OK...a movie about a Math professor trying to create the ultimate proof for his theories. Sounds exciting huh? I did not think so, but it had three excellent actors in it, so I took a shot.
Starring Gwyneth Paltrow, Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal, Proof (2005) less about math than family dynamics. Paltrow is the daughter of a just deceased, legendary mathematician (Hopkins). At a young age he created the most famous proof of all time. But he has gone quietly mad.
Gyllenhaal is a former student of the great man, and wants to help both him and his daughter. But when a new proof turns up, it effects all of them. Did the great man create it, did his daughter? What is the price of madness on the family who loves the insane? How far will a family member go to protect the reputation and dignity of a loved one.
Proof runs like a very good play...dramatic and strong, the three characters, interact and play off each other so well. It is intriguing and deep, and the characters are all flawed, including Hope Davis as the "other" sister. But it also is a touching movie about family ties...intellectual ties and respect.
Proof proves me wrong in my first judgement about it. It is a very good movie, serious drama.
At least that is my opinion.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Play- Young Frankenstein
We travelled to Hollywood to see Mel Brooks' musical, Young Frankenstein, playing at the Pantages Theater.
First of all I have to say something about the venue---What a fantastic theater! Built in 1930 as a movie house, it has been converted to live theater. It has hosted the Oscars for many years, the Emmys also. And a few years ago it was the home of Disney's, The Lion King. To prepare for that production it underwent a 10 million dollar renovation and it is simply put, BEAUTIFUL!
It is a fantastic place to see a play.
And it made a great show even better.
And Young Frankenstein is a great show! I expected it to be howlingly funny. It is Mel Brooks for crying out loud! And the source material is classic (I may need to buy the movie now). But I did not expect the singing and music to be as great as it was, and certainly did not expect the dance numbers to blow me out of the water!
The production values on this were superb too. There were some lighting effects that had the audience gasping! Everything was spot on and perfect.
And did I mention funny? I was laughing from the first lines to the last! Gasping for air at times. They preserved some of the classic movie moments---"Put the candle back,"--- and added so much more that is right for a stage production. It seems that Mel Brooks may be perfectionist, because this was just about perfect.
We both really enjoyed Young Frankenstein, one of the best stage productions we have seen. And we enjoyed the Pantages also...we may make more trips to see plays there, just because it is such a great venue!
At least that is my opinion. So there you go Frau Blucher! What knockers! Too damn funny!
First of all I have to say something about the venue---What a fantastic theater! Built in 1930 as a movie house, it has been converted to live theater. It has hosted the Oscars for many years, the Emmys also. And a few years ago it was the home of Disney's, The Lion King. To prepare for that production it underwent a 10 million dollar renovation and it is simply put, BEAUTIFUL!
It is a fantastic place to see a play.
And it made a great show even better.
And Young Frankenstein is a great show! I expected it to be howlingly funny. It is Mel Brooks for crying out loud! And the source material is classic (I may need to buy the movie now). But I did not expect the singing and music to be as great as it was, and certainly did not expect the dance numbers to blow me out of the water!
The production values on this were superb too. There were some lighting effects that had the audience gasping! Everything was spot on and perfect.
And did I mention funny? I was laughing from the first lines to the last! Gasping for air at times. They preserved some of the classic movie moments---"Put the candle back,"--- and added so much more that is right for a stage production. It seems that Mel Brooks may be perfectionist, because this was just about perfect.
We both really enjoyed Young Frankenstein, one of the best stage productions we have seen. And we enjoyed the Pantages also...we may make more trips to see plays there, just because it is such a great venue!
At least that is my opinion. So there you go Frau Blucher! What knockers! Too damn funny!
Movie- An Education
An Education received major Oscar nominations in two categories, for Best Picture and for Best Actress for new-comer Carey Mulligan. It won in neither category.
Very stylish, and a little creepy, An Education (2008) showcased newcomer Carey Mulligan as a 17 year young woman in 1960's London, seduced by an older man. Jenny (Mulligan) is very willfully seduced however, by the incredibly charming Peter (portrayed by the very underrated Peter Sarsgaard). Peter is so charming he charms Jenny's very protective and rather conservative parents even, easily talking them into letting her go to Paris with him! He is that charming.
He wants to teach Jenny about art and music and fine food and culture. And boy, she wants to learn. She takes to the life like a fish to water. She loves the opportunity to learn about these things, and with her parent's blessing too!
But Peter seems to good to be true, and she seems to know it, even before he shows it openly. She knows it, but goes along with the ride anyway, because she is just waiting to be seduced. Peter is a crud really, despite his charm and affluence, he is a man who loves to teach young girls about life, and is love with the idea of being in love. He just does not know how to really be.
And Jenny? She takes as much of the good off this cad, and tries to imbue herself with that, and her life be filled with the fine food and music, while shedding off the garbage that Peter has also.
Carey Mulligan is great in this. She is the living, breathing emblem of youth...ready to seize the day, and yet able to recover from the hazards the come with the seizing, something that seems to be lost as we grow older. I for one feel every seize I make! But she embodies the youthful spirit in a very organic, non-acted way. She is so wonderfully alive.
