Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Ellie Kemper, Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Chris O'Dowd
Directed By: Paul Feig
Run Time: 2 hours 5 minutes
Bridesmaids is about Lillian (played by Rudolph) who is getting married and asks her best friend Annie (played by Wiig) to be her Maid of Honor. Trouble ensues when Annie is introduced to Lillian's new friend Helen (played by Byrne) who is perfect - pretty, rich, and can plan a party like no one's business. Annie gets jealous because she's single, her bakery failed, she got fired from her temp job, and her roommate has kicked her out so she now lives with her mother.
I heard that this movie was fabulous, hilarious. Even Jeff really wanted to see it (but since he's on a business trip and he has a other movies he wants to see, I went without him). As I walked out of the theater (after it was over - don't think that it was so bad that I walked out before it was over because I certainly stayed to the end), I walked behind a group of elderly ladies who each thought this was the worst movie they had ever seen. So... was it the best or the worst? Eh. I thought it was okay. I did laugh... but not as much or as often or as hard as I hoped I would. I did find it entertaining but the underlying story - Annie putting herself and her own personal woes ahead of her friend's moment - put a sad jolt to the movie. Do friends really do that? I get that she was jealous of Helen. Helen was truly annoying and deserved to be punched (I am surprised that didn't happen at some point) but I would think most friends would put aside their petty squabbles, suck it up, plaster on a big smile, and trudge ahead. After all, it is your best friend's wedding. You can't screw that up.
Characters. This movie was filled with interesting characters, which was a really good part of the movie. I liked the side story with Officer Rhodes (played by O'Dowd) and how it connected back to Annie's bakery. It made Annie seem more human and not so vindictive and petty. Rhodes was a fun character. I giggled more when he was on screen than any other moment. He was probably the most real character in the movie. And although I didn't care for the character Megan (played by McCarthy), I did like how the actress played against her normal bubbly type cast. I liked how Megan's character was allowed to be more than just comic relief, where her real purpose finally came to light. I also liked how Helen's character gained another dimension as we get a glimpse into why she's the way she is - overly perfect. I think I probably connected with Annie, the failed baker who laments that her life isn't going the way she planned (and as a result doesn't get joy from baking any more).
Speaking of real characters: come on, ladies. Who among us doesn't know a Ted (played by Jon Hamm), particularly in the scene where he picks Annie up after her car breaks down (cue the steering wheel)? Um, yeah.
So... this movie is good. Not side-splitting hilarious but definitely not the worst movie I've seen. I giggled a lot. I think this movie crosses over the line of "chick flick" into just straight comedy. Guys should like it, too, particularly for the food poisoning scene and the post-credits "bear sandwich" scene. And possibly all scenes with Ted (and I'm sure many guys won't see anything wrong with Ted). There are a couple of risqué (without the nudity) scenes that are funny just because of the topics of conversation are not ones you normally hear in a movie. Funny. Different. Sweet. Fun.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
May Movie #5: Thor
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Clark Gregg
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior, is sent down to Earth as punishment for reigniting a reckless war. But after a dangerous villain from his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth, the hammer-wielding Thor will learn what it takes to be a true hero in order to save mankind.
I was actually quite bored with Thor. The opening didn't grab me the way I think it was intended to. I thought I'd also be more intrigued in the Norse mythology background (second opening scene) but that, too, bored me. I mean, it was well done and an interesting story, it just didn't suck me in. The middle also bored me. The ending, however, was excellent. The Earth ending was touching and the Asgard ending was poignant.
I think a big reason the movie seemed fairly boring to me is that a lot of the main characters were boring. For as smart as Natalie Portman is in real life, you'd think she'd make acting like a scientist look natural. Somehow, I just didn't get her as a scientist. Perhaps there wasn't enough technical talk to make her seem like her character was really a dedicated scientist or perhaps she was a little too chipper considering her life's work had been locked away by the government. Or perhaps it was because Jane (her character) just kept getting into stupid situations. I loved Darcy (played by Dennings) but most of her best lines were shown in the previews. So while she was plucky and interesting, the interesting level dips down a bit because I'd heard all of her pluckiness before the movie even started. I did not understand Dr. Selvig's role (played by Skarsgard) in the whole movie. He did little to advance or enhance the story other than to show Jane a book of children's tales of Norse mythology. Thor (played by Hemsworth), on the other hand, was an interesting character. You clearly get a sense of his ego and you clearly see how he changes - and why.
I saw this movie in 2D, which is worth mentioning because I don't think Branagh (the director) anticipated people actually watching this in 2D. There are some shots obviously geared for 3D - and they're not the typical stuff-coming-at-you 3D worthy shots. They're aerial scenery shots of Asgard. I think the style is intended to make you feel as though you're in Asgard, surrounded by the buildings, with people walking and riding horses towards you, but in 2D they're just blurry, dizzying, and disorienting. In 2D you do not get a sense of the magical majestic world. It's the opposite of awe-inspiring; it's more of "huh?-what-was-that-supposed-to-be" inducing. I think that's poor planning on the director's part.
I heard some comic book buffs talking about this movie (well, perhaps the comic book) with great gusto and enthusiasm They mentioned how it ties into Iron Man and some other recently released comic book hero movies (I forget which). This movie, unlike most of those other comic book superhero movies, is not as easily transferable. I think non-comic book geeks can like those other ones without having to have spent years developing a rapport with the characters. You can jump right in and love it, too. Iron Man was particularly easy to like, easy to understand, easy to enjoy. Thor, on the other hand, did not adapt well for the masses. Perhaps it was the hokey Thor-cyclone or his cheesy and oddly coiffed compadres or the uninspired looking Frost warriors, but it just didn't pull me in (and I am very easy to be pulled in).
That being said, unless this was already a movie on your must see list or you're an avid comic book fan or Norse mythology buff, it might be best to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Perfect for a rainy day where you're stuck inside. Make yourself a grilled cheese, a bowl of chicken with stars soup, and tie a cape around your neck to help you channel the superhero dreams you had as a child. That environment might help to enjoy this movie more.
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior, is sent down to Earth as punishment for reigniting a reckless war. But after a dangerous villain from his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth, the hammer-wielding Thor will learn what it takes to be a true hero in order to save mankind.
I was actually quite bored with Thor. The opening didn't grab me the way I think it was intended to. I thought I'd also be more intrigued in the Norse mythology background (second opening scene) but that, too, bored me. I mean, it was well done and an interesting story, it just didn't suck me in. The middle also bored me. The ending, however, was excellent. The Earth ending was touching and the Asgard ending was poignant.
I think a big reason the movie seemed fairly boring to me is that a lot of the main characters were boring. For as smart as Natalie Portman is in real life, you'd think she'd make acting like a scientist look natural. Somehow, I just didn't get her as a scientist. Perhaps there wasn't enough technical talk to make her seem like her character was really a dedicated scientist or perhaps she was a little too chipper considering her life's work had been locked away by the government. Or perhaps it was because Jane (her character) just kept getting into stupid situations. I loved Darcy (played by Dennings) but most of her best lines were shown in the previews. So while she was plucky and interesting, the interesting level dips down a bit because I'd heard all of her pluckiness before the movie even started. I did not understand Dr. Selvig's role (played by Skarsgard) in the whole movie. He did little to advance or enhance the story other than to show Jane a book of children's tales of Norse mythology. Thor (played by Hemsworth), on the other hand, was an interesting character. You clearly get a sense of his ego and you clearly see how he changes - and why.
I saw this movie in 2D, which is worth mentioning because I don't think Branagh (the director) anticipated people actually watching this in 2D. There are some shots obviously geared for 3D - and they're not the typical stuff-coming-at-you 3D worthy shots. They're aerial scenery shots of Asgard. I think the style is intended to make you feel as though you're in Asgard, surrounded by the buildings, with people walking and riding horses towards you, but in 2D they're just blurry, dizzying, and disorienting. In 2D you do not get a sense of the magical majestic world. It's the opposite of awe-inspiring; it's more of "huh?-what-was-that-supposed-to-be" inducing. I think that's poor planning on the director's part.
I heard some comic book buffs talking about this movie (well, perhaps the comic book) with great gusto and enthusiasm They mentioned how it ties into Iron Man and some other recently released comic book hero movies (I forget which). This movie, unlike most of those other comic book superhero movies, is not as easily transferable. I think non-comic book geeks can like those other ones without having to have spent years developing a rapport with the characters. You can jump right in and love it, too. Iron Man was particularly easy to like, easy to understand, easy to enjoy. Thor, on the other hand, did not adapt well for the masses. Perhaps it was the hokey Thor-cyclone or his cheesy and oddly coiffed compadres or the uninspired looking Frost warriors, but it just didn't pull me in (and I am very easy to be pulled in).
That being said, unless this was already a movie on your must see list or you're an avid comic book fan or Norse mythology buff, it might be best to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Perfect for a rainy day where you're stuck inside. Make yourself a grilled cheese, a bowl of chicken with stars soup, and tie a cape around your neck to help you channel the superhero dreams you had as a child. That environment might help to enjoy this movie more.
May Movie #4: Rio
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, George Lopez, Tracy Morgan, Jemaine Clement, Rodrigo Santoro, Will I Am, Leslie Mann
Directed By: Carlos Saldanha
Run Time: 1 hour 36 minutes
Rio starts off magestically with a wonderful burst of color, song, and dance as the birds of the jungle celebrate their joy of living the good life in such a beautiful place. And then it very quickly turns scary, horrifying, and sad as the birds get captured, including the baby Blu (voiced by Eisenberg). Life for him gets even scarier and sadder when his cage falls out of a truck in the middle of snowy Minnesota. He's cold. He's alone. He's scared. He's sad. And he's just a baby. Enter Linda (voiced by Mann), who rescues Blu. The two become inseparable best friends. Cut to 15 years later, Tulio (voiced by Santoro) enters their life. Tulio is an avian specialist from Brazil. He instantly recognizes Blu as a blue Macaw, one of the last few of his kind. He convinces Linda that she needs to fly with Blu to Rio so that Blu can meet Jewel (voiced by Hathaway), a female blue Macaw with hopes that the two can keep the line going. Not long after they arrive, Blu and Jewel are bird napped. They must find a way to escape and return to their comfy lives, with Blu at home in Minnesota and Jewel enjoying the freedom of the jungle in Brazil.
As you might have guessed, the opening scene scared and saddened me (ala Finding Nemo when his mother dies). I was actually shocked at how frightening and depressing it was. It was even more shocking to think that the subtle references to illegal animal trade (and capture) would go unnoticed by most and having that idea in my head made me more somber. There's also an interesting commentary on how wild animals shouldn't be domesticated (because birds who should fly never learn... which then means they're not being themselves... which also means they're not free). While one can argue that Blu, a highly domesticated animal, seems happy (albeit ignorant) in his pampered environment, one can't help but ignore what that same environment did to Nigel (voiced by Clement). Perhaps if he wasn't so domesticated, he wouldn't have been so evil.
Politics aside, this is a very cute movie... once you get passed the scenes depicting illegal animal trade (and there are a ton of them). The characters are fun.
This is the second movie I've watched this month that takes place in Rio. I point this out because, as a traveler, locale is of an interest to me. There seems to be a force trying to get me to Brazil.
