::Great Sites::
Subscribe through Feedburner
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Categories
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
Seeing HBP after 6 weeks of recovering from surgery was a welcome change except for the fact that the sound was off for the first 10 mins. of the movie made several moviegoers transfer to the adjoining theater since, apparently, Harkins Theaters cannot rewind film. We all did get free passes for a subsequent film; however, when the house lights were turned up, I saw my daughter Movie_Maven_Jr with her father and she, being the Harry Potter wealth of knowledge, filled me in on the first 10 mins. Suffice it to say, I enjoyed the film. Some Harry Potters I was not especially fond of such as The Goblet of Fire; however, this one was interesting, funny, and kept me engaged throughout. Alan Rickman is a completely delicious Severus Snape and Helena Bonham Carter was equally delicious as Bellatrix. This film focused upon the acting prowess of Tom Broadbent (Professor Horace Slughorn) and Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) above and beyond the major leads. Rupert Grint (Ron Weasely) had some funny scenes and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) has just matured into a gorgeous young woman. The film is quite long, running 153 minutes, but it didn’t seem so bad, comparatively. With the 7th book “The Deathly Hallows” being split into two films, I have a feeling they will both be equally long. I have never read any of the books (although Movie_Maven_Jr has) and she said this film follows the book the least among them all so faithful literary fans may be disappointed at the artistic license that was taken. But if you’re the kind of fan I am, then you’ll likely be entertained.
Doesn’t anyone in Hollywood have an original bone in his/her body? What is up with all the remakes, particularly of classic films? Now I understand the trend to remake old horror films (”Halloween”, “Friday the 13th”, “Prom Night”, “My Bloody Valentine”, “The Last House on the Left”, etc.) where the advent of CGI can enhance the goriness of such films, but remakes of classic films should never be undertaken. “Twelve Angry Men” - one of my all time favorite films was remade…and badly. Alfred Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder” - another of my all-time favorites - was remade as “A Perfect Murder” with Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Viggo Mortensen…also badly. Take, for example, a recent online survey in which I participated which stated that a remake of “Footloose” and “The Karate Kid” are underway. Add to that the remake of “Fame” along with a list of 55 movies currently or recently in remake status from the Den of Geek (what a great name!) and, frankly, I’m annoyed. Among these films to which I take great exception: “My Fair Lady” with Keira Knightly (ewww, she’s NO Audrey Hepburn), “Last Tango in Paris” (rumored as of now but with Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes suggested as the leads - OMG NOOOOOO!), “Barbarella” with Rose McGowan, “The Last Starfighter” (creatively renamed “Starfighter”), “Rosemary’s Baby” directed by Michael Bay (that man should be shot…NOW), “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (at least Richard O’Brien is supposedly working on it), “Logan’s Run”, “Child’s Play”, “Old Boy” (with Will Smith and directed by God himself Steven Spielberg), “Westworld”, “Poltergeist”, “Hellraiser”, “The Birds”, “Red Dawn”, “Death Wish”, “Clash of the Titans” (come on, I love the old crappy one!), “Fantastic Voyage”, “The Dirty Dozen”, ”Romancing the Stone”, “Battle Royale”, “Straw Dogs”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (thankfully Michael Bay only produces), “The Birds”, and “Conan the Barbarian”, to name a few. Check out the link for the complete, tear-inducing list. Please excuse me now….I need to start drinking.
