I've heard mixed reviews, but you know, I really loved Iron Man 3. I love superhero origin stories foremost, but next to that, I like to see my superheroes suffer and stumble in the dark and still come out triumphant. I can't relate to them when they are flying about saving the world. But I can relate to them when they are doubting and hurting, confused, alone. I'm not a masochist, really! Sure, I like to see that raw edge, yet at the same time, that grittiness means nothing if it's not followed by victory, or at least hope. Iron Man 3 nicely balances its depiction of raw humanity, groaning against the earth, with a triumphant goodness that makes you want to pump your fist in the air.
In Iron Man's origin story, I liked him well enough. He was funny and cool. I didn't like his morals much, but he started to change. In Iron Man 3, I love him. He's still rough around the edges, but Pepper Potts has centered him. He doesn't chase other women or act like a rich, spoiled brat (well...okay, less so than before, at least). He and Pepper have a great love story (though a little modern for my tastes--there's been no mention of marriage). He still aggravates her and makes mistakes, but in the end, she's the most important thing in the world to him. And he's learned to apologize...sort of. Pepper, on her part, is a hugely forgiving woman. She knew what she was in for when she became Tony's woman, and she can handle him because she's her own woman, too. She can wear the suit and kick butt. She's not a complainer. She's a doer. And she can roll with Tony's sense of humor. If you didn't like Pepper before this movie, I don't know how you can't after it. She's totally sweet and totally tough. She doesn't get a ton of screen time, but she uses it well.
Of course, I'm talking about the actors as much as the fictional characters. To me, Iron Man is Robert Downey Jr., and Pepper Potts is Gwyneth Paltrow. I can't picture anyone else in those roles. Robert Downey Jr. brings such a crazy energy to his character. His lines are fast-paced, sort of mumbly, hysterically funny, and so well-timed. His interaction with his machines (Jarvis) and the suits is believable (within the world) and humorous, especially when putting on his newest creation involves a high-speed, piece-by-piece, body-bruising, groin-punching, airborne suiting up. Great physical comedy, which I love!
The story of Iron Man 3 works for me, but Tony Stark's personal journey through his anxieties and distractions to what really matters: being the hero and keeping Pepper safe, is what struck all the right chords. I'm not at all familiar with the Iron Man of the comic books, so if this story diverges from that or not (which I know now that it does) doesn't matter at all to me. I enjoyed the plot and the villains and the twists. I enjoyed seeing the heart underneath Iron Man's bravado exterior. The kid Tony interacts with is a brilliant touch for humanizing the Iron Man.
And I absolutely loved the short little punchline at the end of the credits. I don't want to spoil it for you. It's a little different than the usual fare you might expect. It's not really a preview of movies to come. But it's funny, so be sure to stick around for the last laugh.
Iron Man 3 is rated PG-13, mostly for action and violence. (I did not find it appropriate for the four-year-old girl sitting in my row.) Most middle school kids should be fine. Incidentally, I had a lot of great previews in front of my showing of Iron Man 3. Marvel has its own corner of the movie market, and they are doing brilliantly, though DC's new Superman was also previewed. Superheroes are definitely in.
Iron Man 3 just came out this past weekend, and if you've been on the same Marvel bandwagon as the rest of us, support some little town's local theater (Cheaper tickets! Everything said, $10 is still an awful lot to pay for the big screen.) and see it now!
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Looper in Theaters Now
I was so excited to see this movie that I even let my husband fork out the extra cash to see it in a nice theater in a big city on my birthday getaway. But what a disappointment!
Looper stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis in a science fiction flick about time travel and murderers-for-hire. I guess I missed the part about them being hired guns and was more excited about the time travel aspect and the actors. My mistake.
Joe is one of these Loopers. He takes care of criminals who are sent to him from the future, where time traveling is illegal. Killing people in the past leaves no trail to follow. When a Looper has served enough time, he is sent his own future self to dispose of, along with enough gold to set him up for the next (and last) 30 years of his life. Loopers close the "loop" by killing their future selves and then get to live in peace until it's time to be on the other end of that gun. Neat and clean (the process, that is; not the movie).
The movie is rated R. I think it should be rated higher, like NC-17 or something (I don't even know what the next level is). Looper is brutally violent, and there is far too much (any is too much) upper female nudity, which I wasn't expecting at all. And when children are murdered for the "greater good," that crosses the line for me in the violence department.
Besides the time travel thing, there is one other science fiction aspect, involving telekinesis. This barely affects the plot except where it has to do with the main bad guy. Otherwise, it's poorly integrated and feels like a superfluous plot device to make the bad guy simultaneously more evil and cool.
After such a depressing story, it's rather amazing that the movie pulls off some redemptive value. Looper is not worth paying the money to see, but if you did, by accident, you won't leave in utter despair. In the end, love wins, and not just any love...a mother's love. That's pretty powerful. It's just buried by a load of images that are powerfully harmful.
Sure, Willis and Gordon-Levitt do a great job acting like the younger and older versions of the same person. Emily Blunt also has a great role as a protective, tortured single mom. The acting is fine. Even the story could have been acceptable with little improvements here and there. There's just no moral center to it.
I heard this movie compared to Inception as far as its capability to blow your mind. In no way does it stand a chance against Inception. The time travel leaves questions that are mind-blowing, certainly, but that's because they just don't make sense. Time travel always seems to have a hole somewhere. Dr. Who has a name for this: it's timey-wimey. That's okay for Dr. Who. Dr. Who blows my mind with its goodness. What does Looper have going for it if not a tightly woven time travel history? Sex and gore, and those don't fly on this blog.
