turtles, even the fact that Pi kept food under his blanket in the hospital and floating the bananas to prove his point. I don't understand why the smallest of images were omitted. They really helped the story - like the floating of the bananas. When I read the book, I was so looking forward to how things would appear on screen. And then they omitted those things that I was most looking forward to. Why? And I also wondered how they were going to show the second story and they took the cowards way out - simply a verbal retelling and not a visual. They glossed over a very important, a very emotional, a very strong moment in the second story - what happened to his mother. A simple verbal retelling of these events did not have the impact they did in the book.  I was actually dreading the second story but the glossing over cured that. There was not much to it, no real powerful impact. A lot of the omission of images, scenes, had an impact to the movie. It's a sad story. I just didn't feel as sad as I thought I was going to.

It took me a long time to read the book because there were at least a 100 or so pages about Pi dabbling in religion. There were probably 100 pages more before the boat sank. I wanted it to leap into the heart of the story because I already knew it was going to happen. The movie cut to the boat sinking faster. There was plenty of Pi growing up so you did get a sense of him and his family very well. I enjoyed that the heart of the movie was exposed sooner.

The images in this movie were beautiful, even the boat lying at the bottom of the ocean.  Overall, I did like the movie. I liked the visuals. They were pretty, especially the bio-luminescence encounter. That was cool. The 3D helped, too, to enhance the beauty. The uncle swimming, with the view looking up so that you see his stomach and the sky above him, which helped enhance the notion that the water was the clearest he'd ever seen. The whales and ocean life swimming below Pi in the water. I did find it interesting that the zoo looked like I pictured it.

Because the emotions - particularly the ending with the second story - are so much more intense in the book, I have to say that I liked the book better than the movie. While the visuals were stunning, it certainly didn't capture the essence of the trauma, the drama, the book. The movie fell flat. You should see the movie just for the beauty of it but just know that the book is better.

February Movie #4: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Starring: Quvenzhane Wallis
Run Time: 1 hour 34 minutes
Directed By: Benh Zeitlin

Beasts of the Southern Wild was nominated for Best Picture as well as Best Actress (9 year old Quvenzhane Wallis). It's about an island called "The Bathtub" and its inhabitants. The Bathtub was created when the levee was built in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. The area is home to those living almost completely off the grid. They seem to have their own laws, their own way of living. Hushpuppy lives in Bathtub and is being "raised" by her father. She seems to be mainly on her own. She even has her own shack, separate from her father. She is a tough little girl. In many ways, she takes care of herself. But she is still just a child.

This is an interesting movie. It's interesting because it's not really a typical movie. Not a lot happens. There's not a lot of dialog. Interesting cinematography. Blurry. Quick shots. Focus on things that didn't seem to be what the scene was about. In ways it added to the telling but in ways it pulled me out of the story. In addition to Hushpuppy's plight, there's a surreal, fantasy portion to the movie. In Hushpuppy's mind, an ancient boar emerges from it frozen encapsulation and makes its way down to Bathtub. 

Part of me marveled at how people could live like that. Didn't seem to be running water or a bathroom or heat. Part of me was upset that these people chose to live like this. Yes, they are free and do what they want (they make up holidays and have fun celebrating in their own way). The lack of money also makes them free - if they don't have to worry about bills, they don't have to worry about money. They don't really need money. But the house was such a pigsty that Hushpuppy didn't even sleep on a bed or have covers (or even a sweater; she just walked around in a tank top and I couldn't help but be cold for her). Part of me was amazed at how strong Hushpuppy was, how imaginative she was. Part of the movie is told through her thoughts of imagination - the ancient boar, which was actually her, roaming the land, looking for her. I was impressed at how much she knew - like how to blowtorch the stove on - and how little she didn't know. She was very much a kid free to be a kid because her father didn't spend too much time with her, checking in on her.   Tough little girl!

I think I spent too much time looking at the trash and clutter and hoarding mess in Hushpuppy's trailer rather than take this movie to heart. Since there's not a lot of dialog or action, it's easy to let your eyes wander (which may be the point). I spent too much time wondering how people could live like that and debating which lifestyle was better. I like indoor plumbing and education but Hushpuppy had a wisdom all her own that could only have been acquired through tough living. She may not know her ABCs but she knows how to  survive.

This movie is a yin yang. Part this, part that. It all fell together cohesively. I liked it but didn't love it.

