Went to see The Women this weekend. It was okay but, not quite as good as I was hoping it would be and it definitely wasn't as funny as I was expecting. The story itself was good. I liked the whole thing about finding yourself and not losing yourself in a relationship. That's something that probably resonates with everyone.
The biggest problem with the movie was that there wasn't enough interaction with the main characters. It's called The Women you'd think there would be a lot of scenes with the 4 main women in different combinations and that just wasn't the case. It just didn't feel real that Meg Ryan's character only had one on one interaction with Annette Bening's character. The only time Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett Smith were involved was when there was a scene that had Annette in it. It just didn't make since, the whole point of the movie (or at least I thought it was) was that it was suppose to be about women supporting each other and being there when they needed each other and that wasn't the case.
I also felt that they took the title of The Women a bit too far when there were like no men what so ever in the film. Sure they were talked about but, never seen. It was just odd and really forced. A fact that I felt was made even more obvious with Jada's character being a lesbian. No problem with her being a lesbian it's just that it seemed that it was more like they did it to try and be trending and so they could use it as a device to further enhance the no men allowed thing. There is only one scene where they all get together at a restaurant/bar and it was a lesbian one. The fact that they had to point out twice that Jada's character picked the place was just drawing attention to all the wrong things.
For the most part the acting was good. It was nice seeing Meg Ryan on screen again and she did what she could with what she was given. The material was a little week for all of them. Jada and Debra certainly didn't have a lot to do but, they made the best of it. Probably the best part of the whole movie was Jada freaking out watching Debra's character give birth at the end. Annette Bening was okay I just felt she wasn't the best choice for the role. I felt she played it a little too stiff at times.
In the end it was okay and I was really hoping it would be the movie to back up the success of Sex and the City and say female driven movies can do good box office more than once a year. Unfortunately that wasn't the case. I saw it at a matinee and unfortunately I really can't recommend seeing it in theaters. If you do I certainly wouldn't pay full price but, you'll probably be happier if you just wait for dvd.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
This won’t be a long post considering there wasn’t that much worth discussing from the Emmy’s. They pretty much sucked and not because of who the awards went to. I really didn’t care that much this year because I watched so few of the shows nominated. And the one category I did care about wasn’t a surprise. As much as I would have like to see Kyra Sedgwick or Mariska Hargitay win Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series I knew from the minute Damages premiered that Glen Close was going to win the Emmy. He role was award bait whether it was on tv, major motion picture, or a play.
As for the rest of it, it was just dull. I knew it was stupid of ABC to not only have 5 "hosts" but, to use reality tv hosts. That was just stupid. They were constantly tripping over their lines and they were bland as hell. Unfortunately for ABC they apparently didn’t realize that the hosts actually do set the tone for the show. The audience wasn’t into what was going on and they wanted it to be over with as much as the viewers. You have to keep these things hopping and lively so people are engaged and don’t realize how long it is taking.
I did enjoy Laura Linney’s little line about supporting community organizers. That was a great little jump on and off the soapbox in a split second moment. I think it took people a few seconds to figure out what she was talking about. But, that is how it should be done.
Kathy Griffin and Don Rickles were great. Not often do you see Kathy flumaxed like that. It was great watching her struggle to get him on task and the gestures she made when it didn’t work. That was the best night comedy wise of the night. Screw the controversy of what she said when she won her Emmy last year someone needs to wake up and have her host the big show.
And would the directors of these things pull their heads out of their butts. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Emmys, the Oscars or the Golden Globes they are always screwing when they show clips. They are constantly showing clips for every category and then by the time they get to the big awards they don’t have time for clips. NEWSFLASH folks, the views don’t care about seeing clips for the small categories they want to see them for the big ones. All the series acting and show nominees should get clips. If you are behind in the middle don’t show the clips for mini-series and made for televison movies. Don’t show clips for writing and directing and stop with those stupid things that you let the variety shows do for the writing nominations. It’s all about the big awards folks. And whether you want to believe it or not people like to see the clips because they know those clips come from the submitted episodes and everyone always wants to know which episodes people submitted.
As for the rest of it, it was just dull. I knew it was stupid of ABC to not only have 5 "hosts" but, to use reality tv hosts. That was just stupid. They were constantly tripping over their lines and they were bland as hell. Unfortunately for ABC they apparently didn’t realize that the hosts actually do set the tone for the show. The audience wasn’t into what was going on and they wanted it to be over with as much as the viewers. You have to keep these things hopping and lively so people are engaged and don’t realize how long it is taking.
I did enjoy Laura Linney’s little line about supporting community organizers. That was a great little jump on and off the soapbox in a split second moment. I think it took people a few seconds to figure out what she was talking about. But, that is how it should be done.
Kathy Griffin and Don Rickles were great. Not often do you see Kathy flumaxed like that. It was great watching her struggle to get him on task and the gestures she made when it didn’t work. That was the best night comedy wise of the night. Screw the controversy of what she said when she won her Emmy last year someone needs to wake up and have her host the big show.
And would the directors of these things pull their heads out of their butts. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Emmys, the Oscars or the Golden Globes they are always screwing when they show clips. They are constantly showing clips for every category and then by the time they get to the big awards they don’t have time for clips. NEWSFLASH folks, the views don’t care about seeing clips for the small categories they want to see them for the big ones. All the series acting and show nominees should get clips. If you are behind in the middle don’t show the clips for mini-series and made for televison movies. Don’t show clips for writing and directing and stop with those stupid things that you let the variety shows do for the writing nominations. It’s all about the big awards folks. And whether you want to believe it or not people like to see the clips because they know those clips come from the submitted episodes and everyone always wants to know which episodes people submitted.
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2
I absolutely adored The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and was a bit worried about them making a sequel. Luckily the sequel was worth it but, it definitely wasn't as good as the first one. I also didn't feel the stories flowed together s well as they did in the first movie.
As in the first one all the acting was good. In the original though Blake Lively was left hanging a bit story wise. She was given the weakest of the four stories and it didn't make her seem like much of an actress. In the scenes with the other three actresses she was pretty good but, alone she didn't hold up well. However, she was given a much stronger story and very talented actresses to work with in that story and she fared much better.
