As always, between my books I read a few magazines to clear my literary palate, so to speak.
National Geographic is one I always enjoy. The January issue was good, but I didn't enjoy the article about gold as much as I thought I would. I did like the countdown to extinction article, partially because I know the ocelot pictured in the article! And the inside the presidency article was really good.
Playboy. You know, I always talk about the articles, because I honestly like the editorial viewpoint of the magazine. It is unlike any other I have encountered. But the pictorials bear some mentioning this month, mostly because they surprised me. Look, I did not think yet ANOTHER Carmen Electra spread (yes...I said spread) would thrill me, the first couple of dozen million did it for me. But this one was really nice and showed some new things. Also, the 55th anniversary centerfold...I expected a blond gild next door, but got a ebony haired beauty from the Ukraine. Nice surprises. The interview with Richard Branson was really good. The founder of all things Virgin, has a very healthy take on the economy, and we could do worse than take his advise. A nice retrospective on the 55 most important people in sex. All in all a nice issue.
And the year end issue of People! I love year end issues. With their best of lists...
And it did not hurt that Jennifer Aniston was on the cover...big sigh...The tribute of all the people who died this year, the best movies, books, TV shows...the big moments. The breakups, babies, marriages and moments. Just fun reading.
Now on to my next book!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Movie- Bride and Prejudice
This movie was fun. I read some reviews on Netflix bemoaning how it bastardized Pride and Prejudice, how could you mess with perfection, etc etc. Whatever! This movie was a mixture of western Hollywood and eastern Bollywood and the it came out as vibrant, colorful and fun.
Sure, it was a take on Pride and Prejudice. It admits that up front. But it sets the story in India, with a western twist and lets the Bollywood musical segues run free. The colors make the you almost smell the spicyness of the land, and the interactions of the American, British and Indian cast really set this movie on its own.
Aishwarya Rai called the "Queen of Bollywood" is the star of this movie and she is stunning in all ways. But the whole cast is pretty gorgeous and with a musical appearance by Ashanti in a concert at Goa, the Bollywood aspect really takes on a more mystical and sensual tone. The culture clash between the two cultures is also done nicely, and the middle ground is also shown.
One of the funny parts in the extras features that I have to mention is one of the British actors was describing the Indian actors as approaching the role from the emotional core, and the American approaching from an intellectual introspective side. And he said the Brits ...well the Brits just wondered why everyone couldn't just hit their marks and get their lines! LOL! And if that is not a statement about the different cultures, I don't know what is!
OK, Bride and Prejudice (2004) is not great literature. But it is entertaining and so much fun, and a visual feast. I really liked it a lot.
Sure, it was a take on Pride and Prejudice. It admits that up front. But it sets the story in India, with a western twist and lets the Bollywood musical segues run free. The colors make the you almost smell the spicyness of the land, and the interactions of the American, British and Indian cast really set this movie on its own.
Aishwarya Rai called the "Queen of Bollywood" is the star of this movie and she is stunning in all ways. But the whole cast is pretty gorgeous and with a musical appearance by Ashanti in a concert at Goa, the Bollywood aspect really takes on a more mystical and sensual tone. The culture clash between the two cultures is also done nicely, and the middle ground is also shown.
One of the funny parts in the extras features that I have to mention is one of the British actors was describing the Indian actors as approaching the role from the emotional core, and the American approaching from an intellectual introspective side. And he said the Brits ...well the Brits just wondered why everyone couldn't just hit their marks and get their lines! LOL! And if that is not a statement about the different cultures, I don't know what is!
OK, Bride and Prejudice (2004) is not great literature. But it is entertaining and so much fun, and a visual feast. I really liked it a lot.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Movie-The Woodsman
This movie is a movie that is disturbing in its subject matter, but wonderfully acted by its lead actor, Kevin Bacon, who gives a nuanced and compelling performance, that makes you almost sympathize with a monster. It is the strength of his performance that you do not completely sympathize with him.
He plays Walter, out of jail after a 12 year term for molestation of young girls. He is trying to rejoin society, and not doing it terribly well, taking an apartment across from an elementary school. He dos land a job though, in a lumberyard, which is part of the title of the film.
And he gains a girlfriend of sorts, Kyra Sedgwick (Bacon's real life wife), and does not lose her after telling her his secret. As he struggles not to fall back into his deviancy, he sees at the school another stalker, a pervert who is working on young boys. At the same time he is being harassed by police.
Bacon really works this part. He is haunted and guilty and helpless and sick and twisted all at once, and he has a goodness in him that is wanting to dominate. But he cannot seem to find a way to salvation.
There is a point in the movie where you feel it will go one way or the other for Walter, and I will not reveal which way it goes, because it is precarious. Will he make it in the world, will he find salvation, or will he revert to form?
Again, Bacon acts on a knives edge, and the scene in unforgettable. Sedgewick is a good foil for him and Benjamin Bratt also does a nice job as his brother-in-law trying to accept him and his problem.
The Woodsman (2004) is not a feel good movie, it is not action or romance. But it is thought provoking with great acting, and a fine script. It is mindful of the damage done, and never forgives it, but also looks at the possibility of redemption, however little, however late. It is a movie that is not easily forgotten.
He plays Walter, out of jail after a 12 year term for molestation of young girls. He is trying to rejoin society, and not doing it terribly well, taking an apartment across from an elementary school. He dos land a job though, in a lumberyard, which is part of the title of the film.
And he gains a girlfriend of sorts, Kyra Sedgwick (Bacon's real life wife), and does not lose her after telling her his secret. As he struggles not to fall back into his deviancy, he sees at the school another stalker, a pervert who is working on young boys. At the same time he is being harassed by police.
