Snippet Movie Reviews...
Jan. 6th, 2010 09:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAm tempted to do a poll on Avatar to see a)how many people have seen it, b) how many actually like it, c) how many hate it, d) and how many don't care and won't see it.
I really can't tell if people like the thing or not. At the moment the consensus seems to be pretty much what one of my cousins posted in Facebook:
"Avatar spectacularly brilliant, but it does make you appreciate the work George Lucas put into a backstory in the Star Wars epics."
(Uh. Okay. In other words, visually great, but you really really don't want to read the book.
James Cameron reminds some novelists - great at the descriptive prose or describing the setting in detail, but truly sucks at the whole nuanced character development/plotting bit.)
I have not seen Avatar, in case you are wondering. Not really sure I want to. Came close a couple of times - during Xmas, but we opted for a nature walk, walk on the beach and a nice lunch instead, and last Friday (New Years Day), but I decided Sherlock Holmes would be more fun. (It was fun. Nothing deep or memorable, but if you adore Robert Downey Jr and the tv show House, specifically the House/Wilson relationship, you will be suitably entertained. If you require a movie to shake your world, be brainy, or provide a full course meal? You'll probably hate it. Keep in mind, a lot of people have tough brainy day jobs, they need pure escapism at the movies...no brain required. Which may explain the phenomenal success of Avatar which beat out Transformers Sequel as the biggest hit, wait, maybe not - since Tranformers Sequel was last year's box office hit. Trust me when I say, Transformers makes Sherlock Holmes look like Shakespeare in comparison. ) May still see Avatar, am admittedly curious - but not sure I'm willing to sit for three hours in a crowded noisy movie theater for curiousity's sake.
Movies I've seen in the past month. (I'd do the bullet thing, but I've no idea how.)
1. Julie and Julia, starring Meryl Streep, Stanley Tucci, and Amy Adams, directed by Nora Ephron, based on the books by Julia Child and Julie Bowen. I guess it's saying something that the flick made me want to read Julia Child's book about her time in France, but to completely skip Julie Bowen's about blogging about trying all of Child's recipes. Will state there were two comments by Bowen that I identified with: 1)Is it normal to hate one's friends? And what does that say about me? (Yes, Sex in the City may look like fun, but in reality those gals are not nice.) 2)I got comments on my blog! Look 51! And they are sending me prezzies??? Cool! (But when she got pulled into her bosses office for writing about work on her public blog and scolded by her hubby...I said aloud, see "that" is the reason you use a pseudonyme and post on a site that provides the ability to privatize or lock posts! Or never ever write about things that you wouldn't care that your boss, friends or family read.)
Other than that...I preferred the Julia bits. Julie Bowen was boring. The air got sucked out of the film whenever she appeared.
2. Coraline - directed by Henry Salik, based on the Children's book by Neil Gaiman.
In the same stop-action animation as Nightmare Before Xmas. Was quite innovative in some places. But I was disappointed. I expected to be better. Will state the plot was typical Gaiman - about a dream that turns into a horrible nightmare. But I rather liked MirrorMask better. That said - there were some amazing bits - such as how the parents are represented in the alternate universe. The mother was spiderish. The father - made me think of a pumpkin ballon. Gaiman has a thing about spiders...they keep appearing, metaphorically speaking, in his stories.
3. The Incredible Hulk - this is the one with Edward Norton, William Hurt, Liv Tyler,
and Tim Roth. I enjoyed this a lot more than I expected. Possibly because of Edward Norton - who is one of those actors that I'd watch read the phone book. He provides Banner with a complexity that Eric Bana never quite got in Ang Lee's version. Banner is a sort of milequtoasty scientist, slight, the guy you'd never expect could hurt you. He is actually a lot like the character that Norton played in Fight Club - the quintessential Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde story. So Norton has done it before. Personally, I think Fight Club was better, but Fight Club was a different story, so not comparable. I also preferred Liv Tyler in the Betty role over Jennifer Connolly - who is almost too pretty for the part. I found Tyler more believable and less damsely. Visually - Lee's version is better. Script/Acting wise - this one is better. Neither are great. Mileage varies of course. But I did fall a bit in love with Norton's take.
4.Frost/Nixon by Ron Howard, starring Michael Sheen and Frank Langella - who basically deserved every award and bit of praise they got. The film is Sheen and Langella's - who manage to convey a level of complexity to both their characters that I'm not sure is visible in the real interviews. Meryl Streep stated during her presentation on Robert Deniro at the Kennedy Center Honors - that acting is about finding a way to reach into the soul of another being and conveying who they are, someone different from yourself. And yes, the details, matter. It is the details that distinguish a good actor from a great one. She told a story about Deniro preparing for a part, he tried on several jackets in ward-robe, zipping them up, taking a long time selecting the right one. Finally he picked a drab brown jacket - which fit his character perfectly. Langella and Sheen make similar choices. They disappear into these roles. I found myself impressed and surprised by Frost/Nixon. It was far better than expected.
