This movie, Never Let Me Go, is one I truly wanted to see. I had read about it, knew what the movie is about from reading reviews and a synopsis, looked forward to it. I was not disappointed. My problem is, now, how to review it for you without spoilers and without making you run in the other direction.
The movie is sad. But not tearjerker, twenty tissues, honking, blowing noses sad. The movie is based in a world very much like our own, but different. At first, there are no discernable differences. But it comes clear in the story line.
It is the story of three people, raised together in an orphanage (or what appears to be so), in the English countryside. We follow Kathy (Carey Mulligan, who is wonderful here), Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and their inter-relationship, how it forms and changes.
Back to the story. We are at a country orphanage/school for children. Hints are dropped here or there. The children must be sure to keep their bodies, including the insides, healthy. The art work done by the children is routinely collected for "The Gallery". Miss Lucy, "a guardian" comes to teach fourth grade and tells the children what their fate will be. Needless to say, Miss Lucy is gone the next day. Eventually, as young adults, they move to the outside world, to live in the Cottages with others like them. Here, they await their fate and we learn a little more, some of which we never learn the answer to. By now, the young people know what their destiny is, the purpose of their lives.
I liked the movie for its story, its cinematography, its choice of Carey Mulligan (loved her in "An Education"). Keira Knightley's performance reminded me a bit of Angelina Jolie's performance in "Girl, Interrupted" to tell the truth. I was hoping for a bit better from her. Makes me consider if she's reached her limits. Andrew Garfield was great to watch, I haven't seen him in much yet. Charlotte Rampling played the headmistress of the school and did a great job. The ending, which I consider to take a while, consisting of a group of scenes involving various characters, I found very interesting. There is some food for thought there. The overall subject will not be a new one. But it is one that will bear thinking about as time progresses and our moral codes come into play.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Hereafter: Matt Damon and Clint Eastwood team up again
The movie Hereafter is a story that considers what happens after death. Of this, I will try to write no more. In my first draft (just moments ago), I gave it away. If you have seen the previews, you know it involves a tormented man, a tsunami and maybe other stuff.
After reading several reviews and then seeing the movie this afternoon, I have several thoughts. The first is that, no matter what anyone says, if you want to see the movie, see it. Go in with an open mind. Enjoy it. Leave the theatre, think about it. Decide how important or unimportant it is. Maybe it's just entertainment. It could just be an old man's musings on what happens in the hereafter. It could just be that there have been so, so many stories told by people brought back from the brink of death that all have the same quality and images. I will warn you of this: it is slow paced and each moment is carefully crafted. Of the four of us who saw the film together, two felt it dragged and was boring in places. Two of us felt every moment was interesting and never dragged. But back to the first part- some will expect the movie to go further in its exploration and it won't.
Now, my opinion. Yes, I always have one as everyone, especially my family, knows. I just loved this movie. There are probably several areas of the movie that can be criticized but I loved the concept, the music (Clint wrote it as he mostly does these days), I found the manner in which the stories were told to be deft and careful. The story lines are brought together in a bit less than perfect way but how the ending occurs is a bit amusing, at least to me. And yes, one of the story lines is quite the tearjerker. I do believe Clint tries not to make it so, but I am one of those people who will drop a tear. The movie is not manipulative, it is just a presentation of a thought, an idea.
It seems the run-up to Oscar season is starting. This film will have more than one nomination, I think. Not sure what categories. Depends on the competition. Good luck, Clint.
After reading several reviews and then seeing the movie this afternoon, I have several thoughts. The first is that, no matter what anyone says, if you want to see the movie, see it. Go in with an open mind. Enjoy it. Leave the theatre, think about it. Decide how important or unimportant it is. Maybe it's just entertainment. It could just be an old man's musings on what happens in the hereafter. It could just be that there have been so, so many stories told by people brought back from the brink of death that all have the same quality and images. I will warn you of this: it is slow paced and each moment is carefully crafted. Of the four of us who saw the film together, two felt it dragged and was boring in places. Two of us felt every moment was interesting and never dragged. But back to the first part- some will expect the movie to go further in its exploration and it won't.
