Here is where I will keep track of the flicks I've watched. If you see typos or errors, or you really like what I wrote, or maybe you flat out disagree with me. Don't be shy! Lemme know what YOU think.
I haven't watched this since I saw it when it was first released. It holds up really well because it's a very simple story. Boy meets girl on a train and they spend a day together. It's a relationship compressed down to its essentials and you get to see them gradually fall in love while having dialogues on everything from their past relationship mishaps to what love is and what gives meaning to life. And that's it, not much else happens. They wander around Vienna which makes for some beautful backdrops, in the space they've carved out for togetherness, seperate from their day to day existence, and it's magical romantical.
Julie Delpy is a beauty, and Ethan Hawke is a good looking man, but they're both a little unkempt and regular folk looking too. They're not super made up perfect looking movie stars and that makes what happens more believable. Just two strangers on a train taking the chance to be vulnerable enough to fall for each other.
I love this scene near the beginning when they're at a record store in the listening booth, it's deliciously awkward.
but the movie's strength is the dialogue...actually that's the whole movie.
I also liked this version of a Daniel Johnston song which plays over the credits. It's a lovely cover.
Wtf is up with killing off the fags? I know, Glenn Close was portraying a transman, not a fag, but it's still a case of smear the queer ain't it? I'm sick of queer flicks that focus on the otherness of the minority. Albert Nobbs is another tragic homo story that fails. fails. fails.
I'm gonna spoil the fuck out of it so fair warning eh? Also I'm gonna use words like fag and queer and homo, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that, because I like reclaiming slurs in the context of writing about queer bashing, and I think this movie is a queer bashing queer basher, a basher of oddness, and not just the homosexual kind.
It's written by István Szabó the same guy who directed Sunshine, and he's a rich guy so he's got the knowledge of how high society operates, with the help churning away beneath the surface maintaining the facade of invisibility for the folk that makes their existences so comfortably liveable. Servants should be unseen and unheard and their needs and desires inconsequential, of course, yes sir, yes ma'am.
The doctor, (Brendan Gleeson), was a man who worked, so he was a go between to the world of the servants and the ruling classes. He ran off with his lover, because he was tired of secrets, and this was about the only point in the film that I liked. Yes, we should all shrug of the expectations of others that impede our own paths to true happiness. This is a message worth making a movie about, but what was the impetus for his upending the facade of his life to pursue his dream? The death of Albert. What kinda message is that? Yeah, you go for that glory, chase down your dream, but if you're an odd duck queer, well you'll just have to die so we can cherish that notion of LGBT being sooo soo sad, and geez but they're strange too right? I wish the movie had been different. I wish it had a happy ending for Albert. I wish he had been written more charming and less othered and odd. "He's a dear sweet man" says the woman he's in love with, (Mia Wasikowska), but she's got her own agenda and manipulates that sweetness for her own gain.
And what is up with making Albert be so strange and socially awkward? Was it a function of class? I liked the class issues the movie raised, the degradation, exploitation and desperation of the working stiffs was spot on, especially contrasted with how the asshole rich folk were so comfortable treating poorer folk as less than, and less than human even. Disrespecting sons a bitches!!
Why was Albert was such a clueless sheltered sort? He wants to move in with Mr. Page, (Janet McTeer), and he doesn't even know him, the man just lost his wife, (Bronagh Gallagher), and Nobbs is completely tone deaf to that. Why oh why do I have to keep seeing queers on film being born SO different. Queers are NOT so different, except that they're queer ya know? There's a whole rainbow of variety in land of the queer, just like there is in the rest of society, and constantly creating work about how DIFFERENT homo folk are is just so fucking trite and boring.
Jaysus, as Mr. Page would say.
I wish I'd seen a romantic tale of the transman painter Mr. Page and the story of how he got together with his wife, (Bronagh Gallagher). Or even better, Mr. Nobbs successfully romancing the maid, charming her, and settling down with her happily ever after in the tobacco shop. What's wrong with a happy story anyhow?
I was expecting the wastrel Joe, (Aaron Johnson), to rob Mr. Nobbs and run off to America, ditching the pregnant maid Mr. Nobbs was courting. Nobbs could still have saved the day, but Nooo!!! He had to be killed off, by off all things, a bump to his head?!! The bit about his life's wages getting scooped up by that bitch of a boss just added to the bitter fail. Sure Mr. Page came to the rescue of the maid and her little Albert Joseph, but fuck that! That was Albert's dream. He deserved better than the legacy of a name to a baby he never got to meet. I know it was an adaptation of a play, but keyword here -- ADAPTATION. Glenn Close, you did a good job being him, but you could have written him the hero of his own story. You coulda written him a little better ending, a little better life, but I guess it gets better just doesn't apply to Mr. Nobbs.
I'm leery of proposing the idea of an authentic voice in the creation of fictional stories, but in this case I think the lack of respect shown for the character of Mr. Nobbs is one born of that disconnect of experience in creation. Somebody was imagining what it's like to be trans, and made this mishmashness of queertransphobia. Do we really need more bullshit fiction that perpetuates the casual homophobia of the other and the idea that a queer's destiny is bound to be tragic? I doubt that a transgendered person would have made a flick this heterosexist, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what the formerly known as the Wachowski Bros. come up with next. I but they'd do a stellar job with a transgender character study.
This is the 4:33 director's cut, and holy shit but this is a long movie, already in the start I was thinking, well this scene is completely unnecessary. I guess it's character development. I'm thinking particularly of the debauchery at the officer's club. Sailors gonna drink eh? Especially with a 1 in 4 chance of coming out alive? Jesus Christ those are bad odds. I'd make sure and get my party on too.
