I Paid Full Price for THIS?

NaBloPoMo post#1: My Halloween.....

2007-11-01T10:30:00.000-07:00

In an effort to be a good blogger, here are the Halloween movies my Studmuffin forced me to watch:

Fright Night (silly)
Bordello of Blood (a vampire movie starring Dennis Miller--how do YOU think that was?)
Army of Darkness (only the first 30 minutes and apparently I'm a horrible person for thinking it was stupid)
VanHelsing (I think only men like this movie, due to Kate Beckingsales ridiculous costume)
Ghostbusters (Total classic!)

Hughie Hughie Hughie!

2007-07-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

I had a bit of a Hugh Grant fest this weekend. Well, sort of. If you can call 2 films a film-fest, then I guess I did. Before I go any further, I will admit that I tend to like Hugh Grant better when he plays the bastard than when he plays the sensitive hero--I think it's because I suspect his more like a bastard in real life. Oh well!

That being said, I will also say that there are exceptions.

First off, Music and Lyrics. I had this out from Netflix for, oh, a month or so before ever getting around to watching it. I'm not sure why since I do like Hugh Grant and, as much as I hate to admit it, I tend to like Drew Barrymore. Basically, a washed up 80s star gets a 2nd chance at stardom by writing a song for a teenie-bopper pop star, but he needs a good lyricist. Honestly, it's not the most original story line and the movie is a bit formulaic. However, any movie that starts with the 80s music video of "Pop! Goes My Heart!" is worth it! Yes, it's a cheezy movie, but it's a sweet cheezy movie and, strangely, Hugh Grant comes off well as a nice guy. Imagine that. It is a chick flick--admittedly--but my Studmuffin still enjoyed it. In fact, he enjoyed it so much that he felt the need to watch My Big Fat Greek Wedding immediately afterwards. Whatever.

Then, while I was in the throes of an allergy attack and rather drugged up, I decided to watch American Dreamz. And, guess what, Hugh Grant played the obnoxious, self-absorbed guy I usually like. Not this time. Let's see, what was wrong with this movie:
1 - Hugh Grant was surprisingly unconvincing as a Simon Cowell-clone.
2 - I really don't like American Idol
3 - I'm a little disturbed by the fact that Al Quaida is being used in a comedy
4 - Suicide bombing is not funny
5 - I'm really sick of very thinly-veiled ridicules of real people (in this case, the President). Either have the balls to actually say it's that person or just don't do it.
6 - The end is rather disturbing (see #4)
Luckily for me, this was from OnDemand so, therefore, I did not waste any valuable Netflix queue space for it. Blech!

Movie catch-up

2007-07-12T12:26:00.000-07:00

As I said before, I'm not getting to the theater as often as I have in the past since my Studmuffin keeps me otherwise occupied. However, I have seen 3 movies recently and thought I'd better post my thoughts, rants, raves here....

First off:
EVAN ALMIGHTY
Yes, the sequel to Bruce Almighty, sort of. Yes, it focuses on Evan Baxter, who was Bruce's nemesis and, yes, Morgan Freeman is awesome as God (again), but that's about it. Here's the scoop...Evan is elected to Congress and then God wants him to be the next Noah. Instead of Jim Carrey's non-stop bathroom humor (which can be funny and, in all honesty, Bruce Almighty is my favorite JC movie), you have probably the cleanest non-animated film I've ever seen. Seriously. I've seen episodes of Little House on the Prairie that were racier.

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely an element of the absurd here. There are many biblical stories that could be retold as modern allegories, but Noah and the Ark isn't the first that would come to mind. I mean, there is this big boat....and all these animals.... You get the picture.

The thing is, it sort of works. Actually, I really enjoyed this movie...more than I probably want to admit. I will say that some may find it preachy if they aren't very religious, but I found incredibly sweet. And, if the filmmakers were hoping to inspire audiences, I think they did a far better job with Evan than they did with Bruce.

It's pretty obvious they were hoping to make this into a family movie. And it is to the extent that kids would be interested in US Government as the motivator of this movie is actually a bill becoming a law. Most kids under the age of 8 that I know would probably be bored to death with that....

Secondly, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
It took FOREVER for my Studmuffin to be willing to go see this movie. Frankly, I think he had so much fun seeing Evan Almighty the day before that he thought he might as well give this one a try. Now, I'll admit it...I loved the first 2 Pirates movies...swordplay, pirates, Johnny Depp...wonderful!

