Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Did You Hear about the Morgans
This movie, Did You Hear about the Morgans is in contention for the worse movie of the year or maybe decade. I will confess that I am a big Hugh Grant fan and the reason I rented the movie. Now he looks like he has had cosmetic surgery and looks terrible. He always of plays the same character, kind of goofy and lovable at the same time but this time he looked stiff and very uncomfortable. I'm not a Sara Jessica Parker fan though I did like Sex in the City. She was equally as bad. Even Sam Elliott and Mary Steenburgen could not save this film. The writing is awful. It did almost make me cry knowing I paid to rent the movie. There was only one good line in the whole mess. Sam Elliott always the manliest of men is talking to Parker. He says "you know the book Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus"? Parker says "you read that book?" Elliott says "no the title says it all."
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Serious Man
Since Judy reviewed all but one of the Academy award nominated movies, I though I would review the one she didn't on the eve of the academy awards just in case anyone is interested. I have not seen many of the nominees this year and after reading Judy's review I probably won't. As I get older I seem to have more difficulty with violent movies. I say that even though some of my favorite films or at least ones that I have liked a lot are very violent. I'm not in the mood for instance, to see "The Hurt Locker." I'm not keen on war movies. And yet "Saving Private Ryan" as difficult as it was to watch ranks in my top 25 films. (Maybe, I'll have to think about my top 25, it is in at least my top 50.) And then there is the 2007 Academy Award winning film "No Country for Old Men." I loved that movie. A classic story of good and evil. The story wraps around a man who in attempting to do something bad, ends up trying to do something good that gets him caught up in a world he can't control. Brilliant acting but very violent though to me the violence seemed contained and the characters were the interesting part. A Coen Brother's movie which leads nicely in to the review a "A Serious Man" also by the Coen Brothers.
A serious Man is a big departure from most of the Coen Brother's other movies. I have actually seen 8 out of their 13 movies: Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, Fargo (a personal favorite though again very violent), O' Brother. Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty, No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading, and A Serious Man. What is similar to their other movies is the quirky characters and the superb level of acting on every one's part. The story is basically about a man who's life starts to fall apart when his wife tells him she is leaving him for the neighbor and he questions what he has done to anger God. He tries to get answers from several Rabbi's but they are of little help. It isn't a particularly fun or even enjoyable movie. The characters are not handsome or beautiful. But it is intriguing with it's questions and relationships. I'd recommend it. Will it win the Best Picture? Not a chance unless the voting gets completely screwed up. Michael Strubarg is up for best actor as well. He won't get the prize.
As I said in a previous blog some where I think Jeff Bridges will get it for "Crazy Heart" and probably deserves it for great contributions over the years. I think the Academy will recognize their first woman, Kathryn Bigelow, for best director. I didn't realize until just now that she is only the 4th woman to be nominated in that category. I didn't realize that Holliwood was such an "old boy's club". Maybe old and new boys. My money is on Sandra Bullock for best actress, again because of her contribution to the industry. Best picture "The Hurt Locker" because of the director. I have only seen three of the ten nominated films. "Up in the Air", "Up", and "A Serious Man." My favorite by far was "Up in the Air."
A serious Man is a big departure from most of the Coen Brother's other movies. I have actually seen 8 out of their 13 movies: Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, Fargo (a personal favorite though again very violent), O' Brother. Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty, No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading, and A Serious Man. What is similar to their other movies is the quirky characters and the superb level of acting on every one's part. The story is basically about a man who's life starts to fall apart when his wife tells him she is leaving him for the neighbor and he questions what he has done to anger God. He tries to get answers from several Rabbi's but they are of little help. It isn't a particularly fun or even enjoyable movie. The characters are not handsome or beautiful. But it is intriguing with it's questions and relationships. I'd recommend it. Will it win the Best Picture? Not a chance unless the voting gets completely screwed up. Michael Strubarg is up for best actor as well. He won't get the prize.