On one hand, I liked the colors, and singing and dancing, and the quirky friends (and enemies). Who doesn't love a monkey wearing a gold watch as a belt? The colorful depiction of Carnivale was mesmerizing. On the other hand, it just didn't draw me in. It wasn't as cute and funny and quirky as it could have been. And that is really saying something because there was a bird versus monkey fight. I loved that. The imagery is hilarious. Bird on monkey fight. And there's also something side-splitting about a bulldog in gold Daisy Dukes. Don't get me wrong. Those scenes and lines gave me great delight. But the middle portion of the movie (once I got over being horrified and depressed) was a bit flat. And lest you think I'm just being a grumpy adult, perhaps the rightfully intended audience's (a child) assessment can sway you: Benjamin was so bored by this movie that he had to be escorted from the theater. If bright, dazzling colors and zinging songs with vibrant dances couldn't keep him from screaming, it can't be that enticing.
The ending was incredibly sweet. It had action. It had humor. It was quirky. It was inspirational. And it was redeeming. I really enjoyed the ending.
It's not a horrible movie. It's cute. It has its charm. It's fun. It is a little scary (illegal animal trade aside, Nigel the cockatiel is downright nightmare inducing). The colors are bold and beautiful. But it's just missing that extra oomph. Even Benjamin agrees with a very frustrated Hulk-style grunt.
Directed By: Carlos Saldanha
Run Time: 1 hour 36 minutes
Rio starts off magestically with a wonderful burst of color, song, and dance as the birds of the jungle celebrate their joy of living the good life in such a beautiful place. And then it very quickly turns scary, horrifying, and sad as the birds get captured, including the baby Blu (voiced by Eisenberg). Life for him gets even scarier and sadder when his cage falls out of a truck in the middle of snowy Minnesota. He's cold. He's alone. He's scared. He's sad. And he's just a baby. Enter Linda (voiced by Mann), who rescues Blu. The two become inseparable best friends. Cut to 15 years later, Tulio (voiced by Santoro) enters their life. Tulio is an avian specialist from Brazil. He instantly recognizes Blu as a blue Macaw, one of the last few of his kind. He convinces Linda that she needs to fly with Blu to Rio so that Blu can meet Jewel (voiced by Hathaway), a female blue Macaw with hopes that the two can keep the line going. Not long after they arrive, Blu and Jewel are bird napped. They must find a way to escape and return to their comfy lives, with Blu at home in Minnesota and Jewel enjoying the freedom of the jungle in Brazil.
As you might have guessed, the opening scene scared and saddened me (ala Finding Nemo when his mother dies). I was actually shocked at how frightening and depressing it was. It was even more shocking to think that the subtle references to illegal animal trade (and capture) would go unnoticed by most and having that idea in my head made me more somber. There's also an interesting commentary on how wild animals shouldn't be domesticated (because birds who should fly never learn... which then means they're not being themselves... which also means they're not free). While one can argue that Blu, a highly domesticated animal, seems happy (albeit ignorant) in his pampered environment, one can't help but ignore what that same environment did to Nigel (voiced by Clement). Perhaps if he wasn't so domesticated, he wouldn't have been so evil.
Politics aside, this is a very cute movie... once you get passed the scenes depicting illegal animal trade (and there are a ton of them). The characters are fun.
This is the second movie I've watched this month that takes place in Rio. I point this out because, as a traveler, locale is of an interest to me. There seems to be a force trying to get me to Brazil.
On one hand, I liked the colors, and singing and dancing, and the quirky friends (and enemies). Who doesn't love a monkey wearing a gold watch as a belt? The colorful depiction of Carnivale was mesmerizing. On the other hand, it just didn't draw me in. It wasn't as cute and funny and quirky as it could have been. And that is really saying something because there was a bird versus monkey fight. I loved that. The imagery is hilarious. Bird on monkey fight. And there's also something side-splitting about a bulldog in gold Daisy Dukes. Don't get me wrong. Those scenes and lines gave me great delight. But the middle portion of the movie (once I got over being horrified and depressed) was a bit flat. And lest you think I'm just being a grumpy adult, perhaps the rightfully intended audience's (a child) assessment can sway you: Benjamin was so bored by this movie that he had to be escorted from the theater. If bright, dazzling colors and zinging songs with vibrant dances couldn't keep him from screaming, it can't be that enticing.
The ending was incredibly sweet. It had action. It had humor. It was quirky. It was inspirational. And it was redeeming. I really enjoyed the ending.
It's not a horrible movie. It's cute. It has its charm. It's fun. It is a little scary (illegal animal trade aside, Nigel the cockatiel is downright nightmare inducing). The colors are bold and beautiful. But it's just missing that extra oomph. Even Benjamin agrees with a very frustrated Hulk-style grunt.
May Movie #3: Hanna
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett, and Eric Banna
Directed By: Joe Wright
Run Time: 1 hour 51 minutes
Hanna (played by Ronan) has spent her whole life being raised in the snowy wilderness - and remoteness - of Finland by her father (played by Banna). Her sole purpose in life is to assassinate Marissa Weigler (played by Blanchett). Her father has given her the skills to hunt and kill, a trained little warrior. When Hanna feels she is ready to perform her quest, she and her father part ways, with the instructions to meet up in Berlin. She leaves a trail of dead bodies in an attempt to fulfill her quest.
So many movies take place in Berlin! I'm glad I've toured Berlin. It makes me feel like I'm connected to the movie somehow. Of course, I'm pretty sure Hanna's Berlin and my Berlin were not one in the same. I went to touristy places that indulged my comfort level; the street vagrants in her Berlin probably reflected her comfort level - able to defend herself from anything.
The opening of this movie did not grab me, mainly because most of it was shown in the previews. I knew she was alone in the arctic; I knew she was a skilled hunter; I knew her father would sneak up on her and they would battle. I knew she had a well rounded arsenal of survival skills. But the question of why was she had been brought up in this world was very intriguing. It was interesting to see just how much of a machine she was - filled with book knowledge as well as combat knowledge. And it was also very interesting to see just how much of a teenager she was. She could bring down an elk with a bow and arrow and then gut it and clean its carcass like a grizzly seasoned hunter but then she was also prone to emotion (furious with
her father for forcing her to drag the elk back by herself as punishment for her failure to best him in their battle).
For all her warrior training, her father failed to teach her how to blend in naturally, how to assimilate. That extra training would have helped her accomplish her quest more easily. Perhaps the severity of living off the grid in the harshness of the remoteness was her downfall. If she grew up near civilization, she may have able to adapt to it better. Having never seen another person other than her father, never seen a computer, never seen a road or a car, never seen a TV were tremendous obstacles for her.
Mark my words: one day Saoirse Ronan will win an Oscar. She is an amazing actress. She gives an amazing performance as a little assassin. Cate Blanchett, who is an Oscar winning actress, was not as wonderful in this. First, her Southern accent was annoying. Second, she had an essence of diabolicalness but it wasn't fully materialized.
I was intrigued by this little girl. Who was she? Why was she there? And what was her quest? I was in awe of her, too. Such amazing agility and skill she possessed to navigate through the containment facility. I knew she was a trained assassin and those skills were also enticing. She was an amazing specimen. But again, who was
she? What was her backstory? What is her obession with Marissa Weigler? For that matter, what is her father's obsession with Marissa Weigler? He obviously wants her killed, but why?
I was captivated by the questions, the mystery, the unknown for most of the movie. But when the backstory was revealed, I was more than disappointed. I was disgusted. Anything would have been better than that! I'm tempted to reveal the reason why Marissa Weigler is trying to find Erik Heller and Hanna (and because she's trying to find them, they're trying to kill her) so that you will not waste your time seeing this movie. It is a great action movie up until then. I was riveted up until then. I was fascinated with the intrigue up until then. And then I didn't care to be watching the movie anymore. I didn't even care to see the ending.
Oh, the ending. Sigh. The implausbility is a let down. Hanna is such a skilled warrior that the implausibility is a slap in the face. The writer took the easy way out the way the scene was set up. This was a chance to redeem itself with a killer, high-octaned final chase scene and it fell flat.
I liked this movie up until a half hour before it ended. It was an intense ride with many turns and jolts. And then the ride ended abruptly, not because we were having so much fun that we failed to noticed we had actually come to the end but because the ride operator just decided to take a break... which made us walk down the tracks to the ride's end instead of coming to a screeching halt of scary fun. More than a let down. So you can certainly watch this movie to see such an amazing actress (Saoirse Ronan) but you should probably turn it off and walk away once her father enters her mother's old apartment in Berlin. Don't be tempted to find out who she is. Your imagination can keep the mystery alive.
Directed By: Joe Wright
Run Time: 1 hour 51 minutes
Hanna (played by Ronan) has spent her whole life being raised in the snowy wilderness - and remoteness - of Finland by her father (played by Banna). Her sole purpose in life is to assassinate Marissa Weigler (played by Blanchett). Her father has given her the skills to hunt and kill, a trained little warrior. When Hanna feels she is ready to perform her quest, she and her father part ways, with the instructions to meet up in Berlin. She leaves a trail of dead bodies in an attempt to fulfill her quest.
So many movies take place in Berlin! I'm glad I've toured Berlin. It makes me feel like I'm connected to the movie somehow. Of course, I'm pretty sure Hanna's Berlin and my Berlin were not one in the same. I went to touristy places that indulged my comfort level; the street vagrants in her Berlin probably reflected her comfort level - able to defend herself from anything.
The opening of this movie did not grab me, mainly because most of it was shown in the previews. I knew she was alone in the arctic; I knew she was a skilled hunter; I knew her father would sneak up on her and they would battle. I knew she had a well rounded arsenal of survival skills. But the question of why was she had been brought up in this world was very intriguing. It was interesting to see just how much of a machine she was - filled with book knowledge as well as combat knowledge. And it was also very interesting to see just how much of a teenager she was. She could bring down an elk with a bow and arrow and then gut it and clean its carcass like a grizzly seasoned hunter but then she was also prone to emotion (furious with
her father for forcing her to drag the elk back by herself as punishment for her failure to best him in their battle).
For all her warrior training, her father failed to teach her how to blend in naturally, how to assimilate. That extra training would have helped her accomplish her quest more easily. Perhaps the severity of living off the grid in the harshness of the remoteness was her downfall. If she grew up near civilization, she may have able to adapt to it better. Having never seen another person other than her father, never seen a computer, never seen a road or a car, never seen a TV were tremendous obstacles for her.
Mark my words: one day Saoirse Ronan will win an Oscar. She is an amazing actress. She gives an amazing performance as a little assassin. Cate Blanchett, who is an Oscar winning actress, was not as wonderful in this. First, her Southern accent was annoying. Second, she had an essence of diabolicalness but it wasn't fully materialized.
I was intrigued by this little girl. Who was she? Why was she there? And what was her quest? I was in awe of her, too. Such amazing agility and skill she possessed to navigate through the containment facility. I knew she was a trained assassin and those skills were also enticing. She was an amazing specimen. But again, who was
she? What was her backstory? What is her obession with Marissa Weigler? For that matter, what is her father's obsession with Marissa Weigler? He obviously wants her killed, but why?
I was captivated by the questions, the mystery, the unknown for most of the movie. But when the backstory was revealed, I was more than disappointed. I was disgusted. Anything would have been better than that! I'm tempted to reveal the reason why Marissa Weigler is trying to find Erik Heller and Hanna (and because she's trying to find them, they're trying to kill her) so that you will not waste your time seeing this movie. It is a great action movie up until then. I was riveted up until then. I was fascinated with the intrigue up until then. And then I didn't care to be watching the movie anymore. I didn't even care to see the ending.
Oh, the ending. Sigh. The implausbility is a let down. Hanna is such a skilled warrior that the implausibility is a slap in the face. The writer took the easy way out the way the scene was set up. This was a chance to redeem itself with a killer, high-octaned final chase scene and it fell flat.
