Continue.

ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE - D

omg, this is like one of the lamest, most pointless movies i've ever seen. it's like just an excuse to showcase some hot-looking teens but they don't get much to work with anyway.

Where The Wild Things Are- ****1/2 out of 5. (or an A-)

Spike Jonze has done it. For me, this film was far more emotional and resonant to childhood memories than the book could ever be, and I say that with much love for Maurice Sendak's beloved children's book. This is indeed a film about what it is like to be a kid, not exactly a "kids movie". I watched it with my two younger brothers (one is 14, the other 16), and all three of us were deeply touched and discussed the film at great length afterwards, what it meant to us, and how it recaptured at moments specific moments in our lives. I can see why it's not a film for everyone, and I kept it from a perfect score for some flaws I must point out. The pacing slows down a few times, during the large segment with the wild things on the mysterious island. However, fun, melancholy, touching, funny, dark, sad moments fill-up the majority of the film, and if you've ever experienced a time in your life when you felt like you couldn't figure out the world, and it could never figure you out, I'm sure you'll feel the magic too. Catherine Keener has very little screen time, but she is excellent. Mark Ruffalo has less than a minute of screen time, but somehow he was fairly effective. The real joy is hearing the wild things themselves, voiced by a marvelously talented cast. Having the actors work with each other, rather than recording lines seperately was a stroke of genius. All are splendid. There's James Gandolfini's complex Carol, Lauren Ambrose's grounded, mysterious KW, Chris Coopers cool and collected Douglas, Forest Whitaker's loving, understanding Irah, Catherine O'Hara's hilariously difficult Judith, and last but certainly not least, Paul Dano's small, often looked-over Alexander, who craves much attention, but rarely gets any. Special kudos to Gandalfini, knocking this one out of the park. If somehow, the Oscar's could reward this performance, I'd seriously throw him into the Supporting race as a frontrunner. There, I said it. Same to Ambrose, who bends her voice tenderly, heartbreakingly as the loving KW. And O'Hara is a comic force of nature, savoring every line, and delivering it with ferociously wild wit. Big props for the complex-in-it's-simplicity screenplay by Jonze and Dave Eggers. I'm willing to forget "Away We Go", haha. But my biggest enthusiasm is for the young Max Records. This is the new kid to watch. He basically has to carry the movie himself, and he nails it, especially in the rapidly paced first half hour. I hope he at the least scores some critic nods by year's end. This film deeply moved me, and I walked away very satisfied, knowing that I had just seen something very special, and knowing that I can't wait to visit it again.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tye-Grr,

Also, the score and songs by Karen O and Carter Burwell are excellent, and fit the film perfectly. Major props to the art direction, set design, costume design, visual effects (the faces on the wild things WOW'd me), and cinematography, all are top notch!

The September Issue, A-
This was an engrossing look into the lives of the Vogue women, right up my alley because I do love fashion and getting all gussied up! The film has been criticized by some for being a little too reverential toward Anna and girls and not probing deeply. But I thought it covered good ground. Any my, don't the girls looked exhausted, etched in wrinkles, so much so that I kept thinking about how tightly drawn my own mug is and thankful for the dimmed lights in the theatre. A Canadian friend friend of mine happened to be in the Conde Naste building interviewing one of the young designers during the filming and got herself in the picture. Saw her this morning while out with the dogs and was able to ask her a little more about her experience.

The dynamic between Anna Wintour, Grace Cottingham (challenging Carrie White's mamma with red frizzy hair) and Andre leon Talley (in fine dandy form), but they're all touching in their own way.

Mutiny on the Bounty, B+ the Marlon Brando version at 3.5 hours no less! This one's a rollicking good time tho in good part because of Trevor Howard's villanous performance as Captain Bligh. He's a bit broadly drawn in the sense that's he's unrepentently evil from start to finish, but it keeps things moving along nicely. Also, Tahiti is overly romanticized, but again, this adds to the allure and entertainment value.

Away We Go (2009, directed by Sam Mendes)

B

An Eudcation, A-

This lovely British film reminds me of the kitchen sink dramas of Mike Leigh like Secrets & Lies, Vera Drake and Happy Go Lucky. Plucky Brits with their dry humor making me chuckle at their shenanigans.

