Avatar 3.5/4 stars
This is the first 3D movie I haven't felt scammed by. I don't know if the 3D made the movie better, but it certainly didn't distract me like other 3D movies (see review on Harry Potter 6!). But one thing is for sure, the special effects and visual landscape of this movie were absolutely outstanding.
A lot of viewers have commented that the plot is weak. I had no problem with the story. It was was pretty much Pocahontas set in the future. Its not the story that is weak; it is the dialogue. There were way too many one-liners tossed out by the cast. These zingers reminded me that I was watching a movie and took me out of the land of Pandora. But in the end, the visual effects single-handedly carry the movie. If you enjoyed the remake of King Kong, then you will enjoy Avatar.
One other note: Did anyone else find it hilarious when the robot pulled a knife out of his sheath?
Sherlock Holmes 3.5/4 stars
The newest Sherlock Holmes portrays the great detective as an action hero. I found the Guy Ritchie version thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. Move over Brad Pitt - Robert Downey Jr. has replaced you in my heart.
Humpday 3/4 stars
This low-budget comedy takes the bromance story to its extreme. I'm too modest to say anything more about the plot. This movie is slow at times, but overall, I found it thoughtful and original.
Anvil!: The Story of Anvil 4/4 stars
A real life This is Spinal Tap! This documentary follows the story of a Canadian heavy metal band that was briefly popular in the early 1980s. As the band members reach their 50s, they struggle to keep their 15 minutes of fame alive.
Up in the Air 3.5/4 stars
Up in the Air stars George Clooney as a professional firer. Companies hire him to fire/lay-off employees when the managers don't have the guts to do it themselves. Set in the present, he is extremely busy and consequently is always flying across the county. He flies so often that he is about to reach 10 million skymiles, which is his life's goal.
This movie is a front runner for the best picture award at the Oscars. However, after seeing the film, I don't think it has the stuff to win. It was flawless in its execution (acting, cinematography, original story), but it just didn't resonate with me the way that a best picture should. I saw it a week ago, and already I barely remember seeing it.
Elizabeth 3/4 stars
I rewatched this movie after finishing a historical fiction novel about Queen Elizabeth's reign. I enjoyed this movie 10 years ago, but now I find the movie too pretentious. The quick editing, elaborate costumes, and historical details that characters rattle off with bravado seem like pure Oscar bait to me. In fact, if I hadn't recently finished the novel on Elizabeth, I am not sure I would have been able to follow this movie at all.
The Gold Rush 4/4 stars
I saw Charlie Chaplin's masterpiece at Orchestra Hall with live accompaniment by the Minnesota Orchestra. Originally released in 1925 during the silent era, Chaplin re-released his movie in the 1940s with a new score that Chaplin worked on himself. I defy anyone to watch the potato dancing scene without laughing!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, December 14, 2009
An Education
I saw An Education over the weekend. I was interested in it because it is getting a lot of Oscar buzz, particularly for the Best Picture and Best Actress (Carey Mulligan) categories. The movie is set in 1960s London. Jenny, 16-year old in her last year of school, meets an older man who shows her how exciting life can be. Jenny has to choose between the seemingly boring life of education at Oxford or the glamorous but mysterious life with her new beau. What will she choose??? (Hint: this movie follows the traditional Hollywood formula)
An Education is a good movie, but certainly not the best that this year has to offer. Carey Mulligan was flawless, the story moved at a good pace, and I felt invested in the characters. However, the movie was too forgettable to win a major award. I felt like I have seen this movie a hundred times. A brilliant student / athlete / musician must choose between the long, hard road of school or the short-cut to a high-paying, glamourous life. Its a fine story, but An Education did not do anything original with the story.
The best part of the movie was Alfred Molina. He was a delight as Jenny's father. It was nice to see him shine in a supporting role and move beyond his Doctor Octopus role from Spider Man2. Have you seen An Education? Are you planning to?
An Education is a good movie, but certainly not the best that this year has to offer. Carey Mulligan was flawless, the story moved at a good pace, and I felt invested in the characters. However, the movie was too forgettable to win a major award. I felt like I have seen this movie a hundred times. A brilliant student / athlete / musician must choose between the long, hard road of school or the short-cut to a high-paying, glamourous life. Its a fine story, but An Education did not do anything original with the story.
