Two nights ago, I watched World Trade Center (2006). Haven't written about it in my film journal yet, but I feel the need to elaborate here on how awful a movie it is.
I guess the way I want to approach this is to take its director Oliver Stone as a guide. Stone, as we all know, loves to court controversy. Even his Alexander (2004) was controversial. In any case, I think this flag-waving waste of celluloid is his least controversial film. In fact, it's not controversial at all. For this reason, maybe I should see United 93 (2006) to compare. While the films are not about the same thing, they deal with well-connected instances. But I digress.
What I am trying to say is that I couldn't believe Stone made this. And please don't take this to mean that I am a fan of his films. I'm indifferent to them; take them or leave them, I say. It's just kind of hard not to see that the (albeit light) cynicism exhibited in Platoon (1986) has been completely erased and replaced with hokey sentimentalism parading around as a "true story of courage and survival."
It has been suggested that it is too early to make films about 11 September 2001. There's not enough hindsight. There are so many perspectives out there (then and now) that any filmic treatment of that day's events really should be more sophisticated than a good vs. evil narrative. Oh, this movie avoided that. Instead, it just opted to tell a nationalistic and triumphalist narrative. Never too early (or too late) for ones of those, eh?
At the core, I had a problem. World Trade Center is based on the true-life accounts of Port Authority police officers John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, two of the five cops from that station who went into the complex after the second plane hit the other tower. When the buildings collapse, all five get trapped under concrete and other heavy and sharp material. But only McLoughlin and Jimeno make it out alive. Just barely. In any case, they had not begun to save any lives when the towers crashed and buried them. And all of this happens within the first half hour.
I do not mean to make light of the situation, but I do not exactly consider McLoughlin and Jimeno heroes. Instead, they are metaphors for the country. (Oh, I guess the filmmakers did use hindsight!) They don't really know what is going on and why it has happened. They don't know if they'll make it (read: recover). In fact, McLoughlin, played by a heavily-accented mustache and a receding hairline called Nicolas Cage, very nearly dies just as he is being rescued. What gets him through it? His wife, who appears to him and says he has to survive because he hasn't finished refurbishing her kitchen. (Life must go on.) There were some lines, which I now forget, that really serve as proof of this theory that they are stand-ins for all Americans. The use of a lot of archive footage includes clips of then-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani trying to bolster some patriotic spirit, too.
Another problem I had was with the subplot of an ex-marine from rural Pennsylvania or something. He watches the events unfold with his coworkers in the office. He is so angered that he storms off, saying something to the effect of: "They don't know it yet, but a war has just begun." Such an intensely delivered over-the-top statement only makes more sense once we viewers learn that he is a former marine. I cannot remember now, but I think this tidbit about him is revealed when he goes to church (the place he stormed off to). From there, he drives down to NYC and lends a helping--and creepy--hand. See what I mean? There are others who also contribute during the crisis. I do not mean to say it isn't wonderful that people came and helped, but please. The cheese is so hard to cut it's so thick.
In fact, the scene with the marine going to the church was the only scene that overtly reminded me of anything by Stone. Yes, he's dealt with recent American history before, but here he brought in religion. And religion played a large role in Platoon. The battle over Chris Taylor's soul. Elias's Jesus-like pose just before he dies. I point this out because before this scene, there was no religion talk or iconography. As I can recall from this time in my life, the discussion about religion only became more heated once fundamentalism was brought up, as it related to the identity of the perpetrators.
Other than these issues, the other major problem I had was that it was almost completely uncinematic. I admit that, not knowing about McLoughlin or Jimeno before seeing the film, I did not know who would make it. I didn't think both would. So in this way, it was a bit of a suspense. But it was boring, and watching their families react was just like watching any other melodrama. Other than the few moments when the filmmakers actually acknowledge that there are more than just two families in distress, the film never really seems monumental. And certainly not as monumental as that day was for those of us who remember it. It was just like any other disaster movie, but with bright red, white, and blue in the background.
