I stumbled upon this film on Netflix, of course. It was recommended to me because I like other generic chick flicks and comedies. I figured it would be a light-hearted rom com or something of the sort.
I could not have been more wrong.
This was an absolutely TERRIBLE film. Basically, adult twins Marty and Jackie have a special bond. Jackie is crazy and thinks she is Jackie Onasis. She even sports the pink suit and pillbox hat that Jackie O wore. Marty brings home a fiance, out of the blue. He has only been dating her 6 months.
SPOILERS
the younger brother, anthony, is weird and creepy, like denny from The Room. He sleeps with Leslie (the fiance) after she finds out that Marty and Jackie have been sleeping together since they were 14. Yes, you read that right. Major incest. and the craziest part- Leslie tries to get Marty to leave with him, even after WALKING IN ON HIM FUCKING HIS SISTER....
It is insane. If you need to watch a bad movie, here is one for you. Otherwise, avoid this one at all costs.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Friday, June 7, 2013
Life of Pi
I would like to first state that I never read the book Life of Pi so that this review is clearly from a movie viewer's standpoint. I will not be making any comparisons to the book because I don't think that is a completely fair comparison because written literature and visual cinema are two very different mediums that are trying to achieve very different things. Everyone has their own interpretation, and just because the film's director interpreted the book differently than you did, doesn't mean you can immediately bash the film.
okay, moving on.
I thought this was a rather interesting story. When people were talking about it, I kept hearing about a tiger in a boat, a zebra and a kid in a boat. I was rather confused as to what sort of story that would produce, but I was genuinely curious about how the zebra, the tiger, and the boy ended up in this boat. That being said, I went into this movie not knowing a lot about it, having not read the book or watched many trailers.
I found the actor who played the adult Pi very intriguing. He didn't seem fake or false. It wasn't an actor in a role, it was a person who had actually lived through that. That is exactly the type of quality you aim for in a actor, especially a screen actor, who i feel can slide by much more easily on looks or humor or a well written script then actual talent. He was very genuine.
I responded positively to the scenes where adult Pi was talking to the young writer. When Pi told him about his childhood, how he got the nickname, etc. It was refreshing to see his reactions to his memories alongside what actually happened. I also love that young Pi tried so many different religions. As a non religious person, I really respect someone who is willing to try them all. I find so many people are so set in what they were taught from a young age that they don't try and question what is around them. but that's an opinion for a different type of blog. I liked that he was open to try them all. end of comment.
I loved the ambiguity at the end when Pi is talking to the reporters about what happened, how he managed to stay alive. Do you think the story about the tiger was the true story? or was it the one with the butcher and the other humans? (I truly believe he did live in a rowboat with a tiger.)
I did however have issues with this film too.
I thought they spent way too much time in the boat. I understand he was a cast away for hundreds of days, and that makes sense, but after about 45 minutes of very similar actions: hunting for fish, building the raft out of on-hand materials, not getting eaten by the tiger, not starving, etc. after a while it seemed rather repetitive. I was sorta hoping that they would fade to black and do a "1 month later" placard or something of the sort. It got a little bit boring to be blunt. Once it was just him and the tiger it was dull. There was no hyena or zebra to fight with or eat.
I also do not understand the island with the strange meercats and the water that turns acidic at night. I don't know if in the book that is supposed to be Pi losing his mind or whether this was a real island, but I feel like it made no sense with the rest of the story. I felt like that part in particular felt out of place. Like Pi accidentally wandered into the wrong story. I would also like to point out that meercats wouldn't all stand out like that. Meercats live in tunnels underground to hide from predators and a few meercats will stand like that to keep watch. I guess if it's a fantasy island though, they probably don't have any natural predators. I also don't know if meercats climb trees, though I don't think that would have made any difference to the film.
One last issue, I wish there would have been some follow through with the family. One minute they were there, and the next they were all dead and drowned. I know in real life, it really can happen that quickly. In the blink of an eye, everyone is gone. but for the film's sake, It would have put my mind at ease to have seen a body floating, or a memorabilia or something. It took me a while to realize that they weren't coming back. Which distracted me from what was currently happening with the tiger.
While this film delved into some interesting topics of spirituality, and friendship, and living life to the fullest, overall It wasn't the best movie I could have ever seen. I'm glad I didn't spend the $10 to go see it in theatres. I give it a B- at best.
okay, moving on.
I thought this was a rather interesting story. When people were talking about it, I kept hearing about a tiger in a boat, a zebra and a kid in a boat. I was rather confused as to what sort of story that would produce, but I was genuinely curious about how the zebra, the tiger, and the boy ended up in this boat. That being said, I went into this movie not knowing a lot about it, having not read the book or watched many trailers.
