Hey Everyone,
I'll be on hiatus for about a week and a day, traveling around the Bay Area looking for work and hanging out with friends.
Don't fret-- I should have a new review or two or three up as soon as I return next Friday.
Happy Halloween, Feliz Dia de los Muertos, Happy All Saints Day, etc.
Don't forget to set your clocks back!
-Cait
30 October 2009
27 October 2009
Away We Go (2009)
I don’t know why this movie wasn’t more popular when it first came out. It is funny and pleasant, and it has a well thought out project.
John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are very convincing as a couple in their mid-thirties who set out on a trip to find the place they want to raise their first child. Both actors are excellent in their respective roles—they successfully detach themselves from the strong personalities of their previous roles while somehow managing to achieve a level of chemistry and rapport that makes them seem like a real couple.
The believe-ability factor in their relationship is important because the other couples they go to visit are more caricatures of obstacles in parenting than they are living breathing people. Though amusing to me, these hyperbolic figures could definitely be annoying to some, if for no other reason than that their unreality serves as a rather harsh foil to Rudolph and Krasinski’s characters’ relationship.
Overall, I think Away We Go has been underrated. It definitely deserves a few hours of your Sunday evening.
John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are very convincing as a couple in their mid-thirties who set out on a trip to find the place they want to raise their first child. Both actors are excellent in their respective roles—they successfully detach themselves from the strong personalities of their previous roles while somehow managing to achieve a level of chemistry and rapport that makes them seem like a real couple.
The believe-ability factor in their relationship is important because the other couples they go to visit are more caricatures of obstacles in parenting than they are living breathing people. Though amusing to me, these hyperbolic figures could definitely be annoying to some, if for no other reason than that their unreality serves as a rather harsh foil to Rudolph and Krasinski’s characters’ relationship.
Overall, I think Away We Go has been underrated. It definitely deserves a few hours of your Sunday evening.
24 October 2009
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
-Spoilers!-
I didn’t watch this one when everyone was peeing themselves about how good it was. I have the probably unhealthy mentality that if I hear a ton of good things about a movie, I’ll most likely be disappointed when I see it. Because of this, I usually wait a long while before I’ll watch a movie that people rave about to me, saying “You have to see it!” Like an obstinate child, I sulk for a while before I watch anything that’s supposedly amazing. I usually come around in the end.
I am happy that I waited to see Slumdog Millionaire. I think if I would have caved in and watched it when it first came out, or even when it later won the Oscar for best picture, I would have turned against it just because everyone was saying it was the best movie in the world, ever.
Now I can gladly and a little more unbiased-ly state that I thought it was good. It wasn’t great, and it wasn’t better than everything ever. It was just a good movie. I liked the soundtrack a lot, and I appreciated the pacing—not an overload of suspense, but not boring either. Characters I could get involved with.
The only thing I had reservations about was the odd disjunction of all the in-your-face hideous reality scenes (e.g. the kid forcibly getting his eyes burned out so he could make more money for his orphan-pimping boss) with the freakishly happy nearly fantasy ending. It left me asking, “…really?” with narrowed eyes. But I guess the whole point of the movie was about destiny, not about the unpleasant rationality and probabilities of the real world. It was just an odd combination for me.
At the end of the day, I’d say definitely worth watching.
I didn’t watch this one when everyone was peeing themselves about how good it was. I have the probably unhealthy mentality that if I hear a ton of good things about a movie, I’ll most likely be disappointed when I see it. Because of this, I usually wait a long while before I’ll watch a movie that people rave about to me, saying “You have to see it!” Like an obstinate child, I sulk for a while before I watch anything that’s supposedly amazing. I usually come around in the end.
I am happy that I waited to see Slumdog Millionaire. I think if I would have caved in and watched it when it first came out, or even when it later won the Oscar for best picture, I would have turned against it just because everyone was saying it was the best movie in the world, ever.