The best part of the movie was Alfred Molina. He was a delight as Jenny's father. It was nice to see him shine in a supporting role and move beyond his Doctor Octopus role from Spider Man2. Have you seen An Education? Are you planning to?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Fantastic Mr. Fox
I saw Fantastic Mr. Fox over Thanksgiving weekend, and quite frankly, it was fantastic. It was much better than this year's overrated Up. The movie stood out to me for three reasons:
1.The personal connection. I love Bill Murray and Wes Anderson, so I was looking forward to this movie for quite some time. In fact, Bill Murray is one of my favorite actors of all time (I love love love What About Bob?) But things get a little weird from there. Bill Murray plays a badger in the movie who is a lawyer. I am a badger (UW alum!) and a lawyer. Not only is Bill a badger lawyer, he is a badger real estate lawyer. I am a real estate lawyer!
But the strangest fact of all is that previously unbeknownst to me, I have owned a Fantastic Mr. Fox t-shirt for about 5 years. I found it in the 50 cent section of Urban Outfitters while in college. It has a cartoon fox on it and the words "I'm fantastic!" I wear it about once a month when I am feeling particularly cocky. All these years, I never knew that my shirt was referencing the Fantastic Mr. Fox book by Roald Dahl. I may have never made the connection if it wasn't for my husband. Right before I was going to leave the house to see the movie, Erik asked if I was going to wear my I'm Fantastic shirt. I had one of those rare "Aha" moments and I felt like my whole life was leading up to the movie. It was a strange feeling indeed.
2. The animation. This movie uses the old fashion technique of stop motion - you know, the technique used in the 1930s classic King Kong. Last night I was watching Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer and then Santa Claus is Coming to Town on TV, and I realized just how truly special Wes Anderson's film is. The detail in Fox is impeccable. Every outfit is tailored and every detail artfully chosen. But in the Christmas classics, the details just aren't there. The dolls clothes are sloppy and the backgrounds have almost no detail whatsoever. It makes you appreciate how much time he must have put into the making of this film.
3. The cussing. Yes, cussing. The animals swear constantly in the film! At least once a minute. But instead of actually saying the F word, the animals say "cuss" instead. For example, Mr. Fox would say "Clustercuss" or "Let's cuss with his head." What a hilarious and ingenious way of inserting cuss words in a children's movie.
Have you seen Fantastic Mr. Fox? Did you think it was the best movie ever?
1.The personal connection. I love Bill Murray and Wes Anderson, so I was looking forward to this movie for quite some time. In fact, Bill Murray is one of my favorite actors of all time (I love love love What About Bob?) But things get a little weird from there. Bill Murray plays a badger in the movie who is a lawyer. I am a badger (UW alum!) and a lawyer. Not only is Bill a badger lawyer, he is a badger real estate lawyer. I am a real estate lawyer!
But the strangest fact of all is that previously unbeknownst to me, I have owned a Fantastic Mr. Fox t-shirt for about 5 years. I found it in the 50 cent section of Urban Outfitters while in college. It has a cartoon fox on it and the words "I'm fantastic!" I wear it about once a month when I am feeling particularly cocky. All these years, I never knew that my shirt was referencing the Fantastic Mr. Fox book by Roald Dahl. I may have never made the connection if it wasn't for my husband. Right before I was going to leave the house to see the movie, Erik asked if I was going to wear my I'm Fantastic shirt. I had one of those rare "Aha" moments and I felt like my whole life was leading up to the movie. It was a strange feeling indeed.
2. The animation. This movie uses the old fashion technique of stop motion - you know, the technique used in the 1930s classic King Kong. Last night I was watching Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer and then Santa Claus is Coming to Town on TV, and I realized just how truly special Wes Anderson's film is. The detail in Fox is impeccable. Every outfit is tailored and every detail artfully chosen. But in the Christmas classics, the details just aren't there. The dolls clothes are sloppy and the backgrounds have almost no detail whatsoever. It makes you appreciate how much time he must have put into the making of this film.
3. The cussing. Yes, cussing. The animals swear constantly in the film! At least once a minute. But instead of actually saying the F word, the animals say "cuss" instead. For example, Mr. Fox would say "Clustercuss" or "Let's cuss with his head." What a hilarious and ingenious way of inserting cuss words in a children's movie.
