![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[According to a newspaper article I read this morning in the Metro - the tide has changed in California, 52% of the voters polled by telephone supported same-sex marriage opposed to 41% who still opposed it. So, yay! Our call in campaign worked! Although to the 41% that still opposes it? Apparently these people are a little backwards, so we need to be very patient with them, speak slowly, write at a third grade level and they might some day begin to understand a concept higher than tree pretty! fire bad! (smiles evilly)
Wales took pity on my music collection and lent me about ten CD's which I'm importing into my itunes library and onto my ipod, where I'll make little playlists for myself, assuming I can figure out how. Writing this while I'm doing that, more or less. Turns out do not have the patience to make playlists, so did a very lame job regarding it. But did import all the tunes - now have 18.5 hours of music to listen to, not that I will, but still... yay me.]
Saw two flicks this week that made me appreciate film editing, a craft that I tend to pooh-pooh most of the time. It's certainly something I've 0 patience for - scanning lots and lots of images and selecting the correct ones to place into a film. Film editing for the curious is basically what vidding is. People edit film images and creat videos from the sliced pieces of footage they have cobbled together from various sources - sort of like a multimedia collage. [Don't like vids very much, and rarely if ever watch them anymore, but won't annoy you with my reasons why, to each their own, after all. Are they permissible under copyright law? Like everything else - it depends on the vid. Most of the Buffy vids probably are not permissible under copyright law but Fox isn't doing anything, because the show is over and well who cares at this point. No one is making any money off of them. If you are? Go find a copyright attorney to advise you, otherwise, don't worry about it.]
Anyhow...the two films I saw this week could have used a really good editor. Sad really, considering who was behind the helm, Richard LaGravese and Stephen Spielberg/George Lucas, hardly amateurs in the film editing, production and direction department.
The first, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - suffered from choppy film editing, out of synch of special effects (which I'm guessing was a side-effect of the editing) and poor cinemagraphic direction. It did not help that the version we watched had two lines down the center throughout the first hour. Highly distracting, as you no doubt can imagine.
I'd read that George Lucas' goal with this entry in the Indiana saga, was to recreate the 1950's sci-fi adventure yarn, and being Lucas, he wanted to do a film that would have been seen in the 1950s. Not an updated version of the 1950's sci-fi yarn, but one that we would have seen back then. Complete with corny dialogue, Marlon Brandoish biker dudes, faded film stock, and communist/Russian paranoia. Don't know if you've seen any cheesy 1950s sci-fi films? I've seen quite a few, they used to be shown at 3:30-4pm on weekdays on the local UHF station when I was a kid or as the Saturday Afternoon movie. My best-friend at the time was a bit of a sci-fi/horror fan - we basically watched anything and everything sci-fi related at her house - this was before Star Wars, during the mid-1970s. Also, my grandfather was a huge fan of the genre. We even used to have a book listing all the sci-films that were made back then, they stopped somewhere around the mid-late 1970s, with Star Wars. Things tend to go in cycles.
The best of the bunch were: The Day the Earth Stood Still, Them (radiactive killer ants), some flick about a bunch of aliens landing and mind-controlling the populace, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the first film). I can't remember the rest off the top of my head.
All had one thing in common - our collective fear that someone was going to turn us into a group of mindless slaves, with no free will. A side-effect of the current paranoia of the time regarding communism. The enemy? The Russians. This was the age of Bullwinkle comics, and Boris and Natasha, Smersh, and well The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming. Anyone born after 1980 probably doesn't remember that the Soviet Union and the Russians used to be the enemy of the free world. Communism was the threat to end all threats. With the possible exception of nuclear war. We were terrified of nuclear war back then. We had bomb shelters.
And all the horror films up until around 1980 featured the effects of nuclear radiation.
Watching Indy, brought it all back to me. The film itself feels a bit like watching old recentaly cobbled together footage from that period. There's an opening bit with Indy caught at an atomic testing site, complete with a dummy suburbia that looks a bit like the set of Speilberg's Poltergeist. And the villianess, played by Cate Blanchett in a tight fitting grey uniform, with a short cropped black hair style, reminds me a bit of Natasha from Bullwinkle or one of the villians in a James Bond movie.
I'm not sure if this was all on purpose or not, choppy footage, faded stock, et all, if so, it will probably be hailed as brilliant by a film student somewhere down the line - much like THx - Lucas' first film was, but from a viewer's pov, I found it a tad on the distracting side and a bit annoying. The story was hard enough to follow without adding poor editing and out-of-synch special effects.