Actually it's the 3:28 directors cut. I was thinking near what seemed like was gonna be the climax, there's another 1:30 to go? So I checked out the running times and there are FIVE different versions of the movie, ranging from 2:20 to a 6 hour miniseries. The DVR recorded another show at the end of the movie, which is why I was all confuzzled.
150 minutes (1981, 1982) Theatrical
209 minutes (1981) unreleased
300 minutes (1984, 1988) BBC mini-series
293 minutes (2004) Das Boot: The Original Uncut Version
208 minutes (1997, 2010) Director's Cut
It's refreshing seeing a military centred flick that isn't outright propaganda for the military. This isn't jingoistic or glorifying of military life. It looks rough and barbaric in the sub, with men living on top of each other. They'd sure be close, everyone aware of how much they depend on one another. There's no every man for himself in a sub, they'd all die together, one fate.
Lothar G. Buchheim, the writer of the novel, was upset that the film sacrificed realism for action melodrama, also that it was too glorifying of the U-boat war heroes. I think his book must have been very antiwar, since I felt it was condemning of the idiocy of armed conflict, but then I bring that attitude and belief along to every war flick I see. I thought it was life affirming and moral to see a film that depicted the ugliness of wasted resources, manpower, all this effort exerted towards what? Killing and death and destruction? Madness!!!
The best part is when the Captain is saying I'm sorry to the journalist. They're in a tight spot and things look grim.
Lt. Werner: Captain? Captain: I'm sorry. Lt. Werner: You think it's hopeless now? Captain: It's been 15 hours. He'll never do it. I'm sorry. Lt. Werner: They made us all train for this day. "To be fearless and proud and alone. To need no one, just sacrifice. All for the Fatherland." Oh God, all just empty words. It's not the way they said it was, is it? I just want someone to be with. The only thing I feel is afraid.
I enjoyed it, and I usually don't care much for war flicks, this one is exceptional though. It's completely understandable how many awards it won. And Jürgen Prochnow?!! Whatta man, whatta man, what a mighty good man. ;)
My only complaint is very minor. I didn't like the dubbed voice of the redheaded codesman. He was all squashed and
strangled sounding. It might have added some to the funny though, since he's the comic relief, cracking wise with cynical
aphorisms. Incidentally, the movie was shot silent because the sub was so noisy. They could have got anyone to do the voices. I'm glad Prochnow did his English lines too.
This was a strange flick, half pretentious period drama, part weirdo tragic taboo romance, and Ralph Fiennes plays all of the characters. I exaggerate some, it's not a Being John Malkovich experimental thang, but Fiennes does play 3 successive generations, father to son to grandson, and it's narrated by him too. It's set in Hungary and tracks a Jewish family from the late 1800's to just after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
The generations spanning epic starts off with a bang, a couple of them actually. The first patriarch, (who should have been played by Ralph Fiennes too,) is tavern owner who dies in a distillery accident. His 12 year old son sets off with the secret recipe for his father's elixir, Taste of Sunshine, and eventually though it's not shown, builds a successful business based on that drink. The next bang is figurative, though more shocking. Ralph Fiennes is the son of the Taste of Sunshine elixir maker, and he falls in love with his cousin/sister Valerie (Jennifer Ehle) What?!! I know! It's weird and the transgressive coupling happens so quickly - within the first 10 minutes of the film. It's kinda cheeseball, but it does creates great tension. Taboo love is so much more fraught.
Since it covers such a great length of time, the cyclical nature of history is established. The new boss same as the old boss kind of thing. The nasty repercussions of and abuses of political power are not limited to Imperialism, Fascism, Nationalism, or Communism. The all had their secret police. The effects of anti-semitism are illustrated well, especially along the subtler lines of assimilation and self hatred, repression of religion and identity to get ahead, identifying with the oppressor and such. I thought this was the best part of the film.
The romance stuff is pretty juicy, but overwrought and awful too. The 2nd generation Ralph Fiennes, Adam, is also a taboo buster. His sister in law Greta, (Rachel Weisz), has the hots for him and tries to seduce him in a scene with dialogue that made me literally laugh aloud.
(Fiennes/Adam just had a fight with a man)
Adam: I nearly killed him.
Greta: But you didn't
Adam: No, I didn't
Greta: Perhaps you'll kill me one day when you've had enough of me.
Adam: Perhaps I will.
Greta: How will you kill me? Strangle me?
Adam: Good idea.
Greta: Try it. Hold my neck. Tight.
She puts his hands around her throat and leans in to kiss him. He pushes her away.
Adam: What are you doing!
Greta: I can't bear not being with you.
Adam: You're my brother's wife Greta.
Greta: I'm not anybody's wife. I am myself.
Adam: Ishtvan is my brother! I love him! What makes you think that I would steal his wife.
Greta: You can't steal what's already yours. Why don't you let yourself be loved? You are the great love of my love Adam, not Ishtvan.
Adam: No. (shakes head.) No Greta.
Another wrong love! His mouth says no, but his body says yes. There's nudity in this, boobs and such. You'll see a bit of humpety bumpety. It's definitely not the main show, but there is some R rated action, probably because you get to see Fiennes's butt and tackle too. Man junk almost always means an R rating.
It has a whole bunch of interesting bits, aside from the Fiennes dangler, but it's far too long (that doesn't sound right), and it was bizarre casting having Fiennes do 3 roles. He did a really good job, it's just why go that way when you could simply hire more actors? When Fiennes would show up playing his son it was always jarring to the suspension of disbelief. Another bit of stunt casting that actually worked was having Jennifer Ehle's mother, Rosemary Harris, play the elder version of Valerie. I think it would have worked better as a mini series.