Bacon really works this part. He is haunted and guilty and helpless and sick and twisted all at once, and he has a goodness in him that is wanting to dominate. But he cannot seem to find a way to salvation.
There is a point in the movie where you feel it will go one way or the other for Walter, and I will not reveal which way it goes, because it is precarious. Will he make it in the world, will he find salvation, or will he revert to form?
Again, Bacon acts on a knives edge, and the scene in unforgettable. Sedgewick is a good foil for him and Benjamin Bratt also does a nice job as his brother-in-law trying to accept him and his problem.
The Woodsman (2004) is not a feel good movie, it is not action or romance. But it is thought provoking with great acting, and a fine script. It is mindful of the damage done, and never forgives it, but also looks at the possibility of redemption, however little, however late. It is a movie that is not easily forgotten.
Movie-My Fair Lady
OK---I'll admit it...I love a good musical. Camelot...Phantom...Fiddler...my favorite, Les Miserables. And My Fair Lady (1964) is a very good musical. Starring Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn, the film version was wonderful, with great songs and elaborate sets. Just loved it.
Hepburn was beautiful and elegant, as she always seemed to be, and seems to be Eliza Doolittle, street gamin, taken in by the eminent linguist Professor Henry Higgins as he tries to shape her by language into a proper English lady.
Now there are so many subtexts to this show. The social hierarchy of English society, the institute of marriage, but one I would like to touch on: are Henry Higgins and Colonel Pickering gay? to which I say...of course!
C'mon...2 older men, living together with no interest in women. They love to dress Eliza up though, eat fine food and drink port. They even sing a song asking why can't women be more like men! A-hem? OK, they may be repressed or closeted or whatever, but they are fruits! And Eliza is the original (and I use this totally politically incorrect term) fag hag. C'mon...father issues out the ying yang...abandoment issues. Puh-leeese.
Now, this does not make me enjoy the movie less...in fact, I enjoy it more becaue it makes a hell of a lot more sense that way. Otherwise, it is just weird. But with Higgins and Pickering as repressed gays and Eliza as their fag hag...it is a wonderful and beautiful story. (And to complete my analysis, there is a part in the end where they both say they don't see each other in a romantic way). I am just saying...
My Fair Lady is a wonderful musical...fun and elegant and full of great songs. And very modern if you look at it in the right light.
Hepburn was beautiful and elegant, as she always seemed to be, and seems to be Eliza Doolittle, street gamin, taken in by the eminent linguist Professor Henry Higgins as he tries to shape her by language into a proper English lady.
Now there are so many subtexts to this show. The social hierarchy of English society, the institute of marriage, but one I would like to touch on: are Henry Higgins and Colonel Pickering gay? to which I say...of course!
C'mon...2 older men, living together with no interest in women. They love to dress Eliza up though, eat fine food and drink port. They even sing a song asking why can't women be more like men! A-hem? OK, they may be repressed or closeted or whatever, but they are fruits! And Eliza is the original (and I use this totally politically incorrect term) fag hag. C'mon...father issues out the ying yang...abandoment issues. Puh-leeese.
Now, this does not make me enjoy the movie less...in fact, I enjoy it more becaue it makes a hell of a lot more sense that way. Otherwise, it is just weird. But with Higgins and Pickering as repressed gays and Eliza as their fag hag...it is a wonderful and beautiful story. (And to complete my analysis, there is a part in the end where they both say they don't see each other in a romantic way). I am just saying...
My Fair Lady is a wonderful musical...fun and elegant and full of great songs. And very modern if you look at it in the right light.
Movie-Hostage
Reading the description of Hostage (2005) you might think that Bruce Willis was starting a new Die Hard franchise due some contractual differences with a studio...it sounds so similar. But despite that, Hostage is really a bit different...enough so to make it interesting and not the same ol' stuff.
When we first see Willis' character, Jeff Tally, he is long haired and bearded and working as a hostage negotiator in L.A. But the scene he is working goes terribly wrong. Flash forward one year and he is clean shaven...of face and pate, and now chief of police of a small town in Ventura County...a very boring job. But about to get more interesting.
Among the population of his city, is a very rich man, with two kids and a magnificent house in the hills. Played by Kevin Pollack, it is clear from the beginning that he does not make his money by any legitimate means, and he attracts the attention (or his daughter does) of some local ne'er do wells.
These guys break into the estate to steal the Escalade, but of course it escalates, and soon...yes...we have a hostage situation. What is Jeff Tally's area of expertise? Uh huh, you remember. There are some interesting twists and turns, it is not quite as straight forward as it sounds. And Willis shows some pretty intense emotion in the movie, with tears and fright that seem genuine.
Overall the movie is certainly not groundbreaking. But it gives enough, and is different enough from Die Hard to make for an entertaining experience.
When we first see Willis' character, Jeff Tally, he is long haired and bearded and working as a hostage negotiator in L.A. But the scene he is working goes terribly wrong. Flash forward one year and he is clean shaven...of face and pate, and now chief of police of a small town in Ventura County...a very boring job. But about to get more interesting.
Among the population of his city, is a very rich man, with two kids and a magnificent house in the hills. Played by Kevin Pollack, it is clear from the beginning that he does not make his money by any legitimate means, and he attracts the attention (or his daughter does) of some local ne'er do wells.
These guys break into the estate to steal the Escalade, but of course it escalates, and soon...yes...we have a hostage situation. What is Jeff Tally's area of expertise? Uh huh, you remember. There are some interesting twists and turns, it is not quite as straight forward as it sounds. And Willis shows some pretty intense emotion in the movie, with tears and fright that seem genuine.