I have wanted to see this film since it was released in the theatres and finally got the opportunity to rent it. I am a huge Kate Winslet fan and despite being told that “it was like ‘Titanic‘ but on land” I watched it anyway and loved it. Yes, this film reunited Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio - and Kathy Bates, as a matter of fact - but had a completely different feel to it. DiCaprio stole the movie, which surprised me. Winslet was great (although not as great as she was in “The Reader“), as was Michael Shannon as a mentally ill neighbor, but it was DiCaprio’s raw emotion which permeated the story of an unhappy married couple in 1955 Connecticut and how they coped with her failed ambition as an actress and unfulfilled life as a housewife and mother and his working in a job in which he feels equally unfulfilled. Granted, it is not a cheery movie and is definitely not for everyone, but the acting, story, and direction (by Winslet’s husband Sam Mendes) were superb. The movie was based upon a novel by Richard Yates (which I bought but haven’t read yet) and, from everything I’ve read, remained true to the book but seemed to lack a lot of the inner turmoil that Yates was able to write so well that does not translate well to the screen. At any rate, for a well-acted drama in which many people, including myself, can relate to in terms of seeing similarities to one’s relationships - or one’s parents’ relationship - ”Revolutionary Road” does not disappoint.
So, Mr_Movie_Maven and I were looking to rent a horror flick last week and saw “Silent Venom” (2009) which looked like it might be kind of fun, sort of like “Snakes on a Plane” which we both thought was hilarious. The plot revolves around a decommissioned submarine which is supposed to be traveling from Okinawa to Taiwan. At the same time, a doctor and her research assistant were experimenting with various deadly snakes and had developed a mutant breed which has the capacity to become really large…and not very friendly. When the Chinese military gets a bit antsy, the sub is diverted to a remote island (not too far out of their way - how convenient, eh?) to evacuate the research team. Little does the crew - and the doctor- know that the research assistant packed ALL of the deadly snakes - even the mutants - and takes them aboard the submarine. As one would expect, the snakes get loose and havoc erupts 200 feet below. Let’s just say that Luke Perry is NO Samuel L. Jackson, Krista Allen should stick with soap operas and Baywatch, and Louis Mandylor cannot act as well as his brother Costas (from the “Saw” series.) The side story of the Chinese military was infinitely more plausible than the snake angle; however, as the snakes roamed the sub attacking the crew, we became curious as to who and how they would survive. The CGI effects were atrocious, as was the direction, but the movie was sorta fun. Every single Navy cliche was used and at times the acting was wooden and soap-opera-ish. And I was freaked out enough to watch the movie with my feet OFF the floor (you know, just in case.)
Clint Eastwood is a master storyteller. His direction, particularly as of late with such films as “Million Dollar Baby” and “Mystic River” and, (from what I’ve heard but haven’t seen yet) “Changeling” offer an insight into storytelling lost in many contemporary directors. He does it again in “Gran Torino.“ Playing war vet Walt Kowalski, an embittered old man whose wife recently died and who has a poor relationship with his two sons and their families and living in the middle of the cultural melting pot of Detroit, MI, next door to a family of Hmong people (typically from Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia) with whom he shows obvious disdain, Kowalski is pursued spiritually by an ambitious young priest and is forced to confront his past demons toward his own salvation. After the teenaged son of the Hmong family, Thao, attempts to steal his prized possession — a 1972 Gran Torino — during a gang initiation, Kowalski’s determination to teach the boy that he is ultimately responsible for his choices and essentially takes him under his wing and, in doing so, grows close to the entire family and makes choices himself that transform him from bitter old man to, in my opinion, hero. As is the case with many Eastwood-directed/produced films, character development is central and this film follows suit. Despite the moments of humorous dialogue, this film is an intense drama and elicited much emotion from me (while giving Mr_Movie_Maven ample opportunity to chuckle at my repeated requests for the kleenex box.) I didn’t like Kowalski’s character in the beginning of the film — I assume the audience isn’t supposed to — however his own personal growth is both beautiful and subtle and the film succeeds despite the amateur acting of much of the cast who had never acted before. What could have easily been a routine film about a grumpy old racist war vet was elevated by Eastwood’s portrayal of the character and the subtle nuances he brings to his performance coupled with his directorial prowess. Oh, and the car is SWEET!!