I was riveted by the by-play between Frost and Nixon. I actually felt sympathy for, and disgust for both men. They flip. You start out rooting for Frost, then switch and find yourself feeling for Nixon - an intelligent man, defeated by his own desire for power and insecurities. A human portrayal - one I've rarely seen...done on Nixon, where it is often to easy to fall into characiture.
5. Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams - and directed by Guy Ritchie who specializes in an action/crime genre known as steam-punk. If you don't like Guy Ritchie films, such as Rock Sock Em and Two Smoking Barrels (I think that's what it was called) -- where you cut slow-mo fight scenes, slash cut in an odd freeze frame, then shown in real time (reminds me a bit of Sam Peckinpah and the spaghetti western violence), you won't like this. I rather enjoy Guy Ritchie and steam punk, so I had fun. And it is just that - a fun flick, with enough clever dialogue to keep me entertained.
Downey Jr - got across the same level of vulnerability, egoism, and brilliance that Hugh Laurie does each week as House. I rather enjoyed it. It's not Shakespeare, but it didn't bore me, and to be honest, Shakespeare occassionally does. Jude Law as good as Watson. Rachel McAdams held her own as Irene Adler - a con artist that wins Holmes heart. And Downey Jr was a joy to watch. (But I'd watch Downey Jr read the phone book.) The only weak link may have been the villian, who could have been better. But outside of that, it was fun - like a roller-coaster ride. I'd ride or rather watch it again.
6. On the Waterfront - starring Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden, Rod Steiger, and Lee J. Cobb, directed by Eli Kazzan. Amazing film. It still haunts me. And considering how many movies I've seen that I've forgotten that says something. Of the films listed above, I'd say it is the best. Subtle, nuanced, film-making. You fall in love with Brando. And the story resonates even today, decades and decades later. It's been quoted quite a bit over the years..."I could a been a contender". And until you see the speech in context, it makes little real sense. One of those classic films that you should see before you die.
I really can't tell if people like the thing or not. At the moment the consensus seems to be pretty much what one of my cousins posted in Facebook:
"Avatar spectacularly brilliant, but it does make you appreciate the work George Lucas put into a backstory in the Star Wars epics."
(Uh. Okay. In other words, visually great, but you really really don't want to read the book.
James Cameron reminds some novelists - great at the descriptive prose or describing the setting in detail, but truly sucks at the whole nuanced character development/plotting bit.)
I have not seen Avatar, in case you are wondering. Not really sure I want to. Came close a couple of times - during Xmas, but we opted for a nature walk, walk on the beach and a nice lunch instead, and last Friday (New Years Day), but I decided Sherlock Holmes would be more fun. (It was fun. Nothing deep or memorable, but if you adore Robert Downey Jr and the tv show House, specifically the House/Wilson relationship, you will be suitably entertained. If you require a movie to shake your world, be brainy, or provide a full course meal? You'll probably hate it. Keep in mind, a lot of people have tough brainy day jobs, they need pure escapism at the movies...no brain required. Which may explain the phenomenal success of Avatar which beat out Transformers Sequel as the biggest hit, wait, maybe not - since Tranformers Sequel was last year's box office hit. Trust me when I say, Transformers makes Sherlock Holmes look like Shakespeare in comparison. ) May still see Avatar, am admittedly curious - but not sure I'm willing to sit for three hours in a crowded noisy movie theater for curiousity's sake.
Movies I've seen in the past month. (I'd do the bullet thing, but I've no idea how.)
1. Julie and Julia, starring Meryl Streep, Stanley Tucci, and Amy Adams, directed by Nora Ephron, based on the books by Julia Child and Julie Bowen. I guess it's saying something that the flick made me want to read Julia Child's book about her time in France, but to completely skip Julie Bowen's about blogging about trying all of Child's recipes. Will state there were two comments by Bowen that I identified with: 1)Is it normal to hate one's friends? And what does that say about me? (Yes, Sex in the City may look like fun, but in reality those gals are not nice.) 2)I got comments on my blog! Look 51! And they are sending me prezzies??? Cool! (But when she got pulled into her bosses office for writing about work on her public blog and scolded by her hubby...I said aloud, see "that" is the reason you use a pseudonyme and post on a site that provides the ability to privatize or lock posts! Or never ever write about things that you wouldn't care that your boss, friends or family read.)