Overall the movie is certainly not groundbreaking. But it gives enough, and is different enough from Die Hard to make for an entertaining experience.
Book-The Devil in the White City
My first description of Erik Larson's Devil in the White City is: Completely Fantastic! I could go on with superlatives ad nauseam, but let me just say that he has written a piece of history with story telling of the most compelling fiction...except it is so bizarre, you couldn't make this stuff up...it would not be believable.
And Devil in the White City is true. It describes the World's Fair in Chicago in 1892-1893...the processes that led up to Chicago getting the fair, building this amazing event, and how it changed many things in America. It concurrently tells the story of a man who used the hustle and bustle of Chicago, and the fair to further his serial killing...and how he almost got away with it.
The fair itself was considered as history making to the people of America in its time, as the Civil War. What is amazing is that so few people today know so little about it. Reading this book, you realize how many products and inventions came out of this exposition...from things like Cracker Jacks and Shredded Wheat, to the Ferris Wheel and the incandescent bulb and alternating current used to light the night. The Pledge of Allegiance came out of this event.
And maybe more than that...city architecture was forever changed by the white city that was created by the America's leading architects. Never before had it been really thought that citys could be clean and beautiful and safe...but from then on, citys or at least parts of them would try to have some open public beautiful places.
Larson's book is amazing in that the story of the fair is equally, if not more, compelling the the horrific story of Dr. Holmes, the serial killer who defined the term psychopath. His method of seducing young women and then killing them is horrifying, and more so in that he was almost not caught, and was not in jail for murder, but for insurance fraud, when it was first suspected that he might be involved in much more serious crimes.
Larson weaves these stories together in a fantastic narrative that left me riveted, wanting to skip work to keep reading. That this was deeply researched is evident, but it never feels scholarly or burdensome. He uses his quotes deftly, always forwarding the plot and the action.
Devil in the White City is history, richly detailed and wonderfully written. It reminds us that events sometimes forgotten are significant nonetheless and offers a great and generous slice of life in Chicago in the 1890's. It is a tour de force and highly recommended.
And Devil in the White City is true. It describes the World's Fair in Chicago in 1892-1893...the processes that led up to Chicago getting the fair, building this amazing event, and how it changed many things in America. It concurrently tells the story of a man who used the hustle and bustle of Chicago, and the fair to further his serial killing...and how he almost got away with it.
The fair itself was considered as history making to the people of America in its time, as the Civil War. What is amazing is that so few people today know so little about it. Reading this book, you realize how many products and inventions came out of this exposition...from things like Cracker Jacks and Shredded Wheat, to the Ferris Wheel and the incandescent bulb and alternating current used to light the night. The Pledge of Allegiance came out of this event.
And maybe more than that...city architecture was forever changed by the white city that was created by the America's leading architects. Never before had it been really thought that citys could be clean and beautiful and safe...but from then on, citys or at least parts of them would try to have some open public beautiful places.
Larson's book is amazing in that the story of the fair is equally, if not more, compelling the the horrific story of Dr. Holmes, the serial killer who defined the term psychopath. His method of seducing young women and then killing them is horrifying, and more so in that he was almost not caught, and was not in jail for murder, but for insurance fraud, when it was first suspected that he might be involved in much more serious crimes.
Larson weaves these stories together in a fantastic narrative that left me riveted, wanting to skip work to keep reading. That this was deeply researched is evident, but it never feels scholarly or burdensome. He uses his quotes deftly, always forwarding the plot and the action.
Devil in the White City is history, richly detailed and wonderfully written. It reminds us that events sometimes forgotten are significant nonetheless and offers a great and generous slice of life in Chicago in the 1890's. It is a tour de force and highly recommended.
Movie-25th Hour
Edward Norton stars in this Spike Lee directed movie, and it is a good one. Norton plays Monty, who has 24 hours before he has to check into prison for a 12 year drug sentence.
He uses those hours to connect with his oldest friends, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper, his father, and also to find out who narced him out to the DEA...his girlfriend played by the luscious Rosario Dawson, or the Russian mobsters who he does business with.
This is a very nuanced movie, despite the very straight forward sounding plot, filled with repressed emotions and feelings, and sometimes disturbing subplots. Norton takes the lead in this, delivering a superb performance...as he usually does, with a lot of material to cover and a lot of emotional depth to work with.
And Spike Lee, many times not one to be subtle, holds the reigns in a bit here, wisely so, and lets the undercurrents plays out naturally, not forcing them to the surface too soon.
Monty must make choices as the clock ticks down, not so much about his actions, but about what his frame of mind will be going into prison. And as the last of the 24 hours starts to slip away his choices close in on him.
25th Hour (2002) was an excellent film, with Norton giving another great performance.
He uses those hours to connect with his oldest friends, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper, his father, and also to find out who narced him out to the DEA...his girlfriend played by the luscious Rosario Dawson, or the Russian mobsters who he does business with.
This is a very nuanced movie, despite the very straight forward sounding plot, filled with repressed emotions and feelings, and sometimes disturbing subplots. Norton takes the lead in this, delivering a superb performance...as he usually does, with a lot of material to cover and a lot of emotional depth to work with.
And Spike Lee, many times not one to be subtle, holds the reigns in a bit here, wisely so, and lets the undercurrents plays out naturally, not forcing them to the surface too soon.
Monty must make choices as the clock ticks down, not so much about his actions, but about what his frame of mind will be going into prison. And as the last of the 24 hours starts to slip away his choices close in on him.