Note to all the future filmmakers/screen-writers out there - if it takes twenty minutes to explain your plot to the audience, more to the point if you have to explain it, then you may be doing something wrong. Exposition should not take more than five minutes of film time. Case in point - Raiders of the Lost Arc - the exposition/explaination of goal or object of the Raiders was explained in less than five minutes and done in a way that compelled you.
Wish I could say the same about Crystal Skull. Not only did the exposition take twenty minutes, it was repeated constantly, they had to keep trying to explain it, and each round it made less and less sense. The Skull - was either a conduit to controlling everyone's mind, a conduit to knowledge, proof of alien life, or all three. They weren't real clear what it was or what it did until the end. And by that time, you didn't care. It wasn't like Raiders or even Last Crusade - where you felt the warmth between the characters and a certain joy in the adventure, so much as being removed, as if you were watching an old 1950's movie that you remember liking, but aren't quite sure why. You appreciate it for what it is - an old 1950's sci-fi movie, and realize in that context, it's quite interesting, but it feels a bit dated and rusty. The characters are rusty too, Indy has gotten older, he's lost a lot in the intervening years and his existence as adventurer/professor has gotten old as well, it almost feels empty.
If you are at all fans of the first film, you will appreciate the shouts to it and to Last Crusade in this one. We actually visit the warehouse that the arc is housed. And most importantly, the old Indiana Jones/Marion Ravenwood romance is revisted. They fill in gaps between the time we last saw the couple and when they are reunited here. We don't get much, just a few quick lines here and there, but then the Indy films were never about relationships so much as the journey to obtain the mystical object. The relationships are there, but as in most boy action flicks, quickly skimmed over. This one actually spends more time on them than most.
Is it a good film? Not really, a bit on the clunky side to be honest. But it's not a bad one either, if you consider the overall intent, which was to recapture a piece of B film history and perhaps to some degree provide a bit of a homage to it, much like the 1930s adventure films that the previous Indiana Jones films were patterned after. Although, to be fair, it was probably far easier to reinvent the old 1930s adventure serial than the 1950s paranoia sci-fi film - considering that bit was more or less already done and done better, ironically so, by the very people involved with this endeavor.
The other film I saw this week, last night to be exact, I rented. It was PS: I Love You courtesy of netflix and because of the cast, all of whom I happen to enjoy as actors.
You know somethings off when you enjoy the deleted scenes more than the movie and find yourself wanting more of them. Why they deleted certain scenes and left others, I've no idea. They don't provide an explanation on the extras. Except that the deleted scenes provided me with more background on the other characters and through them a bit more of an understanding of the lead protagonist and her plight. Without these scenes, the film feels a tad hollow and the lead a bit too self-indulgent and a tad too self-absorbed, even before she loses the man of her dreams to a brain-tumor.
I think the problem lies in the direction and editing. The script wasn't great but I'm not sure how much of it was edited out. After watching the deleted scenes, I felt a great deal of sympathy for the actors, who'd worked their buts off, only to have most of their hard work end up on the cutting room floor. Goes to show you - film is not an actors medium, it's an editors. Next time you see a horrid tv episode or movie? Blame whomever was in the editing room.
The story unlike Indiana Jones is fairly simple. A woman loses her husband to a brain tumor and spends the next year, with the help of their friends and family, greiving his loss and eventually getting past it. She is enabled by her dead husband, who spent his remaining hours writing a series of letters to his wife to be delivered mysteriously to her once he was gone, as a sort of pro-longed goodbye. It is based on a book of the same name. Haven't read the book, but I hope it spent more time developing the relationships with the friends and family than the film did. The film felt like one long-winded romantic music montage, much like those montages you get during tv shows to say goodbye to a beloved character who has just died. Here we get flashbacks of their tumbles in bed, a bad karakoke night, a couple of fights, and when they first met at a pub and on a deserted road in Ireland. Each scene is suitably romantic, but doesn't really tell us anything new about the two characters or their relationship. Or why they are friends with the other characters. Or why they fell in love.
Too much time is spent showing us pretty pictures - of Ireland, of the change of seasons, of Holly, the lead, wandering about either Ireland or NYC. A lot of pointless group party scenes, where Holly gets drunk or has chats with her mother's bartender. But the substantial stuff seems to be missing, so as a result, the film lacks emotional weight. It was hard to care about these people. So much so that when they reveal who was helping Holly's dead husband send the letters, you don't really care that much. It doesn't come as a big shock and you don't feel the character's epiphany.
