The movie about "The Girl on Fire"! The second movie in the "Hunger Games" saga and boy was it intense. I've read the books, I re-read this particular book the weekend before the movie came out and I've already seen it TWICE since that time. There will be spoilers below! So, if you have not read the books, you might want to turn back now! Guys....get ready.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Directed By - Francis Lawrence
Written By - Simon Beaufoy, Michael Arndt, & based on the book by Suzanne Collins
Top-Billed Cast - Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, & Liam Hemsworth
We're back in Panem, right after the last Hunger Games ended and just before the start of the Victory Tour. Katniss and Peeta are much as they were at the beginning of the last story: virtual strangers only thrown together by the games. Threats, uprisings, fiery costumes, and lots of violence move this tale along.
Pros -
* I was happy to see that this movie, unlike its predecessor, did not open with a shaky-hand-held montage of District 12. I enjoyed the reality of that picture, but it also made me queasy. Steadicams for the win!
* In the book, the first half felt a bit slow to me. Yes, there's a lot that goes on...but those things are separated by huge blocks of time that are filled with a lot of Katniss planning and being at war with herself. While, in some instances, I wish they hadn't sped things along for the film, I was glad to see that things were moving at a bit faster of a pace.
* Since the book is first-person-narration, the movie is faced with the task of communicating Katniss' thoughts out loud and, specifically in regards to the Gale situation, I think they did a great job. Those in the audience that hadn't read the books (tisk tisk!), could see the "inner" conflict in that situation.
* Props to Elizabeth Banks and her seemingly effortless portrayal of Effie Trinket. There are bits carried over from the first movie that are just gems and lots of direct quotes from the book itself; one does not leave the theater wanting when it comes to Effie!
* Since the first movie cut out the Madge character, and she's so heavily referenced in the second book, I was really curious and a bit skeptical about how they were going to deal with her absence. While I sort of thought they might just add her in, they did not. Instead of Katniss seeing the beginnings of the rebellion on Madge's father's TV, she sees it on the train on the Victory Tour; an excellent switch, in my opinion.
* I'm a fan of James Newton Howard. Don't know who that is? He's not an actor or director...he's a composer and his work is amazing.
* I missed the conversation between the two district escapees and Katniss but I almost believe it happened and they just cut it due to her reaction at the end when Plutarch casually mentions District 13 and she's just like "but Peeta". I'm putting this here because I want to believe it happened...
* I give the extras in this movie a pat-on-the-back for doing a much better job than the ones in the previous film at the District 12 salute. I re-watched the first movie before seeing this one and I lost count of how many did it incorrectly. Good job, Catching Fire cast, good job.
* The cat is the right color! I'm not sure if you noticed, I'm sure you did, but there is a different Buttercup in this movie and I'm super stoked. Somehow, it got past all the people that Buttercup is supposed to be "muddy yellow" and cast a black & white cat in the first movie. WHAT? Come on, people. The color-corrected-cat is in several scenes in this film and I smiled every time.
* I'm sure there are already loads of posts up regarding continuity errors but I'm not going to be one. What? I can compliment continuity...it's not like I always complain about that or anything. Anyway, I'm really only speaking of a specific scene. A scene in which it would have been super easy to have an error and they did not. I'm not sure, though, if the credit belongs to the continuity person or if it should go to Jennifer Lawrence as it appears as if this scene was done in a single take and chopped to work in another camera angle. Either way, I salute you people for leaving her hair alone.
* JLaw gets an asterisk. We've seen a lot more of her since she was first cast as Katniss Everdeen and I wasn't sure what that would mean for this movie. I never doubted her ability, I doubted my ability to see past Jennifer Lawrence running through a set in order to see Katniss Everdeen running through the jungle. I needn't have worried. I especially enjoyed watching the "switch" in the very last shot.
* I thought the interview with Johanna was hilarious. I was both surprised and pleased that they opted to bleep out that word and I thought it gave the scene a nice reminder that this was something broadcast out to the districts, not just a play for the Capitol.
* Stanley Tucci. Need I say more? I will, but I don't think it's really necessary. From the purple eyebrows, to the monstrously large laugh, Stanley Tucci brings Caesar Flickerman to life in a way I don't think any other actor could.
* Speaking of actors bringing characters to life, Donald Sutherland is creepy as President Snow. But, we all knew that already. I was a little worried that we wouldn't be able to "smell" the rose and blood that accompanies him in the book, but the screenwriters added in a little gem during the final stop of the Victory Tour that does the trick.
* The arena. I don't know what else to say. CGI included (though, I did chuckle once or twice at actors swinging weapons at non-existent foes). I loved the fog, I loved that I could actually see what was happening, even at "night", and I loved the JabberJay scene. It was just well done.
Cons -
* Ok, it wasn't all beautiful music and accurate portrayals....Let's start with the thing that bothered me from the start: Katniss' hair color change. What the heck? Did the "the girl on fire" get singed? For those wondering why Jennifer Lawrence cut her hair...I think you can see the reason in this movie. Get the girl some conditioner.
* "It's a chink in the armor". Yes, that is what it is. What did they actually call the flicker in the force field, though? A "flaw in the system". While, yes, they are basically the same thing...THEY AREN'T. It's a line, guys, it's not a character that you'd have to cast and pay and make time for. It's differences like this in book-to-screen adaptations that annoy me most because they're pointless. Katniss says that phrase at least three times in the book and it's uttered zero in the movie. I don't understand.
* Why didn't Mags talk in the movie? I guess I can sort of give a pass because those that hadn't read the books might be frustrated if they couldn't understand her but...eh, they can go to the library.
* While I realize that it's something I just need to get over...I couldn't get past Sam Claflin (Finnick)'s accent. Yes, he's English, and yes I even gave him a bit of a "well, he's been around the Capitol a lot longer than a lot of these other have.." pass. Still, consistency is key. Same goes for you, Liam Hemsworth.
* This was probably just a time thing, no pun intended, but why couldn't we take a second to see Plutarch's MockingJay watch during that dance? I mean, they danced, they talked...there was time. Just a quick flick of the wrist, a comment, a look, and they're out.
* I'm going to take a moment to speak for those that haven't read the books and are watching with a skeptical eye: I'm also confused as to why Peeta "died" when he hit the force field but Katniss didn't even lose consciousness. I'm also assuming that the force field opens to allow the hover crafts in to get the dead bodies.
* I don't know this for sure, so I am completely prepared to say "I was wrong" later, BUT...during my second viewing I might have played a game called "when is Finnick really carrying Mags". It was a short game. -insert collective "aww"-
* Raise your hand if the Cinna/Katniss scenes make you uncomfortable.. -hand raise-
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13. There's murder involved, a lot of violence in general, and some really scary monkeys. Other than children killing each other and one scene of a-bit-more-than-implied nudity, though, it's fairly clean. There are a couple of "f-bombs", but they're bleeped and the rest of the language is fairly mild. Be prepared to talk about war, sacrifice, and the dangers of a corrupt government without any fail-safes.
Overall, I liked this movie and I thought they did a fantastic job. The few things that I felt they messed up on are overwhelmingly made up for in the things they left in. Did they add some extra romantic-tension? Yes. Did they take some other liberties? Yes. But, in the end, it's a movie and not a book. You just can't have a 2 hour movie and have in include every single detail. I liked this movie better than the first and I hope I'll feel the same about the next two! May the odds be ever in your favor... 4.5/5 stars.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
Gravity - A Heavy Hitter
I've been looking forward to seeing this movie since I first heard of its existence. Space terrifies me but the cinematography in the previews, along with the promise of great performances from Bullock & Clooney drew me in.
Gravity
Directed By - Alfonso Cuaron
Written By - Alfonso Cuaron and Jonas Cuaron
Top-Billed Cast - Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, and Ed Harris
Floating in the true last frontier are seasoned astronaut, Matt Kowalski (Clooney), and medical engineer-turned-astronaut, Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock). While performing some out-of-station maintenance, disaster strikes and they must fight to survive in a place not meant for life.
Pros -
* If I didn't start this with cinematography, this whole thing would be pointless. It was pretty intense at times (ok, the entire movie), but I'm fairly certain there were less than 15 cuts in this whole film. That's insane! It was just so seamless; using the drifting of the astronauts to change camera angles and the use of reflections was just brilliant.
* I don't know how they did it and I really don't think I really care (ok, I do, and I'll be buying the DVD so I can find out), but the weightless shots were just incredible. The use of the floating objects, both inside and outside the craft, was great.
* Thank you George Clooney for comic relief! This is an intense movie, to say the least, so there was def a need for some moments of tension release and Clooney delivered. His role in this movie is both heartbreaking and uplifting.
* Get ready for it...it's rare but it's coming...the CGI in this was fantastic. Now, I did not see this movie in IMAX or 3D, so if you're going to see it on something other than the regular-sized screen, you might see something I didn't. But, from my seat? I had few complaints in this department, and we all know how much I complain about CGI!
* At the beginning of the movie, there is a choice made that I find just, brilliant. I won't spoil, but there is a moment that would have had much less impact had they opted for a...more visual and less auditory approach with a character.
* The score. I love a good score and while, yes, there were times that the plot was sort of "given away" by the music, it was still subtle enough and pretty enough for that to be overridden in my mind.
* I know I said cinematography first but...MAN. It deserves two asterisks.
* For this being (almost) "Cast Away"...in space, I was sort of expecting to get bored or tired of the silence. Didn't happen. Bullock's performance in this movie is incredible. I sort of feel like she probably won't get the critical attention she deserves, and that saddens me. The physical AND mental aspects of this role are spectacularly conquered.
* The writers of this movie do a really good job at telling a well-layered story. This movie isn't just about some people floating around in space, this movie is about who these people were before they left the planet and who they hope to be upon their return. There are some real tear-jerker moments in the performances and the levels of emotions in one particular scene, for me, was intense.
Cons -
* There is a bit of CGI at the tail-end of this movie that almost ruined the entire thing for me. Ok, it wasn't that bad but...it was close. I just start to question the meetings that took place to decide to add that bit in and it makes me sad that it was approved, digitized, and left in.
* Now, I fully understand that this movie is about space and that communications between people both in space and people on earth is hard, BUT, there were some minor sound issues that bugged me. I really can't put my finger on it and I honestly don't know how on earth (haha, see what I did there?) you would avoid it but, it bothered me and I feel the need to note it.
* Towards the end of the movie, there was an interesting bit that I felt would have been better as a deleted scene. I get what they were going for but, for me, it totally took me out of the movie. I think the same thing could have been accomplished without the total loss of reality but, I sort of understand the reasons why it was left in.
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 and it is really intense. There is some language, but honestly it's probably "cleaner" than any awards show you would see these days. Be prepared to discuss death, details about space, and margaritaville.
Overall, this movie left me speechless. I mean, there are only three cons and one of those I really stretched for. It is such a beautiful movie. I know that a lot of people want to go see movies to escape the stress of their everyday lives, so the thought of coming to see such an intense film isn't at all appealing but, I implore you to see this one. Yes, it is intense. Yes, you might get a tad motion sick at first (I did..). Yes, you're going to feel things that your average rom-com wouldn't bring out. BUT, it's worth it. If not just for the visuals, which I will be paying to see again, but also for the truly uplifting story. I give this movie 4.5/5 stars.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
The Way Way Back
I finally got to see this movie! It's quite frustrating to see all these people you follow tweeting about how awesome a movie is and then find out that that movie won't be coming to a theater near you for way too long a time. This is the story of a summer, a family, and a water park.
The Way Way Back
Directed By - Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Written By - Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Top-Billed Cast - Steve Carell, Toni Collette, & Allison Janney
A summer vacation to work out the kinks of a merging of families. At least, that's what it was supposed to be. The reality was that Trent (Steve Carell), the boyfriend and father of his own rebellious daughter, had no real interest in truly connecting with his girlfriend's (Toni Collette) son, Duncan (Liam James). The movie follows Duncan as he tries to find his place in this new city, in his family, and in the world as a whole.
Pros -
* I hated Steve Carell's character in this movie. For me to hate the character, I had to believe the performance. Hats off to Mr. Carell for that.
* I laughed a lot. I think there was an expectation for this movie to be funny based on the cast but, once it got going, I was really surprised at how much I laughed given the intensity of some of the plot points.
* The supporting cast in this movie were just awesome; they all pulled their weight and pretty much every line was memorable for one reason or another.
* The setting and the sets themselves were well thought out. This isn't the story of a billionaire and his fantastically furnished beach house, this is the story of a regular set of people and you can really see that in the design.
* While a great cast can get you far, having good writing is what takes you the rest of the way. This movie is fast-paced at times, but the dialogue is both witty and weighty when the situation calls for it.
* The way the subplots intertwine and complement the main story works really nicely.
* This is a movie that makes you really wish your job had the camaraderie that is seen among the staff of the "Water Wizz" water park. Or maybe just that your job was at the "Water Wizz" water park..
Cons -
* So an Australian woman and a Canadian kid walk onto a movie set... wait, this isn't a joke. I know, I know, I need to get over it. But I can't. While, for the most part, everybody did a great job at sticking with dialects, there were times when it was just painful. And, in a movie where I can remember very little that I didn't like...this must be included for balance.
* There were parts of the story that I didn't feel quite wrapped up. I'm sure that was intentional but as a fan of complete stories with no major questions hanging in the air, it was a bit frustrating. I understand the lack of answers to certain questions, but minor plot points? Can't we just wrap those up nicely?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 for brief language and some sexual innuendo. Be prepared to talk about drug use (brief), cheating, and you might have to explain the title. It's a fairly "clean" film, though, and does a fantastic job at telling a somewhat difficult, albeit increasingly common, story.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, as is made obvious by the TWO cons I've listed. Seriously, that's never happened before. There are tiny things I could nitpick, but I honestly don't think it's worth it. This was a good movie and it's one I'll likely own. It's honest, it's funny, it's endearing, and you should go see it. 4/5 stars from me!
The Way Way Back
Directed By - Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Written By - Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Top-Billed Cast - Steve Carell, Toni Collette, & Allison Janney
A summer vacation to work out the kinks of a merging of families. At least, that's what it was supposed to be. The reality was that Trent (Steve Carell), the boyfriend and father of his own rebellious daughter, had no real interest in truly connecting with his girlfriend's (Toni Collette) son, Duncan (Liam James). The movie follows Duncan as he tries to find his place in this new city, in his family, and in the world as a whole.