And Skarsgaard? Another great acting job by him...he is at first this dream man...but we soon realize he is his own dream man too, and Skarsgaard portrays it just that way.
An Education is at times light-hearted and youthful, but also shows what fades away with youth. It is a simple and complex movie, both at the same time. And it is a lovely movie too.
At least that is my opinion.
Very stylish, and a little creepy, An Education (2008) showcased newcomer Carey Mulligan as a 17 year young woman in 1960's London, seduced by an older man. Jenny (Mulligan) is very willfully seduced however, by the incredibly charming Peter (portrayed by the very underrated Peter Sarsgaard). Peter is so charming he charms Jenny's very protective and rather conservative parents even, easily talking them into letting her go to Paris with him! He is that charming.
He wants to teach Jenny about art and music and fine food and culture. And boy, she wants to learn. She takes to the life like a fish to water. She loves the opportunity to learn about these things, and with her parent's blessing too!
But Peter seems to good to be true, and she seems to know it, even before he shows it openly. She knows it, but goes along with the ride anyway, because she is just waiting to be seduced. Peter is a crud really, despite his charm and affluence, he is a man who loves to teach young girls about life, and is love with the idea of being in love. He just does not know how to really be.
And Jenny? She takes as much of the good off this cad, and tries to imbue herself with that, and her life be filled with the fine food and music, while shedding off the garbage that Peter has also.
Carey Mulligan is great in this. She is the living, breathing emblem of youth...ready to seize the day, and yet able to recover from the hazards the come with the seizing, something that seems to be lost as we grow older. I for one feel every seize I make! But she embodies the youthful spirit in a very organic, non-acted way. She is so wonderfully alive.
And Skarsgaard? Another great acting job by him...he is at first this dream man...but we soon realize he is his own dream man too, and Skarsgaard portrays it just that way.
An Education is at times light-hearted and youthful, but also shows what fades away with youth. It is a simple and complex movie, both at the same time. And it is a lovely movie too.
At least that is my opinion.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Movie- Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Seth Rogen in a Kevin Smith film. That sounds a little dangerous actually. But in Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008) is is more sweet then sordid, despite the title.
Longtime friends Zack and Miri have never had really successful lives, and things are going downhill fast from that starting point. So when a YouTube video of Miri in her big underwear makes a huge splash, they come upon the idea to make an amateur porn movie, starring, among others, themselves.
There is some of the usual sophomoric humor and gutter talk that you would expect in a movie like this. But the sweetness comes between Zack (Rogan) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks). You feel the two have always had a thing for each other, despite vehement denials, and that the process of trying to find a way to get by, whether it was via porn making or not, brings them to the realization that their denials ring quite hollow.
I won't go so far as to say this is an excellent movie, but it was not too shabby either. If you tale out the gross sight gags and potty mouths, even leaving the porno in, it is a kinda sweet love story. Kinda a chick flick on X.
At least that is my opinion.
Longtime friends Zack and Miri have never had really successful lives, and things are going downhill fast from that starting point. So when a YouTube video of Miri in her big underwear makes a huge splash, they come upon the idea to make an amateur porn movie, starring, among others, themselves.
There is some of the usual sophomoric humor and gutter talk that you would expect in a movie like this. But the sweetness comes between Zack (Rogan) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks). You feel the two have always had a thing for each other, despite vehement denials, and that the process of trying to find a way to get by, whether it was via porn making or not, brings them to the realization that their denials ring quite hollow.
I won't go so far as to say this is an excellent movie, but it was not too shabby either. If you tale out the gross sight gags and potty mouths, even leaving the porno in, it is a kinda sweet love story. Kinda a chick flick on X.
At least that is my opinion.
Book- Life and Fate
Life and Fate is a big book...I mean BIG. Not only is it long, nearly 900 pages, but it is Russian long...with a cast that could rival War and Peace, it has dozens, if not 100s of characters. And all go by several Russian names, so it is tough to keep track of who is who, and what family are they from. AND, it is big thematically. Vasily Grossman encompasses all of life and all of fate, and also a lot of war and peace into this novel.
The main story of the novel is the defense of Stalingrad in World War II. But the characters are divided into many different units and families, so this main story is diffuse in many ways. But it illustrates the appalling conditions the defenders of Stalingrad dealt with. This battle was certainly one of the most decisive of the war, and with the USSR pushing back Hitler's Nazi forces, it left the Germans much weakened. Perhaps it was the lynch pin that won the war for the Allied Forces.
But the theme of the novel is much deeper. Grossman, who had been a pro-Communist writer was now deeply anti-Stalin. He recognized and illustrates in this work, that Stalin and Hitler were about the same. While still believing in many aspects of socialism and communism, he expresses the feeling that Stalin has betrayed the revolution that Lenin brought to life, and betrayed Russia also.
Some of the characters feel that betrayal personally, as they, loyal followers, are brought into the prisons themselves, and treated as enemies of the state. Many of these scenes are deeply disturbing as you can see the crushing blows of a despotic state.
