Yikes! I am behind on my reviews! I have several books and movies I would love to share with you. I prefer to give books their own individual blogs, so I will first try to go succinctly, in one post, through the latest movies I've watched.
Belle on DVD
This period piece, a true story, is fascinating and romantic: a great date movie but also an interesting history lesson. It tells the tale of a girl born to a white father and black mother and raised in luxury as a Victorian lady in 18th century England. Of course, the slave trade was in full swing then, and she was accepted by very few into society and unlikely to make a match despite the inheritance left her by her father. She was free and independent but still burdened by the laws and prejudices of the nation. At the same time, her uncle and guardian was under pressure as Lord Chief Justice to make a ruling on the drowning of a shipment of slaves, specifically on whether or not they were insured cargo. The question is, how can you insure something as priceless as life, and if it is insured, is it no more valuable than cargo? Dido Belle finds herself facing a similar question in her personal life. Though not a slave, is she still property, just a woman to be bought by the man who needs her money? Or is she free to have more...to find love?
It's not a story about overturning slavery, but it's one of those that led up to it and one I'd never heard before. Rated PG, it's not a hard look at slavery, like 12 Years a Slave, but a look at the other side and in between, at the good people who fought for what was right and strove to make a real difference bit by bit. Those stories are worth telling, too. The movie is also a reminder of the times that gave us stories like those of Jane Austen's, stories about convention and the rules of society and young ladies striving to make matches and young men inheriting or having to seek out their fortunes by other means, a world very different from our own. Seen in the light of this story, this culture is sometimes amusing and sometimes ridiculous. It's Jane Austen...but not quite. Entertaining but certainly thought-provoking.
Into the Woods in the Theater
The music is memorable enough that I recognized songs from my days of listening to them online, when I worked at a bookstore and had never heard of Into the Woods. This musical was adapted from the stage for the screen and boasts such talents as Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, Johnny Depp, Chris Pine, and Anna Kendrick, just to name a few. The costumes are unique, if a bit edgy. The setting is lush. The music is at times haunting, which is appropriate for a movie about a collection of fairy tale characters crossing tales in the woods, and sometimes it is downright funny. There is a song sung by two prince brothers as they frolic on a waterfall, and it was one of the highlights of this particular viewing experience for me. But the story is depressing and kind of sadistic. The fairy tales we know start as we expect. Cinderella gets to dance with a prince at the ball. Jack brings goodies down the beanstalk. Rapunzel's prince climbs her hair to offer her true love. Red Riding Hood faces the wolf. The story that ties them all together is that of a baker and his wife who are collecting items to break a witch's curse and thereby have a baby.
But the fairy tales end up diverging from happiness in ways the Grimm brothers would applaud. And since I'm not a fan of things grotesque or immoral (The movie is rated only PG, but I found some of the ideas disturbing enough and certain themes mature enough to warrant a higher rating. Planes is rated PG. I don't think I'd take younger than middle school to this myself.), I wasn't as enthralled as the music tried to make me be. The message of the movie ends up being very modern, which is to say, it sounds good on the surface but doesn't have a lick of depth or sense. It's contradictory. It says, "Anything goes." It says, "What happens in the woods stays in the woods." I do realize that some of that absurdity is meant to be there, but I also know that people latch onto meaning in music. And there just isn't any consistent meaning here. I heard mixed reviews about this movie before I went into it and thought I might like it better than what I was hearing. At least, I wanted to see for myself before judging it. And though I don't love witches, that doesn't even bother me as much as immorality and the pretentiousness of one of the ending songs that appears to give meaning to the movie but contradicts everything else the movie seems to be about. I'm rather sad the movie didn't turn out better. I wish it would have ended halfway through with a more positive, less egotistical message.
The Giver on DVD
This movie was so surprising. I'd heard a good opinion of it from someone I respected, but it was out of theaters so fast I didn't have a chance to see it then. I shouldn't have been surprised it would turn out so wonderfully, but since I've read vast amounts of dystopian fiction, some with really unique premises, I just wasn't sure The Giver (PG-13, 97 min.) would translate from book to screen well. I guess I thought it might be too tame, but I was wrong. The world was actually brought to life for me better than when I read the book, somehow. Reading about people living in a world devoid of color is quite a bit different than seeing it. That's one of the things that comes across better in a movie. And maybe it's because I now have children (and didn't when I read the book), I was certainly more affected by the scenes of euthanasia. In The Giver, certain babies and all the old are euthanized, and the people are ignorant of what that means, having lost all emotions. But Jonas is given the opportunity to learn about the world from ages before in order to be an adviser to those who don't have emotions. He alone gets emotions back. And, no surprise, it changes his world. I didn't mind that Jonas in the movie is older than Jonas in the book. It all worked beautifully for me, making the story richer than I had even remembered. Granted, this sort of story is perhaps slower-paced than something like The Maze Runner or Divergent, but I think it's just as well done cinematically and deserves a place among the top runners of the young adult book-to-movie adaptations trend.
Showing posts with label book adaptations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book adaptations. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Unbroken in Theaters Now
After reading Unbroken this year, I was pretty excited to see the movie. It's just such an incredible story of a man who endured weeks adrift on a raft at sea only to end up being tortured in a Japanese POW camp during World War II. The book goes into so much more detail about the kind of man Louis Zamperini was and how that affected his outlook during his trials than a movie ever could, so whether you see the movie first or not, I highly recommend you also read the book.
As much as I like Angelina Jolie, I admit I was a bit worried about her directing this film. She's fairly new to directing, and she's a woman (*Gasp* Did I just say that?). I don't think I'm being biased to say that women generally have different viewpoints than men. We're wired differently with different interests and concerns, and I wasn't sure how that might translate to the condensed and adapted telling of a survival story. Granted, a woman wrote the biography and did a fantastic job.
When I saw the movie was rated only PG-13, I wondered even more. It's not that I necessarily wanted to see all the torture, but I felt that to be true to the book, the story warranted a stricter rating. After having seen the movie, I am conflicted about the rating it was given. I do feel like the hardships of the POW camp were downplayed (or perhaps it was just that the sheer amount of them described in the book couldn't make it into a 137-minute movie, thereby easing the intensity of the whole ordeal), but I also think the subject matter was intense enough to justify an R rating.
Bottom line, the movie is accurate but just doesn't convey how impressive this story really is. In that way, it is like a PG-13 version of the book. Whether that's due to directing or the medium the story is told in or the time constraints, I don't know. Where I think Angelina Jolie and the actors did a fine job is in bringing out the characters and the emotions of the story. Jack O'Connell is a great Louis Zamperini, and the story hones in on the key aspects of his character that got him through the war.
(SPOILER alert) Before the movie came out, I'd heard that it didn't portray Zamperini's faith enough. And his faith, especially at the end, is kind of what seals the deal on this book for many. It's that last punch that makes a believer like me giddy with emotion. But I think the movie did it just right. It foreshadowed it and then ended where it needed to at the end of his physical trials, leaving a footnote on a black screen to tell you about how his faith enabled him to survive and forgive after the war. I thought it actually made a pretty big impact like that.
If you want a story that's a celebration of life in the midst of some of the worst life has to offer, a true tale of courage and heart with a solid redemptive finale, take it from a fiction reader...fiction has nothing on this.
As much as I like Angelina Jolie, I admit I was a bit worried about her directing this film. She's fairly new to directing, and she's a woman (*Gasp* Did I just say that?). I don't think I'm being biased to say that women generally have different viewpoints than men. We're wired differently with different interests and concerns, and I wasn't sure how that might translate to the condensed and adapted telling of a survival story. Granted, a woman wrote the biography and did a fantastic job.
When I saw the movie was rated only PG-13, I wondered even more. It's not that I necessarily wanted to see all the torture, but I felt that to be true to the book, the story warranted a stricter rating. After having seen the movie, I am conflicted about the rating it was given. I do feel like the hardships of the POW camp were downplayed (or perhaps it was just that the sheer amount of them described in the book couldn't make it into a 137-minute movie, thereby easing the intensity of the whole ordeal), but I also think the subject matter was intense enough to justify an R rating.
Bottom line, the movie is accurate but just doesn't convey how impressive this story really is. In that way, it is like a PG-13 version of the book. Whether that's due to directing or the medium the story is told in or the time constraints, I don't know. Where I think Angelina Jolie and the actors did a fine job is in bringing out the characters and the emotions of the story. Jack O'Connell is a great Louis Zamperini, and the story hones in on the key aspects of his character that got him through the war.
(SPOILER alert) Before the movie came out, I'd heard that it didn't portray Zamperini's faith enough. And his faith, especially at the end, is kind of what seals the deal on this book for many. It's that last punch that makes a believer like me giddy with emotion. But I think the movie did it just right. It foreshadowed it and then ended where it needed to at the end of his physical trials, leaving a footnote on a black screen to tell you about how his faith enabled him to survive and forgive after the war. I thought it actually made a pretty big impact like that.
If you want a story that's a celebration of life in the midst of some of the worst life has to offer, a true tale of courage and heart with a solid redemptive finale, take it from a fiction reader...fiction has nothing on this.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The Maze Runner in Theaters Now
I loved the movie adaptations of The Hunger Games and Divergent, and the preview for The Maze Runner (PG-13, 113 min.) had me pretty excited. But much as James Dashner's endings in all the Maze Runner books fell short of my expectations and hopes, this movie disappoints. I think, perhaps, if I'd not read the book (especially as recently as I have), I would have liked the movie better. But watching the movie first and finding out the ending would have ruined the mystery and tension of the book. So, I guess my recommendation is this: If you are a movie person, watch the movie first. If books are always way better than movies to you, read the book first. Enjoy the story first in the medium you like best, and if you must, check it out in the other, too.
The story is this (taken more from my memory of the book than from the movie, though they are relatively the same). Thomas awakes in an elevator box of sorts, moving slowly and mysteriously toward an unknown destination, but the worst of it is, Thomas remembers nothing about his life. He knows how life works and the names of objects. He just can't remember anything specific pertaining to him except his first name. But everything is about to get stranger. When the box opens, he finds himself in a community of teenage boys who are all like him, no memories, and who are stuck in a giant maze full of monsters. Thomas is supposed to do what he's told, have a good cry if he needs to, and adapt to his part of making their community work. But Thomas is too curious for his own good, and he's not just going to sit by and do nothing.
The premise was fascinating to me. I like stories such as Lord of the Flies, and the TV show Lost. And out of this whole series, The Maze Runner, most similar to those, is my favorite book. The ending is decent enough in that it provides some answers without needing to resolve everything (overall, I don't like how Dashner resolves everything in the series, but if you take this first book by itself, it's fine). I figured the adaptation to a movie would be pretty straightforward, and I was excited to see the story come to life in that way.
Now, hear me out. I know you have to change things when you adapt a book into a movie. Things have to be shortened, focused. If a story takes place in a character's head in the book, you have to figure out a way to translate that to a medium that's largely outside the character's head (unless you provide character narration, which some movies do). So, I get it. I'm not one of those who swears the book is the only way to go. This blog is about books and movies because I really like both, and I love to see adaptations. Now, the adaptations don't always work for me, but I can generally see a movie as a separate entity from the book and not be too disappointed.
But...(you were waiting for it, weren't you?), The Maze Runner movie annoyed me just a tad. It started with small details here and there, different from the book. I was prepared for the big cuts, but the small changes were surprising. They seemed unnecessary and made less sense than the way the details were written in the book. I will try to avoid major SPOILERS here, but if you are concerned, stop reading now.
Some of the changes didn't hurt the movie, but I don't think they helped either. They were just inconsistencies that bothered me, especially when I couldn't see the point of the change (for instance, in the buildings the boys built for themselves). One of those rather minor details that I do think does hurt the movie, however, is the presentation of the mysterious medicine vials. In the book, the medicine comes up in the shipments of survival goods the boys periodically receive from the Box. When they are attacked by the monsters, the boys use this medicine. In the movie, another character arrives with two medicine vials in a pocket, and the movie uses them conveniently for two major characters. Aside from that seeming very coincidental and accidental in the movie, it changes the story and doesn't make sense, to boot. It makes more sense for the boys to already have medicine they use as needed.
Okay, so I'm going to have to go into SPOILER territory (more for the book than the movie, though). If you were braving it out until now, congrats but you've been warned. One thing that really bothered me is that the sci-fi technology is dumbed down. There are some really cool things in the book like telepathy and invisible portals. That's not a spoiler for the movie because those things don't exist in the movie. So, yay, I didn't spoil it for you. The movie only spoiled the book. I can't figure out why the tech was changed. Some things in the book are just not explained. Could that be it? They wanted a more believable world than what the book presented? But that change is going to affect the rest of the story even more than it did the beginning. Stripped of some of those details that make this world so interesting, they're going to have to make up stuff that isn't in the books just to fill in the cracks in future movies. I already thought the pacing was a little slow for this movie, and now some of what makes the book more interesting is gone. And if they bring it back, it will seem inconsistent and have me wondering why they took it out in the first place.
Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the way the kids get out (and that's not spoiling because you knew they would) is totally different from in the book. Okay, "totally" might be an exaggeration, but it's enough different that it affects the story. And it's another change that just doesn't make sense with the way the maze is supposed to work and the answers we discover at the end of the story.
Well, I could go on. Even some of the last shots of the movie get details wrong, but those I actually do understand. It was done for the movie audience to have a better visual that the book doesn't provide. It was a change made for the movie to make a better movie. If you haven't read the book, it works. If you have, it's just one more way the tech is changed that disappoints.
Aside from being annoyed by detail changes, I do have one moral concern to share. The book and the movie have some pretty violent moments. Kids are killed, and the worst part is that hardly anyone stops to mourn or seems to care, except with the one character who's played up to get the audience to care. But PG-13 is an acceptable rating.
Having said all that, I'll admit I didn't dislike the movie entirely. It was enjoyable to watch one time and see the characters, like Newt!, come to life, though there weren't too many other stand-outs, even so. Here was a chance for the movie to improve upon a book that had a few faults of its own. It didn't. So, I give it a shrug and a throw-away three out of five stars.
The story is this (taken more from my memory of the book than from the movie, though they are relatively the same). Thomas awakes in an elevator box of sorts, moving slowly and mysteriously toward an unknown destination, but the worst of it is, Thomas remembers nothing about his life. He knows how life works and the names of objects. He just can't remember anything specific pertaining to him except his first name. But everything is about to get stranger. When the box opens, he finds himself in a community of teenage boys who are all like him, no memories, and who are stuck in a giant maze full of monsters. Thomas is supposed to do what he's told, have a good cry if he needs to, and adapt to his part of making their community work. But Thomas is too curious for his own good, and he's not just going to sit by and do nothing.
