My preliminary response to watching this movie was teenager-text-message-esque. It went something like this:
OMG!! Whaaaaat the helllllll?????
And also a little like this:
awwwwwwwww. :(
Unfortunately, these thoughts, albeit stunningly poetic, do not a legitimate blog post make. An attempt at a slightly more elevated, articulated evaluation follows.
If you don't know already, Hesher is a movie about the harshly arbitrary realities of trying to get through everyday life while dealing with the loss of a loved one. In it, a middle school-ish aged boy named T.J. grapples not only with the untimely death of his mother, but also the subsequent loss of his father to an entirely crippling grief (played with eyebrow raising depth by Rainn Wilson). T.J. has to navigate the uncertain waters of "where to go from here" alone, until one day he encounters the extremely unpleasant, yet well meaning miscreant Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).
Hesher was one of those rare, artistically successful movies in which form and thematic content serve each other quite well. In other words, the overall aesthetic effect (editing, mise-en-scene, performances, pacing, etc) helped carry the central ideas of the movie across. Gordon-Levitt's character is a literal manifestation of the feelings of turmoil and lawlessness trauma can create for people who find their whole worlds destroyed overnight. Though some may argue that many of Hesher's antics, and indeed the movie's events overall are totally over the top, they do all serve the central purpose of illustrating how crazy the world can seem when it changes for you brutally and unexpectedly overnight.
Another success of Hesher is that it somehow manages to feel genuine yet fairytale-like, hyperbolic and understated. It never lets you feel predictable sentiments, yet the emotions it manages to convey are indisputably real.
I very much recommend this movie, but only if you are prepared to accept the unexpected.
Showing posts with label Comedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comedy. Show all posts
15 December 2011
06 December 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
I want to preface this review by stating that the only reason I watched this movie was that it was the only thing in the house and I was desperate to avoid being productive for a time.
Why avoid the Pirates franchise, you ask? Well. I was already tired of the whole thing by the end of the second movie, and the third installment was so pointless to me that it actually made me angry. And yet! I set out to watch On Stranger Tides with some tiny, absurd grain of optimism. I believe I deserve a pat on the back for dredging up this speck of good will. Perhaps it sprung forth from the promise of mermaids and a hugely relieving lack of Kiera Knightley.
But let's not get too off topic. As you could probably predict, I was sadly disappointed yet again. Featuring a surprisingly uninteresting Penelope Cruz, an entirely indifferent Johnny Depp-- one small fraction of a bevy of other A-list actors who all appeared to be phoning it in-- the movie was another good example of how throwing money at a project will not and cannot make it entertaining.
It seemed the story was being made up by the director as the crew was dragged from overly elaborate set to unnecessarily exotic locale. Dialogue was entirely without merit. Performances were ho-hum, at best.
Cool special effects, unfortunate lack of any other aspect which deserves positive comment.
Blah. Don't waste your time.
Why avoid the Pirates franchise, you ask? Well. I was already tired of the whole thing by the end of the second movie, and the third installment was so pointless to me that it actually made me angry. And yet! I set out to watch On Stranger Tides with some tiny, absurd grain of optimism. I believe I deserve a pat on the back for dredging up this speck of good will. Perhaps it sprung forth from the promise of mermaids and a hugely relieving lack of Kiera Knightley.
But let's not get too off topic. As you could probably predict, I was sadly disappointed yet again. Featuring a surprisingly uninteresting Penelope Cruz, an entirely indifferent Johnny Depp-- one small fraction of a bevy of other A-list actors who all appeared to be phoning it in-- the movie was another good example of how throwing money at a project will not and cannot make it entertaining.
It seemed the story was being made up by the director as the crew was dragged from overly elaborate set to unnecessarily exotic locale. Dialogue was entirely without merit. Performances were ho-hum, at best.
Cool special effects, unfortunate lack of any other aspect which deserves positive comment.
Blah. Don't waste your time.
