angie_l Reviews

Concussion (2015)

Watch PBS's "League of Denial" instead

[6/10 · 9 April 2016]

I wanted to like this movie. I know a lot of people who may not sit through a documentary but probably would sit through a good movie. I was hoping this would connect with them. However, this movie is a bit long-winded and boring. The movie was 2 hours long but it felt like it was 3.

I felt like they tried to really stick to the facts but it didn't have that much of a dramatic impact. It was boring and little held my interest and this is a topic I am interested in. Some of the interludes of Omalu's personal life felt a little too long or unnecessary. I kind of wished the movie had layered in more of the football players' lives and their degenerating mental health as opposed to just a few scenes peppered in here or there. Maybe, even see some more of the NFL's denial of the seriousness of head injuries over the years. Even though the story is focused on the struggle of Dr. Omalu, exploring the NFL's denial and the players' realities more would have strengthened and added more depth to the movie as a whole - who is he fighting for? And, who/what is he fighting against? Even the racism and xenophobia that Dr. Omalu faced as an outsider taking down the USA's favorite sport was mostly just flat out stated. Basically, the script needed a very deft hand to weave it all together in an informative, real, and compelling way.

Some of the acting was a little wonky. Will Smith is poorly cast as Dr. Omalu. Smith's accent ended up more as a stereotypical generic African accent. Other than the accent issues, his acting was fine in the role (and the Academy has not only nominated but has given Oscars to worse) but, and I put this in part on the director, I hated how leaky-eyed and lifeless Omalu was portrayed.

Last season, when football kicked off, PBS simultaneously ran a documentary about CTE called "League of Denial." I highly recommend it. It was much more informative and interesting than this movie.

Doctor Zhivago (1965)

A Major Part of the Story is Missing.

[6/10 · 1 April 2016]

Honestly, this movie made me feel like I was wandering the Russian tundra.

Anyway, I was initially excited to finally see this movie. However, by the time it got to the intermission, I debated giving up on it. The biggest problem with the whole script, the reason why the movie lacks any drive, any momentum, any tension, is because the heart of the story is missing. Dr. Zhivago's marriage to Tonya is one of love and friendship but she's supposedly not his true love. Then, Zhivago spends 6 months with the gorgeous Lara and falls in love. However, the movie skips from him arriving at his post and seeing Lara again to him leaving and them already in love. We don't see their relationship grow, develop, unfold. It's a gaping hole in the middle of the movie. On top of that, their affair is purely emotional at this point and not physical which if we saw their relationship develop, it would actually build tension. Their love story was critical to, at least, my emotional involvement in the plot. Without seeing what was so enthralling about Lara, you kind of feel like what was he missing from the pretty and sweet Tonya?

There are parts of the movie worthy praise especially on a technical front. However, the movie was ultimately long and boring.

Bicycle Thieves (1948)

Good Movie but not the Greatest

[8/10 · 1 April 2016]

I am very bored with Hollywood and have been trying to check out more art films, classics, foreign films etc. I saw this is sometimes touted as the greatest film ever made. I thought it was good but the greatest? Not too sure about that. This review is going to ramble.

In post WWII Italy, poverty abounds. I really think this movie was made to speak to the common man and inspire sympathy in those of a wealthier class. Our protagonist, Antonio, is out of work when he gets a job posting from the unemployment office. The job requires a bicycle which Antonio has to retrieve from the pawn store. His first day on the job, the bike is stolen. He then goes on a quest to find this bicycle with his son Bruno.

As for how the movie aged, I think it's done just OK. The very poor quality looks like it was made in the 1920's and not the '40's - Gone With the Wind is 9 years older. Also, some of the son's expressions were slapsticky which I hate slapstick humor but OK, it was a common form of comic relief at the time. The constant background chatter was annoying.

As for my impressions, you can certainly draw lot of meaning from the movie. Some, I'm not sure if it was intended to be there. (My point is I learned in 3 different classes (2 in college) that Miller used the name Loman (low man) in Death of a Salesman to describe his character. Miller, himself, said it wasn't intentional.) Yes, you can see that the government, the police, and the church (who lock in the impoverished so they have to stay for the mass to receive charity) offer little relief. Also, the poor are constantly at odds with each other instead of uniting and challenging the rest of society that blissfully ignores them.

This is how I saw the movie and why I think it was to inspire sympathy in the lesser fortuned. Antonio is a good man, his circumstances lead him to do something you thought he would never do, steal. I love when movies create a moral gray area. As much as I didn't want him to steal the bike, I also wanted him to get away with it. Don't judge so harshly, who knows what one will do when they are completely desperate.

The other main meaning I took from the movie is what the soothsayer said. She tells the "ugly" boy don't continue to sow a field you can't harvest. Then she tells Antonio that he will find the bicycle immediately or not all and to open his eyes. The open your eyes line leads Antonio to confront the boy on the street, though, I'm not sure if that boy is supposed to actually be the thief (I hope he isn't). You assume that the open your eyes line was saying that the bike is under his nose, if he would just look harder, he'd find it. What she really means is to see the truth, the bicycle is gone. Don't keep sowing a field that won't harvest, let go. Granted, there are few other fields out there for him to harvest... but maybe there are, maybe he can rent a bike? Unfortunately, Antonio doesn't let go and this is what leads him to steal.

This is me "Loman-ing" this movie (putting my own meaning into it). I see the bicycle as representing Antonio (or any man's) dignity which is tied to being able to support his family (less so now but it's 1948). Society has taken his dignity from him but it is returned when he gets a job. However, it is again stolen from him. This is why he goes on a relentless pursuit. In the end, you can't steal dignity and this leaves him even lower than before.

The relationship with the son is also a nice element in the movie. I thought the smacking scene was great, you felt the sting Antonio felt (remember, dignity stolen) when the son mentioned the soup (though he shouldn't have hit him). Also, Bruno's reaction was fantastic, you really felt how wrong the slap was. The son seeing the father steal was also heartbreaking. There is probably more that can be drawn from here but it's not what I focused on.

Lastly, I thought the movie was good but not quite great. It's more of a quiet and simple film, though, it does punch you in the gut in the end. You feel sadness and kudos to any movie that can make you care about the characters and evoke that strong of an emotion.

Pixels (2015)

Ridiculous fun.

[7/10 · 19 March 2016]

I'm not an Adam Sandler lover or hater, though, sometimes I can't stand that affected voice he typically does. He's had only a couple of movies that I have liked, e.g. The Wedding Singer and Anger Management. After Pixels got panned by pretty much every professional critic out there, I was pretty sure I was never going to watch it...

Then, I was going to spend time with my mother and she asked me if there were any decent movies to rent. So, I jokingly said Pixels. I thought she knew what it was, knew it was an Adam Sandler movie, would know I was kidding, and pass it over at the Red Box. To my surprise, she showed up with Pixels in hand. My mother hates "stupid" comedies and she hates Adam Sandler. I started laughing and apologizing for the confusion. She asked what the movie was about and I began to tell her what I knew from the trailer but I couldn't recite the premise without bursting out laughing - aliens, video games, death match - it's all ludicrous. I think the premise was so ridiculous, it actually intrigued her so much, she wanted to see how bad the movie actually is. Besides, she already rented it.