25th Hour (2002) was an excellent film, with Norton giving another great performance.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Movie-The Darjeeling Limited
I was not sure at all what I would get out of The Darjeeling Limited (2007). I saw the previews, and it looked good, yet it was from Wes Anderson, who also did A Life Aquatic which I did not like at all, and it seemed to have some of the same vibe as that movie, so I had some trepidations about seeing it.
The good news is that it took the small bit of good vibe from A Life Aquatic..., and really expanded on it, and jettisoned all the crap, including most of Bill Murray (he does appear in a cameo). The story centers around three slightly askew brothers played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartman as they are trying to reconnect to each other on a spiritual journey through India. They are taking this journey on a train called the Darjeeling Limited, that is not exactly the Orient Express as far as luxury goes.
It is a journey that seems fated to fail on all levels. The brothers do not trust each other and don't even seem to like each other, and they have left over wounds from their last meeting at their father's funeral over a year ago. But as they are about to end their ill fated attempt at reconciliation, an event happens that actually does bring some significance into their relationship and into their lives.
This is a times a funny movie, and often times quite strange. But the journey is a interesting one and the characters are entertaining if quirky. And India itself seems to a be a character...as quirky as the brothers... and yet something draws them to this land that is difficult to define.
The three lead actors handle their roles and the inter-relationships very well, playing off each other nicely, and as brothers, knowing each other's weak spots and vulnerabilities, and knowing when to hit them. The movie was nicely filmed with great scenes in India. All in all, a very good experience, and makes me almost forgive A Life Aquatic...
The good news is that it took the small bit of good vibe from A Life Aquatic..., and really expanded on it, and jettisoned all the crap, including most of Bill Murray (he does appear in a cameo). The story centers around three slightly askew brothers played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartman as they are trying to reconnect to each other on a spiritual journey through India. They are taking this journey on a train called the Darjeeling Limited, that is not exactly the Orient Express as far as luxury goes.
It is a journey that seems fated to fail on all levels. The brothers do not trust each other and don't even seem to like each other, and they have left over wounds from their last meeting at their father's funeral over a year ago. But as they are about to end their ill fated attempt at reconciliation, an event happens that actually does bring some significance into their relationship and into their lives.
This is a times a funny movie, and often times quite strange. But the journey is a interesting one and the characters are entertaining if quirky. And India itself seems to a be a character...as quirky as the brothers... and yet something draws them to this land that is difficult to define.
The three lead actors handle their roles and the inter-relationships very well, playing off each other nicely, and as brothers, knowing each other's weak spots and vulnerabilities, and knowing when to hit them. The movie was nicely filmed with great scenes in India. All in all, a very good experience, and makes me almost forgive A Life Aquatic...
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Movie-Spirited Away
Spirited Away (2001) is an amazing Japanese animated movie that not only has great animation, but a storyline that is inventive, imaginative, unique and amazing.
Disney released the English dubbed version of this film and did a great job on it, really putting in a supreme creative effort to make sure it came out like it should, and it did.
The movie is a like a dream, and Hayao Miayzaki, the director is the dreammaker, not only directing, but animating and writing the movie. About a little girl, Chihiro, who finds herself in another world, a bath house for mystical spirits where humans are not very welcome. She must survive here not only help save herself, but to save her parents, and her newly found friends.
The scenes and creatures for this movie are so imaginative that they are beyond description...you really have to see it. But the basis of the story is Chihiro...and this 10-year-old girl is a hero in every sense...overcoming odds and her own fears to keep moving forward.
This is simply a triumph. It is amazing. Spirited Away is a movie I would recommend to every one. It is unique and beautiful, and something very special.
Disney released the English dubbed version of this film and did a great job on it, really putting in a supreme creative effort to make sure it came out like it should, and it did.
The movie is a like a dream, and Hayao Miayzaki, the director is the dreammaker, not only directing, but animating and writing the movie. About a little girl, Chihiro, who finds herself in another world, a bath house for mystical spirits where humans are not very welcome. She must survive here not only help save herself, but to save her parents, and her newly found friends.
The scenes and creatures for this movie are so imaginative that they are beyond description...you really have to see it. But the basis of the story is Chihiro...and this 10-year-old girl is a hero in every sense...overcoming odds and her own fears to keep moving forward.
This is simply a triumph. It is amazing. Spirited Away is a movie I would recommend to every one. It is unique and beautiful, and something very special.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
3 Magazines
Ahhh-The December issues, bringing the year to a close for all three of my regularly read magazines. It was a excellent year for National Geographic, especially the last few issues have been brilliant. And while the December issue is not quite up to the level of "supreme brilliance" as the Nov and Oct issues were, it was still damn good.
The article on King Herod, the cover story, in particular was amazing. I love when this magazine takes preconceived notions about a historical figure and really brings the historical record and archaeological facts to bear, leaving behind the innuendo and emotional crap religion and nationalism put about figures of the past. That is when this magazine is at its best. And this article articulates what is best about National Geographic. To other stories really struck me: Saving Lives in India, about the health workers from the Comprehensive Rural Health Project in Jamkhed, India that work with the poor in preventative health maintenance as well as attending to the sick and injured. The work that is being done is amazing, as is the organization. And the story, "The Other Darwin" on Alfred Russel Wallace, who also came up with a very similar theory of evolution, separately, but at the same time as Darwin, was very interesting.
