Change Your Image
yaykisspurr
Reviews
The Help (2011)
Which Skeeter is Better?
I loved, loved, loved Viola Davis as Aibileen. She overpowered the movie with the sense of her history and background through her sheer presence on the screen. She'd just be standing there framed in the shot and you knew what she'd gone through and how she carried the weight of her regrets and sadness on her back. I can't rave about this performance enough. She so embodied Aibileen, in a way even more than what I imagined. Her last moments were stunning, saying goodbye suddenly to Mae Mobley and the fear of leaving behind what you've always known and loved. This to follow a dream you might fail at, but either way your hope and faith says you must take the opportunity in the name of all you have lost. In her walk down the road to the bus you know without her saying that taking part in the writing of The Help she has done all in her power for Mae Mobley's future and because of that she has the opportunity to pursue her son's destiny to become a writer herself. Through love and letting go of the hate and disgust she's put herself on the road to a better future no matter what roadblocks she faces. Hehe, yeah I got a lot of unspoken messages out of Viola Davis' performance.
Jessica Chastain rocked Celia Foote! Even though a lot of what I loved about the character was slimmed out of the movie I thought Chastain really took every moment to embody Celia. The screenwriter did a solid job keeping enough about the character that her arc didn't feel choppy or all over the place. This gave Chastain a good foundation for the character but I feel like the actress worked well not only as her character but in conjunction with Octavia Spencer as Minny and with the cast as a whole. Her role was a rather physical one in comparison to Viola Davis who had to stand around and emote. Chastain really excelled in this aspect. Balancing seems to be a skill she excels at. Watching the second time I found myself even more moved by her entire story as her relationship with Minny was a powerful as Aibileen's relationship with Mae Mobley.
Sissy Spacek as Missus Walters rocked it! Wow! I could have watched an entire movie with her and Minny in some kind of Odd Couple or Grouchy Women knock off. She added such dimension I believe to both Minny and Hilly. In fact, I think she made the movie version of her character pop in ways the book version washed out. Cicely Tyson as Constantine Jefferson did the same thing for Skeeter except she only had one scene to do it. Talk about a master! From that one scene you got the movie version of Skeeter's motivation and the root of her ability to withstand her family and friends opinions and disapproval. The moving scene where she packs her belongings and touched Skeeter's height markings
wow, nothing even need be said how much she loved Skeeter. I hate to write so little when the performances were so powerful but a lot of their accolades are directed to those they supported.
Ahna O'Reilly as Elizabeth Leefolt and Allison Janney as Charlotte Phelan were fine in their respective roles. O'Reilly portrayed Elizabeth as what she was a follower. Janney very subtly worked her role as Skeeter's mother. There were a lot of changes to her story arc and so there were changes to the character. I didn't love these changes but I feel like they were no reflection on the actress.
As for winning any of the Best Ensemble Awards I believe they are totally deserved, even with my criticism for some of the acting. This might seen hypocritical to some – I don't think so though. The acting was solid in the movie. There was a lot of different elements to the characters and the plot to balance and if the director seemed to drop the ball at times that wasn't really the actresses fault. I guess what I'm really saying is I think the missteps I perceived were in the acting upon my first viewing were not acting problems so much as direction problems. Perhaps he was too close to the material or the people involved. Perhaps balance is not his forte. As a story lover some of the characters didn't quite jive with their arc on a specific level, but for most I believe it works on the more general one.
The movie was good. It didn't blow my mind like the book though. I would have loved to have seen a little more of the finer details transferred from the written medium to the visual. Still I think everyone ought to at least see the movie if you aren't one for reading. The cast is worth the effort.
To read more about the adaption of the book to the movie: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/which-skeeter-is-better/
Lockout (2012)
Dude, you're a dude...
Set in 2079, the space ships are reminiscent of NASA and the prison station of Star Trek, either classic or a dingy Next Generation, you pick. Earth too fits the time frame, seamy and dark, everything worn and old yet ships zip through the sky and computers are utilized for every function of life. With these kind of cramped quarters down on earth it makes sense a global company would want to expand into space and understand what effects that expansion would have on the human body. Of course, population levels have exploded and every inch of ground is needed for society benefiting citizens. No new ground is broken here, setting wise, there is just an attempt at making a prison orbiting the earth plausible. The stasis cells of the inmates make physical sense and the idea of them worked with the reason why the President's daughter would visit a SuperMax prison she had to ride a spaceship to reach.
