I watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo today.
The movie’s well done, and very closely follows the book. The only problem is that there are no surprises. I’m glad I read the book first. I’d give the movie more stars if I hadn’t.
Now I sort of want to go out and get a nose ring…
I just finished viewing Water Lilies. Summary: teenage hormones run amok at the pool.
And the French word of the day is: un collier (necklace).
I miss Carrie and the gang, so I was happy to watch Sex and the City 2, even with its numerous flaws.
The movie starts out fine, with some relationship troubles – good, that’s what they do best.
Shortly thereafter, in a major plot detour which occupies most of the movie, the girls wind up taking an all-expenses-paid trip to Abu Dhabi, and things go downhill. There’s the star treatment with all the ooh-ing and ah-ing over resplendent riches. OK, I can deal with that. Then they’re on the beach, they’re in the bazaar, they’re on camels – it starts to feel like a giant tourist sell.
And finally there’s a little more relationship trouble, and then it becomes all about Samantha behaving like a complete idiot American, and getting herself in deep trouble. Yes, Samantha is something of the clown on the show. But she’s not an idiot, and it’s not believable that her character (at the age of 52) would behave so stupidly as we see here.
It’s as if the writers wanted to make a point about the thin veneer of splendor in Abu Dhabi, and then drag out the nasty reality of the harshness of the society (in comparison to ours) and say “this place actually sucks, it’s dangerous and you’d better be careful if you go here.” Anyone who goes to Abu Dhabi and doesn’t know what to expect is a bit of an idiot. It’s kind of hard to take, seeing these women, who have been depicted as, yes, shallow, but also smart and savvy, getting treated like children in a foreign country, and then landing themselves in hot water for some careless actions. It’s not a question of them “disrespecting the culture” – it’s a question of them being savvy enough to keep themselves out of harm’s way in hostile territory. The actions just didn’t feel right for the characters.
I wish they had kept the location in NYC, which is such an attractive background for a movie. I suppose it was cheaper to film in Morocco than in NYC? Next time, please please stay in NYC.
Despite my complaints, I still enjoyed the film. It was nice seeing the gang back together again.
The takeover of Tibet by China is yet another example of the attempt of a hostile, imperialist nation making a land grab, paving over any natives that stand in their way. History is filled with such examples, but in particular it reminds me of the way the US steamrolled the Native Americans, who are still struggling today.
The Dalai Lama has been very active in preaching to preserve Tibetan culture, religion, and language. Journey from Zanskar is a documentary about a couple of monks who take a dangerous journey with a small group of young children in an attempt to carry out these intentions. It’s a tear-filled documentary! The trip takes the children from their home in Zanskar, to Manali, where they can be educated in Tibetan schools. These children will be parted from their families for many years, because extreme poverty makes travel impossible on a regular basis.
The movie is very touching, and you get a feeling of how desperate the people are in this region. It’s definitely worth viewing.
After watching the movie, though, I had some misgivings. While it’s clear that the monks were well-intentioned, I had an uneasy feeling that they took excessive risks with the children. This is not to say that the monks were careless or clueless; they clearly had permission from the parents, who seemed grateful and happy that their kids were being given the opportunity. All involved felt that the risk was worth the gain. And it’s true that I’m comparing the risks taken here with the risks that typical American parents might be willing to take with their children; an unfair comparison, because Americans are so much more sheltered than these people.
It seems to me a wiser plan would have been to start a Tibetan school in Zanskar, and have the kids attend school there. I’m under the impression that there are, in fact, several schools underway. The problem with the movie, in this respect, is that it doesn’t present alternate solutions to the problem. Were there any alternative educational opportunities for these kids in Zanskar, at all? Might the monks themselves have set up shop in Zanskar as tutors for the Tibetan kids? So you’re not really clear whether the desperate journey was a noble cause or a hair-brained scheme. Probably it was a bit of both. Let’s hope good Tibetan schools come to Zanskar soon, so that no more families will have to make such painful decisions and face such terrible risks in the future.