As this is the narrative (and some would say, myth) that most Americans have accepted about 9/11--of all Americans banding together to survive and triumph against anyone who tried to destroy the American way of life--how could anyone call it controversial? It is totally mainstream, and the most mainstream movie Stone has ever made.
I ask myself: why did he make this? Hasn't hindsight convinced him even a little bit that there are connections between the Vietnam War and the American-led "War on Terror"? I mean, the triumphalism was missing with Vietnam and definitely from his three movies centered round it. Other than these guys fortunately surviving the attack, what is triumphal about 9/11?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
oh well
This post says nothing, means something.
Ooh, I can see the TV behind me reflected in my computer screen.
Ooh, I can see the TV behind me reflected in my computer screen.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
just a tiny little prick
Unbelievable. I was just washing up. And I stabbed myself. With my own thumbnail. Twice. Once on the very tip of my left middle finger. And then on the top side of my left index finger. As they are bleeding profusely right now, I am typing this one-handed.
By the way, I didn't realize I had stabbed myself until I saw the blood on the paper towels I was using to dry the glasses I had washed. Oh, no, I felt each stab as it happened, but I didn't think it was that serious.
I'm thinking I should invest in an emery board.
By the way, I didn't realize I had stabbed myself until I saw the blood on the paper towels I was using to dry the glasses I had washed. Oh, no, I felt each stab as it happened, but I didn't think it was that serious.
I'm thinking I should invest in an emery board.
Monday, July 16, 2007
the poor man's eddie murphy isn't eddie murphy?
I have known for a while that they're coming out with a sequel to Daddy Day Care (2003): Daddy Day Camp (2007). That's no biggie. But what I didn't know until seeing a commercial today was that Eddie Murphy, Jeff Garlin, and Steve Zahn are not returning.
This doesn't exactly surprise me. I admit that at first I figured that the sequel would just follow new characters. Not so. Instead, Cuba Gooding Jr. is replacing Murphy as Charlie Hinton. Cuba's career has been punctuated by Boyz n the Hood (1991), Jerry Maguire (1996), Pearl Harbor (2001), Snow Dogs (2002), and Boat Trip (2002). And now he's that guy they call when Eddie Murphy says no.
What else is surprising about Daddy Day Camp? Fred Savage (aka Kevin Arnold) is directing. Doesn't that just make you giggle?
This doesn't exactly surprise me. I admit that at first I figured that the sequel would just follow new characters. Not so. Instead, Cuba Gooding Jr. is replacing Murphy as Charlie Hinton. Cuba's career has been punctuated by Boyz n the Hood (1991), Jerry Maguire (1996), Pearl Harbor (2001), Snow Dogs (2002), and Boat Trip (2002). And now he's that guy they call when Eddie Murphy says no.
What else is surprising about Daddy Day Camp? Fred Savage (aka Kevin Arnold) is directing. Doesn't that just make you giggle?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
if i were a number, what number would i be?
Stephanie took the Enneagram test by OkCupid, so I thought, why not I? This test, which Stephanie found was spot on when it called her an EIGHT (aka "The Asserter"), proves that we are not exactly the same. I'm most of what this says a FOUR is. But I don't know why we're called romantics. I'm not romantic. Just because I like Jane Austen doesn't make me romantic, does it? By the way, I comment on my results in italics.
My score on The Quick & Painless ENNEAGRAM Test: 4 - the Individualist
My Enneagram type is FOUR (aka "The Romantic")
"I am unique"
Romantics have sensitive feelings and are warm and perceptive.
How to Get Along with Me
* Give me plenty of compliments. They mean a lot to me. Only when I deserve them, please. And yes, they do mean a lot to me. So much so that I won't forget even the littlest one.
* Be a supportive friend or partner. Help me to learn to love and value myself. Please.
* Respect me for my special gifts of intuition and vision. I guess this could refer to my hyper-observance?