In this case, Cary Mulligan meets up with suave older man Peter Saarsgaard (husband of Maggie Gyllenhaall - frick these names become quite hard to spell after a botle of wine)/ Ms. Mulligan seems to be channeling Katie Holmes by way of Audrey Hepburn with her charming giggles and dimples yet knowing sophistication. Lest anyone think the actress is laying it on a bit think with the giggles they have her momma doing the same thing at the site of Peter's compliments. Fascinating study of a young impressionable type choosing the easy, fun, rich life over a more austere life of academia. Lotsa famous faces pop up here and there all delitefully wonderful - the Bond girl Rosamond Pike looking radiant if daft, Dominic Cooper so hunky I wanted to jump right up into his arms on screen, Emma Thompson with bad lower teeth but what a great and sadly now underused actress and even the Sally Hawkins in one brief but memorable scene.

The movie moves along beautifully until near the end where everythign is wrapped up quickly and neatly, but whata ride.

EC - you got the names right; the title of the film, not so much <g>

THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST (1988)

I wasn't exactly expecting a masterpiece when I watched this Lawrence Kasdan feature tonight, but I did not except such a boring, mundane and altogether lifeless film as the one I saw. William Hurt plays Macon Leary a fairly boring man who writes travel guides for other boring business men who travel a lot. He is married to Sara, played by Kathleen Turner, but their marriage has fallen apart since their son was tragically murdered. Eventually Macon meets Muriel, Geena Davis, a dog trainer and reluctantly starts dating her, but, not too long after, Sara wants him back.

I have never read the acclaimed novel by Anne Tyler which the film is based on, but would have to believe that something was lost in translation from novel to screen. Something just seems missing. William Hurt, an inexplicable 1980s superstar, sleepwalks through this film. There is no color or even life in his performance. Seriously, what did Muriel and Sara see in him. Geena Davis won the Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance in this film, but she isn’t even the best supporting actress in this film or even the second. Amy Wright is much better as Macon's eccentric and kind hearted sister and Kathleen Turner infuses such a spark into her character. They both do what Davis and Hurt fail to do, they make their characters seem real. Muriel, meanwhile, should be a character full of life and spirit but Davis gives such a boring, lifeless performance. She mostly just mouth breathes and wears silly clothing. You need more than weird clothing to make a character.

C-

quote:

Originally posted by GloFish:
THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST (1988)

I wasn't exactly expecting a masterpiece when I watched this Lawrence Kasdan feature tonight, but I did not except such a boring, mundane and altogether lifeless film as the one I saw. William Hurt plays Macon Leary a fairly boring man who writes travel guides for other boring business men who travel a lot. He is married to Sara, played by Kathleen Turner, but their marriage has fallen apart since their son was tragically murdered. Eventually Macon meets Muriel, Geena Davis, a dog trainer and reluctantly starts dating her, but, not too long after, Sara wants him back.

I have never read the acclaimed novel by Anne Tyler which the film is based on, but would have to believe that something was lost in translation from novel to screen. Something just seems missing. William Hurt, an inexplicable 1980s superstar, sleepwalks through this film. There is no color or even life in his performance. Seriously, what did Muriel and Sara see in him. Geena Davis won the Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance in this film, but she isn’t even the best supporting actress in this film or even the second. Amy Wright is much better as Macon's eccentric and kind hearted sister and Kathleen Turner infuses such a spark into her character. They both do what Davis and Hurt fail to do, they make their characters seem real. Muriel, meanwhile, should be a character full of life and spirit but Davis gives such a boring, lifeless performance. She mostly just mouth breathes and wears silly clothing. You need more than weird clothing to make a character.

C-

The book is one of my all-time favorites but the film completely misses the boat in the adaptation, it bored me to tears, even though it covers most of the major scenes of the novel. It is an adaptation that did not capture the spirit of the book or understand what made the novel work. The novel is touching, life affirming and hilarious and the movie misses on all three counts... especially the last one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why Geena Davis won the Oscar for Accidental Tourist??? This is one Oscar win that I just don't understand. Was it because 1988 was a big year for her?

I watched Working Girl last week and I can't believe both Sigourney Weaver AND Joan Cusack (who were both outstanding) lost the Oscar to Geena Davis that year. Absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

I would've voted for Cusack.

"Six THOUSAND DOLLAS!!! It's not even leatha!"

quote:

Originally posted by Tye-Grr:
Also, the score and songs by Karen O and Carter Burwell are excellent, and fit the film perfectly. Major props to the art direction, set design, costume design, visual effects (the faces on the wild things WOW'd me), and cinematography, all are top notch!