13 November 2011
Waitress (2007)
My, oh my. Gonna bake a pie.
I very much enjoyed this movie, which seemed to me to be a very real representation of a woman's perspective on difficult life decisions. Weighty enough to be meaningful yet light enough to be accessible and enjoyable, Waitress made me laugh, worry, and sigh.
Quirky dialogue and humorous moments that really matched with my sense of what's funny helped. Realism with a dash of fairy tale only made things better.
Overall-- totally worth it if you want to see something different in a good way. Plus you'll be really really hungry for some random berries smashed with chocolate pie by the end of it.
I very much enjoyed this movie, which seemed to me to be a very real representation of a woman's perspective on difficult life decisions. Weighty enough to be meaningful yet light enough to be accessible and enjoyable, Waitress made me laugh, worry, and sigh.
Quirky dialogue and humorous moments that really matched with my sense of what's funny helped. Realism with a dash of fairy tale only made things better.
Overall-- totally worth it if you want to see something different in a good way. Plus you'll be really really hungry for some random berries smashed with chocolate pie by the end of it.
13 October 2011
Iris (Cirque du Soleil-- Kodak Center, Los Angeles)
Iris (pronounced the French way, "ee-rees") isn't a movie; it's a Cirque du Soleil show that's playing right now at the Kodak Theater (where they film the Academy Awards) in L.A., the theme of which is the history of cinema and movie making.
Needless to say, when I several months ago first saw the advertisements for this show, I was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and excitement. This buoyant feeling almost immediately (and predictably) devolved into anxiety that Cirque would somehow manage to screw it up and thereby incur my wrath for sullying the subject that has been my passion for quite some time now. Despite my apprehension, however, I ended up deciding to go to the show anyway, because I've been fortunate enough to have seen several Cirque shows over the last ten years and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Fast forward to September 11th, 2011 (yes, I'm a little behind on my blogging) and you'll find me nearly moved to tears within seconds of being seated before the show starts, because I can see from the get-go that the crazy French Canadian Guy Laliberte (CEO of Cirque du Soleil) has done yet another mind bogglingly competent job putting together a crazy-weird-circus-fantasy spectacle.
My favorite pre-show attraction was the female mime wandering the crowd with a metal contraption surrounding her body. She solicited several people to spin her curious cylinder-skirt, and when no one would do it fast enough to suit her needs she gave it a yank herself. To the delight of the crowd, her skirt (which resembled a film reel turned on its side) revealed itself to be a working zoetrope showing boxers fighting each other in a short, repeated loop. Rewind to February of 2005 and you'll find a fresher-faced me sitting in my history of early cinema class at UC Berkeley watching a very enthusiastic young professor (Professor Kaveh Askari, a graduate of the University of Chicago (?) if you were wondering) demonstrating much smaller versions of the same pre-cinematic device and others like it. This was probably the moment that I decided I loved film and wanted to learn everything about it, and so for the Cirque show to reference it meant a lot to me. (<-- huge understatement) The rest of the show was no different in terms of its emotional impact. Nearly every single aspect connected to some aspect of film as an art form, film history, or film production. Some of the references made were: - Norman McLaren's "Pas de deux"
- Georges Melies' "A Trip to the Moon"
- Edison's "Electrocution of an Elephant" (part of the Cinema of Attractions)
"The Kiss"
- Lotte Reiniger's "Adventures of Prince Achmed"
- Dziga Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera" or "The Cinematic Orchestra"
- The Al Jolson film "The Jazz Singer"
- And even what I took as a reference to a particular character from a Hayao Miyazaki film (Howl's Moving Castle)
All these references (and many, many more) were integrated with the usual Cirque spectacle of acrobatics, contortionists, a loose, somewhat dubious romantic narrative that ties the show together, wonderful live music, and some silly clowns which Cirque here opted to use to refer to modern day Hollywood industry stereotypes.