Looper stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis in a science fiction flick about time travel and murderers-for-hire. I guess I missed the part about them being hired guns and was more excited about the time travel aspect and the actors. My mistake.
Joe is one of these Loopers. He takes care of criminals who are sent to him from the future, where time traveling is illegal. Killing people in the past leaves no trail to follow. When a Looper has served enough time, he is sent his own future self to dispose of, along with enough gold to set him up for the next (and last) 30 years of his life. Loopers close the "loop" by killing their future selves and then get to live in peace until it's time to be on the other end of that gun. Neat and clean (the process, that is; not the movie).
The movie is rated R. I think it should be rated higher, like NC-17 or something (I don't even know what the next level is). Looper is brutally violent, and there is far too much (any is too much) upper female nudity, which I wasn't expecting at all. And when children are murdered for the "greater good," that crosses the line for me in the violence department.
Besides the time travel thing, there is one other science fiction aspect, involving telekinesis. This barely affects the plot except where it has to do with the main bad guy. Otherwise, it's poorly integrated and feels like a superfluous plot device to make the bad guy simultaneously more evil and cool.
After such a depressing story, it's rather amazing that the movie pulls off some redemptive value. Looper is not worth paying the money to see, but if you did, by accident, you won't leave in utter despair. In the end, love wins, and not just any love...a mother's love. That's pretty powerful. It's just buried by a load of images that are powerfully harmful.
Sure, Willis and Gordon-Levitt do a great job acting like the younger and older versions of the same person. Emily Blunt also has a great role as a protective, tortured single mom. The acting is fine. Even the story could have been acceptable with little improvements here and there. There's just no moral center to it.
I heard this movie compared to Inception as far as its capability to blow your mind. In no way does it stand a chance against Inception. The time travel leaves questions that are mind-blowing, certainly, but that's because they just don't make sense. Time travel always seems to have a hole somewhere. Dr. Who has a name for this: it's timey-wimey. That's okay for Dr. Who. Dr. Who blows my mind with its goodness. What does Looper have going for it if not a tightly woven time travel history? Sex and gore, and those don't fly on this blog.
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, October 10, 2012
The Artist (2011) on DVD
Overall, I was not impressed with The Artist.
Unless you live under a rock (and, hey, I'm not knocking the coziness and safety of a nice, solid rock), you know that The Artist won this year's Best Picture Oscar. I finally got around to watching it on DVD, mostly, I confess, because my husband wanted to. I'm not really into silent films, but I've seen some, as well as other good early film classics, so I knew what to expect.
It is a decent tribute to the end of the silent film-making era, but not great. The acting is spot-on, a little like theater acting with exaggerated facial expressions and large body movements. Once I got into that, I enjoyed it and found it quite humorous, as it was meant to be.
I generally like new faces in movies, but in this case, I wish the movie had more known actors in it because it's entertaining to watch an actor you've seen in modern movies, such as John Goodman, attempt a more theatrical old-school acting style like this. But Goodman was the only familiar face for me.
(SPOILERS AHEAD) The movie's depiction of the transition from silent films to "talkies" is clever, but it isn't as well-done as I thought it could have been. Most of the movie is silent, but as the transition takes place, we get to hear a few sounds and, at the end, even words. I think the movie-makers should have run more with that. It was such a little touch it felt more like the movie stepped away from what it was trying to be rather than that it depicted a transition from silence to speech in films. I would have preferred to have all the sounds and speech at the end of the movie following the transition, but instead, the movie goes back to a silent film for part of that. It needed to be "all in" or leave out the sounds altogether, I think, but maybe that's just my preference for modern-day films surfacing.
More than that, however, what I didn't like about the movie was the story, unfortunately. It's about a romantic affair and an arrogant actor who doesn't learn a thing by the end, even after losing nearly everything. Maybe affairs were a big part of the times, I don't know, but for me, morality sometimes makes or breaks a story. With no clear indication that the affair was a reflection of culture at that time, this movie's morality broke it for me. Nothing bad is shown, of course. It's an emotional affair rather than a sexual one. (SPOILERS END)
The MPAA rates the movie PG-13 for, and I quote, "a disturbing image and a crude gesture," which just makes me laugh. There's nothing your little ones can't see. It's more that anyone under 13 (or maybe 20), with the rare exception, just isn't going to "get it."
If you are not familiar with silent films, this could be a good introduction, simply because it's made today and not a century ago and the film-makers are aware of their modern viewers. But if you have no intention of ever watching a classic silent film, there's no reason to watch this modern one either.
Unless you live under a rock (and, hey, I'm not knocking the coziness and safety of a nice, solid rock), you know that The Artist won this year's Best Picture Oscar. I finally got around to watching it on DVD, mostly, I confess, because my husband wanted to. I'm not really into silent films, but I've seen some, as well as other good early film classics, so I knew what to expect.
It is a decent tribute to the end of the silent film-making era, but not great. The acting is spot-on, a little like theater acting with exaggerated facial expressions and large body movements. Once I got into that, I enjoyed it and found it quite humorous, as it was meant to be.
I generally like new faces in movies, but in this case, I wish the movie had more known actors in it because it's entertaining to watch an actor you've seen in modern movies, such as John Goodman, attempt a more theatrical old-school acting style like this. But Goodman was the only familiar face for me.
(SPOILERS AHEAD) The movie's depiction of the transition from silent films to "talkies" is clever, but it isn't as well-done as I thought it could have been. Most of the movie is silent, but as the transition takes place, we get to hear a few sounds and, at the end, even words. I think the movie-makers should have run more with that. It was such a little touch it felt more like the movie stepped away from what it was trying to be rather than that it depicted a transition from silence to speech in films. I would have preferred to have all the sounds and speech at the end of the movie following the transition, but instead, the movie goes back to a silent film for part of that. It needed to be "all in" or leave out the sounds altogether, I think, but maybe that's just my preference for modern-day films surfacing.