Where the story really excelled lies in the characters and the refreshing of an old idea. The writers took every moment of the movie to establish the details of the situation, create a sense of what kind of man Snow is and to make us root for a rather spoiled "princess" of a woman. Anything else was stripped down to nuts and bolts. This is one of the things I really enjoyed about the movie and probably it's biggest flaw. When everything can be connected back cleanly and easily to the forward movement of the plot the audience tends to find it contrived and plot hole poking worthy. This isn't necessarily true but it feels like it is and typically what people assume is true is true irregardless of actual reality. For me I really enjoy this part of any piece of work as I can sense the decision making process and can intuit right away if they went with an idea just to move on with the plot.
The actors here, some call them endearingly B-rate, really go a long way in making this very simple foundation work for the movie. The surprising thing about the protagonists is how beefy they wrote Maggie Grace's role as the President's daughter, Emilie Warnock. She's not just your token female but woven into the fabric of the plot with an effect equally so on all the pertinent characters.
Guy Pearce, I can't say it enough, is the best of a reluctant hero, full of sardonic whit and slingy one-liners everyone wants to quote. There were so many I couldn't remember then all
I love the one I used for my title, "Dude, you're a dude" because it focuses on a moment that really clues you in on why Lockout worked
Snow and Emilie are heading into the stasis cell area full of crazed, maddened convicts who aren't quite right any more, if they ever were to begin with. She's dressed in an orange jumpsuit with a mixture of grease and muck on her head and can't help but cringe into Snow's side. She's forced to stand on her own and shadow him without acting the weak female. Snow and Emilie are balanced well, both with their own agenda and willing to do what they have to in order to accomplish it. They are equals and when their shortcomings make them want to abandon the whole to-do, the other backs them up.
So the protagonists are good, what about the antagonists? A story is only as good as the weakest character
Alex and Hydell balance the heroes well and give them a run for their money. I could really relate to Alex, portrayed by Vincent Regan, the crafty convict who wrests control of the prison before any of the other convicts have the presence of mind to do so themselves. Of course, once he was free and he witnessed for himself just how off his rocker his baby brother was he should have put a bullet in Hydell's brain. As the story progressed you could visually see Alex pondering doing just that after having to clean up some mess of Hydell's making. Then like a good boy he discarded the idea because of the promises and bonds he'd made at some long ago time. Yeah, you say, and he stupidly died for it! Well, what motivated him? He might not have seen his death coming in that moment but he had to know in the end his younger brother would be the death of him.
The plot is so basic that it can be summed up in four lines. Because of this you'd think that the forward movement of the story would be rather basic as well. I found that because the writers started with good characters the plot actually took some unexpected turns on a typical stereotype. I really found these turns to make the story fresh and to rather invigorate an otherwise basic premise. Best of all they left me anticipating the dashing do of our estimable Snow and how he was going to overcome the next insurmountable task. While my butt was in my seat I wanted to know what was going to happen next, I cared about the characters and I found the plot fresh enough not to be able to predict what was going to happen next.
Yes, it's easy to poke holes in this premise and to call the elements of plot stereotypical. But does Lockout really deserve these criticisms? Dude, I'd say not. That isn't to say the movie is perfect. It doesn't quite carry off it's reality, the details are too thin and the framework too apparent. It doesn't mean you can't immensely enjoy Guy Pearce as Snow or Maggie Grace as Emilie. With it's handful of villains nipping at their heels the deck is formidably stacked against them but Snow is clearly the man for the job.
To read my review: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)
In Mission: Impossible, it's a job...one that happens to include gadgets!
I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, still he's a consummate professional, a decent actor and knows his abilities well. He plays to these as Ethan Hunt. A negative of the movie is after the team has completed their objective. It felt like a start of a thing instead of an end of a thing. I guess though that's the point
suck you in for another movie.
Jeremy Renner as ex-agent William Brandt stood out for me. I really enjoyed the subtle play of his character. He really took his role in a fluffy action movie seriously and went the distance in his performance. I did feel like his arc ended with an abrupt thump of his character hitting cement but if you conveniently ignore that, he's great. The best thing about Renner, though, is that he has a really great presence but it's not so aggressive that it fights with the others in the cast.
I feel like Simon Pegg as agent Benji Dunn added a nice comic relief, especially with the e-screen scene where he really shined. Toward the end of the movie I think the writers phoned in his part leaving him rather limp. This isn't his fault by any means, rather it's laziness on the part of character development. Paula Patton as agent Jane Carter was a great feminine element. While she didn't wow me, I didn't hate her either. So many females in action movies are fluffy so much so I was just relieved she actually had plenty of meaty moments. I appreciated her moment to shine near the end of the movie when she needed to seduce Brij Nath.