My favorite part was the McLaren reference, because it took a series of dancers and placed them in front of an enormous screen that showed their motion trails, just like in "Pas de deux". I also greatly relished the carnival/vaudeville aspect to this particular Cirque show (though I recognize it's a somewhat common theme throughout them and circus in general), because it connected back to the roots of film as a sort of freak show attraction. I also was just as much impressed by the integration of technology into the acts (I'm thinking in particular of one scene that's incredibly difficult to describe, so I'll leave it up to you to go experience it for yourself) as I was by the skill of the performers, some of whom are Olympic athletes.
I can't say whether many people in the audience understood these myriad references to cinema, but whether or not they did is not important to me. I loved the show because it reminded me of a time in my life not so long ago when I was ruled by a singular passion and drive inspired by the art form of film. Though this time isn't very far distant from me, it feels miles away. Because I am acutely aware of the literal (and metaphorical) distance I've traveled since those glorious days of oblivious (arguably naive) infatuation with my chosen subject of study, Iris moved me quite deeply insofar as it helped me reconnect with past moments in the sun, and I know this intensely personal experience would certainly not be what most people experience on seeing the show.
I highly recommend that you see Iris if you love film and you're in Los Angeles. You won't regret it.
Needless to say, when I several months ago first saw the advertisements for this show, I was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and excitement. This buoyant feeling almost immediately (and predictably) devolved into anxiety that Cirque would somehow manage to screw it up and thereby incur my wrath for sullying the subject that has been my passion for quite some time now. Despite my apprehension, however, I ended up deciding to go to the show anyway, because I've been fortunate enough to have seen several Cirque shows over the last ten years and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Fast forward to September 11th, 2011 (yes, I'm a little behind on my blogging) and you'll find me nearly moved to tears within seconds of being seated before the show starts, because I can see from the get-go that the crazy French Canadian Guy Laliberte (CEO of Cirque du Soleil) has done yet another mind bogglingly competent job putting together a crazy-weird-circus-fantasy spectacle.
My favorite pre-show attraction was the female mime wandering the crowd with a metal contraption surrounding her body. She solicited several people to spin her curious cylinder-skirt, and when no one would do it fast enough to suit her needs she gave it a yank herself. To the delight of the crowd, her skirt (which resembled a film reel turned on its side) revealed itself to be a working zoetrope showing boxers fighting each other in a short, repeated loop. Rewind to February of 2005 and you'll find a fresher-faced me sitting in my history of early cinema class at UC Berkeley watching a very enthusiastic young professor (Professor Kaveh Askari, a graduate of the University of Chicago (?) if you were wondering) demonstrating much smaller versions of the same pre-cinematic device and others like it. This was probably the moment that I decided I loved film and wanted to learn everything about it, and so for the Cirque show to reference it meant a lot to me. (<-- huge understatement) The rest of the show was no different in terms of its emotional impact. Nearly every single aspect connected to some aspect of film as an art form, film history, or film production. Some of the references made were: - Norman McLaren's "Pas de deux"
- Georges Melies' "A Trip to the Moon"
- Edison's "Electrocution of an Elephant" (part of the Cinema of Attractions)
"The Kiss"
- Lotte Reiniger's "Adventures of Prince Achmed"
- Dziga Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera" or "The Cinematic Orchestra"
- The Al Jolson film "The Jazz Singer"
- And even what I took as a reference to a particular character from a Hayao Miyazaki film (Howl's Moving Castle)
All these references (and many, many more) were integrated with the usual Cirque spectacle of acrobatics, contortionists, a loose, somewhat dubious romantic narrative that ties the show together, wonderful live music, and some silly clowns which Cirque here opted to use to refer to modern day Hollywood industry stereotypes.