I wasn’t expecting much from Legion, I was just looking to escape for a couple of hours. But it didn’t really do the trick. The movie is a monster/action fantasy. The monsters weren’t scary or novel enough to do anything more than gross me out in a few cases (I admit that I though that “grandma” was kind of a funny twist, but I’m not avidly into horror movies so maybe that’s been done to death).
And the premise was pretty ridiculous. First, we’re told there’s a God, and He’s fed up with humanity so He’s decided to get rid of every last one of us. So what does He do? He sends out angels to slaughter us. Angels! And the “angels” are acting a heck of a lot like demons, possessing some people, and taking bite-sized chunks out of others. Come on, angels behaving en masse in this evil manner?? So all plausibility is gone at this point, because if this is the way “God” behaves, then how do you differentiate him from Satan? Who, by the way, never appears once.
On top of that, the archangel Michael has decided to rebel against “God”. His reasoning? Father doesn’t know best. “God” should be given what he “needs,” not what he “wants.”
So basically, this “God” is either a psychopathic nutter or a giant megalomaniacal baby. Either way, it’s totally unbelievable because it’s so far out of the bounds of any mainstream Christian theology. If you’re going to propose a crazy-ass demon god, you should get him from some theology where that’s more plausible (ancient Egypt? The Greeks? The Aztecs?).
The reason that I’m rating the movie as “OK” is that it was a reasonable distraction, and I kind of liked the small cast of characters, even though they weren’t very well fleshed out (as is typical with horror movies). I don’t feel like the movie was a waste of time, although I do wish I’d seen something else instead…. If you’re going to watch it, do see it in the theater; I think I would have been more disappointed seeing it on a TV screen.
Denzel Washington plays a ninja-powered, Bible-toting wanderer in the post-apocalyptic movie, The Book of Eli.
I enjoyed it despite the religious overtones and the thin plot. The movie has a lot of weaknesses, including the fact that Washington should have been a lot scrawnier if he’d been eating cat for the last 30 years. Furthermore, the twist near the end was completely unbelievable. But I do enjoy dystopias, so I was tolerant. The casting was excellent, with Gary Oldman, Tom Waits, Mila Kunis (“Jackie” from That ‘70s Show), and Jennifer Beals.
I kept waiting for some revelation to get me all woo woo, but it never happened. Maybe this movie only really works if you’re religious. Still, it was worth seeing!
Up in the Air is the story of a guy whose job is to fire people. He’s a “road warrior”, someone who spends his time mostly traveling for his job. His sole commitment is to this job and the freedom that it gives him by keeping him moving and thus hard to pin down. He even mostly manages to evade his direct family, two sisters who still live in the town where they all grew up.
I haven’t read the book. The main character in the book sounds shallow and unsympathetic in comparison to our protagonist in the movie, Ryan Bingham, who seems to be kind of sweet (is it impossible for Clooney to play an unsympathetic character?). Even in his job as an ax-man, it eventually comes out that he’s sensitive to what he’s doing to his victims, trying to show them that there’s a future way out of their sudden darkness.
Bingham is depicted as a vulnerable man, always running away from the burden of commitment. And the movie is filled with commitments which go bad, so Bingham’s philosophy of “keeping one’s (metaphorical) backpack light” seems wise, in the context of the movie. This philosophy is in line with Thoreau’s minimalistic lifestyle, but is counter to American mores. In contrast, the “American dream” of marriage, kids, house is viewed with cynicism in the movie. This is kind of surprising, given that it’s a Hollywood production.
In the end, you aren’t given a neat Hollywood ending, another thing which I liked about the movie. Nice!
[I saw Up in the Air in a movie theater.]
It has been many years since I was a teen, but I decided to give Twilight a try. After all, I really enjoyed Buffy.
But I didn’t find the characters engaging, so maybe this is a movie that works for teens, but not for me. The movie seemed a little padded, with scenes that didn’t really move the plot along or develop the characters (I truly do not understand what the baseball game was doing in there).
OTOH I did find the plot original and entertaining enough to distract me during my rowing workout, so I’d probably watch the next in the series during a workout too. It’s not a bad movie, just nothing special.
I agree with the other excellent reviews on allconsuming. Despite that, I don’t think 2012 is “not worth consuming”; I give it a wishy-washy rating.