Is the movie ridiculous? Yup. Is Kevin James as president outside of belief? Absolutely. Is designing and building guns from an arcade game in less than a week outside of any scientific possibility? Of course. Did I like the movie? Uh huh. Did my mother like the movie? Why, yes she did. Did she laugh out loud a few times? Amazingly, yes. If you care about the believability of the plot, you are going to hate the movie. It's about aliens sending Pacman, among others, to Earth - the believability is out the door before the movie even begins. Were there plenty of plot holes? I'm sure there were but I was too busy enjoying the inanity of the whole thing to notice. If you are watching an Adam Sandler movie to point out plot holes and what not, save yourself the time and don't watch it. And, Adam Sandler was far less whiny and annoying in this role.

In conclusion, I thought the movie was adorable (and so did my mom). If you're looking for light-hearted silly fun movie to waste 2 hours on, you could do worse! Also, Peter Dinklage is so hilarious here, he steals the show.

Straight Outta Compton (2015)

Potential but Ends Up a Superficial Retelling

[5/10 · 16 March 2016]

I was extremely disappointed by this film. With the Oscar controversy and the snub, I had high hopes. After watching the movie, it didn't deserve to be nominated for any awards. What I think is the bigger controversy, though, is that the writers received a completely undeserved Oscar nomination.

The movie begins amazingly well. The first scene really gives you the setting. The dingy small house, bars on windows, a male dominated society, drug dealings, the militarized police, Compton is bleak. I was excited, I'm in for a gritty edgy story about the controversial pioneers of gangster rap (even if in reality, they aren't so gangster). Then, it was all down hill from here. So what went wrong?

First problem was the script and possibly the editing. Overall, haphazard is the best way to describe the plot. The main focus of the story is the financial dispute between Cube and Eazy-E. However, I felt like the story was more concerned with ticking off all the boxes of things that Dre and Cube wanted to be shown rather than telling a coherent and compelling story - the Bye, Felicia scene, check - Ice Cube trashing a music execs office, check etc. Some scenes in the story come about with little explanation. An example of the careless story telling is how the infamous song, "F*** Tha Police," was handled. That was a hugely controversial song with 1st amendment implications and the challenging of censorship in America. It had so much build up with the police harassment. It leads to a riot and then Cube jokes about Raiders gear and we never hear about "F*** Tha Police" again.

I felt like the poor script was due to the writers being handcuffed by Ice Cube and Dr. Dre who produced the film. They were going to have the story told they way they remembered it and not by an objective third party. Dre and Cube are the "good guys." Even when Cube destroys an execs office, we are supposed to be cheering for him. While his frustration is real, I think a better script would have you wavering between whether he was throwing a tantrum or justified. Dre is literally just there most of the time. He's a producer so he does get some story line. DJ Yella and MC Ren could've been left on the cutting room floor without losing anything. Did they really contribute so little? I looked them up and they are credited as writers on most songs. Eazy-E who is the movies quasi-villain, and not around to tell his side of the story, is even shown to not really be so bad, just misguided by their manager Jerry Heller. It all felt so superficial, like it was only scratching the surface. The characters were flat and one dimensional - these are real people, right? Or maybe I got too hung up on the tone set by the first scene. The last scene also mistakenly thought the movie had stayed in the tone of the first scene. I didn't feel enough chaos for the final word to land with the intended impact.

I found the acting to be mostly sub-par minus the seasoned actor Giamatti. He's good here but it's not his best and I felt like he was a somewhat awkward fit for the role. The acting standout of the cast was Jason Mitchell who played Eazy-E. There really isn't much to say about the directing other than it was passable. Also, the movie was at least a half an hour too long and really dragged in the second half.

In the end, it was typical, bland, biopic fare.

The Revenant (I) (2015)

Brilliant Directing Made a Bad Script Bearable

[1/10 · 14 March 2016]

Spoilers Galore, consider yourself warned! When I saw Birdman, also written and directed by Inarritu, I thought it was great. It was a stylish and interesting movie experience. However, I was left feeling something was missing, which prevented it from entering "favorite" status, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. After seeing the Revenant, I realized what Inarritu lacks. His direction, while skillful, is cold. Emotion, which in Birdman isn't needed to carry the script, is missing here and it hurts the story.

First, the movie could have been edited down by a half to a full hour. The scenery is beautiful but does every shot need to linger so long? The story is about revenge and survival. However, I found the whole script to be dull and lacking. The conversations are bland and if not for Inarritu's skill as a director, the movie would be unwatchable, unbearable even.

Hugh Glass, DiCaprio, is the main character and the guide to a fur trapping expedition. His Native American wife was murdered years before and he was left alone to care for their son. His son, now a teenager, is on the fur expedition with him. The expedition is lead by Captain Henry, Gleeson, and the villain John, Hardy, is also a member of the party. John opposes almost all of Glass's decisions at every turn.

When we meet the expedition, they are quickly descended upon by a group of Native Americans. The scene is brutal but well directed The struggle to survive is well captured but the scene goes on a bit long. We later learn the Native Americans are looking for the Chief's daughter, Powaqa, who has been kidnapped. My issue is the Native Americans just start shooting with no questions asked at all "English" men because the French, who actually have the girl, told them that's who took her. They aren't even worried that she might be accidentally killed in the fray. I get it, Inarritu wants this world to be as merciless as possible but sometimes it went beyond reason.

Some of the members of the expedition manage to survive the attack. Glass comes up with a new path to avoid another attack and return to their fort. But, Glass is viciously attacked by a bear in one of the most skillfully directed scenes possibly ever. Glass 's condition is dire but he clings to life. As they continue on their difficult return course, it becomes apparent they won't be able to carry the injured Glass up the mountain. At first, the leader, Captain Henry, debates putting Glass out of his misery. In an unforgiving land, Capt. Henry is more sentimental and takes a more noble path and offers money to those willing to stay with Glass until he passes. John, Bridger - a nice young man - and Glass's son, Hawk, stay.

John has always felt that they should euthanize Glass. So, when the two young men are gone, he offers Glass a mercy death. Glass eventually agrees. Hawk comes upon John while he is doing the deed and freaks out. In the scuffle, John kills Hawk as Glass lays helpless watching. You already dislike John but there really isn't enough character development for you to feel completely devastated by Hawk's death.... and that's a major problem in a revenge story. Plus, it took an hour to get to this point - an hour to establish the setup and it still lacked the necessary emotional punch. By the time any chance of revenge comes, you feel just as worn out as Glass and it doesn't really matter any more - which in some ways was the point of the movie even if it failed to fully realize that..

Moving on. John makes it back to the fort with Bridger who is ignorant to everything. And, for the next hour or more, we watch Glass miraculously survive through some impossible situations like falling off a cliff. Glass meets another man whose family has also been killed but he decided to leave revenge in God's hands. Finally, Glass is found by the those at the Fort. At this point, you're not sure who has been more tortured, Glass or you, the viewer.

