Movie Reviews!

[Roland Deschain]

It was not meant as any diss on the old film, which I liked very well.
Just that it seems that few remember that it has already been done and that the new evil stepmothers have to measure up to the lady that has aliens for breakfast. Unlike many other actresses Weaver has no problems with 'ugly', if it serves the purpose.

Sigourney Weaver is a goddess, for sure, and even being half as good as her is still a good performance. I don't mind old tales being revisited in dark ways. In fact, I positively love it. It's when the film seems to promise so much from its trailers, and you hold out much hope for it, but then you see it and find that it's actually a watered-down piece of trash made to appeal to the teenie boppers, this is what annoys me.

[Opsa]

Went to see "20 feet From Stardom" yesterday. LOVED IT!

This is a documentary about backup singers, whose incredible voices we have heard in musical recordings since the 1960's. It is about their careers, their personalities, their experiences. Some have longed to be stars, but got caught in the backups. Some are satisfied just to have had the privilege to sing for a living.

I saw this in a new Anjelika movie house with stadium seating and an excellent sound system. It was just mind bending to hear such great human pipes harmonizing, cooing, belting out and just doodling around.

I am a major Motwon fan, but also recognized the singers who have backed up the Rolling Stones (the Gimmee Shelter story is wonderful!), David Bowie, David Byrne, Sting and more. There are funny parts, and parts that made me feel so bad for some of these people who worked so hard for so little recognition, and were even ripped off outright by the record companies.

But oh! That music they made. Makes a person like me dance in my chair.

[pieces o nine]

So a bunch of us went to 2-for-1 night at the Elks (the "cheap" one downtown where movies play after they disappear from first run theatres) to see Star Trek: Into the Darkness: Da-da-DAH!-da-da-da-DAH!



I really rather liked it. I've read pros and cons regarding Abrams' AU treatment of the franchise, but I have to give him credit for creating "action" movies that are fun to watch. It's my understanding that he was never a trekkie growing up, but he's developing a series worth watching that will stand with the original series in a way that some of the later TV spin-offs will not. I like the casting, I like the character development, and I liked all the little homages in this one to both the classic, original series, and some of the subsequent movies.

[Opsa]

That's good to know! Maybe it will withstand the test of time.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

His first one got a good cast, good action, and an utterly unbelievable plot with more holes than Swiss cheese.

His second fixes the problems of the first, and works beautifully, even if it isn't your average Star Trek (although as ST movies go, this may be one of the best).

[pieces o nine]

A group of us went to see The Lone Ranger tonight. I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but it surprised me, and we all quite liked it. Perhaps the critics hated it so much because many of JD's stunts were reminiscent of the POTC movies?

I think the horse should be nominated for an Oscar.

[Opsa]

That's good to know! I was sort of looking forward to that movie, but didn't see it because of the pans. Maybe I'll check it out!

[pieces o nine]

* not spoilers *

An element that I liked in this version is one that some critics hated -- the story is being told to a young boy in a Lone Ranger mask, visiting a museum [with an intentionally cringe-inducing exhibit placard], by an elderly Tonto. There were a couple bits that were delightfully anachronistic with this device [spoiler example: popcorn box for trade]

The story develops leisurely, with occasional phrases of the Overture during flashbacks or flash forwards of Movie!Action!  When they unleash the full Overture, there is a kind of Western framing of every James Bond car chase + Summer!Blockbuster! action sequence + classic Lone Ranger or Zorro cinematic stunt ever, with stuff going on all over the screen.

Save some popcorn to excitedly throw on the people in front of you. 

I had mixed feelings about casting a white actor as Tonto; I still do. But I thought his back story and character development were poignant and "historically" plausible, and JD delivered a sensitive portrayal. I thought the Ranger back story was interesting, as as his character development as a very modern, very educated, very honorable, jerk. I thought the 'jerk' moments, although jarring, were accurate to the attitudes of the time. No matter how advanced a person's thinking is in some areas, there are always other attitudes that are shocking when viewed from a later perspective. I don't know if that was intentional, and his 'jerk' moments irritated some critics as much as his 'ethical' moments.