Playboy's December issues are always packed with extra features, and this year there were some nice ones. A couple of good articles about the current financial meltdown, with analysis on how it happened and ideas on how to deal with it, led off the Forum, always a good place for political discussion. The Interview was with Hugh Jackman, and was quite good. He seems fairly reasonable for a celebrity, and gave a great interview, that actually had me laughing in a couple of places. He is talented, working both stage and the movies (and previously TV in Australia), and I think it is one of the celeb interviews that I have most enjoyed. Some great gift guides were featured, and a very funny piece by Denis Leary...acerbic as always. The one piece I did not like was the fiction by James Ellroy. It was undoubtedly well written, but not my genre or style. On the upside, and nice 20Q with Rosario Dawson made me very happy!
And last...Zoonooz. I can't wait for the redesign to take place next month. I haven't seen it yet, but I hope it helps.
The article on King Herod, the cover story, in particular was amazing. I love when this magazine takes preconceived notions about a historical figure and really brings the historical record and archaeological facts to bear, leaving behind the innuendo and emotional crap religion and nationalism put about figures of the past. That is when this magazine is at its best. And this article articulates what is best about National Geographic. To other stories really struck me: Saving Lives in India, about the health workers from the Comprehensive Rural Health Project in Jamkhed, India that work with the poor in preventative health maintenance as well as attending to the sick and injured. The work that is being done is amazing, as is the organization. And the story, "The Other Darwin" on Alfred Russel Wallace, who also came up with a very similar theory of evolution, separately, but at the same time as Darwin, was very interesting.
Playboy's December issues are always packed with extra features, and this year there were some nice ones. A couple of good articles about the current financial meltdown, with analysis on how it happened and ideas on how to deal with it, led off the Forum, always a good place for political discussion. The Interview was with Hugh Jackman, and was quite good. He seems fairly reasonable for a celebrity, and gave a great interview, that actually had me laughing in a couple of places. He is talented, working both stage and the movies (and previously TV in Australia), and I think it is one of the celeb interviews that I have most enjoyed. Some great gift guides were featured, and a very funny piece by Denis Leary...acerbic as always. The one piece I did not like was the fiction by James Ellroy. It was undoubtedly well written, but not my genre or style. On the upside, and nice 20Q with Rosario Dawson made me very happy!
And last...Zoonooz. I can't wait for the redesign to take place next month. I haven't seen it yet, but I hope it helps.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Movie-The Jacket
This was a strange movie, and I cant say entirely good strange, but not entirely bad either.
Adrian Brody plays a vet from the first Gulf war with a head injury that causes amnesia, and he is committed to a mental hospital after being found guilty of the murder of a cop which we know he did not commit, but he can't remember the details of.
Well, the lead doctor at this "hospital" has some really strange therapies, one of which involves giving patients a very potent and strange combo of drugs, butting them in a straight jacket and locking them in a coroners drawer.
Now it is never quite clear how hat comes next happens...whether it is due to Brody's character, the injury he received, the drugs, the jacket or the drawer...or some combo of those things, but somehow, in these treatment sessions he travels in time, to the future, and solves his own murder in the past and some other mysteries.
Brody does pretty well with the material given to him. But the problem is, The Jacket (2005) never really figures out how it wants to solve the problems it sets up. How does this happen? Does it happen only to him? Is it the drugs? Can anyone, even those not mentally ill do this? Nothing is clear, not really touched upon.
Keira Knightly, not quite so wafer thin back then, and looking much better, gives a somewhat unconvincing performance as a girlfriend that seems to me would have been much better off as a non-love interest for this damaged man. And Kris Kristofferson was his usual wooden self. And a pre-Bond Daniel Craig was half convincing as a fellow inmate in the hospital.
This movie had some interesting concepts, but lost those in not being careful in taking care of the details. The lead performance was OK, but the supporting roles could have been much stronger and helped the whole film.
Adrian Brody plays a vet from the first Gulf war with a head injury that causes amnesia, and he is committed to a mental hospital after being found guilty of the murder of a cop which we know he did not commit, but he can't remember the details of.
Well, the lead doctor at this "hospital" has some really strange therapies, one of which involves giving patients a very potent and strange combo of drugs, butting them in a straight jacket and locking them in a coroners drawer.
Now it is never quite clear how hat comes next happens...whether it is due to Brody's character, the injury he received, the drugs, the jacket or the drawer...or some combo of those things, but somehow, in these treatment sessions he travels in time, to the future, and solves his own murder in the past and some other mysteries.
Brody does pretty well with the material given to him. But the problem is, The Jacket (2005) never really figures out how it wants to solve the problems it sets up. How does this happen? Does it happen only to him? Is it the drugs? Can anyone, even those not mentally ill do this? Nothing is clear, not really touched upon.
Keira Knightly, not quite so wafer thin back then, and looking much better, gives a somewhat unconvincing performance as a girlfriend that seems to me would have been much better off as a non-love interest for this damaged man. And Kris Kristofferson was his usual wooden self. And a pre-Bond Daniel Craig was half convincing as a fellow inmate in the hospital.
This movie had some interesting concepts, but lost those in not being careful in taking care of the details. The lead performance was OK, but the supporting roles could have been much stronger and helped the whole film.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Movie- A Collection of 2007 Academy Award Nominated Short Films
A Collection of 2007 Academy Award Nominated Short Films is a title that sums up this collection pretty well. I have seen the previous collections and have really enjoyed the opportunity to see these short films that in the past we really have not has access to.
This years collection featured a really strong live action set, with all five nominees being really good. Usually there are one of two where I think, "ehhh....really?" But all five this year were great, and in my opinion, four of them could have won the Oscar. All very different and all offering something unique to the mix.