The guest appearance of Blythe Danner was good. Funny yet emotional which pretty much defines the two movies. I also enjoyed the guest appearance of Oscar nominee Shohreh Aghdashloo. That was a nice surprise.
On a side note I was very surprised to hear a new song from Michelle Branch at the end of the movie. It's a great song and fits the movie very well.
Spoilers:
I liked how the story had the girls drifting apart. It's very true to life how things get told to one person but, somehow don't always make there way to others.
One slight story issues was the out of nowhere part with Bridget going on an archaeological dig. That seemed odd and didn't go with her character. I did however, like how it played into her deciding to go see her grandmother.
I liked the reality of the condom breaking when Tibby and Brian had sex. Not something you usually see. Everything usually works out perfectly. Tibby's reaction of not wanting to see him seemed pretty true to her character. What didn't seem true to her character was sitting around just hoping she didn't get pregnant. Sure that set up a very funny scene later when she put the pants on hoping they would bring her another miracle. However, in this day any young woman would know about the morning after pill. And Tibby would so be that girl who after the initial freak out would run straight to the health services on campus and get it.
Overall the movie was good and worth the price of matinee admission. I think if you're a fan of the original it would also be worth full price admission.
As in the first one all the acting was good. In the original though Blake Lively was left hanging a bit story wise. She was given the weakest of the four stories and it didn't make her seem like much of an actress. In the scenes with the other three actresses she was pretty good but, alone she didn't hold up well. However, she was given a much stronger story and very talented actresses to work with in that story and she fared much better.
The guest appearance of Blythe Danner was good. Funny yet emotional which pretty much defines the two movies. I also enjoyed the guest appearance of Oscar nominee Shohreh Aghdashloo. That was a nice surprise.
On a side note I was very surprised to hear a new song from Michelle Branch at the end of the movie. It's a great song and fits the movie very well.
Spoilers:
I liked how the story had the girls drifting apart. It's very true to life how things get told to one person but, somehow don't always make there way to others.
One slight story issues was the out of nowhere part with Bridget going on an archaeological dig. That seemed odd and didn't go with her character. I did however, like how it played into her deciding to go see her grandmother.
I liked the reality of the condom breaking when Tibby and Brian had sex. Not something you usually see. Everything usually works out perfectly. Tibby's reaction of not wanting to see him seemed pretty true to her character. What didn't seem true to her character was sitting around just hoping she didn't get pregnant. Sure that set up a very funny scene later when she put the pants on hoping they would bring her another miracle. However, in this day any young woman would know about the morning after pill. And Tibby would so be that girl who after the initial freak out would run straight to the health services on campus and get it.
Overall the movie was good and worth the price of matinee admission. I think if you're a fan of the original it would also be worth full price admission.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
I really didn't think they needed to make a third movie in this series. And while it wasn't bad it also didn't change my opinion of them making it.
The story was little stilted and it wasn't nearly as exciting as the first two. Even the fight sequences weren't that great. The writing was very forced in places as was the delivery particularly by Brendan Fraiser. The problems with the action and the dialogue aren't a surprise since they changed both the director and the writer. I really felt everyone involved was trying to create too much new stuff. It's like they got together and said lets forget the first two all together. It's a franchise you can't just through out what came before.
I wasn't too sure how the switch from Rachel Weisz to Maria Bello would go. It was okay mainly because the changed the characters a bit. Primarily that was done by moving the time of the story forward a bit so the character were older.
There really just wasn't that much that was notable in the movie.
Spoilers coming up:
There was a cute moment with the dialogue at the beginning of the movie. Maria's character has become an author and she was doing a book reading. Someone asked her if the character was based on her. The response she gave was "I can honestly say it's a completely different person." Very subtle nod to the actress switch.
I did not like the ending very much. I liked that the guards of the mummy this time were women. However, I didn't like that they had no real hand in killing him. That was a big let down.
Saw a matinee and it was barely worth that price to me. I really think you should just wait for dvd.
The story was little stilted and it wasn't nearly as exciting as the first two. Even the fight sequences weren't that great. The writing was very forced in places as was the delivery particularly by Brendan Fraiser. The problems with the action and the dialogue aren't a surprise since they changed both the director and the writer. I really felt everyone involved was trying to create too much new stuff. It's like they got together and said lets forget the first two all together. It's a franchise you can't just through out what came before.
I wasn't too sure how the switch from Rachel Weisz to Maria Bello would go. It was okay mainly because the changed the characters a bit. Primarily that was done by moving the time of the story forward a bit so the character were older.
There really just wasn't that much that was notable in the movie.
Spoilers coming up:
There was a cute moment with the dialogue at the beginning of the movie. Maria's character has become an author and she was doing a book reading. Someone asked her if the character was based on her. The response she gave was "I can honestly say it's a completely different person." Very subtle nod to the actress switch.
I did not like the ending very much. I liked that the guards of the mummy this time were women. However, I didn't like that they had no real hand in killing him. That was a big let down.
Saw a matinee and it was barely worth that price to me. I really think you should just wait for dvd.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Hell No
Some people out there need to be smacked. I have had about enough of classic horror films being remade. Of course the Friday the 13th remake is really an update since last I saw they had drastically altered the story. Spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the original and/or doesn't know about the change in story- The killer wasn't Jason in the original and now it is. STUPID is all I have to say on that one.
And now they are going ahead with remaking A Nightmare On Elm Street. There are so many things wrong with that. The biggest one being the fact that I just read that Billy Bob Thornton is going to play Freddy. HELL NO is my opinion on that one. And I do not care if Robert Englund thinks it is good casting.
The thing with movies like Halloween or Friday the 13th is the killer is masked and has no real personality. They are silent stalking killers. You can make as many of those movies as you want and as long as the actor playing the killer is of the same basic body type and learns the mannerisms it doesn't matter that much. That isn't the case with Freddy.