Léa Seydoux as Sabine Moreau was a good call but rather underutilized and under wowing. Still I did enjoy the scene where they made the trade and the papers copied into the briefcase. Michael Nyqvist as Kurt Hendricks was a no go to me. His most memorable scene was the sand storm scene where he kept out thinking Hunt and in the end gets away. He wasn't really even needed in that final scene
we could have just watched Cruise falling off cars. While the villains didn't wow me they were at least smart (on paper) and driven. Nothing new really, but since when has any evil been branded as fresh?
I was seriously surprised how into the gadgets I got. They really made the movie. With Agent Hunt there was this sense of reality about the gadgets, like they might actually exist or at least almost exist. The connection between story and use of said gadget was very fluid and in the moment. Adding to this sense of realism is the fact the gadgets frequently failed, only working long enough that the agents could improvise. If pressed I'd say my favorite gadget are those gloves as they were part of the best stunts in the movie. The tension from the "blue is glue, red is dead" element really kept the forward momentum up. For me the most breathtaking creation of a gadget though is the e-screen that holograms an empty hallway. So creative and yet so simple, this is gadgets done right.
The best scenes had multiple characters, as the best a movie can offer is seeing one character playing off another. I actually liked the sandstorm scene, it was rather unrealistic with it's lack of sand but the idea of it, of pursuing the villain into whatever circumstance you have to in order to get the job done, was a good one. While the plot worked, it didn't blow me away
just because something works doesn't mean it's beautiful. Ghost Protocol got the job done, cool and proficient.
This is because Brad Bird played to his strengths. Coming from his animation background he understands that each shot has importance, a message and must be connected to the shots on either side. He doesn't worry about creating a huge blockbuster moment but an action sequence that works within the framework of the story. The series of scenes where Cruise is hanging from the tallest building in the world is a perfect example. These scenes are actually rather minor to the actual plot but because of how he composed the shots they became central to the entire story. I believe it's this skill with making unimportant plot matter for both plot's sake and character sake that saves this movie. (It mitigates the lack of motivation present in the characters, both hero and villain.) It does quite a job blowing an action junkie's mind too.
I do wish there was more of a puzzle aspect to the modern Mission: Impossible series. (This is more a writer's purview so I can see why it's lacking here.) There is more to life than the special effects stunt. Nowadays a professional's expertise is played down for the 'everything man' in our modern heroes. On the MI TV show there was a participation from the audience to put together where the different experts fit into the larger plan. (And hence a need for a team rather than a lone agent.) There are no longer any "ahhhh, I get it" moments where you are rewarded for taking on the larger cast of characters and the lack of explanation in the setup. We want nothing so complicated as thinking involved in our action flicks and so rely heavily on looking good instead. There is nothing wrong with being hot, but do you really want to spend your life with your brain off to compensate?
There is much to admire in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and so much improvement from previous installments. While I long for an action movie with a brain I'll settle for a well thought out brainless version. In the end it doesn't matter, we know how an action driven story like this will play out
since when has the modern action hero not saved the world?
To read more of my review: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/
NCIS: Los Angeles (2009)
Linda Hunt is worth watching. In fact, she makes the show.
Without her we wouldn't care for Callen or Hanna as it's her feelings about them that motivate us. It's her support of Deeks that reluctantly made us wait and see with him. It's her knowledge of Callen and her willingness to go after his enemies that carried us through procedural plot. Anyone sent to take her place is seen as our enemy and we long to see them eliminated. We wait for the little sounds bits from this diminutive character squirreling them away like precious nuts. Actually the two information analysts add to Hetty's character in a remarkable way. I was a little shocked when they added Nell as I thought Eric did a fine job without her but Hetty really made the addition work.
A funny thing happened along our journey with Hetty
Callen and Hanna won us over. Normally with chemistry we're worried more between a woman and a man but it's also important between partners, or rather actors portraying partners. Chris O'Donnell and LL Cool J have chemistry. It was a great starting point because until we got to know more about this duo it's really all we had to go on. As we watched we found their characters balanced each other out nicely as well.