Pros -
* I hated Steve Carell's character in this movie. For me to hate the character, I had to believe the performance. Hats off to Mr. Carell for that.
* I laughed a lot. I think there was an expectation for this movie to be funny based on the cast but, once it got going, I was really surprised at how much I laughed given the intensity of some of the plot points.
* The supporting cast in this movie were just awesome; they all pulled their weight and pretty much every line was memorable for one reason or another.
* The setting and the sets themselves were well thought out. This isn't the story of a billionaire and his fantastically furnished beach house, this is the story of a regular set of people and you can really see that in the design.
* While a great cast can get you far, having good writing is what takes you the rest of the way. This movie is fast-paced at times, but the dialogue is both witty and weighty when the situation calls for it.
* The way the subplots intertwine and complement the main story works really nicely.
* This is a movie that makes you really wish your job had the camaraderie that is seen among the staff of the "Water Wizz" water park. Or maybe just that your job was at the "Water Wizz" water park..
Cons -
* So an Australian woman and a Canadian kid walk onto a movie set... wait, this isn't a joke. I know, I know, I need to get over it. But I can't. While, for the most part, everybody did a great job at sticking with dialects, there were times when it was just painful. And, in a movie where I can remember very little that I didn't like...this must be included for balance.
* There were parts of the story that I didn't feel quite wrapped up. I'm sure that was intentional but as a fan of complete stories with no major questions hanging in the air, it was a bit frustrating. I understand the lack of answers to certain questions, but minor plot points? Can't we just wrap those up nicely?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 for brief language and some sexual innuendo. Be prepared to talk about drug use (brief), cheating, and you might have to explain the title. It's a fairly "clean" film, though, and does a fantastic job at telling a somewhat difficult, albeit increasingly common, story.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, as is made obvious by the TWO cons I've listed. Seriously, that's never happened before. There are tiny things I could nitpick, but I honestly don't think it's worth it. This was a good movie and it's one I'll likely own. It's honest, it's funny, it's endearing, and you should go see it. 4/5 stars from me!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
The Heat
Breaking my prolonged critiquing silence to review a movie about an FBI agent and a Boston Detective? Yes. Yes, I am. Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy headline this straightforward and, for me, highly anticipated comedy.
The Heat
Directed By - Paul Feig
Written By - Katie Dippold
Top-Billed Cast - Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy, & Marlon Wayons
When an uptight FBI agent Sarah Ashburn (Bullock) is given the opportunity to chase down a druglord in order to secure a sought after promotion, she does whatever it takes to make the unwanted partnership with Detective Mullins (McCarthy) work. Hilarity and violence ensues.
Pros -
* Any time you have Melissa McCarthy on the bill, you're going to get laughs and lots of them. Her delivery is spot-on and knowing that a LOT of her lines are completely ad-libbed makes them that much funnier.
* This is rare for me so...get ready... I'm going to compliment the CGI. Wait! Before you click the X and assume that I must be crazy...hear me out. It's not that the CGI was incredible or anything, it's more that it wasn't as horrible as I expected. So it's a basically a backhanded compliment.
* There are a lot of sunglasses in this movie and, with that comes a lot of opportunities to see things you shouldn't in reflections. I didn't. Good job, post!
* Sandra Bullock's slow evolution from uptight to easy going really was nicely done.
* The supporting cast in this film were fantastic, especially Mullins' family. While occasionally over-the-top, they were supposed to be so the scenes involving them and Ashburn were great at showcasing the contrasts of the two detectives.
* It took a while to find the stride, to me, but once there, the jokes were hilarious and things you wouldn't necessarily even find that funny normally.
Cons -
* For the first....thirty? minutes of the movie I was fairly certain I was watching the first half of "Miss Congeniality", so that was weird. Sandra Bullock as an uptight FBI agent? Seen it.
* The end of the movie left some questions for me, which I won't spoil here, but it should be noted that there are loose ends. Sequel? Eh..
* There was a lot more violence than I expected to be in this movie. I don't really know if this is really a con...but that's where I'm putting it. In most comedies that I've seen, there might be violence, but it's usually not all on screen; they'll have the gun pointed at the bad guy, cut to the face of the shooter & then we hear the shot...we don't see it. We see it in this movie. A lot.
* While this movie is quite funny....it's a little slow getting there. I didn't seriously start laughing until probably 30-45 minutes in.
* I wasn't that impressed with Taran Killam's performance in this movie, and I really like him on SNL so I'm not sure what the issue was.
* The fact that I was aware of how far into the movie I started laughing sort of says a lot about the pacing and overall engagement-level of the movie on the whole.
* Sandra Bullock's character has magic blood-resistant clothing. That's all I'll say about that.
* Where "Bridesmaids" had a lot of sexual-based humor, this movie takes a more..linguistic approach so while some might argue that it is "cleaner"..if your ears are at all sensitive, you might find yourself wincing.
* I realize this is a comedy, and a comedy most likely involving the director just letting the actors roll with things..but I still expect everybody to keep a straight face when they're supposed to be serious. This isn't SNL.
Now Mother..
This movie is rated R and rightly so. There is a ton of language (with the "f" word being the vocab of choice) and quite a bit of on screen violence. With that said, I do think it's probably "cleaner" than "Bridesmaids" and, if you're not bothered by language, it's really pretty mild. It's not something I'd recommend to take your kids along with to see but, if you do, be prepared to discuss drug abuse, prejudice, appropriate means of communication, and cat theft.
Overall, I laughed. I thought it was funny and a fairly light comedy that I would see again. It wasn't as funny to me as some other comedies out there but I definitely enjoyed the Bullock/McCarthy duo and I would love to see them work together again. I'm giving it 3/5 stars.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
The Oscars - MegaPost
The Academy Awards, the pinacle of movie-dom. This year, I was able to watch ALL of the best picture nominees, as well as all the nominated performances in the best actor and best actress and best supporting actor and best supporting actress categories! Below you will find mini reviews on all of these and my picks for tomorrow's ceremonies!
Best Picture Nominees -
The nominees in this category cover every base: musical, drama, foreign language film, and even a bit of comedy. It's a tough group this year and I think it will be a tight race.
Amour - The story of love and age and how they relate to each other. The movie was emotionally powerful and simplistically filmed. The characters were beautifully played and incredibly believable. The lack of background music (save for a few sequences of brilliant piano playing), really drives the reality of the story, but leaves a lot to be desired in the masking of chewing noises.
Django Unchained - This is an unconventional tale of a freed slave and his journey to find and free his wife while in the company of an intriguingly hilarious German bounty hunter. While it should be noted that this is a Tarantino film and with that comes lots of blood, violence, and spectacular explosions, the performances and story telling are well worth the gore.
Lincoln - The story that needs no introduction. It might not technically be the longest film on the list, but it felt like it. Daniel Day-Lewis does a good job at personifying the 16th President of the United States of America. Though the characterization and portrayal of Lincoln was well done, the length and pacing of the film as well as some of the creative choices really effected the overall impression of the whole thing for me.
Argo - One of two films nominated about daring military escapades, this movie is fast paced and very well put together. The casting, in relation to the real life people, was spot on and the cinematography brilliant. The supporting cast did a great job keeping the feeling light when necessary and the editing really brings the tension home.
Les Miserable - The struggles of Jean Valjean in 19th century France and the toll of the French Revolution on the people. An excellently cast, costumed, and put together film for anybody that likes period pieces or musicals. A truly moving performance by Anne Hathaway made this movie worth it for me.
Silver Linings Playbook - After completing mandatory facility treatment for bipolar disorder, Pat Solatano, superbly brought to life by Bradley Cooper, sets out to try and convince everyone, including himself that he is better and ready to get back to normal life. Just about everyone in this movie dove into their roles with such fervor and enthusiasm that it's not hard to understand why so many got nominated. The story was compelling, the filming done well, and the roles perfectly brought to life.
Beasts of the Southern Wild - A movie about life, love, and difficulties in the deep south of Louisiana the "bath tub". While I, personally, did not appreciate the filming style (I get motion sick pretty easily so the lack of a steadicam was not my favorite choice) I can understand why it is being praised. The mix of realism with the imagination of the youngest to ever receive a nomination for Best Actress was endearing and interesting.
Life of Pi - A shipwrecked Indian boy trapped on a life boat with a large Bengal Tiger...how can you go wrong? A beautifully crafted film with spectacular use of CGI and cinematography. I will say, though, why can't they ever get the motion of CGI animals right? With that being pretty much my only complaint, though, this movie would not completely surprise me if it took home the big award.
Zero Dark Thirty - The second of two war-time movies nominated, this film is incredibly tense and keeps you on the edge of your seat. While the drama is there, and the pacing definitely keeps you interested, the story itself left me a bit confused. It was hard to determine if this was the story of one particular person within this huge operation, or if it was the story of the operation itself.
My Pick - My favorite movie of the above would definitely be Silver Linings Playbook. I'll see it again and will probably own it.
What will win - This is tough, I feel that Argo, Les Mis, & Silver Linings have a shot but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if any of the films took it home; it truly is a tough category this year.
Best Actor Nominees -
From a prisoner in 19th century France, to the 16th President of the United States, to a man suffering from bipolar disorder, to a drunk pilot, to a veteran of World War II caught up in a fantastical cult..this category is quite diverse.
Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook) - I've seen Bradley Cooper in numerous roles over the years and, honestly, never been terribly impressed. It's not that he wasn't good, he just wasn't ever on my "oh, I need to see that movie because he's in it" list. His performance in this movie changed that for me. I feel that he truly submerged himself into the role and definitely deserves this nomination.
Joaquin Phoenix (The Master) - I saw a lot of movies preparing for this post but this was the weirdest. Despite my being really confused for a lot of the film, I have to give props to Joaquin Phoenix for his ability to pull off such a strange character. I understand the nomination and, though I would be surprised simply because of the film itself, I wouldn't be upset if he won.
Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) - Ready your pitchforks...I wasn't that impressed. Call me crazy, but I feel that part of the job of an actor is to make me forget that I'm watching an actor play a part. While he did a great job, especially considering the whole accent thing, I still caught myself "seeing" DDL throughout the movie. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if he won; he's a critics' fav (just not this one).
Denzel Washington (Flight) - I'll say this, good job on playing high and drunk. There was probably a lot that went into achieving that. At the same time, as with DDL, pretty much the whole movie I was thinking "he's really good at pretending to be drunk" and, if I'm thinking that, doesn't that sort of negate the compliment? I'm not sure. And I'm really not sure why this, of all the performances out there, was selected.
Hugh Jackman (Les Miserable) - Talk about a transformation for a role. The people in this movie went all out and they got rewarded for it. Hugh Jackman brought a frailty to this role that I think is what draws people in. While there were definitely aspects that I didn't necessarily like, the performance on the whole was incredible.
My Pick - Again, I think my favorite performance came from Silver Linings Playbook and Bradley Cooper.
What will win - I think it's a close race between Hugh Jackman and Daniel Day-Lewis but I wouldn't be that surprised if Bradley Cooper ended up with the statue.
Best Actress Nominees -
A war hero, a young girl, an emotionally troubled widow, a mother in the face of immense tragedy, and a wife struggling through illness...all these characters had quite the emotional toll on the audience and, I'm sure, the actors alike.
Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) - I'm not quite sure what to say here. I get this nomination, politically, but I'm not sure that I get it from a performance stand point. The entire movie I was trying to figure out if this was a movie about Jessica Chastain's character, or if this was a movie about capturing Osama Bin Laden. I'm still not sure. Part of that unsureness stems from the fact that there was only one truly emotional scene with this actress in it...and it was at the end and the emotion portrayed was rather confusing.
Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) - Seeing as how she was six when she was cast, and could barely read...I understand this nomination. She was adorable and played her role well. Do I think it was an Oscar-worthy performance? Not really.
Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) - I will admit that I first saw Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games, but after that I saw her other major role in Winter's Bone and I was impressed. Going into this movie, I didn't think I was going to buy that she and Bradley Cooper's character were right for each other (I have weird age-related relationship "rules")....but I was convinced. I bought it and I'd buy it again.
Naomi Watts (The Impossible) - I honestly don't understand why this entire cast and film weren't nominated but that's beside the point. An incredible performance on such an incredibly large scale. I cried several times in this movie and I try not to do that (in public, at least)...it was unavoidable. This is another movie that I will buy simply so I can watch the special features and listen to commentaries. Highly recommended.
Emmanuelle Riva (Amour) - This actress made me believe she was a stroke victim and that she was miserable. But, that's easier to do when I've not seen her in anything prior, nor have I seen any interviews. She's the oldest person to be nominated in this category, though, and I do think she did a great job.
My Pick - Super tough for me, actually. As you might have guessed, Jennifer Lawrence tops my list but Naomi Watts was so incredible that I honestly can't choose.
What will win - Unfortunately, I think Jessica Chastain has a good shot at this but I really think Jennifer Lawrence could take it as well. I'd be really surprised if a different actress took it home.
Actor in a Supporting Role -
This category covers slavery from two viewpoints, the life of a cult leader, and the obsessive compulsion of an Eagles fan.
Alan Arkin (Argo) - A witty supporting character that played his role well. The issue I have with this nomination is how little screen time he actually had and how similar of a role he played to John Goodman's (who was not nominated).
Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln) - For a character that basically just sat around Grumpy Catting (yes, I just made that a verb) for almost 3 hours..I'm a bit confused. His role was, technically, pivotal for the story but I'm not so sure that another actor couldn't have done the same thing he did.
Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook) - As much as I love SLP, I'm not gonna lie...I was kind of surprised by this nomination. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job and I'd much prefer him to win than most of the rest nominated, I'm just not sure if this was that excellent of a role for him.
Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master) - Again, this was an incredibly weird movie that I do not wish to see again (not even to attempt to figure out what exactly happened). That being said, with what he was given, he did a great job. He was creepy, believable, and when on screen you couldn't ignore him.
Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained) - This man is just so talented. He brought a lightness to the role that I'm not sure anybody else could pull off. I wanted him to succeed in all his murderous plots and was moved by his performance.
My Pick - No question: Christoph Waltz.
