None of the movies, not even the TV... with the sole exception of the HBO movie "Temple Grandin." (I've seen "The Office," but not any episodes in the past year.)
What's happened to my interest in movies? Is it the internet? Is it marriage? Or is it actually something about the movies?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
172 comments:
There is a movie in the list that I want to see: Red. If only to see Helen Mirren shooting a big old gun.
The only movie I saw in the theater this year was HP. It gave me a headache. Too loud. I don't see many movies for that reason.
Just caught Inception a couple of nights ago and loved it. I'm fairly snobbish about my sci-fi and, frankly, if I sat down to go over it with a fine-toothed comb, I could probably riddle it with plot holes. For pure enjoyment, though, it was a great flick. I especially like seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt do not only grown up roles (I've liked this guy since the very excellent 3rd Rock), but to do believable action sequence like zero-G hand-to-hand.
Walking Dead should walk, er, shuffle, away with the drama category. It's the only tv show in the past few years I've bothered making time for.
"It gave me a headache. Too loud. I don't see many movies for that reason."
Yes, I detest what they've done with sound. Maybe the young people are all hard of hearing from listening to rap music or something.
"For pure enjoyment, though, it was a great flick.'
Statements like that just make me think I wouldn't enjoy it at all. I don't like all the glaring images flowing over me (and the crunching, thumping sound). I don't want my senses deadened. And I don't want to watch scenes that don't make sense, that you're supposed to lay back and "enjoy." The whole experience just doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather hang out on the internet (or in the real world).
And, yes, I'm old. I'm old and I like it.
I don't like all the glaring images flowing over me (and the crunching, thumping sound). I don't want my senses deadened. And I don't want to watch scenes that don't make sense, that you're supposed to lay back and "enjoy." The whole experience just doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather hang out on the internet (or in the real world).
That entire statement assumes you know quite a bit about what constitutes "enjoyment" for me. If one wants their senses deadened in the manner you describe, one only has to look as far as the next Michael Bey movie. I avoid those for the very reasons you describe (and the crappy, twitchy, A.D.D. camera work).
I enjoy innovative story telling. Inception, with it's layers of time dilation, fit that bill perfectly. Dreams within dreams within dreams, each running at different time scales across members of the same team? Enjoyable.
All you need to know about this year's top movies:
at least three of the six actresses nominated by the Broadcast Film Critics Association for Best Actress received on-screen oral pleasuring in their respective films -- Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right, Natalie Portman in Black Swan and Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine
Peter
at least three of the six actresses nominated by the Broadcast Film Critics Association for Best Actress received on-screen oral pleasuring in their respective films
Statements like that just make me think I wouldn't enjoy it at all...er, wait...
Social Network was the only one that caught my interest and money-- who has time for the rest when the cinematheque film series shows Kurosawa's Ikiru and High Low for free!
A lot of people wait until a movie comes out on DVD. We feel like there's no hurry. It's kind of interesting how more options (more control?) deadens our love of cinema.
Some movies, like Inception, if you're going to see them, you really ought to watch on the big screen. I think Chris Nolan is one of the more interesting filmmakers working right now.
p.s. Professor, what did you think of my movie book?
my word verification was written by Sunstein, apparently. Nudge. I'm officially creeped out.
The only thing I've seen on the big screen was "Inception". Enjoyed immensely.
Yes, I detest what they've done with sound. Maybe the young people are all hard of hearing from listening to rap music or something.
Phew! I thought it was just me. It's getting so I can barley hear the dialog over the soundtrack.
They've also developed a tendency to have a big special effects sequence within the first few minutes of the film. I've noticed that my 16 year old step son quickly loses interest if there isn't.
And Alice in Wonderland stunk, even with Helena Bonham-Carter and Johnny Depp.
Even in 3D.
Althouse wouldn't like Inception, I wager.
I've seen most of those movies and, frankly, meh. Alice in Wonderland was meh. The Social Network felt incredibly trivial to me (besides almost completely failing to capture any sense of the culture it was set in).
Easily, by far the strongest category? The animated features, and there Toy Story 3 should win in a walk.
Oh, and the Best Score category. You usually do get some great scores, but they're not usually the ones picked. (The perceived film quality trumps.)
I really enjoyed The Concert, too, but even the foreign film category? Meh.
Sad thing is, even when the "art" films are bad in a year, you can usually point to some great "popcorn" movies. But it was really just a two-and-a-half-star year. A big ol' pile of mediocrity.
I can remember when the Globes were the joke of Hollywood. Everything was bought and paid for and nobody took it seriously. If the results made any paper besides Variety, it was only because something else happened there.