The end of the movie ties up everything with a great monologue when the final Ralph Fiennes is reading a letter from his grandfather. It brings home the value of NOT surrendering your identity and ideals in order to get ahead.
I caught most of this last night and even not seeing the whole thing, I can understand why it was a failure at the box office. It's got a gigantic plot hole that makes you totally lose all belief in the story, then it piles on a terrible ending that makes you hate the hero too.
John Travolta is a movie sound FX guy who's doing foley work. He's capturing sounds with his super sensitive mic near a bridge and that puts him right position to record an accident. He sees a car go off the rails - an apparent blow out - and rescues a woman in the car, saving her from drowning. The driver dies, and he's a Governor, the apparent candidate to beat for the next US Presidential election. I missed all this and started watching at the accident aftermath in the hospital, but I really didn't miss much at all, because somebody was filming the accident too, and you get to see that footage later, ad infitum, mostly in flashback form when Travolta listens to his recording.
So what's wrong this movie? It comes down to 2 things, plausibility and accountability. It's a conspiracy flick and I'm fine with that, I think there are all kinds of conspiracies naturally going on all the time, that's not unbelievable. It's the way Travolta's character treats Nancy Allen, the supporting woman in peril character. On the one hand he rescues her, then he's always manipulating her, because he likes her, but also because he wants her to stick around so she can help him figure out who caused the accident. His interactions with her are so self serving, then for no plausible reason at all, he deliberately puts her in danger. Really it felt very misogynistic, and it made no sense except to set up the finale. Besides, the bit where he uses her scream in a horror film? Man, that took the cake. Callous much?
I did like all the behind the scenes film and sound editing stuff. Film geekery good times.
It's a cool period piece with lots of street scene detail too. And the acting is good. I bought Travolta's frustration and bitterness, though Nancy Allen's naive prostitute was a little too cliche. Dennis Franz as a sleazy photographer and John Lithgow as a psycho henchman were especially good in their small roles.
It's such a good looking flick that I wanted to like it so I was disappointed how brainless it goes in the final reel. Could be it was better before 2 reels were lost. Parade footage was reshot at a cost of $750,000 and maybe there were more crucial details in those reels that went missing. Was there stuff that couldn't be restaged due to circumstances, and that compromised the integrity of the story? Maybe that's giving too much credit to action sequences saving the day though.
It's a very meta movie about reality as a construct, and how media is not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality, that it too is an abstraction that can be distorted to shape and influence the world as well. I liked that - there's lots of clever in this film. Just the ending I hated. It's so dumb and melodramatic.
I have to say in spite of my misgivings, I enjoyed it. I was captivated by the flick from the moment I started watching it, even minus the beginning. De Palma's stuff is entertaining even and perhaps particularly when you don't like the characters. He does pulpy and bizarre really well and I always look forward to seeing whatever he does. I think Tarantino really learnt a lot from him visually.
It took me a few days and 2 viewing sessions to get through this. I almost quit and came real close to reading up on how it ended, because I felt played by the plot. I'd already seen this on video, not long after it came out. I didn't realise this until I started it and since I didn't remember it well, inertia kept me watching. Besides, the write up sounded interesting. It's about a group of folk representing the 5 senses: a chef who can't taste, an optometrist losing his hearing, and so one. It's just that all these folk are tangentially connected around the story of a missing kid. And I could not remember how that one key element of the plot played out. Do they find her? Is she okay? A 3 year old girl goes missing, and fuck you writer, is how I feel about that. I get a real visceral reaction when flicks put kids at risk as a dramatic device. It's a cheap tactic that totally works. I feel exploited but I can't help but get sucked in. I find it hard to believe I wasn't all that disturbed by this plot element when I first saw it, but it was before I looked after my nieces so I guess that makes some sense. Anyhow, it was easier to go back to this more realistic drama of child endangerment, after watching the gothic kill the kids excess that was The Woman in Black.
I watched the rest of it after having my hissy fit of not wanting to feel worried about the little girl. It was good. I especially liked the Morrissey looking character played by Daniel McIvor. (Check out his site and wordpress.) He's a freaky and hilarious cleaning guy with an acute sense of smell, who's doing housework for a few of the characters. He meets up with past lovers so he can smell them, because he can tell if they still love him by their scent. His search has not been going well when he describes his odd but charming quest to a client, "I don't like calling them lovers because they don't love me." The client disagrees saying something like, just because they don't love you now doesn't mean they didn't once.
It's a Proustian flick, with some very poetic, and insightful sequences. The ensemble cast does a great job and are totally believable in their scenes, because it's well written and good dialogue is much easier to deliver well. While the dialogue rings true, this movie is about more than words obviously, and the non verbal interactions and experiences are really well done too. It left me thinking about what makes me happy and who and how, and why those questions are important.
(This trailer is misleading, makes it seem like a romantic comedy, but it's much more melancholic)
It completely obfuscates the geo-political realities the Thatcher government operated within. She was in service of the corporate agendas, and that fact is ignored in favour of a cult of personality exploration that emphasises her ascending to a position of power. It humanises her while it demonises the reactions to the slashing of government programs. The privatisation of the mining industry is presented like the labour unions were being UNFAIR, as if they were cheating somehow when they went on strike. FU movie. I don't agree with your framing techniques, nor your politics.
The whole Fawklands war fiasco is shown as a petty lark with few consequeces, except the ones the film chooses to highlight - that she got respect as The Iron Lady. I'm sorry, but I don't think that was the general opinion at the time. I'm pretty sure it was seen as audacious aggression. Whatever though, because this is such a Tory love fest.