The movie starts out with some scientists discovering that neutrinos from a large solar flare have “mutated” and begun “acting like microwaves” to heat up the earth’s core. Thus, you are given an idea of the quality of the movie from the get-go.
We follow a family as they manage to stay just inches ahead of disaster, in various vehicles: limo, RV, small plane, large plane, giant ship. Added to the mix is a smattering of ethical dilemma about who gets to be saved when the world ends, and some tear-jerking moments when various arbitrarily introduced characters bid a fond farewell to their loved ones.
So, it’s a mediocre movie, but despite that, I found it mildly entertaining, although not really what I want from an end-of-the-world movie (it’s not the end of the world when a ton of people survive). To give you an idea, as a disaster movie, it’s slightly better than the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still and not as good as Cloverfield (I like my weird monsters).
Favorite memorable quote:
Noah Curtis: Woah, that’s a big plane.
Yuri Karpov: It’s Russian.
I was feeling wiped out from a more than usually difficult work week, so I decided to completely kick back this evening and enjoy a movie. In fact, I wound up renting three. This felt incredibly indulgent, which was just what I needed, psychologically speaking.
I watched the first movie, "Tell No One", this evening, while enjoying a chocolate biscotti, some hot cocoa, and a big bag of popcorn. It's a good suspense/thriller. There are scary goons, thick-witted French cops, a dodgy criminal with a heart of gold, and, of course, Paris. There are some weird plot twists that I didn't always quite get. And there are some very large plot holes, but I didn't mind since I found the movie absorbing. Very entertaining!
This evening, I was feeling enjoyably fatigued after my afternoon hike. Tired enough to feel like kicking back and relaxing in a non-productive way. So I'm settling in to watch a French movie, Qui a tué Bambi?. I've made myself a nice cup of hot cocoa, topped with some delicious tiny marshmallows. I found the marshmallows at Whole Foods. They are branded "Bread and Circus Bakery", and they are soft, fluffy, and far superior to any other marshmallows I've eaten in my lifetime.What’s the key word here? Desperation. Is it the biological imperative, or something else? I don’t know, but it’s both funny and sad.
There’s a metaphorical game of musical chairs, and in the end some of the characters are left standing, while others have managed to snag a partner. Do we really believe that any of these relationships are going to survive? Hm, not me. As is typical with movie romances, we know very little about these people, and it seems like they have no reason to be attracted to each other, other than their obvious virility and good looks.
The movie does have a few things going for it. Reasonably good acting, dialogue, nice sets. Mildy entertaining, I never checked my watch. It confirms your vague feelings that you’re probably better of being single, so it’s probably not a great date movie.
The International drew me in completely. There’s a conspiracy with giant corporate villains, intriguing characters (how about that Consultant – they managed to make me root for an assassin), beautiful international settings, and of course violence and mayhem.
Even though the scene at the Guggenheim was impossible in reality, it didn’t strike me as unreal while I was in the world of the movie. Highly recommended!
I've been hooked on Clint Eastwood since I first saw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Gran Torino is another home run from this talented actor and director. It manages to be funny, heart-warming, and heart-breaking. Highly recommended!
I hear that Eastwood is retiring from acting, and I'm sorry to hear that, although I understand his reasons. Thank you, Mr. Eastwood, for making so many high-impact, gut-wrenching movies!
Revolutionary Road is the story of a couple’s rocky relationship, set in the fifties. These two people would like to think they’re special, but by their actions they make themselves ordinary.
My main problem with this movie is that it’s too obvious. You can see the train wreck coming a mile away. And just to make sure that you get the point, an oracular crazy guy pops up twice to scream the truth in their (and our) faces. You want to say to the couple, “Listen to the crazy guy! He’s telling it like it is!” But they don’t.
Despite that, it’s an absorbing story, worth watching. One that makes you think “whew, good thing I missed out on the fifties!”.
I don’t want to say much about Seven Pounds; saying just about anything will be a spoiler. The movie is hugely emotional. There’s not a very complicated plot, although the way the story develops, it does keep you guessing for a little while. The story, which is completely believable to me, is something you would more likely find in an indie film. It’s hard to believe that mainstream America will turn this movie into a blockbuster.