The Blonde and I will probably go see "Little Fockers" over Christmas (like MadMan, I'll see Red on cable), but, otherwise, haven't seen any and my life doesn't seem to have suffered.
Ann Althouse said...
And, yes, I'm old. I'm old and I like it.
Old, no.
A little stuck up..., maybe :)
If I'm not mistaken, bike riding, cross country skiing, hiking, kayaking and even a camp out are all new pursuits since your marriage. Maybe it's not so much that you lost interest in movies as gained interest in other things...
Oldsters be hatin'!
Anyways, I am stunned to see Alice in Wonderland nominated. It was a hideous piece of absolute dreck, and I am a Tim Burton fan.
It's comforting to see he's returning to his roots with Frankenweenie, a feature-length revamp of a short he did when he first worked at Disney.
Inception was good, but there's a soul-less, technocratic feel to all of Nolan's work. He's a brilliant story technician with no idea how actual human emotion functions.
If I'm not mistaken, bike riding, cross country skiing, hiking, kayaking and even a camp out are all new pursuits since your marriage.
Can't Kayak. Too many crocs. Agreed on AiW. I'm a huge Burton fan, but that was awful.
People, run, don't walk to see "The King's Speech" It is so awesomely good, it is the best movie of the year. Well, after "Toy Story III".
Vicki from Pasadena
"The Office" has completely fallen apart. It's almost unwatchable.
RED was the only thing on that list that we have seen. It was pure escapism and actually made us LoL in several places.
Used to be able to see Dexter until they moved it to a pay for view chanel.
I think it must be the movies and shows themselves. None of them are interesting to me or worth spending the time and money on to view.
However, I am really looking forward to the Cohen Bros. remake of True Grit.
I wonder what the box office take was on those movies? Low I am guessing. I imagine that there was much more money, revenue and people attending what the Golden Globe people would consider 'acceptable'.
I wouldn't say the motion picture industry has been on the ropes. They still makes shitloads of cash, after all, but they definitely don't enjoy the top of the food chain status any longer. A few years back, the gaming industry outsold them and is now king. The other outlets we have (cake and circuses, anyone?) eat into Hollywood's revenue every bit as much as the music industry's.
Inception sounds like an interesting film. I enjoy sci fi....however, my husband hates that genre.
The result is that we eithe go to the movies separately at a multiplex spend a bunch of money for the show and popcorn......or more like just don't bother to go and wait for the movie to appear on pay for view and watch in our pajamas.
I saw the South Park Inception episode.
I'm sort of curious about that "Black Swan", because I read the book and I pictured the Natalie Portman character as an older Lebanese man.
(Speaking of South Park, animation in general, and being old - The Simpsons turns 21 on Friday.)
Oh yeah, I saw Toy Story III too. Excellent film, makes everyone cry.
My theory is that movies are so loud because people are rude. All that unwrapping, talking, texting during a movie. Gotta have volume set to 10 so you can't here anyone else. Still, it hurts.
@ Scott M I didn't assume, I reacted. I reacted to your saying "if I sat down to go over it with a fine-toothed comb, I could probably riddle it with plot holes" and then calling it "pure enjoyment" and "a great flick." I know from other sources that "Inception" has some big problems in the "making sense" department.
You did imply that one needs to surrender to the sound and image and somehow just "enjoy"... that there's something called "pure enjoyment" which you indicated we all might receive from the "flick." You didn't say "it's the sort of thing I, personally, find enjoyable."
I understand the distinction you made in your second comment, that there are higher quality "pure enjoyment... flicks" and lower quality "pure enjoyment... flicks." My point is that I'm not interested in enjoying myself in any of the movies of today.
Inception sounds like an interesting film. I enjoy sci fi....however, my husband hates that genre.
It's only marginally sci-fi. Aside from the remarkable special effects, its really more of a psychological thriller with a sci-fi backdrop.
"I enjoy innovative story telling. Inception, with it's layers of time dilation, fit that bill perfectly. Dreams within dreams within dreams, each running at different time scales across members of the same team? Enjoyable."
I liked movies of 10 years ago that did things like this: "The Matrix," "Fight Club," and "Memento" stand out... all around 1999. I don't think movies are like that anymore.
Boardwalk Empire is really good. Atlantic City at the start of Prohibition. They built the boardwalk set inside a warehouse in Brooklyn, but you wouldn't know it.
wv: sceno
I liked movies of 10 years ago that did things like this: "The Matrix," "Fight Club," and "Memento" stand out... all around 1999. I don't think movies are like that anymore.