Walking out the theatre, I heard someone saying she's gonna win the Oscar and I think odds will favour her. Her only real opposition will come from The Help. Meryl should win though, she's just amazing in this. A true tour de force performance. She completely embodied the role.
Yeah, I called it. :) Her Oscar acceptance speech was pretty sweet too. She really is an amazing actress.
George Lucas does Star Wars X-Wing dogfights in the original old school style going to the origin story of it all with the WWII Flying Aces or whatever the pilot dudes were called BITD. It's about a company of black pilots, the Tuskagee Airmen, at least that's the angle for the making of this particular flick, so there's racism and patriotism and all that other WWII propaganda hoohaa brouhaha going on in this.
I caught the last half of it, got to see the dogfights and that was fine with me. I missed most of the bonding and training, all the establishing of the stereotyped characters, the hero and the reckless rebel, the stoic Sargent, and all the baby faced boys toughening into REAL MEN TM. I also missed most of the overcoming the honky ofay opposition to an all black pilot battalion. I bet it was tedious, because the part I did see had enough corny dialogue to carry me through a few shitty movies. It does have Terrence Howard going for it though. I saw him once in real life and he's so pretty I wouldn't have minded his character development scenes much at all. There's a whole bunch of pretty men in this actually, but I only recognised a couple. Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character with his jaunty cocked cap, reminded me of Hogan, from Hogan's Heroes. Andre Royo, Bubbles from the Wire plays a mechanic and there were some white people I recognised too, like Byran Cranston from Breaking Bad.
It's a pretty crappy flick, about par for a propaganda war glamourising production in its plot, but it's got really shitty dialogue and the pacing is off. About the best thing going for it, is it's set in the only good war, with NAZI Germany enemy combatants to ruthlessly blow up and destroy. That, and the pretty mens and planes. Plus it's a black story so the racism issues are important, it's just a shame it's not done very well. There was another movie made in 1995 based on the same story, called The Tuskagee Airmen, but I haven't seen it. It's on youtube though. Lawrence Fishburne? John Lithgow? Even has Cuba Gooding Jr. again. Looks better than this one Holmes.
There's one thing I don't get about war movies. How can you make such a terrible thing into something noble? I mean really, war means killing ACTUAL people, destroying fathers and brothers and mothers and daughters and babies! and that's not even considering all the material destruction, like homes and roads and shops and offices and bridges and schools, museums libraries factories etc etc. All that doesn't even count, because the enemy is less than and smashing them is the job. What they want? What their grievances are? None of that even matters, because they are the dehumanised other. It's ridiculous.
The opening scene of the movie has three little girls playing tea party then leaping to their deaths. My immediate reaction? Fuck you movie! And that's not the only fuck you reaction it got from me because this gothic ghost story is package delivery of child death, and it wraps that tragedy right up tight to the end. Once more, FU movie! I avoided articles on the film, and trailers after I caught the first one, besides it didn't give away much, just that there was some shady lady in black and Harry Potter was going to her spooky house, so the film's subject matter surprised me.
Perhaps I should have seen it coming, but I didn't and that's okay I guess. I like scary movies, but I hates when horror flicks utilise the child in danger trope. It's so cheap and exploitive to milk that scenario. It works though, because who the hell can remain stoic in the face of that? Someone fronting, or someone with a heart of stone, a grinch heart maybes.
It's well done. The acting is good, the setting is eerie, the house in the middle of a tideland oasis is spectacular, even if it's a set or CGI or whatever, cudos on the spooktacular atmosphere. They got the Edwardian period details down and it's a total creepshow, with tons of jump scares. I counted 8 that gave me a start and a flinch, with 2 that actually made me give a little shriek. There was scattered laughter throughout the theatre after most all of them. Tension relief and all, but the laughs died out, as the scares came fast and furious when the story escalated in the third act toward the resolution. It was pretty satisfying spook flick overall.
Even though this is being marketed as Daniel Radcliffe's first adult/non Harry Potter role, I couldn't help but think of him as Harry. It even has the look and feel of a Potter flick some, with the supernatural elements and the toff's house with the eccentric posh lady and her mad behaviours that the non-Harry, junior lawyer/clerk character Radcliffe is playing, gamely tolerates - even down to the same mannerisms he used for Harry Potter. Plus it's got a magical problem Radcliffe is bent on solving, and when Radcliffe does battle with the spooks, I wanted him to pull out his wand and splat them with an expelioramus!, or whatever magical Latinesque gibberish does the trick.
I dunno what to say about the end. It was awful, and romantic both, so I have to commend the writer of the book Susan Hill, or maybe it's the one what did the screenplay adaptation, Jane Goldman, whichever is responsible - Good job! It's not easy to pull off summat that gives you chills yet your kinda happy about, because even though it was terrible, yeah, it was a happy ending.
It was also made into a movie in 1988, which you can see on youtube.
Another Harry Potter connection - Adrian Rawlins, who played James Potter, Harry's dad in the Potter flicks, does the same character as Daniel Radcliffe in the 1988 version.
It made me cry. I give props to a movie that can do that. Even if it's just a hitch in my chest or a moistening at the corner of my eyes, it's something to be able to move someone emotionally. Maudlin melodrama, aw.
I figured going in that this would make me cry though. I mean c'mon it's got a Sarah Polley as a young mom dying of cancer? How could it NOT make me cry. I ditched it at the VIFF when it played because I was already seeing too many movies making me sad that year, plus viewing opportunities were bound to come around again.
Sarah Polley plays Ann, a blue collar young mom who works the night shift cleaning (with Amanda Plummer) at a university,. (SFU - this film was shot in Vancouver.) She's got 2 young daughters, a husband, (Scott Speedman), who loves her and a mom, (Deborah Harry), who does too, but doesn't know how to show it very well. Also her father, (Alfred Molina uncredited), is in jail.