Grossman also fully makes us see that by the USSR taking good people out of the fight against the Nazis, for petty or made up "political" crimes, Stalin was making it much harder to defend the Russian homeland against the Nazi invaders. In fact, it seems that Grossman is saying that this kind of arrest almost lost the war to the Nazis. But he also seems to conclude, what would be the difference...both leaders are the same, they do not allow for the individual rights of a man.
Life and Fate was a long read, and is not for the impatient. It is much like War and Peace in many ways. But Grossman's overall theme tops any individual's story line confusion. It is a big big book, with big ideas and a bigger heart. It is intellectual and sharp, but is written with an undeniable love of a homeland, and a despair as to where that homeland is heading.
The main story of the novel is the defense of Stalingrad in World War II. But the characters are divided into many different units and families, so this main story is diffuse in many ways. But it illustrates the appalling conditions the defenders of Stalingrad dealt with. This battle was certainly one of the most decisive of the war, and with the USSR pushing back Hitler's Nazi forces, it left the Germans much weakened. Perhaps it was the lynch pin that won the war for the Allied Forces.
But the theme of the novel is much deeper. Grossman, who had been a pro-Communist writer was now deeply anti-Stalin. He recognized and illustrates in this work, that Stalin and Hitler were about the same. While still believing in many aspects of socialism and communism, he expresses the feeling that Stalin has betrayed the revolution that Lenin brought to life, and betrayed Russia also.
Some of the characters feel that betrayal personally, as they, loyal followers, are brought into the prisons themselves, and treated as enemies of the state. Many of these scenes are deeply disturbing as you can see the crushing blows of a despotic state.
Grossman also fully makes us see that by the USSR taking good people out of the fight against the Nazis, for petty or made up "political" crimes, Stalin was making it much harder to defend the Russian homeland against the Nazi invaders. In fact, it seems that Grossman is saying that this kind of arrest almost lost the war to the Nazis. But he also seems to conclude, what would be the difference...both leaders are the same, they do not allow for the individual rights of a man.
Life and Fate was a long read, and is not for the impatient. It is much like War and Peace in many ways. But Grossman's overall theme tops any individual's story line confusion. It is a big big book, with big ideas and a bigger heart. It is intellectual and sharp, but is written with an undeniable love of a homeland, and a despair as to where that homeland is heading.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Social Commentary- Are We Really a Christian Nation?
Since the primary elections, and with the general election coming up, I have been hearing about god, and Christianity and how Christian a nation we are. But, quite frankly, it smacks of bullshit.
Now let put a disclaimer right here. I don't describe myself as a Christian. I was raised VERY Catholic. But my faith today is not bounded by precepts of Christianity, and I don't believe in all the Christian ideals. One day I will describe my beliefs in this blog, but now is not the time. But I did want to let anyone reading this know that.
Looking at the question of Christianess, I take from the bible, Matthew 25:40. One of the verses of the bible I believe is actually holy. It goes like this: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
Whatsoever you did to the least of my brethren, so you did unto me.
When Jesus says this, he says specifically, to the "LEAST" of my brothers. Not those who are clean, and nice, and who we would normally invite for cocktails. He is talking about those who are downtrodden, and dirty and need help. And he is talking about those who need jobs, and who need health care and who NEED help. Those are the least of his brethren.
So how can we call ourselves Christian when we make policies that try to prevent those in need from coming to our country? Are not those people the least of our brethren and the least of Christ's? When we turn away those who are living in poverty and are desperate, how are we living up to Christ's words, and how can we claim to be Christian if we support those policies?
How can we claim to be feeding Christ, when we refuse to feed those who are in need? Because how we treat those 'least of his brothers, so we treat him.' So we are telling CHRIST JESUS, stay out of our country, you are not good enough to be here...you do not belong with us, you Christ, are taking away an American job...you Christ are abusing our health care system...You JESUS are taking advantage of our education! Do we want to treat Christ that way? We are every time we treat the least of his brethren that way...
Hmm..Christ, if he does not have a job with health benefits, does not deserve health care. Christ does not deserve respect and dignity, and because he is looking for work, to help his family, he should be deported. YES---if you are a Christian, every time you treat, or support treating a brown skinned person like that---you are treating Christ like that! Every time you say that this country should not be inclusive, you are excluding Jesus, your savior. That is his words folks, not mine!
And every time we help someone, every time we support treating people humanely,every time we offer comfort to those who need it...so we are treating Christ.
So I ask you, are we a Christian country?
For the most part I would say no, the policies of our nation are not one that offer food to the least of Christ's brethren, we do not offer our cities and hearts to those trying to help themselves.
And don't even get me started on turning the other cheek...that is a whole other blog post!
At least that is my opinion.
Now let put a disclaimer right here. I don't describe myself as a Christian. I was raised VERY Catholic. But my faith today is not bounded by precepts of Christianity, and I don't believe in all the Christian ideals. One day I will describe my beliefs in this blog, but now is not the time. But I did want to let anyone reading this know that.
Looking at the question of Christianess, I take from the bible, Matthew 25:40. One of the verses of the bible I believe is actually holy. It goes like this: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
Whatsoever you did to the least of my brethren, so you did unto me.
When Jesus says this, he says specifically, to the "LEAST" of my brothers. Not those who are clean, and nice, and who we would normally invite for cocktails. He is talking about those who are downtrodden, and dirty and need help. And he is talking about those who need jobs, and who need health care and who NEED help. Those are the least of his brethren.