What will win - I think it's almost no question: Christoph Waltz.
Actress in a Supporting Role -
The wife of a cult leader, the wife of a president, a down-on-her luck mom turned prostitute, a sex therapist, and the mother of a bipolar and unstable son....these are the nominees.
Amy Adams (The Master) - As much as I like Amy Adams...I don't know. She did a good job with what she was given but I will be really surprised if she wins. She wasn't on screen all that much and spoke even less. There was maybe one or two scenes where her character said something really important and while her delivery was good and her acting convincing, it just wasn't Oscar-worthy to me.
Helen Hunt (The Sessions) - It took me forever to find this movie and I only just finished watching it a couple of hours ago. I give her props for playing such a...vulnerable role. I believed her emotions and her performance was compelling.
Sally Field (Lincoln) - This nomination truly confuses me. Maybe it's one of those "we're nominating you for this role, technically, but really it's a salute to your past work"? I could buy that. She did play crazy well, I guess.
Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook) - Much like Robert De Niro's nomination, I understand it but I'm not convinced it was that fantastic. She played stressed and concerned very well and I totally bought her in this role.
Anne Hathaway (Les Miserable) - Give this girl her Oscar. I'm not a fan of musicals and I'm not that big of an Anne Hathaway fan but...come on. That scene...worth the entire movie. Her role might be considered somewhat small, based on total screen time, but the performance was worth as many nominations as they can throw at her.
My Pick - Do you have to ask? Anne Hathaway.
What will win - Anne Hathaway.
This was definitely a challenge, seeing all these films in time, but I'm really glad I did it. Tune in tomorrow to see how wrong I am about it all!
Best Picture Nominees -
The nominees in this category cover every base: musical, drama, foreign language film, and even a bit of comedy. It's a tough group this year and I think it will be a tight race.
Amour - The story of love and age and how they relate to each other. The movie was emotionally powerful and simplistically filmed. The characters were beautifully played and incredibly believable. The lack of background music (save for a few sequences of brilliant piano playing), really drives the reality of the story, but leaves a lot to be desired in the masking of chewing noises.
Django Unchained - This is an unconventional tale of a freed slave and his journey to find and free his wife while in the company of an intriguingly hilarious German bounty hunter. While it should be noted that this is a Tarantino film and with that comes lots of blood, violence, and spectacular explosions, the performances and story telling are well worth the gore.
Lincoln - The story that needs no introduction. It might not technically be the longest film on the list, but it felt like it. Daniel Day-Lewis does a good job at personifying the 16th President of the United States of America. Though the characterization and portrayal of Lincoln was well done, the length and pacing of the film as well as some of the creative choices really effected the overall impression of the whole thing for me.
Argo - One of two films nominated about daring military escapades, this movie is fast paced and very well put together. The casting, in relation to the real life people, was spot on and the cinematography brilliant. The supporting cast did a great job keeping the feeling light when necessary and the editing really brings the tension home.
Les Miserable - The struggles of Jean Valjean in 19th century France and the toll of the French Revolution on the people. An excellently cast, costumed, and put together film for anybody that likes period pieces or musicals. A truly moving performance by Anne Hathaway made this movie worth it for me.
Silver Linings Playbook - After completing mandatory facility treatment for bipolar disorder, Pat Solatano, superbly brought to life by Bradley Cooper, sets out to try and convince everyone, including himself that he is better and ready to get back to normal life. Just about everyone in this movie dove into their roles with such fervor and enthusiasm that it's not hard to understand why so many got nominated. The story was compelling, the filming done well, and the roles perfectly brought to life.
Beasts of the Southern Wild - A movie about life, love, and difficulties in the deep south of Louisiana the "bath tub". While I, personally, did not appreciate the filming style (I get motion sick pretty easily so the lack of a steadicam was not my favorite choice) I can understand why it is being praised. The mix of realism with the imagination of the youngest to ever receive a nomination for Best Actress was endearing and interesting.
Life of Pi - A shipwrecked Indian boy trapped on a life boat with a large Bengal Tiger...how can you go wrong? A beautifully crafted film with spectacular use of CGI and cinematography. I will say, though, why can't they ever get the motion of CGI animals right? With that being pretty much my only complaint, though, this movie would not completely surprise me if it took home the big award.
Zero Dark Thirty - The second of two war-time movies nominated, this film is incredibly tense and keeps you on the edge of your seat. While the drama is there, and the pacing definitely keeps you interested, the story itself left me a bit confused. It was hard to determine if this was the story of one particular person within this huge operation, or if it was the story of the operation itself.
My Pick - My favorite movie of the above would definitely be Silver Linings Playbook. I'll see it again and will probably own it.
What will win - This is tough, I feel that Argo, Les Mis, & Silver Linings have a shot but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if any of the films took it home; it truly is a tough category this year.
Best Actor Nominees -
From a prisoner in 19th century France, to the 16th President of the United States, to a man suffering from bipolar disorder, to a drunk pilot, to a veteran of World War II caught up in a fantastical cult..this category is quite diverse.
Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook) - I've seen Bradley Cooper in numerous roles over the years and, honestly, never been terribly impressed. It's not that he wasn't good, he just wasn't ever on my "oh, I need to see that movie because he's in it" list. His performance in this movie changed that for me. I feel that he truly submerged himself into the role and definitely deserves this nomination.
Joaquin Phoenix (The Master) - I saw a lot of movies preparing for this post but this was the weirdest. Despite my being really confused for a lot of the film, I have to give props to Joaquin Phoenix for his ability to pull off such a strange character. I understand the nomination and, though I would be surprised simply because of the film itself, I wouldn't be upset if he won.
Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) - Ready your pitchforks...I wasn't that impressed. Call me crazy, but I feel that part of the job of an actor is to make me forget that I'm watching an actor play a part. While he did a great job, especially considering the whole accent thing, I still caught myself "seeing" DDL throughout the movie. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if he won; he's a critics' fav (just not this one).
Denzel Washington (Flight) - I'll say this, good job on playing high and drunk. There was probably a lot that went into achieving that. At the same time, as with DDL, pretty much the whole movie I was thinking "he's really good at pretending to be drunk" and, if I'm thinking that, doesn't that sort of negate the compliment? I'm not sure. And I'm really not sure why this, of all the performances out there, was selected.
Hugh Jackman (Les Miserable) - Talk about a transformation for a role. The people in this movie went all out and they got rewarded for it. Hugh Jackman brought a frailty to this role that I think is what draws people in. While there were definitely aspects that I didn't necessarily like, the performance on the whole was incredible.
My Pick - Again, I think my favorite performance came from Silver Linings Playbook and Bradley Cooper.
What will win - I think it's a close race between Hugh Jackman and Daniel Day-Lewis but I wouldn't be that surprised if Bradley Cooper ended up with the statue.
Best Actress Nominees -
A war hero, a young girl, an emotionally troubled widow, a mother in the face of immense tragedy, and a wife struggling through illness...all these characters had quite the emotional toll on the audience and, I'm sure, the actors alike.
Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) - I'm not quite sure what to say here. I get this nomination, politically, but I'm not sure that I get it from a performance stand point. The entire movie I was trying to figure out if this was a movie about Jessica Chastain's character, or if this was a movie about capturing Osama Bin Laden. I'm still not sure. Part of that unsureness stems from the fact that there was only one truly emotional scene with this actress in it...and it was at the end and the emotion portrayed was rather confusing.
Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) - Seeing as how she was six when she was cast, and could barely read...I understand this nomination. She was adorable and played her role well. Do I think it was an Oscar-worthy performance? Not really.
Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) - I will admit that I first saw Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games, but after that I saw her other major role in Winter's Bone and I was impressed. Going into this movie, I didn't think I was going to buy that she and Bradley Cooper's character were right for each other (I have weird age-related relationship "rules")....but I was convinced. I bought it and I'd buy it again.
Naomi Watts (The Impossible) - I honestly don't understand why this entire cast and film weren't nominated but that's beside the point. An incredible performance on such an incredibly large scale. I cried several times in this movie and I try not to do that (in public, at least)...it was unavoidable. This is another movie that I will buy simply so I can watch the special features and listen to commentaries. Highly recommended.
Emmanuelle Riva (Amour) - This actress made me believe she was a stroke victim and that she was miserable. But, that's easier to do when I've not seen her in anything prior, nor have I seen any interviews. She's the oldest person to be nominated in this category, though, and I do think she did a great job.
My Pick - Super tough for me, actually. As you might have guessed, Jennifer Lawrence tops my list but Naomi Watts was so incredible that I honestly can't choose.
What will win - Unfortunately, I think Jessica Chastain has a good shot at this but I really think Jennifer Lawrence could take it as well. I'd be really surprised if a different actress took it home.
Actor in a Supporting Role -
This category covers slavery from two viewpoints, the life of a cult leader, and the obsessive compulsion of an Eagles fan.
Alan Arkin (Argo) - A witty supporting character that played his role well. The issue I have with this nomination is how little screen time he actually had and how similar of a role he played to John Goodman's (who was not nominated).
Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln) - For a character that basically just sat around Grumpy Catting (yes, I just made that a verb) for almost 3 hours..I'm a bit confused. His role was, technically, pivotal for the story but I'm not so sure that another actor couldn't have done the same thing he did.
Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook) - As much as I love SLP, I'm not gonna lie...I was kind of surprised by this nomination. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job and I'd much prefer him to win than most of the rest nominated, I'm just not sure if this was that excellent of a role for him.
Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master) - Again, this was an incredibly weird movie that I do not wish to see again (not even to attempt to figure out what exactly happened). That being said, with what he was given, he did a great job. He was creepy, believable, and when on screen you couldn't ignore him.
Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained) - This man is just so talented. He brought a lightness to the role that I'm not sure anybody else could pull off. I wanted him to succeed in all his murderous plots and was moved by his performance.
My Pick - No question: Christoph Waltz.
What will win - I think it's almost no question: Christoph Waltz.
Actress in a Supporting Role -
The wife of a cult leader, the wife of a president, a down-on-her luck mom turned prostitute, a sex therapist, and the mother of a bipolar and unstable son....these are the nominees.
Amy Adams (The Master) - As much as I like Amy Adams...I don't know. She did a good job with what she was given but I will be really surprised if she wins. She wasn't on screen all that much and spoke even less. There was maybe one or two scenes where her character said something really important and while her delivery was good and her acting convincing, it just wasn't Oscar-worthy to me.
Helen Hunt (The Sessions) - It took me forever to find this movie and I only just finished watching it a couple of hours ago. I give her props for playing such a...vulnerable role. I believed her emotions and her performance was compelling.
Sally Field (Lincoln) - This nomination truly confuses me. Maybe it's one of those "we're nominating you for this role, technically, but really it's a salute to your past work"? I could buy that. She did play crazy well, I guess.
Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook) - Much like Robert De Niro's nomination, I understand it but I'm not convinced it was that fantastic. She played stressed and concerned very well and I totally bought her in this role.
Anne Hathaway (Les Miserable) - Give this girl her Oscar. I'm not a fan of musicals and I'm not that big of an Anne Hathaway fan but...come on. That scene...worth the entire movie. Her role might be considered somewhat small, based on total screen time, but the performance was worth as many nominations as they can throw at her.
My Pick - Do you have to ask? Anne Hathaway.
What will win - Anne Hathaway.
This was definitely a challenge, seeing all these films in time, but I'm really glad I did it. Tune in tomorrow to see how wrong I am about it all!
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Les Miserables
Once again, I don't like musicals and, once again, I didn't read the book. There just wasn't enough time in the day to read one of the longest books ever...I wiki'd it, though. All that to say this: this film version is the only version I know in regards to the story line, so if there were inconsistencies there...don't expect to see them pointed out below.
Les Misérables
Directed By - Tom Hooper
Written By - Victor Hugo (novel), Claude-Michel Schönberg (book), Alain Boublil (book), & William Nicholson (screenplay)
Top Billed Cast - Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, & Russell Crowe
The story is set during 19th century France. Things were rough, and the people were desperate. The main tale, woven throughout several years, is that of the ex-prisoner Jean Valjean (Jackman) and how he goes from a parole-skipper, to a legit business man in the eyes of all but the law. It's a story of pain, of fate, of immense sadness, and finally love.
Pros -
* It's a Tom Hooper film, the fact that "The King's Speech" was his last movie says a lot, I think.
* Since it was a Tom Hooper film, I knew going in that I would probably love the cinematography...I was right. The shots in this movie, and thinking about all the technical stuff that went into the way these sequences are captured...mind blowing.
* For a movie about prisoners and peasants, one might not expect to be commending the make-up artists, but I definitely am. Subtlety but thoroughness seemed to be their game-plan and it worked wonderfully.
* If Anne Hathaway does not at least get an Oscar Nod for this role, there is no hope left in the entertainment business. The amount of pain she shared with the audience during a single song made the whole movie worth it for me. It was just incredible.
* On the same note, the children in this movie were fantastic! The three main ones are all movie-newbies (stage productions are a completely different animal, in my opinion), and that is just impressive.
* For a movie that spans such a length of time, and covers so much content, I felt that it flowed fairly nicely.
* Casting, in general, was brilliant. I'm not typically a Russell Crowe fan but his performances were awesome, as were Jackman's and even, dare I say it?, Amanda Seyfried did a great job.
* I'll be the first to admit that though I am not a Sacha Baren Cohen fan, I'm not sure I can picture anyone else in that role. He and Helena Bonham Carter made a fantastically awful pair and the comedic relief in such an otherwise dark film, was very welcome.
* The fact that they filmed all the music LIVE, as in "here's an earpiece, he's going to play the piano part, just sing", should be respected. The amount of emotion they were able to capture and the rawness of it all, while in some parts might could have been better in a studio, for the majority of the movie it worked beautifully.
Cons -
* While I compliment the cinematography for the most part...there was something that bugged me throughout. I understood the filming style, and appreciated it in the majority of the film. However, when for several stansas of a song, the only part of the actor that is in focus is their right ear....that, to me, is an issue. It worked when the actor was moving about, and kind of came in and out of focus, but not so much when they were just standing there for five minutes. I learned a lot about Hugh Jackman's right ear.
* I'm just never going to be a fan of a false-ending. This may not have seemed like a false-ending to those that know the story but for those, like me, that are experiencing it for the first time...it was a bit confusing.