February Movie #3: Oscar Nominated Animated Short Films

Movies Nominated:

• Adam and Dog
• Fresh Guacamole
• Head Over Heels
• Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Day Care"
• Paperman

I've seen two of these as the lead-in cartoon before another cartoon over the summer. The Simpson one was shown before Ice Age 4; Paperman was shown before Wreck It Ralph. For some reason, it always bothers me that "blockbuster"/Hollywood films get nominated. This is one of those categories where I always think the struggling movie maker should get the nom, not the already backed and produced film.

Spoiler Alert: I do give away pretty much the whole story to each of these shorts below. I figure most people won't see them anyway so this might give ya a chance to experience the movie without seeing the movie. Just a warning.

Adam and Dog is about Biblical Adam and a dog he finds in the Garden of Eden. There's not much to say about this one except I hated it. Hated it. The animation was horrible - it kept switching styles and that bothered me. I don't think it was intentional that the styles switched; I think it was two different animators. There's no talking. Adam simply stumbles upon a dog and the two become friends. At least the dog did. The day the dog spent with Adam was the best day of the dog's life. And then Adam meets Eve. He ditches the dog. And then Adam and Eve get expelled from the Garden of Eden. The dog doesn't care. He just wants to be friends with Adam. End of story. Too trite. There was nothing really different with this story than what you'd expect. Happy dog gets happier to meet someone who pays attention to him, plays with him, and gives him food. There was no twist. No real insight. Just 19 minutes of poorly drawn animation flipping by.

Fresh Guacamole is harmless. It's two minutes long. It's cute. Basically, guacamole is made. The items, although familiar, are replaced by nontraditional items. The avocado is a grenade that slices open easily but clay is scooped out of it. The onion is a baseball that, when sliced, turns into dice, and when chopped finer turns into teeny dive. The jalapeno is a green lightbulb. On the plant, it's lit. When plucked off the plant, the bulb isn't lighted. The lime is a ping pong ball. The tomato is a pin cushion. Salt and pepper come out as sequins. And the chips? Poker chips. Cute. But not gonna win.

Head Over Heels is a very sweet story. It's about an older couple who have gone two different directions in their relationship. One walks on the ceiling; the other on the floor. The share the same house but that's all that's left in their relationship. Until one day the husband makes a romantic gift for his wife, who doesn't see the gift right away. Later, when she does come across his present, she realizes that he still cares. She makes an effort to pull their two worlds back together. It's very sweet. This one is a strong contender for the win.

Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Day Care" was by far my favorite. To say that I'm an avid Simpson fan is to put it mildly. I watch the Simpsons every night as I fall asleep. It's my security blanket. Maggie is a great character. She seems so simple because she's a baby who can't talk and yet she has an amazing array of wisdom and insight. She's got a wonderfully kind heart. And that good heart shines in this movie. Maggie gets dropped off at day care. Her nemesis Baby Gerald (the Unibrow Baby) is killing butterflies and calling it art. Maggie befriends a caterpillar. Baby Gerald wants to squish it. Maggie hides the caterpillar and it goes into a cocoon. It hatches and turns into a beautiful butterfly but Baby Gerald is hot on its trail. Maggie saves the butterfly in the most simplest of ways. I loved it. Maggie the hero. It won't win the Oscar but in my heart, I will always think it should (if just for Maggie's woe of despair moment).

Paperman is probably the one that will win. It's got a lot of soul. It's in black and white, save the red lipstick on the charming woman's lips that a young office worker bumps into. One of his forms flutters away from him and smacks into the woman's face, leaving him with a momento of his encounter (her lipstick on his paper). They part. He can't stop thinking about her. The stack of papers on his desk keeps growing. He can't get his mind off this woman. What's this? She's in the building across from him? He throws a paper airplane at her. It misses. He makes and throws another one (after all, he has plenty of paper from the mountain of paperwork that keeps getting stacked on his desk). It misses, too. He makes another and another and another. They all miss. Finally, he runs out of the office to catch her as she exits the building. He doesn't catch her. He's dejected... but the pile of paper airplanes comes to life and intervenes to bring the two together. Aw. Very sweet. It's very well drawn and told. There's a lot of heart to this one. Since it was shown before a big Hollywood release (Wreck It Ralph), more people have probably seen this one than the others and it will probably win because of that. I don't think I'll be too upset if it does win because it was a sweet one. But I liked Head Over Heels more. That story hit home a little more.