So how can we call ourselves Christian when we make policies that try to prevent those in need from coming to our country? Are not those people the least of our brethren and the least of Christ's? When we turn away those who are living in poverty and are desperate, how are we living up to Christ's words, and how can we claim to be Christian if we support those policies?
How can we claim to be feeding Christ, when we refuse to feed those who are in need? Because how we treat those 'least of his brothers, so we treat him.' So we are telling CHRIST JESUS, stay out of our country, you are not good enough to be here...you do not belong with us, you Christ, are taking away an American job...you Christ are abusing our health care system...You JESUS are taking advantage of our education! Do we want to treat Christ that way? We are every time we treat the least of his brethren that way...
Hmm..Christ, if he does not have a job with health benefits, does not deserve health care. Christ does not deserve respect and dignity, and because he is looking for work, to help his family, he should be deported. YES---if you are a Christian, every time you treat, or support treating a brown skinned person like that---you are treating Christ like that! Every time you say that this country should not be inclusive, you are excluding Jesus, your savior. That is his words folks, not mine!
And every time we help someone, every time we support treating people humanely,every time we offer comfort to those who need it...so we are treating Christ.
So I ask you, are we a Christian country?
For the most part I would say no, the policies of our nation are not one that offer food to the least of Christ's brethren, we do not offer our cities and hearts to those trying to help themselves.
And don't even get me started on turning the other cheek...that is a whole other blog post!
At least that is my opinion.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Movie-All About Steve
And we go from Sandra Bullock...sorry...Ms. Bullock, winning an Oscar in The Blind Side, to her winning a Razzie in the dismal, All About Steve (2009).
How can a movie with two such likable stars as Bullock and Bradley Cooper (three if you count Thomas Hayden Church...but I don't) go so terribly, horribly wrong? But you can't stop watching the damn thing...you think, "Hell, this had GOT to get better. It has Sandra Bullock in it!" And you keep thinking that until the credits start rolling. Ironically, that is WHEN it starts getting better!
The plot? Ugh...Ms. Bullock is a weird woman who lives with her parents and gets set up on a blind date with Cooper. She tries to man-rape him in his van, and then stalks him as he covers stories for his national news network. All side plots and secondary stories in this movie are equally as yucky (YES---I used 'yucky' in a review---I am not Ebert). It is a terribly sick feeling watching these two actors going through the paces in this piece of dreck film.
And you realize, they are not infallible! They make some crappy choices too (I won't talk about Jesse James here)! Somehow in reading this script, they saw a good idea? Wow, even I would know crap when I see it. And somehow, it is kinda therapeutic. It makes your own choices seem better, I don't care that it did land me in the ER, at least I didn't act in All About Steve!!! So what if I am divorced and broke, if I addicted to coke and Mars bars. I DID NOT ACT IN ALL ABOUT STEVE!!!! Hahahahahahaha!
I LOVE Sandra, and I love that she came and accepted her Razzie in person. But please, PLEASE don't do something like this again!!!!! (OK, I am talking about JJ again here)!
All About Steve---go ahead and see it...I dare you.
At least that is my opinion!
How can a movie with two such likable stars as Bullock and Bradley Cooper (three if you count Thomas Hayden Church...but I don't) go so terribly, horribly wrong? But you can't stop watching the damn thing...you think, "Hell, this had GOT to get better. It has Sandra Bullock in it!" And you keep thinking that until the credits start rolling. Ironically, that is WHEN it starts getting better!
The plot? Ugh...Ms. Bullock is a weird woman who lives with her parents and gets set up on a blind date with Cooper. She tries to man-rape him in his van, and then stalks him as he covers stories for his national news network. All side plots and secondary stories in this movie are equally as yucky (YES---I used 'yucky' in a review---I am not Ebert). It is a terribly sick feeling watching these two actors going through the paces in this piece of dreck film.
And you realize, they are not infallible! They make some crappy choices too (I won't talk about Jesse James here)! Somehow in reading this script, they saw a good idea? Wow, even I would know crap when I see it. And somehow, it is kinda therapeutic. It makes your own choices seem better, I don't care that it did land me in the ER, at least I didn't act in All About Steve!!! So what if I am divorced and broke, if I addicted to coke and Mars bars. I DID NOT ACT IN ALL ABOUT STEVE!!!! Hahahahahahaha!
I LOVE Sandra, and I love that she came and accepted her Razzie in person. But please, PLEASE don't do something like this again!!!!! (OK, I am talking about JJ again here)!
All About Steve---go ahead and see it...I dare you.
At least that is my opinion!
Movie-The Blind Side
The Blind Side was nominated for a couple of big Oscars, including best picture and best actress for Sandra Bullock. Sandra (she like me to call her Sandy, but I prefer to be more formal in my blog) won for best actress.
It is hard to dislike The Blind Side (2009) in any way. It is sympathetic, warm-hearted, a good sports film and a learning lesson with strong moral content. And yet...yet I could not like it as much as many others did...even though it is based on a true story. For me, there is something almost too fairy-tale about it, too innocent and too predictable.