Callen is really the central character, before or after Hetty, depending how you look at it, whoever you love more. He doesn't know much about who he or his parents are, what his first name is beyond G or why people tend to try to kill him. O'Donnell plays the chameleon well even though he never really changes. I thinks this is so because it's about embodying the type of man you would imagine a chameleon would be rather than actively being a quick-change artist. His character arc was incorporated from the beginning, and you can tell, as it is worked very fluidly into the regular cases. I believe this is key to the popularity of the show as anything that shakes up the typical procedural format is looked upon favorably by television audiences.
Hanna is a straight shooter, a perfect foil for the silent Callen, and a strong, moral character in his own right. You can believe his background as a former U.S. Navy SEAL and yet delight in the fact his story arcs tend to be about doing the right thing. It adds a lot of depth that it's his ability to speak an Arabic dialect and his affiliation as a Muslim that leads him to these story lines. By taking this character another direction, having him have a rather typical background, as compared to Callen, we can explore how his skills take him places you wouldn't expect. O'Donnell and LL Cool J take turns as to whose story arc will take precedent and I really like the unexpectedness of this. You as a viewer aren't always sure where the story will take you as far as the personal stories are concerned.
At first, Kensi Blye was just the token female for me. She was hot, badass and skillful with guns
what's not to like? It wasn't until one of her fellow secondary characters was killed that she really came into her own. Her development really kept you watching during the first couple years of the show as you could see her character come into her personality. I especially enjoyed her recent character arc while she dealt with her father's past and his death, working on her trust issues. Many times it's not until you are much older that you really see your parents for what they were/are. In my opinion it was smart to link her to the Hawaii Five-O crossover as of all the characters we knew the least about her and it immediately added depth to her character. Especially as Terry O'Quinn was the connection point, as her father being a friend of his makes total sense. Daniela Ruah does Kensi justice in all the right places.
I have to admit I hated Marty Deeks, though I wasn't sad to see the back of Nate Getz either. Eric Christian Olsen gradually won me over as his partnership with Kensi developed in tandem to the flourishing of her character. Deeks' personality is such that he's a great foil for the distrustful Kensi, he can wear her down and teach her intimacy. Do I want Deeks and Kensi to get together
no, to be honest. As soon as they do I feel like it's the death keel of the show. They like each other, they even love each other as partners do, but as of now I like that they are motivated for each others' well being and otherwise keeping it on a professional level. Now Deeks is simply part of 'Kensi and Deeks the partnership' and I no longer wish for his sudden irreversible death.
The producers and writers are making good choices for this show as far as killing off characters, eliminating dead weight and developing the areas of back story and character that we love or have come to love. The one flaw of the show rears it's ugly head quite often when I'm watching this show
it's a procedural with all the procedural faults. Yes, NCIS: LA has the characters to back the story up. The audience enjoys watching them no matter the current difficulties, whether it's just a threat to national security or literally saving the world. It's also repetitive and non-threatening
since when has Hetty, Callen, Hanna, Kensi or Deeks not come through? And that's a problem.
To read my review: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/
Das Leben der Anderen (2006)
If You Hate War Movies this is the One for You!
In 1984 East Berlin, an agent of the Stasi conducts surveillance on Georg Dreyman, a successful drama playwright and his longtime companion Christa-Maria Sieland, herself a popular actress. Both were huge intellectual stars in the former East Germany, although they secretly don't always toe the party line. One day, the Minister of Culture becomes interested in Christa. This is when Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler is instructed to observe and sound out the couple but finds himself becoming increasingly absorbed by their lives.
I've only seen this movie once compared to the countless times I've seen Labyrinth and Working Girl. Yet I find myself thinking on this film more than the other two.
Unfortunately, I can't understand German, in spite of living there in my youth, so I had to read the subtitles. I understand why many people don't like them, sometimes the dialogue is so long winded you don't even get to look up before the picture that goes with the words has moved on and you're back to reading again. This movie wasn't like that. The main character Wiesler, or the Watcher as I call him, spoke so infrequently that much of the time could be spent watching him. I believe it was the secret to my bonding so strongly to his character. I got to watch the Watcher, feel his emptiness, to the point he fell in love with the woman he watched, much like I fell in love with him as I watched.
Part of our job as writers, whether screenplays, books or teleplays, is to create a bond between our audience and our characters. Many try to do this by figuring out their viewer- or reader-ship and writing to that kind of person. For example you write a book about a teenager and your audience is a teenager. Many times you create a bond by putting the character in like circumstances to real life. In the Lives of Others the likelihood of a movie watcher being a member of the Stasi isn't very likely. So we as an audience had to be won over another way.