I felt as if the director and editors were more interested in providing a slide show of pictures, than a story. That said, there are two bits worth viewing - a scene of three women stuck in a fishing boat in the middle of Ireland, and a few clever bits with Harry Connick, Jr's bartender. Lisa Kudrow also has a few choice scenes and a nice little exchange with James Marsters - John, the dead-guy's best friend, in a pub. But they are so brief, if you blink, you'll miss them.
If you are a huge fan of Kathy Bates, Lisa Kudrow or James Marsters - skip the film and go to the deleted scenes - each have at least one good scene in that section. Gina Gershon doesn't have much to do. Gerald Butler looks pretty except for a somewhat funny/tragic bit he has in one of the deleted scenes, which was actually the most interesting bit he had in the film and explains why Holly fell in love with him and John put up with Holly on his behalf. Jeffrey Dean Morgan - just is there to look pretty, I think.
Overall? It felt like watching one of those Hallmark Card Commericials, except with less story and more video montages, which is fine if you like those sort of things.
Wales took pity on my music collection and lent me about ten CD's which I'm importing into my itunes library and onto my ipod, where I'll make little playlists for myself, assuming I can figure out how. Writing this while I'm doing that, more or less. Turns out do not have the patience to make playlists, so did a very lame job regarding it. But did import all the tunes - now have 18.5 hours of music to listen to, not that I will, but still... yay me.]
Saw two flicks this week that made me appreciate film editing, a craft that I tend to pooh-pooh most of the time. It's certainly something I've 0 patience for - scanning lots and lots of images and selecting the correct ones to place into a film. Film editing for the curious is basically what vidding is. People edit film images and creat videos from the sliced pieces of footage they have cobbled together from various sources - sort of like a multimedia collage. [Don't like vids very much, and rarely if ever watch them anymore, but won't annoy you with my reasons why, to each their own, after all. Are they permissible under copyright law? Like everything else - it depends on the vid. Most of the Buffy vids probably are not permissible under copyright law but Fox isn't doing anything, because the show is over and well who cares at this point. No one is making any money off of them. If you are? Go find a copyright attorney to advise you, otherwise, don't worry about it.]
Anyhow...the two films I saw this week could have used a really good editor. Sad really, considering who was behind the helm, Richard LaGravese and Stephen Spielberg/George Lucas, hardly amateurs in the film editing, production and direction department.
The first, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - suffered from choppy film editing, out of synch of special effects (which I'm guessing was a side-effect of the editing) and poor cinemagraphic direction. It did not help that the version we watched had two lines down the center throughout the first hour. Highly distracting, as you no doubt can imagine.
I'd read that George Lucas' goal with this entry in the Indiana saga, was to recreate the 1950's sci-fi adventure yarn, and being Lucas, he wanted to do a film that would have been seen in the 1950s. Not an updated version of the 1950's sci-fi yarn, but one that we would have seen back then. Complete with corny dialogue, Marlon Brandoish biker dudes, faded film stock, and communist/Russian paranoia. Don't know if you've seen any cheesy 1950s sci-fi films? I've seen quite a few, they used to be shown at 3:30-4pm on weekdays on the local UHF station when I was a kid or as the Saturday Afternoon movie. My best-friend at the time was a bit of a sci-fi/horror fan - we basically watched anything and everything sci-fi related at her house - this was before Star Wars, during the mid-1970s. Also, my grandfather was a huge fan of the genre. We even used to have a book listing all the sci-films that were made back then, they stopped somewhere around the mid-late 1970s, with Star Wars. Things tend to go in cycles.
The best of the bunch were: The Day the Earth Stood Still, Them (radiactive killer ants), some flick about a bunch of aliens landing and mind-controlling the populace, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the first film). I can't remember the rest off the top of my head.
All had one thing in common - our collective fear that someone was going to turn us into a group of mindless slaves, with no free will. A side-effect of the current paranoia of the time regarding communism. The enemy? The Russians. This was the age of Bullwinkle comics, and Boris and Natasha, Smersh, and well The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming. Anyone born after 1980 probably doesn't remember that the Soviet Union and the Russians used to be the enemy of the free world. Communism was the threat to end all threats. With the possible exception of nuclear war. We were terrified of nuclear war back then. We had bomb shelters.
And all the horror films up until around 1980 featured the effects of nuclear radiation.