Other than that...I preferred the Julia bits. Julie Bowen was boring. The air got sucked out of the film whenever she appeared.
2. Coraline - directed by Henry Salik, based on the Children's book by Neil Gaiman.
In the same stop-action animation as Nightmare Before Xmas. Was quite innovative in some places. But I was disappointed. I expected to be better. Will state the plot was typical Gaiman - about a dream that turns into a horrible nightmare. But I rather liked MirrorMask better. That said - there were some amazing bits - such as how the parents are represented in the alternate universe. The mother was spiderish. The father - made me think of a pumpkin ballon. Gaiman has a thing about spiders...they keep appearing, metaphorically speaking, in his stories.
3. The Incredible Hulk - this is the one with Edward Norton, William Hurt, Liv Tyler,
and Tim Roth. I enjoyed this a lot more than I expected. Possibly because of Edward Norton - who is one of those actors that I'd watch read the phone book. He provides Banner with a complexity that Eric Bana never quite got in Ang Lee's version. Banner is a sort of milequtoasty scientist, slight, the guy you'd never expect could hurt you. He is actually a lot like the character that Norton played in Fight Club - the quintessential Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde story. So Norton has done it before. Personally, I think Fight Club was better, but Fight Club was a different story, so not comparable. I also preferred Liv Tyler in the Betty role over Jennifer Connolly - who is almost too pretty for the part. I found Tyler more believable and less damsely. Visually - Lee's version is better. Script/Acting wise - this one is better. Neither are great. Mileage varies of course. But I did fall a bit in love with Norton's take.
4.Frost/Nixon by Ron Howard, starring Michael Sheen and Frank Langella - who basically deserved every award and bit of praise they got. The film is Sheen and Langella's - who manage to convey a level of complexity to both their characters that I'm not sure is visible in the real interviews. Meryl Streep stated during her presentation on Robert Deniro at the Kennedy Center Honors - that acting is about finding a way to reach into the soul of another being and conveying who they are, someone different from yourself. And yes, the details, matter. It is the details that distinguish a good actor from a great one. She told a story about Deniro preparing for a part, he tried on several jackets in ward-robe, zipping them up, taking a long time selecting the right one. Finally he picked a drab brown jacket - which fit his character perfectly. Langella and Sheen make similar choices. They disappear into these roles. I found myself impressed and surprised by Frost/Nixon. It was far better than expected.
I was riveted by the by-play between Frost and Nixon. I actually felt sympathy for, and disgust for both men. They flip. You start out rooting for Frost, then switch and find yourself feeling for Nixon - an intelligent man, defeated by his own desire for power and insecurities. A human portrayal - one I've rarely seen...done on Nixon, where it is often to easy to fall into characiture.
5. Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams - and directed by Guy Ritchie who specializes in an action/crime genre known as steam-punk. If you don't like Guy Ritchie films, such as Rock Sock Em and Two Smoking Barrels (I think that's what it was called) -- where you cut slow-mo fight scenes, slash cut in an odd freeze frame, then shown in real time (reminds me a bit of Sam Peckinpah and the spaghetti western violence), you won't like this. I rather enjoy Guy Ritchie and steam punk, so I had fun. And it is just that - a fun flick, with enough clever dialogue to keep me entertained.
Downey Jr - got across the same level of vulnerability, egoism, and brilliance that Hugh Laurie does each week as House. I rather enjoyed it. It's not Shakespeare, but it didn't bore me, and to be honest, Shakespeare occassionally does. Jude Law as good as Watson. Rachel McAdams held her own as Irene Adler - a con artist that wins Holmes heart. And Downey Jr was a joy to watch. (But I'd watch Downey Jr read the phone book.) The only weak link may have been the villian, who could have been better. But outside of that, it was fun - like a roller-coaster ride. I'd ride or rather watch it again.
6. On the Waterfront - starring Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden, Rod Steiger, and Lee J. Cobb, directed by Eli Kazzan. Amazing film. It still haunts me. And considering how many movies I've seen that I've forgotten that says something. Of the films listed above, I'd say it is the best. Subtle, nuanced, film-making. You fall in love with Brando. And the story resonates even today, decades and decades later. It's been quoted quite a bit over the years..."I could a been a contender". And until you see the speech in context, it makes little real sense. One of those classic films that you should see before you die.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 09:34 am (UTC)I'm deffinitely going to see Sherlock Holmes as soon as possible.
And Avatar was pretty much exactly how you described it, visually great, plotwise so that I've seen the same thing done over and over and often better.