She finds out she's dying and makes her bucket list. It's a simple list. She doesn't want a lot of stuff, just some experiences, to set her husband up with someone new, and to leave messages for her children. She loves her kids and husband, and what she wants doesn't dilute that love. Even though I thought it was unrealistic that she had this much control around her illness, keeping it so secret. That felt a little wrong, but still, I can understand wanting to protect your family from the grief and worry of a protracted illness. I think though that hiding terminal illness is also denying them the experience of gradually coming to terms with that coming death. Death is painful, and a quick death is not necessarily better than one where you see it a long ways off. It's just a different experience. I'm guessing that at some point she wouldn't be able to hide it, but that part of the story doesn't happen on film.
It's not really believable, I mean it is - on a story level, you can buy this happening. It's based on a short story so obviously it's believable that someone wrote it, and it's believable on a general character arc level too, but on a more realistic level, I think you'd see more fighting to live and checking out your options, also asking for support from your family. When you hear a doctor, (Julian Richings), in a pretty awesome role), say you're too young and too full of cancer for us to do anything, I call bullshit that you don't get a 2nd opinion. Maybe that reaction makes more sense in a country without socialised medicine, but whatever, she just snap, decides well I'm dying I guess I have a big secret now, like she was all prepared and just waiting for the opportunity to run the bucket list down. Naw, that's too harsh. She does contemplative in a coffee shop marking down her wants, and I think they just didn't belabour the internal dialogue she had on coming to terms with the idea of the inevitability of her death. They just had her narrate on the fact that she didn't want her family's last days with her to be filled with worry.
She's pretty selfish too. Her bucket list stuff is all self interested, but that's okay, she's young and naive. She talks about not doing drugs in high school except taking hits off her husbands joints and not inhaling, like that president, Bill Clinton. She's not very edjumacated eh? And she's fucking DYING. I don't begrudge self interest in that scenario.
Two months to live and she wants to fall in love and make a guy fall in love with her. Which makes for the weirdest fucking romance ever. DOOMED romance, some people might think it's super romantic, but It thought it was a fucking asshole thing to do - make a guy fall in love with you, and fall in love with him when you are dying! And that's what makes it OK to be such a jerk - oh you're dying I forgive you. It's a pretty sweet romance though, and I felt so sorry for Mark Ruffalo! Still they give each other lots, even though their time together is brief, and like I said this is a story, and besides, the time she spent with him, seemed to be time when her kids and husband weren't around anyhow. Yay for daytime adulterous romance!
It's selfish wanting to make a guy fall in love with you when you've already got a man who loves you. But you met your husband at the last Nirvana concert ever when you were 16? 17? And you've never even complained about not ever having anything new or going on vacation or living in a trailer behind your mom's house, or working a minimum wage dead end job, or, or, whatever else that's shitty in her life. She could be a total bitch and a whiny titty baby about her hard luck life but she's actually fairly happy and content, appreciating her kids and her man, and she didn't need to f'n DIE to get that. She isn't even very pissed off about dying. All she wants to do is dance, and make romance. WTF?!! That's really the main thing that bugged me. She was so already there in terms of accepting her death. I'd have liked to see more process around that. That didn't feel real. She was too calm and zen. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just it seemed unrealistic.
It is passionate and romantic and that zen deliberateness is a slow burn that hadt me thinking about the film long after I watched it. It's a good film that I enjoyed, and I liked the soundtrack too.
There's a thread on imdb where her bucket list totally gets slammed for being slack compared to Homer Simpson's. I felt some of the same indignation and judgement, but I still think the movie is a good watch.
RIP my sweet baby kitty (final post April 10, 2012)
Juncture is a noirish revenge flick with a pretty good ending that leaves an opening for sequels, or just for imaginating what happens next. It's satisfying on a bloodthirsty level, but it's a real B flick, not terrible, but not super compelling either. It's something that probably read real well as a screenplay. You've got a protagonist who's a well to do good looking lady executive, with a tragic past, and an even more tragic future. Isn't that always the way though? Anna Carter, (Kristine Blackport), is head of a richie rich charity board and gives out cash money to worthwhile causes, though you hear her talk about that more than you see her do it, mostly she just flies around the country and talks snotty to her boss. Actually the flick could have done away with the majority of those scenes, because the real action is around her off the books job as a gun toting lady vengeance. She's the one woman taxi driver weather underground travelling around the country and raining bullets down on the scum to clean up the streets. It starts off with a bang, she offs a child molester just been sprung from jail, then goes on from there unbottling her genie with the hand gun so to grant other bad folk a Charles Bronson Death Wish. There's character development scenes around her relationship to her boss and her law clerking best friend, also some ooolala sexy time with a new guy trying to spark a romance, but whatever, because this one is all about the Dirty Harriet action. Oh yeah, she has cancer in her brain and that's why she decides to do something mean with the rest of her life.
I have to admit I'm a little ashamed for enjoying this. I like these vengeance flicks though, and I like them even better when it's a woman dealing out the vigilante justice. It's not that great though, in truth I fast forwarded much of it. It's got some interesting camera work but all told it's not much of a much. Made the most of a low budget though. Good job there, James Seale. I hope you get summat even more pulpier next go round.
I figured it'd be a good idea to compare the 1960 original to the 2001 remake and as I settled in to watch the original, I felt good. The Saul Bass opening credits animation were swell and the whole thing had a smooth easy feel with all the characters seeming real comfortable with each other having chemistry and patter. I got bored pretty quick though. Jesus gawd all this breezy chatter, natty suits, drinking booze, smoking cigarettes, and gorgeous dames....how long is it going to take before we get to the action? An hour of introducing all the damn actors is really stretching it, but I guess when you've got 11 guys to characterise it takes some time.