More than that, however, what I didn't like about the movie was the story, unfortunately. It's about a romantic affair and an arrogant actor who doesn't learn a thing by the end, even after losing nearly everything. Maybe affairs were a big part of the times, I don't know, but for me, morality sometimes makes or breaks a story. With no clear indication that the affair was a reflection of culture at that time, this movie's morality broke it for me. Nothing bad is shown, of course. It's an emotional affair rather than a sexual one. (SPOILERS END)
The MPAA rates the movie PG-13 for, and I quote, "a disturbing image and a crude gesture," which just makes me laugh. There's nothing your little ones can't see. It's more that anyone under 13 (or maybe 20), with the rare exception, just isn't going to "get it."
If you are not familiar with silent films, this could be a good introduction, simply because it's made today and not a century ago and the film-makers are aware of their modern viewers. But if you have no intention of ever watching a classic silent film, there's no reason to watch this modern one either.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Battleship on DVD
Wow, I just finished watching Battleship on DVD, and I'm so excited that this movie is so much better than I thought it could be. I mean, it's crazy to base a movie off a game, let alone this one, but whoever thought up the plot had a lot of fun and stepped outside the box (the game box, that is), while also leaving in one very clever nod to the game as we know it. I'm impressed.
What makes any war or alien invasion movie good is a narrow focus, especially on character, and Battleship does just that. For reasons we don't know (and are never really told), Alex Hopper has made one big mistake out of his life. As a last-ditch effort, his brother recruits him to the Navy, but even the Navy can't reform him. It's not until Alex is trapped in a bubble on the ocean with alien invaders that he has a chance to try to redeem himself and make a final stand that will count.
The talented cast of characters includes memorable roles from Liam Neeson, Alexander Skarsgard, Tadanobu Asano, Rihanna, Brooklyn Decker as the love interest, and Taylor Kitsch as Alex Hopper, just to name a few. Battleship is rated PG-13, mostly for intense sci-fi action. People die, but thankfully, it's not a complete disaster movie where half the cast is left at the end (let me amend that to the cast we care about). It runs long at slightly over two hours but doesn't feel like it, giving us just enough emotional drama to make us care and then filling in the rest with weird aliens and lots of stuff blowing up.
Sure, to some extent, it's a popcorn movie. You probably don't want to think too hard about logistics. But if you're okay with Dr. Who (Great Britain's sci-fi show about an alien who saves the universe over and over again; if you've never heard of it, you're missing out), this won't bother you.
If you are familiar with Hasbro's Battleship game (And who isn't? Or am I dating myself here?), you probably think this is the corniest idea for a movie yet, worse than making one off a theme park ride. But I suggest you give it a try. One thing can be said for sure about this type of movie: it's pure entertainment. You might even want to dust off those old game pieces when you're done; it's that inspiring.
Three and a half stars.
What makes any war or alien invasion movie good is a narrow focus, especially on character, and Battleship does just that. For reasons we don't know (and are never really told), Alex Hopper has made one big mistake out of his life. As a last-ditch effort, his brother recruits him to the Navy, but even the Navy can't reform him. It's not until Alex is trapped in a bubble on the ocean with alien invaders that he has a chance to try to redeem himself and make a final stand that will count.
The talented cast of characters includes memorable roles from Liam Neeson, Alexander Skarsgard, Tadanobu Asano, Rihanna, Brooklyn Decker as the love interest, and Taylor Kitsch as Alex Hopper, just to name a few. Battleship is rated PG-13, mostly for intense sci-fi action. People die, but thankfully, it's not a complete disaster movie where half the cast is left at the end (let me amend that to the cast we care about). It runs long at slightly over two hours but doesn't feel like it, giving us just enough emotional drama to make us care and then filling in the rest with weird aliens and lots of stuff blowing up.
Sure, to some extent, it's a popcorn movie. You probably don't want to think too hard about logistics. But if you're okay with Dr. Who (Great Britain's sci-fi show about an alien who saves the universe over and over again; if you've never heard of it, you're missing out), this won't bother you.
If you are familiar with Hasbro's Battleship game (And who isn't? Or am I dating myself here?), you probably think this is the corniest idea for a movie yet, worse than making one off a theme park ride. But I suggest you give it a try. One thing can be said for sure about this type of movie: it's pure entertainment. You might even want to dust off those old game pieces when you're done; it's that inspiring.
Three and a half stars.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Premium Rush in Theaters Now
If you like bicycles and going fast, you'll like the movie Premium Rush, in theaters now. It stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Wilee (yes, like the coyote), a likeable and dynamic New York City bike messenger who'd rather ride with one set gear and no brakes at 50 miles per hour than wear a suit and sit at a desk. I mean, if you put it that way, who wouldn't? But one day, his job lands him in more trouble than he's bargained for. When a dirty cop tries to stop him from delivering a package across town, Wilee becomes involved in a race that's about more than doing his job. It's about saving lives before he gets a bullet in his own head.
Premium Rush is a popcorn movie. The plot is relatively simple, though somewhat unique, probably appealing most to sporty types. The issues at stake are almost bigger than the movie, but that gives an otherwise potentially ho-hum movie about riding bicycles at super-fast speeds between New York City taxis (which is cool, yes, but only for about five minutes) an extra edge. It's an action thriller with a bit of romance, the sweat and blood kind, which again probably doesn't appeal to everyone.
(Minor SPOILERS) At the end you can't think too hard about the movie because then you might wonder what the whole point was for Wilee to risk his life (because the person who sent him with the package arrives on the scene herself, so why didn't she deliver her own package and avoid calling attention to it by having a middleman?).