Now, my opinion. Yes, I always have one as everyone, especially my family, knows. I just loved this movie. There are probably several areas of the movie that can be criticized but I loved the concept, the music (Clint wrote it as he mostly does these days), I found the manner in which the stories were told to be deft and careful. The story lines are brought together in a bit less than perfect way but how the ending occurs is a bit amusing, at least to me. And yes, one of the story lines is quite the tearjerker. I do believe Clint tries not to make it so, but I am one of those people who will drop a tear. The movie is not manipulative, it is just a presentation of a thought, an idea.
It seems the run-up to Oscar season is starting. This film will have more than one nomination, I think. Not sure what categories. Depends on the competition. Good luck, Clint.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Streamed a few movies: Star Trek, The Duchess, Young Victoria, Bottle Shock
Yes, a bit of a mixed bag. Most people wouldn't put period pieces in with Star Trek (well, it is a period piece, now that I ruminate), but Bottle Shock is more fictionalized documentary, though, again, could be a period piece. Hmmmm, maybe I should re-title this after all.
Star Trek: The reinvention of the myth. What can I say? I loved it. The movie lived up to all the hype. The references were pitch perfect. And no, Uhuru never reveals any other name, first or last. Come to think of it, neither did Spock.
The Duchess: Interesting period piece with Ralph Fiennes and Keira Knightley. Story basically about how unfair it is that men can have affairs and women can't. Takes place during the suffragette era in England. Nothing particularly exciting but the clothes and especially the hairstyles are fun. Its good for streaming on netflix.
Young Victoria: Well, I am a sucker for a love story. Especially when it involves a young lady who stands up for herself and refuses to be controlled. And, is played by the lovely Emily Blunt. She does a very creditable job here. I enjoyed the film, yet another Netflix streaming event.
Bottle Shock: A movie all Wineaux should see. In essence, the follow up to Sideways. I was recently enlightened: the wines grown in Burgundy, and thus most burgundies, are pinot noirs. Unless they are Chablis (i.e. Chardonnay grapes, grown in Chablis). None of this has anything to do with Bottle Shock or Sideways, except that Sideways dealt with Pinot Noir. But back to Bottle Shock. It is based on the true story of how Napa Valley wine bested French wine in a blind taste test in Paris in 1976. Chateau Montelena 1973 (I think I got that right) won first place with its Chardonnay and Stag's Leap won first place with its Cabernet Sauvignon 1973. Alan Rickman plays the Englishman (Stephen Spurrier) who sets up the tasting, Bill Pullman plays the vintner of Chateau Montelena. This is the tasting that put Califorina wines on the map.
Star Trek: The reinvention of the myth. What can I say? I loved it. The movie lived up to all the hype. The references were pitch perfect. And no, Uhuru never reveals any other name, first or last. Come to think of it, neither did Spock.
The Duchess: Interesting period piece with Ralph Fiennes and Keira Knightley. Story basically about how unfair it is that men can have affairs and women can't. Takes place during the suffragette era in England. Nothing particularly exciting but the clothes and especially the hairstyles are fun. Its good for streaming on netflix.
Young Victoria: Well, I am a sucker for a love story. Especially when it involves a young lady who stands up for herself and refuses to be controlled. And, is played by the lovely Emily Blunt. She does a very creditable job here. I enjoyed the film, yet another Netflix streaming event.