The premise was fascinating to me. I like stories such as Lord of the Flies, and the TV show Lost. And out of this whole series, The Maze Runner, most similar to those, is my favorite book. The ending is decent enough in that it provides some answers without needing to resolve everything (overall, I don't like how Dashner resolves everything in the series, but if you take this first book by itself, it's fine). I figured the adaptation to a movie would be pretty straightforward, and I was excited to see the story come to life in that way.
Now, hear me out. I know you have to change things when you adapt a book into a movie. Things have to be shortened, focused. If a story takes place in a character's head in the book, you have to figure out a way to translate that to a medium that's largely outside the character's head (unless you provide character narration, which some movies do). So, I get it. I'm not one of those who swears the book is the only way to go. This blog is about books and movies because I really like both, and I love to see adaptations. Now, the adaptations don't always work for me, but I can generally see a movie as a separate entity from the book and not be too disappointed.
But...(you were waiting for it, weren't you?), The Maze Runner movie annoyed me just a tad. It started with small details here and there, different from the book. I was prepared for the big cuts, but the small changes were surprising. They seemed unnecessary and made less sense than the way the details were written in the book. I will try to avoid major SPOILERS here, but if you are concerned, stop reading now.
Some of the changes didn't hurt the movie, but I don't think they helped either. They were just inconsistencies that bothered me, especially when I couldn't see the point of the change (for instance, in the buildings the boys built for themselves). One of those rather minor details that I do think does hurt the movie, however, is the presentation of the mysterious medicine vials. In the book, the medicine comes up in the shipments of survival goods the boys periodically receive from the Box. When they are attacked by the monsters, the boys use this medicine. In the movie, another character arrives with two medicine vials in a pocket, and the movie uses them conveniently for two major characters. Aside from that seeming very coincidental and accidental in the movie, it changes the story and doesn't make sense, to boot. It makes more sense for the boys to already have medicine they use as needed.
Okay, so I'm going to have to go into SPOILER territory (more for the book than the movie, though). If you were braving it out until now, congrats but you've been warned. One thing that really bothered me is that the sci-fi technology is dumbed down. There are some really cool things in the book like telepathy and invisible portals. That's not a spoiler for the movie because those things don't exist in the movie. So, yay, I didn't spoil it for you. The movie only spoiled the book. I can't figure out why the tech was changed. Some things in the book are just not explained. Could that be it? They wanted a more believable world than what the book presented? But that change is going to affect the rest of the story even more than it did the beginning. Stripped of some of those details that make this world so interesting, they're going to have to make up stuff that isn't in the books just to fill in the cracks in future movies. I already thought the pacing was a little slow for this movie, and now some of what makes the book more interesting is gone. And if they bring it back, it will seem inconsistent and have me wondering why they took it out in the first place.
Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the way the kids get out (and that's not spoiling because you knew they would) is totally different from in the book. Okay, "totally" might be an exaggeration, but it's enough different that it affects the story. And it's another change that just doesn't make sense with the way the maze is supposed to work and the answers we discover at the end of the story.
Well, I could go on. Even some of the last shots of the movie get details wrong, but those I actually do understand. It was done for the movie audience to have a better visual that the book doesn't provide. It was a change made for the movie to make a better movie. If you haven't read the book, it works. If you have, it's just one more way the tech is changed that disappoints.
Aside from being annoyed by detail changes, I do have one moral concern to share. The book and the movie have some pretty violent moments. Kids are killed, and the worst part is that hardly anyone stops to mourn or seems to care, except with the one character who's played up to get the audience to care. But PG-13 is an acceptable rating.
Having said all that, I'll admit I didn't dislike the movie entirely. It was enjoyable to watch one time and see the characters, like Newt!, come to life, though there weren't too many other stand-outs, even so. Here was a chance for the movie to improve upon a book that had a few faults of its own. It didn't. So, I give it a shrug and a throw-away three out of five stars.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
12 Years a Slave on DVD
My interest in the Oscar nominees has grown over the past few years. I believe I watched nearly all the Best Picture nominees from last year. This year, however, I wasn't so excited about the options. There were only a couple I was really interested in seeing, and even then, I'm taking my time to get around to them.
I just watched 12 Years a Slave, and I'm not sure I can say that I liked it. It was certainly well-done and deserving of its Best Picture award. My husband did some research and found it was mostly pretty accurate, horrifically enough. I wasn't necessarily surprised by what I saw, being familiar with some of the details of slavery, but it was pretty amazing (and not in a good way, as Brad Pitt's character says) that it all happened to one man. It's based on the true story of Solomon Northup, an educated, free black man who was kidnapped and enslaved in the mid-1800's. He wrote a memoir about his experiences, and the movie is based on that.
I can't say I like the movie because, well...it's brutal stuff, vividly depicted in a visual medium. It's rated R for obvious reasons, among which are violence, nudity (not sexual), and some sex scenes (they are not too graphic, but they are disturbing). Just because something is hard to watch doesn't mean you shouldn't, but each person must take into account what they can handle. In some ways, I'm glad I've seen this movie, but at the same time, I don't think it was necessary. I'm not changed because of it. It disturbed me but didn't impact me. I'm not sure I would really recommend it to anyone. I keep wondering what the purpose of this movie was. Is our culture still so racist that we need this reminder? Will anyone who is racist actually see this movie, and if they do, will it change them? Slavery is awful. What was done shouldn't have been done. But I wonder if we dwell on the past too much when the present has enough injustices of its own. The past is "safe." What's that saying: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"? It's easy to say "I'm sorry" for something that's over. It's harder to stand up for our beliefs and put them into practice right now.
I'm not saying it's the movie industry's job to speak out on modern-day issues (though I'm sure they could certainly figure out a way to do so to great effect, as can be seen with the way they've pushed gay rights). It's not the movie industry's job to fight injustice, but if that was not the purpose of this movie, what was? Surely not entertainment. Perhaps it was to acknowledge an astounding true tale. I can accept that. But if we as a culture are trying to fight injustice, we need to start in the present with the sex trade or abortion, for example. It seems to me that we applaud recognition of our past failures (if I recognize it, I must be better), but we, myself included, merely gasp in horror at the news feed and then silently move on.
In addition to the movie's murky agenda, I didn't think all the nudity was tactfully depicted. You can get the sense of nudity from a person's back. Even bum shots (we all look the same from the back) are better than full frontal nudity which, to warn you, this movie contains. I didn't see the point of it.
One thing, neither bad nor good, that I thought was interesting in the cinematography is that the scenes are long. They are much longer than in most movies, long to the point of being uncomfortable, which I think was the point (and which makes me think there was some moral agenda behind this movie). The beatings are horrifically long. At one point, the main character hangs from his neck, his feet barely touching the ground, for an extended time, not just in terms of hours the man actually hung there in the story but in terms of seconds on the screen. The creators of this movie took time to tell the story well and to make the viewer pay attention. It is only a little over 2 hours long (134 minutes). In terms of how much suffering you can handle, it might feel long, but it is not too long in the sense that it was dragged out.
The music, by Hans Zimmer, is also very dramatic at times, more in keeping with something from Inception (which he also did) than with a period piece, but similarly to the purpose of the longer scenes, I think the purpose was to arouse a sense of foreboding in the viewer.
The acting is superb. Chiwetel Ejiofor (whom I previously knew as the villain from Serenity) is Solomon. And of course, Lupita Nyong'o won Best Actress for her role as Patsey. Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt, among other known actors, make small appearances. And the despicable (and way insane) slaver villain is played by Michael Fassbender.
I obviously have mixed feelings about this movie. While I agree that it has all the makings of an Oscar winner and deserves what it got, I don't think it's for the masses. Honestly, I'm not sure whom it's for. Obviously, not someone like me. The critics out there might call me racist or too prudish, but I can only give my opinion, regardless of how people may misconstrue it. I may be the last one to see this, but if you were considering it still, hopefully my review can help you make a better-educated decision about whether or not to see it.
I just watched 12 Years a Slave, and I'm not sure I can say that I liked it. It was certainly well-done and deserving of its Best Picture award. My husband did some research and found it was mostly pretty accurate, horrifically enough. I wasn't necessarily surprised by what I saw, being familiar with some of the details of slavery, but it was pretty amazing (and not in a good way, as Brad Pitt's character says) that it all happened to one man. It's based on the true story of Solomon Northup, an educated, free black man who was kidnapped and enslaved in the mid-1800's. He wrote a memoir about his experiences, and the movie is based on that.
I can't say I like the movie because, well...it's brutal stuff, vividly depicted in a visual medium. It's rated R for obvious reasons, among which are violence, nudity (not sexual), and some sex scenes (they are not too graphic, but they are disturbing). Just because something is hard to watch doesn't mean you shouldn't, but each person must take into account what they can handle. In some ways, I'm glad I've seen this movie, but at the same time, I don't think it was necessary. I'm not changed because of it. It disturbed me but didn't impact me. I'm not sure I would really recommend it to anyone. I keep wondering what the purpose of this movie was. Is our culture still so racist that we need this reminder? Will anyone who is racist actually see this movie, and if they do, will it change them? Slavery is awful. What was done shouldn't have been done. But I wonder if we dwell on the past too much when the present has enough injustices of its own. The past is "safe." What's that saying: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"? It's easy to say "I'm sorry" for something that's over. It's harder to stand up for our beliefs and put them into practice right now.
I'm not saying it's the movie industry's job to speak out on modern-day issues (though I'm sure they could certainly figure out a way to do so to great effect, as can be seen with the way they've pushed gay rights). It's not the movie industry's job to fight injustice, but if that was not the purpose of this movie, what was? Surely not entertainment. Perhaps it was to acknowledge an astounding true tale. I can accept that. But if we as a culture are trying to fight injustice, we need to start in the present with the sex trade or abortion, for example. It seems to me that we applaud recognition of our past failures (if I recognize it, I must be better), but we, myself included, merely gasp in horror at the news feed and then silently move on.
In addition to the movie's murky agenda, I didn't think all the nudity was tactfully depicted. You can get the sense of nudity from a person's back. Even bum shots (we all look the same from the back) are better than full frontal nudity which, to warn you, this movie contains. I didn't see the point of it.
One thing, neither bad nor good, that I thought was interesting in the cinematography is that the scenes are long. They are much longer than in most movies, long to the point of being uncomfortable, which I think was the point (and which makes me think there was some moral agenda behind this movie). The beatings are horrifically long. At one point, the main character hangs from his neck, his feet barely touching the ground, for an extended time, not just in terms of hours the man actually hung there in the story but in terms of seconds on the screen. The creators of this movie took time to tell the story well and to make the viewer pay attention. It is only a little over 2 hours long (134 minutes). In terms of how much suffering you can handle, it might feel long, but it is not too long in the sense that it was dragged out.
The music, by Hans Zimmer, is also very dramatic at times, more in keeping with something from Inception (which he also did) than with a period piece, but similarly to the purpose of the longer scenes, I think the purpose was to arouse a sense of foreboding in the viewer.
The acting is superb. Chiwetel Ejiofor (whom I previously knew as the villain from Serenity) is Solomon. And of course, Lupita Nyong'o won Best Actress for her role as Patsey. Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt, among other known actors, make small appearances. And the despicable (and way insane) slaver villain is played by Michael Fassbender.
I obviously have mixed feelings about this movie. While I agree that it has all the makings of an Oscar winner and deserves what it got, I don't think it's for the masses. Honestly, I'm not sure whom it's for. Obviously, not someone like me. The critics out there might call me racist or too prudish, but I can only give my opinion, regardless of how people may misconstrue it. I may be the last one to see this, but if you were considering it still, hopefully my review can help you make a better-educated decision about whether or not to see it.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
The Maze Runner
If you haven't yet been surprised by the preview for The Maze Runner movie, out this September, look it up! That might make you want to read this series, as it did for me. I'd heard of The Maze Runner book, by James Dashner, but for some reason, I'd never read it and didn't even really know what it was about. Actually, when I first started hearing hype about it, I thought I'd already read it. I mistook it for another book. Anyway, I missed it, but now I'm jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else, it seems.
So, is it worth the hype? I've been asked this question by others intrigued by the trailer, as I was. The short of it is, I sped through the book and am still interested in seeing the movie. It wasn't everything I was expecting, maybe, and I'm not yet sure how I feel about the revelations at the end of the book. But the journey is mysterious and suspenseful, the danger is life-or-death, and the characters are, for the most part, likeable and complex. I've already got my hands on the sequel in the four-book series (actually, a trilogy and a prequel, and I'm uncertain if that's it or if there are more books coming).
The Maze Runner is about a boy who remembers nothing from his life but his first name, Thomas, as he is slowly lifted in an elevator toward an unknown destination. He arrives, the ceiling of the elevator opens, and he is met by a bunch of boys who've been expecting him, the monthly newbie to their small, organized, self-led civilization. None of the boys know where they've come from, but they quickly find out what they are supposed to do. When Thomas steps into the light, he discovers that he is in a large field, of sorts, surrounded by high walls. The community of boys is mostly self-sustaining with supplies delivered weekly from the "Creators." But all is not harmonious. Even though the boys have strict rules and seem to live a relatively stable, productive life, they are prisoners in a maze, where maze runners daily search for a way out, dodging evil machine-like creatures who rule the night. Little do they all know, Thomas included, that his arrival will change everything.
Intrigued yet? I was. The set-up of the all-boys community and the hierarchy of leadership is well thought through. The creatures are revolting and terrifying. The mystery of what the maze is and what the boys are there for, especially since they don't remember anything, just begs you to read on. With such drama and mystery, there's bound to be some disappointment upon getting the answers. Remember the TV show Lost? I loved it, beginning to end, but a lot of fans hated where it ended up. Part of what made that, and makes this, so entertaining is not knowing what to expect. But don't get me wrong, I'm pretty excited about reading the next book, The Scorch Trials. This series hasn't let go of me yet, not by a long shot.
Go check out that movie trailer now. If you aren't interested yet, you aren't going to be, but if this review already piques your curiosity, I'm betting that will clinch the deal.
So, is it worth the hype? I've been asked this question by others intrigued by the trailer, as I was. The short of it is, I sped through the book and am still interested in seeing the movie. It wasn't everything I was expecting, maybe, and I'm not yet sure how I feel about the revelations at the end of the book. But the journey is mysterious and suspenseful, the danger is life-or-death, and the characters are, for the most part, likeable and complex. I've already got my hands on the sequel in the four-book series (actually, a trilogy and a prequel, and I'm uncertain if that's it or if there are more books coming).
The Maze Runner is about a boy who remembers nothing from his life but his first name, Thomas, as he is slowly lifted in an elevator toward an unknown destination. He arrives, the ceiling of the elevator opens, and he is met by a bunch of boys who've been expecting him, the monthly newbie to their small, organized, self-led civilization. None of the boys know where they've come from, but they quickly find out what they are supposed to do. When Thomas steps into the light, he discovers that he is in a large field, of sorts, surrounded by high walls. The community of boys is mostly self-sustaining with supplies delivered weekly from the "Creators." But all is not harmonious. Even though the boys have strict rules and seem to live a relatively stable, productive life, they are prisoners in a maze, where maze runners daily search for a way out, dodging evil machine-like creatures who rule the night. Little do they all know, Thomas included, that his arrival will change everything.