This is why I generally ignore critics.   
If you (or anyone else) sees it, I'll be interested in your reactions.

[Opsa]

I saw two movies during the winter holidays.

Saving Mr. Banks
Very interesting look at the woman who wrote Mary Poppins and her struggles with Walt Disney to try to retain control of her story. Emma Thompson is absolutely fascinating as the rather prickly P. L. Travers- her facial twitches alone are amazing feats of physical control. The flashbacks to her childhood in Australia are absolutely gorgeous and heartbreaking, but where I started to cry (and believe me, if there is any crying to be done at movies, I'm your candidate) was when Walt Disney, played by the ever reliable Tom Hanks, makes a final plea with her to work with him. Like Travers, I have a disdain for the Disneyfication of classic stories, and in a way I was hoping she'd win. In the end (spoiler alert?) the movie gets made, but only with a lot of give and take between Travers and Disney. I think this movie is about compromise- something I have trouble achieving- between high ideals and business sense. I admire both Travers and Disney now for being able to find a common ground and am dying to see the old "Mary Poppins" movie again with new insight. (The two movies would be excellent played back to back as a double feature.)

Desolation of Smaug
Hey- I've seen all the others in the Tolkien series, so I had to see this. Well played, as the others were. When I read these in the fifth grade, I read about the battles without really picturing them. Seeing them in living color is a bit much, but I think they took care not to be too brutal. I can forgive the addition of the elf woman. Even though my gender-pandering radar went off, she is a decent character and helps keep some heart in the picture, especially when the spirits of the lead players are so low at this point. (P.L.Travers would never have allowed her, had it been her story, though!) Bilbo has been weakened, presumably by the pull of the ring, but the dragon is glorious, as he should be. The abrupt endings of each part of the film trilogy are somewhat jarring, but I will fly to the last one to see how the last part is handled. It is fun to relive the moments of suspense from the book, and I do appreciate that the filmmakers have for the most part stayed earnest and have avoided getting too cute or too gross.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

P.L.Travers would never have allowed her, had it been her story, though!

There is a reason why movies from JRRT material have been made way after his death, and IIRC his son was a vocal opponent as well.

[Swatopluk]

I watched Hobbit II yesterday too.
Entertaining (not a waste of money) but there is a lot I am not really happy with. Not just because of deviations from the book but because a lot of logical flaws got introduced that were not in the book in the first place. E.g. why does Bilbo take the ring off or does not use it on several occasions (esp. when confronting Smaug)? At this time he has no means to know that its use poses a danger to his longterm mental health.
The Mirkwood sequence makes it look like they encountered the spiders within a few hours of entry. The huge dimensions of the forest are thus lost. The film does not convey the message that they have been walking for weeks and are out of food and close to starvation.
Laketown is full of guards and spies but no one notices a whole band of orcs and wargs entering by the main gate and crashing a lot of stuff?
One of the barrels gets totally perforated by fighting but still floats (and is not seen alter on).
The whole behaviour of the dwarves towards the dragon is completely stupid. Running around with drawn swords while trying not to get spotted?
The dragon is extremly well done but the whole action scenes wth him and the dwarves are defying any belief. As does Gandalf's entry into Dol Guldur btw. From the books we know that he sneaked in there and got the map and key from Thrain before the plot of the Hobbit started and assumed that the evil was  'just' a ringwraith. I assume the third film will show the White Council cleaning up the place temporarily. Big G entering there alone with drawn sword and shouting magic spells is imo completely out of character. As is personally fighting a duel with Sauron.

As usual the art direction is superb as are some of the actors but for me there is too much unlikely 'video-gamey' action added. No objection to the Tauriel character from my side. There is indeed not a single female in the book (except for Bilbo's mother getting mentioned a few times) and addfing her actually adds something interesting.
I assume JRR Tolkien would have loved the art but heavily disliked the action (even more so than with the LotR films)