I recognised Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and was surprised at how small Sammy Davis Jr. was. He reminded me of Prince in his song piece - which is also the theme song of the flick, and the main riff plays all throughout out. And the Prince thang is more size wise and on a performance level, because Sammy and Prince don't really have the same kinda sound.
The other actors, I couldn't place except for the skull-faced Henry Silva. He's got a real distinctive look, and I know him even if it's only because he's so recognisable. I think he's best known as for his bad guy roles. There's also Norman Fell. Mr Furley!! And Shirley MacLaine makes a brief cameo as a drunk girl, Dean Martin gets to make out with - for crime's sake. She did the film so she could hang out with her Rat Pack buddies - they would do their club acts at night then shoot in the early morning. Much of the dialogue was just improvised as they were good buddies with close rapport.
One interesting bit of trivia - Sammy Davis Jr. wasn't allowed to stay in any of the Casinos he performed at because of racism. It took sway and direct intervention from Sinatra to get the Casinos to put aside their no coloureds bullshit.
I liked the period details and style. I liked seeing the narrow ties and tight suits. The women were all dressed sharp too, with glamour dresses, especially in the burlesque scene, Honeyface has a gorgeous outfit. Overall folk are well dressed, probably because people dressed more formally in 1960, at least in this movie they did.
The movie is pretty dumb. I didn't buy the whole caper, but it's got old school Vegas as the backdrop and that is totally intriguing. Vegas just seems like a bunch of regular old nightclubs, except with one armed bandits and games tables. You can marvel at just how much the place has changed. I liked it okay. The movie is fun, and the ending completely redeems the ridiculous story.
Now for the sequel...
I recognised every star in this one, because it's chock full of them, plus it's of my era. And I recognised this Vegas too. It's so much bigger and flashy gaudy, the scale so much more more more and beyond belief compared to the itty bitty little casinos of the past. Vegas is so a star in this. Yay for cross promotions!
Both films work well for Vegas promotion.
Andy Garcia owns the vault servicing the 3 casinos targeted for robbery, MGM Grand, Mirage and The Bellagio. I'm guessing The Bellagio was the newest at the time of the 2001 filming, and that's why it got the most product placement promotion. I'm also guessing Garcia is a stand in for Steve Wynn.
The caper in this one is much more elaborate, more like a spy flick, all full of contraptions and gadgets. It's far more ridiculous in its complexity. The first caper was ridiculous too, but it's way outshone by the remake's shenanigans.
I'm glad the Oceans 11, 2.0 was more a riff on the original concept than a straight up remake. I was expecting the cast of criminals to be a bunch of Iraq veterans and that they weren't was refreshing. It's often better if a film confounds expectations. Overall, I found the 2nd iteration to be more entertaining. The original was slower, and went off on tangents, and musical numbers by Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr, especially showcasing these stars, and as much as I enjoyed that, I liked that the sequel was more plot driven. Both were fairly dismissive of women. Julia Roberts gets a bigger part as Danny Ocean's, (George Clooney), wife than Angie Dickinson did as Sinatra's ex-Mrs. Ocean. The one actor of the principle cast of 2.0 that I didn't recognise was Shaebo Qin. He was recruited from The Peking Acrobats and doesn't act except for his roles in the Ocean's flicks. I thought his ethnicity was played for laughs.
They're both fun, but I think the 2nd one is a more entertaining heist.
Jesus does Isabella Rossellini ever look like her mom Ingrid Bergman.
Aside from that observation, I forgot to write anything about this movie right after I watched it, so this review will be brief.
It was good. The story is great, except for a rather anticlimactic ending, and the acting is stellar by everyone involved. Joseph Cotton is a snoopy American with a snazzy manner, suspicious of that foreigner Charles Boyer. While Boyer is sleazy and supercilious, he's awsome spooky too. Ingrid Bergman is the fragile object of affection, eyed possessively by both men and she's more than just a pretty face. It takes skill to appear vulnerable and tormented. Angela Lansbury is great in her role as a maid on the make, and she's pretty gorgeous and nasty too. It's a good portrayal of the upper classes in the fussy and mannerly Victorian era. I liked the sets and costumes, it looks beautiful, and it's altogether, a pretty great thriller, that's entirely entertaining. I can see why the term gaslight came in to use, because it's such a memorable production particularly in terms of illustrating the diabolical type of evil it would take to "gaslight" someone. It makes sense that the title was coined as a term and referenced over time so often because it well depicts the matrix of deceit and manipulation the abusive/Svengali male entangles around their thrall in order to control them and this is an insidious dynamic which gets play in most all abusive relationships.
I got caught up in the story too. The villain is a terrible man, and what he does is soooo wrong. I was getting mad watching him be such a snakey jerk. Still, it's soooo sexist! It's redonkulous how often female characters are written as lambs to the slaughter victims. Whatever though, because it's worth a look. It's a fun psycho-killer showdown, satisfaction guaranteed!
Based on a play by Evelyne de la Cheneliere, this award winning French language flick stars Mohamed Fellag, as an Algerian refugee in Montreal who takes on the job of teaching a grade 6 class traumatised by the suicide of their teacher. Although, there are a lot of children in this film, it isn't full of your typical Hollywood kids mugging for the camera. It's realistic kid acting with a well done story that garnered enough respect that it was selected as Canada's offering for the Oscars. It made it to the final 5, only to lose out to the Iranian selection, A Seperation. Monsieur Lazhar is an interesting man who has his own issues and wisdom that he brings to the classroom.