* Though I don't always want to be cheered up when I'm feeling melancholy, I sometimes like to have someone lighten me up a little. True dat. I much rather laugh than cry, I think. I mean, I cry a lot. Whether it's because of a movie or just because I'm thinking about sad things.
* Don't tell me I'm too sensitive or that I'm overreacting! Why? Because I already know this.
What I Like About Being a FOUR
* My ability to find meaning in life and to experience feeling at a deep level. Uh, I haven't found the meaning of life. 42 didn't work out.
* My ability to establish warm connections with people. There's only a few.
* Admiring what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. I dunno if I do that.
* My creativity, intuition, and sense of humor. I don't consider myself creative or intuitive. I don't think I am funny, but I get things.
* Being unique and being seen as unique by others. I have to admit, this is pretty important to me.
* Having aesthetic sensibilities. I do like the aesthetics of things. I do.
* Being able to easily pick up the feelings of people around me. I'm not very intuitive, but I think I can tell when someone's feeling happy or shitty. Or uncomfortable.
What's Hard About Being a FOUR
* Experiencing dark moods of emptiness and despair. This is the worst of it all.
* Feelings of self-hatred and shame; believing I don't deserve to be loved. Or maybe this is the worst.
* Feeling guilty when I disappoint people. I do, yeah.
* Feeling hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands me. No. It's the other way round. I feel misunderstood when someone hurts or attacks me.
* Expecting too much from myself and life. I think this is how people close to me see me.
* Fearing being abandoned. Yeah, but I don't freak out too much when it happens. I get over it. Eventually. I'm used to it by now. But I still hate it when it happens.
* Obsessing over resentments. I obsess over everything.
* Longing for what I don't have. Not materialistically. And not spiritually. I just want to be happy.
FOURs as Children Often
* Have active imaginations: play creatively alone or organize playmates in original games. This is a tricky one. I don't think I had a particularly active imagination as a kid. Except I did and still do pretend my life is a movie. This, however, did remind me that I invented a stupid game based round a large circle with numbers 1-30 in it painted on the asphalt at my elementary school's playground. There was nothing we could do with it, so I invented a game. That almost no one played with me.
* Are very sensitive. True dat.
* Feel that they don't fit in. Uh-huh. Still feel this way. Probably always will.
* Believe they are missing something that other people have. I'm not a particularly jealous person.
* Attach themselves to idealized teachers, heroes, artists, etc. I don't hero worship.
* Become antiauthoritarian or rebellious when criticized or not understood. I dunno.
* Feel lonely or abandoned (perhaps as a result of a death or their parents' divorce). Yeah.
FOURs as Parents (If and when I become a parent...)
* Help their children become who they really are. Definitely.
* Support their children's creativity and originality. Absolutely.
* Are good at helping their children get in touch with their feelings. Always.
* Are sometimes overly critical or overly protective. Probably.
* Are usually very good with children if not too self-absorbed. Jury's still out.
From:
Renee Baron & Elizabeth Wagele
The Enneagram Made Easy
Discover the 9 Types of People
Harper
San Francisco, 1994, 161 pages
My score on The Quick & Painless ENNEAGRAM Test: 4 - the Individualist
My Enneagram type is FOUR (aka "The Romantic")
"I am unique"
Romantics have sensitive feelings and are warm and perceptive.
How to Get Along with Me
* Give me plenty of compliments. They mean a lot to me. Only when I deserve them, please. And yes, they do mean a lot to me. So much so that I won't forget even the littlest one.
* Be a supportive friend or partner. Help me to learn to love and value myself. Please.
* Respect me for my special gifts of intuition and vision. I guess this could refer to my hyper-observance?
* Though I don't always want to be cheered up when I'm feeling melancholy, I sometimes like to have someone lighten me up a little. True dat. I much rather laugh than cry, I think. I mean, I cry a lot. Whether it's because of a movie or just because I'm thinking about sad things.
* Don't tell me I'm too sensitive or that I'm overreacting! Why? Because I already know this.