The movie is rated PG-13 but does have violence and language, including the f-word. It makes the police seem either stupid or evil, which I don't particularly like. Breaking the law becomes fine if you have a higher purpose, but that's very subjective. Who's to say that higher purpose is actually right?
So, the morals of the movie aren't great, and the action is so-so. There's no rush to see Premium Rush, but if you have the money, an hour and a half, and the inclination, it's as good an excuse as any to eat popcorn, especially during this time of year's movie "dry season."
Premium Rush is a popcorn movie. The plot is relatively simple, though somewhat unique, probably appealing most to sporty types. The issues at stake are almost bigger than the movie, but that gives an otherwise potentially ho-hum movie about riding bicycles at super-fast speeds between New York City taxis (which is cool, yes, but only for about five minutes) an extra edge. It's an action thriller with a bit of romance, the sweat and blood kind, which again probably doesn't appeal to everyone.
(Minor SPOILERS) At the end you can't think too hard about the movie because then you might wonder what the whole point was for Wilee to risk his life (because the person who sent him with the package arrives on the scene herself, so why didn't she deliver her own package and avoid calling attention to it by having a middleman?).
The movie is rated PG-13 but does have violence and language, including the f-word. It makes the police seem either stupid or evil, which I don't particularly like. Breaking the law becomes fine if you have a higher purpose, but that's very subjective. Who's to say that higher purpose is actually right?
So, the morals of the movie aren't great, and the action is so-so. There's no rush to see Premium Rush, but if you have the money, an hour and a half, and the inclination, it's as good an excuse as any to eat popcorn, especially during this time of year's movie "dry season."
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.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Mirror Mirror on DVD
Julia Roberts is a treat to watch in Mirror Mirror, which I just saw for the first time on DVD. The movie was released in theaters earlier this year. Of the two Snow White movies this year, the other one was the one I wanted to see. But since that one disappointed, I thought I'd try this. I wanted to like it, but cheese (people's teeth literally sparkle) just isn't my style. The movie was beautiful if you like that fake look. I cannot call the costumes beautiful, however. The gowns were even more cheesy than the movie. A concession: I did like Snow White's attire when she was with the dwarfs, and I liked the prince's clothes...when they were on him.
That's not to say there's anything inappropriate about the movie. The prince just happens to get mugged and stripped to his modest underclothes by a band of "giant dwarfs"...a couple times. It's definitely funny, but I admit, I like my fairytales to be more serious. I did think that the dwarfs were done well. I don't enjoy the original Disney dwarfs, but there's not much about the original Disney Snow White that I like. It's funny to me that this year gave us one TV show and two movies based on my least favorite Disney princess. I just don't get it. But I do keep watching. I suppose there's a part of me that wants to see if someone can just make the story more interesting and original. So far, TV is winning with Once Upon a Time (though the royal couple's affair isn't helping me like this princess any better).
Mirror Mirror does show a dark side briefly when the evil queen's mirror image magically attacks Snow White and the dwarfs with her marionette puppets. The mirror image queen is creepy, but the whole idea of the scene is just so ludicrous that it matches the tone of the rest of the movie.
I didn't dislike the whole production. I can take cheesy movies if they have serious characters or scenes to balance it out, but Mirror Mirror is all fun and games. Interesting enough to watch, but not a keeper for me. Three stars.
That's not to say there's anything inappropriate about the movie. The prince just happens to get mugged and stripped to his modest underclothes by a band of "giant dwarfs"...a couple times. It's definitely funny, but I admit, I like my fairytales to be more serious. I did think that the dwarfs were done well. I don't enjoy the original Disney dwarfs, but there's not much about the original Disney Snow White that I like. It's funny to me that this year gave us one TV show and two movies based on my least favorite Disney princess. I just don't get it. But I do keep watching. I suppose there's a part of me that wants to see if someone can just make the story more interesting and original. So far, TV is winning with Once Upon a Time (though the royal couple's affair isn't helping me like this princess any better).
Mirror Mirror does show a dark side briefly when the evil queen's mirror image magically attacks Snow White and the dwarfs with her marionette puppets. The mirror image queen is creepy, but the whole idea of the scene is just so ludicrous that it matches the tone of the rest of the movie.
I didn't dislike the whole production. I can take cheesy movies if they have serious characters or scenes to balance it out, but Mirror Mirror is all fun and games. Interesting enough to watch, but not a keeper for me. Three stars.
Total Recall in Theaters Now
Just so you know, I did not see the first Total Recall, so I went into this movie with fresh eyes. The previews made it look pretty exciting, but nowadays, there are mainly two kinds of previews. There are previews that hook you with the first ten or twenty minutes of a movie and don't really give anything away. And then there are previews that tell you the whole story in a nutshell. They are great summaries, but they spoil too much. Total Recall's preview was a bit like the latter. Actually, it was somewhat worse than the latter. It made me think the movie would go one way and be more complicated. In reality, they were faking it. The movie was straightforward with barely any twists and turns and ended up disappointing. I don't think there was any way the movie, as it is, could have won with me. On one hand, I was disappointed that the story wasn't more complicated. But if it had been more complicated, it would have been one of those movies that messes with your mind and makes you wonder what's reality (like Inception, but Inception did it right), and in this case, having everything be in a guy's head would have been even more disappointing.
The cool factor of this movie is definitely the setting (layers upon layers of city suspended in the air!) and the chase scenes that go through it. Kate Beckinsale isn't a vampire this time, but she's as scary as one and looks as good as any vampire ever did (She's 39!).