I am surprised at the many negative reviews. At Vanity Fair, the reviewer criticized Will Smith for “how highly [he] may regard himself”. WTF? I saw another review that called the movie self-important. I have no idea what these reviewers are talking about; I think it reveals more about the reviewer than about the film.
The movie was a little too long but other than that, it’s definitely worth watching. I laid down six bucks to see it and I got more than my money’s worth!
I first watched Holiday many years ago, and since then it’s my favorite Christmas film. It’s a simple romantic comedy starring two greats, Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. But its message is resounding: money is a means to an end, and nothing more. On top of that, Holiday is bursting with cheer. It always amazes me that It’s a Wonderful Life, which is so dreary and depressing, enjoys such success in contrast.
The first Jean Claude Van Damme movie that I saw was Timecop. In one scene, he leaped up from the floor to avoid electrocution, landing in a split on a kitchen countertop – in his underwear, no less (see it in the trailer). I became a fan instantly!
Unfortunately, that was my peak Jean Claude Van Damme experience – until today, when I saw JCVD. I like my mindless action and violence as much as anyone else, and that’s really the most I was hoping for, although I had read a short review which promised more.
Well, this movie delivers. If you need convincing, go read the review at the Washington Post. For someone who is a fan of both the martial arts genre and French film, as I am, JCVD is a dream come true.
SPOILER ALERT - this review contains some plot details that you might not want to know if you plan to see the movie.
The Day the Earth Stood Still was only mildly entertaining. It might be more enjoyable for children and teens, or anyone who hasn’t seen the original 1951 movie.
It has been a long time since I’ve seen the original, and I recall liking it. The remake requires way too much suspension of disbelief. The aliens come off almost as dumb as the humans, which I don’t recall in the original.
I refreshed my memory of the original by skimming the synopsis at wiki. In the older movie, the aliens’ motives were more convincing – a fear that humanity would become a danger to alien races. In the current movie, the vague rationalization is that humans are destroying the earth, but the aliens don’t give a strong reason for caring about that. It’s something like “we’re going to kill all humans in order to save the other living species on the planet, and besides, humanity’s going to extinguish itself anyway.” This goes way beyond deep ecology. And they’ve based their conclusions on a perfunctory study of the human race… Another giant plot hole.
Worst of all, in the remake we never hear the magic phrase “Klaatu barada nikto.” Major, major flaw!!
Is it worth seeing this in the theater as I did? Well, if you are going to see it, see it on the big screen, to get all the spectacle (try to ignore all the blatant product placements). Go for a discount matinee, like I did. But if you’re waffling, I’d say don’t bother. Rent the original instead.
The Brave One is a simplistic, fantasy vengeance movie. Jodie Foster plays a woman who is brutally assaulted, along with her fiancé, who doesn’t survive the attack. The story follows her as she tries to deal with surviving the event.
I was disappointed because I was expecting something more complex from Jodie Foster. Not that she doesn’t do a good job acting the part. However, in her “prosecution” of the criminals that she meets (with unrealistic frequency), her character has an omniscience which is completely lacking in reality… she (and the viewer) are always completely certain of the guilt of the people she kills. This kind of certainty is rare in real life; and even when it happens, one person’s certainty is no guarantee of their correctness. That’s the reason that vigilantism is generally a bad thing, and we’re better off with our admittedly flawed justice system.
Is it interesting that a woman is playing the role of vigilante? I suppose so. I don’t think I would have bothered watching the movie if it had been about a male vigilante; but in that case, I wouldn’t have been expecting more depth either.
The redeeming feature of this movie is its realistic portrayal of the impact of violent crime on its victims. The manner in which Foster’s character completely changes is very believable, although the rest of the plot is not.
[Edit: After watching the movie, I checked out a few interviews with Jodie Foster about the movie. She compares it to Straw Dogs and Taxi Driver. If I had known that, I would have been expecting something very different... and also might not have bothered to watch. Those two movies are classics, and alas, The Brave One is not.