Part of the genius of the Freddy character was the Wes Craven wrote him with a personality. He has dialogue and it's not lame dialogue either. Not only did it take great writing to make that character it took some damn good acting. In the wrong hands Freddy is campy and not scary. Robert however, made Freddy into an icon of pop culture. He transcends all horror sterotypes and can never be recreated properly. The only reason Freddy vs. Jason worked at all is that Robert came back to play Freddy. I've always said when Robert was done being Freddy that had to be it and it should be.
The other problem with Billy Bob being Freddy is his age. Should this work and they decide to make a whole new series they are going to have problems. They run a huge risk of having to recast the Freddy role again and that screws things up even more.
Any new Nightmare on Elm Street movie without Robert is just a complete waste of time and shouldn't be made. They won't be getting my money at the theater for this disaster.
There is really only one Elm Street movie left to make. And it is the only way to make one without Robert. You would still need Wes though since the character and the story are his creation. And that movie is a prequel. That's right if you want a new Elm Street movie Wes needs to write a movie about Freddy leading up to his death by fire.
And now they are going ahead with remaking A Nightmare On Elm Street. There are so many things wrong with that. The biggest one being the fact that I just read that Billy Bob Thornton is going to play Freddy. HELL NO is my opinion on that one. And I do not care if Robert Englund thinks it is good casting.
The thing with movies like Halloween or Friday the 13th is the killer is masked and has no real personality. They are silent stalking killers. You can make as many of those movies as you want and as long as the actor playing the killer is of the same basic body type and learns the mannerisms it doesn't matter that much. That isn't the case with Freddy.
Part of the genius of the Freddy character was the Wes Craven wrote him with a personality. He has dialogue and it's not lame dialogue either. Not only did it take great writing to make that character it took some damn good acting. In the wrong hands Freddy is campy and not scary. Robert however, made Freddy into an icon of pop culture. He transcends all horror sterotypes and can never be recreated properly. The only reason Freddy vs. Jason worked at all is that Robert came back to play Freddy. I've always said when Robert was done being Freddy that had to be it and it should be.
The other problem with Billy Bob being Freddy is his age. Should this work and they decide to make a whole new series they are going to have problems. They run a huge risk of having to recast the Freddy role again and that screws things up even more.
Any new Nightmare on Elm Street movie without Robert is just a complete waste of time and shouldn't be made. They won't be getting my money at the theater for this disaster.
There is really only one Elm Street movie left to make. And it is the only way to make one without Robert. You would still need Wes though since the character and the story are his creation. And that movie is a prequel. That's right if you want a new Elm Street movie Wes needs to write a movie about Freddy leading up to his death by fire.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
90210 the second coming
Honestly I don't know what to think about them reincarnating Beverly Hills, 90210. At least they are dropping the Beverly Hills part from the title. I mean who really called it by it's full name anyway.
Considering the changes in society one thing's for sure the show will probably be a lot more risque this time around. Then again there were a lot of things they did on the original that were considered risque for the time.
I'm not really sure I buy Kelly Taylor becoming a school guidance counselor. Sure the character has a lot of life experience to pull from but, I see those kids just saying you did it so can I. I mean come on what are the chances that not a single one of those kids is the child of someone that went to school at West Beverly High at the sametime as Kelly and the gang.
Really though I had no interest in this show until they managed to land Shannen Doherty. I do believe that Brenda Walsh would become a big time director. And is will be interesting to see just how full of herself that character has become. I may actually take in a couple episodes with Shannen. I have to admit that part of me will be hoping there is some sort of throw down between Brenda and Kelly.
Ya know you really have to enjoy the development for Shannen on this one. All those years ago she was pretty much made a star by Aaron Spelling and she got a little too full of herself and was sent packing. Years later Spelling gave her another chance on Charmed which of course aired on the WB/CW and she blew it again when she felt she wasn't the big star. And now here she is on a new version of the show that first made her a star on the network that housed the show that gave her a second chance. And interestingly enough both those shows managed to thrive for several years after her departure.
So what is the lesson the producers from 90210 can learn here? Simple lose Shannen after a few years if you want the show to have a long run.
Considering the changes in society one thing's for sure the show will probably be a lot more risque this time around. Then again there were a lot of things they did on the original that were considered risque for the time.
I'm not really sure I buy Kelly Taylor becoming a school guidance counselor. Sure the character has a lot of life experience to pull from but, I see those kids just saying you did it so can I. I mean come on what are the chances that not a single one of those kids is the child of someone that went to school at West Beverly High at the sametime as Kelly and the gang.
Really though I had no interest in this show until they managed to land Shannen Doherty. I do believe that Brenda Walsh would become a big time director. And is will be interesting to see just how full of herself that character has become. I may actually take in a couple episodes with Shannen. I have to admit that part of me will be hoping there is some sort of throw down between Brenda and Kelly.
Ya know you really have to enjoy the development for Shannen on this one. All those years ago she was pretty much made a star by Aaron Spelling and she got a little too full of herself and was sent packing. Years later Spelling gave her another chance on Charmed which of course aired on the WB/CW and she blew it again when she felt she wasn't the big star. And now here she is on a new version of the show that first made her a star on the network that housed the show that gave her a second chance. And interestingly enough both those shows managed to thrive for several years after her departure.
So what is the lesson the producers from 90210 can learn here? Simple lose Shannen after a few years if you want the show to have a long run.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Mama Mia!
This is by far the best movie I have seen this year. I can't think of anything I didn't like about it. It was everything a feel good summer movie should be. And above all else it was fun. And yes I did catch myself singing along to a few of the songs.
The casting was perfect. It has only been in the last few years that I have become a fan of Meryl Streep and while I have come to enjoy her in the dramatic fair that she is so known for I most enjoy her in these kinds fun let loose roles. Even before I came to like her I always did enjoy her performance in Death Becomes Her. This performance was so great. I don't know if there will be any Oscar love for it but, I definitely anticipate a Golden Globe nomination and quite possibly a win.
I have enjoyed Amanda Seyfried in various projects over the last few years. And she has always taken steps forward in the differnet projects. This was most definitely her coming out party. And what a party it is.