February Movie #2: Warm Bodies

Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, John Malkovich, Rob Corddry

Run Time: 1 hour 37 minutes

Directed By: Jonathan Levine

Warm Bodies is about a zombie who falls in love with a zombie killer. He kidnaps her, keeps her safe from other zombies, and she learns that there is hope for the zombie race. 

When I saw the preview for this movie so many months ago, I was excited to see the movie. It sucked me in. I think I liked the preview more. This is not to say the movie is bad, just not as good as I had hoped it would be. 

The concept is great. The story is told from the point of view of a zombie. I've seen many zombie movies before and never have they empathized with the zombie (probably because they have a tendency to eat humans, particularly their brains, but let's face it, it's not like most humans are using their brains). This one gave the zombie some character, some personality. For the first time ever, I cared about a zombie. I doubt I'll be having zombie nightmares tonight. 

There were some very funny lines and some very funny scenes. I like R's (played by Hoult) memory of what life was like when there were more humans walking around because his memory of real humans showed mindless zombies, except they weren't real zombies. They were techno zombies, walking around staring at their iPods and SmartPhones and not talking or caring about anyone else. Hard to say which one is better, one that eats brains or one that lets their brain rot. 

But aside from a few funny lines and images and a great concept, this movie was blah. It was so slow. Nothing really happened. Even the end battle was a let down. Nothing really happened. I was actually bored. And it was quiet. There is very little gore and very little killing or zombie flesh eating. I did like the ending. It was very sweet. 

The premise for this movie is better than the execution. I liked it but I was really thinking I was going to love it. I didn't. The concept sucked me; the ending made me leave the theater with a smile on my face. 

February Movie #1: Parker

Starring: Jason Statham, Jennifer Lopez, Nick Nolte
Run Time: 1 hour 58 minutes
Directed By: Taylor Hackford

Parker is a movie based on the books/character by Donald E. Westlake (under the pseudonym Richard Stark). Parker is a ruthless, cold career criminal. He is a very professional criminal but when crossed or betrayed will stop at nothing to seek revenge. When the rest of his crew turns on Parker (played by Statham) after a heist, takes his share of the money, and leaves him for dead (actually, they thought he was dead), Parker catches up with him to retrieve that share... and more.

I didn't quite see this character as cold or ruthless. Statham neither plays him as cold nor is he written as such. When one of the guards suffers a panic attack during the original heist, Parker calms the man down. If he hadn't calmed him down, one of Parker's crew would have killed the man. And then there's Parker's girlfriend. He has flashbacks of encounters with her and they're all very sweet. There are also too many people along the way that Parker could have killed but instead just wounded (which sounds mean but given the alternative, no). Statham has too much of a twinkle in his eye to be sadistic and savage. Tough and not to be trifled with, yes. Ruthless and merciless, no.

Interestingly enough, this movie about a callous criminal is not as gory as you'd think. Heads do not explode. There are some ultra violent scenes (cue the mafia guy with a knife fight scene) and I did gasp in shock several times (even though I really knew it was coming in one instance). But it is not gory. Such a refreshing change from the last couple of action movies.

I was not a fan of Jennifer Lopez or her real estate character Leslie. I thought Leslie shared way too much personal stuff with Parker for no apparent reason (well, I suppose her reason was to hit on him but to tell him she hadn't spoken to her sister in years was not a seducing line). I don't think Parker needed her in his hunt for his old crew. I would have thought there would have been a more high tech way for Parker to find them, like Bluetooth passcode, or heck, even GPS in from their phone. Lopez might want to stick with romantic comedies instead of playing the damsel in distress. Or whiny damsel.

I'm not sure I buy several plot points, one being the need of a real estate agent to help him scour recently purchased houses in Palm Beach (and yet not tell her that's what you're really looking for). I don't buy that the crew needed $1.5 million to get $50 million in jewels. I don't get that those jewels can ever be sold.

Does Nick Nolte have throat cancer? Wow, was his voice gravelly. It was tough to watch/listen to his scenes.

Aside from a character not being who he was supposed to be (cold and ruthless) and another character being superfluous and several iffy plot points, I rather enjoyed this movie. I think it was the softness and likability that Statham brought to his character. I also rather enjoyed his girlfriend, sort of tough and yet sweet and definitely smart. So... not one that I'll own but definitely one that I enjoyed. I did think it was a little too long (two hours?). But it was an interesting ride. I liked it.

January Movie #8: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (in 3D)

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.

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.

January Movie #6: Amour

Starring: Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva, Isabelle Huppert

Run Time: 2 hours 7 minutes

Directed By: Michael Haneke

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.