I liked this movie up until a half hour before it ended. It was an intense ride with many turns and jolts. And then the ride ended abruptly, not because we were having so much fun that we failed to noticed we had actually come to the end but because the ride operator just decided to take a break... which made us walk down the tracks to the ride's end instead of coming to a screeching halt of scary fun. More than a let down. So you can certainly watch this movie to see such an amazing actress (Saoirse Ronan) but you should probably turn it off and walk away once her father enters her mother's old apartment in Berlin. Don't be tempted to find out who she is. Your imagination can keep the mystery alive.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
May Movie #2: Source Code
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright
Directed By: Duncan Jones
Run Time: 1 hour 34 minutes
Source Code is about a government experiment that enables a solider to relive the last eight minutes of one man's life over and over again, trying to find clues to the identity of the person who bombed the train in order to prevent a second, larger scale attack perpetuated by the same bomber.
I will give this movie credit for being original... if you consider that its predecessor Groundhog Day wasn't sci-fi/thriller/action slanted. This movie was a good mystery. I was incredibly engrossed with why Colter, the solider who leaps into the identity of a man on the doomed train (played by Gyllenhaal), doesn't remember how he got roped into this mission in the first place. But I quickly became highly annoyed that a trained soldier would seek to make the mission about finding himself, his own identity, what had happened to him and why he was on this mission, instead of the true task of the mission - stopping the bomber. He's supposed to be disciplined, trained to follow orders. He certainly wasn't following orders. And the fact that he was being selfish and caring about only himself was very unsoldier-like. It didn't make me like him as a character. I did feel bad for Michelle Monaghan, who had to keep repeating the same lines over and over again as Gyllenhaal's character was being forced to leap back into the same scenario over and over again because he wasn't getting the job done.
The opening scene floating through the skyline of downtown Chicago was absolutely beautiful. It definitely gives you a sense of serenity and naivety, that the people of Chicago have no idea that in a few short minutes their town will be ravaged by a maniac with a bomb. For the first ten minutes of this movie, as I tried to figure out what's going on, I liked it. But then Colter's actions and the fact that he had to keep reliving the same moment over and over and over again without learning anything put me off. I kept thinking in my head that someone would shout, "Groundhog Day!" It didn't happen.
The true nature of the Source Code (the government program) was upsetting and cruel. I didn't like that part. And I didn't understand why it had to be so. And I really didn't like the ending. Strike that. I liked what I thought was the ending - the freeze-frame glimpse at all the people on the train, happy in their final second, thinking that was how they were going to spend eternity. And I kinda liked what I thought was the ending again a few minutes later - [perhaps a glimpse of the characters in their version of heaven. But the final ending, how things changed, bothered the holy heck out of me. Talk about violating the space-time-continuum! So highly unlikely. Why, oh why, did they have to go that route? To teach the Dr. Rutledge (played by Wright) a lesson that you can't mess with the unconscious world? That you can't violate time travel by playing God with people's lives (or deaths)? That ending landed this movie squarely in my "do not like and will never watch again" category. Had me until then. Had me by a string until then. You seriously can't do that ending. Ugh.
Oooh, ooh! Just a bonus note: As Colter was speaking with his father on the phone, I kept thinking to myself, "That voice sounds familiar. I should know that voice!" It belongs to Scott Bakula. I find it very amusing since he played a character who leaped into the identities of others, setting right things which once went wrong. Hee hee hee. That I liked.
Directed By: Duncan Jones
Run Time: 1 hour 34 minutes
Source Code is about a government experiment that enables a solider to relive the last eight minutes of one man's life over and over again, trying to find clues to the identity of the person who bombed the train in order to prevent a second, larger scale attack perpetuated by the same bomber.
I will give this movie credit for being original... if you consider that its predecessor Groundhog Day wasn't sci-fi/thriller/action slanted. This movie was a good mystery. I was incredibly engrossed with why Colter, the solider who leaps into the identity of a man on the doomed train (played by Gyllenhaal), doesn't remember how he got roped into this mission in the first place. But I quickly became highly annoyed that a trained soldier would seek to make the mission about finding himself, his own identity, what had happened to him and why he was on this mission, instead of the true task of the mission - stopping the bomber. He's supposed to be disciplined, trained to follow orders. He certainly wasn't following orders. And the fact that he was being selfish and caring about only himself was very unsoldier-like. It didn't make me like him as a character. I did feel bad for Michelle Monaghan, who had to keep repeating the same lines over and over again as Gyllenhaal's character was being forced to leap back into the same scenario over and over again because he wasn't getting the job done.
The opening scene floating through the skyline of downtown Chicago was absolutely beautiful. It definitely gives you a sense of serenity and naivety, that the people of Chicago have no idea that in a few short minutes their town will be ravaged by a maniac with a bomb. For the first ten minutes of this movie, as I tried to figure out what's going on, I liked it. But then Colter's actions and the fact that he had to keep reliving the same moment over and over and over again without learning anything put me off. I kept thinking in my head that someone would shout, "Groundhog Day!" It didn't happen.
The true nature of the Source Code (the government program) was upsetting and cruel. I didn't like that part. And I didn't understand why it had to be so. And I really didn't like the ending. Strike that. I liked what I thought was the ending - the freeze-frame glimpse at all the people on the train, happy in their final second, thinking that was how they were going to spend eternity. And I kinda liked what I thought was the ending again a few minutes later - [perhaps a glimpse of the characters in their version of heaven. But the final ending, how things changed, bothered the holy heck out of me. Talk about violating the space-time-continuum! So highly unlikely. Why, oh why, did they have to go that route? To teach the Dr. Rutledge (played by Wright) a lesson that you can't mess with the unconscious world? That you can't violate time travel by playing God with people's lives (or deaths)? That ending landed this movie squarely in my "do not like and will never watch again" category. Had me until then. Had me by a string until then. You seriously can't do that ending. Ugh.
Oooh, ooh! Just a bonus note: As Colter was speaking with his father on the phone, I kept thinking to myself, "That voice sounds familiar. I should know that voice!" It belongs to Scott Bakula. I find it very amusing since he played a character who leaped into the identities of others, setting right things which once went wrong. Hee hee hee. That I liked.
May Movie #1: Fast Five
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Matt Schulze, Sung Kang, Gal Gadot, Dwayne Johnson, Elsa Pataky
Directed By: Justin Lin
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
The Fast Five picks up where part four left off - with Dom (played by Diesel) being sentenced to jail. The crew busts Dom out of jail and then they all hide out in Rio. They meet up with former crew member Vince (played by Schulze) who has a heist for them - steal some cars. The deal goes south when a part of the Rio crew kills some federal agents who try to stop them. Now Brian (played by Walker), Dom, and Mia (played by Brewster) are now numero uno on the FBI's most wanted list. In comes agent Hobbs (played by Johnson) who always gets his man.
The opening two minutes are probably the weakest minutes ever in film history. Dom gets sentenced. I know this movie is picking up exactly where part four left off but that was over two years ago and most of us just don't remember or care. It probably would have been more dramatic to see Dom in orange and shackles sitting on the prison transport bus with a voice over detailing the sentencing. But the movie quickly redeemed itself as Brian and Mia stop the bus and bust Dom out. I'm not sure how anyone survived the bus crash. And I'm really not certain I want a bus to rear-end the car I'm driving at highway speed. Seems to me there should have been a lot more damage to everyone involved. But then again, I am the girl who really believes a city bus can jump a hundred yards so I guess I can try to believe that a prison bus can rear-end a car and everyone - including the car - can walk away without a scratch.
That being said, this movie was fun. Not nearly as fun as the first one and the fourth one, but it was decent. Not good or great but decent. I loved seeing ALL the players (even the guy from Tokyo Drift) together in the same movie. Now that was fun. The disappointing part of the movie was that there were very few car chases/races. Very few. I'm ticking them off in my head and there were four. Probably should have been at least five.
I know that Dwayne Johnson bulked up thirty pounds of muscle to look a little more foreboding against Vin Diesel. That being said, their fight scene was a bit of a let down. Dwayne is several inches taller than Vin and a ton more muscle. Plus, he's a former wrestler. Vin is just a former bouncer. One tried to break up fights; the other was in fake fights. Still, I'd put my money on Dwayne any day. I think he just has more skills. So their fight scene was a bit of a disappointment to me. It was a little unrealistic. Kind of like a scene in Heat where Al Pacino beats up Henry Rollins. Um, yeah. Like that could happen. Oh, and watching two muscular bald guys roll around in the shadows makes it difficult to follow along. At one point I internally cheered and then realized it wasn't my guy that was winning. Oops. Some bald guy had a great punch.
I just recently watched The Rundown (starring Dwayne Johnson). It's a fairly decent flick. Really. And Dwayne does a really decent job in it. Really. And Vin Diesel was really good in Find Me Guilty. I know these two can act. Weird how it didn't come through in this movie. Perhaps it was the unbelievably corny lines they were given. "Above all else, we never let them get in the cars." I understand what point he was trying to make but there's just something flat about that line. And that's not even the hokiest line. I think it would have been funnier if he had said, "What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area." Hee hee hee.
The plot. Fairly straight forward for this type of a movie - revenge and stick it to the guy who stuck it to you. But what I wasn't okay with was the end cross-over. Don't buy that either character would do that, no matter how betrayed they felt. There are consequences for that type of action, no matter how corrupt Rio is.
Which brings us back to the final chase scene. Um, if a two ton safe is whipping around smashing into things like buildings, wouldn't the momentum flip the cars that are dragging it?
Hmm... I liked this movie (and will definitely go see Fast Six for a chance to see another Dwayne and Vin punching match) but I didn't love it. I was so hoping it would pull it out in the end but it didn't. Sure, the twist was fun (and I'll have to re-watch the 10 second advantage they had just to see if I can see the twist in action) but the whole tone of the movie was flat. It just needed an inch of an extra boost to really be fun. It missed it. Darnit. But I did like the Dwayne/Vin fight. The car chases/races were lacking the extra adrenalin boost, particularly since at least three of them were implausible (bus rear-ending Brian's dead-stopped car; the wrecker crashing into the train but not derailing it; and the safe being dragged through the streets without flipping the car dragging it). But I liked it. Didn't love it but liked it. Enough to make me see the next installment.
Directed By: Justin Lin
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
The Fast Five picks up where part four left off - with Dom (played by Diesel) being sentenced to jail. The crew busts Dom out of jail and then they all hide out in Rio. They meet up with former crew member Vince (played by Schulze) who has a heist for them - steal some cars. The deal goes south when a part of the Rio crew kills some federal agents who try to stop them. Now Brian (played by Walker), Dom, and Mia (played by Brewster) are now numero uno on the FBI's most wanted list. In comes agent Hobbs (played by Johnson) who always gets his man.
The opening two minutes are probably the weakest minutes ever in film history. Dom gets sentenced. I know this movie is picking up exactly where part four left off but that was over two years ago and most of us just don't remember or care. It probably would have been more dramatic to see Dom in orange and shackles sitting on the prison transport bus with a voice over detailing the sentencing. But the movie quickly redeemed itself as Brian and Mia stop the bus and bust Dom out. I'm not sure how anyone survived the bus crash. And I'm really not certain I want a bus to rear-end the car I'm driving at highway speed. Seems to me there should have been a lot more damage to everyone involved. But then again, I am the girl who really believes a city bus can jump a hundred yards so I guess I can try to believe that a prison bus can rear-end a car and everyone - including the car - can walk away without a scratch.