Not as cool are scenes of nudity and the actual logistics of this science fiction flick, based on a story by Philip K. Dick. I don't mind suspending disbelief for science fiction, but it is a little beyond that to have people commute to work in a 17-minute trip called The Fall through the core of the earth. Cool, yes, but way beyond believable.
Other plot holes make this a story you don't want to think too much about, but it doesn't seem to have been trying too hard to stimulate any brain function. If you watch it, enjoy the scenery and the pretty people (including Colin Farrell and Jessica Biel) beating each other up, but don't expect much else. This is not one of Philip K. Dick's better stories, but maybe the written story is better.
Rated PG-13. Two hours. Two and a half stars. Wait for the DVD.
The cool factor of this movie is definitely the setting (layers upon layers of city suspended in the air!) and the chase scenes that go through it. Kate Beckinsale isn't a vampire this time, but she's as scary as one and looks as good as any vampire ever did (She's 39!).
Not as cool are scenes of nudity and the actual logistics of this science fiction flick, based on a story by Philip K. Dick. I don't mind suspending disbelief for science fiction, but it is a little beyond that to have people commute to work in a 17-minute trip called The Fall through the core of the earth. Cool, yes, but way beyond believable.
Other plot holes make this a story you don't want to think too much about, but it doesn't seem to have been trying too hard to stimulate any brain function. If you watch it, enjoy the scenery and the pretty people (including Colin Farrell and Jessica Biel) beating each other up, but don't expect much else. This is not one of Philip K. Dick's better stories, but maybe the written story is better.
Rated PG-13. Two hours. Two and a half stars. Wait for the DVD.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
This Means War on DVD
I was disappointed with this movie. It could have been such a good one, but I kind of suspected it might rub me the wrong way. This Means War is about two secret agents who fall in love with the same girl and then battle it out to try to make her fall in love with one of them over the other. I was expecting a rather light-hearted, funny action romance, but with this type of film, you usually get a bit of garbage, too. Sadly, with romantic comedies, I find myself going into them wondering if I can ignore the sexual stuff enough to like the movie. And in this one, the answer was "no."
The movie has some good things going for it. It has a unique premise. It's really funny, even at the totally inappropriate parts. It has a good actress: Reese Witherspoon. Chris Pine (Kirk in 2009's Star Trek) and Tom Hardy (in Inception) star opposite her. I don't know them as well, but you gotta love a British accent!
But then it also has raunchy language and demeaning sex talk (it's rated PG-13), and (SPOILERS!!!!) the bad boy wins the girl! I was rooting so much for Hardy's Tuck (and not just because of the accent!). He is the better choice. He is the one who is interested in her from the beginning. He's sweet and genuine and romantic. Pine's FDR, on the other hand, sleeps around and can't stand Lauren at first. Of course, I knew immediately that the storyline would push FDR, even though it pretended to be about Tuck. And sure enough, a not-so-subtle emphasis on FDR followed.
(SPOILERS continue) But to the end, I hoped she would end up with Tuck, simultaneously knowing she wouldn't. And when she didn't, I was so disappointed. FDR didn't deserve her. I hated the whole process of how she ended up with him, too. Her sex-driven older sister gives her horrible advice, including sleeping with the two men to determine who's better. Lauren (who seems like a decent girl who doesn't do that sort of thing) sleeps with FDR and subsequently believes him to be The One. (I hated the message that sent.) Then she decides, against her better judgment, that she should at least try the other guy. Tuck proves she doesn't deserve him. Fortunately for Tuck, his ex-wife and son wait for him at the finish line, suddenly interested in him because it turns out he's a spy rather than a travel agent. (Are people really that shallow?) And unfortunately for this story's happy ending, it turns out that FDR really is a scumbag who'd slept with Tuck's wife at one point in their shared history. But of course, that revelation is just to add a last touch of humor, and we all know that Lauren changed his life and set him on the straight path. (Hollywood must think we are stupid.)
I was so, so disappointed in this movie. If you want to see a movie about spies and romance, go re-rent Mr. & Mrs. Smith from your rental store's Favorites section. (Or dig it out of the back of your collection!) There's more heat and much more class.
The movie has some good things going for it. It has a unique premise. It's really funny, even at the totally inappropriate parts. It has a good actress: Reese Witherspoon. Chris Pine (Kirk in 2009's Star Trek) and Tom Hardy (in Inception) star opposite her. I don't know them as well, but you gotta love a British accent!
But then it also has raunchy language and demeaning sex talk (it's rated PG-13), and (SPOILERS!!!!) the bad boy wins the girl! I was rooting so much for Hardy's Tuck (and not just because of the accent!). He is the better choice. He is the one who is interested in her from the beginning. He's sweet and genuine and romantic. Pine's FDR, on the other hand, sleeps around and can't stand Lauren at first. Of course, I knew immediately that the storyline would push FDR, even though it pretended to be about Tuck. And sure enough, a not-so-subtle emphasis on FDR followed.
(SPOILERS continue) But to the end, I hoped she would end up with Tuck, simultaneously knowing she wouldn't. And when she didn't, I was so disappointed. FDR didn't deserve her. I hated the whole process of how she ended up with him, too. Her sex-driven older sister gives her horrible advice, including sleeping with the two men to determine who's better. Lauren (who seems like a decent girl who doesn't do that sort of thing) sleeps with FDR and subsequently believes him to be The One. (I hated the message that sent.) Then she decides, against her better judgment, that she should at least try the other guy. Tuck proves she doesn't deserve him. Fortunately for Tuck, his ex-wife and son wait for him at the finish line, suddenly interested in him because it turns out he's a spy rather than a travel agent. (Are people really that shallow?) And unfortunately for this story's happy ending, it turns out that FDR really is a scumbag who'd slept with Tuck's wife at one point in their shared history. But of course, that revelation is just to add a last touch of humor, and we all know that Lauren changed his life and set him on the straight path. (Hollywood must think we are stupid.)