Intrigued yet? I was. The set-up of the all-boys community and the hierarchy of leadership is well thought through. The creatures are revolting and terrifying. The mystery of what the maze is and what the boys are there for, especially since they don't remember anything, just begs you to read on. With such drama and mystery, there's bound to be some disappointment upon getting the answers. Remember the TV show Lost? I loved it, beginning to end, but a lot of fans hated where it ended up. Part of what made that, and makes this, so entertaining is not knowing what to expect. But don't get me wrong, I'm pretty excited about reading the next book, The Scorch Trials. This series hasn't let go of me yet, not by a long shot.
Go check out that movie trailer now. If you aren't interested yet, you aren't going to be, but if this review already piques your curiosity, I'm betting that will clinch the deal.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Divergent in Theaters Now
There's been a lot of speculation about whether or not Divergent, the movie based on Veronica Roth's book, will hold up to the cinematic standards of The Hunger Games or be a flop like many other YA book-to-movie adaptations. I can't say how it will do in the box office since it does seem to have a smaller audience to begin with than The Hunger Games, but as to whether or not the movie is well-done and entertaining enough to compete, I think the verdict is in: YA movies aren't done yet, and this latest addition has enough of both entertainment value and gravitas to at least boost it into the same playing field as The Hunger Games. (I think we still know which would win in a death match.) It helps that their sub-genres and atmospheres are similar and that Divergent is not some supernatural flick about paranormal beings in love with mortal humans. So far, they haven't had much luck in translating those to the screen, no matter how popular the books are. But the dystopian, fight-for-survival stories are somewhat more realistic and have a much broader appeal in our modern world, where many feel like things are going to pot.
I won't go into the plot here. If you want that, see my review of the book series, which I loved. I will say that the movie was very true to the book, no doubt in part due to the author being a co-producer. Certain scenes were cut and trimmed, of course, as they always are, but most of what I expected was there.
I kept hearing good things about the actors before the movie came out. Entertainment Weekly has been gushing over Shailene Woodley (who plays the heroine, Tris) and her co-star Theo James (who plays the love interest, nicknamed Four). The actors look sort of robotic (my husband's term) in photos, but on screen, it's a whole different story. They have chemistry, emotion (Shailene does, anyway; Four is more stoic), and character depth. Even when they are antagonistic toward each other, they are obviously well-matched. Kate Winslet makes a great Jeanine, and the other characters, while not getting a lot of screen time, still fill in the cracks nicely enough. If you want more character depth, you really have to read the books.
Setting-wise, if there was anything that felt off to me, it was the Dauntless headquarters and the depiction of the pit. The screen's version underwhelmed me a bit. From the book's description, I had a much larger vision in mind, something a little more subterranean and rocky rather than man-made and boxy. But the rest of the post-apocalyptic Chicago setting as well as most of the visuals I had from reading the books were a pretty fair match.
The movie's pacing, especially in the first half, was just about right. It's surprising how well the movie hones in and focuses on the main points while still leaving room for a natural development of ideas and themes. It doesn't feel too rushed. However, I thought the second half of the movie was a little slower, and simultaneously a little more rushed, than the first. What I mean is that it doesn't seem to take the time as carefully as it does in the beginning to reel the viewer in to what is going on. Though we still see everything from Tris's perspective, it feels a little less personal. The conflict is big, and without the same emotional connection to it, you begin to feel the movie's length a bit. It runs 2 hours and 20 minutes. But it isn't boring, and I'd much rather have a too-long movie than split the book.
(Minor SPOILERS next two paragraphs) The movie is rated PG-13, mostly for violence. My husband remarked on how more people died than he expected (he has not read the book), but aside from a suicide, most of the deaths are impersonal, the result of remote gunfire. That doesn't include the murders that are only in people's fear simulations. And some of the violence is just part of the Dauntless training: injuries from fistfights and knives. There is later a stabbing.
I don't have many moral concerns with the story. There is no actual sex, though the characters want to. The morality is kind of gray there, but at least, the characters don't go through with it. There is a scene in a fear simulation where Four gets rough with Tris, but she handles it before it goes too far. (SPOILERS end)
Having read the books, I'm a little wary of the future of this series on screen. This installment is a good one, but I think a lot of its entertainment value comes from the training and the beginning development of Tris and Four's relationship. It's a new world, and everything is interesting to the viewer. Subsequent movies won't have quite the same pull, though I think fans will flock to them all the same.
Overall, I was very pleased with the outcome of Divergent on the screen. It's a great adaptation with strong actors who can carry the weight of such a movie. A lot of it depends on them, and they do more than pull through. They are perfect. I'd like to see this movie again, just to soak it all in properly. Four stars.
I won't go into the plot here. If you want that, see my review of the book series, which I loved. I will say that the movie was very true to the book, no doubt in part due to the author being a co-producer. Certain scenes were cut and trimmed, of course, as they always are, but most of what I expected was there.
I kept hearing good things about the actors before the movie came out. Entertainment Weekly has been gushing over Shailene Woodley (who plays the heroine, Tris) and her co-star Theo James (who plays the love interest, nicknamed Four). The actors look sort of robotic (my husband's term) in photos, but on screen, it's a whole different story. They have chemistry, emotion (Shailene does, anyway; Four is more stoic), and character depth. Even when they are antagonistic toward each other, they are obviously well-matched. Kate Winslet makes a great Jeanine, and the other characters, while not getting a lot of screen time, still fill in the cracks nicely enough. If you want more character depth, you really have to read the books.
Setting-wise, if there was anything that felt off to me, it was the Dauntless headquarters and the depiction of the pit. The screen's version underwhelmed me a bit. From the book's description, I had a much larger vision in mind, something a little more subterranean and rocky rather than man-made and boxy. But the rest of the post-apocalyptic Chicago setting as well as most of the visuals I had from reading the books were a pretty fair match.
The movie's pacing, especially in the first half, was just about right. It's surprising how well the movie hones in and focuses on the main points while still leaving room for a natural development of ideas and themes. It doesn't feel too rushed. However, I thought the second half of the movie was a little slower, and simultaneously a little more rushed, than the first. What I mean is that it doesn't seem to take the time as carefully as it does in the beginning to reel the viewer in to what is going on. Though we still see everything from Tris's perspective, it feels a little less personal. The conflict is big, and without the same emotional connection to it, you begin to feel the movie's length a bit. It runs 2 hours and 20 minutes. But it isn't boring, and I'd much rather have a too-long movie than split the book.
(Minor SPOILERS next two paragraphs) The movie is rated PG-13, mostly for violence. My husband remarked on how more people died than he expected (he has not read the book), but aside from a suicide, most of the deaths are impersonal, the result of remote gunfire. That doesn't include the murders that are only in people's fear simulations. And some of the violence is just part of the Dauntless training: injuries from fistfights and knives. There is later a stabbing.
I don't have many moral concerns with the story. There is no actual sex, though the characters want to. The morality is kind of gray there, but at least, the characters don't go through with it. There is a scene in a fear simulation where Four gets rough with Tris, but she handles it before it goes too far. (SPOILERS end)
Having read the books, I'm a little wary of the future of this series on screen. This installment is a good one, but I think a lot of its entertainment value comes from the training and the beginning development of Tris and Four's relationship. It's a new world, and everything is interesting to the viewer. Subsequent movies won't have quite the same pull, though I think fans will flock to them all the same.
Overall, I was very pleased with the outcome of Divergent on the screen. It's a great adaptation with strong actors who can carry the weight of such a movie. A lot of it depends on them, and they do more than pull through. They are perfect. I'd like to see this movie again, just to soak it all in properly. Four stars.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Life of Pi on DVD
I'm going through quite a few of the Best Picture nominees from this year's Oscars, as you can see if you've read my blog recently, and though Life of Pi was lower on my list, I still thought it would be worth watching (I heard it was beautiful, especially in 3-D). I haven't read the book, by Yann Martel (but I'm not sorry I haven't), and I went into it pretty much not knowing anything about the story, just that the book has been a bestseller and is sometimes read as school literature. I did not see it in 3-D, but I can see how it was filmed for it and could have been even more visually stunning than it already was. I have not been converted to 3-D yet, and I rarely see a movie in that form. (Didn't even see Avatar that way.) So, I find it somewhat annoying when I'm watching a movie and something comes straight toward the camera in a move that is designed for 3-D. It looks set-up and fake in the 2-D experience. I was especially annoyed by it in Oz the Great and Powerful, but it was done at least more tastefully in Life of Pi.
(SPOILER alerts about the ending to follow.) And it's true: Life of Pi is a visual treat. It's a beautiful story (thought I don't agree with the religious morals of it) right up until about ten minutes from the end. The story should have stopped there, but it goes on to pull the rug out from under everything you've believed about what you've been watching and it tries to tack on some feel-good, religious meaning to the whole thing. I was almost loving the movie until then. When I explained what it was about to my husband, he sort of chuckled drily and said it was an appropriate choice for an Oscar nominee. If you've read my review of three other Best Picture nominees this year, you know my opinion of what normally goes for Oscar bait. It's usually the depressing stuff, and though I've enjoyed some of the other nominees this year, Life of Pi fits the usual Oscar fare, unfortunately.
Now, for those of you who, like me, haven't read the book or seen the movie, I will give you the plot premise without spoilers you wouldn't be able to deduce fairly easily if you've ever seen the book's cover or the movie poster. Pi, an Indian boy whose father owns a zoo, is crossing the Pacific with a boat full of animals when the ship sinks. Pi gets stranded on a lifeboat with several other wild animals, including a dangerous Bengal Tiger. Thus, the stage is set. And it really is an amazing story. I assumed Pi and the tiger would hit it off like a happy Disney movie, unbelievably becoming fast friends, but that's not the case, and I'll leave any plot details at that.
I was so disappointed by the ending that I have to warn you, at least, though I won't give spoilers. It ruined it all for me. So, if you want a visual treat and aren't too concerned about where the story might be leading you, it's kind of fascinating. But if you don't like being misled, take it from me: skip this one. And I really hate to say it, too, because there are some beautiful scenes, and Pi's resourcefulness is fascinating.
As I alluded to before, the other thing I don't like about the movie is its religious message. Pi is a Hindu, so he believes in all kinds of gods, including Jesus and Allah. The message seems to be that belief is what counts, but as a Christian, I know it's more than that. It's whom you believe in that matters. It's a nice idea to think all religions can agree and are essentially the same, but it's simply untrue.
If I could somehow cut off the end of this movie, I might give it the high end of three stars. As is, I hate to rate it and do it a discredit because the art of it is beautiful, and the performance by Suraj Sharma as Pi is heartfelt and emotional. But as a whole I didn't like this movie.
Life of Pi is rated PG for emotional content and scenes of peril as well as normal predatory animal interactions, and it's just over two hours long.
(SPOILER alerts about the ending to follow.) And it's true: Life of Pi is a visual treat. It's a beautiful story (thought I don't agree with the religious morals of it) right up until about ten minutes from the end. The story should have stopped there, but it goes on to pull the rug out from under everything you've believed about what you've been watching and it tries to tack on some feel-good, religious meaning to the whole thing. I was almost loving the movie until then. When I explained what it was about to my husband, he sort of chuckled drily and said it was an appropriate choice for an Oscar nominee. If you've read my review of three other Best Picture nominees this year, you know my opinion of what normally goes for Oscar bait. It's usually the depressing stuff, and though I've enjoyed some of the other nominees this year, Life of Pi fits the usual Oscar fare, unfortunately.
Now, for those of you who, like me, haven't read the book or seen the movie, I will give you the plot premise without spoilers you wouldn't be able to deduce fairly easily if you've ever seen the book's cover or the movie poster. Pi, an Indian boy whose father owns a zoo, is crossing the Pacific with a boat full of animals when the ship sinks. Pi gets stranded on a lifeboat with several other wild animals, including a dangerous Bengal Tiger. Thus, the stage is set. And it really is an amazing story. I assumed Pi and the tiger would hit it off like a happy Disney movie, unbelievably becoming fast friends, but that's not the case, and I'll leave any plot details at that.
I was so disappointed by the ending that I have to warn you, at least, though I won't give spoilers. It ruined it all for me. So, if you want a visual treat and aren't too concerned about where the story might be leading you, it's kind of fascinating. But if you don't like being misled, take it from me: skip this one. And I really hate to say it, too, because there are some beautiful scenes, and Pi's resourcefulness is fascinating.
As I alluded to before, the other thing I don't like about the movie is its religious message. Pi is a Hindu, so he believes in all kinds of gods, including Jesus and Allah. The message seems to be that belief is what counts, but as a Christian, I know it's more than that. It's whom you believe in that matters. It's a nice idea to think all religions can agree and are essentially the same, but it's simply untrue.
If I could somehow cut off the end of this movie, I might give it the high end of three stars. As is, I hate to rate it and do it a discredit because the art of it is beautiful, and the performance by Suraj Sharma as Pi is heartfelt and emotional. But as a whole I didn't like this movie.
Life of Pi is rated PG for emotional content and scenes of peril as well as normal predatory animal interactions, and it's just over two hours long.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Les Miserables in Theaters Now
My first introduction to Les Miserables was a magnificent stage production of the musical in a beautiful old theater when I was in college. The songs and story took my breath away. In fact, I think most people are more familiar with the musical than the book. Several years after I saw it for the first time and then watched a movie version (which did not have any singing and did not do the work justice), I read through the unabridged book by Victor Hugo, nearly 1500 pages, 20-or-so pages a day. I made it through in approximately three months. Yes, it is a terribly long book that rambles and goes on long bunny trails about priests and battles and sewers. Yet, it is fascinating. What's amazing, though, is how the musical adapts the book so well. Some people think the musical improves on the book, and in some ways, I agree. While there is certainly much more story and insight to be gained through reading the book, the musical is emotionally and thematically tighter. And as for 2012's on-screen production, it's outdone any previous work I've seen and the book altogether.
Just briefly, for those who don't know the story, it's about a French prisoner named Jean Valjean who spends nearly 20 years in prison in France for stealing a loaf of bread and comes out a worse man than the one who went in. But when he gets caught stealing from a priest who had sheltered him, the priest covers for him, forgives him, gives him the silver, and tells him to use it to start over and live a better life. And that's what Jean Valjean does. He changes his name and becomes the mayor of a French town. But a very devoted police officer named Javert is determined to track him down, putting Jean Valjean on the run again. The story follows Valjean through his life as he cares for the prostitute Fantine on her deathbed; encounters the thieving Thenardiers, from whom he rescues Fantine's little daughter, Cosette; and then, several years later, helps fight in the students' revolution alongside the boy Cosette loves. It's a heartbreaking story in many ways, but its message and beauty make it an enduring, powerful tale people remember and go back to again and again.