My chief complaint was that the animated section this year did not feature all five nominees. In years past, sometimes other nominees in this category were under the extras section, but not this year, and that was disappointing, so we got only three of the nominees. But the winner, Peter and the Wolf, was fantastic! It was an amazing 32 minutes of music and animation with not a word of dialogue.
This years collection featured a really strong live action set, with all five nominees being really good. Usually there are one of two where I think, "ehhh....really?" But all five this year were great, and in my opinion, four of them could have won the Oscar. All very different and all offering something unique to the mix.
My chief complaint was that the animated section this year did not feature all five nominees. In years past, sometimes other nominees in this category were under the extras section, but not this year, and that was disappointing, so we got only three of the nominees. But the winner, Peter and the Wolf, was fantastic! It was an amazing 32 minutes of music and animation with not a word of dialogue.
Movie-Rory O'Shea Was Here
Rory O'Shea Was Here was kind of the anti The Sea Inside which I had recently seen and reviewed. It is about a young man with muscular dystrophy put into a home for the disabled, and fights every way he can to be free of it, and to live as much and as hard as he can.
And he inspires others in the home to do the same, particularly Michael, with cerebral palsy. As they both claim life outside the home, Rory revels in living, while Michael finds that life can be messier than he realised.
This movie must have been such a pain to market. A movie about two men in wheelchairs, one with such a bad speech impediment that you can't understand him, trying to live with the help of a care giver. Wow...really sounds like people will plunk down good money to see this one...no car chases or fights or love scenes (unless you count the scene where the good looking care giver gives Michael a bath and he, to his shame, gets a boner) or graphic nudity. But the movie is really compelling, in great part because of the two lead performances.
James McAvoy (known after this movie most for his role in Last King of Scotland) is brilliant, and I think is building a great reputation for himself as a fine actor taking tough roles. And this is tough, playing the title character. Rory is not meek and mild, he is rock and roll and booze and women...and just happens to be confined to a wheelchair. Equal is Steven Robertson playing Michael. He is meek and mild, and Rory inspires him to find more in life than the Disabled Home he has known for much of his life.
A strong supporting cast gives these two actors plenty to work with, and a huge emotional range to play off of, from triumph and heartache to sadness and victory. And they play it to the limit when it is called for and quietly as that is needed also.
Roy O'Shea Was Here (2004) is a great little film. Even without the car chases and gun fights. Maybe...just maybe, this is what films should strive more for, great characters and stories, with actors who make it work, not just pretty people. Rory O'Shea Was Here reminds us of what movies can deliver. Even more, it reminds of us of what we have and not to take life for granted.
And he inspires others in the home to do the same, particularly Michael, with cerebral palsy. As they both claim life outside the home, Rory revels in living, while Michael finds that life can be messier than he realised.
This movie must have been such a pain to market. A movie about two men in wheelchairs, one with such a bad speech impediment that you can't understand him, trying to live with the help of a care giver. Wow...really sounds like people will plunk down good money to see this one...no car chases or fights or love scenes (unless you count the scene where the good looking care giver gives Michael a bath and he, to his shame, gets a boner) or graphic nudity. But the movie is really compelling, in great part because of the two lead performances.
James McAvoy (known after this movie most for his role in Last King of Scotland) is brilliant, and I think is building a great reputation for himself as a fine actor taking tough roles. And this is tough, playing the title character. Rory is not meek and mild, he is rock and roll and booze and women...and just happens to be confined to a wheelchair. Equal is Steven Robertson playing Michael. He is meek and mild, and Rory inspires him to find more in life than the Disabled Home he has known for much of his life.
A strong supporting cast gives these two actors plenty to work with, and a huge emotional range to play off of, from triumph and heartache to sadness and victory. And they play it to the limit when it is called for and quietly as that is needed also.
Roy O'Shea Was Here (2004) is a great little film. Even without the car chases and gun fights. Maybe...just maybe, this is what films should strive more for, great characters and stories, with actors who make it work, not just pretty people. Rory O'Shea Was Here reminds us of what movies can deliver. Even more, it reminds of us of what we have and not to take life for granted.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Book- The Crimson Petal and the White
This is a book that I should have loved. A huge sprawling novel...set in Victorian England, mainly London...involving the different classes, a wealthy family, the Rackhams, and the lower classes, embodied in the main character Sugar. And to top off its appeal to me, Sugar is a prostitute, so there is sure to be lots of sex in the book...in fact, many reviews about the book talk about its eroticism.
I should have loved this book, but I didn't. I did not hate it, to be fair, but never embraced it at all, not really once through its 900 pages. Sugar is a prostitute in the lower depths of 1850's London, and she is known for doing "anything" for her clients. And that brings William Rackham to her...he is the son of a perfumer who has a pretty good business going. William does not want anything to do with the business until he meets Sugar. When he gets involved with her, he decides he wants more money so he can keep her for his own mistress, so throws himself into the business, taking over for his older father.
Rackham has a wife at home, half mad when we first meet her, and totally crazy by the end of the book. And a neglected daughter.
For me there was no emotional connection to any of these characters, and part of that was the style of narration the author, Michael Faber, starts off with. His narrator in third person omniscient, and when I say omniscient, I mean it. Comments from the narrator like, "Things like this may not seem shocking nowadays, but back in this time period, they were quite shocking," and "Now we will leave this character because they are no longer of interest to this story, and follow this new character because they concern us," kept me emotional distant. he drops this narration style about 200 pages in, but by that time the damage is done (though he uses it on the last page once again).