I put off writing this for a while because I wasn’t sure exactly what to write. Even now, after thinking about it for a couple of weeks I am still a bit out of sorts. The prequel to “The DaVinci Code” (which I loved AND read the book), A&D was cinematically less satisfying. I’m not sure if it’s because I have not yet read the book or if the adaptation was not as compelling as DaVinci. To me, the film felt more akin to “National Treasure.” I’m also not sure if the casting may have been off a bit. Ewan McGregor was completely unconvincing in his role to me as was Armin Mueller-Stahl and these are two normally fabulous actors. Then again it could have been Ron Howard’s direction; however, he, also, is usually spot-on. While an entertaining film as a whole, I did walk away a bit disappointed and thinking about plot holes and such. I definitely need to read the book. It’s interesting to read other reviews on this film. It appears viewers either love it or hate it - there’s not much middle ground.
And yet another Asian horror remake, along the lines of “The Ring“, “The Grudge” and “Shutter“; however, I enjoyed this one, based on the original “A Tale of Two Sisters.” Espousing the prototypical psychological thriller genre, the movie revolves around Anna (Emily Browning) who returns home to her father (David Strathairn), her sister Alex (Arielle Kebbel), and soon-to-be evil stepmother (Elizabeth Banks) following a stint in a mental hospital after a suicide attempt following the death of her mother. Having not seen the original, I can only offer my opinion on this film. Ghosts, flashbacks, murders, and the ever-imposing persona of Banks’ character combined to raise this film well above my original expectations. And I jumped…I like that! Oh, and watch closely, listen closely, ignore the minor plot holes, and enjoy the ride.
Oh those blue eyes of Daniel Craig…wow. I’m not particularly a fan of him as James Bond but in “Defiance” he was amazing as one of the three Jewish Bielski brothers (the other two played by Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell) who, during WWII, rescued several Jews, maintained a forest-based camp in German-occupied Belarussia, and taught them to protect themselves through hard work and trust. Directed by Academy Award winner Edward Zwick, this film effectively balances the horrors of war with the triumph of the human spirit and illustrates how the will to survive can overcome anything. There is definitely no glamorization of war, moments of heavy-hitting action and some intensely violent scenes but these are offset by the superb acting, direction and character development. Highly recommended. Bring some tissue.
Recommended by our local Hollywood Video buddies, Mr_Movie_Maven and I rented “Passengers” (2008) starring Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, Dianne Wiest, and David Morse. To be honest, I never heard about it before and the plot was interesting. Counselor Hathaway works with plane crash survivors to overcome their emotions. Sounds simple enough, right? But that’s only the beginning. The film itself has been tagged as belonging in several genres; however, it is more drama/suspense with a little bit of romance. There is considerable character development during the majority of the film, leading some to dub the film as slow but the direction and pace in which the plot traversed was necessary for its climax which is a little twisty in this era of “let’s put a surprise twist into the movie.” Face it, since “The Sixth Sense” there has been a run of movies which try to surprise the audience at the end and, in my opinion, none have measured up. I enjoyed it. Yes, I figured out the end early. Yes, it is flawed; however, it is also entertaining - which is the purpose of watching a movie, isn’t it?
I missed this in the theatre and being a big Clive Owen fan, Mr_Movie_Maven and I rented it this week (I just had surgery so we rented a LOT of movies.) While the story had a unique and intelligent premise, the acting, in my opinion (and despite a nice cast) was lacking (even from Mr. Owen who seemed to force his lines a little bit too much.) The direction by Tom Tykwer (of “Run Lola Run” fame which, by the way, is a fabulous movie) was above average, particularly the scene that occurs in New York’s Guggenheim Museum. That the film had an intelligent premise was not, at least for me, enough to meet my expectations. I found the plot a bit too convoluted and didn’t really care enough for the characters to be too concerned about their fates; however, on the other hand, I didn’t dislike it.
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2007 the Movie Maven • Powered by WordPress • Driven by the internet domain registration services of Loud Sign. Google Shadow
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