Bottle Shock: A movie all Wineaux should see. In essence, the follow up to Sideways. I was recently enlightened: the wines grown in Burgundy, and thus most burgundies, are pinot noirs. Unless they are Chablis (i.e. Chardonnay grapes, grown in Chablis). None of this has anything to do with Bottle Shock or Sideways, except that Sideways dealt with Pinot Noir. But back to Bottle Shock. It is based on the true story of how Napa Valley wine bested French wine in a blind taste test in Paris in 1976. Chateau Montelena 1973 (I think I got that right) won first place with its Chardonnay and Stag's Leap won first place with its Cabernet Sauvignon 1973. Alan Rickman plays the Englishman (Stephen Spurrier) who sets up the tasting, Bill Pullman plays the vintner of Chateau Montelena. This is the tasting that put Califorina wines on the map.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Town: The Jury's In!
I had a fabulous weekend- went up north to central VT with my movie-going lady friends to visit our friend Karen who just bought a new home. It was a lovely weekend with the foliage peaking early in Vermont due to the dry summer and the colors are just beautiful. Some of the nicest I've seen in years. Karen's house is perfect for her, very comfortable and even her shy cat came out to say hello.
Since we're movie going people, of course we had movies on the mind. We promptly hied ourselves out to the Stowe Cinema to see The Town. (Did you know the theatre in Stowe serves alcoholic beverages?) But beware, it doesn't take credit cards. It's a nice theatre, the one we were in was small, but comfortable. No drink holders but there was a divider and we had a half wall in front of us which served a wonderful purpose- no one was in front of us to block our view and we could put our drinks on it. Of course, the movie wasn't crowded so we didn't have to worry about our view. Now, on to the movie, or at least background.
The Town is set in Boston and focuses on men who grew up and still live in Charlestown, a neighborhood of Boston. It is where the navy yard is (and the Constitution-the boat, not the document). Also the Bunker Hill Monument, even though the battle was fought on Breed's Hill. The buildings and architecture are quite lovely, the brownstone and brick townhouses and rowhouses are gorgeous. Upon restoration, quite desirable to those who want to live near Boston Proper.
A few other factoids:
- Around the 1860's, an influx of Irish immigrants arrived in Charlestown. The neighborhood remained an Irish stronghold in the cultural, economic, and Catholic tradition.
- Throughout the 1960s until the middle 1990s, Charlestown was infamous for its Irish Mob Presence.
- Charlestown's McLaughlin Brothers were involved in a gang war with neighboring Somerville's Winter Hill Gang, during the Irish Mob Wars of the 1960s.
- On a summer night in 1992, George Sargent, 43, was shot to death outside a pizza parlor in Charlestown, Massachusetts. A few days earlier, he had provided information to police concerning criminal dealings in the neighborhood. As he lay dead on the sidewalk, no one called the police, and no one admitted to seeing the shooting. This response to the murder was typical in Charlestown. Members of the community were unwilling to share information that would facilitate homicide investigations because of their reliance on vigilante justice, fear of retaliation by criminals, and anti-police sentiment. This is known as the code of silence.
This unspoken “code of silence” made homicide investigations extremely difficult. Between 1975 and 1992, Charlestown experienced 49 murders, 33 of which were not solved. The community was being overrun by the “Irish Mob,” a group of violent career criminals who ran a major PCP and cocaine distribution center. Because intimidated citizens upheld the code of silence, these drug traffickers were able to operate with virtual impunity.
Ben Affleck is the ringleader of a group of robbers who focus on armored trucks and occasionally a bank. Joining him is Jeremy Renner, recently released from a nine year stint in jail, a stalwart who truly enjoys his employment and eager to continue working. The other members of the group appear to be along for the ride, journeymen robbers, if you will. The trouble begins when the gang robs a bank. Jeremy Renner's character believes that the bank manager saw him. Things go awry from there. If I go on, I'll just spoil the plot for you and I don't want to do that.
I found there were several flaws with the movie. Starting with the most obvious:
Ben Affleck still can't act.
Jon Hamm's talent is wasted as the FBI agent. His part is poorly written and wooden.
The premise, or lack of one, that causes the FBI agent to focus on Ben Affleck's group.