Have you seen Fantastic Mr. Fox? Did you think it was the best movie ever?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Remakes
I heard a rumor that The Third Man is being remade with Leonardo DeCaprio. Roger Ebert wrote that he wanted to throw up when he heard the news. I myself am indifferent, feeling no particular sentiment towards the original. Don't get me wrong; The Third Man is a good film - a very good film. It has a terrific score that I won't soon forget, a memorable performance by Orson Welles, terrific shots of the city of Vienna, and the main character is a man named Holly (!). But the pace is too slow and it lacks the suspense that Orson Welles' other classics embrace. But just to give you an idea of how revered this film is in the movie world, check out this article from the Pioneer Press, which describes the various The Third Man tours available in Vienna.
The bigger topic here is remakes. Over the last 5 years, Hollywood has exploded with remakes. A couple of years ago, I felt that every movie made was a remake. Some examples that come immediately to mind: 3:10 to Yuma, Alfie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlotte's Web, Guess Who, King Kong, The Manchurian Candidate, Ocean's 11, The Producers, Posiedan, and so forth (I didn't even touch on horror movies which seem to be exclusively remakes these days).
I have mixed feelings about remakes. On the one hand, I revile them. First, many people go to movies not realizing the movie is a remake. Some of these remakes are so bad, it may discourage audiences from wactching the original film. The remake Guess Who and its original Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? are a good example. Second, far from being an homage to the original, many new versions are an insult to the halmarks of cinema. Again, Guess Who is an apt example. This is probably why Roger Ebert wanted to throw up when he heard about The Third Man.
But on the other hand, some remakes breathe new life into stories and improve on the long forgotten originals. I am thinking here of 3:10 to Yuma. Or they reimagine the characters in new and interesting ways (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).
But I still have that nagging suspicioun that most remakes are simply a function of laziness. Writers can't come up with anything original so they recycle an old script, hoping audiences won't notice.
What do you think of remakes? Have you ever watched an original movie for the first time after watching the remake?
The bigger topic here is remakes. Over the last 5 years, Hollywood has exploded with remakes. A couple of years ago, I felt that every movie made was a remake. Some examples that come immediately to mind: 3:10 to Yuma, Alfie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlotte's Web, Guess Who, King Kong, The Manchurian Candidate, Ocean's 11, The Producers, Posiedan, and so forth (I didn't even touch on horror movies which seem to be exclusively remakes these days).
I have mixed feelings about remakes. On the one hand, I revile them. First, many people go to movies not realizing the movie is a remake. Some of these remakes are so bad, it may discourage audiences from wactching the original film. The remake Guess Who and its original Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? are a good example. Second, far from being an homage to the original, many new versions are an insult to the halmarks of cinema. Again, Guess Who is an apt example. This is probably why Roger Ebert wanted to throw up when he heard about The Third Man.
But on the other hand, some remakes breathe new life into stories and improve on the long forgotten originals. I am thinking here of 3:10 to Yuma. Or they reimagine the characters in new and interesting ways (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).
But I still have that nagging suspicioun that most remakes are simply a function of laziness. Writers can't come up with anything original so they recycle an old script, hoping audiences won't notice.
What do you think of remakes? Have you ever watched an original movie for the first time after watching the remake?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
And the Oscar hosts are . . .
Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. I love them both! I can't wait to watch them host the Oscars together (there hasn't been co-hosts since the 1980s). They should make a great comedy team. Of course, I would have preferred Steve Martin with Tina Fey but Tina is not starring in a holiday movie with Steve. So naturally, the Oscar producers had to pass her up and go for the shameless plug of Its Complicated (starring Meryl Streep, Steve Martin, and Alec Baldwin coming out December 25 to a theater near you).
Sunday, November 1, 2009
A Serious Man
I saw A Serious Man last Friday. After seeing the movie, I stand by my prediction that it will be nominated for best picture this year.
Set in surburban Minneapolis in the 1960s, the movie follows Larry Gopnik, a physics professor, who is going through a bad spell in his life. His wife wants a divorce, someone is writing nasty letters to the tenure board, a korean student is trying to blackmail him for giving him an F, his brother won't leave his couch, and creditors are calling him for not paying for his record club subscription that he never even ordered. Larry hits rock bottom when his wife demands that he pay for the funeral for the man she was going to leave him for. With no where left to go, Larry turns to three different rabbis at his synogogue in order to determine what God is telling him.