Most people know the plot---Sandy (ooops, I mean Sandra) plays Leigh Anne, a well-to-do woman with a great husband, kids and the perfect life. She finds a large young black teenager in need of a hand, takes him home and he becomes part of the family, while becoming a huge football star. She defends him like a tigress, and holds her family together through ups and downs.
I think REALLY good performances held this movie together when it could have been a little saccharine. Starting with Sandy, and Tim McGraw who plays her husband, and Quinton Aaron, who plays Micheal Oher, the teenager, the cast is without blemish, great.
But the way Leigh Anne is able to overcome Michael's difficult past, with simple phrases and pop psychology grated a bit, and seemed far too simple for complex emotional problems. And while admirable enough that they succeeded, it sends a message that all these problems may be solved by good humor, love and a little grit. And that is not true.
If I take this a one tale about one family it works well, The Blind Side works well. If I take it in a larger context, it starts showing fault lines. And try as I might, I can't ignore the larger context where grit does not always cut it. Love does not always win out over deep emotional problems, and a scrappy woman can't solve the problems of the inner city.
At least, that is my opinion. And for that, Sandy now wants me to refer to her as Ms. Bullock.
It is hard to dislike The Blind Side (2009) in any way. It is sympathetic, warm-hearted, a good sports film and a learning lesson with strong moral content. And yet...yet I could not like it as much as many others did...even though it is based on a true story. For me, there is something almost too fairy-tale about it, too innocent and too predictable.
Most people know the plot---Sandy (ooops, I mean Sandra) plays Leigh Anne, a well-to-do woman with a great husband, kids and the perfect life. She finds a large young black teenager in need of a hand, takes him home and he becomes part of the family, while becoming a huge football star. She defends him like a tigress, and holds her family together through ups and downs.
I think REALLY good performances held this movie together when it could have been a little saccharine. Starting with Sandy, and Tim McGraw who plays her husband, and Quinton Aaron, who plays Micheal Oher, the teenager, the cast is without blemish, great.
But the way Leigh Anne is able to overcome Michael's difficult past, with simple phrases and pop psychology grated a bit, and seemed far too simple for complex emotional problems. And while admirable enough that they succeeded, it sends a message that all these problems may be solved by good humor, love and a little grit. And that is not true.
If I take this a one tale about one family it works well, The Blind Side works well. If I take it in a larger context, it starts showing fault lines. And try as I might, I can't ignore the larger context where grit does not always cut it. Love does not always win out over deep emotional problems, and a scrappy woman can't solve the problems of the inner city.
At least, that is my opinion. And for that, Sandy now wants me to refer to her as Ms. Bullock.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Movie- The Princess and the Frog
The Princess and the Frog was Oscar nominated for Best Animated Feature. It did not win.
The Princess and the Frog (2009) is a Disney animated feature that lives up to the considerable reputation Disney has, but does not surpass it it in any way. It is a good film, but not great and does not open any new ground for Disney (except maybe the princess is black).
A standard story line, very good animation, engaging characters if somewhat forgettable, it is a rags to riches story, a story of a young woman in search of her life (and that means a prince so many times...not sure about that message). Very nice music and a good setting in New Orleans and environs. BUT---it was not great.
The Princess and the Frog should appeal to many kids and parents. It is nice, it is appealing, but it is not great.
At least that is my opinion.
The Princess and the Frog (2009) is a Disney animated feature that lives up to the considerable reputation Disney has, but does not surpass it it in any way. It is a good film, but not great and does not open any new ground for Disney (except maybe the princess is black).
A standard story line, very good animation, engaging characters if somewhat forgettable, it is a rags to riches story, a story of a young woman in search of her life (and that means a prince so many times...not sure about that message). Very nice music and a good setting in New Orleans and environs. BUT---it was not great.
The Princess and the Frog should appeal to many kids and parents. It is nice, it is appealing, but it is not great.
At least that is my opinion.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Movie- Food Inc.
Food Inc. was nominated as best Documentary Feature Film at the Oscars. It did not win.
Food Inc. (2008) may not make you change your eating habits, but it will make you think about what you are putting in your mouth, that is sure.
Ever since I took a food handling management class for one of the many jobs I held at the Zoo, I have been aware of the troubles of our food industry. The teacher told us of some of the differences in the USA's food processing industry and Canada's. Whoa. Troubling!
So I was not unprepared for much of the info that Food Inc. presented. But even so, I am buying a lot more from Farmer's Market's, and a lot more organic. Because our food processing industry really sucks. And there are laws that the industry has on the books that may make it illegal for me to even say that! Seriously. The film documents a mother who lost a child to food borne illness, and she has become a lobbyist for better controls on the food industry, but even she, who had to endure the death of her young child, has to be careful of what she says. Hell, even the almighty Oprah was sued by the food industry for saying bad things about them!
Food Inc. is disturbing in so many ways: That in America (the richest country in the world) we have such lax standards, and so little enforcement in the food processing industry, That we allow such corporate policies and need for excess profits to endanger our lives and health, That we have laws that limit our free speech so stringently that seem to defy our Constitution...it is all very VERY disturbing.
