Starring the Voices of: Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Catherine Keener, Chloris Leechman
Directed By: Chris Sanders, Kirk De Micco
Run Time: 1 hour 38 minutes
The Croods is about a stone age family. Grug is the father of a caveman family (voiced by Cage) and is very protective of his family - and with good reason. Other cavemen haven't lived as long because of the dangerous elements - living conditions and predators. His teenage daughter Eep (voiced by Stone) wants to live outside of a cave. She had adventure in her soul. She sneaks out of the cave one night and meets up with a teenage boy named Guy (voiced by Reynolds) and his pet named Belt. It is then that the family discovers that their cave isn't the safest place to be and the group heads across the land with Guy as their guide in search of a safer home. Guy and Eep both connect with their love of adventure and new things; Grug the traditionalist butts heads with Guy.
I wanted to like this movie. It seemed different. It seemed cute. Unfortunately, I think it tried a little too hard to be too different and too cute. And in an effort to be different, it completely re-invented history. And that bothered me. Perhaps there really were tusked cats that stood two stories high... but I highly doubt they were rainbow colored. If there was one out of place character, I could forgive it. But when everything but the family (and there were dynamics of the family that weren't accurate, either) was completely made up, that unsettles me. I only laughed once. I'm not sure I really smiled much, either. But the story and action did hold me, And the pre-ending did make me sad. A little tear spilled into my eye when Grug and his cave companion snuggled up during the dark and scary night.
I'm not quite sure what the message was. Um, Dads are wrong and overprotective? Dads are old fashioned and have a tough time changing with the times... but in the end, their strength and love for the family win out? Only people with ideas survive?
I did not see this movie in 3D. Not sure you have to. Nothing really struck me as would have been enhanced by comin' at ya.
This movie reminded me of Avatar with its blues and purples and its funky creatures in its funky world. Flowers that ate you if you weren't a fellow flower? Hmmmm... It also reminded me of Pitch Black with its carnivorous birds that came out at night. But unlike Pitch Black, there seemed to be too many surviving creatures to support that action. Finally, it reminded me of Ice Age (all installments), with the family moving to higher ground, moving from their home as the world changes, and the sidekick weasels. This movie's sidekick Belt was not as cute or as funny as the previews had you believe.
The acting was pretty good... although I think Grug should have spoken in more incomplete broken sentences. He seemed a little lower on the evolutionary scale. He was a little too eloquent.
All in all a decent movie. Sweet. Interesting. Action-packed. But just not quite there. Tried too hard to be different, so much so that it was off-putting. Kids might like it. It's not too scary (save the giant cat stalking and trying to eat the family).
Friday, April 19, 2013
March Movie #2: Jack the Giant Slayer (in 3D)
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane
Run Time: 1 hour 54 minutes
Directed By: Bryan Singer
Jack the Giant Slayer is basically Jack and the Beanstalk. A boy gets some magic beans and they accidentally meet with dirt and water and thus the giant beanstalk begins growing to the heavens where giants live. This version alludes to the traditional Jack and the beanstalk story, as both a fairy tale told to children and as an actual historical event. It happened hundreds of years ago. As the beanstalk grows in this version, it tangles up a princess and a young man named Jack, pushing them into the giants' world. The princess gets separated from Jack and by the time Jack and the princess's guards find her, she's been captured by the giants. The crew now has to save the princess and keep their world safe from the giants.
A non-sequitur: I keep thinking the title of this movie is Jack AND the Giant Slayer because the fairy tale is Jack and the Beanstalk. That kinda changes the movie a bit. Jack giant slayer - liked it. Thought that it was sweet. Are all giants stinky and hairy? That was my take-away. Action packed. Likable hero. Likable princess, which is always a plus. And Stanley Tucci with hair. Evil Stanley Tucci with hair. Is he always evil when he has hair?
It's been a few weeks since I watched this movie and I didn't jot down my thoughts afterwards. I can't quite remember much about the movie other than I liked it. I know I wanted Stanley Tucci's character to be more evil (I love Stanley Tucci) but perhaps that he had hair (he's bald) was evil enough. I really liked the stories that both sets of parents read to their children (Jack and the princess). I liked how that formed them in different yet similar ways. And I liked that Jack and the princess had that connection, that belief in fairy tales.
All in all, a good movie. Not one I'd own but I did like it. But then, I just like to say Tucci.
Run Time: 1 hour 54 minutes
Directed By: Bryan Singer
Jack the Giant Slayer is basically Jack and the Beanstalk. A boy gets some magic beans and they accidentally meet with dirt and water and thus the giant beanstalk begins growing to the heavens where giants live. This version alludes to the traditional Jack and the beanstalk story, as both a fairy tale told to children and as an actual historical event. It happened hundreds of years ago. As the beanstalk grows in this version, it tangles up a princess and a young man named Jack, pushing them into the giants' world. The princess gets separated from Jack and by the time Jack and the princess's guards find her, she's been captured by the giants. The crew now has to save the princess and keep their world safe from the giants.