What I Like About Being a FOUR
* My ability to find meaning in life and to experience feeling at a deep level. Uh, I haven't found the meaning of life. 42 didn't work out.
* My ability to establish warm connections with people. There's only a few.
* Admiring what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. I dunno if I do that.
* My creativity, intuition, and sense of humor. I don't consider myself creative or intuitive. I don't think I am funny, but I get things.
* Being unique and being seen as unique by others. I have to admit, this is pretty important to me.
* Having aesthetic sensibilities. I do like the aesthetics of things. I do.
* Being able to easily pick up the feelings of people around me. I'm not very intuitive, but I think I can tell when someone's feeling happy or shitty. Or uncomfortable.
What's Hard About Being a FOUR
* Experiencing dark moods of emptiness and despair. This is the worst of it all.
* Feelings of self-hatred and shame; believing I don't deserve to be loved. Or maybe this is the worst.
* Feeling guilty when I disappoint people. I do, yeah.
* Feeling hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands me. No. It's the other way round. I feel misunderstood when someone hurts or attacks me.
* Expecting too much from myself and life. I think this is how people close to me see me.
* Fearing being abandoned. Yeah, but I don't freak out too much when it happens. I get over it. Eventually. I'm used to it by now. But I still hate it when it happens.
* Obsessing over resentments. I obsess over everything.
* Longing for what I don't have. Not materialistically. And not spiritually. I just want to be happy.
FOURs as Children Often
* Have active imaginations: play creatively alone or organize playmates in original games. This is a tricky one. I don't think I had a particularly active imagination as a kid. Except I did and still do pretend my life is a movie. This, however, did remind me that I invented a stupid game based round a large circle with numbers 1-30 in it painted on the asphalt at my elementary school's playground. There was nothing we could do with it, so I invented a game. That almost no one played with me.
* Are very sensitive. True dat.
* Feel that they don't fit in. Uh-huh. Still feel this way. Probably always will.
* Believe they are missing something that other people have. I'm not a particularly jealous person.
* Attach themselves to idealized teachers, heroes, artists, etc. I don't hero worship.
* Become antiauthoritarian or rebellious when criticized or not understood. I dunno.
* Feel lonely or abandoned (perhaps as a result of a death or their parents' divorce). Yeah.
FOURs as Parents (If and when I become a parent...)
* Help their children become who they really are. Definitely.
* Support their children's creativity and originality. Absolutely.
* Are good at helping their children get in touch with their feelings. Always.
* Are sometimes overly critical or overly protective. Probably.
* Are usually very good with children if not too self-absorbed. Jury's still out.
From:
Renee Baron & Elizabeth Wagele
The Enneagram Made Easy
Discover the 9 Types of People
Harper
San Francisco, 1994, 161 pages
out of context
OK. It doesn't look like I am going to do much work around the house today. This means I have time to concentrate on writing an argumentative blog post. The topic? I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007).
There are several problems with this movie. I know, I know, can I or should I even complain since I haven't even seen it yet? I think I can.
The film is about two firefighters--friends Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James). According to the commercial, Larry is trying to ensure that his pension is passed along to his kids. The best way to do this, he figures, is to form a domestic partnership with his very straight friend, Chuck.
Now I don't know anything about pensions really, but some things are missing from this. It doesn't make sense. Where is Larry's wife/companion/mother of his children? Is he a widower? What about life insurance? You're a firefighter! (Then again, perhaps it's his high-risk job that prevents him from getting life insurance. This is not just.) More to the point, have the makers forgotten that same-sex marriage, while still a hot-button issue (that has cooled considerably), has not been resolved, for lack of a better word? I mean, I don't think in Brooklyn there are laws in place to protect the financial rights of gay couples. Perhaps it would make more sense if the movie were based in Boston?
Anyway, the film is apparently an "unauthorized" remake of the little Australian film Strange Bedfellows (2004). Now I don't know much about Australian politics or Australians' approach to gay marriage, but somehow it is more believable that Paul Hogan and Michael Caton would have more to gain from putting on the charade (which I do not advocate at all). In other words, I could see Australia having tax laws that finally include gay couples. I just don't see them here.
