Film Reviews and Other Fun...
Dec. 18th, 2005 06:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athersgeoFirst thing I want to do is say thanks to everyone who wished me a happy birthday. I have to admit, I did celebrate the day by scrubbing the kitchen floor (!) and doing my last piece of actual Christmas shopping (*insert rant about Bristolian drivers*), but we also did the Christmas decorations (small family tradition: We never [or virtually never!] put the Christmas decorations up before my birthday - it was mum's way of separating the two things out for me when I was little and it's something we've stuck to, apart from one year fairly recently when my b'day fell on a Monday and I was asked if I minded the decorations going up the weekend before because it was easier to do it then than try and do it during the week!) and I was given copious amounts of alcohol (Baileys) and chocolate (b'day cake) so it was all very, very good.
So, to those film reviews.
First up: Mona Lisa Smile
I like Julia Roberts as an actress, I like Kristen Dunst as an actress and I like Julia Stiles as an actress. All three were in this and were utterly excellent as the idealistic teacher (Roberts) the bitch who gets her karma (Dunst) and the girl most inspired by the teacher (Stiles). It also features Maggie Gyllenhaal as a proto Rizzo character, who I hadn't seen before and, to be honest, I don't think I'd care all that much if I didn't see her again - she certainly wouldn't have me jumping for joy seeing her name in the cast list.
If, from this, you're sensing that I wasn't exactly enamoured with the film, you'd be correct. I found it hugely interesting as a period piece and it gave me quite a lot of insight into just why the sixties women's movement really, REALLY did have to happen. But I don't get films to watch to get background to an Open University module, I get them to be entertained and frankly, the story was so cliched and predictable, even down to Joan's (Stiles) surprise elopement and the fact that Betty's (Dunst) husband is cheating on her. Perhaps the only surprise is that Giselle (Gyllenhaal) was ultimately supportive of Betty despite everything Betty tossed her way in the early part of the film - and that was something so incredibly left-of-field that it really, REALLY did not work.
The best bit of the movie, was probably the subplot between Connie (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Betty's cousin Charlie (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) which was done very nicely and played extremely well - and ultimately, gave them, at least, a happy ending (despite Betty's meddling).
Overall, it's an interesting historical piece, but as entertainment, it's lacking something.
And from that to this:
No, I haven't been out to see King Kong - I don't need my head examining that much (the nearest cinema is close to the biggest shopping mall in Bristol - I ain't goin' near the place until February!). Instead, I've had a very enjoyable time in the comfort of my own room, watching the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate".
Having said that this might be better than the original, I have to own up: I can't make that judgement because I haven't seen the original film. But what I can say is that for the first time in a long, long, LONG time, I didn't track every last move of the script. Sure, I did figure out that something was going to go wrong with the assassination, and that maybe Raymond Shaw (Liev Schrieber) was going to end up dead rather than President Elect Arthur, but that was only after the whammy of realising that the guy pulling the trigger would be Ben Marco (Denzel Washington). Nor was I expecting Rosy to be a fed. Nor was I expecting the extremely creepy last scene between Raymond and his mother Elinor Prentice Shaw (an amazingly terrifying and creepy Meryl Streep).
About the one thing I was half expecting to learn - and did - was that Ellie was involved in the people who manipulated both her son and Ben.
Overall, the film is extremely good at playing up the paranoia Ben's character's suffering (and Washington is very good - this is the second time I've seen him play a Gulf War vet with mental problems) and Raymond's struggle with what he's been programmed to do. The one thing I didn't go so much on was Ellie - though on the other hand, I've known people who espouse her views in RL and heaven knows 'pushy' moms are not exactly an invention of Hollywood and Meryl Streep does play her so very, very well!
So one hit and one that I'm not keen on but will find tremendously useful for research purposes!
So, to those film reviews.
First up: Mona Lisa Smile
I like Julia Roberts as an actress, I like Kristen Dunst as an actress and I like Julia Stiles as an actress. All three were in this and were utterly excellent as the idealistic teacher (Roberts) the bitch who gets her karma (Dunst) and the girl most inspired by the teacher (Stiles). It also features Maggie Gyllenhaal as a proto Rizzo character, who I hadn't seen before and, to be honest, I don't think I'd care all that much if I didn't see her again - she certainly wouldn't have me jumping for joy seeing her name in the cast list.
If, from this, you're sensing that I wasn't exactly enamoured with the film, you'd be correct. I found it hugely interesting as a period piece and it gave me quite a lot of insight into just why the sixties women's movement really, REALLY did have to happen. But I don't get films to watch to get background to an Open University module, I get them to be entertained and frankly, the story was so cliched and predictable, even down to Joan's (Stiles) surprise elopement and the fact that Betty's (Dunst) husband is cheating on her. Perhaps the only surprise is that Giselle (Gyllenhaal) was ultimately supportive of Betty despite everything Betty tossed her way in the early part of the film - and that was something so incredibly left-of-field that it really, REALLY did not work.
The best bit of the movie, was probably the subplot between Connie (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Betty's cousin Charlie (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) which was done very nicely and played extremely well - and ultimately, gave them, at least, a happy ending (despite Betty's meddling).
Overall, it's an interesting historical piece, but as entertainment, it's lacking something.
And from that to this:
No, I haven't been out to see King Kong - I don't need my head examining that much (the nearest cinema is close to the biggest shopping mall in Bristol - I ain't goin' near the place until February!). Instead, I've had a very enjoyable time in the comfort of my own room, watching the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate".
Having said that this might be better than the original, I have to own up: I can't make that judgement because I haven't seen the original film. But what I can say is that for the first time in a long, long, LONG time, I didn't track every last move of the script. Sure, I did figure out that something was going to go wrong with the assassination, and that maybe Raymond Shaw (Liev Schrieber) was going to end up dead rather than President Elect Arthur, but that was only after the whammy of realising that the guy pulling the trigger would be Ben Marco (Denzel Washington). Nor was I expecting Rosy to be a fed. Nor was I expecting the extremely creepy last scene between Raymond and his mother Elinor Prentice Shaw (an amazingly terrifying and creepy Meryl Streep).
About the one thing I was half expecting to learn - and did - was that Ellie was involved in the people who manipulated both her son and Ben.
Overall, the film is extremely good at playing up the paranoia Ben's character's suffering (and Washington is very good - this is the second time I've seen him play a Gulf War vet with mental problems) and Raymond's struggle with what he's been programmed to do. The one thing I didn't go so much on was Ellie - though on the other hand, I've known people who espouse her views in RL and heaven knows 'pushy' moms are not exactly an invention of Hollywood and Meryl Streep does play her so very, very well!
So one hit and one that I'm not keen on but will find tremendously useful for research purposes!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-18 08:09 pm (UTC)Second... that's exectly my feeling on Mona Lisa Smile. I hated it. Found it boring for entertainment and not indepth enough for a proto-documentary.
That was certainly one I wanted my money back for renting it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-18 08:20 pm (UTC)Yeah, if it wasn't going to be such a great piece of research for 50s attitudes and clothing, I think I'd be rather disgruntled about having shelled out £10 to buy it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-19 12:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-19 09:38 am (UTC)