My favorite part was the McLaren reference, because it took a series of dancers and placed them in front of an enormous screen that showed their motion trails, just like in "Pas de deux". I also greatly relished the carnival/vaudeville aspect to this particular Cirque show (though I recognize it's a somewhat common theme throughout them and circus in general), because it connected back to the roots of film as a sort of freak show attraction. I also was just as much impressed by the integration of technology into the acts (I'm thinking in particular of one scene that's incredibly difficult to describe, so I'll leave it up to you to go experience it for yourself) as I was by the skill of the performers, some of whom are Olympic athletes.
I can't say whether many people in the audience understood these myriad references to cinema, but whether or not they did is not important to me. I loved the show because it reminded me of a time in my life not so long ago when I was ruled by a singular passion and drive inspired by the art form of film. Though this time isn't very far distant from me, it feels miles away. Because I am acutely aware of the literal (and metaphorical) distance I've traveled since those glorious days of oblivious (arguably naive) infatuation with my chosen subject of study, Iris moved me quite deeply insofar as it helped me reconnect with past moments in the sun, and I know this intensely personal experience would certainly not be what most people experience on seeing the show.
I highly recommend that you see Iris if you love film and you're in Los Angeles. You won't regret it.
05 October 2011
Fright Night (2011)
This extremely entertaining update of the 1985 original has everything I enjoy seeing in a horror movie: humor, low stakes suspense, and an effervescent enthusiasm for making fun of itself.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Fright Night from beginning to end, laughing along with my friends at all the ridiculous moments, most of which were delivered by Colin Farrell, who seemed to luxuriate in making his role seem as hilariously perverted and degrading/deviant as possible. Even when he's sucking blood out a parade of hapless teenagers, Farrell makes it brazenly obvious that what's really happening is intense, unbridled, and inappropriate sexual pleasure. It is extremely entertaining to watch Farrell run with this role, and I think he did a really smart interpretation of it that I'm not sure others could deliver.
The only problems I had with the film were that 1) the vampires were way scarier when they were not CGI enhanced than when they were. The climactic final monster scene was so overdone CGI-wise that I burst out laughing at the site of it. Leave Farrell with his black contacts and creepy just-jizzed-in-my-pants face alone. And 2) the kid playing the main character appeared to be a 30 year old man*. But he still did a good job in his role, as did the Russell Brand lookalike who played a very apropos satire of Criss Angel.
Overall, VERY worth your time, unless you watch the above clip and hate it. Because if you don't get what's funny about that clip, you won't think Fright Night is funny, at all... guy.
*Horrifying realization: he's younger than me.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Fright Night from beginning to end, laughing along with my friends at all the ridiculous moments, most of which were delivered by Colin Farrell, who seemed to luxuriate in making his role seem as hilariously perverted and degrading/deviant as possible. Even when he's sucking blood out a parade of hapless teenagers, Farrell makes it brazenly obvious that what's really happening is intense, unbridled, and inappropriate sexual pleasure. It is extremely entertaining to watch Farrell run with this role, and I think he did a really smart interpretation of it that I'm not sure others could deliver.
The only problems I had with the film were that 1) the vampires were way scarier when they were not CGI enhanced than when they were. The climactic final monster scene was so overdone CGI-wise that I burst out laughing at the site of it. Leave Farrell with his black contacts and creepy just-jizzed-in-my-pants face alone. And 2) the kid playing the main character appeared to be a 30 year old man*. But he still did a good job in his role, as did the Russell Brand lookalike who played a very apropos satire of Criss Angel.
Overall, VERY worth your time, unless you watch the above clip and hate it. Because if you don't get what's funny about that clip, you won't think Fright Night is funny, at all... guy.
*Horrifying realization: he's younger than me.
25 August 2011
30 Minutes or Less (2011)
Lots of offensive jokes said by characters you weren't supposed to like anyway, so who cares, right? (Subtext here-- wrong.)
Really stupid story, really annoying Jesse Eisenberg, really pointless overall.
Don't see it, even if you want to.
Really stupid story, really annoying Jesse Eisenberg, really pointless overall.
Don't see it, even if you want to.
Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)
This movie was just OK.
