I was disappointed with this movie. It could have been such a good one, but I kind of suspected it might rub me the wrong way. This Means War is about two secret agents who fall in love with the same girl and then battle it out to try to make her fall in love with one of them over the other. I was expecting a rather light-hearted, funny action romance, but with this type of film, you usually get a bit of garbage, too. Sadly, with romantic comedies, I find myself going into them wondering if I can ignore the sexual stuff enough to like the movie. And in this one, the answer was "no."
The movie has some good things going for it. It has a unique premise. It's really funny, even at the totally inappropriate parts. It has a good actress: Reese Witherspoon. Chris Pine (Kirk in 2009's Star Trek) and Tom Hardy (in Inception) star opposite her. I don't know them as well, but you gotta love a British accent!
But then it also has raunchy language and demeaning sex talk (it's rated PG-13), and (SPOILERS!!!!) the bad boy wins the girl! I was rooting so much for Hardy's Tuck (and not just because of the accent!). He is the better choice. He is the one who is interested in her from the beginning. He's sweet and genuine and romantic. Pine's FDR, on the other hand, sleeps around and can't stand Lauren at first. Of course, I knew immediately that the storyline would push FDR, even though it pretended to be about Tuck. And sure enough, a not-so-subtle emphasis on FDR followed.
(SPOILERS continue) But to the end, I hoped she would end up with Tuck, simultaneously knowing she wouldn't. And when she didn't, I was so disappointed. FDR didn't deserve her. I hated the whole process of how she ended up with him, too. Her sex-driven older sister gives her horrible advice, including sleeping with the two men to determine who's better. Lauren (who seems like a decent girl who doesn't do that sort of thing) sleeps with FDR and subsequently believes him to be The One. (I hated the message that sent.) Then she decides, against her better judgment, that she should at least try the other guy. Tuck proves she doesn't deserve him. Fortunately for Tuck, his ex-wife and son wait for him at the finish line, suddenly interested in him because it turns out he's a spy rather than a travel agent. (Are people really that shallow?) And unfortunately for this story's happy ending, it turns out that FDR really is a scumbag who'd slept with Tuck's wife at one point in their shared history. But of course, that revelation is just to add a last touch of humor, and we all know that Lauren changed his life and set him on the straight path. (Hollywood must think we are stupid.)
I was so, so disappointed in this movie. If you want to see a movie about spies and romance, go re-rent Mr. & Mrs. Smith from your rental store's Favorites section. (Or dig it out of the back of your collection!) There's more heat and much more class.
Showing posts with label Reese Witherspoon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reese Witherspoon. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Water for Elephants on DVD
If you haven't read the book Water for Elephants, by Sara Gruen (which I have not), then all you might know about the movie adaptation is that it stars Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson (the heartthrob of the Twilight vampire movies). That's all I knew, at any rate. Also, the book had been recommended to me, but lacking time to read, I opted for the visual medium instead.
Visually, Water for Elephants is a delight. It's a period piece, so the costumes and sets and 1930's Depression atmosphere combine to transport you to not only a different era but a different world of sorts. The circus is its own world with its own rules and government. So discovers Jacob, who loses his Polish parents and future veterinary career in one day. With nowhere else to go, he hops a train, not realizing it's a traveling circus. There, he finds work, friends, and even love. But his salvation could easily be his undoing as Marlena, the woman he falls in love with, is the wife of August, the circus manager, a man used to getting his way by force and brutality. When an elephant becomes the circus's new star attraction, Jacob is thrust into the middle of a dangerous game as he attempts to train the elephant for Marlena and protect both Marlena and the elephant from August's temper.
The movie is brilliantly acted with Robert Pattinson as Jacob, Reese Witherspoon as Marlena, and Christoph Waltz as August. Witherspoon is always fabulous, and Pattinson proves he has more than vampires to offer. The minor characters are all loveable as well, providing a fully entertaining movie in both the major plot and subplots.
I can't compare the movie to the book, not having read it, but I occasionally like to see a movie adaptation without the benefit of already knowing the story to see how it holds up by itself. I think Water for Elephants as a movie does a pretty good job of standing on its own feet. I thought it moved a little fast, perhaps. I'm sure the events of the story take place over a longer period of time in the book, but you have to compress time or at least make it feel like a lot of time is passing quickly when you make a movie. It's not that the movie is rushed. I was just caught off guard by how quickly Jacob made it into the circus and then how quickly things started to come crashing down. But, otherwise, the portrayal of events moved at a good pace.