I found the actor who played the adult Pi very intriguing. He didn't seem fake or false. It wasn't an actor in a role, it was a person who had actually lived through that. That is exactly the type of quality you aim for in a actor, especially a screen actor, who i feel can slide by much more easily on looks or humor or a well written script then actual talent. He was very genuine.
I responded positively to the scenes where adult Pi was talking to the young writer. When Pi told him about his childhood, how he got the nickname, etc. It was refreshing to see his reactions to his memories alongside what actually happened. I also love that young Pi tried so many different religions. As a non religious person, I really respect someone who is willing to try them all. I find so many people are so set in what they were taught from a young age that they don't try and question what is around them. but that's an opinion for a different type of blog. I liked that he was open to try them all. end of comment.
I loved the ambiguity at the end when Pi is talking to the reporters about what happened, how he managed to stay alive. Do you think the story about the tiger was the true story? or was it the one with the butcher and the other humans? (I truly believe he did live in a rowboat with a tiger.)
I did however have issues with this film too.
I thought they spent way too much time in the boat. I understand he was a cast away for hundreds of days, and that makes sense, but after about 45 minutes of very similar actions: hunting for fish, building the raft out of on-hand materials, not getting eaten by the tiger, not starving, etc. after a while it seemed rather repetitive. I was sorta hoping that they would fade to black and do a "1 month later" placard or something of the sort. It got a little bit boring to be blunt. Once it was just him and the tiger it was dull. There was no hyena or zebra to fight with or eat.
I also do not understand the island with the strange meercats and the water that turns acidic at night. I don't know if in the book that is supposed to be Pi losing his mind or whether this was a real island, but I feel like it made no sense with the rest of the story. I felt like that part in particular felt out of place. Like Pi accidentally wandered into the wrong story. I would also like to point out that meercats wouldn't all stand out like that. Meercats live in tunnels underground to hide from predators and a few meercats will stand like that to keep watch. I guess if it's a fantasy island though, they probably don't have any natural predators. I also don't know if meercats climb trees, though I don't think that would have made any difference to the film.
One last issue, I wish there would have been some follow through with the family. One minute they were there, and the next they were all dead and drowned. I know in real life, it really can happen that quickly. In the blink of an eye, everyone is gone. but for the film's sake, It would have put my mind at ease to have seen a body floating, or a memorabilia or something. It took me a while to realize that they weren't coming back. Which distracted me from what was currently happening with the tiger.
While this film delved into some interesting topics of spirituality, and friendship, and living life to the fullest, overall It wasn't the best movie I could have ever seen. I'm glad I didn't spend the $10 to go see it in theatres. I give it a B- at best.
Friday, May 10, 2013
The Great Gatsby
Hello again,
Sorry I have been gone for so long. Unfortunately college along with a host of other issues has kept me very busy. This blog will be my new summer project, hopefully.
I would like to preface this review by saying, I complain A LOT. When I don't like something, you'll hear a lot of complaints. When I love something, you'll hear a lot of compliments. The Great Gatsby fell somewhere in the middle of those two ends of the spectrum.
My issues include:
- the shot where Leo turns around with the champagne glass and the fireworks go off in the background was much too cheesy for my taste. The style of the film was too high of a quality, almost looked animated. It needed to be more realistic. HD or whatever them youngins are calling it. I wanted it to look more realistic, less showy.
-There was one scene where gatsby was wearing a lounge outfit that looked much too modern. tan sweater and pants. not a huge deal though
-When Nick and Gatsby are in the speakeasy underneath the barber shop, the girls dancing are wearing a two piece slutty dancer/bathing suit-esque outfit. However, 1. people in the twenties would have almost never worn two pieces like that. The flapper dresses that we have seen in pictures were considered scandalous at the time. That was considered revealing. They would have never worn a two piece, whether or not it had fringe on it. 2. They were doing sexy moves that would not have been seen until well into the late 20th century.
One thing I found intriguing however perplexing at the same time was the decision to mix current music (like Jay-Z and beyonce) with 20's era music like Gershwin's rhapsody in Blue.
On one hand, I appreciate the newer music because then the kids my age who go to see it will be able to connect with the material more. Also, they will be able to understand that parties from the 20's were a lot like parties today. They were just as crazy and drunken and wild.
On the other hand, I did go into this movie expecting a period piece. The book is widely known for its theme of attaining the american dream as well as the 1920's time period. I would have appreciated more jazz music, more period music to reinforce this timeless story.