I really wanted it to be fantastic and have an interesting statement to make about relationships, but at the end of the day it was just a standard story with decent performances.
You can probably get the same experience of watching the movie if you just watch the preview, and you'll save time too.
Unless you want to be treated to an unsavory view of Ryan Gosling's creepy so-deep-you-could-lose-some-food-in-there-and-smell-it-rotting-three-weeks-later chest and abdominal muscles. I guess some people are into that type of thing?
Whatever. Worth your time if you're bored, have not a lot else going on, and want to hear a bunch of people talk about love like you've heard it talked about 1,000+ times before.
I really wanted it to be fantastic and have an interesting statement to make about relationships, but at the end of the day it was just a standard story with decent performances.
You can probably get the same experience of watching the movie if you just watch the preview, and you'll save time too.
Unless you want to be treated to an unsavory view of Ryan Gosling's creepy so-deep-you-could-lose-some-food-in-there-and-smell-it-rotting-three-weeks-later chest and abdominal muscles. I guess some people are into that type of thing?
Whatever. Worth your time if you're bored, have not a lot else going on, and want to hear a bunch of people talk about love like you've heard it talked about 1,000+ times before.
Paul (2011)
Another alien movie! But this one has British people, comic-con, and a bunch of jokes about gayness that seem like the filmmakers were trying to prove how OK they are with gayness!
Also: Seth Rogen. On the fence about him in normal roles, experienced slight distaste with him in voice-over mode as the gauche but ultimately friendly alien for whom the movie is named.
Some mildly amusing hijinks, Kristen Wiig doing some lukewarm comedy, and Sigourney Weaver in a strange caricature of a role that feels like some of her skits on SNL, and not in a good way. Involved a bunch of other celebrities I don't feel like listing.
Overall: probably not worth your time, unless you're really really into alien movies. In which case, still meh.
Also: Seth Rogen. On the fence about him in normal roles, experienced slight distaste with him in voice-over mode as the gauche but ultimately friendly alien for whom the movie is named.
Some mildly amusing hijinks, Kristen Wiig doing some lukewarm comedy, and Sigourney Weaver in a strange caricature of a role that feels like some of her skits on SNL, and not in a good way. Involved a bunch of other celebrities I don't feel like listing.
Overall: probably not worth your time, unless you're really really into alien movies. In which case, still meh.
02 August 2011
27 July 2011
True Grit (1969)
Just as valuable as the 2010 reboot but in different ways.
Props to Kim Darby (Yes, this Kim Darby), for bringing emotion to the table despite the silliness of her voice, acting style, and astoundingly Justin Bieber-like haircut.
When you watch this you'll be treated to another serendipitous and excellent minor role for Dennis Hopper. The more I see of his older work the more I want to watch of everything he's ever done.
I think my favorite part of watching this John Wayne classic was gaining a greater appreciation of the richness of the modern adaptation's roots. Each actor in the update really drew from and yet moved beyond the now charmingly outdated original.
It helped me understand even more why the recent adaptation of True Grit was nominated for best picture. Yay!
Props to Kim Darby (Yes, this Kim Darby), for bringing emotion to the table despite the silliness of her voice, acting style, and astoundingly Justin Bieber-like haircut.
When you watch this you'll be treated to another serendipitous and excellent minor role for Dennis Hopper. The more I see of his older work the more I want to watch of everything he's ever done.
I think my favorite part of watching this John Wayne classic was gaining a greater appreciation of the richness of the modern adaptation's roots. Each actor in the update really drew from and yet moved beyond the now charmingly outdated original.
It helped me understand even more why the recent adaptation of True Grit was nominated for best picture. Yay!
26 June 2011
Bridesmaids (2011)
I wish movies as enjoyable as this one weren't so rare.
Female characters making jokes that real women often make amongst themselves, and in highly not cliched fashion. A legitimate storyline right along with a variety of types of humor, including (but not limited to) gross-out.