As I said in a previous blog some where I think Jeff Bridges will get it for "Crazy Heart" and probably deserves it for great contributions over the years. I think the Academy will recognize their first woman, Kathryn Bigelow, for best director. I didn't realize until just now that she is only the 4th woman to be nominated in that category. I didn't realize that Holliwood was such an "old boy's club". Maybe old and new boys. My money is on Sandra Bullock for best actress, again because of her contribution to the industry. Best picture "The Hurt Locker" because of the director. I have only seen three of the ten nominated films. "Up in the Air", "Up", and "A Serious Man." My favorite by far was "Up in the Air."
Oscar nominations
Since the Oscars are tomorrow night, I have been trying to see all of the nominated films. I have seen all but one. Best picture nominations: Avatar--I really didn't like this movie at all. Sure, the special effects were great but the story line was so trite and shallow it was hard for me to find any redeeming value. It was a poor attempt to echo what we western Europeans did to the American Indians. The hero wasn't any better than those trying to exploit the blue people because he married a blue girl in his altered state knowing he would never really be able to be with her. Anyway, I hope this doesn't win. The Blind Side was a very good, feel good movie and although the media wanted to discredit the real woman played by Sandra Bullock by saying she was exploiting the young man she helped, I don't think she was. It isn't the best movie of the year but it made me cry and definitely worth seeing. If not for Meryl Streep's performance as Julia Childs I'd give Sandra Bullock the Oscar. District 9 I hated although it was an amazing movie that definitely deserves a nomination. Similar to Avatar, it mimicked how blacks were treated in South Africa during the Apartheid. It was just done so much better. It was very Sci-Fi, gruesome and at one point I felt like I was in a transformer movie. I am glad I saw it but would never want to see it again. An Education was an interesting movie. It is never going to be a box office hit, and I don't think I'd watch it again but the acting was great. The story line was about a bright, young English woman who discards her chance for an education to pursue a relationship with an older man who turns out to be a scoundrel which was pretty apparent from the beginning. The Hurt Locker which is suppose to win for best picture was again a well done movie that I would never ever want to see again. It is about soldiers who are in charge of disarming IEDs. Very graphic which was necessary in this film to get a real sense of the horror of war. Inglourisous Basterds Randy and I just saw last night on Pay for View. It is a fictitious story about American soldiers in France during the Nazi occupation. Brad Pitt is in charge of a group that kills and scalps Nazis. Well done film that again showed the horrors of war and was very graphic and gruesome. I think they way over did the graphic factor. I hid my eyes several times. Christopher Waltz who plays a Nazi with the nickname of Jew Killer, definitely deserves the best supporting actor award. Precious was much more to my liking. It wasn't a pleasant movie to watch but an important one because it speaks to the sexual abuse that so many young girls growing up in poverty experience. I liked it better when I thought it was based on a real life story but as fiction it was unrealistic. The abuse wasn't unrealistic but the idea that Precious might be able to lead a normal adult life was pretty far fetched. Mo'Nique who plays Precious' mother definitely gets my vote for best supporting actress. Up was a great animated film (I didn't see it in 3D) and I think it probably deserves best animated film but I wouldn't put it up against the other nominations. If they had not doubled the nominated films this year it would never have made it. I liked Up in the Air a lot, and I would definitely see it again. My favorite reason for liking this movie is that a woman instead of a man was the one who had a family back home and was having an affair on the road or shall we say up in the air. The acting was great but I wouldn't give George Clooney best actor. He is good but he was pretty much just being George Clooney. However, Anna Kendrick, who plays the twenty something executive did a superb job and if it wasn't for Mo'Nique's role, I'd give her the Oscar for best supporting actress. She is really the reason I liked the movie so much. The only movie I haven't see is A Serious Man. I can't really say which movie I would give the Oscar to this year. None of them makes me say oh yeah that is the one. I hope 2010 movies are better. Regarding best actors, I haven't see Jeff Bridges or Morgan Freeman. Of those I have seen, I loved Colin Firth in a Single Man. It was a very poignant movie about a man who loses his male partner in a car accident and struggles with moving on.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Academy Nominated Shorts
Kate, Charlotte and I went to see the animated shorts last night. Dinner prior was delicious as was the conversations. The animated shorts were all interesting, They showed some that were not Oscar nominees as well as the 5 that were. Most of them were funny. My favorite was the Grim Reaper and the Old Woman. The poor old woman who is missing her husband and is ready to reunite dies in her sleep and the grim reaper comes for her. Some how (not explained) she ends up in the ER with the over zealous doctor who thinks he needs to revive her and the tug a war between the doctor and the grim reaper begins. Kate and I both felt strongly that this scenario is played out in real life much too often.