* While I marvel at the ability to get three people singing different verses of a song (or three different songs entirely) at the same time, it's not the best way to have your lyrics heard. I'm sure these scenes were very verbose and moving, I just have no clue what was said.
* This is mostly just a con for me because I don't like musicals but...I got bored. I fought the urge to zone out, though, and was happy I stuck with it. That doesn't erase the fact that the urge was there in the first place, though.
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13, and I'm kind of surprised by that. There is a lot of violence, sexual innuendo (and some not so implied), "minor" language, and just intense suspense. Be prepared to talk about the French Revolution, the law versus what's right, desperation, and prison life.
Overall, it might seem like I'm not really giving this movie as glowing of a review as most. However, the fact that I could genuinely only think of the listed Cons, says a lot about my opinion of the film. The compliment the casting is to compliment the cast. Each performance, each part that was played in the making of this movie was played beautifully. The parts that bothered me were far outweighed by the parts I enjoyed, and I genuinely look forward to seeing all of the behind-the-scenes extras on the DVD when it comes out and an desperately hoping for some commentaries! I'm giving it 4/5 stars.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Gollum Style
On occasion, I have some pretty amazing mental images. Today that image was of Gollum from Lord of the Rings doing the Gangnam Style song. This prompted me to make this image:
You are welcome.
You are welcome.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Exact Formula
I think that TV shows set in the late 1800s-early 1900s must follow an exact formula and I believe I've nailed down the highlights and it is these highlights that I'm going to share with you.
In order to become a "successful" TV series set in this time you must have an episode about...
1. Fire - Either the barn, the house, the town, or all three need to catch fire. It is preferred that a child starts it, but it's usually first blamed on the town's "outsider" (we'll touch on this later).
2. Horse - Typically, these shows are set around people who don't have a lot of money so buying something like a horse is a big deal. Even if they have money and already have a horse, there will be an episode where one either gets gravely ill and makes a miraculous comeback OR it dies. It sort of depends on the time-slot and network as to which outcome the execs choose.
3. Epidemics - There's nothing like a life-or-death experience to bring a town together. In these series, the epidemic is typically concentrated on the children (smallpox, scarlet fever, measles, etc) but on occasion they can get a bout of typhoid that brings the whole town to its knees. In these episodes (which are often a 2-parter), you get to see the character that's afraid of the sick, the character that's going to pull on the Big Girl/Boy Panties and be the hero, and the character that's in love with the main character but too afraid until now to say anything. These episodes are very emotional and (again depending on time-slot and network) we sometimes see character death.
4. Snow/Weather - In this era, there's not a lot going on and weather is a big driver for life: when to plant, when to harvest, when to have barn raisings...etc. Generally, the "weather" episode is surrounding a snow storm; the heavier the blizzard, the more the drama. Usually, these storms are quite unexpected with only a few hours notice and, wouldn't you know, the main character has JUST set off on a trip into town and there's no way to reach him/her! So, sometimes, the character that loves him/her (but has kept it a secret) runs out into the impending weather apocalypse in order to attempt to save their life and their love. It's really intense.
5. Native Americans - You can't have a show set in this time without dedicating at least one episode to Native Americans. The way in which a series handles this content varies but rest assured that there will be at least one character that will have nothing to do with the Native Americans (typically a child so that they can be vocal without being considered AS prejudiced as if it were an adult) and at least one that thinks the way of life presented is the best thing since sliced bread. There's usually a vision quest and at least one character gets an "Indian name".
6. African Americans - This episode usually doesn't air until the show is certain to make it past the initial cut. Again, there is usually a child that doesn't want to be involved with the new characters who are typically a family from New York or Boston. Due to the nature of the topic, these episodes generally end with a party or community gathering of some sort where everyone comes together to welcome the new residents.
7. Babies/Abuse - I put these two together because they typically air in the same episode and, more often than not, are about the same character. Sometimes a young pregnant woman turns up in the woods, sometimes she stumbles into the church, sometimes she walks right in to the school already in labor...her entrances are varied but her story is usually one of two: 1. she got pregnant out of wedlock and her parents kicked her out, or 2. her husband beats her and she wants a better life for her child so she ran. This episode is really emotionally charged with all sorts of drama; the main character feels the need to care for the woman and/or baby and contemplates rushing into a family arrangement in order to make that happen. This episode is filled with all sorts of other "love" with the minor characters and typically happens in the spring.
8. Robbers - The thought of being held up at gun point and demanded money of is a scary one, the thought of being held up at gun point in the late 1800s is terrifying. No cell phones, no police cars cruising the area, no self-defense classes...you were pretty much a sitting duck. Robberies happened and I'm sure they happened often. Based on the amount of different types I've seen on TV alone, I couldn't imagine the fear involved in taking the honey-crop to the market. Don't worry, though, usually the thief is dealt with and belongings are returned at the end of the episode.
9. Writing - This is kind of a weird one when you first think about it but I'm sure you'll recognize just how common it is in a minute or two. It seems that in order to stand out in these small towns, one must become published. Now, it doesn't seem to matter whether that's in a national publication or just the local paper but, never-the-less, it's a big deal and an entire episode is dedicated to finding out who the town's best writer is.
10. Cheating - Even if the series in question is not surrounding children or a school...there is always an episode about cheating. Usually, the person being cheated off of is shy or always bullied so he/she doesn't stand up for themselves until the very end or never at all and it's the cheatER that ends up confessing all in a teary-eyed moment of humility. It's very moving and you're so happy that the character saw the error in his/her ways.
11. Kidnapping - Just like with robberies, according to what we see in these series, kidnapping was a common occurrence during this era. Whether the main character gets taken when out on a walk, in a storm, or whether he/she stumbles upon the kidnapper by accident varies from series to series. This is an episode that really brings out the courage and fortitude not only of the main character but also the supporting cast. These episodes usually end with the kidnapper seeing the error in his ways and surrendering.
12. Weddings - This is usually one of the last episodes of the season/series. It's not necessarily a wedding between the main characters or even the main supporting cast...it's just an episode who's sole purpose is to get the main character on the wedding thought-train. These series are usually following a woman who is either recently widowed or has never been married so, going along with the times, finding the right man is one of her most common thoughts. The wedding episode allows the writers to have an entire hour to devote to this topic where otherwise they wouldn't risk it due to fans not wanting to spend too much time away from the "real" story. 'Cause, you know, people who watch period series are watching it for the historical accuracies and not for the character drama and def not because they want to see the main character admit she's in love with the handyman...
13. The Cliff-Hanger - The sad truth is, period series typically don't last. Unless you're Little House on the Prairie...you're extremely fortunate to make it past two (abbreviated) seasons. The only hope these series have is to end in such a way as to make the few fans they have cry for more. The cliff-hanger is the cruelest of cruels. You never find out any real answers and if you aren't lucky enough to have your cries of injustice heard by the execs, the only place you can turn for speculation as to how it all turned out is...fanfiction. And that, my friends, is the slipperiest of slopes reserved only for those who are not faint of heart and the grammatically confident.
I love period series. They're super easy to follow and tend to not have the blood, lust, and general insanity that is in most other television today. That being said, the formula does get old and I do tire of having to weed through the atrocities of fan-written garbage to find a sliver-of-a-diamond in the pile of unremarkable (barely legible) junk.
In order to become a "successful" TV series set in this time you must have an episode about...
1. Fire - Either the barn, the house, the town, or all three need to catch fire. It is preferred that a child starts it, but it's usually first blamed on the town's "outsider" (we'll touch on this later).
2. Horse - Typically, these shows are set around people who don't have a lot of money so buying something like a horse is a big deal. Even if they have money and already have a horse, there will be an episode where one either gets gravely ill and makes a miraculous comeback OR it dies. It sort of depends on the time-slot and network as to which outcome the execs choose.
3. Epidemics - There's nothing like a life-or-death experience to bring a town together. In these series, the epidemic is typically concentrated on the children (smallpox, scarlet fever, measles, etc) but on occasion they can get a bout of typhoid that brings the whole town to its knees. In these episodes (which are often a 2-parter), you get to see the character that's afraid of the sick, the character that's going to pull on the Big Girl/Boy Panties and be the hero, and the character that's in love with the main character but too afraid until now to say anything. These episodes are very emotional and (again depending on time-slot and network) we sometimes see character death.
4. Snow/Weather - In this era, there's not a lot going on and weather is a big driver for life: when to plant, when to harvest, when to have barn raisings...etc. Generally, the "weather" episode is surrounding a snow storm; the heavier the blizzard, the more the drama. Usually, these storms are quite unexpected with only a few hours notice and, wouldn't you know, the main character has JUST set off on a trip into town and there's no way to reach him/her! So, sometimes, the character that loves him/her (but has kept it a secret) runs out into the impending weather apocalypse in order to attempt to save their life and their love. It's really intense.
5. Native Americans - You can't have a show set in this time without dedicating at least one episode to Native Americans. The way in which a series handles this content varies but rest assured that there will be at least one character that will have nothing to do with the Native Americans (typically a child so that they can be vocal without being considered AS prejudiced as if it were an adult) and at least one that thinks the way of life presented is the best thing since sliced bread. There's usually a vision quest and at least one character gets an "Indian name".
6. African Americans - This episode usually doesn't air until the show is certain to make it past the initial cut. Again, there is usually a child that doesn't want to be involved with the new characters who are typically a family from New York or Boston. Due to the nature of the topic, these episodes generally end with a party or community gathering of some sort where everyone comes together to welcome the new residents.
7. Babies/Abuse - I put these two together because they typically air in the same episode and, more often than not, are about the same character. Sometimes a young pregnant woman turns up in the woods, sometimes she stumbles into the church, sometimes she walks right in to the school already in labor...her entrances are varied but her story is usually one of two: 1. she got pregnant out of wedlock and her parents kicked her out, or 2. her husband beats her and she wants a better life for her child so she ran. This episode is really emotionally charged with all sorts of drama; the main character feels the need to care for the woman and/or baby and contemplates rushing into a family arrangement in order to make that happen. This episode is filled with all sorts of other "love" with the minor characters and typically happens in the spring.
8. Robbers - The thought of being held up at gun point and demanded money of is a scary one, the thought of being held up at gun point in the late 1800s is terrifying. No cell phones, no police cars cruising the area, no self-defense classes...you were pretty much a sitting duck. Robberies happened and I'm sure they happened often. Based on the amount of different types I've seen on TV alone, I couldn't imagine the fear involved in taking the honey-crop to the market. Don't worry, though, usually the thief is dealt with and belongings are returned at the end of the episode.
9. Writing - This is kind of a weird one when you first think about it but I'm sure you'll recognize just how common it is in a minute or two. It seems that in order to stand out in these small towns, one must become published. Now, it doesn't seem to matter whether that's in a national publication or just the local paper but, never-the-less, it's a big deal and an entire episode is dedicated to finding out who the town's best writer is.
10. Cheating - Even if the series in question is not surrounding children or a school...there is always an episode about cheating. Usually, the person being cheated off of is shy or always bullied so he/she doesn't stand up for themselves until the very end or never at all and it's the cheatER that ends up confessing all in a teary-eyed moment of humility. It's very moving and you're so happy that the character saw the error in his/her ways.
11. Kidnapping - Just like with robberies, according to what we see in these series, kidnapping was a common occurrence during this era. Whether the main character gets taken when out on a walk, in a storm, or whether he/she stumbles upon the kidnapper by accident varies from series to series. This is an episode that really brings out the courage and fortitude not only of the main character but also the supporting cast. These episodes usually end with the kidnapper seeing the error in his ways and surrendering.
12. Weddings - This is usually one of the last episodes of the season/series. It's not necessarily a wedding between the main characters or even the main supporting cast...it's just an episode who's sole purpose is to get the main character on the wedding thought-train. These series are usually following a woman who is either recently widowed or has never been married so, going along with the times, finding the right man is one of her most common thoughts. The wedding episode allows the writers to have an entire hour to devote to this topic where otherwise they wouldn't risk it due to fans not wanting to spend too much time away from the "real" story. 'Cause, you know, people who watch period series are watching it for the historical accuracies and not for the character drama and def not because they want to see the main character admit she's in love with the handyman...
13. The Cliff-Hanger - The sad truth is, period series typically don't last. Unless you're Little House on the Prairie...you're extremely fortunate to make it past two (abbreviated) seasons. The only hope these series have is to end in such a way as to make the few fans they have cry for more. The cliff-hanger is the cruelest of cruels. You never find out any real answers and if you aren't lucky enough to have your cries of injustice heard by the execs, the only place you can turn for speculation as to how it all turned out is...fanfiction. And that, my friends, is the slipperiest of slopes reserved only for those who are not faint of heart and the grammatically confident.
I love period series. They're super easy to follow and tend to not have the blood, lust, and general insanity that is in most other television today. That being said, the formula does get old and I do tire of having to weed through the atrocities of fan-written garbage to find a sliver-of-a-diamond in the pile of unremarkable (barely legible) junk.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Ten ways to tell you're watching a Made-For-TV movie
Ever wonder why you missed seeing "Snow" in theaters? Or how on earth you missed seeing Katherine Heigl in a classic body-swap scenario?
Here's why: You never learned the art of Made-For-TV movie detection.
It's ok, it's a rare art that not many study these days. Never fear! I have a handy guide for you so that you never have to worry about it again. So, here we go!
You might be a watching a Made-For-TV movie if...
1. The background music is in WAY more than just the background
2. The main character is a recent widow/widower (9 times out of ten, if the spouse is dead, the main character is a man).
3. The movie is set in a small town, typically somewhere in the north so that "explains" why all the characters sound Canadian, where everyone knows one another.
4. One of the main characters is an animal or Santa...or Santa's daughter
5. The there is a child with a "terminal" illness...
6. The two main characters discover their love for each other while on a hike
7. One (or both) of the main characters are only in the small town temporarily (therefore putting a time crunch on the romance).
8. The female main character has always claimed she doesn't want kids but the male main character just so happens to have a precocious 9 year old that captures her heart.
9. At some point during the movie, the main characters discuss the make and model of the car they're in.
Annnnd number 10!
10. You might be watching a Made-For-TV movie if one of the characters drives (or flies) across the country to deliver a horse to the other main character at a photography exhibition.