Delightfully unexpected characters mixed in with some familiar faces.
Fantastic!!!!!!!!...!!!
Female characters making jokes that real women often make amongst themselves, and in highly not cliched fashion. A legitimate storyline right along with a variety of types of humor, including (but not limited to) gross-out.
Delightfully unexpected characters mixed in with some familiar faces.
Fantastic!!!!!!!!...!!!
14 June 2011
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Hey. Everyone! Sorry I didn't post one single blog entry in the entire month of May. It was an intensely busy month, but it was not without movie watching, and neither was June. So consider the emptying of the now substantial backlog officially begun.
Up first, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World!
I waited a long time to watch this movie. When I first saw the previews for it way back when I thought it looked intriguing, but I was hesitant to allow my enthusiasm to grow because I had a tiny paranoid conspiracy that this movie was being marketed to appeal to a very specific subset of young adults to which I definitely (albeit somewhat reluctantly) belong. To make myself clear, I was afraid I was getting sucked in by cheap, glittery, hipster-y advertising tactics rather than by the potential of the movie.
To make matters worse, in the interim between seeing the trailers for Scott Pilgrim and finally watching it on DVD I picked up the comic in a local bookstore and was unimpressed by the illustrations. I'm an avid consumer of graphic novels, and I have to say that if I don't like the illustrations I'm seeing, I don't like the book. So strike two for Scott Pilgrim.
Anyway, the movie finally made its way up in my Netflix queue and I thought I'd give it a try if for no other reason than to have fodder for some actual complaints on this phantasmagoria.
I was pleasantly surprised. I liked the characters, I liked the effects, and I loved the pacing. The aesthetic was pretty cool, and the music was fun. There was some level of complexity there, and the relationships seemed decently real to me. I also really liked this character. Her blinding rage and her ability to bleep her own cuss words were thoroughly entertaining.
Overall, I'd suggest this movie to you if you're into comics/graphic novels, Canada, hipsters, music, hair dye, action/adventure type things, movies about 20-something creative types, Michael Cera, good acting, snappy writing, and good movies.
Up first, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World!
I waited a long time to watch this movie. When I first saw the previews for it way back when I thought it looked intriguing, but I was hesitant to allow my enthusiasm to grow because I had a tiny paranoid conspiracy that this movie was being marketed to appeal to a very specific subset of young adults to which I definitely (albeit somewhat reluctantly) belong. To make myself clear, I was afraid I was getting sucked in by cheap, glittery, hipster-y advertising tactics rather than by the potential of the movie.
To make matters worse, in the interim between seeing the trailers for Scott Pilgrim and finally watching it on DVD I picked up the comic in a local bookstore and was unimpressed by the illustrations. I'm an avid consumer of graphic novels, and I have to say that if I don't like the illustrations I'm seeing, I don't like the book. So strike two for Scott Pilgrim.
Anyway, the movie finally made its way up in my Netflix queue and I thought I'd give it a try if for no other reason than to have fodder for some actual complaints on this phantasmagoria.
I was pleasantly surprised. I liked the characters, I liked the effects, and I loved the pacing. The aesthetic was pretty cool, and the music was fun. There was some level of complexity there, and the relationships seemed decently real to me. I also really liked this character. Her blinding rage and her ability to bleep her own cuss words were thoroughly entertaining.
Overall, I'd suggest this movie to you if you're into comics/graphic novels, Canada, hipsters, music, hair dye, action/adventure type things, movies about 20-something creative types, Michael Cera, good acting, snappy writing, and good movies.
14 April 2011
Rango (2011)
I really enjoyed this movie. I thought the dialogue was genuinely interesting and funny, and that the subject matter was both whimsical and novel.
The character design was never cute, and for the most part, not visually appealing on any level. I found this lack of aesthetic appeal refreshing. The ugliness and oddness of the characters was pleasantly counterbalanced by some very delightful visual moments. Two (of many possible) examples that spring to mind are 1) when Rango is "drawing" in the dark night sky using a smoldering stick from a fire (it looks like flashlight trails captured on long exposure film), and 2) the strange wandering plants based on the real-life Spanish Dagger cactus. I loved the movement and strange personification these plants had in the film.