When they return, John has taken all of the money from the safe, we don't know how he managed this, and ran off. Here comes some unbelievable aspects, Glass and Henry decide to go after John alone. Two men, that's it? This is to setup 2 aspects of the forced ending: 1) Glass can pretend to be dead on the horse for a cool scene. 2) Glass can let go of his revenge. Except, after a lengthy savage duel, Glass has his chance to fulfill his revenge but his companion's words echo in his head to leave it to God. So, he does by letting him drift down the river... which would be a good ending if that left John with Glass's fate – injured and lost in the wilderness with nothing but it's not. Glass had previously saved Powaqa and those same Native Americans are coincidentally 60 feet down river. John floats to them and they kill him. Is that really leaving it to God's hands? Or letting someone else do the dirty deed as you watch? How about more simply, Captain Henry gathers a group of men to catch John, he has to abandon his belongings including the money to run away. As they risk more perils, Glass sees the futility and talks Capt. Henry into standing down, to leave it to God.

Other notes, Hardy is a good actor but here he sounded like he had a huge wad of cotton stuck in his mouth . Inarritu deserved the best directing Oscar despite how bad the movie was. Lastly, there a bunch of dream sequences that involved Glass's wife that I felt added little to the story. DiCaprio's Oscar is well deserved.

Inside Out (I) (2015)

Too Cerebral without an Entertaining Enough Story

[6/10 · 14 March 2016]

Just based on the movie, it deserves a rating of a 4 or 5 but I'm giving it 6 stars because of its intellectual aspect.

I was so excited to see this film. I missed it in theaters and didn't get to see it in 3D so I'm not sure what that would add to the movie. I am a Pixar lover but this one was a major disappointment. On some levels, the movie is amazing and the writers obviously did a lot of research and carefully laid out their story - so much to the movie is brilliant. How what is happening inside of Riley's (the main character) brain and how it affects what she is doing "outside" is seamless. The sections of the brain like memory and imagination are wonderful. The whole aspect of how suppressing emotions affects us is great. However, while the representation of the inner workings of the brain in a fun way that is accessible to children was exceptional, it didn't translate into an interesting story. (By accessible to children, I mean even if they didn't understand it, they wouldn't be confused by it either.) The story is just OK, a bit boring actually. The goal of the movie wasn't to be a laugh-fest but I also didn't get the emotional connection needed to sustain it either. Also, the cast was great.

I still give a major kudos to Pixar for attempting such a layered film with so much potential. Intellectually, I appreciated the effort of trying to give us a children's movie with so much depth. Unfortunately, the end result was mediocre.

Brooklyn (2015)

Clichéd and Disappointing

[3/10 · 4 March 2016]

This contains only spoilers, be warned! The movie starts off fairly solid despite being a bit dull and clichéd romance. My problem with the film is how the ending is written - it's not the only problem but is the one that killed any potential of the movie being decent. The protagonist is sweet and innocent but it's to the point of being emotionally cold. I'm not sure she ever really loved the Brooklyn boy, Tony, or if he was just really nice and she could see building a life with him. To confirm this, she returns to Ireland and finds the perfect life waiting for her; great potential husband (Jim), good job, and her mother who she can look after since she is now alone, and she pretty much forgets about Tony. I'm OK with the idea that she wasn't really in love with either boy but was merely torn between two worlds, each with their pros and cons. However, my issue is with the end, we are supposed to believe she realized where her life was and where she wanted to be.... but did she? Miss Kelly, for all of her evilness, didn't do the low thing and embarrassingly out Eilis as already married. Instead, she confronted her face to face. I mean, Eilis was traipsing around for a month leading on poor Jim and not once did she ever give any hint of disinterest. When Miss Kelly confronts her, Eilis up and leaves the next day. Isn't that getting caught in a lie (by omission) and fleeing to the USA? The most offensive part is when she has been found out, Eilis proclaims, "Now, I remember what I don't like about this town." Really? Eilis is the one being dishonest(to Jim and her mother). And, if she was married when she first arrived in Brooklyn and then met Tony and lead him on, it would still be scandalous when her secret marriage was exposed. There is no great realization on the part of Eilis and she really didn't choose and that would be OK if the movie treated it as such. To sum it up, the resolution cheapens the whole film.

Maleficent (2014)

Plot holes in a completely new version of Sleeping Beauty

[3/10 · 30 December 2014]

Overall, the movie was OK and I don't regret watching it. It was entertaining and beautifully shot even if many scenes were referential to other movies.

As for the acting, Elle Fanning was OK as Aurora though the character felt a bit empty but to be fair, there wasn't much in the script to work with. I wish she had a little more to her than childish goodness. There actually wasn't much for any of the actors to work with. I won't lie, I'm no fan of Jolie's acting, she comes across as haughty in every role, humility and vulnerability are completely outside her range. But, her haughtiness works here and she was good as Maleficent except in the scenes where she was supposed to be angry. I got no hint of her anger, fire, or passion, she was merely shouting. I wanted to feel her rage.

Biggest problem with the movie is the number of plot holes. There is no real explanation given for why the Moors and the kingdom of men are enemies. The king decides to attack for virtually no reason. The relationship between Stefan and Maleficent is graced over and yet this relationship goes to the core of Maleficent's being. We also see nothing of Stefan's life so we are unable to fully understand his actions and motivations. Stefan becomes mad and paranoid with no real love for his daughter and that just sort of happens. I could go on and on about things left with little explanation.

Another major problem I had was the previews of the movie lied to me in a big way. The movie wasn't a retelling of Sleeping Beauty from Mealficent's point of view, it was an entirely new story. I wanted to find out why Maleficent was evil - the maleficent I know and love/hate or hate/love. I wanted to see Maleficent's evil with new understanding. Let's face it, Maleficent was nowhere near evil in this movie, she's angry for a moment and that's it... which lead me to imagine other ways to tell the story. Perhaps, humans had seriously wronged her. Aurora was the child born to unite the 2 warring kingdoms of men and that Maleficent's plan was to stop this union for real substantial reasons - The story could have been easily told with a new perspective while being seamlessly woven into the known fairy tale. Every story has two sides, right?

In conclusion, I wouldn't recommend this movie. If they were going to deviate so much from the known Disney or Perrault version, they could have fleshed out the story a little (lot) more.

The Big C (2010–2013)

Great Show

[9/10 · 14 January 2013]

When I first heard about this show, I thought I would never like it. I thought the concept to be a bit... off. However, it works. It can be hard for me to write about shows or movies I like. Yes, it's sad that I find it easier to critique than praise.

What I like about the show is even though some of the situations verge on ridiculous, it doesn't feel like it can't be real. However, when the ridiculous happens or a character makes a huge mistake, it is never magically forgotten or glazed over. There are always consequences, real tough consequences. Other characters reactions to situations are realistic too - you're never wondering, why is he not mad. It is a tightly written show that is often fearless; affairs, dementia, bi-polar disorder, cancer. With all of that, the show still manages to stay funny and not offensive, in my opinion.

The characters are fully fleshed out and flawed. The acting is also great doesn't just give the character's life but the whole show. Many times I am looking at Cathy thinking "What are you doing? You are being selfish." But I can understand why she is doing it. You are emotionally invested in their stories; their ups, downs, stumbles, and triumphs.