All the rest of the cast was just fantastic. The best part was that they took it seriously. Not too seriously but, just enough to keep anything from coming off campy and dumb. Christine Baranski and Julie Walters were great as "The Dynamos" in other words Meryl's backup singers. Them doing the opening part of Dancing Queen was freaking great.
In all my years of loving Pierce Brosnan I never would have dreamed of him doing a role like this. He proved himself to be even more versitale than I thought he was. It doesn't get any better.
I saw this at a matinee (as I do most things these days) and it was worth so much more than that. No problem what-so-ever with paying full price for this. And I am hoping to see it again in theaters.
If you do see if be sure to stick around for the whole sequence between the end of the movie and the credits. It is well worth it.
The casting was perfect. It has only been in the last few years that I have become a fan of Meryl Streep and while I have come to enjoy her in the dramatic fair that she is so known for I most enjoy her in these kinds fun let loose roles. Even before I came to like her I always did enjoy her performance in Death Becomes Her. This performance was so great. I don't know if there will be any Oscar love for it but, I definitely anticipate a Golden Globe nomination and quite possibly a win.
I have enjoyed Amanda Seyfried in various projects over the last few years. And she has always taken steps forward in the differnet projects. This was most definitely her coming out party. And what a party it is.
All the rest of the cast was just fantastic. The best part was that they took it seriously. Not too seriously but, just enough to keep anything from coming off campy and dumb. Christine Baranski and Julie Walters were great as "The Dynamos" in other words Meryl's backup singers. Them doing the opening part of Dancing Queen was freaking great.
In all my years of loving Pierce Brosnan I never would have dreamed of him doing a role like this. He proved himself to be even more versitale than I thought he was. It doesn't get any better.
I saw this at a matinee (as I do most things these days) and it was worth so much more than that. No problem what-so-ever with paying full price for this. And I am hoping to see it again in theaters.
If you do see if be sure to stick around for the whole sequence between the end of the movie and the credits. It is well worth it.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
And the Oscar...I mean Emmy goes too
Again this year the Emmy nominations are not my favorite but, then again I wasn't expecting much. When it comes to the actor categories I wasn't surprised by my overall disappointment. The bright spot being that at least James Spader got nominated again. He truly is a breath of fresh air among the boring male characters currently taking up space on television.
Of course the categories I watch closet are the actress categories especially Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series. I actually pegged 4 of the 5 nominees in that category. The only one I wasn't sure on was Sally Field and that's the only one of the 5 I don't watch. But, good for her. I find it very amusing that 3 of the 5 nominees are Oscar winning actresses. I do think there are good roles for them in film but, that they get a much greater chance to shine on television.
I think this will be the hardest one to handicap however, currently I think Glen Close has the edge. Her character was one you don't often see given to a women. She was a true villian and she just didn't care who got hurt in the end. At the sametime she played a villian out to help the little guy so it's a very interesting line there.
I just have to get a dig in at ABC here. I was very mad at them for canceling Women's Murder Club. I was even more ticked off about it when it turned out that it had a higher average viewership than the two male dominated shows that ABC renewed for next season. I told my friend that was a very stupid move because 3 of the highest rated and most talked about shows on cable were female driven cop dramas. (This was just after the premiere of In Plain Sight.) And then look what happens 3 of the 5 nominees for Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series play cops. So I will officially say the people that run ABC are the biggest idiots in television.
I am very happy that 5 strong actresses that play 5 strong characters were nominated this year. And the fact that one of them is a villian only makes it better. This is the category I think everyone will be watching this year.
I must say though that I was disappointed that yet again a Lifetime original series was overlooked. When it comes to movies Lifetime usually gets some love but, they just can't get any for their series' and that is a shame. Army Wives really deserved some attention. I guess there are just too many great women on television at the moment and not enough room at the awards table for them all.
Of course the categories I watch closet are the actress categories especially Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series. I actually pegged 4 of the 5 nominees in that category. The only one I wasn't sure on was Sally Field and that's the only one of the 5 I don't watch. But, good for her. I find it very amusing that 3 of the 5 nominees are Oscar winning actresses. I do think there are good roles for them in film but, that they get a much greater chance to shine on television.
I think this will be the hardest one to handicap however, currently I think Glen Close has the edge. Her character was one you don't often see given to a women. She was a true villian and she just didn't care who got hurt in the end. At the sametime she played a villian out to help the little guy so it's a very interesting line there.
I just have to get a dig in at ABC here. I was very mad at them for canceling Women's Murder Club. I was even more ticked off about it when it turned out that it had a higher average viewership than the two male dominated shows that ABC renewed for next season. I told my friend that was a very stupid move because 3 of the highest rated and most talked about shows on cable were female driven cop dramas. (This was just after the premiere of In Plain Sight.) And then look what happens 3 of the 5 nominees for Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series play cops. So I will officially say the people that run ABC are the biggest idiots in television.
I am very happy that 5 strong actresses that play 5 strong characters were nominated this year. And the fact that one of them is a villian only makes it better. This is the category I think everyone will be watching this year.
I must say though that I was disappointed that yet again a Lifetime original series was overlooked. When it comes to movies Lifetime usually gets some love but, they just can't get any for their series' and that is a shame. Army Wives really deserved some attention. I guess there are just too many great women on television at the moment and not enough room at the awards table for them all.
Indiana Jones and the Kindgom of the Crystal Skull
I was really not impressed with this movie at all. I enjoyed the previous Indy movies but, this one was really lacking. The story was rather boring and kind of lame and the action sequences left a lot to be desired. Most of the time I just kept thinking how obvious it was that Harrison Ford was to old to be doing another one. I think everything was constructed to what he could physically do. I also felt it wasn't as funny as the others. It had it's comedic moments but, it just didn't seem to be as much as before.
With the exception of Harrison Ford I thought the acting was quite good. Honestly I felt like he was phoning it in a lot. I felt bad at times for Shia LeBeouf because it seemed like he wasn't allowed to be as good as he could be. It was like he was instructed to not do anything that might show up Harrison. At least he got that great sword fighting sequence with Cate Blanchet. That was probably my favorite part of the whole movie. Cate was great as the villian.