That being said, this movie was fun. Not nearly as fun as the first one and the fourth one, but it was decent. Not good or great but decent. I loved seeing ALL the players (even the guy from Tokyo Drift) together in the same movie. Now that was fun. The disappointing part of the movie was that there were very few car chases/races. Very few. I'm ticking them off in my head and there were four. Probably should have been at least five.
I know that Dwayne Johnson bulked up thirty pounds of muscle to look a little more foreboding against Vin Diesel. That being said, their fight scene was a bit of a let down. Dwayne is several inches taller than Vin and a ton more muscle. Plus, he's a former wrestler. Vin is just a former bouncer. One tried to break up fights; the other was in fake fights. Still, I'd put my money on Dwayne any day. I think he just has more skills. So their fight scene was a bit of a disappointment to me. It was a little unrealistic. Kind of like a scene in Heat where Al Pacino beats up Henry Rollins. Um, yeah. Like that could happen. Oh, and watching two muscular bald guys roll around in the shadows makes it difficult to follow along. At one point I internally cheered and then realized it wasn't my guy that was winning. Oops. Some bald guy had a great punch.
I just recently watched The Rundown (starring Dwayne Johnson). It's a fairly decent flick. Really. And Dwayne does a really decent job in it. Really. And Vin Diesel was really good in Find Me Guilty. I know these two can act. Weird how it didn't come through in this movie. Perhaps it was the unbelievably corny lines they were given. "Above all else, we never let them get in the cars." I understand what point he was trying to make but there's just something flat about that line. And that's not even the hokiest line. I think it would have been funnier if he had said, "What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area." Hee hee hee.
The plot. Fairly straight forward for this type of a movie - revenge and stick it to the guy who stuck it to you. But what I wasn't okay with was the end cross-over. Don't buy that either character would do that, no matter how betrayed they felt. There are consequences for that type of action, no matter how corrupt Rio is.
Which brings us back to the final chase scene. Um, if a two ton safe is whipping around smashing into things like buildings, wouldn't the momentum flip the cars that are dragging it?
Hmm... I liked this movie (and will definitely go see Fast Six for a chance to see another Dwayne and Vin punching match) but I didn't love it. I was so hoping it would pull it out in the end but it didn't. Sure, the twist was fun (and I'll have to re-watch the 10 second advantage they had just to see if I can see the twist in action) but the whole tone of the movie was flat. It just needed an inch of an extra boost to really be fun. It missed it. Darnit. But I did like the Dwayne/Vin fight. The car chases/races were lacking the extra adrenalin boost, particularly since at least three of them were implausible (bus rear-ending Brian's dead-stopped car; the wrecker crashing into the train but not derailing it; and the safe being dragged through the streets without flipping the car dragging it). But I liked it. Didn't love it but liked it. Enough to make me see the next installment.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
April Movie #2: Hop
Starring: James Marsden, Kaley Cuoco, Gary Cole, Russell Brand (voice), Hank Azaria (voice), and Hugh Laurie (voice)
Directed By: Tim Hill
Run Time: 1 hour 30 minutes
Hop is about the Easter Bunny's (voiced by Laurie) son E.B (voiced by Brand) who runs away from his responsibilities as the next Easter bunny. He heads to Hollywood to make it big as a drummer. There he runs into Fred (played by Marsden)... or rather, Fred runs to E.B... with his car. E.B. convinces Fred to take care of him and soon their lives intertwine.
I saw this movie with Dawn, Joel, and Benjamin! This was my first movie with Benjamin and I must say I did quite well. No poking, no talking, and no hogging the popcorn. Benjamin did quite well, too, although he slept through the first half (no commentary on the movie there). He managed to figure out the plot and keep up with the movie. Such a bright little 15 month old.
Ya know, if my rabbit Rufus could poop candy, I think Baloo the fat cat would be his best friend. I'm just saying... Sorry. Strayed from the review. There are some fun little scenes like that (where the Easter Bunny poops jellybeans) that add whimsy to this movie.
When I first saw the previews for this movie, I thought it was a joke. It was being released on April 1st afterall. I really did think it wasn't a real movie. And then I saw it as a trailer on the DVD for Despicable Me and I realized it was a real movie. And then I thought to myself, "Wow. They'll make anything into a movie, won't they?" I did not think I would see it. It seemed too laughable. But when a 15 month old baby calls you up and tells you that you're taking him to this movie, you see it. When we walked out of the theater (after dancing to all the credit music), I actually said out loud - "I rather liked it. It was much better than I ever thought it would be." Hop is funny (although it could stand to be funnier more often), sweet, and has a rather fun plot. It's well acted. I'm not a huge Russell Brand fan but I found his E.B. to be quite endearing and rather likable.
We did not see it in 3D (Benjamin didn't think the glasses would make him look "cool") and I really didn't notice anything that should be better in 3D until almost the end (the Pink Beret rabbits getting doused in chocolate; the Easter airplane crashing; perhaps travelling through the Rabbit Hole). The regular version is just fine.
I think Benjamin enjoyed the animated animal scenes better than the strictly human scenes. I was surprised at how many strictly human scenes there were. The animal scenes were funnier, brighter, and definitely more enjoyable. Who doesn't like to see a jellybean waterfall? The candy factory was visually captivating, almost Willy Wonka-ish but less mesmerizing and more merry. The human scenes made the movie more real. It brought the plot closer to home. I liked how the saga hanging over the two species (rabbit and human) mirrored the other's plight. The human scenes worked well. The animal scenes worked well. Once Fred dealt with the notion of a talking bunny, the animal/human scenes worked well. The movie gelled.
So... I liked this movie. I didn't love it but it did surprise me at how well done it was. It was actually quite good. Perhaps my assessment of the movie improved because I saw it with the right people. Who knows? I just know that I was pleasantly surprised with how non-hokey the movie was. I might even own it when it gets released on DVD. I'll say it serves as a memento of the first movie I saw with Benjamin but I might actually secretly watch it from time to time without him.
Oh, and a great tip we received from a member of the movie theater's cleaning crew: Stay through the credits for a little extra laugh. The credits are long (but filled with great music to dance to) but that little snippet was funny. It really brought the movie full circle. Two thumbs up from me and Benjamin adds his "En goo!" of endorsement.
Directed By: Tim Hill
Run Time: 1 hour 30 minutes
Hop is about the Easter Bunny's (voiced by Laurie) son E.B (voiced by Brand) who runs away from his responsibilities as the next Easter bunny. He heads to Hollywood to make it big as a drummer. There he runs into Fred (played by Marsden)... or rather, Fred runs to E.B... with his car. E.B. convinces Fred to take care of him and soon their lives intertwine.
I saw this movie with Dawn, Joel, and Benjamin! This was my first movie with Benjamin and I must say I did quite well. No poking, no talking, and no hogging the popcorn. Benjamin did quite well, too, although he slept through the first half (no commentary on the movie there). He managed to figure out the plot and keep up with the movie. Such a bright little 15 month old.
Ya know, if my rabbit Rufus could poop candy, I think Baloo the fat cat would be his best friend. I'm just saying... Sorry. Strayed from the review. There are some fun little scenes like that (where the Easter Bunny poops jellybeans) that add whimsy to this movie.
When I first saw the previews for this movie, I thought it was a joke. It was being released on April 1st afterall. I really did think it wasn't a real movie. And then I saw it as a trailer on the DVD for Despicable Me and I realized it was a real movie. And then I thought to myself, "Wow. They'll make anything into a movie, won't they?" I did not think I would see it. It seemed too laughable. But when a 15 month old baby calls you up and tells you that you're taking him to this movie, you see it. When we walked out of the theater (after dancing to all the credit music), I actually said out loud - "I rather liked it. It was much better than I ever thought it would be." Hop is funny (although it could stand to be funnier more often), sweet, and has a rather fun plot. It's well acted. I'm not a huge Russell Brand fan but I found his E.B. to be quite endearing and rather likable.
We did not see it in 3D (Benjamin didn't think the glasses would make him look "cool") and I really didn't notice anything that should be better in 3D until almost the end (the Pink Beret rabbits getting doused in chocolate; the Easter airplane crashing; perhaps travelling through the Rabbit Hole). The regular version is just fine.
I think Benjamin enjoyed the animated animal scenes better than the strictly human scenes. I was surprised at how many strictly human scenes there were. The animal scenes were funnier, brighter, and definitely more enjoyable. Who doesn't like to see a jellybean waterfall? The candy factory was visually captivating, almost Willy Wonka-ish but less mesmerizing and more merry. The human scenes made the movie more real. It brought the plot closer to home. I liked how the saga hanging over the two species (rabbit and human) mirrored the other's plight. The human scenes worked well. The animal scenes worked well. Once Fred dealt with the notion of a talking bunny, the animal/human scenes worked well. The movie gelled.
So... I liked this movie. I didn't love it but it did surprise me at how well done it was. It was actually quite good. Perhaps my assessment of the movie improved because I saw it with the right people. Who knows? I just know that I was pleasantly surprised with how non-hokey the movie was. I might even own it when it gets released on DVD. I'll say it serves as a memento of the first movie I saw with Benjamin but I might actually secretly watch it from time to time without him.
Oh, and a great tip we received from a member of the movie theater's cleaning crew: Stay through the credits for a little extra laugh. The credits are long (but filled with great music to dance to) but that little snippet was funny. It really brought the movie full circle. Two thumbs up from me and Benjamin adds his "En goo!" of endorsement.
Monday, April 4, 2011
April Movie #1: The Adjustment Bureau
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, Michael Kelly, Terence Stamp
Directed By: George J. Nolfi
Run Time: 1 hour 46 minutes
After David Norris (played by Damon) loses his first congressional race, he meets the woman of his dreams (played by Blunt). A few months later, he runs into her again quite by accident... and not at all according to plan. He wasn't supposed to run into her again and that mistake leads him to discover that there are mysterious people shaping our lives, people who are apart of the Adjustment Bureau. The agents apply pressure and tell him that if he tells anyone about the Adjustment Bureau or tries to contact Elise again (who isn't part of his future according the Bureau), they will erase his memory. David just can't stop thinking about this woman and three years later, quite by chance again, he runs into her. The Bureau isn't happy. They explain to David that he either gives up Elise to let them both live wonderful lives or staying with her will change their fate for the worse. He must choose between a life of greatness without Elise or a life of misery but with the woman he loves.
I thought this movie would be more subtle about pre-destined paths/God/angels than it really is. It upsets me to think that someone has written the story of our lives and that we can't alter the plan. Deviating from the already defined agenda causes unseen forces to revise external factors so that we fall in line with the written plan. Traffic jams that cause you to be late, a long line at the coffee shop, spilling something on yourself so you have to change clothes - all things designed to make you miss something that would have changed how you would live your life. And when those things don't work, the Bureau just performs a mind sweep and physically changes your mind about something. Of course, the next time there's an unusually long line at McDonald's or my alarm didn't go off in the morning, I'll know that the Bureau is just messing with my course. I will have to wonder at those times - who was I supposed to run into that now I'll never get to meet?
I'm not sure I like how this movie ends. Should everyone do what David did then if you don't like how your life has been scripted to turn out? And why doesn't everyone get that chance?
I thought the ending would be more powerful. I did wonder how it would get resolved and I envisioned a rather weak explanation of how things work in the Bureau. The ending did indeed work but I expected to have more of an impact, feel a bit more moved by the ending. I had definitely picked how I thought David should resolve the issue when the two fates were proposed to him. He didn't go that route, and that troubled me a bit.