Kate and I then stayed for the live action shorts. (Charlotte had to work early in the morning.) These were much less fun. The one from India was a little like Slum Dog Millionaire with all the happy upbeat parts taken out. The one from Denmark was kind of fun though a little dark. Two young gay men move into a new apartment and are sitting at their breakfast table. One is very caustic and pessimistic about the world. The other one just wants to eat his breakfast without his partner blowing smoke in his face. A knock on the door brings an old woman from upstairs looking for flour. She is making her niece's favorite cinnamon rolls. The boys have none but she is very chatty and one of the guys finds a bag in the kitchen from the previous owner who the woman reveals was murdered in the apartment. The woman leaves. Another knock on the door and in walks the husband of the niece of the old woman who is looking for the guy that his wife is cheating with. After a long conversation a drug dealer shows up looking for the heroine which of course was the "flour" they gave the old woman. Very darkly humorous.
Our favorite was the Swedish film about a underachieving young man who wants to be a magician. The caliber of acting in all of the live action shorts is above average. I suppose that is one of the things that elevates them to Oscar nominations. But over all we were very disappointed. Kate and I had seen the live action last year and they were much better in terms of story and more subtle in their point of view. The thing I find most interesting though is how you can tell a complete story in 20 minutes or less.
Kate and I then stayed for the live action shorts. (Charlotte had to work early in the morning.) These were much less fun. The one from India was a little like Slum Dog Millionaire with all the happy upbeat parts taken out. The one from Denmark was kind of fun though a little dark. Two young gay men move into a new apartment and are sitting at their breakfast table. One is very caustic and pessimistic about the world. The other one just wants to eat his breakfast without his partner blowing smoke in his face. A knock on the door brings an old woman from upstairs looking for flour. She is making her niece's favorite cinnamon rolls. The boys have none but she is very chatty and one of the guys finds a bag in the kitchen from the previous owner who the woman reveals was murdered in the apartment. The woman leaves. Another knock on the door and in walks the husband of the niece of the old woman who is looking for the guy that his wife is cheating with. After a long conversation a drug dealer shows up looking for the heroine which of course was the "flour" they gave the old woman. Very darkly humorous.
Our favorite was the Swedish film about a underachieving young man who wants to be a magician. The caliber of acting in all of the live action shorts is above average. I suppose that is one of the things that elevates them to Oscar nominations. But over all we were very disappointed. Kate and I had seen the live action last year and they were much better in terms of story and more subtle in their point of view. The thing I find most interesting though is how you can tell a complete story in 20 minutes or less.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Judy has decided to let me share this blog with her so I suppose we should rename it movie reviews by Judy and Gail or just the Judy and Gail Show. How come Judy and Gail has always sounded better than Gail and Judy. Must be the u sound being softer than the a sound.
The question is what to review. Although I like Judy's category I am more interested in the writing, acting and the emotional impact that the movie has on me and if it can teach me anything about life. I guess the last two categories the emotional impact and teaching me something about life are similar to Judy's does the movie make me cry and is there a theological message. Judy is about theology (sort of) and I am all about psychological impact. Is there a difference?