Another problem I have with the film derives yet again from the commercial I see all the time on TV. It sets up the premise. Understandable. Necessary. But it also introduces an unexpected setback in their plan. Looks like Chuck will fall for a case worker or lawyer or something. Anyway, he falls for Jessica Biel (surprise, surprise; and what's the age difference?). My point here is the commercial/trailer spelled out the whole movie. Heterosexuality gets in the way. It shows that the only reason to see this is to see them make fun of homosexuality because two masculine firefighters not all that secure with their sexuality are going to pretend to be homosexuals. Just for laughs. I may be wrong. It may be that the film has good intentions, to educate the usual Adam Sandler moviegoer about gay people (because let's face it, most of his other stuff is homophobic). In other words, the film may be more sympathetic, but I doubt it. If they wanted to do this, Sandler would play in earnest a gay character in a movie. (Shit. I can't remember the representation of the gay couple in Big Daddy [1999].)
I specifically take offense to the scene in the commercial where they're shopping together. Larry picks up a box of tampons or sanitary pads. Chuck reminds him: "We're gay! Not transsexuals!" This statement, while pointing out the difference, ultimately is just another joke, another gag. I can't explain it, but it doesn't sit well with me. Nevermind the fact that male-to-female transsexuals wouldn't need that kind of personal hygiene product.
Here's another thing that bothers me. Freaks me out, rather. And I just found out about it. Director Alexander Payne and his longtime co-writer Jim Taylor have co-written the script. Maybe this means it would be better than it looks, but I am just shocked that they wrote a fuckin' Adam Sandler movie!
OK. I think I've said my piece.
There are several problems with this movie. I know, I know, can I or should I even complain since I haven't even seen it yet? I think I can.
The film is about two firefighters--friends Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James). According to the commercial, Larry is trying to ensure that his pension is passed along to his kids. The best way to do this, he figures, is to form a domestic partnership with his very straight friend, Chuck.
Now I don't know anything about pensions really, but some things are missing from this. It doesn't make sense. Where is Larry's wife/companion/mother of his children? Is he a widower? What about life insurance? You're a firefighter! (Then again, perhaps it's his high-risk job that prevents him from getting life insurance. This is not just.) More to the point, have the makers forgotten that same-sex marriage, while still a hot-button issue (that has cooled considerably), has not been resolved, for lack of a better word? I mean, I don't think in Brooklyn there are laws in place to protect the financial rights of gay couples. Perhaps it would make more sense if the movie were based in Boston?
Anyway, the film is apparently an "unauthorized" remake of the little Australian film Strange Bedfellows (2004). Now I don't know much about Australian politics or Australians' approach to gay marriage, but somehow it is more believable that Paul Hogan and Michael Caton would have more to gain from putting on the charade (which I do not advocate at all). In other words, I could see Australia having tax laws that finally include gay couples. I just don't see them here.
Another problem I have with the film derives yet again from the commercial I see all the time on TV. It sets up the premise. Understandable. Necessary. But it also introduces an unexpected setback in their plan. Looks like Chuck will fall for a case worker or lawyer or something. Anyway, he falls for Jessica Biel (surprise, surprise; and what's the age difference?). My point here is the commercial/trailer spelled out the whole movie. Heterosexuality gets in the way. It shows that the only reason to see this is to see them make fun of homosexuality because two masculine firefighters not all that secure with their sexuality are going to pretend to be homosexuals. Just for laughs. I may be wrong. It may be that the film has good intentions, to educate the usual Adam Sandler moviegoer about gay people (because let's face it, most of his other stuff is homophobic). In other words, the film may be more sympathetic, but I doubt it. If they wanted to do this, Sandler would play in earnest a gay character in a movie. (Shit. I can't remember the representation of the gay couple in Big Daddy [1999].)