By plumbing these alternate connection techniques we as the writer can develop bonds our audience will follow anywhere. Ulrich Mühe played the Watcher, Gerd Wiesler, so well I couldn't separate the actor from the character in my mind. Since he didn't speak much it wasn't so much what he said but what he emoted.
This isn't the only well-executed element in the film though. In fact there are two more: the playwright, Georg Dreyman, and the actress, Christa-Maria Sieland. I really fell in love with the Playwright as well. Not at first, like the Watcher, but gradually over the course of the story like Wiesler did. The actor really represented here a flawed man and his skill lay in me loving the character in spite of those flaws. He was kind of a coward, understandably, but with a desire to be bold, to rebel. At the end when you realized he already was with another woman, you weren't surprised, and in fact if he hadn't been your belief in him would have been shaken. The more you got to know the Playwright the more flawed he became and the more you liked the man.
Cornerstone to the Playwright was the true love he felt for the actress, Christa. While watching the Actress, the Watcher came to love the Playwright because of the love they shared. Because she loved the Playwright. It's this relationship that made the Watcher's trip possible and allowed the audience to share his journey. I didn't bond with the Actress, in fact, just the opposite. I understood her position between a rock and a hard place, she had an addiction and a career she wanted to maintain. Like the men, I too found her beautiful and chase worthy. But it's actually my lack of connection to her that I found rather poignant. I'd much rather she die than either of the men and yet both would have preferred to take her place, even if the other man would have gotten her. There's something human and real and true about that kind of dichotomy. It makes the Actress as a character love worthy.
One critic I read mentioned perhaps there were too many epilogues, another mentioned the big white shorts of the villain. Part of the actress'es effect on these men were how they proceeded in the future. We needed to see the satisfaction of the Watcher in the choices he made, to know those years of steaming envelopes was worth it. We needed to see the Playwright's boldness bloom and prosper in it's own way. In this we can see the actress'es true and lasting impressions. The big white shorts don't play into it at all.
I'm haunted by this movie. It's not the dialouge or the plot, though these worked together in perfect harmony to make the film the knock out it is. As the years pass, we as human beings seek relationships like these three shared, ones that aren't transient by nature but if they end it's a tragedy. No matter in what media we find it, these are the kinds of experiences we seek to read or watch or
write.
To read more of my reviews: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/
Labyrinth (1986)
#1 Movie to Watch with your Girl Teenager
15-year-old Sarah is struggling with the existence of her baby half- brother, Toby. She accidentally wishes him away to the Goblin King Jareth who will keep Toby as his newest goblin if Sarah does not complete his Labyrinth in 13 hours.
I first saw the film in my early teens when my parents bought the movie on laser disc. Today I'm not much of a fan of the muppets or musicals. I get restless and impatient, shifting and rolling my eyes. Yet even now I can take in the joy and boundless energy the muppets and music provided to Labyrinth. An integral part of the story and setting you can't separate one from the other and it be the same movie. So not only is this my favorite film from my teens, it's also my #1 muppet movie and #1 musical.
I loved the choices she had to make in the first half of the movie. She tried the lipstick to mark her way – it didn't work but it was really smart. Every obstacle she tried thinking about it and using whatever she came up with as best she could. The logic puzzles seamlessly worked with the idea of a labyrinth and having to maneuver through a foreign place.
David Bowie enchanted as a stony-faced villain king set on seducing a young girl in any way he could manage. The choice of making the glass- ball juggling act part of the character's mystery and allure worked, characterizing in such a visual way. I think he represented all the darker, more worldly choices a girl can make but in a way that is non- threatening to parents yet still calls to a teenager.
Anyone with a sibling, especially a younger sibling, can totally relate to Sarah Williams. As a child you are still trying to figure out the right and wrongs of situations. Many times it is not until you've already done something that you realize it was wrong to do. Sarah made a situation like this feel sincere and believable. David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly played off one another very well, the age difference wasn't an issue and it could have been rather creepy.
Two of my favorite characters are Hoggle, a dwarf with a penchant for cheap jewelry and Ludo, a gentle giant whom Sarah rescues from being tortured by goblins. They are such polar opposites that they made the perfect traveling companions. When Hoggle first betrayed Sarah I was more heartbroken and hurt than mad and angry. And the fact Ludo could call rocks to him just seemed to fit who the creature was. For a bag of fur and a plastic mask on a stick they made these two feel real and significant.