Seriously though, what the hell? A teacher hangs herself in the middle of a work day, IN THE CLASSROOM while the kids are at recess? Jayzus.
Aside from that dramatic premise and beginning, about the only thing I had a hard time with was the fact that Monsieur Lazhar was able to get a job as a substitute teacher. There's no way that would happen, at least not in a well run school. Credentials and references would for sure get checked, and I thought the racism aspect was glossed over some as immigrants are treated with suspicion in most every society, especially Muslim folk in Western countries in a post 9-11 world. Terroriste! These are fairly quibbling problems though as it's not really about the immigrant experience, it's much more about the aftermath of trauma. Monsieur Lazhar didn't need to be an immigrant, he just needed to be a survivor of trauma.
At first I was convinced this was the same school from David Cronenberg's The Brood, but that was filmed in Toronto, and this one takes place in Montreal. I guess it's more the atmospheric dread in the scholastic setting that felt similar. The Brood's murderous rage babies going to pick up their sister, and incidentally murdering the teacher created the same feeling of wrongness I got from the aftermath of this film's suicidal teacher.
The movie has an over arcing message of surmounting tragedy, and it's not done in a trite or melodramatic way. The kids have gone through something terrible and so has Monsieur Lazhar. He is able to show his charges that the way through those feelings is not to pretend death and despair don't exist, but to acknowledge and go on in spite of them. It's a good flick.
Spoilers! (but it's based on a true story so I dunno, I think that automatically disqualifies me from having to make a spoiler warning. You're getting one anyway. You're welcome.)
Blah. This is what you get when Hollywood messes with a true life animal rescue story. It feels like a Disney flick, but it's a Universal production that's based on the true events around an incident in the late 80's when some Grey Whales became trapped under the ice in Alaska. It's so calculated and crappy heartwarming with product placement and good people coming together because they love the whales.... and for mutual benefit too. This movie was made to capitalise on people's love of animals and besides, saving whales is such a noble cause right? Of course I'm being terribly cynical, but geez, even though it's got a Free Willy redemptive ending, it's altogether a bad feeling flick.
It stars John Krasinski as a news reporter whiling away in the sticks, and Drew Barrymore is his shrill hippie granola Cassandra ex-girlfriend, who screeches about environmental disaster while everyone tunes her out. The Office dude is interviewing her in one scene where she's saying, "Eat your fish before it's so full of mercury it kills you!", and "In 15 years you'll be drinking bottled water because the tap water is poison too!" He tries to get her to tone the doom down saying, "Everyone just changed the channel!" Yeah, the truth is too scary eh? Then she talks about how whales are just like us, swimming in the ocean fishlike people who are scared. And we're scared too, just most people are busy buying shit so they don't feel that anxiety, and they're caught up working hard so they can make money so they can buy more shit and this cycle takes up all their energy and ability to care about anything outside world of excess consumption.
There were some indigenous folk in the film but the focus was on the white people and their white people problems. It's actually more fitting into the romantic comedy mode than having much to do with the whales. The romance with the pilot and the White House rep was apparently real, but much of the stuff related to the whales wasn't. For instance, there were more than the three whales, and the reason they don't all make it is because of human error, not that the baby whale got respiratory issues. They were accidentally playing killer whale sounds and these sounds scared the whales away from the breathing holes since Killer Whales prey on Grey Whales. And nobody dived down to untangle a whale's tail from netting. Though I have to admit, that scene choked me up. Aw, poor whale being all tangled. That's not right! Yeah, the movie knows how to push buttons. Another thing that bugged me, is that it kinda sucks that it's such a white person movie when so much of the action was obviously Indigenous. I have to admit it's got some balance for what it is though, because I recognise that it's made for the broadest possible audience, mainly American, and that's mostly white people, and they only seem to care about seeing stories about other white people, so whatever I guess. It is what it is. It's got some romance and some whales and some Alaskan neechis who are actually played by the local people. So I give it props for what NDN content there is.
There was a guy in a whale suit promoting the Vancouver Aquarium and a woman handed $1 off admission coupons to everyone going in, but the best part would have to be when the aquarium lady said we could stop global warming by using less energy and taking a bus, or shutting off a light. Yeah right, That's the Big Miracle there, if people turning off a light bulb could add up enough to make a difference. Every little bit counts I guess. It's not like there are some people in the world consuming crazy disproportionate amounts of resources. Nah, it'll take a whole lot more than a few light bulbs going off to change the current trajectory of global warming and resource depletion. I don't think I'll live to see the paradigm shift required for significant change, but I think I'm seeing the beginnings of it, and this movie's attempt to cash in on that ideological sea change is a reflection of that process, and actually represents progress of some sort.
It's not a super awesome good flick, but it shows that people have their hearts in the right place, and that we can cooperate. It's a family thing, that will appeal to moms and dads and their kids too. If you don't think on things too hard after, you'll probably come away with a good feeling.
Max Rothman, (John Cusack), is a one armed art dealer who takes young Hitler under his wing and encourages him to open himself up to new ideas and branch out into abstract art. It's based on a play and was produced by John Cusack. Whatever, I think this is a rude flick. Hitler was a terrible man and this is an unnecessary story that does nothing to illuminate the human condition. It's a cheap way to give a story gravitas by making it about Hitler. It humanises Hitler some, but is that admirable? It's all made up too, and I hate the idea of people thinking Hitler came "THIS CLOSE" to not being the 20th Century's greatest villain. It's not like Hitler really had an art dealer taking an interest in him and amping up his Jew hatred due to the condescending manner Cusack displays towards him. Hitler wanted to be an architect, and applied for a scholarship before he became a soldier, his artistic aspirations were behind him after The Great War.