Now I can gladly and a little more unbiased-ly state that I thought it was good. It wasn’t great, and it wasn’t better than everything ever. It was just a good movie. I liked the soundtrack a lot, and I appreciated the pacing—not an overload of suspense, but not boring either. Characters I could get involved with.
The only thing I had reservations about was the odd disjunction of all the in-your-face hideous reality scenes (e.g. the kid forcibly getting his eyes burned out so he could make more money for his orphan-pimping boss) with the freakishly happy nearly fantasy ending. It left me asking, “…really?” with narrowed eyes. But I guess the whole point of the movie was about destiny, not about the unpleasant rationality and probabilities of the real world. It was just an odd combination for me.
At the end of the day, I’d say definitely worth watching.
22 October 2009
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
I am still not sure how I feel about this movie.
It is a hectic, violent, somehow even more fantastical version of the brief and wonderful children’s book upon which it is based. Plot, character design, dialogue—all of these aspects as unbounded as your imagination was as a child, and maybe, still is.
How can I describe such an experience? Strange, definitely; surreal at times. Frightening, yes, even to a grown-up. Breathtaking, and not in the way people use that word when they talk about scenic views. More literally breathtaking, like when you are on a rollercoaster and you feel a lurch; you’re not sure if it’s part of the fun of the ride or if the ride is falling apart and you’re careening toward injury or even death. Should you laugh, should you scream? Remain silently terrified? It was without a doubt brutal. Emotionally and visually.
Would I have enjoyed this if I were a child? Maybe. Some of my childhood favorites were very dark—I’m thinking along the lines of movies like Legend (1985), which had some very horrifying images and themes. But the darkness of that film was actually pure fantasy, whereas Where the Wild Things Are is more rooted to sad reality. Here Max, through his dream world, is dealing with his real world familial troubles in his own way.
There is still enough fun and wildness in the movie to keep kids happy though, I think. If I were one of the eight year olds in the theater watching it, I wouldn’t be thinking “this is how relationships fall apart. Great, something to look forward to.” I would most likely be thinking “Look at those weird things!... Hey!! Is that an owl? Why is that guy’s face all smashed?...” and so on.
But I guess the question is, did I enjoy the movie as an adult? I thought it was undeniably, albeit oddly, beautiful. It was poignant and at times painful like when you look through an old photo album of happy holidays from before, but you remember the sad things in between the years, or the fights you had right after dinner. A remembered disappointment, made OK only by the fact that you got through it. A sort of grim acknowledgment of everything that nobody took a picture of.
I thought when I went to see it that I would be treated to some kind of rapturous joy or at least upheaval of real emotion, dredged out by watching one of my all time favorite children’s books made real. But what I was left with was the feeling that nostalgia doesn’t cut it. You have to go to where your memories aren’t so great to really learn something about yourself or your relationships with other people. You have to go where the wild things are.
It is a hectic, violent, somehow even more fantastical version of the brief and wonderful children’s book upon which it is based. Plot, character design, dialogue—all of these aspects as unbounded as your imagination was as a child, and maybe, still is.
How can I describe such an experience? Strange, definitely; surreal at times. Frightening, yes, even to a grown-up. Breathtaking, and not in the way people use that word when they talk about scenic views. More literally breathtaking, like when you are on a rollercoaster and you feel a lurch; you’re not sure if it’s part of the fun of the ride or if the ride is falling apart and you’re careening toward injury or even death. Should you laugh, should you scream? Remain silently terrified? It was without a doubt brutal. Emotionally and visually.
Would I have enjoyed this if I were a child? Maybe. Some of my childhood favorites were very dark—I’m thinking along the lines of movies like Legend (1985), which had some very horrifying images and themes. But the darkness of that film was actually pure fantasy, whereas Where the Wild Things Are is more rooted to sad reality. Here Max, through his dream world, is dealing with his real world familial troubles in his own way.