This movie, however, sucked! It's horrible. It's so bad that I actively go out of my way to tell people not to see this. You see, the first 2 movies had the formula: Johnny Depp, humor, swordplay, more humor, a very clear villain, more swordplay, fun uses of CGI (walking zombies, Davy Jones, etc) and maybe just a little plot. For some reason, the producers thought they should dump all that--except Johnny Depp who actually shows up in triplicate. Barbossa, who always was a villain, is now sort of a hero? Keira Knightly is a Pirate King? And, worst yet, they thought they might make up for the blessed lack of plot in the first 2 movies and crammed in enough plot for 5 movies in the third one. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what the story line was....

So, do yourself a favor...don't go see it. If you must see it, wait till it shows up in a $3 theater that serves alcohol and get drunk first. It might make more sense that way.

Finally, to escape the heatwave last night (and, frankly, because I just couldn't wait!) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
So, with 5 movies out I have to give credit to the movies. For the 2nd, 4th and now 5th installment, I had more fun watching it than reading it. And this is a fun movie, but it still wasn't quite as good as I thought it could have been.

I will admit that, after accidentally seeing a full-body picture of Daniel Radcliffe from Equus (let's just say...that boy is NOT Jewish), it's a bit, well, squiggly to see him as Harry Potter. Maybe that's just me...Anyway, I tried to ignore that.

There is a lot of editing from book to movie and while this movie (unlike the 3rd one) makes sense, I can't help but worry that they may have edited out the wrong things and when it comes time to make the final film the producers may find themselves with more than a few holes to fill--but we won't know that for another week or so!

I was happy to see my favorite character from the 3rd installment (who had absolutely NO air time in that one) show up at least a bit in this one...Cruickshanks, Hermoine's orange cat. However, my favorite character in the 5th book--Tonks--is barely even there! Argh! And Emma Thompson probably has 5 minutes of airtime! That alone is a sin...but coupled with the fact that her character plays an incredibly important role in the book makes me wonder what the producers were thinking (I also noticed that Kenneth Branagh didn't show up at all--so the Ken/Em/Helena triangle never happened).

Speaking of Helena Bonham Carter. Best. Casting. Ever. Even on a good day, she's freaky looking...she is PERFECT for Belatrix!

Okay, maybe second best casting because, frankly, Imelda Staunton totally makes this movie. Yes, this a movie with an absolutely fabulous villain...and it's not Voldemort. I wouldn't be surprised if she actually gets an Oscar nom for this one.

Should you see it? Of course! Everyone should see it...just as everyone should read the books. It's gotten to a point where Harry Potter is so deeply ingrained in our culture that you really need to read the books and see the movies to be able to hold a conversation. But...and this is my hope...that people will see the Harry Potter series one work and not as a series of books and movies.

So, there you go....have fun!

Baseball Fun--Fever Pitch

2007-04-17T22:14:00.000-07:00

Since my Studmuffin won't take me to movies anymore, I've been relegated to watching films from my DVD collection. This weekend it was "Fever Pitch." To be honest, this is a bittersweet movie for me. On one hand it chronicles the disasterous baseball season which sent the Boston Red Sox--the most vile team in all sportsdom--to the world series where they--gulp--won. (After this, one of their stars--Johnny Damon--switched teams [heh heh] and went to the Yankees, giving the sorry sods in Boston something else to bitch about for another 86 years).

But, then, it's actually a really sweet girly guy film (or guyish chick flick). I admit it, I saw this movie 3 times in the theater (and once on an airplane) before buying the DVD. Strangely, though, I enjoy it even more now than I did when it was originally released. I blame this on my Studmuffin. I truly believe that if I had been stricken with food poisoning resulting in projectile vomiting on our first date, he would have stuck around to clean up the bathroom. He also says his top six things he likes about me does not include any body parts (I think that's a compliment).

While I don't understand Lindsay's (Drew Barrymore's) reticence towards baseball fandom, it still reminds me that there is romance at the ballpark.

Cleaning out the Netflix Queue

2007-03-05T16:42:00.000-08:00

So, I've had a couple of movies from Netflix for quite a long time. One is Waking Ned Devine, which I had previously seen and loved. Since it's almost St. Patrick's Day, I think I'll save it until then. The other two, however, I finally watched this weekend.

First off...