Now, to the moral aspects of the story, and there, I do not have such glowing opinions. In fact, I cannot decide if I actually like the movie, and there are two reasons why. One, from the very first, I wasn't sure I liked Jacob. The movie starts with him as an old man telling his story, and almost the first thing you find out about him is that he's all alone in a nursing home because his five kids won't take care of him. So, my immediate thought was, what kind of man raises five kids who can't take care of him when he's old? I didn't like what that implied. Second, the whole romance and plot of the movie revolves around a man having an affair with another man's wife. I can't condone that at all. It bothered me, even though August was a brute of a man who didn't deserve Marlena. Still, adultery never flies in my book.
The movie ended well and was not as sad as I kept expecting. Actually, it was a great happy ending, but for me, it was tainted by the moral dilemmas of the story.
The movie is rated PG-13 and contains a sex scene and some violence, part of which is done to animals. I was warned about the animal cruelty and so expected it to be worse than it was. But it's bad enough. I appreciated the movie's subtle message that cruelty toward animals is no worse than cruelty toward men. In our society, it often seems like animals get preferential treatment. Such would certainly not have been the case in 1930's America.
Overall, my opinion is that this is a great period piece, but though I usually love romance, this romance, however realistic is might have been, just didn't sit right with me. I think I would average out the rating to three stars.
Visually, Water for Elephants is a delight. It's a period piece, so the costumes and sets and 1930's Depression atmosphere combine to transport you to not only a different era but a different world of sorts. The circus is its own world with its own rules and government. So discovers Jacob, who loses his Polish parents and future veterinary career in one day. With nowhere else to go, he hops a train, not realizing it's a traveling circus. There, he finds work, friends, and even love. But his salvation could easily be his undoing as Marlena, the woman he falls in love with, is the wife of August, the circus manager, a man used to getting his way by force and brutality. When an elephant becomes the circus's new star attraction, Jacob is thrust into the middle of a dangerous game as he attempts to train the elephant for Marlena and protect both Marlena and the elephant from August's temper.
The movie is brilliantly acted with Robert Pattinson as Jacob, Reese Witherspoon as Marlena, and Christoph Waltz as August. Witherspoon is always fabulous, and Pattinson proves he has more than vampires to offer. The minor characters are all loveable as well, providing a fully entertaining movie in both the major plot and subplots.
I can't compare the movie to the book, not having read it, but I occasionally like to see a movie adaptation without the benefit of already knowing the story to see how it holds up by itself. I think Water for Elephants as a movie does a pretty good job of standing on its own feet. I thought it moved a little fast, perhaps. I'm sure the events of the story take place over a longer period of time in the book, but you have to compress time or at least make it feel like a lot of time is passing quickly when you make a movie. It's not that the movie is rushed. I was just caught off guard by how quickly Jacob made it into the circus and then how quickly things started to come crashing down. But, otherwise, the portrayal of events moved at a good pace.
Now, to the moral aspects of the story, and there, I do not have such glowing opinions. In fact, I cannot decide if I actually like the movie, and there are two reasons why. One, from the very first, I wasn't sure I liked Jacob. The movie starts with him as an old man telling his story, and almost the first thing you find out about him is that he's all alone in a nursing home because his five kids won't take care of him. So, my immediate thought was, what kind of man raises five kids who can't take care of him when he's old? I didn't like what that implied. Second, the whole romance and plot of the movie revolves around a man having an affair with another man's wife. I can't condone that at all. It bothered me, even though August was a brute of a man who didn't deserve Marlena. Still, adultery never flies in my book.
The movie ended well and was not as sad as I kept expecting. Actually, it was a great happy ending, but for me, it was tainted by the moral dilemmas of the story.
The movie is rated PG-13 and contains a sex scene and some violence, part of which is done to animals. I was warned about the animal cruelty and so expected it to be worse than it was. But it's bad enough. I appreciated the movie's subtle message that cruelty toward animals is no worse than cruelty toward men. In our society, it often seems like animals get preferential treatment. Such would certainly not have been the case in 1930's America.
Overall, my opinion is that this is a great period piece, but though I usually love romance, this romance, however realistic is might have been, just didn't sit right with me. I think I would average out the rating to three stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)