There is still enough fun and wildness in the movie to keep kids happy though, I think. If I were one of the eight year olds in the theater watching it, I wouldn’t be thinking “this is how relationships fall apart. Great, something to look forward to.” I would most likely be thinking “Look at those weird things!... Hey!! Is that an owl? Why is that guy’s face all smashed?...” and so on.
But I guess the question is, did I enjoy the movie as an adult? I thought it was undeniably, albeit oddly, beautiful. It was poignant and at times painful like when you look through an old photo album of happy holidays from before, but you remember the sad things in between the years, or the fights you had right after dinner. A remembered disappointment, made OK only by the fact that you got through it. A sort of grim acknowledgment of everything that nobody took a picture of.
I thought when I went to see it that I would be treated to some kind of rapturous joy or at least upheaval of real emotion, dredged out by watching one of my all time favorite children’s books made real. But what I was left with was the feeling that nostalgia doesn’t cut it. You have to go to where your memories aren’t so great to really learn something about yourself or your relationships with other people. You have to go where the wild things are.
21 October 2009
Duma (2005)
-Caution, spoilers.-
Xan and his father raise a lost cheetah from a cub after they find him on the road one night. They name him Duma, Swahili for cheetah. When Xan’s dad dies, Xan crosses the entire country on foot to return Duma to his original habitat, something he and his father had planned to do together.
This movie was stupid. It was so saccharine that even a child would have trouble buying into it. And don’t even get me started on the fact that it was set somewhere in Africa, yet we only see black people living out in the wilderness in a village, and nowhere in the suspiciously pristine city we briefly visit along the way. Not to mention the fact that an eleven year old tiny white kid is supposed to have driven a motorcycle across the desert, wandered through the freaking veldt and into the jungle completely unscathed by the many wild animals he encounters along the way.
Sure, there was some nice scenery in this movie. And a ridiculously well trained actual adult cheetah plays Duma, who interacts casually and sweetly with Xan throughout. (A fascinating curiosity, though I feel a teensy bit unethical about enjoying watching this wild animal roll around like a dog and eat lunchmeat out of the kid's hand.)
But seriously. If you feel compelled to watch it just for the cheetah, put it on mute. Movies made for children don’t have to be this simplistic, unrealistic, and predictable.
In other news:
Going to see Where The Wild Things Are tonight!
Xan and his father raise a lost cheetah from a cub after they find him on the road one night. They name him Duma, Swahili for cheetah. When Xan’s dad dies, Xan crosses the entire country on foot to return Duma to his original habitat, something he and his father had planned to do together.
This movie was stupid. It was so saccharine that even a child would have trouble buying into it. And don’t even get me started on the fact that it was set somewhere in Africa, yet we only see black people living out in the wilderness in a village, and nowhere in the suspiciously pristine city we briefly visit along the way. Not to mention the fact that an eleven year old tiny white kid is supposed to have driven a motorcycle across the desert, wandered through the freaking veldt and into the jungle completely unscathed by the many wild animals he encounters along the way.
Sure, there was some nice scenery in this movie. And a ridiculously well trained actual adult cheetah plays Duma, who interacts casually and sweetly with Xan throughout. (A fascinating curiosity, though I feel a teensy bit unethical about enjoying watching this wild animal roll around like a dog and eat lunchmeat out of the kid's hand.)
But seriously. If you feel compelled to watch it just for the cheetah, put it on mute. Movies made for children don’t have to be this simplistic, unrealistic, and predictable.
In other news:
Going to see Where The Wild Things Are tonight!
19 October 2009
New York, I Love You (2009)
New York, I Love You is a collection of short films which sometimes interconnect, sometimes not, all centered on love relationships (not necessarily romantic), all set in New York City.
We get a nicely varied series of portraits of the sad, vulgar, weird, horrible, and sweet interactions between lots of different characters. The pacing was decent and the varying emotional tones managed to flow across the diverse segments. Overall it was pretty good.