Swingers
I tried to watch this film some years ago when my then-roommate, Jimmy, told me it was the funniest movie ever. I watched about 10 minutes of it. Basically, I thought it was a guy flick--the kind of movie that you have to be male to appreciate. Recently, however, a couple of women told me that I really should watch it, and not just for the Vince Vaughn factor.

I watched it. All of it. Here's what I thought:
1 - Swing dancing is really fun and there should have been more of it in this film.
2 - Vince Vaughn was really skinny
3 - John Favreau was really skinny
4 - The is a guy flick.

I think my Studmuffin enjoyed it, but it's qualities were still lost on me.

The next movie:
Trust the Man
I'd seen the previews for this movie and was waiting for it to come out in theaters and, lo and behold, it ended up on Netflix. Probably not a good sign, but oh well. It stars Julianne Moore, David Duchovny, Maggie Gyllenhall and Billy Crudrup. With the exception fo Crudrup, who I can't recall ever seeing in another movie, I think this is an excellent cast.

Basically there are two plots. First off, Julianne Moore is married to David Duchovny, who is a stay at home dad and sex addict. Marital issues. Then there is Maggie Gyllenhall, who has been dating Billy Crudrup for 7 years and wants to get married and have babies.

I actually kind of liked the second plotline. It seemed believable and starred one of my favorite actresses. I think if they were making a movie of my life, the role of me would be played by Maggie Gyllenhall, but I digress. It was entertaining and cute--maybe not enough to hold up by itself, but oh well.

The Julianne Moore/David Duchovny storyline, however, was far too contrived for me. For such a serious topic, it came off like a sitcom. And, frankly, I expected far better acting from Julianne Moore. Really, I didn't car about either one of them.

So, my verdicts:
Swingers - Only watch this if you are a guy. Vince Vaughn is not nearly handsome enough in this movie to make it worthwhile.
Trust the Man - Not horrible, but could definitely be worse. Maggie Gyllenhall save it.

My final Oscar Rant

2007-02-26T10:49:00.000-08:00

Okay, so why wasn't Steve Irwin in the dead peoples montage? Yes, I know he was mostly a TV guy, but he did make his own documentary AND he appeared in one of the Eddie Murphy Dr. Doolittle movies.

Hmm, maybe that's why.....

Oscar summary

2007-02-26T10:09:00.000-08:00

Yawn!

Okay, it wasn't that bad. I thought Ellen was a great host--much better than Jon Stewart. It was nice to see Alan Arkin win.

But, beyond that...boring! I think there are 2 reasons for this. Most of the categories were not surprises. The exceptions being Alan Arkin's win and best picture. I'll admit that I like it when there is no frontrunner for best picture (but I like it much more when there IS a front runner, which is a terrible movie, and it loses!). The thing is that I will never see The Departed. I sat through Gangs of New York and The Aviator, both of which I thought were terrible movies. Forgive me if I'm not first in line to see the next Martin Scorsese/Leonardo di Caprio film.

And to think I missed The Amazing Race for that (or, if my Studmuffin had his way, The Simpsons).

The Oscar Rant

2007-01-24T12:40:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I haven't been exactly good about posting over on this blog. Part of it is that I haven't seen a lot of movies that inspired me to write anything. I've seen one great movie since The Queen and, when I watch it again on DVD (I already ordered it!), I'll post my thoughts here. So there.

Anyway, the Oscar nominations were announced yesterday (I think) and I usually have all sorts of things to celebrate and complain about. However, I just don't care quite as much this year. Of the five nominated pictures, I've only seen The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine--both of which I loved, by the way. But I really don't have any desire to see Babel or The Departed and only a marginal desire to see Letters from Iwo Jima (give me a break, it has subtitles!)

But, I do have this tradition to keep up, so here you go. Here are my thoughts and predictions, in abbreviated form. In other words, I will not start ranting about cinematography or film editing or whatnot.

Best Picture
As stated above, I've only seen The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine. To tell the truth, I came very close to peeing my pants while watching Little Miss Sunshine and, while I hate to talk about complete strangers, I think the woman next may have actually experienced some leakage. The Academy doesn't like comedies, but they also don't like stuffy British films--so the odds of either The Queen or Little Miss Sunshine winning are pretty small. Still, between those two movies, I think Little Miss Sunshine might have the edge

Best Actor
Okay, I haven't seen any of these movies, but I do have a very stong belief that a MAN should win this award, so anyone besides Leonardo di Caprio (who I still think is a girl) winning is okay by me.