The show is funny, enjoyable, well acted, and well written. I can imagine that the type of humor isn't for anyone but it works for me.

Spoiler (sort of): I have to write this shout out to the show. Cathy is worried about her son, Adam, and whether or not he has empathy. So she is trying to test him and suggests a family movie. They watch 'Where the Red Fern Grows.' Afterwards Paul, Cathy's husband, is sobbing and proclaims it is the saddest bleeping movie ever. I couldn't stop laughing because in my fifth grade class, we read the book and then watched the movie. I was a 10 year old sitting in class trying not to bawl my eyes out at that movie - at that age I would have never lived it down. I have often said my school system used the movie 'Where the Red Fern Grows' to weed out the psychopaths.

Edit: There is a review that last time I looked was below mine and it says the show is for spoiled housewives that don't work. No house wife who spends her day cooking, cleaning, taking care of the bills and the children should ever be called spoiled and be implied to be lazy, it is hard work. The point is meaningless anyway since the main character does work, she is a high school history teacher and not just a summer school teacher.

Girls (2012–2017)

Commits the sins of being boring and unfunny.

[4/10 · 13 January 2013]

I have seen many complaints about Girls only being relatable to a small sliver of the audience. I have also read someone defending it saying that we can't relate to the characters on Dowtown Abbey but still love it. I like Downtown Abbey. I think of Mary Crawley as a bit spoiled, high-minded, even snooty but still good natured and I like her with her faults and I am far from a British aristocrat. The maids, footmen, valets, and cook - I can't relate to their situation either... Secret is we do relate to them through their experiences, like Daisy learning to stand up for herself in a respectful way. Enough about Downtown Abbey...

I think you CAN write a show about spoiled privileged self-absorbed white girls in their early 20's. Actually, that show could be really funny because on some level who doesn't like laughing at privileged sheltered girls stumbling through a big city? At the same time we are laughing, we are also being comforted by the fact that life isn't easy for anyone, learning from their mistakes, and watching them grow. I'm also not troubled by the fact that all the friends are white - I found this to be somewhat realistic. Even a boyfriend who is too nice can be upsetting - you want a partner, an equal, with opinions and not a puppy dog that follows you around. This sounds like I am going to start praising the show? All the main complaints about it don't bother me. However, my point of criticism was it forgot to be entertaining and the situations are poorly written. It isn't funny and I am bored to tears while watching it. The characters are also often just plain annoying.

I saw an episode one night not knowing what it was. It was so boring, drab, and lifeless, I kept thinking what is this? Is it a show? Who could produce something so vanilla, limp, and dull? Thanks to the info button, I learned it was 'Girls.' So I googled it and found rave reviews and decided to watch some episodes - maybe I couldn't appreciate the show without seeing the story that came before. I watched the first 3 episodes, that makes 4 total and 4 too many. The show just fails on multiple levels, mostly at the satire it tries to be. I admit there are brief moments when the show rises above and realizes its potential, again, very briefly. Sometimes the lack of comedic timing kills a scene. The dialogue and interactions are also very simplistic and there is never any subtext.

Things that bugged me in the first 2 episodes:

The lighthearted abortion party was a little disturbing and I am completely pro-choice. So the British girl isn't the type to be emotional but she doesn't show up to her abortion and just confessed to you that she does want children (the conversation about her wanting children was one of the most badly written scenes I have ever watched.). What is your response? You are worried about your friend who is facing a huge life decision and is unsure about her choices? Worried she may be somewhere needing your support? Nope, you are annoyed she stood you up. What? The situation could be funny but NEVER in the way it is presented. The show then wimped out and balked on the unwanted pregnancy. (Also, she would have had a pregnancy test and medical exam to schedule an abortion so was she miscarrying?)

Hannah makes a joke about date rape in her interview. OK, nose-diving in an interview should be funny and make you uncomfortable. Her date rape joke makes you cringe but not cringe at how out of touch Hannah is but cringe with who wrote this terrible show?

Hannah's lover during sex wants her to pretend to be an 11 year old girl that he took from the street and is going to send home to her parents covered in semen (they use the other word) while shoving his hand in her face. He's a jerk but still this one, I... don't... get.

Alright, it's all to character development and we aren't supposed to think they are the greatest people in the world - they are real with flaws. They certainly are not completely awful but whether we are supposed to be laughing at or horrified by them, we should be invested in their story. The characters inspire nothing. They aren't interesting, they aren't funny. I didn't like them or hate them and I didn't care. You don't have to like a character to root for them. I also had a nagging sense that the show was telling superficial people, it is OK to be this self absorbed.

You shouldn't have to be living in a narrow section of society to like a show and relate to the characters - most shows I watch are far from depicting me but I like them, I relate, I laugh, I cry. So when a large chunk of people think a show is not relatable, it's the show's fault and not the viewers. The shows biggest failure is it's boring. I didn't absolutely hate it despite it making me cringe at times. It's just a blank void as vacuous as its characters.

The Time Machine (2002)

I read the book so....

[5/10 · 7 January 2013]

The movie isn't bad, it's actually entertaining and I am not so bothered by the time traveler having made the time machine to save his love. But....

HG Wells is one of my favorite authors, not so much that he was an exceptionally good writer, more that he had exceptionally good concepts - many are still relevant to today with some changes for advancements in science. Take the Island of Dr. Moreau and apply it to DNA research. Think War of the Worlds and how cautious NASA is to not spread organisms from Earth to Mars. Knowing what the book is about, I couldn't sit through this movie and just enjoy it because all I can think is, "That's not what happens!" Granted the book might not translate well into a movie, I think, it would take more skill anyway. I have seen the 1960's version and it is closer to this version than the book also. So I am going to talk about the book so you can understand my protestations.

The book the Time Machine is a joke! Literally, it is a joke, a satire of modern society. Wells was British and he is making fun of the aristocracy saying they are lazy pretty fools who would only be useful if they were food for the working class man. Humanity has evolved into two distinct species. The Eloi are pretty, lazy, carefree and stupid - they are the descendants of aristocrats. The morlocks are industrious, resourceful, and hardworking who due to certain events have been forced to live underground - the working man. The eloi are able to survive because the morlocks provide for them, do you see the satire? The time traveler in the book prefers the morlocks and holds the elois in contempt - yup, he prefers the creepy underground-dwelling night creatures who eat the eloi. Why? Because they are hard-workers as opposed to the eloi who engage in folly all day long. The eloi Weena (now Mara) who follows the time traveler around gets left in the woods to either be burned to death or captured by the morlocks and guess what? The time traveler isn't sure what her fate is nor is he too worried about it.

So, leave it to cinema to praise the pretty idiot and kill the hard working man. I'm guessing an American audience is what inspired the change and removed the symbolism. We think of wealth as something attainable through innovation and hard work. We believe in social mobility and don't see being rich as something simply bestowed by inheritance (though sometimes it is). Ane we also don't have an aristocracy. If you liked the movie, you might not want read the book.