Now that you know what to look for, what movie have you seen that you are now realizing qualifies? It's ok to admit it, no judgement here!
Now that you know what to look for, what movie have you seen that you are now realizing qualifies? It's ok to admit it, no judgement here!
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man
This year, I decided to set aside my "I don't watch superhero movies" rule in order to accomodate the hoards of remakes swinging into theaters. I always seem to forget why it is that I don't like superhero movies until the credits have rolled and I walk out. Alas, by that point...it's much too late!
The Amazing Spider-Man
Directed By - Marc Webb
Written By - James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, & Steve Cloves; based on the comic books by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko
Top Billed Cast - Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans
So, Spider-Man. I really hope this is the last set of movies on this subject for at least twenty years. I'm not sure if I can handle any more than that. We all know the story, right? Kid gets bit by a mutant spider and becomes a mutant himself. He gets caught up in all sorts of trouble and the police hate him so he's pretty much a self-made outcast. BUT, he's in love and he's gotta do his best to figure out how to balance his job and his personal life with the fewest number of casualties. You win some, you lose some.
Pros -
* Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield have great chemistry...then again, I think Emma Stone could probably have great chemistry with a rock or even Keanu Reeves.
* The shots that were real were great. I especially loved the cinematography leading up to the funeral; raindrops floating down taut umbrellas made for a fantastic visual.
* I often don't care for scores that incorporate lyrical songs but the scarce use and good choices for this film worked well with the sequences.
* For as little as he said, Garfield did a good job maintaining his accent. We all knew he could, but it still should be noted as possible (I'm lookin' at you Ewan McGregor...)
* Seeing as how this was a remake of sorts, I was worried about the pace and I'm happy to report that I shouldn't have been. There were a couple of laggy-bits but, for the most part, everything moved along nicely.
* I much prefer this movie's Aunt Mae and Uncle Ben over the previous film's. Hats off to casting.
* I was somewhat disappointed that the CGI for Dr. Connors' arm was so good. I really wanted to see that wave effect that can accompany green sleeves.
* I was quite impressed with the likeness of the young Peter to the older Peter.
* I know he can't really help it but I loved the fact that the director's last name was Webb...
Cons -
* While I applauded the green-screen effects on the arm of Dr. Connors, I cannot applaud Rhys Ifans' amputee portrayal. I think the reason why we saw no wave was because he kept that arm glued to his side the whole movie. There should be SOME movement...it wasn't paralyzed.
* Speaking of that arm, I'm going to have to mention costuming here for a second. When you're fitting a real arm that's supposed to not exist in a coat with a full sleeve, do your best to use a lighter material or something and try hard to make the sleeve not look like it belonged in Abe Lincoln's closet.
* I know that since I don't read comic books or know the "real" story, I probably shouldn't complain but...could they not have this movie set in college rather than high-school? I'm just not buying Emma Stone in high school anymore...or that a 17 year old girl would know how to make an antivirus serum...or be that well trusted at a major scientific corporation.
* Oh sound department...what has happened to you? If anybody wants to see an example of poor sound looping, this is the movie to see. Un-synched lips to sound are NOT the worst part of this situation; there was an entire word changed in post. I'm not sure what the actor really said but it definitely was not the line. Did they run out of time to get another take? Was that the best he could do? Unacceptable on TV and definitely not okay in a blockbuster film such as this.
* There were a few times in this movie where I felt like I was back at Universal Studios, ridin' along in the Spider-Man ride. That's not a compliment.
* Did Peter wear his suit under his clothes ALL the time? I ask this question because, if not, dude needs to enter into some quick-change contests.
* Speaking of the suit...how the heck does the mask come off so easy yet look seamless when on? Is there some sort of magic glue not yet mass-produced that gives these results??
* Also, I get that spiders have sticky fingers (so to speak)...but if spiders were wearing tennis shoes...would that stickiness permeate the rubber soles? I don't think so.
* I liked the fact that in this movie, there was an actual contraption that shot the webbing out, however...I didn't like that he apparently always had them on (but they went invisible during certain scenes).
* If you're going to make a movie set in New York City, and you're also making a movie about a giant lizard that is apparently a pied piper...please do your research and spend more money on the CGI creation of the lizards called in.
* Speaking of Mr. Lizard...I don't even know. On the one hand, I was impressed by the make up crew on the real stuff but not so impressed with the CGI crew on the rest of it.
* How does Spider-Man see out of those lenses at night?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 for a lot of violence and general scary stuff. Be prepared to discuss genetic engineering, biological warfare, and vigilantes versus police. There are a handful of lower-level curse words but no sex scenes.
Overall, this was definitely a better movie than any of the other Spider-Mans (Men?) I've seen in the past. There were several really cool scenes and I enjoyed the experience, in general. Did it "wow" me? No. But rarely do I "wow"...so that's not really saying a lot. I think it's a good movie for what it is. If you don't mind loads of CGI and love a good plot hole, this movie is perfect for you! 3/5 stars.
The Amazing Spider-Man
Directed By - Marc Webb
Written By - James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, & Steve Cloves; based on the comic books by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko
Top Billed Cast - Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans
So, Spider-Man. I really hope this is the last set of movies on this subject for at least twenty years. I'm not sure if I can handle any more than that. We all know the story, right? Kid gets bit by a mutant spider and becomes a mutant himself. He gets caught up in all sorts of trouble and the police hate him so he's pretty much a self-made outcast. BUT, he's in love and he's gotta do his best to figure out how to balance his job and his personal life with the fewest number of casualties. You win some, you lose some.
Pros -
* Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield have great chemistry...then again, I think Emma Stone could probably have great chemistry with a rock or even Keanu Reeves.
* The shots that were real were great. I especially loved the cinematography leading up to the funeral; raindrops floating down taut umbrellas made for a fantastic visual.
* I often don't care for scores that incorporate lyrical songs but the scarce use and good choices for this film worked well with the sequences.
* For as little as he said, Garfield did a good job maintaining his accent. We all knew he could, but it still should be noted as possible (I'm lookin' at you Ewan McGregor...)
* Seeing as how this was a remake of sorts, I was worried about the pace and I'm happy to report that I shouldn't have been. There were a couple of laggy-bits but, for the most part, everything moved along nicely.
* I much prefer this movie's Aunt Mae and Uncle Ben over the previous film's. Hats off to casting.
* I was somewhat disappointed that the CGI for Dr. Connors' arm was so good. I really wanted to see that wave effect that can accompany green sleeves.
* I was quite impressed with the likeness of the young Peter to the older Peter.
* I know he can't really help it but I loved the fact that the director's last name was Webb...
Cons -
* While I applauded the green-screen effects on the arm of Dr. Connors, I cannot applaud Rhys Ifans' amputee portrayal. I think the reason why we saw no wave was because he kept that arm glued to his side the whole movie. There should be SOME movement...it wasn't paralyzed.
* Speaking of that arm, I'm going to have to mention costuming here for a second. When you're fitting a real arm that's supposed to not exist in a coat with a full sleeve, do your best to use a lighter material or something and try hard to make the sleeve not look like it belonged in Abe Lincoln's closet.
* I know that since I don't read comic books or know the "real" story, I probably shouldn't complain but...could they not have this movie set in college rather than high-school? I'm just not buying Emma Stone in high school anymore...or that a 17 year old girl would know how to make an antivirus serum...or be that well trusted at a major scientific corporation.
* Oh sound department...what has happened to you? If anybody wants to see an example of poor sound looping, this is the movie to see. Un-synched lips to sound are NOT the worst part of this situation; there was an entire word changed in post. I'm not sure what the actor really said but it definitely was not the line. Did they run out of time to get another take? Was that the best he could do? Unacceptable on TV and definitely not okay in a blockbuster film such as this.
* There were a few times in this movie where I felt like I was back at Universal Studios, ridin' along in the Spider-Man ride. That's not a compliment.
* Did Peter wear his suit under his clothes ALL the time? I ask this question because, if not, dude needs to enter into some quick-change contests.
* Speaking of the suit...how the heck does the mask come off so easy yet look seamless when on? Is there some sort of magic glue not yet mass-produced that gives these results??
* Also, I get that spiders have sticky fingers (so to speak)...but if spiders were wearing tennis shoes...would that stickiness permeate the rubber soles? I don't think so.
* I liked the fact that in this movie, there was an actual contraption that shot the webbing out, however...I didn't like that he apparently always had them on (but they went invisible during certain scenes).
* If you're going to make a movie set in New York City, and you're also making a movie about a giant lizard that is apparently a pied piper...please do your research and spend more money on the CGI creation of the lizards called in.
* Speaking of Mr. Lizard...I don't even know. On the one hand, I was impressed by the make up crew on the real stuff but not so impressed with the CGI crew on the rest of it.
* How does Spider-Man see out of those lenses at night?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 for a lot of violence and general scary stuff. Be prepared to discuss genetic engineering, biological warfare, and vigilantes versus police. There are a handful of lower-level curse words but no sex scenes.
Overall, this was definitely a better movie than any of the other Spider-Mans (Men?) I've seen in the past. There were several really cool scenes and I enjoyed the experience, in general. Did it "wow" me? No. But rarely do I "wow"...so that's not really saying a lot. I think it's a good movie for what it is. If you don't mind loads of CGI and love a good plot hole, this movie is perfect for you! 3/5 stars.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Snow White and the Huntsman: Long title, longer movie.
As a hardcore despiser of anything Twilight...you might be surprised to know that I don't hate Kristen Stewart. I decided to go see this movie because Snow White was pretty much my favorite princess growing up (well, after I wore out my Little Mermaid VHS, it was a close second). I had the costume, I had the stuffed Dopey, I sang the songs; it was a good time. So, with that imprinted love of Snow White, I will pretty much watch anything related to that storyline. I like it. Join me in this journey into the land of make believe and giant white...deer?
Snow White and the Huntsman
Directed By - Rupert Sanders
Written By - Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock, & Hossein Amini
Top Billed Cast - Kristin Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, & Charlize Theron
In case you don't know the story of Snow White: no worries, this movie tells the whole thing. What new things they choose to bring to the table, however, are what's mostly going to fill this review. There are just some things you don't mess with. Fairies are one of them.
Pros -
* I love a good crane shot. This movie did really good work with their cranes, I was genuinely impressed. Helicopter shots, cranes, wides, steady-cams....whatever they were using was working for them.
* Along those same lines, props to the set designers (mostly); I thought the colors were brilliant and the contrasts well done.
* While I wasn't a huge fan of her entire performance, I would like to take a moment to (virtually) pat Charlize Theron on the back for being willing to be covered in indeterminate-goo for most of the film. Black goo, white goo, dark red goo...she was in it.
* I was actually not that bothered by the fight sequences in this movie. I rarely like battle scenes because it's so hard to tell who is who and which person I'm supposed to be rooting for (not because I can't tell good from evil but because the costuming is too similar or the shots too quick to actually see who's winning), but this movie did a really good job for the most part with keeping their "bad" people in very different clothing than the "good". The ponytails were a nice touch.
* CGI...I'll probably devote at least two asterisks to this same topic down in the Cons section but there were moments that I gave invisible high-fives to the CGI people. The hairy apple was one of them. I'm not easily grossed out but just thinking about eating a hairy apple? blech.
* Choosing to not have a heavy score in a movie like this is a risky move but it worked in their favor, I think. There were lots of moments of almost complete silence (some wheezing aside) and I felt that better communicated the feelings of the scenes than a dramatic musical background would have.
* Comic relief is alive and well...if you make it far enough to see it. This movie is long, and slow, but if you stick with it you will be treated to some excellent poop jokes. Just thought I'd let you know.
* This last asterisk in this section I'm giving to my good pal, KStew. In a movie where she only said like 30 lines, I felt she did a much better job emoting than in almost any other film I've seen her in. She was consistant and actually smiled a couple of times; it was odd.
CONS -
* This is such a slow and long movie. I made the mistake of downing a bottled water prior to entering the theater so my opinion of the pacing might be a bit askew but I really don't think so. If you know the story of Snow White, which...who doesn't at this point?, then you're probably going to get a bit bored at times.
* There were a lot of moments in this movie that felt like moments in other movies. I know, it's 2012 and there it's getting super hard to be original but, honestly, it's not that hard. Ask me some time about my "dotting certification", originality is not dead. There are ways to have a scary forest without it having such a resemblance to a very famous scary forest in The Princess Bride; I was looking for ROUSes everywhere. There was also a Great Expectations moment as well as Ever After (wrong princess but apparently they didn't care), Narnia, Fern Gully...honestly, the list goes on and on.
* Did the producers blow all their money on paying the actors and not have any left to spend on dialect coaches? Really? I mean, ya hire not one...not two...but THREE non-British actors to play the lead characters in a film supposedly set in England but you don't try for some consistency in dialect? Charlize Theron sounded like she had a speech impediment half the movie and the other half she was slipping in and out of that "accent", then you have KStew who did an okay job (mostly) at keeping her consistency, and then you have Hemsworth and he's Scottish? Did I miss something? There was only one character in the whole movie that was Scottish. I just don't get it. If he's gotta have a different accent than everyone else for some unexplained plot-point then why couldn't he just be Australian? Continuity aside, I mean, really...there are fairies so it can't be because Australia wasn't yet founded.
* On the whole Hemsworth being Scottish for unknown reasons point: why did he narrate the beginning of the movie? If he didn't know who Snow was...why was he telling her story? I'm just confused. If this movie was ever meant to be a stand-alone piece, they really failed at communicating things.
* Can I talk about those fairies for a second? Good. Fairies, in my opinion, should not look like Gollum. They are supposed to be the epitome of all things magically good in movies. At least Harry Potter called their ugly ones "pixies" so it made it better. These were just...naked and wingless and riding around in the "pouches" of Magpies? I just don't even know.
* Since I already mentioned skimping on the budget in certain areas, let's talk about the CGI again. From the naked-Gollum fairies to the rabbits to the big white...deer? I just wasn't impressed. At this point in movie history, I just don't buy the excuse that they can't do better. Jim Henson's puppets were more believable as actual creatures than those things. Not only is CGI more challenging to work with for the actors, but reaching that level of "realness" seems to be way too difficult for most productions. I believed the reindeer in The Santa Claus more than I believed these animals ever walked on the earth. I just find it insulting and pointless. I get that it's make-believe anyway but if Animal Planet can do a better job creating a CGI shark and T-rex on one of their programs, this multimillion dollar production should be embarrassed.