I specifically take offense to the scene in the commercial where they're shopping together. Larry picks up a box of tampons or sanitary pads. Chuck reminds him: "We're gay! Not transsexuals!" This statement, while pointing out the difference, ultimately is just another joke, another gag. I can't explain it, but it doesn't sit well with me. Nevermind the fact that male-to-female transsexuals wouldn't need that kind of personal hygiene product.
Here's another thing that bothers me. Freaks me out, rather. And I just found out about it. Director Alexander Payne and his longtime co-writer Jim Taylor have co-written the script. Maybe this means it would be better than it looks, but I am just shocked that they wrote a fuckin' Adam Sandler movie!
OK. I think I've said my piece.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
14 juillet
Happy Bastille Day!
Nevermind the fact that as I write this it is already the 15th in France.
Nevermind the fact that as I write this it is already the 15th in France.
Friday, July 13, 2007
lofty dreams
Today was a shorter day. But combined the last two days have seen a major overhaul of the house. To explain what has happened I would need to describe the layout of the house. And I don't particularly feel like doing that right now.
Let me just say that the house feels huge now. The living room echoes, as it is now void of almost all of its original furniture (only a blue reclining armchair remains, along with some furniture that will not stay permanently). Walking from room to room, I get the feeling I am living in a large loft. The effect the combination of the emptiness and the acoustics has is very, very surreal for lack of a better word.
I honestly can't believe we got here, and we have our handyman of a cousin to thank for it. (Thank you, Manny!)
What's left, you ask? There's a lot more recycling and organizing to do. We filled a 21-foot-long dumpster that's eight feet wide and five feet tall. It got dropped off at 7.15 this morning and it's getting picked up sometime tomorrow. Then we have to go about the house, painting the rooms. Then we'll refurnish the living room. Replace the refrigerator perhaps. Rejuvenate the beautiful hardwood floors. Recarpet the playroom-turned-storage room-turned-haven't-figured-it-out-yet room. Install blinds in my room and in the large room that used to be filled with all kinds of stuff (it has very little in it now, compared to what it was like before).
This is a very strange place to be. Yes, I do mean physically. Samson has found the building very disorienting himself. He had trouble sleeping last night because the sofas in the living room, his regular resting place at night, had been evacuated.
More than this though, I just can't believe it's happened. Finally, we just might be getting the house we deserve, the lifestyle we think we can aspire to. I mean, I have said for years that I want to clean up the house so we could actually invite people over. It never got done because no one would step up and help. And then I became lazy. I didn't believe people when they said they would help. And when the people I did believe said they'd clean up, I was in England. I guess it would only get done if I were here and had people on my side.
Let me just say that the house feels huge now. The living room echoes, as it is now void of almost all of its original furniture (only a blue reclining armchair remains, along with some furniture that will not stay permanently). Walking from room to room, I get the feeling I am living in a large loft. The effect the combination of the emptiness and the acoustics has is very, very surreal for lack of a better word.
I honestly can't believe we got here, and we have our handyman of a cousin to thank for it. (Thank you, Manny!)
What's left, you ask? There's a lot more recycling and organizing to do. We filled a 21-foot-long dumpster that's eight feet wide and five feet tall. It got dropped off at 7.15 this morning and it's getting picked up sometime tomorrow. Then we have to go about the house, painting the rooms. Then we'll refurnish the living room. Replace the refrigerator perhaps. Rejuvenate the beautiful hardwood floors. Recarpet the playroom-turned-storage room-turned-haven't-figured-it-out-yet room. Install blinds in my room and in the large room that used to be filled with all kinds of stuff (it has very little in it now, compared to what it was like before).
This is a very strange place to be. Yes, I do mean physically. Samson has found the building very disorienting himself. He had trouble sleeping last night because the sofas in the living room, his regular resting place at night, had been evacuated.