The movie is like the musical on steroids. If you aren't familiar with Les Mis (as it's affectionately called), don't go expecting the usual movie fare, and be prepared for the singing. Les Mis is a musical done completely in song. Although the movie breaks the songs with a quickly spoken word here and there, it's still mostly music. I've heard third-hand that people are saying the words are hard to understand. That's simply not true. If you go to a musical in a theater, sometimes the words are hard to understand. If you watch a movie with a lot of exposition and "talking heads," people talking about what's going on instead of the viewer getting to see the action, sometimes the words are hard to understand. This is no harder. In fact, it's easier than a regular musical because you get to see the faces of the singers up close and you can read their lips as they sing.
On a stage, there is a great deal of make-believe involved. Not so in a movie. You can make anything seem real in a movie. But what I think is interesting is that the movie doesn't stray too far from its stage roots. The sets are lovely and gigantic and multifaceted and, well, very movie-like, but they are relatively few (for a modern screen production). Watching this Les Mis in the movie theater is similar to watching a musical on a stage, but everything that's distracting about a stage is gone. You can see the actors' faces and the emotion. There are no breaks or set changes. There are no props standing in for other things. Everything is bigger, better, closer, more cleanly done, more real...but it's still a musical, still a set, still a stage...just a fantastic one. I think this kind of shocked people who didn't know what they were getting into, people who didn't really know what Les Mis was to begin with. If you are one of those people, I'm preparing you. You are going to be watching actors sing entire solos in your face, some of them in a single shot that doesn't cut away or show any other action, and it's going to be spectacular...if you know it's coming.
As for the actors, Hugh Jackman is fabulous as Jean Valjean, but Anne Hathaway has the best solo. In one take, she belts out her heart and soul, her face a whole palette of emotions, her voice choking up and then releasing in full, and the camera never cuts away! In some ways, movie acting seems easier than stage acting because you don't have to memorize as much in one go and you get the luxury of doing it all over if you mess up. This was movie acting with all the difficultly of the stage. I wonder how many times Anne Hathaway performed that song for the camera. It's a long song. Was she perfect every time? In the movie, she was as perfect as it gets. Truly amazing.
All the actors are great. Perhaps the weakest voice is that of Russell Crowe, but his acting is still undeniably good. And I absolutely love the Thenardiers. Maybe I feel this way because they are the comedic relief in a story that's otherwise pretty heavy stuff, but casting could not have been more perfect than Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. Oh. My. The scene where they are stealing from their customers as they come in...so ridiculous and fun! Every choreographed move of that scene is genius. And it's so funny to me that even though they are despicable people, Mr. and Mrs. Thenardier love each other, as much as two such people can. In the middle of all that mayhem, the wife mouths "I love you" at her husband. Hilarious! This movie needs that lighter side to give the viewer a break.
Speaking of needing a break, there are so many emotionally weighty scenes. I won't detail or spoil them here. Suffice it to say that two measly little squares of kleenex in my pocket were totally insufficient. I used up one pretty early, held it together through most of the middle, then thoroughly soaked the other tissue and finished up the movie sniffling and swiping at my face with bare fingers. Yeah, gross, but hey, my own husband cried. And if you've seen it, don't pretend you weren't suppressing a sniffle, too. But who's pretending? I've seen grown men freely admit on Facebook that this movie impacted them in deep emotional ways. With a movie this good, there's no shame in that.
Besides the obvious places where one might cry (death scenes, for example), I was also particularly struck by anything involving little children (a sick little baby with its mom on the street; also, the child Cosette singing about her castle on a cloud). As a mom, everything strikes me a little harder, I think, but especially the suffering of children. And this movie's very title tells you right off the bat, this is a story about suffering. But it's also about so much more.
As I said before, thematically and emotionally, this movie is powerful. But it's not just about the raw emotion in every song. There's such a message of redemption and hope in this story. In the opening scene, the prisoners sing, "Sweet Jesus, here my prayer [...] sweet Jesus doesn't care," reflecting Jean Valjean's initial mindset. He is in complete despair. But a priest gives Valjean a chance, and his life is forever changed. Throughout the story, you can see the candlesticks he stole from the priest, there as a reminder of all he's been forgiven. It's beautiful. My husband also pointed out to me the various times the image of the cross is used throughout the movie. And it all wraps up with the promise of heaven. Breathtaking indeed, especially for a Christian viewer who knows it all to be true.
...I sat there in the movie theater, without my popcorn and soda (because the concessions were slow and we didn't want to miss anything), suppressing a cough and feeling a headache from my sinus congestion coming on, listening to the people two rows behind narrating and clarifying the major story plots to each other as the film progressed (apparently they were among the ones who couldn't understand all the lyrics), crying and sniffling into two soaked tissues...I sat there with all that distraction, and I absolutely loved everything about this movie. See it in the theaters now while you have the chance. I don't know how you couldn't love it.
Five stars...of course!
Just briefly, for those who don't know the story, it's about a French prisoner named Jean Valjean who spends nearly 20 years in prison in France for stealing a loaf of bread and comes out a worse man than the one who went in. But when he gets caught stealing from a priest who had sheltered him, the priest covers for him, forgives him, gives him the silver, and tells him to use it to start over and live a better life. And that's what Jean Valjean does. He changes his name and becomes the mayor of a French town. But a very devoted police officer named Javert is determined to track him down, putting Jean Valjean on the run again. The story follows Valjean through his life as he cares for the prostitute Fantine on her deathbed; encounters the thieving Thenardiers, from whom he rescues Fantine's little daughter, Cosette; and then, several years later, helps fight in the students' revolution alongside the boy Cosette loves. It's a heartbreaking story in many ways, but its message and beauty make it an enduring, powerful tale people remember and go back to again and again.
The movie is like the musical on steroids. If you aren't familiar with Les Mis (as it's affectionately called), don't go expecting the usual movie fare, and be prepared for the singing. Les Mis is a musical done completely in song. Although the movie breaks the songs with a quickly spoken word here and there, it's still mostly music. I've heard third-hand that people are saying the words are hard to understand. That's simply not true. If you go to a musical in a theater, sometimes the words are hard to understand. If you watch a movie with a lot of exposition and "talking heads," people talking about what's going on instead of the viewer getting to see the action, sometimes the words are hard to understand. This is no harder. In fact, it's easier than a regular musical because you get to see the faces of the singers up close and you can read their lips as they sing.
On a stage, there is a great deal of make-believe involved. Not so in a movie. You can make anything seem real in a movie. But what I think is interesting is that the movie doesn't stray too far from its stage roots. The sets are lovely and gigantic and multifaceted and, well, very movie-like, but they are relatively few (for a modern screen production). Watching this Les Mis in the movie theater is similar to watching a musical on a stage, but everything that's distracting about a stage is gone. You can see the actors' faces and the emotion. There are no breaks or set changes. There are no props standing in for other things. Everything is bigger, better, closer, more cleanly done, more real...but it's still a musical, still a set, still a stage...just a fantastic one. I think this kind of shocked people who didn't know what they were getting into, people who didn't really know what Les Mis was to begin with. If you are one of those people, I'm preparing you. You are going to be watching actors sing entire solos in your face, some of them in a single shot that doesn't cut away or show any other action, and it's going to be spectacular...if you know it's coming.
As for the actors, Hugh Jackman is fabulous as Jean Valjean, but Anne Hathaway has the best solo. In one take, she belts out her heart and soul, her face a whole palette of emotions, her voice choking up and then releasing in full, and the camera never cuts away! In some ways, movie acting seems easier than stage acting because you don't have to memorize as much in one go and you get the luxury of doing it all over if you mess up. This was movie acting with all the difficultly of the stage. I wonder how many times Anne Hathaway performed that song for the camera. It's a long song. Was she perfect every time? In the movie, she was as perfect as it gets. Truly amazing.
All the actors are great. Perhaps the weakest voice is that of Russell Crowe, but his acting is still undeniably good. And I absolutely love the Thenardiers. Maybe I feel this way because they are the comedic relief in a story that's otherwise pretty heavy stuff, but casting could not have been more perfect than Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. Oh. My. The scene where they are stealing from their customers as they come in...so ridiculous and fun! Every choreographed move of that scene is genius. And it's so funny to me that even though they are despicable people, Mr. and Mrs. Thenardier love each other, as much as two such people can. In the middle of all that mayhem, the wife mouths "I love you" at her husband. Hilarious! This movie needs that lighter side to give the viewer a break.
Speaking of needing a break, there are so many emotionally weighty scenes. I won't detail or spoil them here. Suffice it to say that two measly little squares of kleenex in my pocket were totally insufficient. I used up one pretty early, held it together through most of the middle, then thoroughly soaked the other tissue and finished up the movie sniffling and swiping at my face with bare fingers. Yeah, gross, but hey, my own husband cried. And if you've seen it, don't pretend you weren't suppressing a sniffle, too. But who's pretending? I've seen grown men freely admit on Facebook that this movie impacted them in deep emotional ways. With a movie this good, there's no shame in that.
Besides the obvious places where one might cry (death scenes, for example), I was also particularly struck by anything involving little children (a sick little baby with its mom on the street; also, the child Cosette singing about her castle on a cloud). As a mom, everything strikes me a little harder, I think, but especially the suffering of children. And this movie's very title tells you right off the bat, this is a story about suffering. But it's also about so much more.
As I said before, thematically and emotionally, this movie is powerful. But it's not just about the raw emotion in every song. There's such a message of redemption and hope in this story. In the opening scene, the prisoners sing, "Sweet Jesus, here my prayer [...] sweet Jesus doesn't care," reflecting Jean Valjean's initial mindset. He is in complete despair. But a priest gives Valjean a chance, and his life is forever changed. Throughout the story, you can see the candlesticks he stole from the priest, there as a reminder of all he's been forgiven. It's beautiful. My husband also pointed out to me the various times the image of the cross is used throughout the movie. And it all wraps up with the promise of heaven. Breathtaking indeed, especially for a Christian viewer who knows it all to be true.
...I sat there in the movie theater, without my popcorn and soda (because the concessions were slow and we didn't want to miss anything), suppressing a cough and feeling a headache from my sinus congestion coming on, listening to the people two rows behind narrating and clarifying the major story plots to each other as the film progressed (apparently they were among the ones who couldn't understand all the lyrics), crying and sniffling into two soaked tissues...I sat there with all that distraction, and I absolutely loved everything about this movie. See it in the theaters now while you have the chance. I don't know how you couldn't love it.
Five stars...of course!
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in Theaters Now
Oh, wow, where to start? By the way, that wasn't a good "wow," I'm sorry to say. The Hobbit left me and my husband, overall, disappointed. There were some great parts, I'll admit, and I'll get to those in just a bit. But, first, the "bad and ugly."
Perhaps my main problem with the movie is that it feels like a copycat of the Lord of the Rings movies. In fact, switch out a few characters, settings, and plotlines and you have The Fellowship of the Ring. A mismatched group goes on a quest, gets chased by orcs, visits the elves, gets caught in a storm (of sorts) on a narrow mountain path, and gets chased beneath the mountain (which is ludicrous; they fall continuously, even hundreds of feet, some of them getting smashed by a huge, fat goblin king, and come out unscathed). Now, isn't that line-up of events exactly The Fellowship of the Ring? Granted, some of that is straight out of The Hobbit, but a lot of the details aren't, my husband informs me. (It's been too long since I read The Hobbit for me to compare. My husband just re-read it.) And then as the flames rise and all hope seems lost, the eagles swoop in and save the day. My husband says a form of this is actually in The Hobbit, too, but I remember it best from The Return of the King movie, where Frodo and Sam are waiting to die, hot lava all around, after destroying the ring. Not much about this newest movie stands out from its predecessors, but it could have. It's not that The Hobbit is badly written, not at all! So, it baffles that Peter Jackson and his crew felt the need to change it so much, to add pieces of history from other Tolkien manuscripts but not even follow those correctly.
Now, had I not seen the other three Lord of the Rings movies, I would have thought this movie was beautiful. I don't mind the CG effects as much as others, my husband included, who would prefer a more realistic art and backdrop. I love the settings of Middle Earth...but I've seen it all before. The first few times Lord of the Rings panned over a straight line of travelers traversing a mountain ridge with breathtaking majesty behind them, I thought that was awesome. This time, it's just old...and time-consuming.
This movie does not need to be as long as it is, and The Hobbit certainly doesn't need to be three movies. It's a rather short little book, and it's very singularly focused...on a hobbit. It's not The Hobbit: The Fellowship of the Arkenstone. It's not The Hobbit: Thorin is the New Aragorn. It's not The Hobbit: A Dwarf's Tale. It's The Hobbit[: no addendum].
But where the movie went right, I'll admit, it went oh-so-right. I absolutely loved Bilbo. Perhaps it was partly my familiarity with the actor as Watson on the Brits' TV show Sherlock, but I was thoroughly enamored with his portrayal of Bilbo. He salvages a tiny bit of the movie and endears himself to us as well as any previously portrayed hobbit ever has. Bravo, Martin Freeman!
One part my husband and I agree goes particularly well is the chaotic dwarf supper at Bilbo's house. It's wonderful fun and adds life to a cast of characters that are otherwise unremarkable and interchangeable. I also enjoyed the capture by and escape from the trolls and the riddle exchange with Gollum, both memorable parts of The Hobbit.
But even I noticed places where details didn't quite match up with the book, such as the manner in which Bilbo discovers the ring. That seemed so iconic in the book to me that I wondered how you could mess with it. After all, it's been ages since I read the book, and I still remember it. His fingers stumble upon it in the dark. In the movie, however, Bilbo sees the ring fall from Gollum. It bothered me at first, but my husband actually argued in favor of the change, and now I can see why they did it for the movie. It helps establish that the ring was Gollum's, that he lost it accidentally, and even that the ring was looking for a new master. You'd only know the last by being familiar with the story already, but I suppose the movie's take is a more cinematic representation than simply discovering it underhand.
Aside from enjoying the few good, straight-from-the-book events, my overall feeling during the movie was one of boredom. The scenery shots were too long. The extra characters weren't essential to the plot (at least, not the book's plot). The elves were nothing new. Radagast was interesting but nonessential.
Now, contrary to my husband's feelings and despite what I said above about The Hobbit needing to be about a hobbit, I did enjoy Thorin's back story. I only wish it were more true to Tolkien's work, but my husband can tell you all about that; it's not my area of expertise.
My husband could even tell you that Bilbo wasn't quite right, that they tried to make him a hero when he is not, more purposeful than he actually is. Well, I didn't notice that so much during the viewing, but I thought it was an interesting observation worth noting.
My husband and I are not a case of opposites attracting, at least not in the way we think. I must say this so you don't think I'm just being a parrot. I think the people you watch a movie with can influence your take on it, but in this case, I gave Nick my thoughts before he told me his. And I'm refraining from including most of his complaints.