A non-sequitur: I keep thinking the title of this movie is Jack AND the Giant Slayer because the fairy tale is Jack and the Beanstalk. That kinda changes the movie a bit. Jack giant slayer - liked it. Thought that it was sweet. Are all giants stinky and hairy? That was my take-away. Action packed. Likable hero. Likable princess, which is always a plus. And Stanley Tucci with hair. Evil Stanley Tucci with hair. Is he always evil when he has hair?
It's been a few weeks since I watched this movie and I didn't jot down my thoughts afterwards. I can't quite remember much about the movie other than I liked it. I know I wanted Stanley Tucci's character to be more evil (I love Stanley Tucci) but perhaps that he had hair (he's bald) was evil enough. I really liked the stories that both sets of parents read to their children (Jack and the princess). I liked how that formed them in different yet similar ways. And I liked that Jack and the princess had that connection, that belief in fairy tales.
All in all, a good movie. Not one I'd own but I did like it. But then, I just like to say Tucci.
Monday, April 8, 2013
March Movie #1: Oz the Great and Powerful
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff, Joey King
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Directed By: Sam Raimi
Oz the Great and Powerful is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. It explains how how the wizard Oz arrived in the land of Oz, as well as why the wicked witches were so wicked. For those of you who have read or seen Wicked, it does not support that version at all (which was a bit disappointing). The green witch wasn't born green and she truly was wicked. She may not have started off that way, but she did turn that way.
I have a rule for myself when watching a movie - no eating popcorn until the actual movie starts. It's how I appease the karmatic cinema gods. I jinxed this movie by eating my popcorn before the movie started. I figured, it's Oz, it's got to be good. Ha! Turns out, I made the movie bad.
It carried on the stylistic tradition and had a bit of the whimsical fairy tale flare as the first, but that is where it stopped. The original was smart. This one tried too hard to keep the essence of the original.The story was interesting. The message was very powerful- trust in yourself and you can do great things. Or, if you're a good enough charlatan, you can fool the gullible or the sheltered. The opening scene in Oz (not the Kansas scene) seemed to be like a bad high school play. The dialog. The timing. The acting. It just fell short of even being good. I was bored. I wasn't impressed. It was predictable.
Over the top. Awkward. Trying too hard. Acting that just wasn't reaching its depth. These are the themes that kept resonating throughout Oz. I didn't like how they were forcing, reinforcing how good Theodora (played by Mila Kunis) was with the pleasant , wispy voice (Mila Kunis was working really hard at that pleasant voice). Her outfits, while very reminiscent of the glam of the 40s, just also seemed strange. The big hat made quite an entrance but seemed awkward the more the hat was on screen. Michelle Williams was channeling her Maryiln Monroe character. She was a little too breathy at times. It was reminiscent of the original Glenda. Also thought that the characters were a bit too "were trying to be different" looking. I liked Oz's entrance into Oz with everything being musical. But the water fairies thing were too over the top, too much of "we're trying to make something different". The monkey - isn't that what the original flying monkey looked like? And the lion. Is that how he becomes the Cowardly lion? And then later Oz fixes him? And he doesn't try to eat people again?
This movie does explain many of the original Oz tale things - the green witch. The wizard... who wasn't really a wizard. Why the witches were evil. Interesting references to things to come as well as an homage to the original with the start in black and white and the characters from Kansas taking form in Oz. Of course, some of the homages to the original just seemed too much - like the Little People. They definitely seemed like they were stuck in the 40s.
It's not bad, it's not good. And it's definitely not great. I was hoping for the magic. Oz doesn't have any and neither does this movie.
What this movie is really telling me is to stay out of Kansas during tornado season (since both movies took place originally in Kansas and a tornado sweeps the character into Oz).
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Directed By: Sam Raimi
Oz the Great and Powerful is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. It explains how how the wizard Oz arrived in the land of Oz, as well as why the wicked witches were so wicked. For those of you who have read or seen Wicked, it does not support that version at all (which was a bit disappointing). The green witch wasn't born green and she truly was wicked. She may not have started off that way, but she did turn that way.
I have a rule for myself when watching a movie - no eating popcorn until the actual movie starts. It's how I appease the karmatic cinema gods. I jinxed this movie by eating my popcorn before the movie started. I figured, it's Oz, it's got to be good. Ha! Turns out, I made the movie bad.
It carried on the stylistic tradition and had a bit of the whimsical fairy tale flare as the first, but that is where it stopped. The original was smart. This one tried too hard to keep the essence of the original.The story was interesting. The message was very powerful- trust in yourself and you can do great things. Or, if you're a good enough charlatan, you can fool the gullible or the sheltered. The opening scene in Oz (not the Kansas scene) seemed to be like a bad high school play. The dialog. The timing. The acting. It just fell short of even being good. I was bored. I wasn't impressed. It was predictable.