Production wise I think they balanced between the plot which I love, the music which added mystery and allure and the muppets which added character and energy. If not done just so the whole thing could have been a cheesy mess. I think this says a lot about who was behind the film. Henson knew how to utilize his puppets in a way that made them relevant in the story. Lucas understood storytelling and that each element mattered. David Bowie's songs in particular fit the subject and tone of the film to perfection. The writers really helped the balance because the plot worked and made a great background on which to hang the music and muppets. It's this kind of balance that writers everywhere are attempting to achieve in their own writing. To make what potentially are the weaknesses (the music and muppets) into strengths really show how expertly this movie was produced.
The two best scenes in the film have all to do with the writing though. The first when Jareth takes Sarah to the ball and she's an honest to goodness princess. And the second, a scene following when Sarah's back in her room around all her belongings that make her feel safe. Such a one – two punch. The first tried to suck her in with her hopes and dreams, the hopes and dreams any young teenager has about the future. Perhaps unrealistic ideals though. Then Jareth follows up with total reality and the safety the present provides. It's everything you know and want to hold on to so you don't have to face the future. Both, equally could suck her in and Jareth would win. It's this kind of struggle we want to see for our characters whether as a writer or as the audience.
As a teenager you are in a struggle between your hopes and desires and the reality of real life. Coming to terms with where you fall as an individual is when you really grown up. Even at my age this movie hits a core place inside me when I watch it again because it shows and reminds you of the decisions you've made to get where you are today.
Read more of my reviews at http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/
Working Girl (1988)
A Timeless "Stand Up for Yourself" Romance
When a secretary's idea is stolen by her boss, she seizes an opportunity to steal it back by pretending she has her boss's job. Along the way she learns about love, lies and the hows to taking risks in life.
I believe right from the opening you are exposed to just what she's up against: a male dominated management where women are secretaries and little else. I think this environment really worked because it wasn't personal. There was no vendetta, ulterior motive or manipulation. Men honestly thought women should remain secretaries and their place was in the bedroom. The movie's setup went quick: we knew the story's main focus was in the workplace and her career. When Mick was eventually introduced you knew he wasn't as keyed into her as he ought to be and that this didn't bode well. The secondary plot line of her love life and where she'd live quickly trotted along and you knew everything was on the line now.
Tess really captured the feeling that she was playing everything by ear. You knew she wasn't afraid of risks or trying out an opportunity even if it didn't end well – that was the beauty of the opening scenes. I loved Melanie Griffith. To me it doesn't matter what else she's done or will do. She'll remain an actress to watch due to this role. Sometimes freedom to act on instinct is just what is needed for a role to come together.
Harrison Ford though really added so much from his end as Jack Trainer. Right from his first meeting to his defense of her at the elevators he had this humor and earnest appeal that can't be faked
I know how much irony that holds but it's true. His character felt genuine with equal measure to her gutsiness.
Sigourney Weaver really outdid herself as the manipulative boss who steals her subordinates ideas and set back women everywhere by several generations. She took Tess under her wing and made the woman bloom into awareness of her un-career worthiness. She even provided Tess an opportunity to grow by breaking her leg and loving it instead of hurrying home to work and boyfriend. Weaver embodied career women everywhere and her negative traits took her down.
There were so many good scenes in Working Girl. From subtle moments like in the elevator scene I mentioned
Or when Tess had the chandelier cleaned in Katharine's apartment
To edge of your seat is she going to carry it off like in the wedding crasher scenes or the morning after meeting where she pitched her idea. Much of this movie stands out in my mind due to the dialogue. Every interaction snapped with tension and emotion. (Read some of the quotes!)
Writing wise I hearken after the skill utilized to make each scene important to understanding the characters, to moving plot along and foreshadowing why and what is coming. To this end each of the main characters: Tess, Jack and Katharine, were treated as protagonist in their own stories. They each had setbacks to their plans, both good and bad sides to their character, triumphs, and goals they worked toward. What makes the protagonist in our story is simply a matter of outcome and maybe screen time.
As a women in her twenties it's hard to know what dreams to pursue and what to let the universe and God decide. Overcoming obstacles and pursing opportunities are the choices you make that define who you are and how you'll turn out in the end. Working Girl is a prime example of how things work out when you have worthy goals and a gutsy attitude. Even today I can watch this movie and feel it's rightness, that life does fit together like a puzzle and part of the fun is putting it together through thick and thin.
With divorce fracturing our families and homes, it's great to have an example for us that with the right outlook things will come together in our lives, no matter our history or backgrounds. As a child of divorce I find myself questioning motives and pondering actions to see if they need a light shone on them. This movie helps give me hope that I'm just being paranoid.
To read more of my reviews: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/