Richly textual, the movie makes no apologies for being smart. I will be the first to admit that I didn't catch most of the biblical allusions or understand many of the Jewish phrases. (But I certainly understood the Minnesota references! The theater audience chuckled everytime a Twin Cities reference was made - such as to Ron Meshbesher or the Red Owl in Bloomington). But I don't care. Movies with layers of subtexts are the best kind to go back and watch again as you age, and gain wisdom and experience. This is the type of movie that you will take away a different interpretation with each viewing.
Many people will find this movie difficult to watch. It is slow, seems to have no point, and has an unconclusive ending (which may be an understatement). But I like movies that are more interested in the characters than in their stories. The Coen brothers drew heavily from the European New Wave traditions in this respect. Within the movie itself is a parable about a Jewish dentist who finds a message in Hebrew on the back of a patient's teeth. Wondering if this is a message from God, he visit his rabbi. The \rabbi, to the unsatisfaction of the Dentist, cannot tell him that the message means anything. It is what it is. And I think this parable is an allegory to the movie as a whole. The movie is not a story meant to give us a definitive message. Rather, it a snapshot of a character, meant to make us ponder.
A Serious Man is not the best movie I have seen this year, but it very good. Overall, I give it 3 1/2 stars and recommend that you see in theatres (rather than video).
Have you seen A Serious Man or are you planning on going? Are there any movies that you find different meanings in with each viewing? I would love to hear your thoughts!
Set in surburban Minneapolis in the 1960s, the movie follows Larry Gopnik, a physics professor, who is going through a bad spell in his life. His wife wants a divorce, someone is writing nasty letters to the tenure board, a korean student is trying to blackmail him for giving him an F, his brother won't leave his couch, and creditors are calling him for not paying for his record club subscription that he never even ordered. Larry hits rock bottom when his wife demands that he pay for the funeral for the man she was going to leave him for. With no where left to go, Larry turns to three different rabbis at his synogogue in order to determine what God is telling him.
Richly textual, the movie makes no apologies for being smart. I will be the first to admit that I didn't catch most of the biblical allusions or understand many of the Jewish phrases. (But I certainly understood the Minnesota references! The theater audience chuckled everytime a Twin Cities reference was made - such as to Ron Meshbesher or the Red Owl in Bloomington). But I don't care. Movies with layers of subtexts are the best kind to go back and watch again as you age, and gain wisdom and experience. This is the type of movie that you will take away a different interpretation with each viewing.
Many people will find this movie difficult to watch. It is slow, seems to have no point, and has an unconclusive ending (which may be an understatement). But I like movies that are more interested in the characters than in their stories. The Coen brothers drew heavily from the European New Wave traditions in this respect. Within the movie itself is a parable about a Jewish dentist who finds a message in Hebrew on the back of a patient's teeth. Wondering if this is a message from God, he visit his rabbi. The \rabbi, to the unsatisfaction of the Dentist, cannot tell him that the message means anything. It is what it is. And I think this parable is an allegory to the movie as a whole. The movie is not a story meant to give us a definitive message. Rather, it a snapshot of a character, meant to make us ponder.
A Serious Man is not the best movie I have seen this year, but it very good. Overall, I give it 3 1/2 stars and recommend that you see in theatres (rather than video).
Have you seen A Serious Man or are you planning on going? Are there any movies that you find different meanings in with each viewing? I would love to hear your thoughts!
Paranomal Activity
My uncle posted this interesting news item on facebook which I want to pass along:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/paranormal-activity-becomes-most-profitable-movie-ever
Paranomal Activity is now the most profitable movie ever made. The article reports that the movie was made for less than $15,000 and has grossed over $65.1 million.
What I found most interesting is that Paramount studios has spent "only" $10 million to market the movie. It is unsettling to think that $10 million in advertising is a drop in the bucket. I wonder how many movies I've seen soley because of the advertising?
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/paranormal-activity-becomes-most-profitable-movie-ever
Paranomal Activity is now the most profitable movie ever made. The article reports that the movie was made for less than $15,000 and has grossed over $65.1 million.
What I found most interesting is that Paramount studios has spent "only" $10 million to market the movie. It is unsettling to think that $10 million in advertising is a drop in the bucket. I wonder how many movies I've seen soley because of the advertising?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