Looper (2012)

The trouble with time travel

[6/10 · 6 January 2013]

I love sci fi movies and futuristic ones, even if the future is a deteriorated version of the now instead of an improved one. The trouble with time travel is it always leads to plot holes and this one had a couple. The movie was good except for some nagging logical inconsistencies. So I am going to talk rather openly about the movie, though you may not fully understand unless you have seen it.

Joe BW - the Bruce Willis version of Joe 30 years older, Joe JGL - the younger Joseph Gordon Lovett version of Joe

Joe is a looper, killing people from the future. When your loop is closed, the last person you kill is yourself with a big pay out. Then you have 30 more years to live until you are the older version of you sent back in time and killed by yourself. So Joe BW kills himself when he is young and lives out the rest of his 30 years. Most of it still living a drugged violent life until he meets a woman who cleans him up and makes him anew. When they come to send him back in time, his wife is murdered. So, Joe BW who is now a very skilled killer manages to jump back in time and survive Joe JGL trying to kill him - this is already a change since Joe BW killed his older self. Joe BW comes up with the plan to eliminate the rainmaker, the terrible gang leader in the future he feels is responsible for his wife's death. I am guessing all along they were killing people for the rainmaker??? The idea is killing the rainmaker will save the wife and keep him from being sent back in time. Right? Another key point, though Joe BW exists at the same time as the younger Joe JGL, whatever happens to Joe JGL affects Joe BW. Joe JGL cuts himself and Joe BW gets the scar - time travel shouldn't work that way, Joe BW should solely be the product of the life he lived unaffected by changes he causes, but these are the rules the movie sets up which also contributes to the plot and the plot holes. Also let me add, the impression I got was the reason Joe BW survives his loop being closed is because of his wife, yet he obsessively checks his watch to make sure he still meets her. Joe BW when young killed his old self presumably because he didn't meet the wife and she didn't die. So since scars show up on BW's body, if the future is changed so Joe JGL doesn't meet the wife, Joe BW should disappear.

Anyway, Joe BW's plan is to find the rainmaker who is still a child and kill him to change the future. As Joe BW is about to shoot the rainmaker's mother to get to the child, Joe JGL has an epiphany about what made the rainmaker so bad and kills himself to stop his older version Joe BW. The idea is Joe BW killing his mother is what makes the rainmaker evil. Here is my issue, in the original time-line, Joe BW had nothing to do with the rainmaker and therefore had nothing to do with what turned the rainmaker bad so even without Joe, we still risk the rainmaker being evil. Second, if the rainmaker is who sent Joe BW back in the first place, him not turning bad would mean Joe BW should disappear as he was never sent back in time - also because Joe BW is not unique from Joe JGL, whatever epiphany Joe JGL has, Joe BW should have. So the fact that Joe BW only disappears when Joe JGL kills himself means that the rainmaker must still be bad and have sent Joe BW back in time. Remember, it is not Joe who is originally responsible for the rainmaker being bad. Every second Joe BW is there means that whatever has happened in the now has not changed the future.

The better ending would be Joe JGL having his epiphany about why the rainmaker turns bad changes the future. Joe BW who is about to shoot his mother should have the epiphany too and then disappear as the future is changed and he is never sent back in time. Then perhaps, Joe JGL can either go on his way or stay with the rainmaker and his mother to help protect them and ensure the rainmaker will be good instead of evil as he has potential for both.

Have you gone cross-eyed reading and trying to understand this? I still liked the movie but will still be waiting for a time travel story that can iron out the difficulties with time travel.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Dull

[5/10 · 27 October 2012]

Dull as dishwater and kills the meaning and intentions of the book, Stieg Larsson is rolling in his grave. Dull, Dull, Dull...

The book was originally called 'Men Who Hate Women.' Stieg Larsson, the author, was adamant that the name not be change. Sadly he died before he could complain about the renaming of translations. The book is a strong statement about violence against women which is somewhat watered down in favor of more typical cinema.

My biggest problem was how they wrote Lisbeth Salander. In the book at one point, Blomkvist actually thinks she may be some form of high functioning autism, I didn't get that from this Salander. Movie Lisbeth was a girl who had just been hardened by going through a lot of crap and is a bit walled off and lacking social niceties but still has a level of normalcy. Book Lisbeth is exceptionally awkward, even more closed off and much harder, even militant. Blomkvist never finds out Lisbeth is a ward of the state in the first book. In fact Lisbeth would never tell anybody this fact about herself, she is very guarded of this secret. So her laying in bed talking about it with Blomkvist would never have happened. That is a far too normal an interaction for Salander. To make the scene worse, he asks why she's a ward and she tells him about setting her father on fire when she was young. Again, another guarded secret she would never talk about. If you were thinking of reading the books, major spoiler alert, her lighting her daddy ablaze is actually the big reveal at the end of book 2, The Girl who Played with Fire. Another problem is the end scene where Lisbeth asks, "May I kill him?" Some reviewers were disappointed seeing this as Lisbeth being passive to Blomkvist which is a big problem since the book is quite feminist but I didn't see it that way. What I did see was Lisbeth deferring to Blomkvist out of respect: she values Blomkvist more than hunting down Martin. In the book she just says I am going to kill him and takes off before Blomkvist can say a word: killing Martin is more important than anything. While I wanted to understand book Lisbeth, movie Lisbeth drew little intrigue.

They took out how some of Blomkvist's exploits. I wonder how people would have perceived the movie differently if he was shown having an affair with Cecilia Vanger.

The crime story is the plot of the novel but not what drives it. The character's drive the story. The mystery really wasn't that exciting to read about. Since it wasn't that exciting to read about, it was even less interesting to watch. It's just not a riveting story line and not what I took away from the book. The problem is the character's here lacked the depth and complexity to carry the movie as they did in the book. Some of the important character interactions are also cut for the so-so crime story.

The Wennerstrom affair was incomprehensible. We hardly know why Blomkvist got convicted of libel and little insight into him taking down Wennerstrom in the end. Also the tangent where Lisbth stealing billions in Wennerstrom's Kronor is too long and serves little purpose. It could have been done more carefully in far fewer scenes. (Lisbeth asking for the money from Blomkvist and then Blomkvist seeing her on TV in the blond wig (which in the book he sees her on TV, recognizes her and knows she stole the money) would be enough.).

To make the movie work, they needed to be more adept at stream-lining the plot. In the end, it amounted to an incredibly boring movie that was often incomprehensible. Dull, dull, dull, that's all I seem to be able to say about this movie.

The Grey (2011)

Anti Wolf Propaganda

[1/10 · 14 October 2012]

I love wolves, I won't lie. Since I was young I have been fascinated by their beauty. A big problem with the movie is wolves don't attack people. If wolves are approached by humans they run away, they will even abandon a kill. I have even read story of researcher who after the pack left, went in to a den to measure young pups. He turned and was surprised to see the mother watching him closely but still no attack. Why? Wolves don't attack people.

The movie begins with Liam Neeson as a sniper who kills wolves to protect workers in Alaska. I had to suppress my urge to scream at the TV. Livestock needs to be protected from wolves but for the most part, not people.