The connection between Fergus the Florist (Pete Postlethwaite) and Ben Affleck's gang is unclear or indistinct. This is due to either poor writing and directing or the very poor accents making the dialogue difficult to understand. This was a problem throughout the film.
Poor direction: Case in point. During a scene between Affleck and Renner (who was the best thing in the film and brought it up a level in my opinion), they are having a very heated discussion. Normally during this type of discussion, both parties talk over one another. Here, they politely waited for each other to finish their sentences. Very unnatural.
The best part of the film was trying to recognize all the places were the filming took place. Especially fun was recognizing the florist, which is around the corner from my place of employment. Many other sites were familiar as well. Other than that, the movie was, as my late husband used to say, better than a nail in the foot. I give it a B-. Mostly because Jeremy Renner was so good.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
100 Voices: A Journey Home
This movie was shown nationwide tonight (September 21, 2010) at 7 p.m. my time. Not sure what time it was shown your time. Other than that, my understanding is that it will be on limited release in Los Angeles and New York City. Tough cookies for the rest of us. I found this a wonderful, remarkable film that should probably be required viewing in high school history classes. There is a lot of first person and second generation history going on in this film. Lots of oral history. Great stories. Moving family tragedy and rebuilding. All in the last 100 years. I have yet to tell you what this is about! I better get to it!
The Premise: Cantor Nathan Lam arranges an historic visit to Warsaw with 100 Cantors to sing at the Warsaw Opera House to bring back Jewish culture and, more importantly, Jewish music, to Warsaw and Poland. Warsaw was the "Center of the Universe" for Cantorial Music. This roughly translates to the "Vatican of Jewish Music". Joining the Cantors is Charles Fox, an American Jewish composer who wrote "Killing Me Softly" and "I Got a Name" among many others, and whose father was born in a small Polish town.
The Fun Part: Prior to the beginning of the movie, the audience was treated to a "mini-concert" featuring several Cantors singing compositions written by Jewish American composers. Such as: Orange Blossom Special (with fiddler), Maria (from West Side Story), Blessing from Fiddler on the Roof, Oh What a Beautiful Morning from Oklahoma! And OOOOHHHHH, did they sing it well!
Now the serious stuff. This is a very informative film. With lots of excellent music. Operatic, orchestral sounding music. And, from time to time, jazzy music. With personal stories, personal histories and very moving scenes. I especially loved the two ladies who survived Auschwitz and Birkenau, and were able to go back and "walk back in and walk back out". Nothing like a little chutzpah in life. I greatly admire these two ladies. And all the survivors who went on to make a life, a family, a community and continue to love after surviving such horror.
Most of all, the movie shed light on a tradition of which I was unaware, that became popular and, I found out, some Cantors had such popularity that they had groupies. Who knew?
If you find you have the opportunity at some time to see this film, I encourage you to do so. I found it informative, from a historical, musical and personal perspective. Maybe I've led a very sheltered life. I can tell you, my history and music classes never covered this.
The Premise: Cantor Nathan Lam arranges an historic visit to Warsaw with 100 Cantors to sing at the Warsaw Opera House to bring back Jewish culture and, more importantly, Jewish music, to Warsaw and Poland. Warsaw was the "Center of the Universe" for Cantorial Music. This roughly translates to the "Vatican of Jewish Music". Joining the Cantors is Charles Fox, an American Jewish composer who wrote "Killing Me Softly" and "I Got a Name" among many others, and whose father was born in a small Polish town.
The Fun Part: Prior to the beginning of the movie, the audience was treated to a "mini-concert" featuring several Cantors singing compositions written by Jewish American composers. Such as: Orange Blossom Special (with fiddler), Maria (from West Side Story), Blessing from Fiddler on the Roof, Oh What a Beautiful Morning from Oklahoma! And OOOOHHHHH, did they sing it well!