But we can make changes....and that is the thrill of this film...organic, local, sustainable...those are not just buzz words. We can bring things back into our control. We can reclaim the potential of fresh, real wholesome food. We don't have to eat steroided, corn fed, mass produced, diseased animals and plants.
While Food Inc. did not get the Oscar, it has had an amazing effect on the people who have watched it. It is an important film and should be watched. REally, it SHOULD be watched!!
At least that is my opinion. Unless of course I am sued by the food industry. At that point I may need to change it
Food Inc. (2008) may not make you change your eating habits, but it will make you think about what you are putting in your mouth, that is sure.
Ever since I took a food handling management class for one of the many jobs I held at the Zoo, I have been aware of the troubles of our food industry. The teacher told us of some of the differences in the USA's food processing industry and Canada's. Whoa. Troubling!
So I was not unprepared for much of the info that Food Inc. presented. But even so, I am buying a lot more from Farmer's Market's, and a lot more organic. Because our food processing industry really sucks. And there are laws that the industry has on the books that may make it illegal for me to even say that! Seriously. The film documents a mother who lost a child to food borne illness, and she has become a lobbyist for better controls on the food industry, but even she, who had to endure the death of her young child, has to be careful of what she says. Hell, even the almighty Oprah was sued by the food industry for saying bad things about them!
Food Inc. is disturbing in so many ways: That in America (the richest country in the world) we have such lax standards, and so little enforcement in the food processing industry, That we allow such corporate policies and need for excess profits to endanger our lives and health, That we have laws that limit our free speech so stringently that seem to defy our Constitution...it is all very VERY disturbing.
But we can make changes....and that is the thrill of this film...organic, local, sustainable...those are not just buzz words. We can bring things back into our control. We can reclaim the potential of fresh, real wholesome food. We don't have to eat steroided, corn fed, mass produced, diseased animals and plants.
While Food Inc. did not get the Oscar, it has had an amazing effect on the people who have watched it. It is an important film and should be watched. REally, it SHOULD be watched!!
At least that is my opinion. Unless of course I am sued by the food industry. At that point I may need to change it
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Movie-The Secret Life of Bees
OK---I will admit it---I was very prepared to not like The Secret Life of Bees. It seemed...well...maybe not a chick flick...but like a Lifetime movie that just is all sentiment with incessant violins in the background.
I am not too proud to admit I was wrong. And the main reason I was wrong was the cast. With Dakota Fanning starring as Lily, a 14-year-old girl who runs away from her father and their farm, and Queen Latifah as the woman who allows her to stay in her house, the cast is simply overpowering. Jennifer Hudson, Alicia Keyes and the rest of the supporting cast is so good, that any questions you may have about the plot while watching the film simply melt into the background.
Set in the 1960s in the South, Lily finds a warm and comforting home with Ms. August (Latifah) a woman who seems to be part angel. No one in the area bothers the black women who live in this huge house and take care of the bees that make the best honey in the South. And while that seems unbelievable, the acting of Latifah and the others seems to render it a moot point, because the story is about family and love...most especially about the family you choose.
There are many ups and downs in Lily's journey to find out who her mother was, and who she is. But the strength of the characters, and the actors who play them, really shine through what might otherwise be little more than the Lifetime movie I worried about.
The Secret Life of Bees (2008) was excellent.
At least that is my opinion.
I am not too proud to admit I was wrong. And the main reason I was wrong was the cast. With Dakota Fanning starring as Lily, a 14-year-old girl who runs away from her father and their farm, and Queen Latifah as the woman who allows her to stay in her house, the cast is simply overpowering. Jennifer Hudson, Alicia Keyes and the rest of the supporting cast is so good, that any questions you may have about the plot while watching the film simply melt into the background.
Set in the 1960s in the South, Lily finds a warm and comforting home with Ms. August (Latifah) a woman who seems to be part angel. No one in the area bothers the black women who live in this huge house and take care of the bees that make the best honey in the South. And while that seems unbelievable, the acting of Latifah and the others seems to render it a moot point, because the story is about family and love...most especially about the family you choose.
There are many ups and downs in Lily's journey to find out who her mother was, and who she is. But the strength of the characters, and the actors who play them, really shine through what might otherwise be little more than the Lifetime movie I worried about.
The Secret Life of Bees (2008) was excellent.
At least that is my opinion.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Movie-Corpse Bride
I have wanted to see Corpse Bride ever since it came out, but never have gotten around to it. But it finally got to the top of my Netflix queue, and I am glad I liked it very much---it would have sucked to not like it after waiting for so long it.
The movie is VERY Tim Burton---bizarre, weird, a little creepy, but with great humor and warmth too. A young man Victor, from a noveau-riche family is set to marry a young woman, Victoria from a titled, but very poor family. Both families win in this deal, and the happiness of the two young people is not really taken into consideration. But Victor does like Victoria very much, and the felling is mutual.
However, Victor gets trapped in the underworld where another woman has her sights set on him. She is the title character, Corpse Bride. Now she is not unattractive (you know, despite seeing the bones of her jaw through her decaying skin), nor does she seem a bad sort of dead person. But Victor really wants to get back to his real bride to be, and Corpse Bride...she is pretty unrelenting in getting her man.