Then he and fellow workers are in a plane crash in the Alaska expanse. The movie tries to be a quiet and thoughtful film about life. However, the film becomes so illogical and unrealistic beyond the boundaries of my suspended disbelief. Why would you leave the plane? There are murderous wolves around that are not just killing the crash survivors but toying with them. Also the wolves are horribly fake. Really, they jump across the canyon to the trees? They don't make spears? Neeson wants to make spears with bullets on them? They don't try to make a shelter? A good allegory or metaphor has to hold up on many levels. This is a short story, maybe it is better as a written drama.

Verdict, skip this film. On top of being being a horrible misrepresentation of wolves, it is a dull and rather depressing.

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

A Muddled Mess Despite Potential

[2/10 · 11 October 2012]

Major spoilers: I was intrigued when I initially saw the trailers for SWatH. Grimm fairy tales have quite a dark under tone and we often know them by their Disney version. So I like the idea of taking these fairy tales and exploring them from the other end. The problem is SWatH had a terrible anti-climactic plot and poor acting.

First major problem is Kristen Stewart who I strongly assume was casted to attract the Twilight audience. I cannot stand the Twilight movies and Kristen Stewart's acting in them which I had previously blamed on Twilight's direction. She usually just stares off looking vacant and slightly startled. Here she is the same. She is emotionless and it hurt the movie. I felt no chemistry or connection between her and the huntsman, Hemsworth. When scenes popped up discussing why Hemsworth was hanging around, as far as I could tell he just felt a need to protect her out of goodness. Until it was hinted at that he had feelings for her, I didn't know there was a romance brewing. There is an underdeveloped love triangle with William, a childhood friend. That love interest, I believed more since their connection was previously developed by the child actress playing Snow White.

Charlize Theron was the best part of the movie. Her acting was over the top and I am not faulting her because she was probably directed to be this way. If the rest of the movie had turned out as sinister as it hoped, I think her acting would have worked. She was also stunningly beautiful as always. On a side note, even with the make-up on to be old, she was still by far the fairest of them all.

The plot was the most abysmal part. Things seem to just happen, I assume to fill time. The beginning of the movie follows Grimm sort of, a pricking of a finger and a wish by the Queen for a beautiful child with snow white skin, blood red lips, and raven hair. The child is born and the mother dies soon after. Then the evil witch uses trickery to get in to the castle and gain the king's sympathy and he immediately marries her. I was still on board. The queen begins a rule of terror with her creepy brother at her side, sworn to protect her.

Then the story comes apart once a now grown-up Snow White escapes from her captor. A Huntsman is sent to retrieve her from the dark forest where we find out the Queen's magic has no power. What, there is other magic? If you write a story about magic you need to define its parameters. It can't be infinite and you can't say by the way there are magically safe zones, it needs to be established at least that it is a magical world they live in. And if her magic doesn't work in the forest, why doesn't the brother die when he gets an ax to the stomach? The Huntsman does a switcheroo and decides not to hand over Snow White. The Huntsman mentions at one point that the dark forest feeds off your fear and becomes more treacherous as your fear grows and that's it for the dark forest. We find out how to survive it and then we are out of it. Then there's a troll bridge because a troll guarding a bridge is fairy tale 101 so it has to be included. A troll, really? Again world-building parameters, there are magical creatures. The troll mysteriously is calmed by Snow White, why? It is actually sort of explained later but still utterly pointless.

Now it's off to the village of women. They are just here to show that some women are physically scarring themselves not to become youth food for the Queen, smart. The director/editor or whoever seemed to think it was a little too smart. This village is only here so you can see how the queen's appetite is affecting the kingdom. It has little point and everyone we meet is gone after we quickly move along. The scene could be left out completely and it wouldn't matter. The women scarring themselves could be incorporated in a more thoughtful way.

Now, it's off to Disney Land. Literally. We step off of the rather dark an ominous set of Snow White and the Huntsman and enter the live action Disney movie of Snow White. Everything in the forest we are now in is in heightened color. There are cute cuddly animals, fairies, and butterflies. And 8 dwarfs? The number problem is rectified but why are the dwarfs here? Do they serve a purpose? They do help in some fighting but could you remove them from the movie and not really notice? Yep. Also a spirit animal or forest spirit or forest god or whatever appears, why? I don't know. Maybe to make the dwarfs useful and tell us that Snow White is life itself. How? Why? I don't know. We learned that the Queen's magic can be undone by the fairest which is now Snow White and already assumed the land had died because of her wickedness. So who stupidly and randomly decided Snow White is life itself and the land would heal because of her? The Queen's demise should simply be enough and we have Snow White, the fairest, who is able to accomplish it.

More things just sort of happen. The plot also uses quick resolution which I hate: how will I lead men? OK I can lead men now. The imagery though is lovely. Some shots are wonderful to look at but even on mute the movie can't be helped.

The writers/directors had too many fairy tale references that they wanted use that didn't aid the story. If they had realized that and cut them out while streamlining the plot, the movie would have been better.

John Carter (2012)

Good but wanting more

[7/10 · 6 October 2012]

Wall E is one of my favorite movies of all time and it is written and directed by Andrew Stanton. Other notable writing and/or directing credits of his are Finding Nemo and Toy Story. Hearing Stanton ventured in to live action caught my interest. I was all set to go see this movie in the theaters and then the reviews came out and they weren't very kind so I passed. Unfortunately, I think this movie is sort of suited for the big screen theater experience. Let me say, I have not read any of the John Carter novels.

The story is good and entertaining. There are some plot holes, like the idea of a copy being in both worlds is not really be explained. It doesn't make sense since when he leaves Mars he disappears. So his body is always on Earth but not always on Mars? How can his body be essentially comatosed indefinitely? This copy idea is really only pointed out at the end of the movie. Which isn't good since it's the last thing you remember. Some meanings are underdeveloped like the Therns but depth isn't what the movie was after. On the surface, the action sequences were good and didn't linger too long. The characters and story are likable enough to carry the movie even if it stumbles from time to time.

I believe there are several John Carter books and I feel like this movie tried to cover too much ground. The story was interesting enough that it could have been 2 or 3 movies. Carter's background could have been explored more along with the individual cultures of Mars. I still think it's a worthwhile viewing and better than what the critics said.

War Horse (2011)

Relentless

[8/10 · 30 September 2012]

Minor spoilers, the only major one will be noted at the end.

This is one of the most depressing movies I have seen in a long time and I am not exactly sure how to rate it. I enjoyed it and found it very emotionally provoking. The war scenes were interesting and well conveyed. However, some time ago, I realized that Spielberg's movies are pure sentimentality, sap, goo designed to get an emotional response. Is Spielberg a master story teller or a con man manipulating us emotionally? As for now, I am knowingly lapping up the emotional goo. However, while the content of his movie's I now hold in question, Spielberg's skills as a director are undeniable. The movie is gorgeous to look at and many of the scenes are artfully directed especially to cut down on gore.