The only thing that slightly put me off was the smarmy last segment that attempted to suture together all the disparate narratives into one neat package. Why was this necessary? Just so people not used to seeing short films put together in a program, people who would rather go to a straightforward start to finish plot about love, could somehow feel like they got their druthers?
You know what? Here is my unsolicited advice: try out a movie that doesn’t serve you your expectations with a cherry on top once in a while. Go to a program of shorts at your local cinematheque or a random little film festival. Go watch a movie you'd never normally even consider seeing. You might like it!
Sure, you can try short films on for size with big releases like New York, I Love You if you like—I’d argue its better than nothing. But don’t be too afraid to step out of your comfort zone, like this movie was. Be bold! You might find some new favorites.
We get a nicely varied series of portraits of the sad, vulgar, weird, horrible, and sweet interactions between lots of different characters. The pacing was decent and the varying emotional tones managed to flow across the diverse segments. Overall it was pretty good.
The only thing that slightly put me off was the smarmy last segment that attempted to suture together all the disparate narratives into one neat package. Why was this necessary? Just so people not used to seeing short films put together in a program, people who would rather go to a straightforward start to finish plot about love, could somehow feel like they got their druthers?
You know what? Here is my unsolicited advice: try out a movie that doesn’t serve you your expectations with a cherry on top once in a while. Go to a program of shorts at your local cinematheque or a random little film festival. Go watch a movie you'd never normally even consider seeing. You might like it!
Sure, you can try short films on for size with big releases like New York, I Love You if you like—I’d argue its better than nothing. But don’t be too afraid to step out of your comfort zone, like this movie was. Be bold! You might find some new favorites.
17 October 2009
My Little Chickadee (1940)
W.C. Fields and Mae West team up in this tale from the Old West involving masked bandits, shoot-‘em-up train heists and crooked sheriffs.
This seemed like it was going to be a surefire entertainer from yesteryear because of the personality of the two stars involved. I expected plenty of laughs and lots of racy gags. Maybe some antiquated humor I couldn’t quite grasp. Outdated sexual innuendo. The usual.
Unfortunately this movie was so boring I had to turn it off midway through. This is something I almost never do. I hate giving up on something halfway—I’ll watch a stinker all the way through to the end just to have a complete picture of what I’ll later complain about to my friends.
But the issue with My Little Chickadee wasn’t that it was bad in the sense of being tasteless, humorless, or illogical. There were some jokes worth a chuckle or two. The problem was that the story was just outright boring. Apparently relying on the charisma of the two stars to carry the thing forward, no one bothered to put much stock in plot. Unfortunately both West and Fields fell totally flat in this one, and so without any kind of interesting action to fall back on, the whole thing just completely fell apart.
Wah-wah-wahwahwahwahhhh! (Disappointed trumpet.)
Up Next, Either:
New York, I Love You
Or
Where the Wild Things Are
This seemed like it was going to be a surefire entertainer from yesteryear because of the personality of the two stars involved. I expected plenty of laughs and lots of racy gags. Maybe some antiquated humor I couldn’t quite grasp. Outdated sexual innuendo. The usual.
Unfortunately this movie was so boring I had to turn it off midway through. This is something I almost never do. I hate giving up on something halfway—I’ll watch a stinker all the way through to the end just to have a complete picture of what I’ll later complain about to my friends.
But the issue with My Little Chickadee wasn’t that it was bad in the sense of being tasteless, humorless, or illogical. There were some jokes worth a chuckle or two. The problem was that the story was just outright boring. Apparently relying on the charisma of the two stars to carry the thing forward, no one bothered to put much stock in plot. Unfortunately both West and Fields fell totally flat in this one, and so without any kind of interesting action to fall back on, the whole thing just completely fell apart.
Wah-wah-wahwahwahwahhhh! (Disappointed trumpet.)
Up Next, Either:
New York, I Love You
Or
Where the Wild Things Are
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