Perhaps I will just start by naming some of my all time favorite movies. Casablanca heads my list. I just watched it the other night again. It is a movie I could watch once a week and never get tired of. It still makes me cry. I suppose what makes it such a great movie is both the writing and the acting. The stars Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman of coarse. All Ingrid Bergman has to do is show up. She was such a beautiful woman. But many beautiful women cannot act. But more importantly are the secondary actors. I think you can tell the quality of a movie by the supporting cast hence the academy award category best supporting actor and actress. Claude Reins was superb. Paul Henried, and Dooley Wilson. The story is a timeless theme about love. But not just about love, it is also about the one we didn't end up with for what ever reason and then running back into the love of our life. Getting a second chance at that love. The movie starts out with Rick (sometimes known as Richard) a broken man who is surviving but not living. We find out the reason why during the movie and at the end he gets his life back again. It is about sacrifice and doing the noble thing. The scene where Humphrey Bogart is sending Ingrid Bergman away is perhaps the most famous scene in all of Hollywood and a great one.
A more modern movie that ranks at the top is Good Will Hunting. Right up my psychological alley. I thought the story was good and the writing above average. The acting top notch from the stars Matt Damon, Minnie Driver and Ben Afflect (probably the best thing Afflect ever did except for Holliwoodland where he plays George Reeves.) Again though, it is the supporting acting the elevates the movie to greatness. Robin Williams gets an academy award for his performance of Will's therapist. Best scene is when Will breaks down in his office. Second best scene is when Will has taken off and Afflect's character goes to his door to pick him up and he isn't there. He smiles and one of the buddies in the back seat jumps into the front seat and life goes on.
I think next time I will write a review of the movies (that I have seen) that are up for best picture. There are 10 of them this year.
The question is what to review. Although I like Judy's category I am more interested in the writing, acting and the emotional impact that the movie has on me and if it can teach me anything about life. I guess the last two categories the emotional impact and teaching me something about life are similar to Judy's does the movie make me cry and is there a theological message. Judy is about theology (sort of) and I am all about psychological impact. Is there a difference?
Perhaps I will just start by naming some of my all time favorite movies. Casablanca heads my list. I just watched it the other night again. It is a movie I could watch once a week and never get tired of. It still makes me cry. I suppose what makes it such a great movie is both the writing and the acting. The stars Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman of coarse. All Ingrid Bergman has to do is show up. She was such a beautiful woman. But many beautiful women cannot act. But more importantly are the secondary actors. I think you can tell the quality of a movie by the supporting cast hence the academy award category best supporting actor and actress. Claude Reins was superb. Paul Henried, and Dooley Wilson. The story is a timeless theme about love. But not just about love, it is also about the one we didn't end up with for what ever reason and then running back into the love of our life. Getting a second chance at that love. The movie starts out with Rick (sometimes known as Richard) a broken man who is surviving but not living. We find out the reason why during the movie and at the end he gets his life back again. It is about sacrifice and doing the noble thing. The scene where Humphrey Bogart is sending Ingrid Bergman away is perhaps the most famous scene in all of Hollywood and a great one.
A more modern movie that ranks at the top is Good Will Hunting. Right up my psychological alley. I thought the story was good and the writing above average. The acting top notch from the stars Matt Damon, Minnie Driver and Ben Afflect (probably the best thing Afflect ever did except for Holliwoodland where he plays George Reeves.) Again though, it is the supporting acting the elevates the movie to greatness. Robin Williams gets an academy award for his performance of Will's therapist. Best scene is when Will breaks down in his office. Second best scene is when Will has taken off and Afflect's character goes to his door to pick him up and he isn't there. He smiles and one of the buddies in the back seat jumps into the front seat and life goes on.
I think next time I will write a review of the movies (that I have seen) that are up for best picture. There are 10 of them this year.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Valentine's Day
I am beginning a second blog so I can be a winner and the only other thing I can think to blog about besides New Hope is movies. As most of you know, I love movies. I don't go as often as I use to partly because I just don't have time but mostly because there just aren't that many good movies any more. But here goes anyway.
I made Randy take me to see Valentine's Day yesterday. He actually liked it. I did too. We ran into John and Lauren. They were leaving as we were arriving. Lauren had a big smile on her face and said she really liked it. John said it was silly. But in an e-mail today he said it was better than what the critics said. John was asking how our Valentine's Day was going and we asked about theirs. As part of Lauren's gift he couldn't say "no" all day long. I wonder if he made it through the day?