So, star rating? Oh, that's hard...because honestly, I'll probably go see how the story progresses and ends. It's Middle Earth, after all, and who doesn't love the place? I like to see it any way I can. But was this movie The Hobbit? No. Was it an Unexpected Journey? You bet. And for me, that wasn't a good thing. I think I'm rather alone in my views, so if you loved the movie, great! It's just my take.
Perhaps my main problem with the movie is that it feels like a copycat of the Lord of the Rings movies. In fact, switch out a few characters, settings, and plotlines and you have The Fellowship of the Ring. A mismatched group goes on a quest, gets chased by orcs, visits the elves, gets caught in a storm (of sorts) on a narrow mountain path, and gets chased beneath the mountain (which is ludicrous; they fall continuously, even hundreds of feet, some of them getting smashed by a huge, fat goblin king, and come out unscathed). Now, isn't that line-up of events exactly The Fellowship of the Ring? Granted, some of that is straight out of The Hobbit, but a lot of the details aren't, my husband informs me. (It's been too long since I read The Hobbit for me to compare. My husband just re-read it.) And then as the flames rise and all hope seems lost, the eagles swoop in and save the day. My husband says a form of this is actually in The Hobbit, too, but I remember it best from The Return of the King movie, where Frodo and Sam are waiting to die, hot lava all around, after destroying the ring. Not much about this newest movie stands out from its predecessors, but it could have. It's not that The Hobbit is badly written, not at all! So, it baffles that Peter Jackson and his crew felt the need to change it so much, to add pieces of history from other Tolkien manuscripts but not even follow those correctly.
Now, had I not seen the other three Lord of the Rings movies, I would have thought this movie was beautiful. I don't mind the CG effects as much as others, my husband included, who would prefer a more realistic art and backdrop. I love the settings of Middle Earth...but I've seen it all before. The first few times Lord of the Rings panned over a straight line of travelers traversing a mountain ridge with breathtaking majesty behind them, I thought that was awesome. This time, it's just old...and time-consuming.
This movie does not need to be as long as it is, and The Hobbit certainly doesn't need to be three movies. It's a rather short little book, and it's very singularly focused...on a hobbit. It's not The Hobbit: The Fellowship of the Arkenstone. It's not The Hobbit: Thorin is the New Aragorn. It's not The Hobbit: A Dwarf's Tale. It's The Hobbit[: no addendum].
But where the movie went right, I'll admit, it went oh-so-right. I absolutely loved Bilbo. Perhaps it was partly my familiarity with the actor as Watson on the Brits' TV show Sherlock, but I was thoroughly enamored with his portrayal of Bilbo. He salvages a tiny bit of the movie and endears himself to us as well as any previously portrayed hobbit ever has. Bravo, Martin Freeman!
One part my husband and I agree goes particularly well is the chaotic dwarf supper at Bilbo's house. It's wonderful fun and adds life to a cast of characters that are otherwise unremarkable and interchangeable. I also enjoyed the capture by and escape from the trolls and the riddle exchange with Gollum, both memorable parts of The Hobbit.
But even I noticed places where details didn't quite match up with the book, such as the manner in which Bilbo discovers the ring. That seemed so iconic in the book to me that I wondered how you could mess with it. After all, it's been ages since I read the book, and I still remember it. His fingers stumble upon it in the dark. In the movie, however, Bilbo sees the ring fall from Gollum. It bothered me at first, but my husband actually argued in favor of the change, and now I can see why they did it for the movie. It helps establish that the ring was Gollum's, that he lost it accidentally, and even that the ring was looking for a new master. You'd only know the last by being familiar with the story already, but I suppose the movie's take is a more cinematic representation than simply discovering it underhand.
Aside from enjoying the few good, straight-from-the-book events, my overall feeling during the movie was one of boredom. The scenery shots were too long. The extra characters weren't essential to the plot (at least, not the book's plot). The elves were nothing new. Radagast was interesting but nonessential.
Now, contrary to my husband's feelings and despite what I said above about The Hobbit needing to be about a hobbit, I did enjoy Thorin's back story. I only wish it were more true to Tolkien's work, but my husband can tell you all about that; it's not my area of expertise.
My husband could even tell you that Bilbo wasn't quite right, that they tried to make him a hero when he is not, more purposeful than he actually is. Well, I didn't notice that so much during the viewing, but I thought it was an interesting observation worth noting.
My husband and I are not a case of opposites attracting, at least not in the way we think. I must say this so you don't think I'm just being a parrot. I think the people you watch a movie with can influence your take on it, but in this case, I gave Nick my thoughts before he told me his. And I'm refraining from including most of his complaints.
So, star rating? Oh, that's hard...because honestly, I'll probably go see how the story progresses and ends. It's Middle Earth, after all, and who doesn't love the place? I like to see it any way I can. But was this movie The Hobbit? No. Was it an Unexpected Journey? You bet. And for me, that wasn't a good thing. I think I'm rather alone in my views, so if you loved the movie, great! It's just my take.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Breaking Dawn, Part 2 in Theaters Now
I saw Breaking Dawn, Part 2 on its opening day. It speaks to how crazy my life with two toddlers has become that I am just now posting this review. (It's the last day of November, and I haven't even finished one book this month...which puts me a tad behind in meeting my goal of 50 books this year!) All those who were interested have already seen this movie, so I'm not sure whom I'm reviewing for at this point. At least my thoughts aren't as stale as this review's timing. Rest assured that I did get my initial thoughts down pretty quickly after watching the second part of Breaking Dawn.
Aside from the first Twilight movie, this finale was the movie I was most looking forward to because Bella has finally turned and there is no more angst about her giving up humanity or being a lesser being than Edward, and we get to see the gathering of all the cool vampires. There's a lot more action, not quite as much kissing (though that's in there, too). But of course, nothing could have quite lived up to the book in regard to the new vampires. There just isn't enough time in a movie to get into each character (it's quite a lot to absorb in the book, as it is). No, what really surprised me was not how cool the vampires were but my reaction to Bella's daughter and their family dynamics. As a mother of a baby daughter myself, I was really touched by those scenes. They made the movie resonate emotionally with me, whereas without them, I might have been disappointed. Baby Renesmee, with her knowing eyes, is so very cute. And the actress they got to play the older Renesmee...beautiful creature. That hair. Lovely.
There were a few things here and there in the movie that I thought were slightly corny or unbelievable, but then I had to remember that I was watching a movie about vampires and werewolves. Believability is out of the equation. In one case, it's more of a plot hole. That's when we are shown baby Renesmee's decked-out nursery, and then shortly after, we are informed that the Cullens will be moving because of the risk of Bella, who's supposed to be dead (and sort of is), being seen. If they knew they'd be moving immediately upon Bella's awakening, they would not have taken the time to set up a baby room. You could argue that they are rich enough to afford to make one baby room here and another wherever. That's true, too. It just struck me as odd. The movie really moves fast, so the details don't always flow together seamlessly.
(SPOILER alert--I have to say it, even though you've likely seen it or aren't going to) All you crazy fans out there bawling at the end of the movie, don't tell me you really thought they were all going to die. That's not how the book ends, is it? You think they'd butcher the book that badly? It's been awhile since I read the book, so I was kind of wondering what was going on. I figured the movie was taking some artistic license, but I knew who was going to come through in the end. So, I just figured nobody would be truly dead (dead again, I suppose I should say) until I saw the proof. After all, vampires can put their heads back on. That's why they burn them, too. Of course, there was some burning going on, which had me a little tense. I was, like, hurry up and win the fight so you can get those flames out! Ha! Well, as you know if you've seen it, they didn't do it quite like that at all. I admit, I was very surprised by the end. Maybe I shouldn't have been, but like I said, it's been awhile since I read the book. I couldn't remember exactly how things went down. To be honest, I felt cheated. Talk about pulling punches! But that's okay because it ends like it's supposed to, as it does in the book. For some reason, the book didn't make me feel cheated. Something must have been lost in translation.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It has some beautiful scenery and decent acting. Plus, it's just fun to see book characters come to life on screen. But I missed seeing more of the dynamics between Bella and the characters. You just can't do that like you can in a book. At least they got Charlie's part right, but maybe that's due to Billy Burke himself. (Have you seen TV's Revolution? He's brilliant!) So, yeah, I enjoyed the movie, but it won't endure in memory. I'm already looking forward to the next movies of the season. And if you are sad to see this franchise end, don't be! The Hunger Games sequels are still to come, and sooner or later, another book series will grip us all, including the filmmakers, inspiring us to show up for the first seats at midnight (or 10:00 pm; what was THAT all about? Or at 2:40 in the afternoon on the release date so that we can still catch one of the first shows but not have to sit through it with screaming teenager fans; yep, that was me.). I'm not sad to be moving on.
Aside from the first Twilight movie, this finale was the movie I was most looking forward to because Bella has finally turned and there is no more angst about her giving up humanity or being a lesser being than Edward, and we get to see the gathering of all the cool vampires. There's a lot more action, not quite as much kissing (though that's in there, too). But of course, nothing could have quite lived up to the book in regard to the new vampires. There just isn't enough time in a movie to get into each character (it's quite a lot to absorb in the book, as it is). No, what really surprised me was not how cool the vampires were but my reaction to Bella's daughter and their family dynamics. As a mother of a baby daughter myself, I was really touched by those scenes. They made the movie resonate emotionally with me, whereas without them, I might have been disappointed. Baby Renesmee, with her knowing eyes, is so very cute. And the actress they got to play the older Renesmee...beautiful creature. That hair. Lovely.
There were a few things here and there in the movie that I thought were slightly corny or unbelievable, but then I had to remember that I was watching a movie about vampires and werewolves. Believability is out of the equation. In one case, it's more of a plot hole. That's when we are shown baby Renesmee's decked-out nursery, and then shortly after, we are informed that the Cullens will be moving because of the risk of Bella, who's supposed to be dead (and sort of is), being seen. If they knew they'd be moving immediately upon Bella's awakening, they would not have taken the time to set up a baby room. You could argue that they are rich enough to afford to make one baby room here and another wherever. That's true, too. It just struck me as odd. The movie really moves fast, so the details don't always flow together seamlessly.
(SPOILER alert--I have to say it, even though you've likely seen it or aren't going to) All you crazy fans out there bawling at the end of the movie, don't tell me you really thought they were all going to die. That's not how the book ends, is it? You think they'd butcher the book that badly? It's been awhile since I read the book, so I was kind of wondering what was going on. I figured the movie was taking some artistic license, but I knew who was going to come through in the end. So, I just figured nobody would be truly dead (dead again, I suppose I should say) until I saw the proof. After all, vampires can put their heads back on. That's why they burn them, too. Of course, there was some burning going on, which had me a little tense. I was, like, hurry up and win the fight so you can get those flames out! Ha! Well, as you know if you've seen it, they didn't do it quite like that at all. I admit, I was very surprised by the end. Maybe I shouldn't have been, but like I said, it's been awhile since I read the book. I couldn't remember exactly how things went down. To be honest, I felt cheated. Talk about pulling punches! But that's okay because it ends like it's supposed to, as it does in the book. For some reason, the book didn't make me feel cheated. Something must have been lost in translation.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It has some beautiful scenery and decent acting. Plus, it's just fun to see book characters come to life on screen. But I missed seeing more of the dynamics between Bella and the characters. You just can't do that like you can in a book. At least they got Charlie's part right, but maybe that's due to Billy Burke himself. (Have you seen TV's Revolution? He's brilliant!) So, yeah, I enjoyed the movie, but it won't endure in memory. I'm already looking forward to the next movies of the season. And if you are sad to see this franchise end, don't be! The Hunger Games sequels are still to come, and sooner or later, another book series will grip us all, including the filmmakers, inspiring us to show up for the first seats at midnight (or 10:00 pm; what was THAT all about? Or at 2:40 in the afternoon on the release date so that we can still catch one of the first shows but not have to sit through it with screaming teenager fans; yep, that was me.). I'm not sad to be moving on.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Lucky One on DVD
Lately, Nicholas Sparks book-to-movie adaptations have been striking out with me, so I wasn't too eager to see The Lucky One. But it kept crossing my radar, and since there's been little else out that I really want to see, I rented it. I was sort of pleasantly surprised; at least it was better than average.
The movie stars Zac Efron as a soldier whose life is literally saved by the discovery of another man's discarded picture. Logan returns from war an emotionally wounded man. To avoid hurting his sister's family and to try to offer thanks to the woman in the photo, he sets off walking across the country to Louisiana. He means to just say "thank you," but is that enough? Unable to find the words or even explain himself, he ends up with a job at Beth's dog kennel. Beth (Taylor Schilling) is still struggling from the loss of her brother in the war, and raising a kid as a single mom isn't easy, especially when her former husband Keith, also the town sheriff, is making life more difficult. Quiet Logan does everything he can to help, and eventually he and Beth fall in love. But Logan can't keep ignoring the real reason he entered Beth's life. And Keith will do anything to get him out of it.
It's an interesting story, probably even better in the book. And neither of the two main characters dies in the end! (Sparks seems to like his romances to be partly tragedies, too.) There's still a lot of angst and true-to-life emotional trauma, but the romance is fairly solid.
I was impressed with Zac Efron, even though his character is stoic and seems to hardly require acting. Knowing what Efron is capable of (High School Musical), seeing him in this very different role was remarkable. He obviously has a pretty broad acting range. It can't be easy to pull off stoic and still make your character likeable and reachable; there's a lot of internal acting there.
I did say the romance is good, but unfortunately, there is a sexual aspect to it, shown in more detail (though nothing graphic; it's rated PG-13) than it needs to be. I would have preferred it not to exist, but it is Nicholas Sparks. Why does "good romance" automatically come with sex these days? We women like our Pride and Prejudice just fine. (Although, Fifty Shades of Grey seems to be the new thing. I wonder, do some of the same women like both? Can't they see the difference?)
Besides the sexual immorality, I had one other beef with the movie toward the end. (SPOILER ALERT) Do you know what deus ex machina means? It's a plot device where a god, or the equivalent, comes out of nowhere to save the day. Basically, it's a cop-out. Characters don't have to make the hard decisions. They are miraculously saved. That happens with Keith. He is nicely ejected from the picture so that Logan and Beth and her son can become a family. No mention is made of the effects this might have on the kid, who admires his no-good dad. It's played like it's supposed to be "happily ever after" from here on out. I guess the movie didn't want to dwell on the emotional fall-out when it was trying to wrap things up. Maybe the book does better, but in that case, I suppose it's somewhat of a tragedy, after all.
Otherwise, I generally liked the movie. Beautiful setting, lots of dogs, good acting. If only it wasn't Nicholas Sparks! I say that tongue-in-cheek, of course. But I do wonder if he's ever going to give us another "walk to remember." (Oh, wait, that was a tragedy, too, albeit one with morals and a hopeful, positive message at the end.)