Now the serious stuff. This is a very informative film. With lots of excellent music. Operatic, orchestral sounding music. And, from time to time, jazzy music. With personal stories, personal histories and very moving scenes. I especially loved the two ladies who survived Auschwitz and Birkenau, and were able to go back and "walk back in and walk back out". Nothing like a little chutzpah in life. I greatly admire these two ladies. And all the survivors who went on to make a life, a family, a community and continue to love after surviving such horror.
Most of all, the movie shed light on a tradition of which I was unaware, that became popular and, I found out, some Cantors had such popularity that they had groupies. Who knew?
If you find you have the opportunity at some time to see this film, I encourage you to do so. I found it informative, from a historical, musical and personal perspective. Maybe I've led a very sheltered life. I can tell you, my history and music classes never covered this.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Secretariat- Coming to a Theatre Near You on October 10th
I had the great good fortune, and a friend named Amy, to see the sneak preview of Secretariat last night. Amy was able to score free tickets for a group of us. She's connected. Want anything in town? Want to know what's happening? I ask Amy. She's my go-to person. Anyway, Secretariat will be released next month on October 10th, according to IMDB. I had never been to a sneak preview before. We were "wanded" and told to turn off our cell phones. No recording devices allowed. They weren't overly strict about anything as I sneaked in two water bottles and snacks. How closely did they check me? But on to the movie.
The movie, as you may have surmised, is about the horse named Secretariat. Some feel this is the greatest horse that ever lived, at least the movie states this point. The movie is "suggested" by the story of somebody. Not even "based on". This gave me a fit of giggles since Secretariat was a real horse, the events actually happened, the characters actually lived. So the statement that the movie was "suggested by" anything makes me wonder just how far off the facts it was going to be. Unfortunately, I was 15 when Secretariat was in his racing glory and had no interest in the Triple Crown.
The movie is produced by Walt Disney and rated PG. It's just two hours long. It runs a bit slow for the most part. Younger kids may lose interest, I felt myself wandering a bit from time to time. The excitement level increased during the scenes with the horse training and racing. The movie leads are Diane Lane and John Malkovich. Can I tell you how wonderful and funny Malkovich is? No, I don't think I can. He eventually tones it down but it makes the movie so much fun. Margo Martindale plays Miss Ham (you know you've seen her elsewhere and it bugged me but I've looked her up on IMDB so I'm happy now), Scott Glenn (Diane Lane's father) - he's familiar too. Fred Thompson also has a role. All in all, a nice movie to take the kids, especially the horse-obsessed girls to.
Will I see it again when it comes out in October? Sure- I plan on taking my nieces!
The movie, as you may have surmised, is about the horse named Secretariat. Some feel this is the greatest horse that ever lived, at least the movie states this point. The movie is "suggested" by the story of somebody. Not even "based on". This gave me a fit of giggles since Secretariat was a real horse, the events actually happened, the characters actually lived. So the statement that the movie was "suggested by" anything makes me wonder just how far off the facts it was going to be. Unfortunately, I was 15 when Secretariat was in his racing glory and had no interest in the Triple Crown.
The movie is produced by Walt Disney and rated PG. It's just two hours long. It runs a bit slow for the most part. Younger kids may lose interest, I felt myself wandering a bit from time to time. The excitement level increased during the scenes with the horse training and racing. The movie leads are Diane Lane and John Malkovich. Can I tell you how wonderful and funny Malkovich is? No, I don't think I can. He eventually tones it down but it makes the movie so much fun. Margo Martindale plays Miss Ham (you know you've seen her elsewhere and it bugged me but I've looked her up on IMDB so I'm happy now), Scott Glenn (Diane Lane's father) - he's familiar too. Fred Thompson also has a role. All in all, a nice movie to take the kids, especially the horse-obsessed girls to.
Will I see it again when it comes out in October? Sure- I plan on taking my nieces!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The Expendables- Such Fun!