This is definitely a unique storyline, one that raises a lot of debates between divine right and free will. On one hand, I do find the explanation of why there has to be traffic to be a bit comforting. On the other hand, I simply do not understand the notion of a supreme being controlling what people do. If there's someone writing all of our scripts for us, why are there murders? Why is there child abuse? Why is there famine? I understand that the bad things in life help shape who we are, make us stronger, but the really bad things don't seem to be right (particularly if someone wrote that into our plan) or fair, particularly if you can do nothing to avoid those bad things. So troubling.
It's a decent movie. It's well acted. David is definitely a charismatic character. I wish there was more to the Elise character, that we had more time to see what made her truly worth the risk for David. She was exhilarating and so different from the suit wearing David but I think we needed one more scene with her to truly understand the connection, what made her special. The agent Harry (played by Mackie) - was he tired or did he actually let his emotions interfere with his watch over David? I wish he hadn't fallen asleep on the bench. I wish he had watched Elise board the bus and actually decided to let David run into her. I think Thompson (played by Stamp) needed to be more ruthless, actually live up to his "Hammer" moniker. He seemed like he had a heart, too.
I wish there were more a little more to this movie. I think exposing the Bureau so quickly on in the movie left it flat. I also am not a fan of the message. I'm not sure how to rate this movie or if I should tell you to see it. I liked it... but I didn't. It was missing that something extra. If you do see it, we'll have to talk about how you think David should have proceeded after he was told about the two different fate lines that were dependent on his actions.
Directed By: George J. Nolfi
Run Time: 1 hour 46 minutes
After David Norris (played by Damon) loses his first congressional race, he meets the woman of his dreams (played by Blunt). A few months later, he runs into her again quite by accident... and not at all according to plan. He wasn't supposed to run into her again and that mistake leads him to discover that there are mysterious people shaping our lives, people who are apart of the Adjustment Bureau. The agents apply pressure and tell him that if he tells anyone about the Adjustment Bureau or tries to contact Elise again (who isn't part of his future according the Bureau), they will erase his memory. David just can't stop thinking about this woman and three years later, quite by chance again, he runs into her. The Bureau isn't happy. They explain to David that he either gives up Elise to let them both live wonderful lives or staying with her will change their fate for the worse. He must choose between a life of greatness without Elise or a life of misery but with the woman he loves.
I thought this movie would be more subtle about pre-destined paths/God/angels than it really is. It upsets me to think that someone has written the story of our lives and that we can't alter the plan. Deviating from the already defined agenda causes unseen forces to revise external factors so that we fall in line with the written plan. Traffic jams that cause you to be late, a long line at the coffee shop, spilling something on yourself so you have to change clothes - all things designed to make you miss something that would have changed how you would live your life. And when those things don't work, the Bureau just performs a mind sweep and physically changes your mind about something. Of course, the next time there's an unusually long line at McDonald's or my alarm didn't go off in the morning, I'll know that the Bureau is just messing with my course. I will have to wonder at those times - who was I supposed to run into that now I'll never get to meet?
I'm not sure I like how this movie ends. Should everyone do what David did then if you don't like how your life has been scripted to turn out? And why doesn't everyone get that chance?
I thought the ending would be more powerful. I did wonder how it would get resolved and I envisioned a rather weak explanation of how things work in the Bureau. The ending did indeed work but I expected to have more of an impact, feel a bit more moved by the ending. I had definitely picked how I thought David should resolve the issue when the two fates were proposed to him. He didn't go that route, and that troubled me a bit.
This is definitely a unique storyline, one that raises a lot of debates between divine right and free will. On one hand, I do find the explanation of why there has to be traffic to be a bit comforting. On the other hand, I simply do not understand the notion of a supreme being controlling what people do. If there's someone writing all of our scripts for us, why are there murders? Why is there child abuse? Why is there famine? I understand that the bad things in life help shape who we are, make us stronger, but the really bad things don't seem to be right (particularly if someone wrote that into our plan) or fair, particularly if you can do nothing to avoid those bad things. So troubling.
It's a decent movie. It's well acted. David is definitely a charismatic character. I wish there was more to the Elise character, that we had more time to see what made her truly worth the risk for David. She was exhilarating and so different from the suit wearing David but I think we needed one more scene with her to truly understand the connection, what made her special. The agent Harry (played by Mackie) - was he tired or did he actually let his emotions interfere with his watch over David? I wish he hadn't fallen asleep on the bench. I wish he had watched Elise board the bus and actually decided to let David run into her. I think Thompson (played by Stamp) needed to be more ruthless, actually live up to his "Hammer" moniker. He seemed like he had a heart, too.
I wish there were more a little more to this movie. I think exposing the Bureau so quickly on in the movie left it flat. I also am not a fan of the message. I'm not sure how to rate this movie or if I should tell you to see it. I liked it... but I didn't. It was missing that something extra. If you do see it, we'll have to talk about how you think David should have proceeded after he was told about the two different fate lines that were dependent on his actions.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
March Movie #3: Limitless
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Robert DeNiro, Abbie Cornish
Directed By: Neil Burger
Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes
Limitless is about a writer named Eddie Morra (played by Cooper) who is suffering from writer's block, whose girlfriend has just left him, and whose life is falling apart. His life changes after he runs into his ex-brother-in-law, who also happens to be an upscale drug dealer, and is given a funky new drug. While most people only use 10% of their brain, this drug allows you to use 90% of it. Eddie finishes his novel in just a few days, learns several languages, and conquers the stock market while under the influence. His newfound clarity opens doors to new opportunities and new people.
This movie has probably the worst opening scene ever. I think it was supposed to be suspensful and powerful but it was flat, boring, and a little annoying. The voice-over was flat, there was no allure to the text or grab. The pounding in the background was distracting and annoying.
The next couple of scenes also didn't pull me into this movie. I absolutely hated the comic book style in-your-face depictions of what the drug was doing to Eddie. Eddie takes the pill and an X-Ray image of him swallowing the pill floods the screen followed by cartoonish animated renderings highlighting a part of his brain being stimulated by the drug. I did like the quick cut shots of Eddie's brain calculating the scene before him in order to analyze and react to his landlord's wife yelling at him. But then when illuminated letters started dropping all over the room as Eddie typed his novel, I was annoyed again. To over the top. To in your face. We get that this drug enhances his thinking. We get that it makes him super human.
Thankfully the movie rallies into full swing and the comic book style renderings and explanations stop.
I liked that Eddie pulled himself together. I liked that he made something of himself. I did not like that he made such a spectical of himself. He knew someone was looking for the drug. Surely his actions would call attention to himself, put a spotlight on his suspicious rise. And in the end, I thought he would lay low, particularly given all that happened to him and the love of his life. I was disappointed with how far he took it, that he didn't just call it good and fade away. And it really bothered me that his one ambition in life just became a footnote to him. I'm sure he had outgrown his calling and was trying to move up, out, and onto "better" things. It seemed to me that he was abandoning who he truly was. His girlfriend had a point. The drug made him someone else. Not a better person. Someone else.
I guess I did like that Eddie learned something - not the languages he taught himself or the art of reading people or how to construct an algorithm to overtake the stock market - but how to survive. Others before him were not able to make that leap, the leap that could have saved them. But while he did something none before him were able to do, that cocky attitude was off-putting. He seemed so likeable, frizzy hair and all, in the beginning. Where did that cocky attitude come from? All of his success didn't come from within - it came from a pill. That alone should have been enough to humble him.
I hated the ending almost as much as I hated the opening. It ended with a fizzle, with no gotcha, no redeeming moment, no wow. It needed wow to get me to love it. It was an every day moment and then it ended. No climax. Nothing leading up to the ending. No happy wrapped up ending. It just ended. Some movies cut to black with a pow. Some cut to white with an air of mystery. This one figuratively cut to grey. Eh.
I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It was okay. I didn't leave wowed. I didn't leave annoyed or confused or angry or even sad. I probably won't remember much about this movie in a couple of months. It's worth seeing. It was well done (once the comic book graphics stopped popping up). It was well acted. It was an interesting and unique plot. It was well told. It was just missing that something extra. I could have really loved it. So close.
Directed By: Neil Burger
Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes
Limitless is about a writer named Eddie Morra (played by Cooper) who is suffering from writer's block, whose girlfriend has just left him, and whose life is falling apart. His life changes after he runs into his ex-brother-in-law, who also happens to be an upscale drug dealer, and is given a funky new drug. While most people only use 10% of their brain, this drug allows you to use 90% of it. Eddie finishes his novel in just a few days, learns several languages, and conquers the stock market while under the influence. His newfound clarity opens doors to new opportunities and new people.
This movie has probably the worst opening scene ever. I think it was supposed to be suspensful and powerful but it was flat, boring, and a little annoying. The voice-over was flat, there was no allure to the text or grab. The pounding in the background was distracting and annoying.
The next couple of scenes also didn't pull me into this movie. I absolutely hated the comic book style in-your-face depictions of what the drug was doing to Eddie. Eddie takes the pill and an X-Ray image of him swallowing the pill floods the screen followed by cartoonish animated renderings highlighting a part of his brain being stimulated by the drug. I did like the quick cut shots of Eddie's brain calculating the scene before him in order to analyze and react to his landlord's wife yelling at him. But then when illuminated letters started dropping all over the room as Eddie typed his novel, I was annoyed again. To over the top. To in your face. We get that this drug enhances his thinking. We get that it makes him super human.
Thankfully the movie rallies into full swing and the comic book style renderings and explanations stop.
I liked that Eddie pulled himself together. I liked that he made something of himself. I did not like that he made such a spectical of himself. He knew someone was looking for the drug. Surely his actions would call attention to himself, put a spotlight on his suspicious rise. And in the end, I thought he would lay low, particularly given all that happened to him and the love of his life. I was disappointed with how far he took it, that he didn't just call it good and fade away. And it really bothered me that his one ambition in life just became a footnote to him. I'm sure he had outgrown his calling and was trying to move up, out, and onto "better" things. It seemed to me that he was abandoning who he truly was. His girlfriend had a point. The drug made him someone else. Not a better person. Someone else.
I guess I did like that Eddie learned something - not the languages he taught himself or the art of reading people or how to construct an algorithm to overtake the stock market - but how to survive. Others before him were not able to make that leap, the leap that could have saved them. But while he did something none before him were able to do, that cocky attitude was off-putting. He seemed so likeable, frizzy hair and all, in the beginning. Where did that cocky attitude come from? All of his success didn't come from within - it came from a pill. That alone should have been enough to humble him.
I hated the ending almost as much as I hated the opening. It ended with a fizzle, with no gotcha, no redeeming moment, no wow. It needed wow to get me to love it. It was an every day moment and then it ended. No climax. Nothing leading up to the ending. No happy wrapped up ending. It just ended. Some movies cut to black with a pow. Some cut to white with an air of mystery. This one figuratively cut to grey. Eh.
I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It was okay. I didn't leave wowed. I didn't leave annoyed or confused or angry or even sad. I probably won't remember much about this movie in a couple of months. It's worth seeing. It was well done (once the comic book graphics stopped popping up). It was well acted. It was an interesting and unique plot. It was well told. It was just missing that something extra. I could have really loved it. So close.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
March Movie #2: Rango
Starring the voices of: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty
Directed By: Gore Verbinski
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Rango is about a chameleon (a lizard) who wanders into the gun-slinging Old West town of Dirt. Rango fancies himself an actor and when the townspeople ask about his past, Rango invents one. Little does he know that his story sets him up to be a hero. The townsfolk make him their sheriff. Rango improvs being a sheriff until he inadvertently aids bank robbers who steal the town's water supply, their only supply of water. Now Rango must step up and be the hero he has been pretending to be in order to save the town.