Over the top. Awkward. Trying too hard. Acting that just wasn't reaching its depth. These are the themes that kept resonating throughout Oz. I didn't like how they were forcing, reinforcing how good Theodora (played by Mila Kunis) was with the pleasant , wispy voice (Mila Kunis was working really hard at that pleasant voice). Her outfits, while very reminiscent of the glam of the 40s, just also seemed strange. The big hat made quite an entrance but seemed awkward the more the hat was on screen. Michelle Williams was channeling her Maryiln Monroe character. She was a little too breathy at times. It was reminiscent of the original Glenda. Also thought that the characters were a bit too "were trying to be different" looking. I liked Oz's entrance into Oz with everything being musical. But the water fairies thing were too over the top, too much of "we're trying to make something different". The monkey - isn't that what the original flying monkey looked like? And the lion. Is that how he becomes the Cowardly lion? And then later Oz fixes him? And he doesn't try to eat people again?
This movie does explain many of the original Oz tale things - the green witch. The wizard... who wasn't really a wizard. Why the witches were evil. Interesting references to things to come as well as an homage to the original with the start in black and white and the characters from Kansas taking form in Oz. Of course, some of the homages to the original just seemed too much - like the Little People. They definitely seemed like they were stuck in the 40s.
It's not bad, it's not good. And it's definitely not great. I was hoping for the magic. Oz doesn't have any and neither does this movie.
What this movie is really telling me is to stay out of Kansas during tornado season (since both movies took place originally in Kansas and a tornado sweeps the character into Oz).
Thursday, April 4, 2013
February Movie #8: A Good Day to Die Hard
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney
Run Time: 1 hour 37 minutes
Directed By: John Moore
Die Hard 4 was about John McLean's adult daughter Lucy. Die Hard 5 is about his son Jack. When John finds out that his son is in jail in Moscow for shooting someone, he heads to Russia to help his son.
Die Hard. I've loved most of the Die Hard movies (except 2). I did not love this one. Maybe it's because this one was in Russia, which seemed like a stretch to take a NY cop to a whole 'nother country. Part of liking a movie is being able to believe it. I just didn't believe this one. I didn't buy that a cop from NY, who, after running into his escaping son after a bomb exploded in the courthouse, would harass him as much he did. There was obviously something going on and a smart cop like McLean should have figured that part out. And then I don't think a cop would injure innocent bystanders in pursuit of his son. That seemed reckless and selfish. And then there's the whole Chernobyl scene. While I was fine with them breathing in contaminated air (there are animals who live there), I was not fine with falling into the water. That just seemed to be a contaminate you just should avoid. I was also not fine with the tool thing that sucked the radiation out of the air. Um, if they had that, why didn't they send it in before they started walking around?
I liked the twists. They were fun. I liked the spy son. I liked several of the references back to 1, like the bad guys fall off the building, reminiscent of Hans Gruber. But the two together were really cowboys and they should have had a tougher time and more injuries. And the injuries they had didn't seem to slow them down - like how did they stop the bleeding after john pulled thee rebar out of jacks side?
It was entertaining. It wasn't as good or as funny as the 4th one. Concept was a little far fetched. Dialog between the two Mcleans wasn't very interesting or believable. There wasn't much chemistry, even for an estranged father-son. There was an attempt at humor but most of those lines just fell flat. It was enjoyable. Stuff blew up. There was a lot of action. It wasn't a horrible experience. I was just hoping for a little something more from John McLean.
Run Time: 1 hour 37 minutes
Directed By: John Moore
Die Hard 4 was about John McLean's adult daughter Lucy. Die Hard 5 is about his son Jack. When John finds out that his son is in jail in Moscow for shooting someone, he heads to Russia to help his son.
Die Hard. I've loved most of the Die Hard movies (except 2). I did not love this one. Maybe it's because this one was in Russia, which seemed like a stretch to take a NY cop to a whole 'nother country. Part of liking a movie is being able to believe it. I just didn't believe this one. I didn't buy that a cop from NY, who, after running into his escaping son after a bomb exploded in the courthouse, would harass him as much he did. There was obviously something going on and a smart cop like McLean should have figured that part out. And then I don't think a cop would injure innocent bystanders in pursuit of his son. That seemed reckless and selfish. And then there's the whole Chernobyl scene. While I was fine with them breathing in contaminated air (there are animals who live there), I was not fine with falling into the water. That just seemed to be a contaminate you just should avoid. I was also not fine with the tool thing that sucked the radiation out of the air. Um, if they had that, why didn't they send it in before they started walking around?
I liked the twists. They were fun. I liked the spy son. I liked several of the references back to 1, like the bad guys fall off the building, reminiscent of Hans Gruber. But the two together were really cowboys and they should have had a tougher time and more injuries. And the injuries they had didn't seem to slow them down - like how did they stop the bleeding after john pulled thee rebar out of jacks side?
It was entertaining. It wasn't as good or as funny as the 4th one. Concept was a little far fetched. Dialog between the two Mcleans wasn't very interesting or believable. There wasn't much chemistry, even for an estranged father-son. There was an attempt at humor but most of those lines just fell flat. It was enjoyable. Stuff blew up. There was a lot of action. It wasn't a horrible experience. I was just hoping for a little something more from John McLean.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
February Movie #3: Oscar Nominated Animated Short Films
Movies Nominated:
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.
- Adam and Dog
- Fresh Guacamole
- Head Over Heels
- Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Day Care"
- Paperman
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.
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.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)