I would DIE (in a good way) if Karen O's score and one of her songs got nominated. An Art Direction nod would be just as worthy but it's the music I found myself loving even more the second time around.

As for cinematography, Lance Acord isn't doing anything he did 10 times better in Marie Antoinette. Although it was very lovely nonetheless.

Pan's Labyrinth was on the other night and I rewatched nearly all of it. In a perfect world, this would've been a BP and BD nominee along with Children of Men that year.

I remember the one-two punch those two films gave when they came out within those last couple weeks of 2006/early few weeks of 2007. NO ONE was expecting them to be as good as they were so everyone was pretty much coming back to these boards posting up a storm and creating deafening buzz for both. It was pretty much the most pleasant cinema surprise in a long while.

Oh, and I saw no reason why both Maribel Verdu and Sergi Lopez couldn't get dual supporting nominations for PL. They were both marvelous. But for very different reasons of course.

I did love Children of Men, and I would have loved to see it as a BP nominee.

Pan's Labyrinth, on the other hand, was so incredibly depressing. I appreciated the ambition behind it, but I was glad it wasn't nominated for BP. Didn't it also lose foreign film?

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleD:
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why Geena Davis won the Oscar for Accidental Tourist??? This is one Oscar win that I just don't understand. Was it because 1988 was a big year for her?

I watched Working Girl last week and I can't believe both Sigourney Weaver AND Joan Cusack (who were both outstanding) lost the Oscar to Geena Davis that year. Absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

I would've voted for Cusack.

"Six THOUSAND DOLLAS!!! It's not even leatha!"

Yeah I can't explain it either. Davis won no awards besides the Oscar that year. She wasn't even nominated for a Globe. I think Weaver was favored as she was a double nominee that night, but supposedly she isn't all that great at ass kissing/campaigning, so she lost. Diane Venora should've been nominated for "Bird."

I too would've gone with Cusack.

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:
I did love Children of Men, and I would have loved to see it as a BP nominee.

Pan's Labyrinth, on the other hand, was so incredibly depressing. I appreciated the ambition behind it, but I was glad it wasn't nominated for BP. Didn't it also lose foreign film?

'Despressing' isn't really a critique as much as it is a description, and 'Men' is just a tad bit more depressing than 'Lanbyrinth'.

Pan's Labyrinth does at least have an uplifting ending. And yes, it lost foreign film to 'The Lives Of Others', which was also one of the best films of 2006 and also depressing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brilliance inmorbid,

With the small number of voters in the FL committee, Pan's was lucky to get nominated. Its loss was a foregone conclusion.

At least, unlike last year, the winner was a credible choice.

I have a more organic, stronger reaction to 'Pan's Labyrinth' and love it very much.

That said, I was thunderstruck by 'The Lives of Others,' and I consider it to be just as worthy of a winner as I would have considered 'Pan's Labyrinth.'

All About Eve

Haven't seen this in several years and had been meaning to rewatch it for a while. Just like the first time I watched it I liked it but didn't love it. Much of the acting is very good - Bette Davis, George Sanders, Hugh Marlowe, Thelma Ritter, especially Celeste Holm. Anne Baxter is a certainly the weak point.

The biggest problem for me is thinking about how much better the movie would be with a serious editing job to make it a lot tighter. Each scene - without exception - would benefit from shaving 20-25% off. Instead, we get too many speeches and too many scenes of dragging repetition.

I want to love this movie, but I just don't. Oscar-wise, rewatching it reinforces how glad I am that Judy Holliday won Best Actress over Davis or Baxter and how much more deserving Sunset Boulevard would have been as a Best Picture winner.

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:
I did love Children of Men, and I would have loved to see it as a BP nominee.

Pan's Labyrinth, on the other hand, was so incredibly depressing. I appreciated the ambition behind it, but I was glad it wasn't nominated for BP. Didn't it also lose foreign film?

'Despressing' isn't really a critique as much as it is a description, and 'Men' is just a tad bit more depressing than 'Lanbyrinth'.

Pan's Labyrinth does at least have an uplifting ending. And yes, it lost foreign film to 'The Lives Of Others', which was also one of the best films of 2006 and also depressing.

I take it to mean that Missygal was glad it didnt win because she found it depressing. Not that it didnt deserve to win because of it.
Keep in mind that Up is too dark for consideration. Lol!!

Pan's was a visual and emotional masterful work. That little girl found a way to stay out of the reach of such ugliness.
I guess I am in the minority as, I was not a fan of The Lives of Others and preferred all of the other nominees that year.