The movie stars Zac Efron as a soldier whose life is literally saved by the discovery of another man's discarded picture. Logan returns from war an emotionally wounded man. To avoid hurting his sister's family and to try to offer thanks to the woman in the photo, he sets off walking across the country to Louisiana. He means to just say "thank you," but is that enough? Unable to find the words or even explain himself, he ends up with a job at Beth's dog kennel. Beth (Taylor Schilling) is still struggling from the loss of her brother in the war, and raising a kid as a single mom isn't easy, especially when her former husband Keith, also the town sheriff, is making life more difficult. Quiet Logan does everything he can to help, and eventually he and Beth fall in love. But Logan can't keep ignoring the real reason he entered Beth's life. And Keith will do anything to get him out of it.
It's an interesting story, probably even better in the book. And neither of the two main characters dies in the end! (Sparks seems to like his romances to be partly tragedies, too.) There's still a lot of angst and true-to-life emotional trauma, but the romance is fairly solid.
I was impressed with Zac Efron, even though his character is stoic and seems to hardly require acting. Knowing what Efron is capable of (High School Musical), seeing him in this very different role was remarkable. He obviously has a pretty broad acting range. It can't be easy to pull off stoic and still make your character likeable and reachable; there's a lot of internal acting there.
I did say the romance is good, but unfortunately, there is a sexual aspect to it, shown in more detail (though nothing graphic; it's rated PG-13) than it needs to be. I would have preferred it not to exist, but it is Nicholas Sparks. Why does "good romance" automatically come with sex these days? We women like our Pride and Prejudice just fine. (Although, Fifty Shades of Grey seems to be the new thing. I wonder, do some of the same women like both? Can't they see the difference?)
Besides the sexual immorality, I had one other beef with the movie toward the end. (SPOILER ALERT) Do you know what deus ex machina means? It's a plot device where a god, or the equivalent, comes out of nowhere to save the day. Basically, it's a cop-out. Characters don't have to make the hard decisions. They are miraculously saved. That happens with Keith. He is nicely ejected from the picture so that Logan and Beth and her son can become a family. No mention is made of the effects this might have on the kid, who admires his no-good dad. It's played like it's supposed to be "happily ever after" from here on out. I guess the movie didn't want to dwell on the emotional fall-out when it was trying to wrap things up. Maybe the book does better, but in that case, I suppose it's somewhat of a tragedy, after all.
Otherwise, I generally liked the movie. Beautiful setting, lots of dogs, good acting. If only it wasn't Nicholas Sparks! I say that tongue-in-cheek, of course. But I do wonder if he's ever going to give us another "walk to remember." (Oh, wait, that was a tragedy, too, albeit one with morals and a hopeful, positive message at the end.)
Monday, October 15, 2012
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011) on DVD
I was so hesitant to watch the Oscar-nominated and award-winning Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. I'd heard mixed reviews about it and thought it might be trying too hard to push an agenda or too depressing. What the agenda might be I wasn't certain. That's what comes of only half listening to gossip and not researching yourself.
When the movie finally came through on my netflix, I still didn't watch it right away. But I finally had time and the inclination, and watching it was certainly worth it, if emotionally exhausting.
Based on the novel by Jonathan S. Foer but inspired by the events of September 11, 2001, the movie tells the fictional story of Oskar Schell, a nine-year-old boy who lost his father in the Towers that morning. As the year following his father's death comes to a close, Oskar feels he is losing his dad for good. He hangs onto the vestiges of his father's time on earth, including six heartbreaking answering machine messages his father left once the attack started. When he finds a key among his father's possessions, he believes his dad left him a last scavenger hunt and message, and he embarks on a journey all over New York City to find the lock. Oskar, who suffers from something akin to Asperger's Disorder, discovers a city full of faces and people, some eager to help and some not, but each with his or her own story to tell. For the boy who's afraid of so many things, the journey is sometimes overwhelming, but Thomas Schell told his son to never stop looking, and so he doesn't. Caught in the young boy's circle of pain are his loving but somewhat lost mother, his caring and quirky grandmother, and his grandmother's mysterious renter, an old man without a voice and with past hurts of his own.
Thomas Horn is one of the best child actors I've seen since Freddie Highmore (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, August Rush). This is complex, heartfelt, amazing acting for a kid, even if he's older than he looks. He was approximately 14 when the movie was released in theaters. He stars in a film with Sandra Bullock (who plays his mother) and Tom Hanks (who plays his dad in flashbacks), but Thomas Horn is the one who shines. His acting partner for much of the movie, Max von Sydow (who plays the Renter), complements him perfectly. Together, they make both the laughter and the tears flow.
And, believe me, this is an emotional roller-coaster ride, weighted more heavily perhaps on the downward side than the up. As a mother myself, watching another mother feel like she's losing her son and must let him go to save him was tough. Sandra Bullock plays those emotions beautifully, and I felt like I was looking into a mirror as I cried along with her.
But the movie is not altogether depressing, and the ending, while sad enough, is also hopeful. I don't mind watching sad stories if they have satisfying endings. Mind you, I didn't say "perfect," and this one's ending isn't. But it met my needs for the story on a foundational level. Sometimes the more "perfect" movie endings don't ring true. I'd rather have the ring of truth and something hopeful at the end. Hope always exists, and that rings truer to me than everything working out beautifully.
The movie is morally sound, rated PG-13 for a bit of language but mostly for disturbing 9/11 images. People who lost loved ones in the Towers should be aware that this might not be for them. On the other hand, it could offer a sort of cathartic healing, too.
I give this movie three stars for superb acting with difficult material. I'm not in love with the story, but I was certainly affected and touched by it.
When the movie finally came through on my netflix, I still didn't watch it right away. But I finally had time and the inclination, and watching it was certainly worth it, if emotionally exhausting.
Based on the novel by Jonathan S. Foer but inspired by the events of September 11, 2001, the movie tells the fictional story of Oskar Schell, a nine-year-old boy who lost his father in the Towers that morning. As the year following his father's death comes to a close, Oskar feels he is losing his dad for good. He hangs onto the vestiges of his father's time on earth, including six heartbreaking answering machine messages his father left once the attack started. When he finds a key among his father's possessions, he believes his dad left him a last scavenger hunt and message, and he embarks on a journey all over New York City to find the lock. Oskar, who suffers from something akin to Asperger's Disorder, discovers a city full of faces and people, some eager to help and some not, but each with his or her own story to tell. For the boy who's afraid of so many things, the journey is sometimes overwhelming, but Thomas Schell told his son to never stop looking, and so he doesn't. Caught in the young boy's circle of pain are his loving but somewhat lost mother, his caring and quirky grandmother, and his grandmother's mysterious renter, an old man without a voice and with past hurts of his own.
Thomas Horn is one of the best child actors I've seen since Freddie Highmore (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, August Rush). This is complex, heartfelt, amazing acting for a kid, even if he's older than he looks. He was approximately 14 when the movie was released in theaters. He stars in a film with Sandra Bullock (who plays his mother) and Tom Hanks (who plays his dad in flashbacks), but Thomas Horn is the one who shines. His acting partner for much of the movie, Max von Sydow (who plays the Renter), complements him perfectly. Together, they make both the laughter and the tears flow.
And, believe me, this is an emotional roller-coaster ride, weighted more heavily perhaps on the downward side than the up. As a mother myself, watching another mother feel like she's losing her son and must let him go to save him was tough. Sandra Bullock plays those emotions beautifully, and I felt like I was looking into a mirror as I cried along with her.
But the movie is not altogether depressing, and the ending, while sad enough, is also hopeful. I don't mind watching sad stories if they have satisfying endings. Mind you, I didn't say "perfect," and this one's ending isn't. But it met my needs for the story on a foundational level. Sometimes the more "perfect" movie endings don't ring true. I'd rather have the ring of truth and something hopeful at the end. Hope always exists, and that rings truer to me than everything working out beautifully.
The movie is morally sound, rated PG-13 for a bit of language but mostly for disturbing 9/11 images. People who lost loved ones in the Towers should be aware that this might not be for them. On the other hand, it could offer a sort of cathartic healing, too.
I give this movie three stars for superb acting with difficult material. I'm not in love with the story, but I was certainly affected and touched by it.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
What to Expect When You're Expecting on DVD
In case you haven't picked up on this yet, I'm a very emotional movie watcher. I really get into my movies, and I don't mind a good cry. It's actually kind of cathartic for me. What to Expect When You're Expecting is one of the more emotionally satisfying movies I've seen in awhile. I bawled. I laughed out loud. And I did it again and again, back and forth, on a roller coaster of a ride. I'm not sure how this movie would affect people who haven't had kids or aren't mothers. I can't imagine it would be the same. Part of my reaction to the movie came from identifying with it in so many ways. I've suffered the miscarriages. I've waited years to get pregnant. I've had the embarrassing pregnant moments. And now I have the kids that make it all worth it.
To say this movie is based on the book What to Expect When You're Expecting is misleading. I think the book inspired a completely original idea for a movie, and the only thing the two really have in common is the title. One is a self-help book. The other is a handful of made-up stories about a variety of people encountering various pregnancy ups and downs. If there's any overlap there, it's only in the visual representation of some of the pregnancy scenarios you might encounter and the emotions that go with them.
This movie is a bit like another movie I recently reviewed, New Year's Eve, in that it's full of star actors, each with his or her own storyline. However, I think What to Expect When You're Expecting interweaves the stories better than New Year's Eve does. Each storyline also gets more time or, at least, involves the viewer more emotionally, so that the movie feels fuller and more complete.
Had I recently had a miscarriage and were I still waiting to get pregnant again, this movie might have been too much to handle. But having the distance I do now from the heartache, with successful pregnancies between, this movie was about perfect for me.
Sure, it's sometimes irreverent and at certain moments almost indecent. You can't have a discussion about the whole of pregnancy without at least alluding to the sex. But when you are trying to get pregnant, sex becomes more of a clinical thing. Therefore, the sexual aspect of this movie doesn't bother me as much as it does in most other movies. In fact, it offers room to discuss what it might mean to have sex outside of marriage. I was so happy to see the men in this movie stepping up and being willing to take responsibility with the women they impregnated outside of wedlock. Even though the movie reflects some of our society's moral degradation, it also shows some of the consequences of our actions. And though this movie might be TMI for some people, it's actually quite tasteful and not nearly as graphic as it could be. It's rated PG-13 for some sexuality, language, and mature thematic material. Sex is obviously implied, but not much is shown.
Speaking of too much information, I'm the type of person who can't stand to read all those books you're supposed to read before having kids. I let my husband do that, as he desired, and he passed along any critical information. I'm more of a tell-me-what-I-absolutely-have-to-know type of girl, and I'll figure out the rest. So, I appreciate the movie's nod to people like me when one of the characters is presented with a wall of information about pregnancy, and her partner says he'd rather not know what could go wrong. That is exactly what the book What to Expect When You're Expecting is all about: things that could go wrong! It was only a moment in the movie, but they hit it on the nail for me.
As I said before, I really don't know if this movie is for everyone. It might be one of those things where you have to have been there to get all of it. On the other hand, a couple who doesn't have kids yet told me recently that they thought it was hilarious, and there are certainly moments for everyone interspersed as a sort of comic relief among the more serious content. Overall, there's more comedy than tragedy, more to laugh about than cry about. But the balance of both is beautiful and deeply satisfying.
Four stars.
To say this movie is based on the book What to Expect When You're Expecting is misleading. I think the book inspired a completely original idea for a movie, and the only thing the two really have in common is the title. One is a self-help book. The other is a handful of made-up stories about a variety of people encountering various pregnancy ups and downs. If there's any overlap there, it's only in the visual representation of some of the pregnancy scenarios you might encounter and the emotions that go with them.
This movie is a bit like another movie I recently reviewed, New Year's Eve, in that it's full of star actors, each with his or her own storyline. However, I think What to Expect When You're Expecting interweaves the stories better than New Year's Eve does. Each storyline also gets more time or, at least, involves the viewer more emotionally, so that the movie feels fuller and more complete.
Cameron Diaz, Matthew Morrison, Jennifer Lopez, Dennis Quaid, Anna Kendrick, and Chris Rock star. But those are just the actors I know best. There are five couples featured in this film, and all the performances are funny or heartfelt, including one by Elizabeth Banks just about every woman who's ever been pregnant probably identifies with.
Had I recently had a miscarriage and were I still waiting to get pregnant again, this movie might have been too much to handle. But having the distance I do now from the heartache, with successful pregnancies between, this movie was about perfect for me.
Sure, it's sometimes irreverent and at certain moments almost indecent. You can't have a discussion about the whole of pregnancy without at least alluding to the sex. But when you are trying to get pregnant, sex becomes more of a clinical thing. Therefore, the sexual aspect of this movie doesn't bother me as much as it does in most other movies. In fact, it offers room to discuss what it might mean to have sex outside of marriage. I was so happy to see the men in this movie stepping up and being willing to take responsibility with the women they impregnated outside of wedlock. Even though the movie reflects some of our society's moral degradation, it also shows some of the consequences of our actions. And though this movie might be TMI for some people, it's actually quite tasteful and not nearly as graphic as it could be. It's rated PG-13 for some sexuality, language, and mature thematic material. Sex is obviously implied, but not much is shown.
Speaking of too much information, I'm the type of person who can't stand to read all those books you're supposed to read before having kids. I let my husband do that, as he desired, and he passed along any critical information. I'm more of a tell-me-what-I-absolutely-have-to-know type of girl, and I'll figure out the rest. So, I appreciate the movie's nod to people like me when one of the characters is presented with a wall of information about pregnancy, and her partner says he'd rather not know what could go wrong. That is exactly what the book What to Expect When You're Expecting is all about: things that could go wrong! It was only a moment in the movie, but they hit it on the nail for me.
As I said before, I really don't know if this movie is for everyone. It might be one of those things where you have to have been there to get all of it. On the other hand, a couple who doesn't have kids yet told me recently that they thought it was hilarious, and there are certainly moments for everyone interspersed as a sort of comic relief among the more serious content. Overall, there's more comedy than tragedy, more to laugh about than cry about. But the balance of both is beautiful and deeply satisfying.
Four stars.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The Secret World of Arrietty on DVD
Sometimes movies are just beautiful, especially animation from Miyazaki and Japan's Studio Ghibli. That attention to detail in a hand-drawn world is utterly captivating. You don't want to look away for fear of missing something, and that something can be as simple as a droplet of water falling off a leaf. In the case of 2010's The Secret World of Arrietty, it is.
I confess, despite prior enjoyment of Miyazaki's films, I was reluctant to watch this one. I didn't love Ponyo like I do some of his others, so I wasn't sure I would like this storyline. (My husband tells me this is not strictly a Miyazaki film. Miyazaki is apparently only a writer on this one. Does it make any difference? He influenced and helped create it, right?)