I was so, so disappointed in this movie. If you want to see a movie about spies and romance, go re-rent Mr. & Mrs. Smith from your rental store's Favorites section. (Or dig it out of the back of your collection!) There's more heat and much more class.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Footloose
I'm sorry, for all you fans out there, that I have not seen the original Footloose, so this will not be a comparison review. I wasn't all that interested in seeing the new 2011 version either, but a preview I saw hooked my attention and I rented the DVD.
For those of you out of the loop like me, Footloose is about a high school boy, Ren, from Boston who ends up in a little Southern podunk town with his uncle's family after his mother's death. His seemingly rebellious spirit stirs up a town where it's against the law to crank up your music or dance in public gatherings, the law having been made after the death of five seniors coming home from such a dance. But there was trouble in paradise before Ren arrived. The pastor's own daughter, Ariel, is out of control, and Ren's interest in her makes him the perfect scapegoat when the town starts to unravel.
I liked the storyline of this movie. I liked Ren's angry dancing, a combination of gymnastics and parkour. I did NOT like Ariel's sexy dancing. I get that she's the rebellious bad girl, doing exactly what her father doesn't want her to. So, if she dances like she does at first, I understand. But when she continues to dance like she does (the very type of dancing that instigated people to make the law in the first place, what they call lascivious and promiscuous dancing), when the movie is trying to prove that dancing in and of itself is not harmful but fun, there's a contradiction there. Sexy dancing is not just for fun. It has a purpose: to turn guys on. And though turning guys on doesn't automatically equal harmful, it's not just free-spirited fun either. The point would have been better made had Ariel's dancing changed midway through the movie: had her destructive dancing been a side effect of her attitude, and a more creative fun dancing come out as a result of her change of attitude. While Ariel herself does finally put on a girly dress and tone down her dancing for the last scenes, it's too little too late for the movie to carry any consistent message.
It's not that I don't like the dynamics of having Ariel's character in the movie. It could have been a fascinating performance, but instead, it just came off as a little cheap. Ren and his new buddy Willard, however, are fabulous, and I'd kick off my Sunday shoes with them anytime.
For those of you out of the loop like me, Footloose is about a high school boy, Ren, from Boston who ends up in a little Southern podunk town with his uncle's family after his mother's death. His seemingly rebellious spirit stirs up a town where it's against the law to crank up your music or dance in public gatherings, the law having been made after the death of five seniors coming home from such a dance. But there was trouble in paradise before Ren arrived. The pastor's own daughter, Ariel, is out of control, and Ren's interest in her makes him the perfect scapegoat when the town starts to unravel.
I liked the storyline of this movie. I liked Ren's angry dancing, a combination of gymnastics and parkour. I did NOT like Ariel's sexy dancing. I get that she's the rebellious bad girl, doing exactly what her father doesn't want her to. So, if she dances like she does at first, I understand. But when she continues to dance like she does (the very type of dancing that instigated people to make the law in the first place, what they call lascivious and promiscuous dancing), when the movie is trying to prove that dancing in and of itself is not harmful but fun, there's a contradiction there. Sexy dancing is not just for fun. It has a purpose: to turn guys on. And though turning guys on doesn't automatically equal harmful, it's not just free-spirited fun either. The point would have been better made had Ariel's dancing changed midway through the movie: had her destructive dancing been a side effect of her attitude, and a more creative fun dancing come out as a result of her change of attitude. While Ariel herself does finally put on a girly dress and tone down her dancing for the last scenes, it's too little too late for the movie to carry any consistent message.
It's not that I don't like the dynamics of having Ariel's character in the movie. It could have been a fascinating performance, but instead, it just came off as a little cheap. Ren and his new buddy Willard, however, are fabulous, and I'd kick off my Sunday shoes with them anytime.
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.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
We Bought a Zoo
When I first saw the title We Bought a Zoo, I had no interest whatsoever in seeing it. I expected it to be comedy, and though I'm not opposed to comedy, by any means, I felt like Zookeeper was enough in that department. Then I saw a trailer, which only confused me. Obviously not a comedy, then. Now, maybe it was too serious. It wasn't until recently when I saw a different trailer that I was truly interested. And now, having seen it, I'm glad I did.
We Bought a Zoo is a heartstring-pulling drama, based on a true story, about a family who lost their mom and wife and needed a change of scenery. The zoo happened to be attached to the house they wanted to buy, and the dad (played beautifully by Matt Damon), being something of an adventure chaser, decided to go with it.
What ensues is the biggest adventure of them all as the Mee family heals from their grief and makes some new friends, both animal and human. This is a family movie (rated PG) with a serious edge (as opposed to some family dramas that are complete fluff) and a meaningful message of hope. Be prepared to laugh and cry. If you haven't seen this one yet, you definitely should. Available now on DVD.
We Bought a Zoo is a heartstring-pulling drama, based on a true story, about a family who lost their mom and wife and needed a change of scenery. The zoo happened to be attached to the house they wanted to buy, and the dad (played beautifully by Matt Damon), being something of an adventure chaser, decided to go with it.
What ensues is the biggest adventure of them all as the Mee family heals from their grief and makes some new friends, both animal and human. This is a family movie (rated PG) with a serious edge (as opposed to some family dramas that are complete fluff) and a meaningful message of hope. Be prepared to laugh and cry. If you haven't seen this one yet, you definitely should. Available now on DVD.