* Apparently, if you're locked in a tower for 7+ years you don't spend any of that time looking for things that might help you escape; you make dolls and pray over nonexistent food. You also don't practice making fire.
* There was one moment, that I won't spoil completely, that felt very much like one of those "hidden" moments in Disney movies where you know the animator got fired later when it was discovered that he/she put *that* in the film. You know what I mean. Have fun looking for it but the entire theater in the showing I watched gasped/laughed out loud when it happened. Fun times.
* In other CGI-related news: apparently Hemsworth was the only actor worthy of getting breath added in-in post production.
* One thing I really really really hate in movies & TV shows is the fake drinking. Not just alcoholic beverages, but when they're carrying around obviously empty coffee cups and trying to make me believe that there is liquid inside them. Can they not put water in them? Or, heck, some sort of weight so that they don't look like they're going to fly away the second they are set down? Anyway, I get that the actors can't be expected to consume liquids in every take of every scene where it is "needed" for their character to drink...but...if said character is only "drinking" a single gulp in said scene before tossing the vessel aside, couldn't he at least PRETEND to swallow something instead of just lifting the thing to his lips? Fake drinking is like acting 101. You learn that right after you learn how to faint.
* This is a legitimate question: why is it that people are rarely dry in period films? Did all the roofs leak? Did they never have dry days on which to hang their clothes? Did the wind never dry their never-brushed-unless-they-were-royalty locks?
* Remember that one time you made out with your wicked Step-Mother? Apparently Snow White didn't either. I dunno about you, but if I kissed a guy that turned out to be my Step-Mom and then I died and came back to life, I might throw up. Ok, it'd probably be low down on the "to-do" list but it would still be there!
* I saw KStew's "invisible" reins. The whole movie is now ruined. Not really, but it was one of my favourite moments.
* For a movie of this length, one hundred and twenty-seven minutes to be exact, there was quite a bit that went unexplained. Like the fact that one of the dwarves was blind. Sure, we all knew it...but still.
* Speaking of unexplained things...did ALL of the girls "drained" by the Queen get re-beautified? If that's the case...did the Huntsman's wife? Do I smell sequel topics?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 for action violence, mostly in battle sequences. There is some awkward sister-brother-love that might need some explaining as well as talk about magic and hallucinations. Aside from the violence, though, this movie is fairly "clean" by traditional standards.
Overall, I didn't hate this movie. I laughed...a LOT. KStew did a pretty good job considering the fact that she said even less in this movie than she does normally. I mean, I guess I give some props to the casting director for hiring an actress known WORLDWIDE for not being able to properly emote to play a character with so little to say. But, then again, there is the whole "the role was offered to NINE other actresses before her" thing. That might clear some things up. I'm definitely interested to see if they do end up making two more of these things. I'd rather it not turn into another film series involving KStew giving birth. Nobody wants to see that. Again. 2.5/5 stars
Snow White and the Huntsman
Directed By - Rupert Sanders
Written By - Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock, & Hossein Amini
Top Billed Cast - Kristin Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, & Charlize Theron
In case you don't know the story of Snow White: no worries, this movie tells the whole thing. What new things they choose to bring to the table, however, are what's mostly going to fill this review. There are just some things you don't mess with. Fairies are one of them.
Pros -
* I love a good crane shot. This movie did really good work with their cranes, I was genuinely impressed. Helicopter shots, cranes, wides, steady-cams....whatever they were using was working for them.
* Along those same lines, props to the set designers (mostly); I thought the colors were brilliant and the contrasts well done.
* While I wasn't a huge fan of her entire performance, I would like to take a moment to (virtually) pat Charlize Theron on the back for being willing to be covered in indeterminate-goo for most of the film. Black goo, white goo, dark red goo...she was in it.
* I was actually not that bothered by the fight sequences in this movie. I rarely like battle scenes because it's so hard to tell who is who and which person I'm supposed to be rooting for (not because I can't tell good from evil but because the costuming is too similar or the shots too quick to actually see who's winning), but this movie did a really good job for the most part with keeping their "bad" people in very different clothing than the "good". The ponytails were a nice touch.
* CGI...I'll probably devote at least two asterisks to this same topic down in the Cons section but there were moments that I gave invisible high-fives to the CGI people. The hairy apple was one of them. I'm not easily grossed out but just thinking about eating a hairy apple? blech.
* Choosing to not have a heavy score in a movie like this is a risky move but it worked in their favor, I think. There were lots of moments of almost complete silence (some wheezing aside) and I felt that better communicated the feelings of the scenes than a dramatic musical background would have.
* Comic relief is alive and well...if you make it far enough to see it. This movie is long, and slow, but if you stick with it you will be treated to some excellent poop jokes. Just thought I'd let you know.
* This last asterisk in this section I'm giving to my good pal, KStew. In a movie where she only said like 30 lines, I felt she did a much better job emoting than in almost any other film I've seen her in. She was consistant and actually smiled a couple of times; it was odd.
CONS -
* This is such a slow and long movie. I made the mistake of downing a bottled water prior to entering the theater so my opinion of the pacing might be a bit askew but I really don't think so. If you know the story of Snow White, which...who doesn't at this point?, then you're probably going to get a bit bored at times.
* There were a lot of moments in this movie that felt like moments in other movies. I know, it's 2012 and there it's getting super hard to be original but, honestly, it's not that hard. Ask me some time about my "dotting certification", originality is not dead. There are ways to have a scary forest without it having such a resemblance to a very famous scary forest in The Princess Bride; I was looking for ROUSes everywhere. There was also a Great Expectations moment as well as Ever After (wrong princess but apparently they didn't care), Narnia, Fern Gully...honestly, the list goes on and on.
* Did the producers blow all their money on paying the actors and not have any left to spend on dialect coaches? Really? I mean, ya hire not one...not two...but THREE non-British actors to play the lead characters in a film supposedly set in England but you don't try for some consistency in dialect? Charlize Theron sounded like she had a speech impediment half the movie and the other half she was slipping in and out of that "accent", then you have KStew who did an okay job (mostly) at keeping her consistency, and then you have Hemsworth and he's Scottish? Did I miss something? There was only one character in the whole movie that was Scottish. I just don't get it. If he's gotta have a different accent than everyone else for some unexplained plot-point then why couldn't he just be Australian? Continuity aside, I mean, really...there are fairies so it can't be because Australia wasn't yet founded.
* On the whole Hemsworth being Scottish for unknown reasons point: why did he narrate the beginning of the movie? If he didn't know who Snow was...why was he telling her story? I'm just confused. If this movie was ever meant to be a stand-alone piece, they really failed at communicating things.
* Can I talk about those fairies for a second? Good. Fairies, in my opinion, should not look like Gollum. They are supposed to be the epitome of all things magically good in movies. At least Harry Potter called their ugly ones "pixies" so it made it better. These were just...naked and wingless and riding around in the "pouches" of Magpies? I just don't even know.
* Since I already mentioned skimping on the budget in certain areas, let's talk about the CGI again. From the naked-Gollum fairies to the rabbits to the big white...deer? I just wasn't impressed. At this point in movie history, I just don't buy the excuse that they can't do better. Jim Henson's puppets were more believable as actual creatures than those things. Not only is CGI more challenging to work with for the actors, but reaching that level of "realness" seems to be way too difficult for most productions. I believed the reindeer in The Santa Claus more than I believed these animals ever walked on the earth. I just find it insulting and pointless. I get that it's make-believe anyway but if Animal Planet can do a better job creating a CGI shark and T-rex on one of their programs, this multimillion dollar production should be embarrassed.
* Apparently, if you're locked in a tower for 7+ years you don't spend any of that time looking for things that might help you escape; you make dolls and pray over nonexistent food. You also don't practice making fire.
* There was one moment, that I won't spoil completely, that felt very much like one of those "hidden" moments in Disney movies where you know the animator got fired later when it was discovered that he/she put *that* in the film. You know what I mean. Have fun looking for it but the entire theater in the showing I watched gasped/laughed out loud when it happened. Fun times.
* In other CGI-related news: apparently Hemsworth was the only actor worthy of getting breath added in-in post production.
* One thing I really really really hate in movies & TV shows is the fake drinking. Not just alcoholic beverages, but when they're carrying around obviously empty coffee cups and trying to make me believe that there is liquid inside them. Can they not put water in them? Or, heck, some sort of weight so that they don't look like they're going to fly away the second they are set down? Anyway, I get that the actors can't be expected to consume liquids in every take of every scene where it is "needed" for their character to drink...but...if said character is only "drinking" a single gulp in said scene before tossing the vessel aside, couldn't he at least PRETEND to swallow something instead of just lifting the thing to his lips? Fake drinking is like acting 101. You learn that right after you learn how to faint.
* This is a legitimate question: why is it that people are rarely dry in period films? Did all the roofs leak? Did they never have dry days on which to hang their clothes? Did the wind never dry their never-brushed-unless-they-were-royalty locks?
* Remember that one time you made out with your wicked Step-Mother? Apparently Snow White didn't either. I dunno about you, but if I kissed a guy that turned out to be my Step-Mom and then I died and came back to life, I might throw up. Ok, it'd probably be low down on the "to-do" list but it would still be there!
* I saw KStew's "invisible" reins. The whole movie is now ruined. Not really, but it was one of my favourite moments.
* For a movie of this length, one hundred and twenty-seven minutes to be exact, there was quite a bit that went unexplained. Like the fact that one of the dwarves was blind. Sure, we all knew it...but still.
* Speaking of unexplained things...did ALL of the girls "drained" by the Queen get re-beautified? If that's the case...did the Huntsman's wife? Do I smell sequel topics?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 for action violence, mostly in battle sequences. There is some awkward sister-brother-love that might need some explaining as well as talk about magic and hallucinations. Aside from the violence, though, this movie is fairly "clean" by traditional standards.
Overall, I didn't hate this movie. I laughed...a LOT. KStew did a pretty good job considering the fact that she said even less in this movie than she does normally. I mean, I guess I give some props to the casting director for hiring an actress known WORLDWIDE for not being able to properly emote to play a character with so little to say. But, then again, there is the whole "the role was offered to NINE other actresses before her" thing. That might clear some things up. I'm definitely interested to see if they do end up making two more of these things. I'd rather it not turn into another film series involving KStew giving birth. Nobody wants to see that. Again. 2.5/5 stars
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Avengers
I don't do superhero movies. I feel like this is important to note. With that being said, the last superhero movie I saw was Spiderman 3....again, I feel this is an important piece of information.
Why don't I like superhero movies? Primarily, because the CGI is never good enough for me to believe, even for a second, that what I'm watching could possibly be real. I'm all for leaving reality behind for a couple of hours and suspending belief but...green screens are atrocities. Alas, I'm getting ahead of myself!
The Avengers
Directed By - Joss Whedon
Written By - Joss Whedon, Zac Penn, based on the comic book by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby
Top-Billed Cast - Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, & Scarlett Johanson
Basically, the world is being attacked by aliens -gasp!- and the "top" superheros are called in to work together in order to save the planet...and the universe. Shocking plot line, isn't it? Ok, let's just get into it.
Pros -
* Casting - I realize that most of these people were cast as their superhero alter egos a while ago but I just thought I'd give a shout out to those agencies responsible for snagging these particular people for these particular roles.
* The score was pretty good. I can't really speak on as intense of a level as I usually do on this subject but, I remember noting liking it.
* It's rare for me to not have at least one CSI reference in pretty much anything I watch and this movie did not disappoint. Most of you may not know this but, Jeremy Renner (aka Hawkeye) pretty much played a murderer on CSI. It makes me irrationally happy when I recognize actors not for their starring roles or their break-out performances, but their CSI appearances.
* Speaking of characters we recognize from things past...did anybody spot Chrissy from Growing Pains?? (She was also on CSI for an episode). I'm really not sure why the directors/writers decided to include this character in the movie; I feel it was probably one of those "Hey, I know this actress and she's great, work her in?". I think those times are funny. Characters with no real purpose for the win!
* I enjoyed the comedic timing. That Captain America kid is quite srs. This is a movie about super heros and aliens, people, let's not get toooooo intense.
* Did anybody else get the "Wormtongue" vibe from Loki? Pretty much that's all I thought about. The entire time he was on screen. I'm putting this as a Pro simply because I thought it was funny.
Cons -
* Can we talk about the aliens for a moment? I mean, I realize that this is based on a comic book which means it was based on drawings...but...really? For the first few minutes of each scene involving that head alien dude, I was frantically searching for his mouth. I'm not sure why, but I feel like if you're going to try to make this thing scary....we should at least be able to see it.
* Speaking of that. Outer-space is a dark place. I understand that, I really do. But this is a movie and in order to enjoy it, I need to be able to see it and designing a set that only the director and cinematographer can enjoy is not very practical. You pay how much money to create this amazing world and you're going to light it so poorly that you could've just used the E.T. ride in Universal and gotten the same effect? Sad.
* Oh that Thor guy. You're Australian. Good on ya! I did not see his individual movie, so I can't comment there but...can somebody explain to me why he and his "brother" had such different accents? Yeah yeah, Loki was adopted...but weren't they raised together? I mean, Loki said that whole "father told me of my true parentage" as if it was a surprise when he found out. Also, just pick an accent. If you are Australian...BE Australian. If you are going to be British...BE British, etc. I don't like inconsistency. It bothers me.
* Speaking of this revelation of parentage. What is this "Twins"? Honestly, you're raised with Thor and you don't wonder if you might have a different father? I'm laughing right now just thinking about it.
* Is Captain America really that serious all the time? Did he even smile ONCE that whole movie? Is he really supposed to reflect America?
* Gwyneth Paltrow. That is all.
* This is a super hero movie and I just don't understand why at the end of EVERY superhero movie, they do the "We hate them! They should die!" montage. I feel that those people interviewed are the Post-Tornado footage people of movies...you know what I'm talking about. If there is a tragic event, those that are interviewed for TV are typically: the most outspoken & the least dressed.
* This WHOLE movie is revolving around this man and his....staff. His magical and blue staff. It's out of his possession numerous times and yet, it takes post-concussion-brain-warped-older-guy to point out that it might be helpful in shutting down this whole thing? Come on ScarJo, think about it.