The story follows the war horse, Joey. While I have seen reviews where the reviewer was disappointed that the story followed the horse and made us root for him to survive while humans died, I didn't see it that way. Sure, we root for the horse but we also root for the humans (though Joey might be a bad omen for any human that comes near). While the story is Joey's, he really is a vehicle to show the tragedies of war, how much war demands on its participants and how much it takes away. Joey is merely the link between all of the tragic human stories. I love animals and I think those who see animals as simply tools for humans might not like that the movie showed the animal sacrifice. The horses were used in battle, some times to the point of abuse and many were killed for a conflict that they have no comprehension of. I am not saying the horses lives are of more or equal value to the humans but I think they do hold value and suffer pain. So war is horrible in that it takes human lives and its misery is only upped by the fact that the death and horror also extended to animals.

My biggest issue with the movie is that it is relentless. There are no really bad people. There are those who are just matter of fact and do what's necessary. Then there are the ones who are innately good, sometimes too good.. but hard times can bring out the best in people. Because so many are presented as so good, their awful fates cut even deeper. I literally got to the point that I was debating what bad thing was going to happen to the next person we came to know and was mourning them before it even happened. Even in the end, we don't really rejoice, you just wonder for the horse and humans how much damage is left behind.

The movie is beautifully directed with a good story line that might be too depressing at times. However, the movie is about war and there is little happy to write or say about that and Spielberg hammered home that message.

SPOILER: The thing that bugs me the most about the story line is that Tad buys Joey while looking for a plow horse. Not only is it irresponsible to place that work on the breed of Joey, it is also irresponsible to waste the family money that way. Tad, out of pride, out bids his landlord and then is ready to shoot the horse and eventually sells him as their misfortune grows, huh? Even more irresponsibility, he knowingly took a huge risk in buying Joey. If Joey had been bought by the landlord, he probably would have lived happily ever after in a stable never having to work a day of his life nor sold into the war.

This Means War (2012)

Entertaining for what it is...

[6/10 · 29 September 2012]

Did I laugh out loud a few times? Yes, I did. I grade movies on a sliding scale and this one achieved its goal. I wouldn't call This Means War a thinker. Does the movie hold up to the scrutiny of logic? Of course not but I knew it was going to be unrealistic and over the top before I started watching. It's meant to be fantasy not reality. It isn't heavy on the action or emotion or really anything. It is just a fun light-hearted movie that knows not to linger in any one action sequence or love scene too long. It also knows not to take itself too seriously and I didn't either. Some stupid comedies are just stupid but some make you laugh and this one made me laugh. Then again, I had just watched War Horse and was in serious need of a mood lightener. (Honestly, after the unrelenting War Horse, I might have laughed at anything.) Moral of the story, you don't like stupid predictable rom coms that lack clear logic or believability, pass. This one, you have to be willing to go for the ride and if you are you just might have some fun.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Please stop making these movies!

[2/10 · 19 February 2012]

The first movie was cute and entertaining. I was pleasantly surprised that Bay could take a beloved toy and cartoon from the '80's and make it into a good action flick. Beyond the first movie, there really isn't that much of a story to tell and so they should have stopped. Transfomers also lack a wider culture to draw from so each movie feels the same- I'll compare it to Indiana Jones which usually has the same hero and villains, Nazis, but Indiana has the benefit of a plethora of interesting civilizations to write stories around. So please stop Hollywood, stop making these movies. They are merely a product for consumption and merchandising.

This movie was way too long with unending action scenes. Am I the only who gets annoyed by Shia's fumbling? I felt the movie also went into an inappropriate realm the others didn't. There was a scene where a man is killed and it is made to look like a suicide. It is depicted comically as he falls by the window and there are even jokes afterwards about him being splatted on the pavement. This is just one example. I don't mind dark humor, actually I love dark humor, but this just seemed out of place with the tone and audience of the movie. I thought these movies were at least in part for kids?

Lastly, since I completely zoned out in the middle of the movie and was just hoping it was going to end soon, something dangerous started happening - I got to thinking. Autobots are supposed to be gender neutral but are all voiced by men? Why? It is not as if they have synthetic voices. There does seem to be an affect on some of the voices to add a deeper growl but why can't that be applied to a female voice? The autobots could have the same personalities and be voiced by a woman. I would guess most people view the transformers as all male. I looked into matter and read how at one time female autobots were added but were somewhat anatomically correct and were stereotypically more feminine. Sigh... However, I'll take no female voiced autobots over giving "female" autobots breasts and gender specific roles which is far more tragic! These movies are decidedly male and I do not mean that because they have explosions.

I gave it 2 stars because someone works very hard on the CGI.

Memento (2000)

Brilliant Movie

[9/10 · 8 February 2012]

This is one of my favorite movies of all time. I have heard it compared to Last Year at Marienbad but other than both movies being a study in memory, the two really aren't similar. I highly recommend this movie.

I find it hard to review movies that I love. The movie tells a rather simple story. What is brilliant here is how it tells that story. Part of the story is told backwards but the brilliance isn't just that goes backwards. Each scene tells you something new about the story that leads you to think one thing. Then you get to see the scene that came before and find you learn your previous assumption was wrong. This constant misdirection actually makes the movie so interesting and intriguing to watch. It is just a wonderful cinematic experience.

Bridesmaids (I) (2011)

Should NOT have been called Bridesmaids and was NOT funny.

[2/10 · 6 February 2012]

When I first saw the trailers for this movie, I thought it was going to be bad but then the movie got so much hype and some nominations. When I saw the movie, it was worse than what my first impressions were. The movie didn't know if it wanted to be a somewhat serious comedy or just ridiculous shenanigans.

First problem, it forgot to be funny. There were parts that were mildly funny but the humor felt forced. The movie spent too much time on crude fart, vomit, diarrhea, and sex jokes - this is a bridal party we are talking about? Was the point just to prove that the girls can be as disgusting as the guys? Some scenes were quite serious about Annie's (Kristen Wiig) life and those made scenes like her stabbing the cookie and ruining the chocolate fountain unnecessary and over the top. The scene where Wiig and Byrne are trying to get the cops attention felt like a bad SNL skit that just didn't end and you're feeling embarrassed for the comedians acting it out. She could've drove by twice and had it actually be funny, we didn't need ten times. The length of each scene killed all potential humor.

Kristen Wiig's character draws little sympathy. She hit her low but we didn't see her before she falls so we are only left with someone rather snarky and unlikable. She wasn't even a good friend, she couldn't sacrifice a little to make her friends wedding go smoothly. It could have been funny if Wiig was biting her tongue until she explodes.

Lastly, the plot just didn't bring much around. I was invested in all of the bridesmaids not just Wiig, though I didn't like any of them, not even Megan (Meliss McCarthy). The beginning of the movie spent time setting up the other bridesmaids such as the newly wed and the miserable wife and their story lines go nowhere. Annie could have been the main character working through her crisis and we could have seen growth in the other bridesmaids around her and a sense of comradery and bonding ensues. I thought it was bridesmaids and not 'maid of honor.' Also why does Megan show up to help Annie? Then Wiig does little to atone but all is forgiven anyway.

This movie is just bad on all levels. It tried way too hard to be funny and missed. This movie and its acting should never be nominated for anything, ever! By the way, in a Brazilian restaurant, they should have been greeted as senhorinhas not senoritas.