The Avengers in Theaters Now
Wow. Go see The Avengers in the theater now! Friday was its first day out. If you liked Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America, you will love this one even more. If you haven't seen those movies, watch them before you see this to give yourself a little more context on the characters.
This movie, while having some great conflict and action, is also laugh-out-loud funny. And with a cast of seven main actors, it's amazing how well the movie holds together and how fully each character is portrayed. Balancing such a cast can't be easy, but every character is well-represented and matters. It would have been easy to have Black Widow and Hawkeye be only supporting characters, but no, this movie makes them stand out as much as the others we are more familiar with (speaking as someone who knows these characters from movies alone and not from comic books). Even The Hulk is fabulous. Now, I know nothing about The Hulk, but he seems like a pretty boring brute of a superhero. I realize now that what is intriguing about him is his shy Dr. Banner personality, but this movie makes both sides cool.
The basic premise of the movie is this: Thor's adopted brother Loki has come to Earth to use the power of the Tesseract (the blue energy cube last seen in Captain America) to rule humanity. Nick Fury calls in six superheroes to form a team called The Avengers to save the world. As one superhero puts it, where you fail to protect, you avenge. The problem is these guys aren't team players. Each is used to being the top dog in the situations they've faced, so before they get to the big battle, they duke it out like animals vying for supremacy. It's pretty interesting to see who does or doesn't come out on top.
In case you've been living on the moon (or comic books and superheroes just aren't your thing), this is the cast: Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Evans as Captain America, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Joss Whedon directs. Some of the secondary characters from previous movies reprise their roles.
The Avengers is wholesome family fun, providing your kids are old enough to watch sci-fi battle action. It's PG-13 and clean.
I can't really say anything more without spoiling. You just need to see this one yourself, and if you can, see it while it's still in the theater, just because...why not? It's worth it. And stay past the initial credits (before the black screen credits) to see footage of a new baddie for a future movie. By the way, if you see The Avengers in Kendallville (maybe other places, too), you get the added bonus of watching the latest trailers for The Dark Knight Rises and Brave.
This movie, while having some great conflict and action, is also laugh-out-loud funny. And with a cast of seven main actors, it's amazing how well the movie holds together and how fully each character is portrayed. Balancing such a cast can't be easy, but every character is well-represented and matters. It would have been easy to have Black Widow and Hawkeye be only supporting characters, but no, this movie makes them stand out as much as the others we are more familiar with (speaking as someone who knows these characters from movies alone and not from comic books). Even The Hulk is fabulous. Now, I know nothing about The Hulk, but he seems like a pretty boring brute of a superhero. I realize now that what is intriguing about him is his shy Dr. Banner personality, but this movie makes both sides cool.
The basic premise of the movie is this: Thor's adopted brother Loki has come to Earth to use the power of the Tesseract (the blue energy cube last seen in Captain America) to rule humanity. Nick Fury calls in six superheroes to form a team called The Avengers to save the world. As one superhero puts it, where you fail to protect, you avenge. The problem is these guys aren't team players. Each is used to being the top dog in the situations they've faced, so before they get to the big battle, they duke it out like animals vying for supremacy. It's pretty interesting to see who does or doesn't come out on top.
In case you've been living on the moon (or comic books and superheroes just aren't your thing), this is the cast: Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Evans as Captain America, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Joss Whedon directs. Some of the secondary characters from previous movies reprise their roles.
The Avengers is wholesome family fun, providing your kids are old enough to watch sci-fi battle action. It's PG-13 and clean.
I can't really say anything more without spoiling. You just need to see this one yourself, and if you can, see it while it's still in the theater, just because...why not? It's worth it. And stay past the initial credits (before the black screen credits) to see footage of a new baddie for a future movie. By the way, if you see The Avengers in Kendallville (maybe other places, too), you get the added bonus of watching the latest trailers for The Dark Knight Rises and Brave.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Three Musketeers on DVD
The 1993 version of The Three Musketeers, starring Tim Curry among others, was one of my favorite movies growing up, so I was pretty excited to see this version, crazy as it seemed it might be with fantastical elements, including airships. Sadly, I was a bit disappointed. There were things I liked about it, but overall, the dialog was a little cliche, the plot was overly simplistic (almost like a spoof of its 1993 counterpart), and the action lacked spark. The costumes were colorful and the characters were funny, but that's not enough to carry a movie. It's not a terrible rendition (I've been meaning to read the book for years but haven't yet, so this comment is based on what I know from the 1993 movie.), but it feels a bit like a modernized rerun of an earlier movie and not a story that got its source material from the book.
Since it stars Orlando Bloom among others, you almost get the sense (right or wrong) that the producers were hoping for a wild ride along the lines of Pirates of the Carribean, something that would grab the viewers like those movies did and create a franchise. Have you heard anything about last year's The Three Musketeers since it came out? Me neither. Obviously, if that was the plan, it failed, but I'm only speculating.
The music was reminiscent of the new Sherlock Holmes movies with Robert Downey Jr., which was fun, but again, it felt like it was copying and not being original. Perhaps the most original work of the film was the king's character, played by Freddie Fox, a more childish and ridiculous king than his counterpart in the 1993 version. I didn't like it at first, but it grew on me, particularly as we got to know the king a little better and saw that he did have at least one deep side: his love for his new queen.
In fact, vibrant characters, many relatively unknown, is what this movie has going for it. Athos (played by Matthew Macfayden, who played Mr. Darcy in the most recent Pride and Prejudice), Aramis, and Porthos are played well (if not with much depth of character), and D'Artagnon is young and played completely cocky, more so than I would have thought would work, but it did. The two-faced Milady de Winter, however, is more annoying than genius. She's played sexy, even when no one on screen is watching, which I found unnecessary. I must confess, I didn't recognize Orlando Bloom through the movie, though he plays a fairly big part, but I wasn't looking for him either. Many faces in the movie seemed familiar but weren't placed until the credits rolled.