More than this though, I just can't believe it's happened. Finally, we just might be getting the house we deserve, the lifestyle we think we can aspire to. I mean, I have said for years that I want to clean up the house so we could actually invite people over. It never got done because no one would step up and help. And then I became lazy. I didn't believe people when they said they would help. And when the people I did believe said they'd clean up, I was in England. I guess it would only get done if I were here and had people on my side.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
wild movies i have known
Well, since it appears I have not seen many movies recently, I thought I should directly address this discrepancy. In fact, I have seen quite a few, and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about (most of) the movies I've seen since returning to the States, in chronological order of my viewing them.
Abridged from my film journal:
1.) Factory Girl (2006): Quick-moving like Edie Sedgwick's life, so kudos for recreating that cinematically. Still, there was something lacking. I didn't care about any of the characters. Very flat despite the fullness of those dynamic relationships. (Actually, I saw this one on the plane from the UK.)
2.) Ocean's Thirteen (2007): Long and a bit boring, but at least they make fun of themselves, which is all you can (or should) expect from these films. Not enough George Clooney.
3.) La vie en rose (2007): Weaving three time periods of tragic French singer Edith Piaf's life does not mask the fact that you, Olivier Dahan, made a rather formulaic biopic about an artist/musician. Can we please see a movie about a famous person who got almost everything right, who didn't dapple in drugs and let fame go to his or her head?
4.) Two Days (2003): Never heard of it before Stephanie rented it from Netflix while she was here. Rather liked it. Funny and tragic, which gives it a rather uneven tone, but when the main guy is Paul Rudd, I won't complain too much. (Though, have you seen The Shape of Things [2003]?)
5.) Frida (2002): Had a craving to see this one since the end of my tenure in England. I still think it's too by-the-book.
6.) Matilda (1996): So sweet it made me cry.
7.) Tea and Sympathy (1956): Wasn't expecting a movie from this era to be completely about a "sissy," a boy who exhibits behavior way too feminine for his friends to feel comfortable with their own gender and sexuality. Lovely how it skirts round his ambiguous sexuality and in the end gives him heterosexuality, although the whole time he seemed so asexual to me.
8.) A Mighty Heart (2007): Everything you'd expect from a film based on "true events" as previously represented in a book by the real-life main character. And those events took place within the last five and a half years.
9.) The Mustache (2005): Funny and strange French thriller. Not enough Mathieu Amalric.
10.) A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006): Almost completely uncinematic. Just 100 minutes of some new writer-director (Dito Montiel) blowing himself. Even Robert Downey Jr. can't make it interesting.
11.) Don't Move (2004): Misogyny as only the Italians can do, but still utterly gorgeous, well-written and well-acted. Despite the major flaw (why would a repeated rape yield a love affair?!) I really enjoyed everything else about this one.
12.) Ratatouille (2007): It's as awesome as everyone's been saying but not without its flaws.
13.) Keane (2004): Another tour-de-force performance overlooked. Still, the claustrophobic camera technique does not a movie make.
14.) Conversations With Other Women (2005): There's more than just the split-screen gimmick! I swear!
15.) A tout de suite (2004): Get over the French New Wave already!
16.) Yossi & Jagger (2002): In a word: hokey.
17.) 13 Tzameti (2005): A French thriller that actually thrills. Fantastic: it's to be remade in America. I thought it already was very American.
18.) Borat (2006): Grossly anti-Semitic and very gay. Dangerous because its wild popularity probably gives almost everyone who saw it the OK to make fun of anyone and everyone.
19.) Mysterious Skin (2004): "Uncomfortable" comes to mind, but it's so well-done in almost every way (especially since it tackles some very serious issues such as pedophilia, prostitution, and gay sex during the 1980s) it demands to be seen.
20.) Kings & Queen (2004): A lot going on. Very sad but also very funny. Another plus? It's got Mathieu Amalric.
21.) Jaws (1975): I know, I'd never seen it before. Second half (their hunt for the shark) drags. Don't understand how it could yield sequels. Who would sign up to see it? Isn't everything that can be done with shark attacks been covered by this one? By the way, I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" premise because it in effect tries to defeat nature. Sharks eat. Just stay away. It's nature. It's simple.