Watching Indy, brought it all back to me. The film itself feels a bit like watching old recentaly cobbled together footage from that period. There's an opening bit with Indy caught at an atomic testing site, complete with a dummy suburbia that looks a bit like the set of Speilberg's Poltergeist. And the villianess, played by Cate Blanchett in a tight fitting grey uniform, with a short cropped black hair style, reminds me a bit of Natasha from Bullwinkle or one of the villians in a James Bond movie.
I'm not sure if this was all on purpose or not, choppy footage, faded stock, et all, if so, it will probably be hailed as brilliant by a film student somewhere down the line - much like THx - Lucas' first film was, but from a viewer's pov, I found it a tad on the distracting side and a bit annoying. The story was hard enough to follow without adding poor editing and out-of-synch special effects.
Note to all the future filmmakers/screen-writers out there - if it takes twenty minutes to explain your plot to the audience, more to the point if you have to explain it, then you may be doing something wrong. Exposition should not take more than five minutes of film time. Case in point - Raiders of the Lost Arc - the exposition/explaination of goal or object of the Raiders was explained in less than five minutes and done in a way that compelled you.
Wish I could say the same about Crystal Skull. Not only did the exposition take twenty minutes, it was repeated constantly, they had to keep trying to explain it, and each round it made less and less sense. The Skull - was either a conduit to controlling everyone's mind, a conduit to knowledge, proof of alien life, or all three. They weren't real clear what it was or what it did until the end. And by that time, you didn't care. It wasn't like Raiders or even Last Crusade - where you felt the warmth between the characters and a certain joy in the adventure, so much as being removed, as if you were watching an old 1950's movie that you remember liking, but aren't quite sure why. You appreciate it for what it is - an old 1950's sci-fi movie, and realize in that context, it's quite interesting, but it feels a bit dated and rusty. The characters are rusty too, Indy has gotten older, he's lost a lot in the intervening years and his existence as adventurer/professor has gotten old as well, it almost feels empty.
If you are at all fans of the first film, you will appreciate the shouts to it and to Last Crusade in this one. We actually visit the warehouse that the arc is housed. And most importantly, the old Indiana Jones/Marion Ravenwood romance is revisted. They fill in gaps between the time we last saw the couple and when they are reunited here. We don't get much, just a few quick lines here and there, but then the Indy films were never about relationships so much as the journey to obtain the mystical object. The relationships are there, but as in most boy action flicks, quickly skimmed over. This one actually spends more time on them than most.
Is it a good film? Not really, a bit on the clunky side to be honest. But it's not a bad one either, if you consider the overall intent, which was to recapture a piece of B film history and perhaps to some degree provide a bit of a homage to it, much like the 1930s adventure films that the previous Indiana Jones films were patterned after. Although, to be fair, it was probably far easier to reinvent the old 1930s adventure serial than the 1950s paranoia sci-fi film - considering that bit was more or less already done and done better, ironically so, by the very people involved with this endeavor.
The other film I saw this week, last night to be exact, I rented. It was PS: I Love You courtesy of netflix and because of the cast, all of whom I happen to enjoy as actors.
You know somethings off when you enjoy the deleted scenes more than the movie and find yourself wanting more of them. Why they deleted certain scenes and left others, I've no idea. They don't provide an explanation on the extras. Except that the deleted scenes provided me with more background on the other characters and through them a bit more of an understanding of the lead protagonist and her plight. Without these scenes, the film feels a tad hollow and the lead a bit too self-indulgent and a tad too self-absorbed, even before she loses the man of her dreams to a brain-tumor.
I think the problem lies in the direction and editing. The script wasn't great but I'm not sure how much of it was edited out. After watching the deleted scenes, I felt a great deal of sympathy for the actors, who'd worked their buts off, only to have most of their hard work end up on the cutting room floor. Goes to show you - film is not an actors medium, it's an editors. Next time you see a horrid tv episode or movie? Blame whomever was in the editing room.
The story unlike Indiana Jones is fairly simple. A woman loses her husband to a brain tumor and spends the next year, with the help of their friends and family, greiving his loss and eventually getting past it. She is enabled by her dead husband, who spent his remaining hours writing a series of letters to his wife to be delivered mysteriously to her once he was gone, as a sort of pro-longed goodbye. It is based on a book of the same name. Haven't read the book, but I hope it spent more time developing the relationships with the friends and family than the film did. The film felt like one long-winded romantic music montage, much like those montages you get during tv shows to say goodbye to a beloved character who has just died. Here we get flashbacks of their tumbles in bed, a bad karakoke night, a couple of fights, and when they first met at a pub and on a deserted road in Ireland. Each scene is suitably romantic, but doesn't really tell us anything new about the two characters or their relationship. Or why they are friends with the other characters. Or why they fell in love.