The Ladies and I, and a hubby, went to see The Expendables on Labor Day. If you've seen the previews, I'll bet you expect to see most of the familiar action-adventure, blood and gore, shoot 'em up, kick ass guys all in one movie go after somebody for some reason. If they have to have a reason. The reason is probably incidental to the action, it usually is. Well, you'd be right. But it's FUN! Explosive, bloody, gory, kickass, sometimes witty, never taking itself seriously fun.
OH- Spoiler Alert- If you haven't seen Diehard 4 or some other movies, I might spoil them for you. But you've seen previews, how much can I spoil?
Now, I'm a Diehard fan. I laughed through Diehard 4. I mean really..... who says "You just took out that helicopter with a car!".... "Well, I was out of ammunition." And then Bruce walks away, I mean he WALKS AWAY... from a battle with a fighter jet. Seriously, this is not real life. He shouldn't have lived through Diehard 1. But I love John McLane despite his nine lives. (Just don't bother watching Surrogates- the hair should tip you off). But I've digressed and my point here is this: The Expendables was much more gory. I think it was gorier than Braveheart. I spent a lot of time yesterday hiding my eyes sort of, you know, hands in front of face and peeking through fingers. It was very, very graphic and tended to linger just a moment longer than necessary on the consequences of an action. I guess that was Sly's call. After all, it was his film. Oh, yes, Sly co-wrote, directed and starred in Expendables. Guess he was running out of money.
But back to the movie. Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li (very funny and amusing, a nice surprise, his part was nicely written), Randy Couture and Terry Crews make up the team called the Expendables. When not dead set on mayhem, they hang out with a guy named Tool who is a tattoo artist: Mickey Rourke, looking like he hasn't recovered from his role in the Wrestler. Eric Roberts plays the nasty American, ex-CIA man who has taken over a tiny Island somewhere for his own gain. There are cameos by Bruce and Arnold. It's a wonderful scene actually, near the beginning of the movie: Bruce, Sly and Arnold. This scene alone is worth the price of the movie ticket. It's short but it's all I needed. Yeah, you'll come out of the theatre wanting more, but I'm easily pleased. I like puns, I like entendres.....
I like this film.
OH- Spoiler Alert- If you haven't seen Diehard 4 or some other movies, I might spoil them for you. But you've seen previews, how much can I spoil?
Now, I'm a Diehard fan. I laughed through Diehard 4. I mean really..... who says "You just took out that helicopter with a car!".... "Well, I was out of ammunition." And then Bruce walks away, I mean he WALKS AWAY... from a battle with a fighter jet. Seriously, this is not real life. He shouldn't have lived through Diehard 1. But I love John McLane despite his nine lives. (Just don't bother watching Surrogates- the hair should tip you off). But I've digressed and my point here is this: The Expendables was much more gory. I think it was gorier than Braveheart. I spent a lot of time yesterday hiding my eyes sort of, you know, hands in front of face and peeking through fingers. It was very, very graphic and tended to linger just a moment longer than necessary on the consequences of an action. I guess that was Sly's call. After all, it was his film. Oh, yes, Sly co-wrote, directed and starred in Expendables. Guess he was running out of money.
But back to the movie. Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li (very funny and amusing, a nice surprise, his part was nicely written), Randy Couture and Terry Crews make up the team called the Expendables. When not dead set on mayhem, they hang out with a guy named Tool who is a tattoo artist: Mickey Rourke, looking like he hasn't recovered from his role in the Wrestler. Eric Roberts plays the nasty American, ex-CIA man who has taken over a tiny Island somewhere for his own gain. There are cameos by Bruce and Arnold. It's a wonderful scene actually, near the beginning of the movie: Bruce, Sly and Arnold. This scene alone is worth the price of the movie ticket. It's short but it's all I needed. Yeah, you'll come out of the theatre wanting more, but I'm easily pleased. I like puns, I like entendres.....
I like this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)