So here it is Oscar night and we all know what moment everyone is waiting for. As the other awards have passed and tonight has approached I have realized just how great a person Michelle Williams is.
As an actress I have never liked Michelle. She drove me nuts on Dawson's Creek. I found her performance in Brokeback Mountain to be overrated. And none of her other performances have impressed me. She always winds up in things I'm going to see so it's not like I go thinking this will be the performance that she proves something to me. She just ends up being there and never does anything for me.
However, over the last year as a person Michelle Williams has greatly impressed me. She could have used Heath's untimely death as some sort of attention grab. She could have played all kinds of sympathy cards and gotten attention and probably acting roles. However, she did nothing of the kind. She has been very silent choosing to focus on her daughter and avoid the spot light. Even as the nominations rolled in she stayed quiet. At any moment she could have stepped out and taken attention or asked to accept the awards. She again chose to stay out of the picture.
This to me speaks volumes about the kind of person and mother she is. If she had sought attention it would have eventually brought attention on Matilda. She has protected herself and her daughter and their privacy.
Whether someone is a good actress is entirely up to the individual viewing their roles. But, I don't think anyone can ever say Michelle Williams is anything other than a amazing person and a great mother, and that is far more important than what I or anyone else will ever think of her acting ability.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Rachel Getting Married
I really didn't have any expectations for this movie. Which is a good thing because I wasn't very impressed with the movie and if I had any expectations it would have been an even bigger disappointment.
Honestly all I really knew was the basic plot and that Anne Hathaway was in it. I somehow even managed to miss the fact that it was directed by Jonathan Demme.
I can not stand hand held "take you right into the middle" of it camera work. It always ends up taking me out of the story. When I walk around a room of people things are still people aren't bouncing around. Hand held camera work like they did in this movie kills the illusion.
As for the acting. Anne's performance was good but, there wasn't anything that great about it. Yes it was different from what she usually does but, I've seen better. Rent Havoc if you want to see what I'm talking about. The rest of the cast really wasn't that great.
And I know it's called Rachel Getting Married but, it was suppose to be about Anne's character getting out of rehab to go to the wedding and the wedding itself took over too much. It's like there wasn't enough of the of the main story to make a whole movie so they filled it with really annoying scenes involving the wedding. Those scenes ran way to long and really slowed down the movie.
Possible spoilers ahead:
One of the things that really bothered me about the movie was the fact that it left way too much stuff hanging. They explained how she killed her brother when she was 16 but, since that was what had cause her parents to split up you know it had been several years since that happened. But, they never explained why she ended up in rehab this time around.
The sisters best friend was annoying as hell. I could not figure out why she was constantly exacerbating the fights instead of trying to stop them. It seemed to me she would have wanted to do what she could to keep the fighting to a minimum and make sure her friend had a good wedding but, instead she took every opportunity to attack and make things worse.
I think the most powerful scene in the whole movie had to be when Kym and her mom got in a fight over why she left her in charge of her little brother when she knew how messed up she was. Wow that scene caught me so off guard. I did not see the physical part of it coming.
I saw a full price showing and it really wasn't worth it. Just wait for dvd.
Honestly all I really knew was the basic plot and that Anne Hathaway was in it. I somehow even managed to miss the fact that it was directed by Jonathan Demme.
I can not stand hand held "take you right into the middle" of it camera work. It always ends up taking me out of the story. When I walk around a room of people things are still people aren't bouncing around. Hand held camera work like they did in this movie kills the illusion.
As for the acting. Anne's performance was good but, there wasn't anything that great about it. Yes it was different from what she usually does but, I've seen better. Rent Havoc if you want to see what I'm talking about. The rest of the cast really wasn't that great.
And I know it's called Rachel Getting Married but, it was suppose to be about Anne's character getting out of rehab to go to the wedding and the wedding itself took over too much. It's like there wasn't enough of the of the main story to make a whole movie so they filled it with really annoying scenes involving the wedding. Those scenes ran way to long and really slowed down the movie.
Possible spoilers ahead:
One of the things that really bothered me about the movie was the fact that it left way too much stuff hanging. They explained how she killed her brother when she was 16 but, since that was what had cause her parents to split up you know it had been several years since that happened. But, they never explained why she ended up in rehab this time around.
The sisters best friend was annoying as hell. I could not figure out why she was constantly exacerbating the fights instead of trying to stop them. It seemed to me she would have wanted to do what she could to keep the fighting to a minimum and make sure her friend had a good wedding but, instead she took every opportunity to attack and make things worse.