I was very disappointed with the fact that there weren't as many sequences with booby traps or other things to escape from.
Went to a matinee and that was a little much to have spent on this movie.
With the exception of Harrison Ford I thought the acting was quite good. Honestly I felt like he was phoning it in a lot. I felt bad at times for Shia LeBeouf because it seemed like he wasn't allowed to be as good as he could be. It was like he was instructed to not do anything that might show up Harrison. At least he got that great sword fighting sequence with Cate Blanchet. That was probably my favorite part of the whole movie. Cate was great as the villian.
I was very disappointed with the fact that there weren't as many sequences with booby traps or other things to escape from.
Went to a matinee and that was a little much to have spent on this movie.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Sex and the City
I wasn't really sure if it was a good idea to make a movie of such a great show. I was concerned that it wouldn't translate well to a long format. And in some respects I was right. There were times when it flowed very well. It felt very much like the show and those parts were very good. However, it was connecting those parts that caused the movie to slip and faulter at times. They didn't do a good job with the stories outside of the group scenes and Carrie's storyline. And it was a bit long.
The show was always at its strongest when the storylines for each character were strong and close to equal. I really felt the movie focused too much on Carrie. Yes the other ladies had a good amount of screen time but, they weren't given enough of their own storyline which is what made the show work so well. I wish they could have found more ways to have all of them together.
At least none of them tried to change their characters for the big screen. They were very much how they were on the small screen and that was very important. I also like that they didn't go over the top with crazy guest appearances. I'm sure they could have had just about anyone pop up in the movie either as themselves, or playing small characters. That would have been a big distraction so it's good that they didn't do that.
I really enjoyed the character of Louise, Carrie's assistant. Jennifer Hudson was fantastic in that role.
I thought the opening of the movie was very well executed. It was very smart of them to put together something that would quickly aquaint people with the characters. For someone less familiar with the show it gave them a reference for each character's personality.
I think the one thing I didn't like about the movie was them having Samantha in Los Angeles. They still managed to keep her quite active in the story but, I just didn't care for that story point.
Do to unforeseen circumstances I ended up seeing it at the discount theater. I would have gladly paid full price for it thought.
The show was always at its strongest when the storylines for each character were strong and close to equal. I really felt the movie focused too much on Carrie. Yes the other ladies had a good amount of screen time but, they weren't given enough of their own storyline which is what made the show work so well. I wish they could have found more ways to have all of them together.
At least none of them tried to change their characters for the big screen. They were very much how they were on the small screen and that was very important. I also like that they didn't go over the top with crazy guest appearances. I'm sure they could have had just about anyone pop up in the movie either as themselves, or playing small characters. That would have been a big distraction so it's good that they didn't do that.
I really enjoyed the character of Louise, Carrie's assistant. Jennifer Hudson was fantastic in that role.
I thought the opening of the movie was very well executed. It was very smart of them to put together something that would quickly aquaint people with the characters. For someone less familiar with the show it gave them a reference for each character's personality.
I think the one thing I didn't like about the movie was them having Samantha in Los Angeles. They still managed to keep her quite active in the story but, I just didn't care for that story point.
Do to unforeseen circumstances I ended up seeing it at the discount theater. I would have gladly paid full price for it thought.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wanted
For an action film this movie wasn't bad but, it wasn't all that great either. The action sequences themselves were pretty well executed even if some of them were a little too obsurd. There was potential for a good story however, that good story never came through. They really screwed it up in a couple places.
At least the acting wasn't a total disaster. That did manage to stay in check which is good. When the story of an action film faulters the way it did it can easily lead to over the top acting.
Spoiler Alert:
In theory the ideal behind the fraternity of assassins made since. If you could stop someone now from committing all kinds of horrible acts down the road, would you? However, the story lost all appeal when it turned out that they were getting the names of the people from reading a binary code in fabric coming off a loom in a secret room. It wasn't hard to figure out that Morgan Freeman's character was picking his own targets. Not just because the loom thing seemed so stupid but, because the story was too transparent.
The story line with the main character trying to kill the man he thought killed his father was not developed very well. It would have been much better had they spent more time playing a cat and mouse game. Clearly the writer couldn't figure out how to make that work with the twist of the story. That was a shame because that is what would have really made the movie work.
Overall it was a decent movie. I wouldn't recommend seeing it for more than matinee price.
At least the acting wasn't a total disaster. That did manage to stay in check which is good. When the story of an action film faulters the way it did it can easily lead to over the top acting.
Spoiler Alert:
In theory the ideal behind the fraternity of assassins made since. If you could stop someone now from committing all kinds of horrible acts down the road, would you? However, the story lost all appeal when it turned out that they were getting the names of the people from reading a binary code in fabric coming off a loom in a secret room. It wasn't hard to figure out that Morgan Freeman's character was picking his own targets. Not just because the loom thing seemed so stupid but, because the story was too transparent.
The story line with the main character trying to kill the man he thought killed his father was not developed very well. It would have been much better had they spent more time playing a cat and mouse game. Clearly the writer couldn't figure out how to make that work with the twist of the story. That was a shame because that is what would have really made the movie work.
Overall it was a decent movie. I wouldn't recommend seeing it for more than matinee price.
Friday, May 02, 2008
The Hole
I am always on the lookout for those little movies that people did before they were famous. The ones that sometimes don't get released until someone in the cast does become famous. I love those movies because they are generally done before someone really worries too much about the projects they pick. When they are still just doing stuff because it's fun.
I found one of those little gems recently starring Kiera Knightly. It also stars Thora Birch. And to top it off it was a horror film. It's a right of passage in the industry doing a horror film. Very few people (especially these days) get away with not doing one. So I got it from netflix and watched it last night.
Thora Birch is the real star of the movie. It is about her character. While I am not one of those people who loves Ghost World I still enjoy Thora Birch. She's a fine actress. In fact I found myself wondering while watching The Hole why her career is so small. Is it because she doesn't fit the mold that Hollywood is always looking for? Or is it because she just doesn't care to work that much? I guess we'll never know. She does have the talent to play leading characters but, I truly think should she ever thrive big time in the industry it'll be as a character actress. She's destined to play some of those amazingly unforgettable supporting roles.