Overall, Rango was through and through a great animated film. A word of warning, however: though marketed as such, this is DEFINITELY NOT a children's movie. From beginning to end it has elements that would (and did, in the theater I was in) outright terrify small children. There were also some really violent moments, and some mild cussing (along the lines of hell and damn).
To be truly enjoyed by grown-ups only.
The character design was never cute, and for the most part, not visually appealing on any level. I found this lack of aesthetic appeal refreshing. The ugliness and oddness of the characters was pleasantly counterbalanced by some very delightful visual moments. Two (of many possible) examples that spring to mind are 1) when Rango is "drawing" in the dark night sky using a smoldering stick from a fire (it looks like flashlight trails captured on long exposure film), and 2) the strange wandering plants based on the real-life Spanish Dagger cactus. I loved the movement and strange personification these plants had in the film.
Overall, Rango was through and through a great animated film. A word of warning, however: though marketed as such, this is DEFINITELY NOT a children's movie. From beginning to end it has elements that would (and did, in the theater I was in) outright terrify small children. There were also some really violent moments, and some mild cussing (along the lines of hell and damn).
To be truly enjoyed by grown-ups only.
20 March 2011
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
What I like most about HP3 is the large amount of silly, physically humorous moments scattered throughout. Scenes from the Whomping Willow's surprisingly brutal anti-bird maneuvers to the series of wonderfully thought through portrayals of the anti-boggart counter spell "Riddikulus!" keep me giggling like a sugar-high child throughout.
This intermittent laughter is a welcome effect, especially in light of the fact that this particular installment of HP really starts to delve into the dark and sometimes troubling complexities of grown-ups. In this movie we have a number of adult characters who have more than one side to their personalities, including the impulsive yet tender Sirius Black, the compassionate and monstrous Professor Remus Lupin, and the truly odious yet pathetic Peter Pettigrew.
I think HP3 definitely serves as an effective gateway into the more serious subject matter of the following films, with danger and despair growing ever closer to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yet here Rowling's magical world still provides marvelously relieving hints of hope, both in the form of magical devices (time turner, anyone?) and a strong sense of goodness in the people who count.
I hope you are as excited to keep watching as I am.
This intermittent laughter is a welcome effect, especially in light of the fact that this particular installment of HP really starts to delve into the dark and sometimes troubling complexities of grown-ups. In this movie we have a number of adult characters who have more than one side to their personalities, including the impulsive yet tender Sirius Black, the compassionate and monstrous Professor Remus Lupin, and the truly odious yet pathetic Peter Pettigrew.
I think HP3 definitely serves as an effective gateway into the more serious subject matter of the following films, with danger and despair growing ever closer to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yet here Rowling's magical world still provides marvelously relieving hints of hope, both in the form of magical devices (time turner, anyone?) and a strong sense of goodness in the people who count.
I hope you are as excited to keep watching as I am.
Leprechaun 5: Leprechaun in the Hood (2000)
Just a little late for Saint Patrick's Day!
I love a movie that is self-consciously terrible. One that really acknowledges its own disfunctionality and gets a little carried away with itself celebrating it.
Enter Leprechaun 5: Leprechaun in the Hood. Oh my goodness this is a terrible movie. The story makes no sense at all, the actors seem like they're trying not to laugh as they deliver their lines, and even the gore/sex factor usually providing some vague sense of interest in a B-movie doesn't quite deliver.
And yet. AND YET! Leprechaun 5 still manages to be amusing. Each scene of half-baked ideas for outlandish deaths, mythological maniacs who speak in rhyme, and random "Zombie Fly Girl" gratuitous gold plastic hot pants (yeah, you read that right) seems like it's trying to outdo the last. The result: an entertaining and surprisingly light evening of entertainment.