I think the most powerful scene in the whole movie had to be when Kym and her mom got in a fight over why she left her in charge of her little brother when she knew how messed up she was. Wow that scene caught me so off guard. I did not see the physical part of it coming.
I saw a full price showing and it really wasn't worth it. Just wait for dvd.
Friday, February 13, 2009
He's Just Not That Into You
I'm just gonna tell you right off this is definitely a hit or miss movie with the audience. I don't think there is going to be a lot of middle ground with people. It's one of those either you like or you don't kind of movies. I liked it. It wasn't as consistently funny as I thought it would be but, it had some really funny moments.
All the performances in the film were good. For all the big name stars in the film I think it was a great move to give the true lead role to someone that people aren't as familiar with. She was very good in this role.
It's a tricky task to have interconnecting stories where the primary connection is more the overall theme of the story than anyone character. Meaning the actual character connections in this movie where very much a 6 degrees of separation kind of thing. But, in the end they actually pulled it off quite well.
The one thing I would have liked was to see a little more of the storyline for Drew Barrymore's character. In this day and age her character trying to negotiate the dating scene through all our various forms of communication technology is very spot on. It would have been nice to see a little more of her trying to figure out what's true and what's not in the cyber world.
Overall this is a pretty good movie. I know book was inspired by a line from an episode of Sex and the City but, this movie is actually put together very much like the series was. I think if you like the show you'll enjoy this movie.
I saw a matinee and honestly that's the perfect price. Good but, not quite good enough for the extra money for a night showing.
All the performances in the film were good. For all the big name stars in the film I think it was a great move to give the true lead role to someone that people aren't as familiar with. She was very good in this role.
It's a tricky task to have interconnecting stories where the primary connection is more the overall theme of the story than anyone character. Meaning the actual character connections in this movie where very much a 6 degrees of separation kind of thing. But, in the end they actually pulled it off quite well.
The one thing I would have liked was to see a little more of the storyline for Drew Barrymore's character. In this day and age her character trying to negotiate the dating scene through all our various forms of communication technology is very spot on. It would have been nice to see a little more of her trying to figure out what's true and what's not in the cyber world.
Overall this is a pretty good movie. I know book was inspired by a line from an episode of Sex and the City but, this movie is actually put together very much like the series was. I think if you like the show you'll enjoy this movie.
I saw a matinee and honestly that's the perfect price. Good but, not quite good enough for the extra money for a night showing.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The Reader
I had no idea what to expect from this movie. I didn't even know what it was about. Sometimes that can be a good thing and sometimes it can be a very bad thing. This was a good thing. Honestly I think if you were to read too much about The Reader it would ruin the whole movie.
I don't know that I would call it a suspense or thriller. At least not in the traditional sense of those genres. It does kind of keep you guessing as too what's going to happen next. However, it's not a who's the bad guy kind of suspense.
You really have to be careful with what you say or write about it because you don't want to give too much away. And you really don't want to give too much about the characters away.
It absolutely deserved all the Oscar nominations it received. The directing nomination is totally deserved. There is scene in the film that brought me personally a feeling I have never felt at a movie. And it brought an uneasy feeling to the entire theater. I have never in my life felt something like that in a room full of people.
Kate was amazing. It's one of those roles that if you think dialogue is the most important thing you won't understand why she was nominated. But, it's a role that is perfectly suited to Kate. She has always been an actress who gave so much more to her parts through her body than her voice and a lot of this movie is like that. It's really hard to say what her chances are come Oscar night.
If this role had been nominated in the supporting category like it was at the Golden Globes and the SAG awards I'd pretty much guarantee she would win. However, in the lead category I am a little worried. The only other nominated lead performance I have seen this year is Angelina Jolie in Changeling and that was a superb performance and a true leading role. Kate's role in The Reader is at times the leading role and at time the supporting role. It's a very hard movie to figure out because honestly you don't always know which character the movie is suppose to be about. She is most definitely the lead female in the movie so in the respect it fits in the lead category. Hopefully the voters will see it as a real lead performance and finally give her, her long over due Oscar.
I am going to skip any section that would include spoilers with this review. I don't want to risk anyone accidentally reading more than they mean to when they skim over it.
This movie will definitely challenge your thought process as to the good and bad in people in the world.
Went to a matinee showing but, it totally would have been worth full price.
I don't know that I would call it a suspense or thriller. At least not in the traditional sense of those genres. It does kind of keep you guessing as too what's going to happen next. However, it's not a who's the bad guy kind of suspense.