Not all animated movies are for children. Repeat: Not all animated movies are for children. If you watch the first five minutes of this movie, you'll understand that not all animated movies are for children. It's scary and some of the lines/images are not for children. The naked headless Barbie (of whom Rango inquiries, "Are those real?"), the squished armadillo on the road, and the bird chasing a terrified Rango through the desert are all clues that this is not a children's movie. One character is obsessed with the possibility that Rango is going to die. There are many frightening scenes. Picture an old western - like the remake of True Grit - would you take your child to that? Absolutely not (wonderful acting aside; see review of the movie below). This is essentially something like Gunslinger but animated. Just because it's a cartoon does not make the subject and plot suitable for children.
Of course, if you were planning to take your child to this movie (a child that doesn't get scared easily) but decided not to after the smoking controversy, you should forget that controversy and go see it. Several anti-smoking groups are slamming this movie for its rampant depiction of smoking. One: It is only the bad guys smoking and Two: Rango does not smoke (contrary to many sites' claims). He grabs a villian's cigar and eats it and then drinks a shot of cactus juice and burps a fireball at the bad guy. If kids immitate what they see in cartoons, I think there's a much greater risk of them swallowing lit cigars in the hopes of breathing fire at their brothers. I seriously did not notice the smoking and I was watching for it!!
I'm not a huge fan of westerns. I was not a huge fan of this movie. It was decent. Several lines made me laugh. I was more alarmed at how scary it was. The scene at the end with the bird dragging off the turtle made me gasp. And I think I may have nightmares about the scene where the moles come crawling out of the ground surrounding Rango and his gang (I have issues with Zombie-like things).
I loved the homage to Clint Eastwood - from the character to the award statues in the basket. It would have been so excellent if the movie makers had actually gotten Eastwood to voice the character. I think that little bit would have pushed this movie over the edge to greatness. I did love the opening scene (although I thought it was missing a little extra oomph towards greatness) where Johnny Depp was essentially channeling some past characters from other movies (I think I saw a bit of Captian Jack Sparrow as well as Don Juan DeMarco). There was also a small homage to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That bit made me really laugh (although I was feeling very bad for Rango at that point). I also loved Mr. Timms (the fish) and the full circle involving his "character."
I had a suspicion that this movie was going the way of Happy Feet with a non-publicized but then a sprung on you in-your-face message about the environment about water waste/urban sprawl with the animals' water going to keep golf courses in Las Vegas green. It took a sharp detour at that scene, which in a way was nice but also left me wondering why show that part at all.
I'm also not quite certain I understood the different animals living together. According to this movie, only big birds and snakes are bad guys. Little birds and foxes eat all types of little animals but they were cast as townspeople. And why was a bunny the same size as a chameleon? And why did Beans have hair? Yes, she was a girl but she was a lizard. If you wanted to make it obvious she was a girl (aside from the dress), put a bow on her head. Lizards don't have hair... hence what makes them lizards.
So... I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It wasn't bad. It did have me laughing... at times. But I was more concerned with the impact it would have on all the kids at the theater (I think a pre-school was having an outing). There was so much talk of death and the bad guys were truly scary. There were a lot of tough things going on in this movie. Decent but not great.
Directed By: Gore Verbinski
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Rango is about a chameleon (a lizard) who wanders into the gun-slinging Old West town of Dirt. Rango fancies himself an actor and when the townspeople ask about his past, Rango invents one. Little does he know that his story sets him up to be a hero. The townsfolk make him their sheriff. Rango improvs being a sheriff until he inadvertently aids bank robbers who steal the town's water supply, their only supply of water. Now Rango must step up and be the hero he has been pretending to be in order to save the town.
Not all animated movies are for children. Repeat: Not all animated movies are for children. If you watch the first five minutes of this movie, you'll understand that not all animated movies are for children. It's scary and some of the lines/images are not for children. The naked headless Barbie (of whom Rango inquiries, "Are those real?"), the squished armadillo on the road, and the bird chasing a terrified Rango through the desert are all clues that this is not a children's movie. One character is obsessed with the possibility that Rango is going to die. There are many frightening scenes. Picture an old western - like the remake of True Grit - would you take your child to that? Absolutely not (wonderful acting aside; see review of the movie below). This is essentially something like Gunslinger but animated. Just because it's a cartoon does not make the subject and plot suitable for children.
Of course, if you were planning to take your child to this movie (a child that doesn't get scared easily) but decided not to after the smoking controversy, you should forget that controversy and go see it. Several anti-smoking groups are slamming this movie for its rampant depiction of smoking. One: It is only the bad guys smoking and Two: Rango does not smoke (contrary to many sites' claims). He grabs a villian's cigar and eats it and then drinks a shot of cactus juice and burps a fireball at the bad guy. If kids immitate what they see in cartoons, I think there's a much greater risk of them swallowing lit cigars in the hopes of breathing fire at their brothers. I seriously did not notice the smoking and I was watching for it!!
I'm not a huge fan of westerns. I was not a huge fan of this movie. It was decent. Several lines made me laugh. I was more alarmed at how scary it was. The scene at the end with the bird dragging off the turtle made me gasp. And I think I may have nightmares about the scene where the moles come crawling out of the ground surrounding Rango and his gang (I have issues with Zombie-like things).
I loved the homage to Clint Eastwood - from the character to the award statues in the basket. It would have been so excellent if the movie makers had actually gotten Eastwood to voice the character. I think that little bit would have pushed this movie over the edge to greatness. I did love the opening scene (although I thought it was missing a little extra oomph towards greatness) where Johnny Depp was essentially channeling some past characters from other movies (I think I saw a bit of Captian Jack Sparrow as well as Don Juan DeMarco). There was also a small homage to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That bit made me really laugh (although I was feeling very bad for Rango at that point). I also loved Mr. Timms (the fish) and the full circle involving his "character."
I had a suspicion that this movie was going the way of Happy Feet with a non-publicized but then a sprung on you in-your-face message about the environment about water waste/urban sprawl with the animals' water going to keep golf courses in Las Vegas green. It took a sharp detour at that scene, which in a way was nice but also left me wondering why show that part at all.
I'm also not quite certain I understood the different animals living together. According to this movie, only big birds and snakes are bad guys. Little birds and foxes eat all types of little animals but they were cast as townspeople. And why was a bunny the same size as a chameleon? And why did Beans have hair? Yes, she was a girl but she was a lizard. If you wanted to make it obvious she was a girl (aside from the dress), put a bow on her head. Lizards don't have hair... hence what makes them lizards.
So... I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It wasn't bad. It did have me laughing... at times. But I was more concerned with the impact it would have on all the kids at the theater (I think a pre-school was having an outing). There was so much talk of death and the bad guys were truly scary. There were a lot of tough things going on in this movie. Decent but not great.
Monday, March 7, 2011
March Movie #1: Beastly
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Hudgens, Mary-Kate Olsen, Neil Patrick Harris, Peter Krause
Directed By: Daniel Barnz
Run Time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Beastly is a modern take on Beauty and the Beast. When Kyle Kingson (played by Pettyfer) annoys a witch (played by Olsen) with his ego and his "beauty rules and ugly drools" motto, she places a curse on him. He transforms from a handsome, spoiled rich kid to a hideously scarred, self-pitying rich kid. He has to find someone to love him within a year or else he'll stay ugly for the rest of his life.
Um, wow. This movie was bad. Very, very, very bad. So bad that it took me a long, long time to put two and two together - that this movie was twist on Beauty and the Beast. The acting was atrocious. Normally I just say "bad" but this was so many grades below bad. The script was an abomination. The directing was laughable. It was like a bad high school play, written by the choir director who always had dreams of writing for the silver screen and acted by kids who are just using it as a way to get out of detention. There was no real chemistry between any of the characters let alone Lindy (played by Hudgens) and Hunter/Kyle (played by Pettyfer). Vanessa Hudgens couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag even if you left the bag wide open with a flashing neon sign pointing to that opening. I think she ties with Scarlet Johansson with worst actress ever. Ever. The only tolerable moments were those that contained Neil Patrick Harris who plays the blind tutor. I wonder if he knew how truly horrible the rest of the movie was. I think I saw him cringe a couple of times.
Aside from the bad acting (atrocious acting), many of the plot points just didn't work. First of all, we just didn't get to see enough of Kyle being obnoxious to truly understand why the witch cursed him. The scene at the party didn't really seem to bother her nor was it that horrible a prank. I kept waiting for the Carrie pigs-blood version of an "I'm better than you" rant scene but it never came. I suppose Kyle was a jerk but it didn't seem enough to get cursed over. I'm sure there were hundreds of guys just like him at that high school. It screamed "pretty people rule." It wasn't just Kyle.
The time frame seemed to whiz by. Two weeks in a blink of an eye; five months in another blink of an eye. If Kyle was so devoted to his looks, you'd think he wouldn't waste a minute of his ugly imprisoned year. He'd want to do everything in his power to become pretty again. And a year is plenty of time to get a high school girl to fall in love; seven months is, too.
Another implausible plot point - the father giving his daughter to the scarred, heavily tattooed boy who witnessed him murder another man. And if he thought that scarred, heavily tattooed boy could protect his daughter from the drug dealer who vowed revenge, taking her himself to Hunter/Kyle's house seemed ridiculous. If he didn't want the drug dealer to know where his daughter was, he probably shouldn't know where she was, either (because if push came to shove, I'm sure he'd sell her hiding spot out).
And another implausible point - the greenhouse. Um, you don't build a dwelling one complete wall at a time... complete with windows. You build the framework first and once you have the walls attached to the framework, you put the windows in. I know he made it up as he went along because he couldn't figure out the instructions but surely he's seen construction? And what he built was not a greenhouse.
And finally, the most implausible point of them all - the transformation back to Kyle. The final rose had bloomed in his tattoo... (which wasn't fully at a year because he was cursed at night and this was in the afternoon). If magical path cannot be altered, then the events that transpired were out of order for them to lead to his transformation. Not that I'm giving anything away. You know the story of Beauty and the Beast. You know what happens in this movie. And it ends without drama, so unlike Beauty and the Beast. It ends without fanfare. It ends without an overwhelming feeling that these two people have found true love. Or are even in love.
The best parts of this movie are Neil Patrick Harris. He's funny. He's got some great lines and some scene stealing bits. I loved the story about the elephants. It was insanely sweet. It was my favorite moment of the movie. And it was nice to see Mary-Kate Olsen acting again, all grown up. I liked her quirkiness. She added an interesting element to this movie... even though the spell she placed over Kyle was the lamest spell in magical history. Was that even a spell? What was that?
Go see this movie... if you need something to bore you to tears. I thought about just getting up and walking out many, many, many times. It was an abomination to movies. It shouldn't even be called a movie. Bad. So very bad. And, unfortunately, my assessment of Alex Pettyfer's acting ability is not complete (see the review of I Am Number Four). I refuse to count this movie or give it another thought. Ugh.
Directed By: Daniel Barnz
Run Time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Beastly is a modern take on Beauty and the Beast. When Kyle Kingson (played by Pettyfer) annoys a witch (played by Olsen) with his ego and his "beauty rules and ugly drools" motto, she places a curse on him. He transforms from a handsome, spoiled rich kid to a hideously scarred, self-pitying rich kid. He has to find someone to love him within a year or else he'll stay ugly for the rest of his life.