OK, about the movie. It was similar to "Love Actually" but not nearly as good; also similar to "Crash" in that there were a lot of vinettes and all were tied together in some way or another. But again, not profound and not nearly as good. I thought it was a fun movie to watch and I enjoyed seeing all of the actors. Not much character development but that was ok.
The movie depicted young love that wasn't very realistic in today's world. More realistic for when I was in highschool. Two girls who were seniors in highschool decided they weren't ready to have sex with their boyfriends whom they adored and the boys seemed to be happy to go along with it. Refreshing but not very realistic.
It also depicted love between an older couple and that was probably the most serious part of the movie. She revealed to him an affair she had had with his business partner years earlier. He had a difficult time forgiving her but in the end (and this was the best line in the movie) he said he realized he had to love and accept the whole person, not just the good parts.
I liked the movie for another reason. It covered all of the bases from a young boy's love for his teacher, to gay love, to love of a mother for her son. And although there were Hispanics, blacks, whites, East Indians, etc. any character could have played any of the parts. There were no stereo-types with one possible exception. Taylor Swift played a very ditsy highschool girl but she was cute.
Four ways I rate movies is 1) Is it profound in some way? (This one, not a chance;) 2) Did it make me cry? (actually yes); 3) is there a quote I can take away to use at a later time ("you have to love the whole person, not just the good stuff); 4) Is there a theological message I can preach on? (Unconditional love and acceptance.) So was it one of my top ten favorites for all times? Not even close. But if you want a feel good movie that you don't have to think too much about, this might just work. I'd give it a B-.
For future reference, a great sound track, breath-taking scenery, a unique plot or creative photography can make a fair movie great for example Dances with Wolves, Great Expectations, and of course, Groundhog's Day.
Judy
I made Randy take me to see Valentine's Day yesterday. He actually liked it. I did too. We ran into John and Lauren. They were leaving as we were arriving. Lauren had a big smile on her face and said she really liked it. John said it was silly. But in an e-mail today he said it was better than what the critics said. John was asking how our Valentine's Day was going and we asked about theirs. As part of Lauren's gift he couldn't say "no" all day long. I wonder if he made it through the day?
OK, about the movie. It was similar to "Love Actually" but not nearly as good; also similar to "Crash" in that there were a lot of vinettes and all were tied together in some way or another. But again, not profound and not nearly as good. I thought it was a fun movie to watch and I enjoyed seeing all of the actors. Not much character development but that was ok.
The movie depicted young love that wasn't very realistic in today's world. More realistic for when I was in highschool. Two girls who were seniors in highschool decided they weren't ready to have sex with their boyfriends whom they adored and the boys seemed to be happy to go along with it. Refreshing but not very realistic.
It also depicted love between an older couple and that was probably the most serious part of the movie. She revealed to him an affair she had had with his business partner years earlier. He had a difficult time forgiving her but in the end (and this was the best line in the movie) he said he realized he had to love and accept the whole person, not just the good parts.
I liked the movie for another reason. It covered all of the bases from a young boy's love for his teacher, to gay love, to love of a mother for her son. And although there were Hispanics, blacks, whites, East Indians, etc. any character could have played any of the parts. There were no stereo-types with one possible exception. Taylor Swift played a very ditsy highschool girl but she was cute.
Four ways I rate movies is 1) Is it profound in some way? (This one, not a chance;) 2) Did it make me cry? (actually yes); 3) is there a quote I can take away to use at a later time ("you have to love the whole person, not just the good stuff); 4) Is there a theological message I can preach on? (Unconditional love and acceptance.) So was it one of my top ten favorites for all times? Not even close. But if you want a feel good movie that you don't have to think too much about, this might just work. I'd give it a B-.
For future reference, a great sound track, breath-taking scenery, a unique plot or creative photography can make a fair movie great for example Dances with Wolves, Great Expectations, and of course, Groundhog's Day.
Judy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)