Anyway, the movie is quite different than I thought it would be from the discription. It's more of a phsycological horror as opposed to a standard horror film. That's really if you want to classify it as a horror film. I suppose it is because horror films are about fear and this one does feed upon some of peoples biggest fears.
There was only on actor of the main 4 that I wasn't familiar with. He was quite good though. In fact it was the other guy who I am most familiar with from the movie Wrong Turn that seemed out of place in this cast. It seemed he never quite figured out exactly how to play his spoiled rich son of a rock star character. It's almost like he wanted to make it seem like he actually had a heart and was a nice sensitive guy once you got to know him. Only problem was there wasn't any room in the script for that. And he's not a good enough actor to pull it off just because he wanted too.
Thora and Kiera were good as always. Kiera wasn't given a lot to do. But, she did exactly what was needed for the role. She didn't try to over play the popular, slutty, rich girl or turn her into something she wasn't. She played the character that was needed for the movie. Thora was spot on as the outcast of the group. Driven by her own desires and not letting what anyone else wanted or needed get in her way.
There is a scene in the movie where they do this sort of impromtu skit thing hoping it will get them out of the bunker they are trapped in. Watching them deliberately doing bad acting is quite fun.
It's a decent movie but, probably not one you want to rush out and see unless you like the someone whose in it. I'm not sure most people would enjoy it just for the story.
I found one of those little gems recently starring Kiera Knightly. It also stars Thora Birch. And to top it off it was a horror film. It's a right of passage in the industry doing a horror film. Very few people (especially these days) get away with not doing one. So I got it from netflix and watched it last night.
Thora Birch is the real star of the movie. It is about her character. While I am not one of those people who loves Ghost World I still enjoy Thora Birch. She's a fine actress. In fact I found myself wondering while watching The Hole why her career is so small. Is it because she doesn't fit the mold that Hollywood is always looking for? Or is it because she just doesn't care to work that much? I guess we'll never know. She does have the talent to play leading characters but, I truly think should she ever thrive big time in the industry it'll be as a character actress. She's destined to play some of those amazingly unforgettable supporting roles.
Anyway, the movie is quite different than I thought it would be from the discription. It's more of a phsycological horror as opposed to a standard horror film. That's really if you want to classify it as a horror film. I suppose it is because horror films are about fear and this one does feed upon some of peoples biggest fears.
There was only on actor of the main 4 that I wasn't familiar with. He was quite good though. In fact it was the other guy who I am most familiar with from the movie Wrong Turn that seemed out of place in this cast. It seemed he never quite figured out exactly how to play his spoiled rich son of a rock star character. It's almost like he wanted to make it seem like he actually had a heart and was a nice sensitive guy once you got to know him. Only problem was there wasn't any room in the script for that. And he's not a good enough actor to pull it off just because he wanted too.
Thora and Kiera were good as always. Kiera wasn't given a lot to do. But, she did exactly what was needed for the role. She didn't try to over play the popular, slutty, rich girl or turn her into something she wasn't. She played the character that was needed for the movie. Thora was spot on as the outcast of the group. Driven by her own desires and not letting what anyone else wanted or needed get in her way.
There is a scene in the movie where they do this sort of impromtu skit thing hoping it will get them out of the bunker they are trapped in. Watching them deliberately doing bad acting is quite fun.
It's a decent movie but, probably not one you want to rush out and see unless you like the someone whose in it. I'm not sure most people would enjoy it just for the story.
Into The Wild
A few weeks ago my boyfriend and I rented Into The Wild. It was a decent movie and a good story. However, it was a bit boring and long. The length of it wouldn't have been such a problem if it had a little better pacing. A lot of the problem was needless scenes that may not have been that long themselves but, once you start adding them all up it's a decent chunk of time. It was beautifully shot and it was some of those scenes that drug down the pace.
On the whole the acting was good. Sean Penn got exactly what he needed out of his cast. Aside from the unnecessary scenes his directing was good. I really don't think Hal Holbrook deserved his Oscar nomination. As an ensemble the cast definitely deserved attention. Broken down into individual performances though there wasn't any one that really stood out.
It's not really a movie I would recommend right off the top of my head if someone asked what they should rent. But, at the sametime I wouldn't tell them not to rent it either.
On the whole the acting was good. Sean Penn got exactly what he needed out of his cast. Aside from the unnecessary scenes his directing was good. I really don't think Hal Holbrook deserved his Oscar nomination. As an ensemble the cast definitely deserved attention. Broken down into individual performances though there wasn't any one that really stood out.
It's not really a movie I would recommend right off the top of my head if someone asked what they should rent. But, at the sametime I wouldn't tell them not to rent it either.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Nim's Island
I don't go to a lot of the so-called family films out there. Usually it's because they are animated and I'm not a super big fan of animated movies. Or the movie just looks rather lame. And I don't like dealing with all the children. So if it's something I'm at all interested in I will either go after it's been open several weeks or more likely I will just wait for dvd. However, if you throw Jodie Foster into the mix then I have to see it in theaters. Okay I probably don't absolutely have to but, by the crazy rules for seeing certain peoples movies that I have in my own head I did have to see it. And I had to see it on opening day.
That of course meant running the risk of dealing with screaming obnoxious children. Luckily that didn't happen as the movie was so entertaining the children were very engaged. When I do go to family films I have noticed that live action movies can be very hit or miss with the kids. Either it's right at their level and they love it or it's over their heads and they really have no idea what's going on. While they probably didn't really understand why Jodie's character wouldn't leave her house the writer and director managed to make those sequences very fun and funny so whether they understood or not they still enjoyed that aspect of the story.
I have seen the majority of Ms. Foster's films and I have to say even I was quite impressed with her comedic range. While there were only a few true slapstick parts she did them very well and slapstick is not easy.
As always I was impressed with Abigail Breslin. She is very talented and since she spends most of the movie alone with her animals and communicating via e-mail with Jodie that talent really shows through. The isolation of both her and Jodie's characters came through very well from both of them.