Burton has his two main actors doing the voice work in this animated feature. Both Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter do a nice job. And the animation is wonderful. The scene where Victor gets to the underworld bar reminds of the very best of Disney, though with a more ghoulish bent to it.
But what Burton does best is take a very twisted situation and imbue it with warmth and emotion. So while all the weird stuff is happening, we are having our senses counter-balanced by emotion. And he plays that very effectively here once again.
Corpse Bride is better than his previous animated work, A Nightmare Before Christmas, and reminds us again that there is no one like Burton working in the movies. He is unique. I used to feel very so-so towards his work, but seeing his films over the years make me respect, admire and like his work much more.
Does Victor escape from the underworld to wed Victoria? With Burton you can never be sure of the ending...but the journey inn Corpse Bride is great fun- visually, thematically and just as good story-telling.
At least that is my opinion.
The movie is VERY Tim Burton---bizarre, weird, a little creepy, but with great humor and warmth too. A young man Victor, from a noveau-riche family is set to marry a young woman, Victoria from a titled, but very poor family. Both families win in this deal, and the happiness of the two young people is not really taken into consideration. But Victor does like Victoria very much, and the felling is mutual.
However, Victor gets trapped in the underworld where another woman has her sights set on him. She is the title character, Corpse Bride. Now she is not unattractive (you know, despite seeing the bones of her jaw through her decaying skin), nor does she seem a bad sort of dead person. But Victor really wants to get back to his real bride to be, and Corpse Bride...she is pretty unrelenting in getting her man.
Burton has his two main actors doing the voice work in this animated feature. Both Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter do a nice job. And the animation is wonderful. The scene where Victor gets to the underworld bar reminds of the very best of Disney, though with a more ghoulish bent to it.
But what Burton does best is take a very twisted situation and imbue it with warmth and emotion. So while all the weird stuff is happening, we are having our senses counter-balanced by emotion. And he plays that very effectively here once again.
Corpse Bride is better than his previous animated work, A Nightmare Before Christmas, and reminds us again that there is no one like Burton working in the movies. He is unique. I used to feel very so-so towards his work, but seeing his films over the years make me respect, admire and like his work much more.
Does Victor escape from the underworld to wed Victoria? With Burton you can never be sure of the ending...but the journey inn Corpse Bride is great fun- visually, thematically and just as good story-telling.
At least that is my opinion.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Movie- The Taking of Pelham 123
Now this is how to make a good action thriller! The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) is a remake of an older movie, but more than a remake, it is an update and a re-imagining.
The basic concept is the same, a group of terrorists take charge of some subway cars, holds the people hostage and will kill them all and cause a lot more damage unless he gets massive amounts of money from New York City.
But updates in technology and threat factors make the old plot a little weak, and so many subplots are thrown in here. But the subplots which at first seem a bit random, come strongly into play by the time the movie has finished.
Denzel Washington is the star, and plays Walter Garber, a subway dispatcher who is coincidentally (?) on duty when the subways cars are taken hostage. He is the first to talk with the kidnapper and tries to do the best he can to get information from the head kidnapper named Ryder, played very evilly by John Travolta.
Both stars get into their roles, and what emerges from their dialogues is quite fascinating...Garber is not just a dispatcher, he is sharp, but also has had some troubles at work. Ryder is not as smart as he thinks, and gives lots of clues, if only someone will take note....Garber does.
The update in tech also works well here, adding another dimension. The laptop left on in the subway car, the camera running, the use of cell phones, the tech for bombs, all have been skillfully woven in by director Tony Scott. Scott seems to love working with Washington, having made four films with the star (and another coming out this year)---and the collaboration works. Washington takes roles the could be somewhat flat, and adds layers to them, and Scott weaves much more for the actor to sink his teeth into---the scene where Washington is forced into an admission particularly stands out.
Travolta seems to relish playing the bad guy here, he really goes to town with Ryder, and it is fun watching him.
This was a nail-biting ride, and I thought one of the better of its genre.
At least that's my opinion.
The basic concept is the same, a group of terrorists take charge of some subway cars, holds the people hostage and will kill them all and cause a lot more damage unless he gets massive amounts of money from New York City.
But updates in technology and threat factors make the old plot a little weak, and so many subplots are thrown in here. But the subplots which at first seem a bit random, come strongly into play by the time the movie has finished.
Denzel Washington is the star, and plays Walter Garber, a subway dispatcher who is coincidentally (?) on duty when the subways cars are taken hostage. He is the first to talk with the kidnapper and tries to do the best he can to get information from the head kidnapper named Ryder, played very evilly by John Travolta.
Both stars get into their roles, and what emerges from their dialogues is quite fascinating...Garber is not just a dispatcher, he is sharp, but also has had some troubles at work. Ryder is not as smart as he thinks, and gives lots of clues, if only someone will take note....Garber does.
The update in tech also works well here, adding another dimension. The laptop left on in the subway car, the camera running, the use of cell phones, the tech for bombs, all have been skillfully woven in by director Tony Scott. Scott seems to love working with Washington, having made four films with the star (and another coming out this year)---and the collaboration works. Washington takes roles the could be somewhat flat, and adds layers to them, and Scott weaves much more for the actor to sink his teeth into---the scene where Washington is forced into an admission particularly stands out.