Um, wow. This movie was bad. Very, very, very bad. So bad that it took me a long, long time to put two and two together - that this movie was twist on Beauty and the Beast. The acting was atrocious. Normally I just say "bad" but this was so many grades below bad. The script was an abomination. The directing was laughable. It was like a bad high school play, written by the choir director who always had dreams of writing for the silver screen and acted by kids who are just using it as a way to get out of detention. There was no real chemistry between any of the characters let alone Lindy (played by Hudgens) and Hunter/Kyle (played by Pettyfer). Vanessa Hudgens couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag even if you left the bag wide open with a flashing neon sign pointing to that opening. I think she ties with Scarlet Johansson with worst actress ever. Ever. The only tolerable moments were those that contained Neil Patrick Harris who plays the blind tutor. I wonder if he knew how truly horrible the rest of the movie was. I think I saw him cringe a couple of times.
Aside from the bad acting (atrocious acting), many of the plot points just didn't work. First of all, we just didn't get to see enough of Kyle being obnoxious to truly understand why the witch cursed him. The scene at the party didn't really seem to bother her nor was it that horrible a prank. I kept waiting for the Carrie pigs-blood version of an "I'm better than you" rant scene but it never came. I suppose Kyle was a jerk but it didn't seem enough to get cursed over. I'm sure there were hundreds of guys just like him at that high school. It screamed "pretty people rule." It wasn't just Kyle.
The time frame seemed to whiz by. Two weeks in a blink of an eye; five months in another blink of an eye. If Kyle was so devoted to his looks, you'd think he wouldn't waste a minute of his ugly imprisoned year. He'd want to do everything in his power to become pretty again. And a year is plenty of time to get a high school girl to fall in love; seven months is, too.
Another implausible plot point - the father giving his daughter to the scarred, heavily tattooed boy who witnessed him murder another man. And if he thought that scarred, heavily tattooed boy could protect his daughter from the drug dealer who vowed revenge, taking her himself to Hunter/Kyle's house seemed ridiculous. If he didn't want the drug dealer to know where his daughter was, he probably shouldn't know where she was, either (because if push came to shove, I'm sure he'd sell her hiding spot out).
And another implausible point - the greenhouse. Um, you don't build a dwelling one complete wall at a time... complete with windows. You build the framework first and once you have the walls attached to the framework, you put the windows in. I know he made it up as he went along because he couldn't figure out the instructions but surely he's seen construction? And what he built was not a greenhouse.
And finally, the most implausible point of them all - the transformation back to Kyle. The final rose had bloomed in his tattoo... (which wasn't fully at a year because he was cursed at night and this was in the afternoon). If magical path cannot be altered, then the events that transpired were out of order for them to lead to his transformation. Not that I'm giving anything away. You know the story of Beauty and the Beast. You know what happens in this movie. And it ends without drama, so unlike Beauty and the Beast. It ends without fanfare. It ends without an overwhelming feeling that these two people have found true love. Or are even in love.
The best parts of this movie are Neil Patrick Harris. He's funny. He's got some great lines and some scene stealing bits. I loved the story about the elephants. It was insanely sweet. It was my favorite moment of the movie. And it was nice to see Mary-Kate Olsen acting again, all grown up. I liked her quirkiness. She added an interesting element to this movie... even though the spell she placed over Kyle was the lamest spell in magical history. Was that even a spell? What was that?
Go see this movie... if you need something to bore you to tears. I thought about just getting up and walking out many, many, many times. It was an abomination to movies. It shouldn't even be called a movie. Bad. So very bad. And, unfortunately, my assessment of Alex Pettyfer's acting ability is not complete (see the review of I Am Number Four). I refuse to count this movie or give it another thought. Ugh.
Friday, March 4, 2011
February Movie #9: The Housemaid
Starring: Do-yeon Jeon, Jung-Jae Lee, Seo-Hyeon Ahn, Seo Woo
Directed By: Sang-soo Im
Run Time: 1 hour 56 mins
The Housemaid is the tale about a young woman who takes the job of nanny in the house of one of Korea's richest families. The young nanny quickly learns that money equals power and rich, powerful people can do pretty much anything they want. The husband seduces her; the head maid finds out (she knows everything that goes on in the house) and soon everyone in the house knows. Life becomes miserable for the nanny.
I debated seeing this movie. There were two other movies I thought about watching - Drive Angry (just because the title makes me cringe... and I want to see what Nicholas Cage's hair looks like in this one) or Gnomeo and Juliet. I like kids movies (and because this one's in 3D that means there's gnomes flying at ya' in 3D!). But both of those got poor ratings (go figure) and this one was very high. Plus the main actress (the nanny) won the Korean version of Sundance for best actress. Even if I wouldn't enjoy the movie, at least I'd get some reading done (the subtitles).
This is, I believe, my very first Korean movie. Unfortunately, you don't get to see much of the city or country. Not that it's a travel movie but because it was my first glimpse into the Korean world, it would have been nice to see it. I did like the movie. It was very well done.
I will warn you. There are a couple of scenes that made me blush and look away. Not necessarily for what you see (you don't see much) but because of what is being done and the language. Wow. Very initment language you don't normally hear in the movies.
Those scenes aside, it is a very interesting movie. People who seem cruel or arrogant really aren't. The main maid seems very distant and cold but as you get to see more of her world and how long she's been in that world, you realize that she's not really cold but reserved. She has a lot of secrets in her head, things she's had to deal with and just move on. The husband seems like a cad until one very telling moment. The wife seems nice until she's crossed. The mother-in-law is conniving without much reason. I think there's a backstory to her but that's never shown. And the nanny seems like a scared little rabbit... until she fights back. I'm not quite certain I would have gone that route - for many reasons - but it certainly had an impact. And what an impact it has.
The final end scene - where the family is celebrating Nami's (the child) birthday outside - is very intriguing. Nami is obviously affected by how the nanny fought back. The wife (Nami's mother) seems to have gone insane. And the husband, whom I thought would be affected by it more, seems to have moved on callously. I wonder if he's now so removed from his family because of his wife's interactions with the previous nanny. He certainly is removed from his daughter's life based on the gift he gave her (and how it was presented). They all seemed like a sweet family, distant and yet together, when the movie started. Crazy is how they all ended up.
Good movie. I liked it. Great character development. Very interesting to see the power and wealth and what that makes me people do. I don't think I learned even one Korean word, which is disappointing. But the movie was really powerful. A little slow but good.
Directed By: Sang-soo Im
Run Time: 1 hour 56 mins
The Housemaid is the tale about a young woman who takes the job of nanny in the house of one of Korea's richest families. The young nanny quickly learns that money equals power and rich, powerful people can do pretty much anything they want. The husband seduces her; the head maid finds out (she knows everything that goes on in the house) and soon everyone in the house knows. Life becomes miserable for the nanny.
I debated seeing this movie. There were two other movies I thought about watching - Drive Angry (just because the title makes me cringe... and I want to see what Nicholas Cage's hair looks like in this one) or Gnomeo and Juliet. I like kids movies (and because this one's in 3D that means there's gnomes flying at ya' in 3D!). But both of those got poor ratings (go figure) and this one was very high. Plus the main actress (the nanny) won the Korean version of Sundance for best actress. Even if I wouldn't enjoy the movie, at least I'd get some reading done (the subtitles).
This is, I believe, my very first Korean movie. Unfortunately, you don't get to see much of the city or country. Not that it's a travel movie but because it was my first glimpse into the Korean world, it would have been nice to see it. I did like the movie. It was very well done.
I will warn you. There are a couple of scenes that made me blush and look away. Not necessarily for what you see (you don't see much) but because of what is being done and the language. Wow. Very initment language you don't normally hear in the movies.
Those scenes aside, it is a very interesting movie. People who seem cruel or arrogant really aren't. The main maid seems very distant and cold but as you get to see more of her world and how long she's been in that world, you realize that she's not really cold but reserved. She has a lot of secrets in her head, things she's had to deal with and just move on. The husband seems like a cad until one very telling moment. The wife seems nice until she's crossed. The mother-in-law is conniving without much reason. I think there's a backstory to her but that's never shown. And the nanny seems like a scared little rabbit... until she fights back. I'm not quite certain I would have gone that route - for many reasons - but it certainly had an impact. And what an impact it has.
The final end scene - where the family is celebrating Nami's (the child) birthday outside - is very intriguing. Nami is obviously affected by how the nanny fought back. The wife (Nami's mother) seems to have gone insane. And the husband, whom I thought would be affected by it more, seems to have moved on callously. I wonder if he's now so removed from his family because of his wife's interactions with the previous nanny. He certainly is removed from his daughter's life based on the gift he gave her (and how it was presented). They all seemed like a sweet family, distant and yet together, when the movie started. Crazy is how they all ended up.
Good movie. I liked it. Great character development. Very interesting to see the power and wealth and what that makes me people do. I don't think I learned even one Korean word, which is disappointing. But the movie was really powerful. A little slow but good.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
February Movie #8: I Am Number Four
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer, Dianna Agron, Kevin Durand
Directed By: D.J. Caruso
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
I went into this movie knowing very little about it. From what little I had seen, it looked interesting enough… enough to want to see it (and not see too much beforehand to chance spoiling it). I thought I remembered that Number Four was an alien. About ten minutes into the movie, with goofy alien vibe in full swing (the pursuing aliens were all jacked up), I wondered if I should stay a minute longer or if, perhaps, I should have learned more about the movie before venturing to see it. But then the alien stuff quieted down and some real character development began. This is two different movies meshed together very well. One movie is about a teenage boy trying to fit into a new high school. We’ve seen it before – the new guy gets picked on until he fights back. But when this guy fights back, it’s a little different. The other movie is about an alien on the run from trackers who want to kill him. It’s kind of a sci-fi John Hughes flick.
I rather liked this movie. John, the alien Number Four (played by Pettyfer), is a sweet, smart kid. Incidentally, there’s another movie starring Pettyfer (are you asking yourself “who?” too? You’ll soon know who) coming out soon. Its trailer preceded this movie. I kept thinking through this whole movie, “Is this the same guy in Beastly? If not, they look waaay too similar.” I will need to see that movie (it is on my list) to really assess Pettyfer’s acting ability. He seemed a little simple, a little too reserved, a little too low-key. But that just could have been his way to blend in, in which case his style was very good. I did read he’s from England so the lack of accent was great.
One side note: Can Dianna Agron ever leave high school in Ohio? She’s Quinn on Glee and that takes place in Ohio and this movie also takes place in Ohio. Another side note: Number Six looks like a blonde Kristin Stewart.
I really liked this movie and it’s because of the two movies combined together. I liked the time spent with John the teenager trying to assimilate/blend into his new high school. I liked the Sarah character (played by Agron), although I couldn’t help but think Jeff would be complaining about the teenager’s infatuation with film and film cameras. Do schools really have darkrooms anymore let alone the chemicals needed to develop film? And she was developing her film incredibly quickly in order to post them on her website (which begs the question: Why would she use a film camera to take pictures she’s going to post on her website? There’s a lot of downtime with a film camera).
Although it takes awhile to get there, it’s an incredibly suspenseful movie. The ending is very intense. I liked how some things came together. I loved the dog (he has lots of good moments throughout the movie). If you don’t get to see this one in the theater, it’s a great Saturday night rental.