I think my biggest disappointment in the whole movie was that the two actresses didn't have more scenes together. The film isn't really what it is made out to be in the previews. It is more of a three storyline movie and all three storylines finally converge at the end. However, all three story's are good and they do come together good and make since together. The editing in that regards is top notch.
While the casting of the leads was good and everything involving them was well executed the film was hurt by part of the subplot with Abigail's character. The subplot itself isn't the problem. It's just that as usual with these kinds of movies they went for over kill with the casting. Instead of them being characters they seemed more like charactures. They went for your standard fat shlubby characters that don't pay attention to their kid and all that. And the people they got weren't good actors which only made it worse. Especially the one that played the son who actually has a scene with Abigail. That was just done right sad and a little painful to watch.
That aside it was a very good film. I enjoyed the overall story as well as the seperate stories. The comedy was great both in dialogue and action. It is very much worth seeing.
I went to a matinee and it was well worth that price. It would have been worth full price. I will probably even see it again and I may see it at night for full price.
That of course meant running the risk of dealing with screaming obnoxious children. Luckily that didn't happen as the movie was so entertaining the children were very engaged. When I do go to family films I have noticed that live action movies can be very hit or miss with the kids. Either it's right at their level and they love it or it's over their heads and they really have no idea what's going on. While they probably didn't really understand why Jodie's character wouldn't leave her house the writer and director managed to make those sequences very fun and funny so whether they understood or not they still enjoyed that aspect of the story.
I have seen the majority of Ms. Foster's films and I have to say even I was quite impressed with her comedic range. While there were only a few true slapstick parts she did them very well and slapstick is not easy.
As always I was impressed with Abigail Breslin. She is very talented and since she spends most of the movie alone with her animals and communicating via e-mail with Jodie that talent really shows through. The isolation of both her and Jodie's characters came through very well from both of them.
I think my biggest disappointment in the whole movie was that the two actresses didn't have more scenes together. The film isn't really what it is made out to be in the previews. It is more of a three storyline movie and all three storylines finally converge at the end. However, all three story's are good and they do come together good and make since together. The editing in that regards is top notch.
While the casting of the leads was good and everything involving them was well executed the film was hurt by part of the subplot with Abigail's character. The subplot itself isn't the problem. It's just that as usual with these kinds of movies they went for over kill with the casting. Instead of them being characters they seemed more like charactures. They went for your standard fat shlubby characters that don't pay attention to their kid and all that. And the people they got weren't good actors which only made it worse. Especially the one that played the son who actually has a scene with Abigail. That was just done right sad and a little painful to watch.
That aside it was a very good film. I enjoyed the overall story as well as the seperate stories. The comedy was great both in dialogue and action. It is very much worth seeing.
I went to a matinee and it was well worth that price. It would have been worth full price. I will probably even see it again and I may see it at night for full price.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Other Boylen Girl
The previews for The Other Boylen Girl looked really good. And with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson as the female leads I was definitely seeing this movie in theaters. With the previews and the cast I did run the risk of getting my expectations for the movie too high. That did not happen. The movie and the performances were every bit as good as I was expecting and then some.
I did find it interesting that while it's called The Other Boylen Girl it's not as much about Mary as it is about Anne. And most people have a tiny bit of knowledge about the story of Anne Boylen. I must admit I had no idea how devious she truly was though. Although that deviousness was not of her own making. I mean her family did bring it upon themselves in someways.
I also find in interesting how back then it was not frowned upon for a countries leader to bed other women. In fact it seems that it was quite often frowned upon if he didn't bed women other than his wife. Even more interesting is if the Queen doesn't give the King his male heir he is expected to find a mistress or several and keep impregnating them until he gets his presicous boy. Funny too how in this case after all things played out it would be King Henry's second daughter who would become one of the strongest and most respected leaders in all of Englands history.
Sorry that got off track from the movie itself. So the movie was very well put together. It had really good pacing. At least for the majority of the movie. The last little bit seemed to drag a bit. None of the movie seemed to be overdone. Everything from the costuming, to the sets, to the dialogue and acting was very well restrained. Sometime actors have a tendancy to go a little over the top in how they deliver their lines in movies like this but, that didn't happen here. I do attribute that to the fact that none of the other stuff in the movie was over the top.
The acting was fantastic. Scarlett didn't have quite as much to do as I might have thought she would but, for a supporting performance it was very good. Now Natalie she had a very wide range of emotions to cover and she did it superbly. She one hundred percent found and owned the character of Anne Boylen. It'll be interesting to see if this performance is strong enough to be remembered at the end of the year when it is awards time.
A couple of small spoilers coming up:
There was one part of the story that they really left hanging. At least for me. Some people might have gotten so into the rest of the movie that they forgot about it all together. At the time that they went to court and the King started his affair with Mary, she was married. He asked her if she'd mind if he sent her husband away. And apparently he did since we never saw him again. We also never heard of him again. He did not rejoin her when she was sent back to the family estate with her son. There was never any mention of him being killed or them getting a divorce/annulment. Yet in the end she married another man. I do wish they would have give that a little more thought and wrapped it up a little better.
Overall this was a fantastic movie that I would very much recommend. I saw a matinee but, would have been fine with paying full price to see it. It is worth the price of admission.
I did find it interesting that while it's called The Other Boylen Girl it's not as much about Mary as it is about Anne. And most people have a tiny bit of knowledge about the story of Anne Boylen. I must admit I had no idea how devious she truly was though. Although that deviousness was not of her own making. I mean her family did bring it upon themselves in someways.
I also find in interesting how back then it was not frowned upon for a countries leader to bed other women. In fact it seems that it was quite often frowned upon if he didn't bed women other than his wife. Even more interesting is if the Queen doesn't give the King his male heir he is expected to find a mistress or several and keep impregnating them until he gets his presicous boy. Funny too how in this case after all things played out it would be King Henry's second daughter who would become one of the strongest and most respected leaders in all of Englands history.