Arrietty is a borrower, a little person who lives under the floor of the humans' house and borrows and survives on things the humans don't need. At fourteen years of age, she is old enough to go on borrowing trips with her dad. On her first trip, the new boy who's come to the house sees her, an occurrence that usually has grave consequences in the borrowers' world. Arrietty doesn't know what to do when this boy seems so intent on just being her friend.
The plot isn't complicated, but it's simply engaging. Part of the magic of this film is looking at all the detail that goes into creating a miniature house out of big human items. The story matters, yes, but the details add a fullness that isn't there in many American animated movies with fast-paced, seizure-inducing action.
Having said that, though, I think this movie appealed to me more than some of Miyazaki's others because it is so Western. There aren't weird monsters in it or foreign ideas and themes. It's based on a Western book, much like the other Miyazaki film I love so much: Howl's Moving Castle. This made it accessible to me while it still captured the peacefulness of Eastern culture.
In addition to being aesthetically beautiful, this movie's inner beauty shines in its values. Arrietty doesn't always follow all the rules, but she isn't at odds with her parents. When it matters most, she obeys them, which I appreciate. How many movies can you think of where the kids don't break all the rules and get congratulated for it?
The Secret World of Arrietty is rated G and much more appropriate for kids than some of the odder Miyazaki films. Whether you're a kid or an adult, this is an hour and a half well-spent. Four stars.
I confess, despite prior enjoyment of Miyazaki's films, I was reluctant to watch this one. I didn't love Ponyo like I do some of his others, so I wasn't sure I would like this storyline. (My husband tells me this is not strictly a Miyazaki film. Miyazaki is apparently only a writer on this one. Does it make any difference? He influenced and helped create it, right?)
Arrietty is a borrower, a little person who lives under the floor of the humans' house and borrows and survives on things the humans don't need. At fourteen years of age, she is old enough to go on borrowing trips with her dad. On her first trip, the new boy who's come to the house sees her, an occurrence that usually has grave consequences in the borrowers' world. Arrietty doesn't know what to do when this boy seems so intent on just being her friend.
The plot isn't complicated, but it's simply engaging. Part of the magic of this film is looking at all the detail that goes into creating a miniature house out of big human items. The story matters, yes, but the details add a fullness that isn't there in many American animated movies with fast-paced, seizure-inducing action.
Having said that, though, I think this movie appealed to me more than some of Miyazaki's others because it is so Western. There aren't weird monsters in it or foreign ideas and themes. It's based on a Western book, much like the other Miyazaki film I love so much: Howl's Moving Castle. This made it accessible to me while it still captured the peacefulness of Eastern culture.
In addition to being aesthetically beautiful, this movie's inner beauty shines in its values. Arrietty doesn't always follow all the rules, but she isn't at odds with her parents. When it matters most, she obeys them, which I appreciate. How many movies can you think of where the kids don't break all the rules and get congratulated for it?
The Secret World of Arrietty is rated G and much more appropriate for kids than some of the odder Miyazaki films. Whether you're a kid or an adult, this is an hour and a half well-spent. Four stars.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Winnie the Pooh (2011) on DVD
I have a two-(almost three)-year-old, and I recently rented the new Winnie the Pooh movie for us to watch together. I had let him watch a couple Veggie Tale feature-lenth movies before, but other than that, this was his first "real" movie. I wasn't sure what to expect, but I figured Winnie the Pooh had to be pretty harmless.
My son was so excited about his "movie." And he loved it! He watched all 63 minutes and then wanted to watch it again (but I allow him only about an hour, max, a day). There were parts that were a little over his head. Owl uses particularly big words, and there are plays on words. But since Pooh doesn't understand big words either and since some of them get explained in smaller words, I figured it didn't matter too much. I'm not sure how much a two-year-old gets anyway (but I bet it's simultaneously more and less than we'd think). There are also humorous moments meant for older kids or the adults watching with them.
The only thing I was worried about was the monster the Hundred Acre Wood inhabitants think kidnapped Christopher Robin. This monster is called the "Backson," a misunderstanding created by a note Christopher leaves, which says he'll be "back soon." Adults will obviously get the mistake, but I'm not sure what my two-year-old thought. He didn't seem afraid of the music or dark woods, but that's something to watch for if you let your little ones see this.
Altogether, I thought it was a very appropriate introduction for little kids to Winnie the Pooh. The fact that it's a book is emphasized creatively with actual words and letters being part of the narration and story. At one point, the characters use letters (fallen off the page) as a ladder. It's rather clever but also very simple, and that goes for the whole story, too. Three stars.
My son was so excited about his "movie." And he loved it! He watched all 63 minutes and then wanted to watch it again (but I allow him only about an hour, max, a day). There were parts that were a little over his head. Owl uses particularly big words, and there are plays on words. But since Pooh doesn't understand big words either and since some of them get explained in smaller words, I figured it didn't matter too much. I'm not sure how much a two-year-old gets anyway (but I bet it's simultaneously more and less than we'd think). There are also humorous moments meant for older kids or the adults watching with them.
The only thing I was worried about was the monster the Hundred Acre Wood inhabitants think kidnapped Christopher Robin. This monster is called the "Backson," a misunderstanding created by a note Christopher leaves, which says he'll be "back soon." Adults will obviously get the mistake, but I'm not sure what my two-year-old thought. He didn't seem afraid of the music or dark woods, but that's something to watch for if you let your little ones see this.
Altogether, I thought it was a very appropriate introduction for little kids to Winnie the Pooh. The fact that it's a book is emphasized creatively with actual words and letters being part of the narration and story. At one point, the characters use letters (fallen off the page) as a ladder. It's rather clever but also very simple, and that goes for the whole story, too. Three stars.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
One for the Money
I wanted to see One for the Money when I saw the trailer, never mind that I've never been interested in reading the book by Janet Evanovich. The trailer was fun, and I liked the actors (Katherine Heigl and Jason O'Mara). I didn't get to see the movie in the theaters, and it was taking forever to come through Netflix, so I went to the rental store and picked it up. It was okay, but I think the preview might have been better than the movie.
I was disappointed to discover what the story is actually about. Stephanie Plum is just a woman who needs money fast to pay her bills. So, she goes to people she knows to see if she can get a secretarial job, and all that's available is a bounty hunting one...worth $50,000. It doesn't matter that Stephanie knows nothing about bounty hunting and can hardly shoot a gun. I don't know how real bounty hunting works, but it's just ridiculous that someone like Stephanie Plum could be seriously considered for that job. That was my main beef with the movie. I didn't know whether it was taking itself seriously or purposely being ridiculous.
And then there's the fact that the bounty hunting job is for a cop who had sex with Stephanie and then lost interest when they were young, so part of her deal is that she wants revenge. But she's in way over her head because this cop is wanted for murder, and deaths keep mounting up the longer she chases him.
So, I was getting the comedy vibe at first, but after several people died, I was thinking that perhaps this was more of an action/drama flick. Not being able to define the genre really didn't help me like this movie more. Sometimes I like it when I can't pin down a movie because it's so unique. One for the Money wasn't like that. It was unique in a I-can't-believe-that's-really-the-storyline kind of way. At one point, Stephanie is unclothed in the shower. One guy steals into her home and handcuffs her to the curtain rod, and she calls another guy to come free her. In Stephanie's own narration, she wonders if there is something wrong with her that two guys saw her naked and didn't try anything. Yes, Stephanie, there's something wrong with you, but it's less about clothing and more about plot.
The movie is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and partial nudity. The bonus is that's it's only an hour and a half.
I was disappointed to discover what the story is actually about. Stephanie Plum is just a woman who needs money fast to pay her bills. So, she goes to people she knows to see if she can get a secretarial job, and all that's available is a bounty hunting one...worth $50,000. It doesn't matter that Stephanie knows nothing about bounty hunting and can hardly shoot a gun. I don't know how real bounty hunting works, but it's just ridiculous that someone like Stephanie Plum could be seriously considered for that job. That was my main beef with the movie. I didn't know whether it was taking itself seriously or purposely being ridiculous.
And then there's the fact that the bounty hunting job is for a cop who had sex with Stephanie and then lost interest when they were young, so part of her deal is that she wants revenge. But she's in way over her head because this cop is wanted for murder, and deaths keep mounting up the longer she chases him.
So, I was getting the comedy vibe at first, but after several people died, I was thinking that perhaps this was more of an action/drama flick. Not being able to define the genre really didn't help me like this movie more. Sometimes I like it when I can't pin down a movie because it's so unique. One for the Money wasn't like that. It was unique in a I-can't-believe-that's-really-the-storyline kind of way. At one point, Stephanie is unclothed in the shower. One guy steals into her home and handcuffs her to the curtain rod, and she calls another guy to come free her. In Stephanie's own narration, she wonders if there is something wrong with her that two guys saw her naked and didn't try anything. Yes, Stephanie, there's something wrong with you, but it's less about clothing and more about plot.
The movie is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and partial nudity. The bonus is that's it's only an hour and a half.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
The Vow on DVD
[NOTICE: I've changed the review below because, originally, I made a huge mistake and assumed this movie was based on a book by Nicholas Sparks. It has all the trappings of one of his book-adapted movies: same type of story, same actors. But, in fact, it is based on a true story written by the Carpenters. I apologize if you happened to be misled by reading the previous version of this review.]
If you look at my "Movie Reviews" page, you'll see there is a whole category dedicated to Nicholas Sparks book-adapted movies! I'm not sure why I torture myself with those. I loved A Walk to Remember, both the book and the movie. That was my introduction to Nicholas Sparks. Since then, nothing has matched...not even close. Perhaps because of the subject matter and the format of the title and the look of the cover, I thought this movie was based on another of his books. I was made aware that it is not. It's based on a true story by Kim and Krickitt Carpenter, which makes it all the sadder. I sincerely hope their story has a more satisfying ending than this movie.
The Vow (now out on DVD) is actually okay, except for the end. Yeah, it's still a bittersweet, sappy love story. Nothing inherently wrong with that. I like it because the two main characters are actually married, for once, so there isn't that whole extra-marital sex storyline to deal with (though the movie is rated PG-13 and contains partial nudity and minor sexual content). Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams do a beautiful job portraying their characters.
In The Vow, Paige and Leo are deeply in love until a car accident puts Paige in a coma from which she awakes remembering nothing of her life with Leo. In her mind, she's still engaged to another man, still speaks to her parents, has a different set of friends, doesn't live in the city, eats meat, and is still a law student rather than a struggling artist. Her whole life is different than she remembers it, and she does not know, let alone love, the man who's supposed to be her husband. Leo, on the other hand, is so in love that he tries everything to ease her transition back into his life, but the going is extremely rough. Eventually, he realizes that he will have to start from zero again in their relationship, but can Paige fall in love with him again or will her reunion with her former life be too big a chasm to span?
(Minor SPOILERS) Obviously, this is a heartbreakingly sad movie. I'm not saying the end result is sad. I won't completely spoil that for you, if you wish to see it anyway. But the process is difficult to watch. Can you imagine the person you love most in the world suddenly ceasing to know you even exist? There are happy moments, too, redemptive moments, and it was almost enough. But the end just wasn't everything I wanted. Something was missing.
However, The Vow was better than the similar (though fictional) Nicholas Sparks "Romantic Tragedies" I've reviewed on this blog, and ending aside, it was an emotional tearjerker of a romance, which I generally enjoy. Three stars out of five.
If you look at my "Movie Reviews" page, you'll see there is a whole category dedicated to Nicholas Sparks book-adapted movies! I'm not sure why I torture myself with those. I loved A Walk to Remember, both the book and the movie. That was my introduction to Nicholas Sparks. Since then, nothing has matched...not even close. Perhaps because of the subject matter and the format of the title and the look of the cover, I thought this movie was based on another of his books. I was made aware that it is not. It's based on a true story by Kim and Krickitt Carpenter, which makes it all the sadder. I sincerely hope their story has a more satisfying ending than this movie.
The Vow (now out on DVD) is actually okay, except for the end. Yeah, it's still a bittersweet, sappy love story. Nothing inherently wrong with that. I like it because the two main characters are actually married, for once, so there isn't that whole extra-marital sex storyline to deal with (though the movie is rated PG-13 and contains partial nudity and minor sexual content). Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams do a beautiful job portraying their characters.
In The Vow, Paige and Leo are deeply in love until a car accident puts Paige in a coma from which she awakes remembering nothing of her life with Leo. In her mind, she's still engaged to another man, still speaks to her parents, has a different set of friends, doesn't live in the city, eats meat, and is still a law student rather than a struggling artist. Her whole life is different than she remembers it, and she does not know, let alone love, the man who's supposed to be her husband. Leo, on the other hand, is so in love that he tries everything to ease her transition back into his life, but the going is extremely rough. Eventually, he realizes that he will have to start from zero again in their relationship, but can Paige fall in love with him again or will her reunion with her former life be too big a chasm to span?
(Minor SPOILERS) Obviously, this is a heartbreakingly sad movie. I'm not saying the end result is sad. I won't completely spoil that for you, if you wish to see it anyway. But the process is difficult to watch. Can you imagine the person you love most in the world suddenly ceasing to know you even exist? There are happy moments, too, redemptive moments, and it was almost enough. But the end just wasn't everything I wanted. Something was missing.
However, The Vow was better than the similar (though fictional) Nicholas Sparks "Romantic Tragedies" I've reviewed on this blog, and ending aside, it was an emotional tearjerker of a romance, which I generally enjoy. Three stars out of five.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Silence of the Lambs
I just watched The Silence of the Lambs for the first time. I think it could now rightly be called a classic as it celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. An interesting fact I was not aware of is that this movie is based on the novel by Thomas Harris
.
I would never watch Hannibal or the Saw movies, and I mistakenly lumped this movie in with those for a long time. Some time ago, a friend detailed for me the basic plot, since I told her I wouldn't be watching it, and since then, I've actually been interested. I was told it was more suspense than horror, and while there are horrific R-rated elements in it, this statement is true.
The Silence of the Lambs is about getting into the head of a serial killer...or him getting into yours. Clarice Starling is an FBI student who has been recruited to interrogate one-time psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter in his cell, where he has resided the past 8 years. There are strict rules about seeing him. Don't go near the glass. Don't accept anything from him. Don't give him anything but soft paper, not stapled together. And don't tell him anything personal. But from the beginning, Lecter controls his conversations with Clarice, and when he offers to help her capture another serial killer, she begins to play a dangerous game with him.
There are still elements you will want to be cautious about seeing in this film. Those include flayed skin, images of the naked backsides of murdered women, the brutal beating and murder of two security guards (perhaps the most gruesome and graphic part of the movie, though the worst is done off-camera), and a man dressed in a naked women's skin (which caught me off-guard but wasn't quite as disturbing as it sounds). There's also bad language, including the F-word, but it's used infrequently.
I do not recommend this movie unless you are interested in psychology and behavioral science or you are a student of film. I give it three stars for being well-crafted. It probably deserves more, but my moral objections stop me there. This movie interested me, and I do not regret watching it, though there are images that may take awhile to fade from memory.