Directed By: D.J. Caruso
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
I went into this movie knowing very little about it. From what little I had seen, it looked interesting enough… enough to want to see it (and not see too much beforehand to chance spoiling it). I thought I remembered that Number Four was an alien. About ten minutes into the movie, with goofy alien vibe in full swing (the pursuing aliens were all jacked up), I wondered if I should stay a minute longer or if, perhaps, I should have learned more about the movie before venturing to see it. But then the alien stuff quieted down and some real character development began. This is two different movies meshed together very well. One movie is about a teenage boy trying to fit into a new high school. We’ve seen it before – the new guy gets picked on until he fights back. But when this guy fights back, it’s a little different. The other movie is about an alien on the run from trackers who want to kill him. It’s kind of a sci-fi John Hughes flick.
I rather liked this movie. John, the alien Number Four (played by Pettyfer), is a sweet, smart kid. Incidentally, there’s another movie starring Pettyfer (are you asking yourself “who?” too? You’ll soon know who) coming out soon. Its trailer preceded this movie. I kept thinking through this whole movie, “Is this the same guy in Beastly? If not, they look waaay too similar.” I will need to see that movie (it is on my list) to really assess Pettyfer’s acting ability. He seemed a little simple, a little too reserved, a little too low-key. But that just could have been his way to blend in, in which case his style was very good. I did read he’s from England so the lack of accent was great.
One side note: Can Dianna Agron ever leave high school in Ohio? She’s Quinn on Glee and that takes place in Ohio and this movie also takes place in Ohio. Another side note: Number Six looks like a blonde Kristin Stewart.
I really liked this movie and it’s because of the two movies combined together. I liked the time spent with John the teenager trying to assimilate/blend into his new high school. I liked the Sarah character (played by Agron), although I couldn’t help but think Jeff would be complaining about the teenager’s infatuation with film and film cameras. Do schools really have darkrooms anymore let alone the chemicals needed to develop film? And she was developing her film incredibly quickly in order to post them on her website (which begs the question: Why would she use a film camera to take pictures she’s going to post on her website? There’s a lot of downtime with a film camera).
Although it takes awhile to get there, it’s an incredibly suspenseful movie. The ending is very intense. I liked how some things came together. I loved the dog (he has lots of good moments throughout the movie). If you don’t get to see this one in the theater, it’s a great Saturday night rental.
February Movie #7: True Grit
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Hailee Steinfeld
Directed By: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Run Time: 1 hr 50 minutes
When Mattie Ross's (played by Steinfeld) father is murdered by Tom Chaney (played by Brolin) and the local law won't bring him in, Mattie enlists the aid of Marshall Cogburn (played by Bridges). A Texas ranger LaBoeuf (played by Damon), also on the hunt for Chaney, tags along.
I've heard two different opinions on this movie. It's a John Wayne remake. One viewer told me it was a shot-for-shot-line-for-line remake. Quite boring. Another viewer said that this version is an interesting take, a different angle from the original story. The original was showing on AMC the other night so I decided since I've seen the remake, I must watch the original in order to fully assess if I liked the remake. After watching the original, I can say that the remake was much better. The acting in the Coen brothers' version is superb, so many levels above the original. I'm sorry but for as tough and saavy as John Wayne was and always portrayed, I really think Jeff Bridges played a much, much more gruff and intense Mashall Cogburn. Glen Campbell played the original LaBoeuf and there is absolutely no comparison between his acting and Matt Damon's (Matt Damon is better). And the actresses that played Mattie - well, the original Kim Darby was sharp and tough but Hailee Steinfeld had a determination, a driving force, that I just didn't see in the original. The original actress was a little too perky for someone who was bent on revenge. As for the remake being shot for shot identical - heck no! Many of the scenes are in a totally different order and the background settings - which really set the tone for some scenes - were different. Much of the dialog was the same - but not all of it. And don't get me started on the sets. I was painfully aware that the 1969 version was shot on a sound stage. Even the trees were fake! The scenery were obviously sets. Bad sets. Cheap sets. My eyes kept wandering to the background. That's not a tree!
I thought both Bridges and Steinfeld were phenomenal. I was quite impressed with the young actress. She was tough and determined without being bitchy or whiny. She was quite good at taking the lead - from grown men! She lead the search, she stole the show. I liked this movie and it's mostly due to the gruff and gritty Bridges and the forceful Steinfeld.
So, although I risk irking a lot of John Wayne devotees, the remake was much better. Much. The tone IS totally different. The acting is wonderful. And the sets don't look like sets (it seriously was an issue with me). I'm sad that this movie didn't win anything at the Oscars. Little Hailee was my pick. She should have won. If you like Westerns, see this one over the original.
Directed By: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Run Time: 1 hr 50 minutes
When Mattie Ross's (played by Steinfeld) father is murdered by Tom Chaney (played by Brolin) and the local law won't bring him in, Mattie enlists the aid of Marshall Cogburn (played by Bridges). A Texas ranger LaBoeuf (played by Damon), also on the hunt for Chaney, tags along.
I've heard two different opinions on this movie. It's a John Wayne remake. One viewer told me it was a shot-for-shot-line-for-line remake. Quite boring. Another viewer said that this version is an interesting take, a different angle from the original story. The original was showing on AMC the other night so I decided since I've seen the remake, I must watch the original in order to fully assess if I liked the remake. After watching the original, I can say that the remake was much better. The acting in the Coen brothers' version is superb, so many levels above the original. I'm sorry but for as tough and saavy as John Wayne was and always portrayed, I really think Jeff Bridges played a much, much more gruff and intense Mashall Cogburn. Glen Campbell played the original LaBoeuf and there is absolutely no comparison between his acting and Matt Damon's (Matt Damon is better). And the actresses that played Mattie - well, the original Kim Darby was sharp and tough but Hailee Steinfeld had a determination, a driving force, that I just didn't see in the original. The original actress was a little too perky for someone who was bent on revenge. As for the remake being shot for shot identical - heck no! Many of the scenes are in a totally different order and the background settings - which really set the tone for some scenes - were different. Much of the dialog was the same - but not all of it. And don't get me started on the sets. I was painfully aware that the 1969 version was shot on a sound stage. Even the trees were fake! The scenery were obviously sets. Bad sets. Cheap sets. My eyes kept wandering to the background. That's not a tree!
I thought both Bridges and Steinfeld were phenomenal. I was quite impressed with the young actress. She was tough and determined without being bitchy or whiny. She was quite good at taking the lead - from grown men! She lead the search, she stole the show. I liked this movie and it's mostly due to the gruff and gritty Bridges and the forceful Steinfeld.
So, although I risk irking a lot of John Wayne devotees, the remake was much better. Much. The tone IS totally different. The acting is wonderful. And the sets don't look like sets (it seriously was an issue with me). I'm sad that this movie didn't win anything at the Oscars. Little Hailee was my pick. She should have won. If you like Westerns, see this one over the original.
February Movie #6: The Kids Are All Right
Starring: Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson
Directed By: Lisa Cholodenko
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
The Kids Are All Right is about a family that consists of two moms and two children. When Joni (played by Wasikowska) turns 18, her younger brother Laser (ya, you read it right) (played by Hutcherson) asks her to connect with their biological donor father. Although Joni has no interest in meeting her father, she does it for Laser and tags along to meet Paul (played by Ruffalo). When the mothers find out, they insist on meeting Paul for themselves. Nic (played by Bening) is a doctor and likes to have control of everything. Jules (played by Moore) is very earthy and touchy-feely. She's a bit flighty but once you see the two women together, you see that the reason she's a bit unstable (Jules floats from job to job) is because Nic is a strong critic. Paul is a chef who owns his own restaurant and grows his own vegetables for his restaurant. He's aloof and a bit anti-establishment, which doesn't sit well with Nic. He asks Jules to landscape his backyard and because of his attention and interest in her ideas and opionins - and willingness to let Jules do what she wants - Jules falls in love with Paul. The already tense and troubled marriage/family begins to implode.
This movie is full of uncertainies - from the characters to the plot to the ending. I'm not sure I got the true sense of the mothers individual personalities. They seemed to blend together. I'm not sure the relationship between Jules and Paul was plausible. She's a lesbian! Yes, she was craving attention and needed affection and that came from a man. On one hand, it's logical that she would fall in love with the person who was finally nice to her but, um, it was a man! I'm not sure if I saw where and how the kids bonded to Paul. I'm not sure I understood the draw for Laser to meet his father. True, he was the only male in the house and may have needed a male influence but it seemed as though he got the attention he needed from his mothers.
I did like the kids. Both seemed very nice, not at all spoiled. Good kids. Decent kids. I liked the relationship Joni and Laser had with one another. I wish they had explained how Laser got his name and which mother was whose (one mother gave birth to one child; the other mother gave birth to the other child). Given the bonds each child had to their mothers, I think I have an idea of which carried whom.
The underlying story - marriage is hard and this is how two people struggle to cope with their differences and their issues - was an interesting story. I wish that had more of a focus. I didn't see how they all bonded with Paul so I didn't care for that aspect of the story. The commentary on marriage was more interesting to me.
This is an okay movie. Well acted... although I don't think any of the actors deserved their nomination (Bening and Moore for best actress; Ruffalo for best actor). I think so much could have been done with this movie. It fell short for me.
Directed By: Lisa Cholodenko
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
The Kids Are All Right is about a family that consists of two moms and two children. When Joni (played by Wasikowska) turns 18, her younger brother Laser (ya, you read it right) (played by Hutcherson) asks her to connect with their biological donor father. Although Joni has no interest in meeting her father, she does it for Laser and tags along to meet Paul (played by Ruffalo). When the mothers find out, they insist on meeting Paul for themselves. Nic (played by Bening) is a doctor and likes to have control of everything. Jules (played by Moore) is very earthy and touchy-feely. She's a bit flighty but once you see the two women together, you see that the reason she's a bit unstable (Jules floats from job to job) is because Nic is a strong critic. Paul is a chef who owns his own restaurant and grows his own vegetables for his restaurant. He's aloof and a bit anti-establishment, which doesn't sit well with Nic. He asks Jules to landscape his backyard and because of his attention and interest in her ideas and opionins - and willingness to let Jules do what she wants - Jules falls in love with Paul. The already tense and troubled marriage/family begins to implode.
This movie is full of uncertainies - from the characters to the plot to the ending. I'm not sure I got the true sense of the mothers individual personalities. They seemed to blend together. I'm not sure the relationship between Jules and Paul was plausible. She's a lesbian! Yes, she was craving attention and needed affection and that came from a man. On one hand, it's logical that she would fall in love with the person who was finally nice to her but, um, it was a man! I'm not sure if I saw where and how the kids bonded to Paul. I'm not sure I understood the draw for Laser to meet his father. True, he was the only male in the house and may have needed a male influence but it seemed as though he got the attention he needed from his mothers.
I did like the kids. Both seemed very nice, not at all spoiled. Good kids. Decent kids. I liked the relationship Joni and Laser had with one another. I wish they had explained how Laser got his name and which mother was whose (one mother gave birth to one child; the other mother gave birth to the other child). Given the bonds each child had to their mothers, I think I have an idea of which carried whom.
The underlying story - marriage is hard and this is how two people struggle to cope with their differences and their issues - was an interesting story. I wish that had more of a focus. I didn't see how they all bonded with Paul so I didn't care for that aspect of the story. The commentary on marriage was more interesting to me.
This is an okay movie. Well acted... although I don't think any of the actors deserved their nomination (Bening and Moore for best actress; Ruffalo for best actor). I think so much could have been done with this movie. It fell short for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)