And I never really felt like I knew the characters. Their actions never quite made sense to me. Sugar is placed in a house all on her own, with a great allowance. Now one of the things that set Sugar off from the other whores of London was that she was well read and could converse with her clients on literature and the arts, etc. So she has all this, but decides to become the Rackham's governess, pretty much giving up any material gains she had made. It did not make sense, and I don't think Faber made the case for her making that decision emotionally either.
And that is the thing...you can buy it if a character does something that does not make common sense if it make emotional sense, but when it fails on both those levels, the story fails. And that is what happens in this book for me. There is never enough common or emotional sense for the decisions these characters make throughout this long story.
The Crimson Petal and the White can paint a great backdrop of London in this era...the grime and the grit, as well as the upper crust gilt. But the backdrop cannot fill the emotional void I felt from these characters. I do not think there was one character that I felt was well rounded and filled in emotionally, and took actions that made emotional sense for who they were. The back drop, though skillful, cannot make up for that.
I was disappointed in this book.
I should have loved this book, but I didn't. I did not hate it, to be fair, but never embraced it at all, not really once through its 900 pages. Sugar is a prostitute in the lower depths of 1850's London, and she is known for doing "anything" for her clients. And that brings William Rackham to her...he is the son of a perfumer who has a pretty good business going. William does not want anything to do with the business until he meets Sugar. When he gets involved with her, he decides he wants more money so he can keep her for his own mistress, so throws himself into the business, taking over for his older father.
Rackham has a wife at home, half mad when we first meet her, and totally crazy by the end of the book. And a neglected daughter.
For me there was no emotional connection to any of these characters, and part of that was the style of narration the author, Michael Faber, starts off with. His narrator in third person omniscient, and when I say omniscient, I mean it. Comments from the narrator like, "Things like this may not seem shocking nowadays, but back in this time period, they were quite shocking," and "Now we will leave this character because they are no longer of interest to this story, and follow this new character because they concern us," kept me emotional distant. he drops this narration style about 200 pages in, but by that time the damage is done (though he uses it on the last page once again).
And I never really felt like I knew the characters. Their actions never quite made sense to me. Sugar is placed in a house all on her own, with a great allowance. Now one of the things that set Sugar off from the other whores of London was that she was well read and could converse with her clients on literature and the arts, etc. So she has all this, but decides to become the Rackham's governess, pretty much giving up any material gains she had made. It did not make sense, and I don't think Faber made the case for her making that decision emotionally either.
And that is the thing...you can buy it if a character does something that does not make common sense if it make emotional sense, but when it fails on both those levels, the story fails. And that is what happens in this book for me. There is never enough common or emotional sense for the decisions these characters make throughout this long story.
The Crimson Petal and the White can paint a great backdrop of London in this era...the grime and the grit, as well as the upper crust gilt. But the backdrop cannot fill the emotional void I felt from these characters. I do not think there was one character that I felt was well rounded and filled in emotionally, and took actions that made emotional sense for who they were. The back drop, though skillful, cannot make up for that.
I was disappointed in this book.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Movie- A Dirty Shame
John Waters film's, I think, are an acquired taste. He is gross, and distasteful and sometimes disgusting. He also can be very funny.
A Dirty Shame (2004)falls somewhere in between his grossest and his funniest, being neither. Starring Tracey Ullman, as a housewife who becomes a nymphomaniac after a head injury, the movie is all about sex. But some critics fail to see the irony of a movie all about sex, actually making fun of our sexual culture. And while I see that clearly, there are still many points where the movie is still downright dumb.
Ullman plays Sylvia, who becomes part of a cult, led by Ray Ray (Johnny Knoxville), and she is prophesied to bring into the world a new and ultimate sexual act. Into the tableau is Selma Blair with largest boob job ever imagined (OK, that one stripper in Montreal was actually fairly close) and other strange and randy characters with every fetish thought of...and that I think is the point.
Waters seems to be saying...we have become so bored with sex, we have to make up new fetishes,just to amuse ourselves, just to keep ourselves interested. What does that say about us?
Anyway, the movie is not great by any means. And I found it sometimes really stupid...but there was also some intrigue to the sub-text and some genuine humor to it, that made me stick with it.
Now, as Ray Ray would say---"Let's go sexin'!"
A Dirty Shame (2004)falls somewhere in between his grossest and his funniest, being neither. Starring Tracey Ullman, as a housewife who becomes a nymphomaniac after a head injury, the movie is all about sex. But some critics fail to see the irony of a movie all about sex, actually making fun of our sexual culture. And while I see that clearly, there are still many points where the movie is still downright dumb.
Ullman plays Sylvia, who becomes part of a cult, led by Ray Ray (Johnny Knoxville), and she is prophesied to bring into the world a new and ultimate sexual act. Into the tableau is Selma Blair with largest boob job ever imagined (OK, that one stripper in Montreal was actually fairly close) and other strange and randy characters with every fetish thought of...and that I think is the point.
Waters seems to be saying...we have become so bored with sex, we have to make up new fetishes,just to amuse ourselves, just to keep ourselves interested. What does that say about us?
Anyway, the movie is not great by any means. And I found it sometimes really stupid...but there was also some intrigue to the sub-text and some genuine humor to it, that made me stick with it.
Now, as Ray Ray would say---"Let's go sexin'!"
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Movie- The Agronomist
Another very good documentary, The Agronomist (2004) is a profile of Jean Dominique, the Haitian journalist, who for decades fought against corruption in Haitian regimes by founding Radio Haiti-Inter. This station run by Dominique fought against first the Duvalier's (Papa Doc and Baby Doc) and then the Aristide regime, not because just to fight but because of the corruption Dominique saw running rampant through the government.