I was a little worried going into this film that the director, famous for directing Moulin Rouge! would take this too over the top and it would lose the true message of the book, as well as possibly take it out of Nick's perspective or make his character different. I was worried the tone of the film would be affected at the pursuit of glamour and volume and sparkles. Thankfully, the director was able to keep Nick's calm, eerie, yet wise tone of voice intact.
I also really liked how they incorporated the use of the typewriter and the on-screen text, as well as the bold choice of having Nick be narrating the story from a sanitarium. I also liked how we got to see the book be put together. The strong nod to the text shows great respect for the book itself. (that made me think of my Oral Interpretation of Literature class. We'd use a small binder when we performed pieces as an homage to the author and to the text. Its a form of respect.)
While I didn't have many negative reviews for this film, there was something about it that didn't make me love it. I sat in the theatre, and as it got towards the last hour or half hour or so, I wanted to know the time. and that is a bad sign. If I want to check my watch, it means I am not captivated by this story enough to want to sit through every second of it.
At most, I give this movie a B.
It was pretty good but not good enough for me to want to see it again or to own it on DVD. I doubt it will get any awards, especially with its reviews in the papers.
I am also surprised with the amount of hype that was created, that it wasn't as good of a movie as I would have liked. Oh well. we can't always get what we want.
Sorry I have been gone for so long. Unfortunately college along with a host of other issues has kept me very busy. This blog will be my new summer project, hopefully.
I would like to preface this review by saying, I complain A LOT. When I don't like something, you'll hear a lot of complaints. When I love something, you'll hear a lot of compliments. The Great Gatsby fell somewhere in the middle of those two ends of the spectrum.
My issues include:
- the shot where Leo turns around with the champagne glass and the fireworks go off in the background was much too cheesy for my taste. The style of the film was too high of a quality, almost looked animated. It needed to be more realistic. HD or whatever them youngins are calling it. I wanted it to look more realistic, less showy.
-There was one scene where gatsby was wearing a lounge outfit that looked much too modern. tan sweater and pants. not a huge deal though
-When Nick and Gatsby are in the speakeasy underneath the barber shop, the girls dancing are wearing a two piece slutty dancer/bathing suit-esque outfit. However, 1. people in the twenties would have almost never worn two pieces like that. The flapper dresses that we have seen in pictures were considered scandalous at the time. That was considered revealing. They would have never worn a two piece, whether or not it had fringe on it. 2. They were doing sexy moves that would not have been seen until well into the late 20th century.
One thing I found intriguing however perplexing at the same time was the decision to mix current music (like Jay-Z and beyonce) with 20's era music like Gershwin's rhapsody in Blue.
On one hand, I appreciate the newer music because then the kids my age who go to see it will be able to connect with the material more. Also, they will be able to understand that parties from the 20's were a lot like parties today. They were just as crazy and drunken and wild.
On the other hand, I did go into this movie expecting a period piece. The book is widely known for its theme of attaining the american dream as well as the 1920's time period. I would have appreciated more jazz music, more period music to reinforce this timeless story.
I was a little worried going into this film that the director, famous for directing Moulin Rouge! would take this too over the top and it would lose the true message of the book, as well as possibly take it out of Nick's perspective or make his character different. I was worried the tone of the film would be affected at the pursuit of glamour and volume and sparkles. Thankfully, the director was able to keep Nick's calm, eerie, yet wise tone of voice intact.
I also really liked how they incorporated the use of the typewriter and the on-screen text, as well as the bold choice of having Nick be narrating the story from a sanitarium. I also liked how we got to see the book be put together. The strong nod to the text shows great respect for the book itself. (that made me think of my Oral Interpretation of Literature class. We'd use a small binder when we performed pieces as an homage to the author and to the text. Its a form of respect.)
While I didn't have many negative reviews for this film, there was something about it that didn't make me love it. I sat in the theatre, and as it got towards the last hour or half hour or so, I wanted to know the time. and that is a bad sign. If I want to check my watch, it means I am not captivated by this story enough to want to sit through every second of it.
At most, I give this movie a B.
It was pretty good but not good enough for me to want to see it again or to own it on DVD. I doubt it will get any awards, especially with its reviews in the papers.
I am also surprised with the amount of hype that was created, that it wasn't as good of a movie as I would have liked. Oh well. we can't always get what we want.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Les Miserables
I am going to start right away on this one.
However I see the appeal of an "all star cast", I was not as impressed by the people they chose.
Hugh Jackman: a great actor for the part of Jean Valjean but not strong vocally. There were some sections of awkward talk-singing, whether that was Hugh Jackman or the director's decision or the vocal coach's decision is beyond me.