Certainly good for a few hours of escapism, if nothing else.
I love a movie that is self-consciously terrible. One that really acknowledges its own disfunctionality and gets a little carried away with itself celebrating it.
Enter Leprechaun 5: Leprechaun in the Hood. Oh my goodness this is a terrible movie. The story makes no sense at all, the actors seem like they're trying not to laugh as they deliver their lines, and even the gore/sex factor usually providing some vague sense of interest in a B-movie doesn't quite deliver.
And yet. AND YET! Leprechaun 5 still manages to be amusing. Each scene of half-baked ideas for outlandish deaths, mythological maniacs who speak in rhyme, and random "Zombie Fly Girl" gratuitous gold plastic hot pants (yeah, you read that right) seems like it's trying to outdo the last. The result: an entertaining and surprisingly light evening of entertainment.
Certainly good for a few hours of escapism, if nothing else.
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010)
Overall message of this documentary: Joan Rivers is egotistical and mean, and yet sadly fragile inside.
To which I hereby officially respond--meh.
This lackluster doc leaves out what I could consider to be any truly interesting or surprising information, instead mostly just showing us the Joan Rivers we already knew.
The result is a not very bold or unexpected, not very thought provoking, and largely pointless hour and a half about a funny lady and her dirty laundry.
To which I hereby officially respond--meh.
This lackluster doc leaves out what I could consider to be any truly interesting or surprising information, instead mostly just showing us the Joan Rivers we already knew.
The result is a not very bold or unexpected, not very thought provoking, and largely pointless hour and a half about a funny lady and her dirty laundry.
29 January 2011
The Green Hornet (2010)
Waste of time, money, and talent.
Incredibly boring action sequences, virtually no punch lines.
Unbelieveable, uninteresting, unsatisfying. Pretty much unwatchable.
Blughhghghghhhhh.
Incredibly boring action sequences, virtually no punch lines.
Unbelieveable, uninteresting, unsatisfying. Pretty much unwatchable.
Blughhghghghhhhh.
02 January 2011
True Grit (2010)
- Fantastic
- Beautiful to behold
- Quotable
- Makes me want to go out into the wilderness and overall be braver, stronger, and better at using the vocabulary I have
- All around excellent
- Beautiful to behold
- Quotable
- Makes me want to go out into the wilderness and overall be braver, stronger, and better at using the vocabulary I have
- All around excellent
16 November 2010
Megamind (2010)
Megamind is good children’s media. While being refreshingly not entirely predictable on the level of plot, the movie also manages to deliver ongoing punch lines that go way beyond expectations in terms of variety of types and levels of humor.
Visually speaking, 3-D is used tastefully and sparingly, pretty much just doing what it’s supposed to—adding helpful depth cues to what would otherwise be a slightly less accessible visual world. Characters are (obviously) cartoonish, yet the expressiveness of the faces of humans and aliens alike makes me think Dreamworks is consciously taking steps in the right direction in terms of character design. Fantasy remains central while emotions ready to be identified with are easily conveyed.
Bonus points for minimal bodily function jokes. Double bonus points for Will Ferrell’s reigned-in performance of an over-the-top character who might not be that odd after all.
Overall worth the extra bucks to see it in theaters.
Yay!
Visually speaking, 3-D is used tastefully and sparingly, pretty much just doing what it’s supposed to—adding helpful depth cues to what would otherwise be a slightly less accessible visual world. Characters are (obviously) cartoonish, yet the expressiveness of the faces of humans and aliens alike makes me think Dreamworks is consciously taking steps in the right direction in terms of character design. Fantasy remains central while emotions ready to be identified with are easily conveyed.
Bonus points for minimal bodily function jokes. Double bonus points for Will Ferrell’s reigned-in performance of an over-the-top character who might not be that odd after all.
Overall worth the extra bucks to see it in theaters.
Yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