Too much time is spent showing us pretty pictures - of Ireland, of the change of seasons, of Holly, the lead, wandering about either Ireland or NYC. A lot of pointless group party scenes, where Holly gets drunk or has chats with her mother's bartender. But the substantial stuff seems to be missing, so as a result, the film lacks emotional weight. It was hard to care about these people. So much so that when they reveal who was helping Holly's dead husband send the letters, you don't really care that much. It doesn't come as a big shock and you don't feel the character's epiphany.
I felt as if the director and editors were more interested in providing a slide show of pictures, than a story. That said, there are two bits worth viewing - a scene of three women stuck in a fishing boat in the middle of Ireland, and a few clever bits with Harry Connick, Jr's bartender. Lisa Kudrow also has a few choice scenes and a nice little exchange with James Marsters - John, the dead-guy's best friend, in a pub. But they are so brief, if you blink, you'll miss them.
If you are a huge fan of Kathy Bates, Lisa Kudrow or James Marsters - skip the film and go to the deleted scenes - each have at least one good scene in that section. Gina Gershon doesn't have much to do. Gerald Butler looks pretty except for a somewhat funny/tragic bit he has in one of the deleted scenes, which was actually the most interesting bit he had in the film and explains why Holly fell in love with him and John put up with Holly on his behalf. Jeffrey Dean Morgan - just is there to look pretty, I think.
Overall? It felt like watching one of those Hallmark Card Commericials, except with less story and more video montages, which is fine if you like those sort of things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-30 03:38 am (UTC)I heard from my brother that the new Indiana Jones was good, and then I read the terrible review in the New Yorker... so I haven't known what to think. And I can't say that you're review really made it clear whether I should take the time to see the film in the theater or not. I'm starting to think that I'll skip it and catch it on DVD.
It is hard for me to get that excited about any films these days.... All my rental queue consists of BBC Mysteries these day, and even those aren't things that I'm wild about (I'm never going to buy those DVDs).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 12:28 am (UTC)Lately I just want mindless fun films that don't make me think too hard and I can just float along with...same deal with books.
I've stopped buying DVD's for a lot of reasons, mainly: 1) I have no time to watch the ones I have and am watching them collect dust as we speak, 2) Blue-Ray is about to do to the DVD player, what the DVD player did to VHS (damn it), 3) Am saving my money ..4) Discovered that I don't tend to re-watch tv shows or movies that much, plus if I do want to rewatch - can always grab via netflix.
Netflix is great for me, because the warehouse is basically in my area - so they get my film and send me a new one within two days at the most. I just sent PS in on Thurs for example and The Savages is due to arrive on Sat.
My netflix rental queue has over 354 films/tv shows in it. I just keep adding stuff. And at a rate of one film every two weeks, it may take me five years to make it through it. Next up is S3 of Weeds, then Persepolis, then
Seeker: The Dark is Rising, then Southland Tales, then I think, The Kite Runner...
I'd be bored too if it was all BBC Mysteries...got burned out on those ages ago, don't know how people watch them - they are all so predictable. I do have a bunch of BBC Masterpiece Theater shows saved on the DVR that I have yet to get around to, along with Doctor Who, BSG, Medium, Lost, and Moonlight...hee.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 02:36 am (UTC)I'll predict that you'll be happy w/your DVR's episodes of Doctor Who, BSG, Medium, and Lost (even I was loving the Lost finale)... but Moonlight was a disappointment IMO. I hope you'll post about one or all of those after you've watched them! Oh and set your DVR, more Doctor Who is on tonight! Yay!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 04:14 pm (UTC)Your obsession with Lord Peter doesn't shock me. I've done some of the same things, just for different shows, books and films. We all have our fetishes I think. Which are impossible to explain to others - because in order to understand them, the other person would have to know things about us that we couldn't possibly begin to tell them even if we were in oversharing mode.
By the way, you can write fanfic about Lord Peter regardless of whether or not it is in public domain. As long as you aren't making money off of it, no one cares. Rowlings didn't care what the Harry Potter fans were doing as long as they weren't trying to make a profit off her work. And, under copyright law? Writing fanfic is actually more permissible than the icons you've made and the vids and the banner and background wallpaper. It's less a violation to write a fantasy about Lord Peter Whimsey than it is to post the icon you have above. If copyright law doesn't stop you from posting icons and linking to vids, why does it prevent you from writing fanfic? (Never understood that.)