Sorry that got off track from the movie itself. So the movie was very well put together. It had really good pacing. At least for the majority of the movie. The last little bit seemed to drag a bit. None of the movie seemed to be overdone. Everything from the costuming, to the sets, to the dialogue and acting was very well restrained. Sometime actors have a tendancy to go a little over the top in how they deliver their lines in movies like this but, that didn't happen here. I do attribute that to the fact that none of the other stuff in the movie was over the top.
The acting was fantastic. Scarlett didn't have quite as much to do as I might have thought she would but, for a supporting performance it was very good. Now Natalie she had a very wide range of emotions to cover and she did it superbly. She one hundred percent found and owned the character of Anne Boylen. It'll be interesting to see if this performance is strong enough to be remembered at the end of the year when it is awards time.
A couple of small spoilers coming up:
There was one part of the story that they really left hanging. At least for me. Some people might have gotten so into the rest of the movie that they forgot about it all together. At the time that they went to court and the King started his affair with Mary, she was married. He asked her if she'd mind if he sent her husband away. And apparently he did since we never saw him again. We also never heard of him again. He did not rejoin her when she was sent back to the family estate with her son. There was never any mention of him being killed or them getting a divorce/annulment. Yet in the end she married another man. I do wish they would have give that a little more thought and wrapped it up a little better.
Overall this was a fantastic movie that I would very much recommend. I saw a matinee but, would have been fine with paying full price to see it. It is worth the price of admission.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Atonement
While a good movie Atonement is not as good as I anticipated it would be. It just didn't have quite the emotional punch I thought it would have from the previews. The story itself was good although a bit choppy due to the manner in which it was put together.
They would show you basically the end of a scene and then back up and show you then entire scene from a different perspective. It made the story a little confusing at first. Once you got use to that it just made the movie a little weird in how it flowed and kind of slowed it down. To some extent I see why they did it the way they did but, for the most part I still feel like they could have done it differently and done a better job with it.
The movie is based on a book and normally that doesn't have an impact to me when seeing the movie. Generally I haven't read the book and the movie works as a movie. However, this time I really felt like there was a lot of stuff that was missing. There just seemed to be wholes in the story and things that I'm sure a little more detail could have really helpted the movie. The was very evident at the end of the movie. Which seemed to just come out of nowhere.
As for the acting. It was all good even though Keira Knightly and James McAoy really didn't seem to have that much to do. They did a great job with what little bit of emotion they did have to play with. And they did work well together. Even though I haven't seen many of the other nominated performances I do understand why they didn't get Oscar nominations. What I don't understand is how Saoirse Ronan got nominated for playing Keira's sister. There was nothing special or not worthy about the performance.
One thing I really liked about the overall presentation of the movie had to do with an interesting sound thing they did. You could probably say it was almost part of the score of the film. A big part of the story involves the little sisters imagination and her writing, which is done on a type writer. They used the sound typing to enhance the feeling of urgency of some of the scenes. When characters would be rushing places the key strokes would be used almost as the sounds of footsteps. I found that to a great addition to the movie.
Went to a matinee and that's what I'm comfortable having paid. I really don't think it is worth full price.
They would show you basically the end of a scene and then back up and show you then entire scene from a different perspective. It made the story a little confusing at first. Once you got use to that it just made the movie a little weird in how it flowed and kind of slowed it down. To some extent I see why they did it the way they did but, for the most part I still feel like they could have done it differently and done a better job with it.
The movie is based on a book and normally that doesn't have an impact to me when seeing the movie. Generally I haven't read the book and the movie works as a movie. However, this time I really felt like there was a lot of stuff that was missing. There just seemed to be wholes in the story and things that I'm sure a little more detail could have really helpted the movie. The was very evident at the end of the movie. Which seemed to just come out of nowhere.
As for the acting. It was all good even though Keira Knightly and James McAoy really didn't seem to have that much to do. They did a great job with what little bit of emotion they did have to play with. And they did work well together. Even though I haven't seen many of the other nominated performances I do understand why they didn't get Oscar nominations. What I don't understand is how Saoirse Ronan got nominated for playing Keira's sister. There was nothing special or not worthy about the performance.
One thing I really liked about the overall presentation of the movie had to do with an interesting sound thing they did. You could probably say it was almost part of the score of the film. A big part of the story involves the little sisters imagination and her writing, which is done on a type writer. They used the sound typing to enhance the feeling of urgency of some of the scenes. When characters would be rushing places the key strokes would be used almost as the sounds of footsteps. I found that to a great addition to the movie.
Went to a matinee and that's what I'm comfortable having paid. I really don't think it is worth full price.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
P.S. I Love You
Fantastic movie. It really is one of the best romantic comedies in awhile. Most of them this year have been rather flat but, this one isn't. Although it is more of a romantic dramedy. It is quite different story wise than anything that's come along in any genre lately. It's not nearly as formulated as you'd expect.
All the acting was quite good. The casting was excellent. I have to say while I like all of them I wasn't sure how well Hilary Swank, Lisa Kudrow, and Gina Gershon would work together. They worked excellently. At no point did I feel anyone was trying to steal a scene. My only casting issue was James Marsters. Luckily he wasn't in too much of the movie but, I still wish they would have found someone else for his part.
There was one really great dialogue moment but, very few people will probably get the joke. I am one of those people who got the joke and absolutely loved it. And no I'm not telling what it is because it'll ruin it for those who would get the joke.
I saw this at a matinee but, would have been perfectly happy paying full price for it. It's a great movie and I highly recommend it.
All the acting was quite good. The casting was excellent. I have to say while I like all of them I wasn't sure how well Hilary Swank, Lisa Kudrow, and Gina Gershon would work together. They worked excellently. At no point did I feel anyone was trying to steal a scene. My only casting issue was James Marsters. Luckily he wasn't in too much of the movie but, I still wish they would have found someone else for his part.
There was one really great dialogue moment but, very few people will probably get the joke. I am one of those people who got the joke and absolutely loved it. And no I'm not telling what it is because it'll ruin it for those who would get the joke.
I saw this at a matinee but, would have been perfectly happy paying full price for it. It's a great movie and I highly recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)