.I would never watch Hannibal or the Saw movies, and I mistakenly lumped this movie in with those for a long time. Some time ago, a friend detailed for me the basic plot, since I told her I wouldn't be watching it, and since then, I've actually been interested. I was told it was more suspense than horror, and while there are horrific R-rated elements in it, this statement is true.
The Silence of the Lambs is about getting into the head of a serial killer...or him getting into yours. Clarice Starling is an FBI student who has been recruited to interrogate one-time psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter in his cell, where he has resided the past 8 years. There are strict rules about seeing him. Don't go near the glass. Don't accept anything from him. Don't give him anything but soft paper, not stapled together. And don't tell him anything personal. But from the beginning, Lecter controls his conversations with Clarice, and when he offers to help her capture another serial killer, she begins to play a dangerous game with him.
There are still elements you will want to be cautious about seeing in this film. Those include flayed skin, images of the naked backsides of murdered women, the brutal beating and murder of two security guards (perhaps the most gruesome and graphic part of the movie, though the worst is done off-camera), and a man dressed in a naked women's skin (which caught me off-guard but wasn't quite as disturbing as it sounds). There's also bad language, including the F-word, but it's used infrequently.
I do not recommend this movie unless you are interested in psychology and behavioral science or you are a student of film. I give it three stars for being well-crafted. It probably deserves more, but my moral objections stop me there. This movie interested me, and I do not regret watching it, though there are images that may take awhile to fade from memory.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Mao's Last Dancer on DVD (with notes on Gulliver and Jack Sparrow)
I've seen several movies recently, but two of them hardly seemed worth reviewing. I will mention them here, although my main purpose for this post will be to write of the third.
Gulliver's Travels
First, Gulliver's Travels just came out on DVD. It's rated PG, but the Lutheran school my husband teaches writing at didn't think it was appropriate for sixth graders. Although there's nothing huge wrong with it, I agree with that assessment, having seen it myself. Some of the humor is crude (straight out of the book, from what my husband tells me), and it's just not quite the thing a church school should be showing to young, impressionable sixth grade minds. Now, if it's something these kids see at home with their parents, or something you might show your kids, that's another matter. But here's my suggestion: don't bother with it. It's not that funny, despite being Jack Black. It's actually kind of boring. Maybe you just have to be with the right crowd, watching at a semi-late hour of the evening, I don't know. I didn't get it. Maybe you have to have read the book.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Second, I saw Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in the theater the other day. If you like the Pirates movies and you like Captain Jack Sparrow, which I do, it's enjoyable enough. But again, I couldn't muster up enough enthusiasm to review it on its own. People seem to disagree with me here, but I miss Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. I appreciated the characters of the missionary and the mermaid in this fourth Pirates movie to provide the missing balance, but at the end, I was disappointed even in that. It seemed to me that the missionary traded in his faith in God for faith in love, a very Hollywood-like idea but, obviously, disappointing to a true believer in God. Nick saw it a little differently, that the missionary's faith was renewed by love, but even he admits that perhaps that was wishful thinking. Good popcorn movie, but don't expect to be wowed.
Mao's Last Dancer
Finally, tonight I saw a movie I wanted to review. You've probably never heard of Mao's Last Dancer. I hadn't, but frankly, a preview of this movie on the disc for Black Swan was the one good thing I got out of that waste of time. Mao's Last Dancer is rated PG and is clean, linked only to Black Swan by the ballet, I guess. If you enjoy true dramas and beautiful, heartfelt dancing, you should definitely see this fascinating movie that passed under the radar just last year.
Li grows up in communist China under Chairman Mao's rule, the sixth son of a peasant, selected out of his small village school to train as a ballet dancer for China. He overcomes his small build and weakness to prove himself good enough to represent China in the United States. But the United States is not the picture he was painted in China, and he will have to make choices and sacrifices to pursue what he loves.
I suspected that this true story, based on Li's own autobiography
, would be sad, and parts were, but it was amazingly, beautifully happy at its end. Though I know real life isn't always so neatly packaged (and perhaps some artistic license was taken to make this movie so), I am so much more satisfied and happy with a good ending, especially if a character struggled to get there. If this sort of story interests you at all, don't pass up the opportunity to see Mao's Last Dancer. It's a decent family movie, if you like to expose your children to other cultures and if they can sit through drama. The B-word and S-word are used briefly, and there is a short discussion on sex when two characters are kissing. It comes off as humorous since the Chinese boy doesn't understand the girl, but for those who are very selective in movie watching, you would want to at least be careful of which children see it.
Of those three, Mao's Last Dancer is the one to see, and it's the cultured, elegant pick, if you ask me.
Gulliver's Travels
First, Gulliver's Travels just came out on DVD. It's rated PG, but the Lutheran school my husband teaches writing at didn't think it was appropriate for sixth graders. Although there's nothing huge wrong with it, I agree with that assessment, having seen it myself. Some of the humor is crude (straight out of the book, from what my husband tells me), and it's just not quite the thing a church school should be showing to young, impressionable sixth grade minds. Now, if it's something these kids see at home with their parents, or something you might show your kids, that's another matter. But here's my suggestion: don't bother with it. It's not that funny, despite being Jack Black. It's actually kind of boring. Maybe you just have to be with the right crowd, watching at a semi-late hour of the evening, I don't know. I didn't get it. Maybe you have to have read the book.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Second, I saw Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in the theater the other day. If you like the Pirates movies and you like Captain Jack Sparrow, which I do, it's enjoyable enough. But again, I couldn't muster up enough enthusiasm to review it on its own. People seem to disagree with me here, but I miss Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. I appreciated the characters of the missionary and the mermaid in this fourth Pirates movie to provide the missing balance, but at the end, I was disappointed even in that. It seemed to me that the missionary traded in his faith in God for faith in love, a very Hollywood-like idea but, obviously, disappointing to a true believer in God. Nick saw it a little differently, that the missionary's faith was renewed by love, but even he admits that perhaps that was wishful thinking. Good popcorn movie, but don't expect to be wowed.
Mao's Last Dancer
Finally, tonight I saw a movie I wanted to review. You've probably never heard of Mao's Last Dancer. I hadn't, but frankly, a preview of this movie on the disc for Black Swan was the one good thing I got out of that waste of time. Mao's Last Dancer is rated PG and is clean, linked only to Black Swan by the ballet, I guess. If you enjoy true dramas and beautiful, heartfelt dancing, you should definitely see this fascinating movie that passed under the radar just last year.
Li grows up in communist China under Chairman Mao's rule, the sixth son of a peasant, selected out of his small village school to train as a ballet dancer for China. He overcomes his small build and weakness to prove himself good enough to represent China in the United States. But the United States is not the picture he was painted in China, and he will have to make choices and sacrifices to pursue what he loves.
I suspected that this true story, based on Li's own autobiography
, would be sad, and parts were, but it was amazingly, beautifully happy at its end. Though I know real life isn't always so neatly packaged (and perhaps some artistic license was taken to make this movie so), I am so much more satisfied and happy with a good ending, especially if a character struggled to get there. If this sort of story interests you at all, don't pass up the opportunity to see Mao's Last Dancer. It's a decent family movie, if you like to expose your children to other cultures and if they can sit through drama. The B-word and S-word are used briefly, and there is a short discussion on sex when two characters are kissing. It comes off as humorous since the Chinese boy doesn't understand the girl, but for those who are very selective in movie watching, you would want to at least be careful of which children see it.Of those three, Mao's Last Dancer is the one to see, and it's the cultured, elegant pick, if you ask me.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (in theaters now)
Another great Narnia movie has finally arrived, but I do have some disclaimers. If you aren't familiar with the Narnia books, there will be some SPOILERS in this blog post.
I very much liked Voyage of the Dawn Treader
. As a movie, it was fabulous - full of adventure, beautiful settings, fun characters (especially Eustace!).
If you've seen the movies but have not read the books, this is essentially the plot: King Caspian is at sea, looking for seven lords, loyal to his father, who disappeared when the kingdom went to Caspian's evil uncle. Lucy and Edmond return to Narnia, accidentally dragging along their very logic-minded and, therefore, completely disbelieving cousin Eustace into the world of talking animals and deep magic. The results are entertaining, to say the least.
As with all movie adaptations from books, there are differences. Here's what I think worked and what didn't. I am also comparing the new movie to the old BBC adaptation, which was much closer to the books. Though out-dated, especially special effect-wise, the BBC did an excellent job, and it's hard to erase their Narnia movies' former glory from my mind.
Voyage of the Dawn Treader is less than two hours long. While I applaud the movie-makers' attempt to go against the current trend of longer and longer movie adaptations (in order to get as much of the book in as possible), this was a strange book to do this with. However, they condensed it well. I missed some of the parts they left out, particularly parts that had been in the BBC productions, but the new movie stands pretty well without them. I thought combining the isles of the gold water and dragons was genius. Both have to do with wealth and the temptation of it, so it was a good match.
What I didn't think worked so well was the adaptation of Coriakin's dufflepud isle. I liked the setting. I didn't like Coriakin or how his role, especially with Lucy, was changed. The isle has a lot to do with vanity in the book, but in the movie, Coriakin becomes a sort of guide to defeating evil, an evil which appears as a mist throughout the movie and which is an expansion of just one of the islands in the book. I didn't completely dislike the way the movie was tied together by the evil from Dark Island. I liked the idea. After all, the book is very much about temptations for all its characters. I just prefer the subtle way the book approaches the subject, and I thought the green mist throughout the movie, symbolic of Dark Island's expansive reach, was a little over-the-top. It actually made me cringe a little. For the movie as a stand-alone, perhaps it was fine. It just didn't mesh well with my idea of the book.
Another change from the book is that instead of just searching for seven lords, Caspian's crew is looking for their seven swords, which can be used to defeat the evil of Dark Island. Completely added. Not in the book at all. And I didn't mind it too much. But the reason it is there and the reason for all the changes in the movie is so that there can be a big battle scene at the end, something there is not in the book. The book is full of episodic adventures, the underlying themes being the glue that holds it together. I do understand why the producers wanted a big climax at the end, and I'm not completely against it. I'm simply processing what I've seen and missing certain elements from the BBC version, and in the end, I will go buy this movie when it's out on DVD because I love the characters.
Eustace is awesome, and that was important because he is the hero of the next book, and the Pevensie children aren't in the next one at all. If they are going to do another movie, they needed this Eustace, and their choice was brilliant.
I was happy to see that the producers did not erase all vestiges of Christianity from the movie. That would have very much been out of line with C. S. Lewis's vision. In fact, there are some rather overt references to religion (not necessarily Christianity, but certainly in line with it). At the end, as in the book, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmond that they must learn to know him by another name in their world. This is as close to saying "Aslan is Jesus!" that Lewis gets. It could be interpreted as any other religion, perhaps, but combined with the sacrifice of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the references to religion most closely match Christianity. And when Eustace cannot take off his (SPOILER ALERT!) dragon skin, and Aslan must do it for him, the idea closely matches the Christian view that we cannot earn our salvation or help ourselves. We need a savior.
Overall, I am pleased with the movie, and I highly recommend it, if you'll be going to the theater this Christmas season. Only three stars (still, not bad) for plot changes, but five stars for brilliant acting, beautiful setting, and thematic integrity.
I very much liked Voyage of the Dawn Treader
. As a movie, it was fabulous - full of adventure, beautiful settings, fun characters (especially Eustace!).If you've seen the movies but have not read the books, this is essentially the plot: King Caspian is at sea, looking for seven lords, loyal to his father, who disappeared when the kingdom went to Caspian's evil uncle. Lucy and Edmond return to Narnia, accidentally dragging along their very logic-minded and, therefore, completely disbelieving cousin Eustace into the world of talking animals and deep magic. The results are entertaining, to say the least.
As with all movie adaptations from books, there are differences. Here's what I think worked and what didn't. I am also comparing the new movie to the old BBC adaptation, which was much closer to the books. Though out-dated, especially special effect-wise, the BBC did an excellent job, and it's hard to erase their Narnia movies' former glory from my mind.
Voyage of the Dawn Treader is less than two hours long. While I applaud the movie-makers' attempt to go against the current trend of longer and longer movie adaptations (in order to get as much of the book in as possible), this was a strange book to do this with. However, they condensed it well. I missed some of the parts they left out, particularly parts that had been in the BBC productions, but the new movie stands pretty well without them. I thought combining the isles of the gold water and dragons was genius. Both have to do with wealth and the temptation of it, so it was a good match.
What I didn't think worked so well was the adaptation of Coriakin's dufflepud isle. I liked the setting. I didn't like Coriakin or how his role, especially with Lucy, was changed. The isle has a lot to do with vanity in the book, but in the movie, Coriakin becomes a sort of guide to defeating evil, an evil which appears as a mist throughout the movie and which is an expansion of just one of the islands in the book. I didn't completely dislike the way the movie was tied together by the evil from Dark Island. I liked the idea. After all, the book is very much about temptations for all its characters. I just prefer the subtle way the book approaches the subject, and I thought the green mist throughout the movie, symbolic of Dark Island's expansive reach, was a little over-the-top. It actually made me cringe a little. For the movie as a stand-alone, perhaps it was fine. It just didn't mesh well with my idea of the book.
Another change from the book is that instead of just searching for seven lords, Caspian's crew is looking for their seven swords, which can be used to defeat the evil of Dark Island. Completely added. Not in the book at all. And I didn't mind it too much. But the reason it is there and the reason for all the changes in the movie is so that there can be a big battle scene at the end, something there is not in the book. The book is full of episodic adventures, the underlying themes being the glue that holds it together. I do understand why the producers wanted a big climax at the end, and I'm not completely against it. I'm simply processing what I've seen and missing certain elements from the BBC version, and in the end, I will go buy this movie when it's out on DVD because I love the characters.
Eustace is awesome, and that was important because he is the hero of the next book, and the Pevensie children aren't in the next one at all. If they are going to do another movie, they needed this Eustace, and their choice was brilliant.
I was happy to see that the producers did not erase all vestiges of Christianity from the movie. That would have very much been out of line with C. S. Lewis's vision. In fact, there are some rather overt references to religion (not necessarily Christianity, but certainly in line with it). At the end, as in the book, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmond that they must learn to know him by another name in their world. This is as close to saying "Aslan is Jesus!" that Lewis gets. It could be interpreted as any other religion, perhaps, but combined with the sacrifice of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the references to religion most closely match Christianity. And when Eustace cannot take off his (SPOILER ALERT!) dragon skin, and Aslan must do it for him, the idea closely matches the Christian view that we cannot earn our salvation or help ourselves. We need a savior.
Overall, I am pleased with the movie, and I highly recommend it, if you'll be going to the theater this Christmas season. Only three stars (still, not bad) for plot changes, but five stars for brilliant acting, beautiful setting, and thematic integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)