Saw all the BSG episodes (five total) up until next week's.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 05:42 pm (UTC)Well, to be honest, my using the term 'fan fiction' was a misnomer. Decades ago I had gone through all of the Wimsey novels pulling out all personal information of his family and (most particularly) his love life. My plan was to write a Kitty Kelly style 'tell all' unauthorized biography, and if I ever actually followed through to do that then I would definitely look for a publisher. I don't think I ever will do it, but I do believe it would be legal if I did (of course I wouldn't know if there would be a market for it unless I managed to weave in an original mystery).
I agree that fan fic on works which are not in the public domain are just as acceptable (or more so, because they frequently involve a lot ore individual creativity) as icons, and other fan artwork. I know that it would be unlawful to try to sell anything like that, and probably just putting them up for public view is objectionable to some copyright/trademark owners (I do think that most see them as free advertising).
no subject
Date: 2008-06-01 04:32 am (UTC)On the other hand, I noticed that most of the websites that got kicked by Fox posted the following:
photos,
images from the show
videos
teleplays and scripts from the show
spoilers
They were allowed to keep fanfic, but were told to take down all photographs, images, and scripts that were directly from the show.
This happened mainly during seasons 6 and 7, when people were taking photos of Willow as DarthWillow prior to Tara's death, and posting them on the internet. I can see why they cared about that. It happened once or twice after the show left the airwaves, but rarely. Now? I don't think they care. IF they did, most of the vids on youtube, not to mention quite a few websites I know about would be gone.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-01 03:18 pm (UTC)Of course not all of my icons are illegal (I'm sure this one I made is fine), but once you got rid of all the copyright/trademarked images I think I would have fewer than half of what I currently use.
I remember when Fox was enforcing, back when Buffy was on the air, and I hadn't realized that it was mostly death to spoilers.... The sites I frequented banned spoilers anyway, but they were frightened into only using images that were taken by board members (photos taken at conventions and concerts).
But it is hard to stop people from doing things, pretty much they find a way around it.... Cafe press won't sell t-shirts with copyright/trademarked images, but it doesn't prevent me from making my own iron-on t-shirts (for my own use) with those same images. And you would be shocked by how openly some youtube sites display the illegal content they run (well, at least I'm shocked, but I'm happy to watch). I mean... just look at this site:
http://uk.youtube.com/user/rootforum1
Can you BE more obvious? And yet they've been up and running unmolested for months.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-01 04:57 pm (UTC)The internet is a great lesson, I think, in the complexity of group dynamics and social interaction. Not to mention the complexity of human nature.
I don't think the internet can be tamed. And I'm incredibly glad I changed careers and no longer have to worry about it. I do not envy the people who do.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 12:32 am (UTC)If you did not like Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade - you will not enjoy this movie. It has more or less the same dynamic as that one did - old guy/young guy buddy movie - with a heavy emphasis on father issues. Actually Indiana Jones and Last Crusade was a far better movie, better action scenes, acting, dialogue, and goal.
I suggest renting it from netflix, don't waste your money and time on it in the movie theater.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 04:24 pm (UTC)For example - I remember being annoyed that Juno got nominated for Oscar. Sure it was a good movie. But I'd seen ten films that year that made Juno look like a made-for tv Lifetime flick in comparison. Same with Elizabeth the Golden Age - why Cate Blanchett got nominated over Nicole Kidman in Margot at the Wedding, I've no idea.
There's a lot of movies made each year. Blockbusters are pretty much fun B movies.
You enjoy them, forget them two weeks later. And they populate the summer months when we just want mindless fun.
Spoke to a woman at the Indy flick, in which she said she just wanted mindless fun - which was what I wanted. It was fun.
And it was mindless. I just wish the film stock was better - I think it may have been the theater I'd gone to.
At any rate - if you just see Blockbusters, you're going to be disappointed.
I've got The Savages coming to me shortly. And really looking forward to the French flick Persepolis. Also looking forward to the Dark Knight, Mama Mia,
Sex in the City. There's also The Visitor - which I haven't been in the mood for, but may rent. Smart People - a friend really enjoyed - so definite rental.
It's like my mother who tells me nothing is on tv. Hee. Wish that were true. I don't have time to watch all the things that are on tv.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-30 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 12:40 am (UTC)Some even made fun of it. All the James Bond films seemed to - SMERSH? Don't remember many sci-fi or James Bond or spy thrillers using nazis after a certain point. Spoke to my Dad about it tonight and he more or less said the same thing - back then, Russians made great villians. Sort of like Terrorists make great villians now. We always pick what we're most scared of at the time.