Some of these very corrupt regimes were backed by the U.S., but others merely ran their own course, but Dominique fought for democracy, to give people the right to choose their leaders and to make leaders answerable to the people. And he called the leaders out. In an interview with just ousted former president Aristide, you here Dominique calling him corrupt, listing the gifts he took from "special interests" and the favors he did for these groups. And you wonder where are journalists in America willing to question our leaders in the same blunt way.
Dominque was assassinated in front of his studio coming to work in 2000. He had been fighting against corruption and had faced increased threats, but refused to back down. Gunmen met him one morning, and his voice was at last silenced. His work continues with is wife and many other Haitian journalists who he inspired.
A very strong documentary about a island country that is very unstable and a man who made a difference.
Some of these very corrupt regimes were backed by the U.S., but others merely ran their own course, but Dominique fought for democracy, to give people the right to choose their leaders and to make leaders answerable to the people. And he called the leaders out. In an interview with just ousted former president Aristide, you here Dominique calling him corrupt, listing the gifts he took from "special interests" and the favors he did for these groups. And you wonder where are journalists in America willing to question our leaders in the same blunt way.
Dominque was assassinated in front of his studio coming to work in 2000. He had been fighting against corruption and had faced increased threats, but refused to back down. Gunmen met him one morning, and his voice was at last silenced. His work continues with is wife and many other Haitian journalists who he inspired.
A very strong documentary about a island country that is very unstable and a man who made a difference.
Movie-Elizabethtown
Elizabethtown (2005) starring Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst really brought out two very different reactions in me. First of all, Cameron Crowe is really one of my favorite directors. When he does a great job, it is phenomenal. But this is not his best movie.
In fact, it seems like two different movies to me, one that I very much liked, and one that I thought was so make believe and hokey that I felt it could only be conceived in Hollywood.
I'll start with the good first I guess and tell a little of the plot. Orlando Bloom is this shoe company exec that makes a really bad decision and loses a billion bucks for the company. He gets fired and his dad dies on the same day. His family lives in Oregon and he has to go to Kentucky where his dad was visiting relatives when he died, to pick up the body. On the way there, he meets flight attendant, Kirsten Dunst, perky and slightly irritating. And this is the part of the story I liked. Because when they clicked, it was right.
The night the two spend all night talking on the phone is the perfect perfect night of discovery...finding out who you are and who this person is...what you have in common and what you both laugh at. I think we all remember nights like that with the one we love...where we just wanted to stay that way forever and keep going...where you felt you could be yourself and never have to put on airs again. I really liked the way these two characters related.
And I did not mind the culture shock the south has on Blooms character of Drew. He is overwhelmed by the "kinfolk" and the outpouring of feeling and food and celebration and ceremony. What I did not like at all was the actual ceremony celebrating the father's death. Mom (Susan Sarandon) and sis fly in for a memorial in a convention hall, and mom gets up there for this god awful monologue.
Now, this is supposed to be a few days after her beloved husband of many years has just died. And it seems like she has gone all the way through every stage of grief there is is and come out on the other side, clean as a whistle. It was terrible...the scened sticks in my craw and makes the rest of the movie reek a bit, just stinking it up. Honestly, this scene brought down the caliber of this movie by at least a couple of stars. If that had been better done, the movie would have been a much better film in my estimation. And if I could somehow excise the segment, I would like this movie quite a bit.
I do have to note that Sharlynn felt that the movie was also worthwhile for Orlando Bloom alone. Just had to mention that from her perspective. To which I say...whatever...I'm trying to write a serious review here! HA!
As I said...almost like two movies for me in this one piece...and if I could separate them, one would be quite good, and the other terrible.
In fact, it seems like two different movies to me, one that I very much liked, and one that I thought was so make believe and hokey that I felt it could only be conceived in Hollywood.
I'll start with the good first I guess and tell a little of the plot. Orlando Bloom is this shoe company exec that makes a really bad decision and loses a billion bucks for the company. He gets fired and his dad dies on the same day. His family lives in Oregon and he has to go to Kentucky where his dad was visiting relatives when he died, to pick up the body. On the way there, he meets flight attendant, Kirsten Dunst, perky and slightly irritating. And this is the part of the story I liked. Because when they clicked, it was right.
The night the two spend all night talking on the phone is the perfect perfect night of discovery...finding out who you are and who this person is...what you have in common and what you both laugh at. I think we all remember nights like that with the one we love...where we just wanted to stay that way forever and keep going...where you felt you could be yourself and never have to put on airs again. I really liked the way these two characters related.
And I did not mind the culture shock the south has on Blooms character of Drew. He is overwhelmed by the "kinfolk" and the outpouring of feeling and food and celebration and ceremony. What I did not like at all was the actual ceremony celebrating the father's death. Mom (Susan Sarandon) and sis fly in for a memorial in a convention hall, and mom gets up there for this god awful monologue.
Now, this is supposed to be a few days after her beloved husband of many years has just died. And it seems like she has gone all the way through every stage of grief there is is and come out on the other side, clean as a whistle. It was terrible...the scened sticks in my craw and makes the rest of the movie reek a bit, just stinking it up. Honestly, this scene brought down the caliber of this movie by at least a couple of stars. If that had been better done, the movie would have been a much better film in my estimation. And if I could somehow excise the segment, I would like this movie quite a bit.
I do have to note that Sharlynn felt that the movie was also worthwhile for Orlando Bloom alone. Just had to mention that from her perspective. To which I say...whatever...I'm trying to write a serious review here! HA!
As I said...almost like two movies for me in this one piece...and if I could separate them, one would be quite good, and the other terrible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