* Speaking of concussions and brainwashing, I didn't agree with the choice of how they showed the "brainwashed"ness. It was hard to tell on those BLUE-EYED actors when they were for real and when they weren't. Also...concussions fix everything now? Ok. Can we try that with criminals? Please?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13, mostly for violence. I mean, despite the fact that one of the lead characters carries around a giant blue-tipped stick for most of the movie, there really was only one scene with any type sexual innuendo and it was mostly whispered off microphone. Be prepared to talk about the difference between reality and make believe and possibly government corruption (if you want to go that far). Pretty clean for a movie of the era.
Overall, I enjoyed the process of watching this movie. I enjoyed tearing it apart, too. Even though I don't do superhero movies...I'm glad I made the exception for this one. 3.5/5 stars.
Why don't I like superhero movies? Primarily, because the CGI is never good enough for me to believe, even for a second, that what I'm watching could possibly be real. I'm all for leaving reality behind for a couple of hours and suspending belief but...green screens are atrocities. Alas, I'm getting ahead of myself!
The Avengers
Directed By - Joss Whedon
Written By - Joss Whedon, Zac Penn, based on the comic book by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby
Top-Billed Cast - Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, & Scarlett Johanson
Basically, the world is being attacked by aliens -gasp!- and the "top" superheros are called in to work together in order to save the planet...and the universe. Shocking plot line, isn't it? Ok, let's just get into it.
Pros -
* Casting - I realize that most of these people were cast as their superhero alter egos a while ago but I just thought I'd give a shout out to those agencies responsible for snagging these particular people for these particular roles.
* The score was pretty good. I can't really speak on as intense of a level as I usually do on this subject but, I remember noting liking it.
* It's rare for me to not have at least one CSI reference in pretty much anything I watch and this movie did not disappoint. Most of you may not know this but, Jeremy Renner (aka Hawkeye) pretty much played a murderer on CSI. It makes me irrationally happy when I recognize actors not for their starring roles or their break-out performances, but their CSI appearances.
* Speaking of characters we recognize from things past...did anybody spot Chrissy from Growing Pains?? (She was also on CSI for an episode). I'm really not sure why the directors/writers decided to include this character in the movie; I feel it was probably one of those "Hey, I know this actress and she's great, work her in?". I think those times are funny. Characters with no real purpose for the win!
* I enjoyed the comedic timing. That Captain America kid is quite srs. This is a movie about super heros and aliens, people, let's not get toooooo intense.
* Did anybody else get the "Wormtongue" vibe from Loki? Pretty much that's all I thought about. The entire time he was on screen. I'm putting this as a Pro simply because I thought it was funny.
Cons -
* Can we talk about the aliens for a moment? I mean, I realize that this is based on a comic book which means it was based on drawings...but...really? For the first few minutes of each scene involving that head alien dude, I was frantically searching for his mouth. I'm not sure why, but I feel like if you're going to try to make this thing scary....we should at least be able to see it.
* Speaking of that. Outer-space is a dark place. I understand that, I really do. But this is a movie and in order to enjoy it, I need to be able to see it and designing a set that only the director and cinematographer can enjoy is not very practical. You pay how much money to create this amazing world and you're going to light it so poorly that you could've just used the E.T. ride in Universal and gotten the same effect? Sad.
* Oh that Thor guy. You're Australian. Good on ya! I did not see his individual movie, so I can't comment there but...can somebody explain to me why he and his "brother" had such different accents? Yeah yeah, Loki was adopted...but weren't they raised together? I mean, Loki said that whole "father told me of my true parentage" as if it was a surprise when he found out. Also, just pick an accent. If you are Australian...BE Australian. If you are going to be British...BE British, etc. I don't like inconsistency. It bothers me.
* Speaking of this revelation of parentage. What is this "Twins"? Honestly, you're raised with Thor and you don't wonder if you might have a different father? I'm laughing right now just thinking about it.
* Is Captain America really that serious all the time? Did he even smile ONCE that whole movie? Is he really supposed to reflect America?
* Gwyneth Paltrow. That is all.
* This is a super hero movie and I just don't understand why at the end of EVERY superhero movie, they do the "We hate them! They should die!" montage. I feel that those people interviewed are the Post-Tornado footage people of movies...you know what I'm talking about. If there is a tragic event, those that are interviewed for TV are typically: the most outspoken & the least dressed.
* This WHOLE movie is revolving around this man and his....staff. His magical and blue staff. It's out of his possession numerous times and yet, it takes post-concussion-brain-warped-older-guy to point out that it might be helpful in shutting down this whole thing? Come on ScarJo, think about it.
* Speaking of concussions and brainwashing, I didn't agree with the choice of how they showed the "brainwashed"ness. It was hard to tell on those BLUE-EYED actors when they were for real and when they weren't. Also...concussions fix everything now? Ok. Can we try that with criminals? Please?
Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13, mostly for violence. I mean, despite the fact that one of the lead characters carries around a giant blue-tipped stick for most of the movie, there really was only one scene with any type sexual innuendo and it was mostly whispered off microphone. Be prepared to talk about the difference between reality and make believe and possibly government corruption (if you want to go that far). Pretty clean for a movie of the era.
Overall, I enjoyed the process of watching this movie. I enjoyed tearing it apart, too. Even though I don't do superhero movies...I'm glad I made the exception for this one. 3.5/5 stars.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The Five-Year Engagement
Going into this movie, I definitely had some preconceived notions about how funny (or not) it was going to be. I read a few "reviews" (if that's what we're calling user comments on the Fandango app now...) and saw that it wasn't getting very good press. I wasn't deterred. I rarely ever am. I'm a movie lover and even if the movie is horrible, I can at least love hating it.
The Five-Year Engagement
Directed By - Nicholas Stoller
Written By - Jason Segel & Nicholas Stoller
Top-Billed Cast - Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, & Chris Pratt
This movie is about a relationship -gasp!-. Jason Segel plays Tom Solomon, a chef at a high-end restaurant in San Francisco and Emily Blunt, playing Violet Barnes, is his girlfriend. We watch their ups and downs over the course of five years -gasp!- and it's a mostly fun ride. Really, this movie is exactly what it sounds like so writing this synopsis feels pretty pointless.
Pros -
* A lot of the "reviews" that I read stated that this movie wasn't that funny. I disagree. While it was no Bridesmaids (which I can't even think about without cracking up), it was consistently funny.
* I'm an Emily Blunt fan and I felt she did a good job at conveying some of the lesser-vocalized emotions in the film. Also, for such a sex-driven movie (for lack of a better term), I was happy to see that she only took part in 1 uncomfortable segment. See? It's TRUE! You don't have to bare all in a movie to portray proper emotions -gasp!-
* I don't watch The Office...I never have (consistently) but, Mindy Kaling, I'm a fan. I feel that her character in this movie is pretty much the same character she always plays but it doesn't matter because it's always funny. Surprisingly (?), there is a lot of tension in this movie and her character (along with other members of the supporting cast) really help lighten things up.
* If a movie can make me laugh about somebody dying, I can't help but give it props. I mean, granted, that sounds really bad...but if you can laugh at a funeral, something must be going right...right?
* I know I already briefly touched on the supporting cast but, again, they really carried a lot of the movie and did a great job. Allison Brie, playing Emily Blunt's sister, did an excellent job and I didn't even question the accent...that's a big deal.
Cons -
* This is a Judd Apatow film. WHAT?!? Yes, I'm putting that as a con here. Why? Because I feel that more people will associate that name with the style of movie to which I'm referring than the writers. Writers write it, yes, but producers approve it. If a producer says "no", it doesn't happen.
* I know I just talked about why sex scenes don't work on TV in the post right below this one (check it out!) but, I feel I should highlight some reasons they don't work in movies. I understand that these types of movies rely heavily on crude humor and that a lot of the "funny" stuff comes from uncomfortable situations which, mostly, seem to revolve around awkward sex. But, honestly, I don't need 5 straight minutes of awkward sex in order to feel uncomfortable for the characters involved. Heck, I don't need 1 minute in order for that to occur. Sex scenes in movies are almost always uncomfortable for me because I just can't help but picture everyone else in the room while they're filming it. That's not romantic; that's creepy.
* I think it must be a goal of Jason Segel's to appear nude as often as possible in his films. Good on ya for having that much self confidence, I guess.
* You know you've gone too far with a comedic bit when even the college-aged guys in the theater aren't laughing. That's pretty much the target audience for a lot of the jokes in this movie and they...didn't get it either.
* You know how they say "less is more"? I think that should be remembered in the writer's room when trying to find ways for characters to express: glee, sadness, exhaustion, love, or pretty much any other emotion. There are PLENTY of words in the English language to express these things and I feel that one is degrading the audience's intelligence if you only choose to use one. You know which one I'm talking about.
* For a movie who's entire premise revolves around time and years and the goings on in between...I felt that they didn't do a very good job of communicating where we were in the relationship. I got lost. Several times. At one point I was even questioning the title of the movie because it wasn't five full years...anyway, I digress. I just think this particular plot piece could have used a better bit of continuity.
* Speaking of continuity and time. There are two children in this movie. One never ages. It's like Tuck Everlasting.
* This probably should just be forgotten but, I can't. In the first set of previews, there's a scene in which a child shoots an arrow at Emily Blunt while proclaiming "I'm Pocahontas!" and then, in a later set of previews the child proclaims "I'm Katniss!", instead. I thought the second bit was a lot funnier and thought for sure that they would re-dub the actual film since they did the preview. Nope.
Now Mother..
This movie is rated R. Do society a favor and don't take your kids to see it, please. There were surprisingly few sex scenes for the first hour and a half but boy do those last 30 minutes make up for it! It's not that much is "shown" (technically), but there's still plenty of reasons not to bring the kids. Also, if you want your child to refrain from repeating the F-word when quoting a movie to their friends, this is probably not the right choice for you. It's in pretty much every scene at least once. If you *do* take your kids despite this warning, be prepared to talk about: making sacrifices for those you love, death, cheating, and the importance of finding the right person to spend your life with.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. For some reason, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get this review to read that way. There are a LOT of reasons why you might not want to see this film and it's not one that I would say would be enjoyed by all. I laughed a lot and I thought it was cute. It is simply, though, a romantic comedy, and I know a lot of people that don't see the point in an R-rated romcom. I get that and I mostly agree. If this movie took out the awkward sex scenes (or at least toned them down or shortened them) and somewhat minimized the F-word usage, it would be JUST as funny and more accessible to audiences. 2.5/5 stars.
The Five-Year Engagement
Directed By - Nicholas Stoller
Written By - Jason Segel & Nicholas Stoller
Top-Billed Cast - Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, & Chris Pratt
This movie is about a relationship -gasp!-. Jason Segel plays Tom Solomon, a chef at a high-end restaurant in San Francisco and Emily Blunt, playing Violet Barnes, is his girlfriend. We watch their ups and downs over the course of five years -gasp!- and it's a mostly fun ride. Really, this movie is exactly what it sounds like so writing this synopsis feels pretty pointless.
Pros -
* A lot of the "reviews" that I read stated that this movie wasn't that funny. I disagree. While it was no Bridesmaids (which I can't even think about without cracking up), it was consistently funny.
* I'm an Emily Blunt fan and I felt she did a good job at conveying some of the lesser-vocalized emotions in the film. Also, for such a sex-driven movie (for lack of a better term), I was happy to see that she only took part in 1 uncomfortable segment. See? It's TRUE! You don't have to bare all in a movie to portray proper emotions -gasp!-
* I don't watch The Office...I never have (consistently) but, Mindy Kaling, I'm a fan. I feel that her character in this movie is pretty much the same character she always plays but it doesn't matter because it's always funny. Surprisingly (?), there is a lot of tension in this movie and her character (along with other members of the supporting cast) really help lighten things up.
* If a movie can make me laugh about somebody dying, I can't help but give it props. I mean, granted, that sounds really bad...but if you can laugh at a funeral, something must be going right...right?
* I know I already briefly touched on the supporting cast but, again, they really carried a lot of the movie and did a great job. Allison Brie, playing Emily Blunt's sister, did an excellent job and I didn't even question the accent...that's a big deal.
Cons -
* This is a Judd Apatow film. WHAT?!? Yes, I'm putting that as a con here. Why? Because I feel that more people will associate that name with the style of movie to which I'm referring than the writers. Writers write it, yes, but producers approve it. If a producer says "no", it doesn't happen.
* I know I just talked about why sex scenes don't work on TV in the post right below this one (check it out!) but, I feel I should highlight some reasons they don't work in movies. I understand that these types of movies rely heavily on crude humor and that a lot of the "funny" stuff comes from uncomfortable situations which, mostly, seem to revolve around awkward sex. But, honestly, I don't need 5 straight minutes of awkward sex in order to feel uncomfortable for the characters involved. Heck, I don't need 1 minute in order for that to occur. Sex scenes in movies are almost always uncomfortable for me because I just can't help but picture everyone else in the room while they're filming it. That's not romantic; that's creepy.
* I think it must be a goal of Jason Segel's to appear nude as often as possible in his films. Good on ya for having that much self confidence, I guess.
* You know you've gone too far with a comedic bit when even the college-aged guys in the theater aren't laughing. That's pretty much the target audience for a lot of the jokes in this movie and they...didn't get it either.
* You know how they say "less is more"? I think that should be remembered in the writer's room when trying to find ways for characters to express: glee, sadness, exhaustion, love, or pretty much any other emotion. There are PLENTY of words in the English language to express these things and I feel that one is degrading the audience's intelligence if you only choose to use one. You know which one I'm talking about.
* For a movie who's entire premise revolves around time and years and the goings on in between...I felt that they didn't do a very good job of communicating where we were in the relationship. I got lost. Several times. At one point I was even questioning the title of the movie because it wasn't five full years...anyway, I digress. I just think this particular plot piece could have used a better bit of continuity.
* Speaking of continuity and time. There are two children in this movie. One never ages. It's like Tuck Everlasting.
* This probably should just be forgotten but, I can't. In the first set of previews, there's a scene in which a child shoots an arrow at Emily Blunt while proclaiming "I'm Pocahontas!" and then, in a later set of previews the child proclaims "I'm Katniss!", instead. I thought the second bit was a lot funnier and thought for sure that they would re-dub the actual film since they did the preview. Nope.