Anne Hathaway: While her performance was very passionate and I was very impressed that she sang that whole song in one take, I thought the vocal technique was lacking. As a seasoned singer, choral member, and someone who has performed Les Mis before, she just did not fully make it for me. I appreciate that Anne lost the weight for this role, trying to make this as real as possible for herself and the audience. In theory, I liked the idea of her actually cutting off her hair for the movie it did not play as well in the movie. 1) in the original play Fantine is blonde with curly hair and Anne is not (which isn't a big deal) 2) when her hair is cut, it is cut to chin length like a bob, so when she becomes a lovely lady she isn't totally ugly. I was a bit surprised that the sailor guy still wanted to have sex with her when she looked so utterly pitiful, but I guess that is the point.
Russel Crowe: Again, he was not a terrible choice as an actor to play Javert. However, this man is not a base and is barely a baritone. Javert should have a low menacing singing voice and Crowe unfortunately didn't pull it off for me.
Amanda Seyefried: She did not sound like she was singing. It sounded like her voice was created in a sound booth. It was very high and breathy and there were some notes she did not completely reach. Every other Cosette has more body to her voice. There is vibrato and their voice is like sweet honey or a flock of doves soaring through the air. That is what they sound like. Cosette's voice in this film sounded like Katy Perry's plastic bag drifting through the wind. I thought Amanda was a good actor for the role but not for the voice. I think there is a pattern here with how the director cast these roles. Hmm...
Eddie Redmayne: Eddie played Marius in this film adaptation of the musical which was adapted from a GIANT book. His singing overall was alright. There were some times when he dipped into vibrato that he sounded like Kermit the frog singing Rainbow Connection. I love kermit the frog, but he doesn't belong in Les Mis. I also found that Eddie's face and they way they styled his hair, sort of spiked up, made him look much more modern then he should have looked. He looked like a 2012 guy placed in the 1800s.
Samantha Barks: Samantha played Eponine in the film. Similar to Marius, her hair and face looked very modern. She looked like a 21st century girl placed in the 19th century. As I look back at the photos, she doesn't have on as much makeup as I had remembered in my head, but still she looks like she's in the wrong time.
Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Bara Cohen: I thought these were two of the best people to play the Thenardiers. However, I have a problem with the tone the director picked for the film and how he protrayed the Thenardiers. 1) The patrons of their inn weren't supposed to know they were being robbed. If I came in with a breifcase and left with a basket holding a baby, I think I would go back and complain. 2) the director tried to tone this movie down, make it more realistic and relatable. IT IS A MUSICAL FOR GODSAKE. Where are all the drunk people singing master of the house and dancing around?? Where was the POW!?
-I liked how in this film version they were able to show Javert's death. You would never get that in a stage production. However I thought the death could have been more dramatic. I liked the foreshadowing of him killing himself when he was walking up on the ledge singing Stars.
-I thought having Jean Valjean in the carriage while singing "one day more" was weird and awkward. You can't sing passionately through a window.
-I had huge problems with the camera. While I understand, that in a movie you can have close-ups that you could never have with an on-stage performance, zooming in on just their face for the whole song is very uncomfortable. It diminished the effect of the song "empty chairs at empty tables" because all we saw was Marius's face. My sympathy for Fantine felt forced during "I Dreamed a Dream" because it felt like the camera was saying "look how sad she is! feel bad for her! Don't you feel bad". I also felt the close ups on Eponine made me think she was anything but alone during "On My Own".
Despite all my negative criticisms, I left the theatre sobbing. No matter how badly a director screws it up, Les Miserables will have sustaining power. The music itself is so powerful and emotional to people of all ages. There is a reason that Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil decided to turn Victor Hugo's monster of a book into this musical dream. It is lovely and will forever be lovely.
However I see the appeal of an "all star cast", I was not as impressed by the people they chose.
Hugh Jackman: a great actor for the part of Jean Valjean but not strong vocally. There were some sections of awkward talk-singing, whether that was Hugh Jackman or the director's decision or the vocal coach's decision is beyond me.
Anne Hathaway: While her performance was very passionate and I was very impressed that she sang that whole song in one take, I thought the vocal technique was lacking. As a seasoned singer, choral member, and someone who has performed Les Mis before, she just did not fully make it for me. I appreciate that Anne lost the weight for this role, trying to make this as real as possible for herself and the audience. In theory, I liked the idea of her actually cutting off her hair for the movie it did not play as well in the movie. 1) in the original play Fantine is blonde with curly hair and Anne is not (which isn't a big deal) 2) when her hair is cut, it is cut to chin length like a bob, so when she becomes a lovely lady she isn't totally ugly. I was a bit surprised that the sailor guy still wanted to have sex with her when she looked so utterly pitiful, but I guess that is the point.