Best Actress
Helen Mirren should win this...this should be a slam dunk...but it's not. You can play a British Monarch better than the British Monarch herself and you'll still lose the blonde American--just ask Judi Dench (who lost to Helen Hunt) and Cate Blanchett (who lost to Gwyneth Paltrow). Of course, this year is not that cut and dried. There is only one blonde and that's Kate Winslet, who is not American. There is only one American, and that's Meryl Streep, who was not blonde in The Devil Wears Prada. I can, however, see a case for Ms. Streep since she was blonde in A Prairie Home Companion (for which I think she also deserved a nomination!) However, maybe the lack of a true blonde American will help Helen Mirren get the Oscar she deserves.

Best Supporting Actor
Wouldn't it be cool if Eddie Murphy became "Academy Award Winner Eddie Murphy?" If that happened, I would be far less embarrassed about seeing The Golden Child about 10 times. However, since I have yet to see Dreamgirls, I have to go completely on his performances in The Golden Child, The Distinguished Gentleman, and the classic Bowfinger.

Best Supporting Actress
I really liked Jennifer Hudson on American Idol and it's great to see her do so well. But, I gotta go with the kid. I'm hoping that the fact that Abigail Breslin is in this category and not up against Helen Mirren works in her favor.

So, there you go. Have fun watching the awards...Ellen Degeneres should be funny--at least funnier than Jon Stewart.

The Queen (2006)

2006-10-29T18:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, if I give anything away in this little review, then you are either younger than 10 years old or were living under a rock during the second half of 1997. This is not a movie that’s going to have surprising twists and turns but, rather, will show you a side of the very stuffy British Royal family that you may not expect.

It starts out with the election of Tony Blair (Michael Sheen, who, according to the Internet Movie Database, has not been in anything that anyone in America would have ever seen)—which does not exactly amuse the Queen (the oh-so-cool Helen Mirren). After all, he’s a modernist and is married to the “known anti-monarchist” Cherie Blair (Helen McCrory, who is the spitting image of the real Cherie Blair). So, that’s all, you know, slightly irritating to the Queen. Then Princess Diana dies and things are turned upside down. The Queen doesn’t respond as the British public feels she should and she doesn’t understand why her people can’t respect her grandsons’ privacy and her husband, Prince Philip (James Cromwell, taking the villain turn), is deliciously hateful.

The bulk of the movie takes place in the week from Diana’s death to her funeral and, as I said, everyone knows the Queen finally make a speech and Elton John—much to the displeasure of Prince Philip—sings at her funeral. No surprise there.

The surprise was the transformation of the character of the Queen in just that week. She does seem like she doesn’t have a clue and that she does not, at all, care. But then her Butler (or personal secretary or something—I’m not sure what he is, except that he listens in on her phone calls) explains to Tony Blair that the Queen is in shock—she watch the monarchy kill her father and recognizes that, this time, it may do in her entire family.

Before I go on, there are a couple things you must understand. The first is that I have a degree in British Medieval History and so I understand the monarchy a bit more than your average American. Secondly, I didn’t really like Princess Diana and always thought that she made sure the Royal Family got quite the bum rap.

Even so, I was surprised at how this movie portrayed the royal family. True, not all of them came off as sensitive human beings. Others, however, were surprisingly human. Frankly, I think that director Stephen Frears put together a surprisingly accurate portrayal of these people and he should be applauded.

The real treat of this movie was Helen Mirren. It seemed to me that she was always in the shadow of Judi Dench, but she clearly stands out on her own. And I can’t believe that this was an easy role to play but Helen Mirren makes it her own. I honestly believe that this is the best performance by an actress this year. However, if history holds, Ms. Mirren will lose out to a blonde American (just ask Judi Dench or Cate Blanchett).

I went to this with the Good Doctor since neither of us was in the mood for something too frivolous or too heavy and The Queen hit the nail on the head. It’s not a difficult movie to watch, but a fascinating one. There are some comedic moments—but unfortunately some of the humor was probably not intended. Instead it was just the American reaction to some rather British (and, to us, confounding) ways.

If I had to find one fault with this movie it would be the casting of Alex Jennings as Prince Charles. It’s not that he’s bad—in fact, I think he does do quite a good job. The problem is that he looks exactly like George W. Bush. Trust me, watching a Bush look-alike speech with a high-falutin’ British accent will definitely weird you out.

In a nutshell: A great movie if you are looking for a lighter “thinking” movie or if you just want to enjoy some dang good acting. Worth a full price ticket!