It's rated PG-13 for "adventure action violence," according to imdb.com (where, incidentally, I always look for ratings information), but there's a lot of cleavage and a scene with Milady where she acts like she's dancing on a stage rather than repelling down a wall.
Overall, it's an okay movie if you've nothing better to do. I'm sorry if you paid the money to see it in theaters, and don't hurry down to the movie store to rent this one next. But for a little entertainment and an excuse to eat a bowl of popcorn on a lazy day, it's not terrible. Almost three stars.
Since it stars Orlando Bloom among others, you almost get the sense (right or wrong) that the producers were hoping for a wild ride along the lines of Pirates of the Carribean, something that would grab the viewers like those movies did and create a franchise. Have you heard anything about last year's The Three Musketeers since it came out? Me neither. Obviously, if that was the plan, it failed, but I'm only speculating.
The music was reminiscent of the new Sherlock Holmes movies with Robert Downey Jr., which was fun, but again, it felt like it was copying and not being original. Perhaps the most original work of the film was the king's character, played by Freddie Fox, a more childish and ridiculous king than his counterpart in the 1993 version. I didn't like it at first, but it grew on me, particularly as we got to know the king a little better and saw that he did have at least one deep side: his love for his new queen.
In fact, vibrant characters, many relatively unknown, is what this movie has going for it. Athos (played by Matthew Macfayden, who played Mr. Darcy in the most recent Pride and Prejudice), Aramis, and Porthos are played well (if not with much depth of character), and D'Artagnon is young and played completely cocky, more so than I would have thought would work, but it did. The two-faced Milady de Winter, however, is more annoying than genius. She's played sexy, even when no one on screen is watching, which I found unnecessary. I must confess, I didn't recognize Orlando Bloom through the movie, though he plays a fairly big part, but I wasn't looking for him either. Many faces in the movie seemed familiar but weren't placed until the credits rolled.
It's rated PG-13 for "adventure action violence," according to imdb.com (where, incidentally, I always look for ratings information), but there's a lot of cleavage and a scene with Milady where she acts like she's dancing on a stage rather than repelling down a wall.
Overall, it's an okay movie if you've nothing better to do. I'm sorry if you paid the money to see it in theaters, and don't hurry down to the movie store to rent this one next. But for a little entertainment and an excuse to eat a bowl of popcorn on a lazy day, it's not terrible. Almost three stars.
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Adventures of Tintin
I was pretty sure I was never going to see the movie The Adventures of Tintin, but that was because I had no idea what it was. It's based on an animated TV series from the early 90's, but I didn't know that. I thought it was an animated feature for kids about a kid with a dog. I thought the dog's name was Tintin, due to the unfortunate coincidence of a recently released biography about a dog named Rin Tin Tin. I confess, I was completely wrong, and I would be wrong still if not for that family convention of sitting down to a movie for the sake of togetherness regardless of each individual's movie watching preferences.
The Adventures of Tintin is really rather remarkable, and I wholeheartedly recommend it. This is not your typical animation, in any sense. It's basically a live-action film that just looks animated because that's what they did. They used real people in motion-capture technology, much like they did to create Gollum in Lord of the Rings (in fact, Andy Serkis helped make this movie, too), but rather than creating creatures to use in a realistic-looking world, they animated both the people and the world. I don't mean that you will see any faces of actors you know done up in some caricature (although there are a few that resemble people you might know), but there are real people behind the animated movements you see on screen. And until you see it yourself, you won't believe what a difference it makes in the look of the film.
The story itself is on a level with Indiana Jones or Pirates of the Carribean. Animation lets it be a little over the top as far as reality goes, but weren't those movies a little over the top in live-action? And it's no more a kids' movie than those are. Tintin is a journalist (young, but not a kid) who stumbles onto a big story when he purchases a model boat and then has it stolen from him. The adventures just keep piling up as Tintin, with his smart dog tagging along, uses all his story-sniffing skills to solve a mystery as big as any Jones chased down.
It's completely entertaining fun for adults, though I suppose (grudgingly) kids might enjoy it, too. Ha! It's a perfect family movie (rated PG for action, drunkenness, and smoking) but not the kind you're forced to sit through on a Sunday evening. This is one you all should enjoy!
The Adventures of Tintin is really rather remarkable, and I wholeheartedly recommend it. This is not your typical animation, in any sense. It's basically a live-action film that just looks animated because that's what they did. They used real people in motion-capture technology, much like they did to create Gollum in Lord of the Rings (in fact, Andy Serkis helped make this movie, too), but rather than creating creatures to use in a realistic-looking world, they animated both the people and the world. I don't mean that you will see any faces of actors you know done up in some caricature (although there are a few that resemble people you might know), but there are real people behind the animated movements you see on screen. And until you see it yourself, you won't believe what a difference it makes in the look of the film.
The story itself is on a level with Indiana Jones or Pirates of the Carribean. Animation lets it be a little over the top as far as reality goes, but weren't those movies a little over the top in live-action? And it's no more a kids' movie than those are. Tintin is a journalist (young, but not a kid) who stumbles onto a big story when he purchases a model boat and then has it stolen from him. The adventures just keep piling up as Tintin, with his smart dog tagging along, uses all his story-sniffing skills to solve a mystery as big as any Jones chased down.
It's completely entertaining fun for adults, though I suppose (grudgingly) kids might enjoy it, too. Ha! It's a perfect family movie (rated PG for action, drunkenness, and smoking) but not the kind you're forced to sit through on a Sunday evening. This is one you all should enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)