Russel Crowe: Again, he was not a terrible choice as an actor to play Javert. However, this man is not a base and is barely a baritone. Javert should have a low menacing singing voice and Crowe unfortunately didn't pull it off for me.
Amanda Seyefried: She did not sound like she was singing. It sounded like her voice was created in a sound booth. It was very high and breathy and there were some notes she did not completely reach. Every other Cosette has more body to her voice. There is vibrato and their voice is like sweet honey or a flock of doves soaring through the air. That is what they sound like. Cosette's voice in this film sounded like Katy Perry's plastic bag drifting through the wind. I thought Amanda was a good actor for the role but not for the voice. I think there is a pattern here with how the director cast these roles. Hmm...
Eddie Redmayne: Eddie played Marius in this film adaptation of the musical which was adapted from a GIANT book. His singing overall was alright. There were some times when he dipped into vibrato that he sounded like Kermit the frog singing Rainbow Connection. I love kermit the frog, but he doesn't belong in Les Mis. I also found that Eddie's face and they way they styled his hair, sort of spiked up, made him look much more modern then he should have looked. He looked like a 2012 guy placed in the 1800s.
Samantha Barks: Samantha played Eponine in the film. Similar to Marius, her hair and face looked very modern. She looked like a 21st century girl placed in the 19th century. As I look back at the photos, she doesn't have on as much makeup as I had remembered in my head, but still she looks like she's in the wrong time.
Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Bara Cohen: I thought these were two of the best people to play the Thenardiers. However, I have a problem with the tone the director picked for the film and how he protrayed the Thenardiers. 1) The patrons of their inn weren't supposed to know they were being robbed. If I came in with a breifcase and left with a basket holding a baby, I think I would go back and complain. 2) the director tried to tone this movie down, make it more realistic and relatable. IT IS A MUSICAL FOR GODSAKE. Where are all the drunk people singing master of the house and dancing around?? Where was the POW!?
-I liked how in this film version they were able to show Javert's death. You would never get that in a stage production. However I thought the death could have been more dramatic. I liked the foreshadowing of him killing himself when he was walking up on the ledge singing Stars.
-I thought having Jean Valjean in the carriage while singing "one day more" was weird and awkward. You can't sing passionately through a window.
-I had huge problems with the camera. While I understand, that in a movie you can have close-ups that you could never have with an on-stage performance, zooming in on just their face for the whole song is very uncomfortable. It diminished the effect of the song "empty chairs at empty tables" because all we saw was Marius's face. My sympathy for Fantine felt forced during "I Dreamed a Dream" because it felt like the camera was saying "look how sad she is! feel bad for her! Don't you feel bad". I also felt the close ups on Eponine made me think she was anything but alone during "On My Own".
Despite all my negative criticisms, I left the theatre sobbing. No matter how badly a director screws it up, Les Miserables will have sustaining power. The music itself is so powerful and emotional to people of all ages. There is a reason that Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil decided to turn Victor Hugo's monster of a book into this musical dream. It is lovely and will forever be lovely.
The Maiden Voyage: Intro to the blog
Hello blogosphere!
I am creating this blog as a way to sort of dip my toes in world of writing film reviews. I have always been very opinionated when it comes to movies (and theatre for that matter) that I see. It would make me ever so happy to be able to share my joy and my opinions with others out there on the internet.
This will not be a boring blog. I will not be one of those reviewers who is stale and boring and gives criticisms politely. Film making is an art and the only way to get good art is to argue about it. I am passionate about this which is why I will complain about how this director or actor or whomever isn't showing enough passion. They were sloppy or took a different route than expected; it changes from case to case.
I am very excited to be writing this blog. I will try to post a review every week (or 2 weeks if i get busy).
Woo-hoo! :D
I am creating this blog as a way to sort of dip my toes in world of writing film reviews. I have always been very opinionated when it comes to movies (and theatre for that matter) that I see. It would make me ever so happy to be able to share my joy and my opinions with others out there on the internet.
This will not be a boring blog. I will not be one of those reviewers who is stale and boring and gives criticisms politely. Film making is an art and the only way to get good art is to argue about it. I am passionate about this which is why I will complain about how this director or actor or whomever isn't showing enough passion. They were sloppy or took a different route than expected; it changes from case to case.
I am very excited to be writing this blog. I will try to post a review every week (or 2 weeks if i get busy).
Woo-hoo! :D
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)