Now Mother..
This movie is rated R. Do society a favor and don't take your kids to see it, please. There were surprisingly few sex scenes for the first hour and a half but boy do those last 30 minutes make up for it! It's not that much is "shown" (technically), but there's still plenty of reasons not to bring the kids. Also, if you want your child to refrain from repeating the F-word when quoting a movie to their friends, this is probably not the right choice for you. It's in pretty much every scene at least once. If you *do* take your kids despite this warning, be prepared to talk about: making sacrifices for those you love, death, cheating, and the importance of finding the right person to spend your life with.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. For some reason, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get this review to read that way. There are a LOT of reasons why you might not want to see this film and it's not one that I would say would be enjoyed by all. I laughed a lot and I thought it was cute. It is simply, though, a romantic comedy, and I know a lot of people that don't see the point in an R-rated romcom. I get that and I mostly agree. If this movie took out the awkward sex scenes (or at least toned them down or shortened them) and somewhat minimized the F-word usage, it would be JUST as funny and more accessible to audiences. 2.5/5 stars.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Relationships on TV Shows: A How To Guide
I don't normally talk about TV...which is odd, really, because I love TV and am probably more passionate about TV than I am movies. Tonight's TV choice inspired this post and I really just needed to type it out to get it out of my head. Here goes!
How to simultaneously please a fan-base while not alienating viewers:
1. Keep it light. I don't mean keep it "light-hearted". I don't care, take it as dark as you want. I just mean, don't throw the new relationship in viewers' faces because, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have cried for years on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Fanfiction.net, and all of Google for you, The Powers That Be (TPTB), to put these two characters together and to let them see them together 24/7...they lied. They do NOT actually want to watch an entire episode of nothing other than those two characters saying how much they love each other. My personal threshold for TDA (TV Displays of Affection) is about 3 minutes for every 1 hour show. That's it. After that point? I just get squicked.
2. Keep it secret. Ah, secret love...what could be more fantastical? Nothing. I'm serious! If you have two characters dating in "secret" there are SO many ways to play it. By "letting" the audience in on their late-night-rendezvous but not the rest of the characters, everyone wins! You can't have them jumping each other every five seconds or too much on-screen TDA because then the secret would get out. It's really the best way. Heck, CSI got away with a season and an episode this way and they SO could have gone longer with fans being "ok" with it.
3. Keep it quiet. No, not the same thing as keeping it secret. Remember what I said about the TDA? Well, I have exceptions. Know what I love? Looking for things: "dead bodies" breathing, continuity fails, bad sound looping, etc etc...I like watching shows that I actually have to, you know, WATCH. I barely do that these days. I can have Facebook, Pinterest, and homework open while "watching" Survivor and not really miss a lot. Why? Because, TPTB, you are relying too heavily on dialogue! Dialogue is great and more power to screen writers but...acting? Have we lost the ability to speak with our eyes? If you can get two actors to have a conversation without using words and have that conversation BE the only bit of relationship your fans get that week? You have something. Once again, I know CSI fans know what I'm talking about.
4. Keep it slow. I don't mean that you have to flirt with the idea of two characters finally starting the journey for years. I just mean, don't rush it. Bones fans feel like they were cheated out of those beginning stages of the Booth/Bones pairing due to TPTB's decision to use Emily Deschanel's real life pregnancy timeline for the show. I didn't feel cheated because, heck, those two have always been together in my book. But, I see fans' points and I agree that it was a very risky move. We need to see *something* before we see *everything*. Most shows follow the 6-season-build-up plan, for who knows what reason, and I like it..I like the idea of a relationship visually building for that length of time. Or, at least, building for more than just a few episodes.
5. Keep it a subplot. Not to burst anyone's bubble but...I don't want to watch two people in love for an hour. Every week. For 24 weeks. I want to watch two people in love along with 3+ other people and them all doing something non-relationship-related, for an hour. Every Week. For 24 weeks. What does this mean? It means...keep the relationship in the background. This way, you don't alienate those die-hard "I'm just here for the murders!" fans OR those who just watch the show in hopes of catching the leading man shirtless. By keeping the 'ships in the background, you can really make your fans WATCH and listen for the fleeting moments of reveal. Make them want it. If it's plastered all over every episode, it loses appeal. It'd be like being forced to eat a Butterfinger candy bar every day of your life; after a while, you really don't want to eat it any more and you might even start to avoid it.
6. Keep it PG. I know, I know, a killjoy number. But, really, let the sex scenes stay off screen. It's just better for everybody. I'm one of those viewers that over thinks everything, I can't help it. So, when I see a sex scene or even a kiss sequence, I'm not gushing over character-love, I'm thinking about how awkward that must have been to film. Sure, I've heard that on some movie sets when filming those bits certain directors have been known to dismiss the crew so it's just them and the actors but..really? TV isn't that intense (and still, just you and two actors hanging around filming a sex scene? awkward anyway). You know there is the poor guy stuck holding the boom mike above the bed trying not to let it sink into view, a guy with headphones trying to make sure the only noises audible are the indiscernible ones from the actors, and at least 15 people standing around, waiting on the director to yell "CUT!" so they can move on to craft services. If you didn't know that, you are very welcome for that visual. I don't mean that TPTB have to make the only physical contact between two characters a classic-homeschool-side-hug...but I do wish we could keep it classy.
7. Keep down the innuendo. Just as I don't want to SEE the sex scenes...I don't want every line between two characters to reference the unseen. Especially if the show is a drama. I understand the need to imply things and to let people in on the fact that you, TPTB, think this whole pairing is something you've thought of since day one and that you're super proud of the fact that the characters are together but, really? I don't think having those characters, that you've poured years of hard work into, constantly referencing each other's genitalia is really honoring your work or the viewers' view of it.
8. Keep it consistent. If you're going to go the "okay, for every 10 minutes of show...we give the viewers 30 seconds of the 'ship" route, stick to it. Having half a season of glimpses followed by a full hour of nothing BUT that relationship is risky. While most of the time the decision to have the relationship at all is so calculated and thought out and polled to the moon and back, you still take a chance of angering a large portion of your fan-base if you dedicate one of the precious 24 episodes to a 'ship they don't support. It's especially risky if your show has an abbreviated season: "You mean to tell me we only get 12 episodes of Bones this season and one of them was WASTED on this?!?" (real words spoken by yours truly).
9. Keep your time line. As much as we all think we want our shows to last forever...we really don't. There are only so many strippers that can be murdered in Vegas; let's be realistic. There are only so many different ways a serial killer can strike. There are only so many different ways you can have a body splayed about on the highway. It's just the way it is. The average lifespan of a TV drama? Past its prime. Why don't TPTB end shows when they're good? As a dog trainer, I understand this principle very well: you don't work on something until the dog doesn't want to anymore, you work on it until the dog is so enthralled in the activity that it can't possibly think of anything else and then...you QUIT. Why? Because you want that dog to crave that activity and by stopping right when it's getting good, you achieve that. No, TV and dogs are not the same thing but I think the principle applies to both. I know we think that we could watch Law & Order until we die (well, I don't think that...), but you just can't possibly tell that many good stories. Actors get tired, writers get fired, and networks can't pay. It is what it is. So, rather than ruin a relationship in order to try and save the show or flaunt a relationship in hopes of the same, just end it. As a fan of one particular show that ended on a cliffhanger of a relationship... It can work in your favor. That show went off the air over 15 years ago...PEOPLE. ARE. STILL. TALKING. While, granted, you want your show to be a success for as long as possible, please have a solid timeline in place and stick to it. Always.
Nine points later, I think I'm ranted-out. You can have your cake and eat it too (if your cake is a popular, feasible, 'ship) if you do it right. A relationship between two lead characters doesn't have to ruin the show. Unfortunately, more often than not...it does.
How to simultaneously please a fan-base while not alienating viewers:
1. Keep it light. I don't mean keep it "light-hearted". I don't care, take it as dark as you want. I just mean, don't throw the new relationship in viewers' faces because, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have cried for years on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Fanfiction.net, and all of Google for you, The Powers That Be (TPTB), to put these two characters together and to let them see them together 24/7...they lied. They do NOT actually want to watch an entire episode of nothing other than those two characters saying how much they love each other. My personal threshold for TDA (TV Displays of Affection) is about 3 minutes for every 1 hour show. That's it. After that point? I just get squicked.
2. Keep it secret. Ah, secret love...what could be more fantastical? Nothing. I'm serious! If you have two characters dating in "secret" there are SO many ways to play it. By "letting" the audience in on their late-night-rendezvous but not the rest of the characters, everyone wins! You can't have them jumping each other every five seconds or too much on-screen TDA because then the secret would get out. It's really the best way. Heck, CSI got away with a season and an episode this way and they SO could have gone longer with fans being "ok" with it.
3. Keep it quiet. No, not the same thing as keeping it secret. Remember what I said about the TDA? Well, I have exceptions. Know what I love? Looking for things: "dead bodies" breathing, continuity fails, bad sound looping, etc etc...I like watching shows that I actually have to, you know, WATCH. I barely do that these days. I can have Facebook, Pinterest, and homework open while "watching" Survivor and not really miss a lot. Why? Because, TPTB, you are relying too heavily on dialogue! Dialogue is great and more power to screen writers but...acting? Have we lost the ability to speak with our eyes? If you can get two actors to have a conversation without using words and have that conversation BE the only bit of relationship your fans get that week? You have something. Once again, I know CSI fans know what I'm talking about.
4. Keep it slow. I don't mean that you have to flirt with the idea of two characters finally starting the journey for years. I just mean, don't rush it. Bones fans feel like they were cheated out of those beginning stages of the Booth/Bones pairing due to TPTB's decision to use Emily Deschanel's real life pregnancy timeline for the show. I didn't feel cheated because, heck, those two have always been together in my book. But, I see fans' points and I agree that it was a very risky move. We need to see *something* before we see *everything*. Most shows follow the 6-season-build-up plan, for who knows what reason, and I like it..I like the idea of a relationship visually building for that length of time. Or, at least, building for more than just a few episodes.
5. Keep it a subplot. Not to burst anyone's bubble but...I don't want to watch two people in love for an hour. Every week. For 24 weeks. I want to watch two people in love along with 3+ other people and them all doing something non-relationship-related, for an hour. Every Week. For 24 weeks. What does this mean? It means...keep the relationship in the background. This way, you don't alienate those die-hard "I'm just here for the murders!" fans OR those who just watch the show in hopes of catching the leading man shirtless. By keeping the 'ships in the background, you can really make your fans WATCH and listen for the fleeting moments of reveal. Make them want it. If it's plastered all over every episode, it loses appeal. It'd be like being forced to eat a Butterfinger candy bar every day of your life; after a while, you really don't want to eat it any more and you might even start to avoid it.
6. Keep it PG. I know, I know, a killjoy number. But, really, let the sex scenes stay off screen. It's just better for everybody. I'm one of those viewers that over thinks everything, I can't help it. So, when I see a sex scene or even a kiss sequence, I'm not gushing over character-love, I'm thinking about how awkward that must have been to film. Sure, I've heard that on some movie sets when filming those bits certain directors have been known to dismiss the crew so it's just them and the actors but..really? TV isn't that intense (and still, just you and two actors hanging around filming a sex scene? awkward anyway). You know there is the poor guy stuck holding the boom mike above the bed trying not to let it sink into view, a guy with headphones trying to make sure the only noises audible are the indiscernible ones from the actors, and at least 15 people standing around, waiting on the director to yell "CUT!" so they can move on to craft services. If you didn't know that, you are very welcome for that visual. I don't mean that TPTB have to make the only physical contact between two characters a classic-homeschool-side-hug...but I do wish we could keep it classy.
7. Keep down the innuendo. Just as I don't want to SEE the sex scenes...I don't want every line between two characters to reference the unseen. Especially if the show is a drama. I understand the need to imply things and to let people in on the fact that you, TPTB, think this whole pairing is something you've thought of since day one and that you're super proud of the fact that the characters are together but, really? I don't think having those characters, that you've poured years of hard work into, constantly referencing each other's genitalia is really honoring your work or the viewers' view of it.
8. Keep it consistent. If you're going to go the "okay, for every 10 minutes of show...we give the viewers 30 seconds of the 'ship" route, stick to it. Having half a season of glimpses followed by a full hour of nothing BUT that relationship is risky. While most of the time the decision to have the relationship at all is so calculated and thought out and polled to the moon and back, you still take a chance of angering a large portion of your fan-base if you dedicate one of the precious 24 episodes to a 'ship they don't support. It's especially risky if your show has an abbreviated season: "You mean to tell me we only get 12 episodes of Bones this season and one of them was WASTED on this?!?" (real words spoken by yours truly).
9. Keep your time line. As much as we all think we want our shows to last forever...we really don't. There are only so many strippers that can be murdered in Vegas; let's be realistic. There are only so many different ways a serial killer can strike. There are only so many different ways you can have a body splayed about on the highway. It's just the way it is. The average lifespan of a TV drama? Past its prime. Why don't TPTB end shows when they're good? As a dog trainer, I understand this principle very well: you don't work on something until the dog doesn't want to anymore, you work on it until the dog is so enthralled in the activity that it can't possibly think of anything else and then...you QUIT. Why? Because you want that dog to crave that activity and by stopping right when it's getting good, you achieve that. No, TV and dogs are not the same thing but I think the principle applies to both. I know we think that we could watch Law & Order until we die (well, I don't think that...), but you just can't possibly tell that many good stories. Actors get tired, writers get fired, and networks can't pay. It is what it is. So, rather than ruin a relationship in order to try and save the show or flaunt a relationship in hopes of the same, just end it. As a fan of one particular show that ended on a cliffhanger of a relationship... It can work in your favor. That show went off the air over 15 years ago...PEOPLE. ARE. STILL. TALKING. While, granted, you want your show to be a success for as long as possible, please have a solid timeline in place and stick to it. Always.
Nine points later, I think I'm ranted-out. You can have your cake and eat it too (if your cake is a popular, feasible, 'ship) if you do it right. A relationship between two lead characters doesn't have to ruin the show. Unfortunately, more often than not...it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)