On a personal note: The hype combined with Golden Globe and Oscar nominations got me really excited about Bridesmaids. I was secretly hoping it would be Spinal Tap for bridesmaids. I have been a bridesmaid five times so far and the experience is ripe for comedy and I am sure many others can relate. There are bridal showers (playing inane games for prizes, not to mention how long and boring they are as someone opens predetermined gifts), buying gifts, bachelorette party (Hello!! Women adorning themselves with phallus covered crowns and some dirty games), rehearsal dinner, engagement party, wedding, picking a wedding gown, picking and ordering bridesmaids gowns and pretending you like taffeta, fittings!! (a bridal salon literally made me order a dress three sizes too big because of the size chart and my measurements even though the size in the store fit. Then when the dress came in, it was three sizes too big and I had to pay an extra $100 to get it fitted and it never fits/looks quite right after that), shoes, hair, nails, make-up, and jewelry - now start totaling up the cost of all that. Take these somewhat ridiculous situations and turn the volume up to 11 and you get the potential for a comedic gold mine, the whole custom is dying to be made fun of. I also have to say that being a bridesmaid is all worth it in the end. As much as is can be a hassle at times, it is also a lot of fun. You enjoy being their for your friend or family member on one of the most important days of their lives and are so honored that they chose you to be part it. The joy and the pain of the whole experience wasn't just not captured but completely ignored and this was a big disappointment. It could have been forgiven if the movie was good.

Black Death (2010)

A Good Surprise

[7/10 · 29 January 2012]

The movie is dark and simple but good. It conveys the message well. The movie deals strongly with religion and it really isn't here to undermine or herald it but delve into man's nature and his use of religion: misunderstanding and intolerance leads to violence and violence leads to more violence and more intolerance and so on.

The story is set in the 14th century and a secluded village has mysteriously been spared from the plague. There are reports of a witch practicing necromancy. It's believed that this witch's practices are why the village has not been affected by the illness that is rampant everywhere else. Ulric is a devout Christian who leads a group of men that use brutality and torture on non-believers to convert. They truly believe they are doing God's work (which actually happened in that time) but are unsure of what their ruthless pursuit will mean for their afterlife. Ulric wants to punish the witch and return the village to Christianity. There is balance to Ulric in the bishops who want Ulric to stand down and not continue on his mission as these people pose no threat in such a bleak time. He is blinded by his faith and continues with his orders, the second envoy to do so. A young monk, Osmund, who is in a bit of crisis of faith comes along as a guide to secretly meet up with his love. Where Ulric's faith has made him barbaric, Osmund's faith has made him gentle and loving.

When the envoy reaches the village, their worst fears seem to be confirmed but everything isn't quite what we expect. The witch isn't exactly what we think she is either and has her own story. The fate of the envoy is difficult to watch but while we are sympathetic to them, you can't forget that it is they who usually hand out this type of cruelty, talk about reaping what you sow. The story is really Osmund's, though, and he suffers the most vicious fate and his faith leads him to commit the most terrible act. He undergoes a believable and yet terrible transformation that is paralleled with the witch.

The ending is quite haunting and the movie achieves its goal. I actually would've given the movie 9 stars if it wasn't for some of the circumstances surrounding Osmund's love interest. While not entirely unbelievable, it is a little implausible though necessary to drive the story. I actually don't know if there are any historical inaccuracies and am not too concerned since it isn't that important to the story.

On a side note, a favorite minor scene of mine is on their journey to the village, they come across three crosses on a small hill where they are crucifying a witch - remind you of anything? It drives home the message of irrational persecution and hypocrisy.

Thor (2011)

It was OK

[3/10 · 28 January 2012]

Thor was alright. If you want a mindless action movie with a comic hero believably coming to life, you will enjoy it.

It started off a bit ridiculous but I gave the movie leeway and suspended disbelief a little further, this is a comic after all - completely forget the Norse Mythology aspect. Once I did that, it had a certain charm. Then Thor is sent to Earth and it started to veer off the tracks and kept straying further and further. Thor's brash arrogance could've played out really adorably on Earth but that part was really short lived. Then Thor has a turn around in a matter of minutes - this transformation could've had its own laughs as we struggle to learn with him. Thor was always good but arrogant to completely noble in 60 seconds? Then the love angle, I am not sure what Thor would see in the Natalie Portman character or vice versa. There is little given here to make their 24 hour romance believable and trust me, I wasn't asking for a lot. Thor's friends show up on Earth for about a minute to then go back. The entire movie was just skimming along. There were also some unbelievable plot twists like the FBI just letting Thor go. Lastly, the cheese factor - again, extra disbelief suspended and so cheese and cliché go with the territory but about half way through, the cheese started spilling over and I couldn't take it any more.

It actually exceeded my expectations as I thought it would be truly dreadful but it wasn't. The plot just needed more flesh. The opening sequence is so long and drawn out that it really could've been trimmed down as it was only the set-up and then the plot could have gotten a little more loving.

Lost in Translation (2003)

There was nothing to translate.

[1/10 · 23 January 2012]

Again, critics convince people that a bad movie is art. I like slow movies and can handle little to no dialogue but this one has little meaning and I had no emotional connection to the story or the characters. I spent most of the movie thinking, I'm missing something. I was convinced I didn't get it, there's something deeper going on. Then I started reading the reviewers who liked it in hopes to understand what I had missed and realized, I hadn't missed anything at all.

The story is about a young recently married Yale graduate, Charlotte(Scarlett Johansson), whose husband is a successful photographer, John (Ribisi). Her husband's job has taken them to Tokyo. She is bored and alienated and spends most her time staring out her expensive hotel window. Charlotte is unsure of her future and life choices. You feel her and her husband have little connection to the point of why did they even get married in the first place? John seems to connect more with an American actress. They connect over superficial conversation but our heroine is quiet and introspective and therefore "deep." This makes Charlotte more worthy - can you hear the sarcasm. The petty conversation of her husband and the actress bore her because she was a philosophy major, you know. However, Charlotte, this deep and educated woman, can't seem to find anything interesting to do in a lush and vibrant city.

Bob (Bill Murray) is an aging actor(?) in a mid-life crisis and has a stale marriage. He is in Tokyo to make some TV commercials. He feels as alone and alienated as Charlotte. They meet and since Charlotte is not much for talking and neither is Bob, especially not about superficial stuff of course, they have an immediate connection. They spend the next few days hanging out and enjoying the night life. Two bored miserable people of a certain amount of privilege seeking more meaningful lives find each other by going bar-hopping and smoking weed. Not much happens and these deep people who have the power to see the world more truthfully and identify the pointless crap basically mock the Japanese. I won't say it was racist but the feeling like a foreigner in a strange land was only partially realized. All new lands have strange cultures, sure, but combined with all the Japanese people presented as inane, smiling, and eager bordered on offensive.

I found the characters evoked little sympathy. They were as bland as the story, or non-story, that was told. The movie is boring and slow to the point of unbearable. I don't know what people liked? I'm guessing Hollywood enjoyed a movie that made a relationship with a 30 year age gap somewhat believable and told us it was not out of shallowness but a "deep" connection. Perhaps having Coppola as your last name doesn't hurt when people are voting for the Oscars.