Speilberg passed on the project because he didn't want to dishonour Holocaust survivors, but encouraged Menno Meyjes to follow through on his screenplay. John Cusack was an associate producer and he gave up his salary to help the project along.
I enjoyed the depictions of the art scene, and Hitler's distase for the decadence within that arena was well displayed, with his bitterness and all, shining bright due to Noah Taylor's ranting spit flying oratory skills. Seeing Hitler getting trained in the art of propaganda was a nice touch too, and a good way to show that Hitler was a man of his time. His racist beliefs weren't of his own creation, hatred of Jews and Gypsies and "lower" classes, were commonplace and everywhere, and still are. The Nazis were simply very effective at harnessing and channelling that powerfully destructive and ugly reality. Sexism, racism, ethnic cleansing, war, othering....it's not like we've come a long way, baby! really very much at all when we consider the big picture.
There's a great scene where Max puts on a performance piece about war - very avante garde dadaesque speechifying about propaganda against a backdrop of a giant meat grinder. Max lost his arm in WWI, and his fake arm puppet floats into the grinder and the piece ends with him seemingly slowly sinking into the grinder, while red clay oozes out the front through the grinder holes. Meat for the war machine. Hitler is incensed. Disgusting!! he shrieks and stomps out.
Best line? c'mon Hitler! I'll buy you a lemonade!
The movie pushed buttons for me. On the one hand it's an interesting what if story, but it's about HITLER and it's all fictional bullshit! On a metaphorical level there is some truth but I kept bumping up against the fact that really it's lies, lies, lies. And it's so melodramatic too, with an OMG so stupid tragic ending. Puhleez. I did like the political machinations shown. Even though I believe that it's inevitable that current knowledge of political realities inform interpretations of the past, what is shown is still very interesting. The movie highlights the development of propaganda in support of wedge politics, where hatred of one group is used to consolidate and leverage political power. It's still a very valid strategy, but one that has become more nuanced and less overt. Code words are used now and it's more based on class divisions than racial ones. Though ethnic and cultural divisions are strong still too. Just goes to show you , that we've still got a long way to go, baby!
Another documentary about sexual abuse, but this one focuses on the survivors rather than the perpetrator. It's made by Celesta Davis and documents the process she goes through in coming to terms with her personal experiences with childhood sexual abuse. She and her sister were both molested by a family friend and when they told their parents, the parents decided to simply ignore the abuse, which apparently was a fairly common practise in the swinging 70's. Perhaps it was the permissive attitude around the sexual revolution that contributed to that, but I think it's more that childhood sexual abuse was a taboo subject that people didn't deal with very well. Anyhow, the impetus for the documentary came when Celesta learns via a news announcement over the radio that the son of her abuser was arrested for some kind of sex crime. She then decides to confront her abuser and to film everything along the way.
I watched this one on Netflix, via my ipod, while lolling in bed. Lounging that is - I wasn't inclined to laugh out loud much while watching this flick. I haven't watched many movies on the ipod, though it's pretty convenient. Anyhow, I have a personal stake in the subject of the film, since I'm also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, but I don't particularly agree with the process the sisters utilise. I have no interest in having anything to do with my abuser. I don't think I'd get anything out of it except stress, but the sisters, especially Celeste are convinced of the validity of meeting up with their abuser. For them it was a good idea, but I thought the idea was gross.
The sisters do eventually get to talk with the guy and it made my skin crawl. Celesta feels much better after the confrontation, and that made me wonder. Did she have to meet up with him to have that closure? What is closure anyway? Can't you find peace about how you've been hurt without having to engage with the person who hurt you? Isn't it giving the abuser more power if you let them run a number on you about why they did what they did? Who cares why? What they did was wrong, and they suck. Leave it at that. I think engaging with someone is only important if you want to continue a relationship with them, and let's face it, who wants to continue a relationship with the person who violated them?
I can understand wanting to unload to your abuser, and explicitly state how much they hurt you. I support restorative justice and victim offender reconciliation processes. I think though, that it's important for survivors to realise that it might not be very satisfying to interact with the person that hurt you. Perhaps they will justify their actions or deny your feelings and experiences.
The hope is that it's a healing encounter; the survivor says their piece, giving them peace of mind, and the offender is forced to hear out the impact of their actions, and come face to face with the repercussion of their actions and be held accountable. In optimal circumstances, the abuser is moved to sincere contrition and apologises, and the survivor is able to forgive them and move on. But who cares about them, is how I feel personally. You dun what you dun, and I'm done with you. Maybe this is harsh, but from the perspective of a victim, the drama of dealing with an abuser doesn't offer much incentive since there's so much rumination over the abuse. I think it can be psychologically damaging to focus attention on how someone hurt you, but I expect it's part of a process to recontextualise that past experience. I simply question the necessity of including the perpetrator in that process. It could just be my knee jerk reaction though, because it's fairly easy for me to not have anything to do with my abuser. Perhaps this means I'm locked in some kind of eternal victimhood, but I don't think so. I survived a terrible experience that plagued me for a good many years. It happened to me when I was a little girl and I can't change that. But lots of bad things have happened to me. Lots of good things too. My perspective now, is to try not to focus on the bad things.
I understand that survivors and offenders still have to live in the same world and restorative justice acknowledges that and attempts to make that a less painful reality. One positive element of is this kind of interaction, aside from the possibility of it bringing peace to both the survivors and offenders, is that it might preclude further victims. I'm dubious about that being a realistic outcome, but hope springs eternal.
