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.
Friday, February 26, 2010
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)