You really have to be careful with what you say or write about it because you don't want to give too much away. And you really don't want to give too much about the characters away.
It absolutely deserved all the Oscar nominations it received. The directing nomination is totally deserved. There is scene in the film that brought me personally a feeling I have never felt at a movie. And it brought an uneasy feeling to the entire theater. I have never in my life felt something like that in a room full of people.
Kate was amazing. It's one of those roles that if you think dialogue is the most important thing you won't understand why she was nominated. But, it's a role that is perfectly suited to Kate. She has always been an actress who gave so much more to her parts through her body than her voice and a lot of this movie is like that. It's really hard to say what her chances are come Oscar night.
If this role had been nominated in the supporting category like it was at the Golden Globes and the SAG awards I'd pretty much guarantee she would win. However, in the lead category I am a little worried. The only other nominated lead performance I have seen this year is Angelina Jolie in Changeling and that was a superb performance and a true leading role. Kate's role in The Reader is at times the leading role and at time the supporting role. It's a very hard movie to figure out because honestly you don't always know which character the movie is suppose to be about. She is most definitely the lead female in the movie so in the respect it fits in the lead category. Hopefully the voters will see it as a real lead performance and finally give her, her long over due Oscar.
I am going to skip any section that would include spoilers with this review. I don't want to risk anyone accidentally reading more than they mean to when they skim over it.
This movie will definitely challenge your thought process as to the good and bad in people in the world.
Went to a matinee showing but, it totally would have been worth full price.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Changling
Awhile ago I went to see Changling. What a good movie. Not that I thought it would be bad. I'm not a big fan of Clint Eastwood as an actor but, he is a very good director. And it wasn't just the directing that was good. The acting and writing were very good as well.
The story is very good and one that really deserved to be told. As much corruption as there is in some police departments today nothing compares to the old Los Angeles police department. I think what's most frightening about it was that even when caught red handed they still act like they did nothing wrong.
The other thing that sticks with me about this movie is how it shows that the truth will always be more surprising and almost unbelievable than fiction.
Spoilers Alert:
It's really amazing the lengths people will go to, to make themselves look good. Not only did the Los Angeles police department try to pass off one boy for another they got doctors to say some of the most insane things to try and explain the differences between the two. Like saying that stress had caused the boy to shrink. And that other things just pretty much magically disappeared.
I think the most disturbing thing about the police trying to cover their butts was how they just locked women up who made a fuss. And not with fabricated crimes and into jail cells but, on basically permanent psych holds. How frightening to think that a police department could just do that because they didn't want people making them look bad.
If this wasn't a true story the movie would have been panned by critics when the twist involving a serial killer came along. A man who uses a young boy to help him kidnap other boys and then just chops them to bits for the fun of it would seem like the lamest attempt to make a standard drama a suspense thriller.
Nor would anyone buy the ending where one of the other missing boys suddenly turns up if it hadn't actually happened.
Overall this was a very good movie. If it's still in theaters near you I'd highly recommend seeing it. And it is absolutely worth full price. If can't see it in theaters be sure to put it at the top of your to rent list.
The story is very good and one that really deserved to be told. As much corruption as there is in some police departments today nothing compares to the old Los Angeles police department. I think what's most frightening about it was that even when caught red handed they still act like they did nothing wrong.
The other thing that sticks with me about this movie is how it shows that the truth will always be more surprising and almost unbelievable than fiction.
Spoilers Alert:
It's really amazing the lengths people will go to, to make themselves look good. Not only did the Los Angeles police department try to pass off one boy for another they got doctors to say some of the most insane things to try and explain the differences between the two. Like saying that stress had caused the boy to shrink. And that other things just pretty much magically disappeared.
I think the most disturbing thing about the police trying to cover their butts was how they just locked women up who made a fuss. And not with fabricated crimes and into jail cells but, on basically permanent psych holds. How frightening to think that a police department could just do that because they didn't want people making them look bad.
If this wasn't a true story the movie would have been panned by critics when the twist involving a serial killer came along. A man who uses a young boy to help him kidnap other boys and then just chops them to bits for the fun of it would seem like the lamest attempt to make a standard drama a suspense thriller.
Nor would anyone buy the ending where one of the other missing boys suddenly turns up if it hadn't actually happened.
Overall this was a very good movie. If it's still in theaters near you I'd highly recommend seeing it. And it is absolutely worth full price. If can't see it in theaters be sure to put it at the top of your to rent list.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Women
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)