Travolta seems to relish playing the bad guy here, he really goes to town with Ryder, and it is fun watching him.
This was a nail-biting ride, and I thought one of the better of its genre.
At least that's my opinion.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Movie-Up in the Air
Up in the Air was nominated for several major Oscar's, including best picture, best actor for George Clooney, and both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick for best supporting actress. It did not win any of them.
Up in the Air (2009) is an amazingly topical film, dealing with layoffs and a bad economy. And I think some of the praise it got was due to that, but I think some critics also found it too topical, and it may have hurt the film for awards. But the film, because of, and despite its topicality, is really good.
George Clooney is what used to be called a hatchet man...a professional layer-offer. He travels from company to company firing people, telling them they no longer have a job, no longer are useful members of society. He comes in because it inconveniences the owners or management to have to face the people who work their asses off for them, themselves.
Clooney's Ryan is really good at what he does, and he tries to help people maintain their dignity at this terribly undignified time in their lives. So he is taken aback when the company he works for tries to change the way he does his work...they are trying to doing it remotely...via teleconference.
For me, what impresses in the movie is that it seems to question the whole fabric of work ethic. It has an underlying question of why? Why do we become our jobs...why must we feel that we are worthless if we are fired...it wasn't our fault much of the time. Downsizing, outsourcing, profit margins...all that makes the worker just a number. Why are so many people not considered useful members of society just because they got cut for the bottom line?
In short, the movie talks about the dehumanization that corporate America seems to force down our throats.
Clooney is great as Ryan...as Clooney is great as most everything he does. The story of his company is intriguing, and his love story with with so excellent Vera Farmiga is well written, adult and shattering. But the crux of the movie is the questions of why...not just why these people are out of work, but why is work the most important thing to so many...why does work make us cry, and hurt and love and have heartbreak...all over a job.
I don't think Up in the Air was the best picture this year...but it was damn good one, and braver than many gave it credit for. Many saw it as only a topical film, but it was much more than that.
At least that is my opinion.
Up in the Air (2009) is an amazingly topical film, dealing with layoffs and a bad economy. And I think some of the praise it got was due to that, but I think some critics also found it too topical, and it may have hurt the film for awards. But the film, because of, and despite its topicality, is really good.
George Clooney is what used to be called a hatchet man...a professional layer-offer. He travels from company to company firing people, telling them they no longer have a job, no longer are useful members of society. He comes in because it inconveniences the owners or management to have to face the people who work their asses off for them, themselves.
Clooney's Ryan is really good at what he does, and he tries to help people maintain their dignity at this terribly undignified time in their lives. So he is taken aback when the company he works for tries to change the way he does his work...they are trying to doing it remotely...via teleconference.
For me, what impresses in the movie is that it seems to question the whole fabric of work ethic. It has an underlying question of why? Why do we become our jobs...why must we feel that we are worthless if we are fired...it wasn't our fault much of the time. Downsizing, outsourcing, profit margins...all that makes the worker just a number. Why are so many people not considered useful members of society just because they got cut for the bottom line?
In short, the movie talks about the dehumanization that corporate America seems to force down our throats.
Clooney is great as Ryan...as Clooney is great as most everything he does. The story of his company is intriguing, and his love story with with so excellent Vera Farmiga is well written, adult and shattering. But the crux of the movie is the questions of why...not just why these people are out of work, but why is work the most important thing to so many...why does work make us cry, and hurt and love and have heartbreak...all over a job.
I don't think Up in the Air was the best picture this year...but it was damn good one, and braver than many gave it credit for. Many saw it as only a topical film, but it was much more than that.
At least that is my opinion.
I'm BACK!
OK my friends, after a long hiatus I am back to blogging.
A lot of things got in the way of my blogging...life itself sometimes made it hard to be creative and think about something to say concerning the movies I watch, the books I read, the restaurants I try.
But much of that has cleared up now that I am retired, and I have a lot to catch up on.
I hope to continue with all that, but will be adding some more of my way of seeing the world---thoughts about social, political and other events. And usually I will offend someone. Most of you who read my blogs know that I am very liberal, radical! LOL!
And I seem to be getting more so all the time. If I offend you...tough biscuits! No where in our laws does it say that you have the privilege of never being offended.
But to get my writing wings back under me, I will start with some reviews. I hope to get at least a few a day posted.
It is good to be back, especially under these circumstances.
A lot of things got in the way of my blogging...life itself sometimes made it hard to be creative and think about something to say concerning the movies I watch, the books I read, the restaurants I try.
But much of that has cleared up now that I am retired, and I have a lot to catch up on.
I hope to continue with all that, but will be adding some more of my way of seeing the world---thoughts about social, political and other events. And usually I will offend someone. Most of you who read my blogs know that I am very liberal, radical! LOL!
And I seem to be getting more so all the time. If I offend you...tough biscuits! No where in our laws does it say that you have the privilege of never being offended.
But to get my writing wings back under me, I will start with some reviews. I hope to get at least a few a day posted.
It is good to be back, especially under these circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