22.) Live Free or Die Hard (2007): "Firesale!" Compelling old school action movie. Probably why I liked it on the whole.
Abridged from my film journal:
1.) Factory Girl (2006): Quick-moving like Edie Sedgwick's life, so kudos for recreating that cinematically. Still, there was something lacking. I didn't care about any of the characters. Very flat despite the fullness of those dynamic relationships. (Actually, I saw this one on the plane from the UK.)
2.) Ocean's Thirteen (2007): Long and a bit boring, but at least they make fun of themselves, which is all you can (or should) expect from these films. Not enough George Clooney.
3.) La vie en rose (2007): Weaving three time periods of tragic French singer Edith Piaf's life does not mask the fact that you, Olivier Dahan, made a rather formulaic biopic about an artist/musician. Can we please see a movie about a famous person who got almost everything right, who didn't dapple in drugs and let fame go to his or her head?
4.) Two Days (2003): Never heard of it before Stephanie rented it from Netflix while she was here. Rather liked it. Funny and tragic, which gives it a rather uneven tone, but when the main guy is Paul Rudd, I won't complain too much. (Though, have you seen The Shape of Things [2003]?)
5.) Frida (2002): Had a craving to see this one since the end of my tenure in England. I still think it's too by-the-book.
6.) Matilda (1996): So sweet it made me cry.
7.) Tea and Sympathy (1956): Wasn't expecting a movie from this era to be completely about a "sissy," a boy who exhibits behavior way too feminine for his friends to feel comfortable with their own gender and sexuality. Lovely how it skirts round his ambiguous sexuality and in the end gives him heterosexuality, although the whole time he seemed so asexual to me.
8.) A Mighty Heart (2007): Everything you'd expect from a film based on "true events" as previously represented in a book by the real-life main character. And those events took place within the last five and a half years.
9.) The Mustache (2005): Funny and strange French thriller. Not enough Mathieu Amalric.
10.) A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006): Almost completely uncinematic. Just 100 minutes of some new writer-director (Dito Montiel) blowing himself. Even Robert Downey Jr. can't make it interesting.
11.) Don't Move (2004): Misogyny as only the Italians can do, but still utterly gorgeous, well-written and well-acted. Despite the major flaw (why would a repeated rape yield a love affair?!) I really enjoyed everything else about this one.
12.) Ratatouille (2007): It's as awesome as everyone's been saying but not without its flaws.
13.) Keane (2004): Another tour-de-force performance overlooked. Still, the claustrophobic camera technique does not a movie make.
14.) Conversations With Other Women (2005): There's more than just the split-screen gimmick! I swear!
15.) A tout de suite (2004): Get over the French New Wave already!
16.) Yossi & Jagger (2002): In a word: hokey.
17.) 13 Tzameti (2005): A French thriller that actually thrills. Fantastic: it's to be remade in America. I thought it already was very American.
18.) Borat (2006): Grossly anti-Semitic and very gay. Dangerous because its wild popularity probably gives almost everyone who saw it the OK to make fun of anyone and everyone.
19.) Mysterious Skin (2004): "Uncomfortable" comes to mind, but it's so well-done in almost every way (especially since it tackles some very serious issues such as pedophilia, prostitution, and gay sex during the 1980s) it demands to be seen.
20.) Kings & Queen (2004): A lot going on. Very sad but also very funny. Another plus? It's got Mathieu Amalric.
21.) Jaws (1975): I know, I'd never seen it before. Second half (their hunt for the shark) drags. Don't understand how it could yield sequels. Who would sign up to see it? Isn't everything that can be done with shark attacks been covered by this one? By the way, I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" premise because it in effect tries to defeat nature. Sharks eat. Just stay away. It's nature. It's simple.
22.) Live Free or Die Hard (2007): "Firesale!" Compelling old school action movie. Probably why I liked it on the whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