The Matrix wasn't like that after 1999 either. The W-Brothers weren't ready for it to be the cultural phenom it ended up being and wrote themselves into a multi-culti corner. I watched the second movie hoping for more of the first, and the third movie hoping against hope they would make up for the second.
Unbreakable came out after 1999 and was definitely in the innovative (if somewhat Hitchcockian in inspiration) pile. This was one of the last M.Night movies before he was forever placed in the suck pile.
I have the same feeling. Kyra Sedgewick in the Closer is the only one I ever watch, and she competes with Monday night football. The Closer is a great series. If they put NFL players in a category then we would see more interest. The dirtiest, the politest, the meanest, the best celebratory dance, the most sartorially dressed...but I fear the Christians would stuff the ballot box for Tim Tebow.
I agree with those who point to all the professor's outdoor activities this year.
We only go to highly rated movies that would lose something on the small screen, and we only go to the theaters with the best projection and sound. This year has actually been a bad year for movies. Mademoiselle Chambon is the only one that stands out in my mind.
We only go to highly rated movies that would lose something on the small screen, and we only go to the theaters with the best projection and sound.
Ditto. This is the only reason I go anymore with the exception of the mostly excellent CGI cartoons they've been cranking out, mostly for the kids (although I enjoy the hell out of them too).
That sound barrage is usually unnecessary. It makes me want to strike back at the creeps that sent it my way. The issue is not the volume level so much as intentional interference with my sensory experience.
DBQ--
"Dexter" has always been a Showtime series. How were you getting it for free?
The Coens will give us something cool with True Grit, I'm sure. I just watched A Serious Man again over the weekend. I loved it even more.
Ditto on the 'too loud' thread. It has even spilled over on to the TV advertising for the movie.
I have often thought that it would make a profit for theaters to have 'adult' nights, where the volume is turned down, no advertising, no 'coming attractions', and the movie fricken starts when it is advertised to start. Sell me an adult beverage and a sandwich, charge me an extra $2.00 admission or whatever. It's worth it to not have to sit through 15-20mins of BS only to be assaulted by the loudspeakers.
I use to be big movie buff too, but then I started to notice that when I was watching a movie in a theater, I would think about using the remote.
I haven't seen any of them either.
I think the reason you haven't seen any of them is "all of the above"-as far as your question.
I don't watch tele much and I only rent movies with my husband from netflix.
I am all about downsizing though. I don't want to pay $10.00 to see a movie anymore when it will be out in video in 6 months. I don't shop anymore either. These are difficult economic times in the U.S.
In India, on the other hand, jobs are plentiful.
Did I mention that my husband is beautiful and kind and loving and funny and smart and compassionate and really wonderful? I am so lucky but we have this year to get through which is very difficult. We have now made it 4 months in to our 12 months apart. I am lucky enough to see him twice during this time and maybe more if he has to travel to Europe or Mexico for work. But fuck it hurts being away from him.
I have grown so much these past two years and for that I think it is time for a group hug.
Blake - CBS showed season one on Sundays (as a midseason replacement) when season two was on Showtime. They didn't do anymore than that.
WV: light
Ah...I can't imagine how much they had to edit it.
First season was the best, though.
AA - you could always try your hand at MMO's. Interactive persistent gaming that requires you to engage rather than sit back and watch. If you try one or two out (they all have free trials), avoid the kiddie magnets like World Of Warcraft and Everquest. Try one that will stretch your cranium like Eve Online.
Why is "The Tourist" nominated under "Musical or Comedy"? I thought that was a drama? And, er, really bad?
Was there some other "The Tourist" this year?
I haven't seen any of these either. The three main reasons I don't bother:
1. It costs to much and I'm too broke
2. It probably sucks (which amplifies rule #1)
3. half of this crap is in 3D these days (which amplifies rule #2)
I might see Tron here shortly, mainly because I remember liking the first one as a teenager.
Of course, the last time I did that I was subjected to a character named Jar Jar.
Blake - language (and any nudity) mostly - they kept all the blood.
wv: scolants
@GMay
Definitely seeing Tron in homage to the teen geek in me. A buddy of mine has free IMAX tickets to the midnight showing. It's going to hurt Friday morning, but it will most likely be worth saving the $$.
There wasn't a lot of nudity though there was some fairly explicit sex--but I guess that's okay these days on TV? (Haven't watched network TV much since the last millennium.)
Deborah swears like a sailor, though.
Huh.
Tron in IMAX - I don't know that I could handle it. Saw Night at the Museum 2 in IMAX and that was almost too much. The Transformers 2 trailer they showed was impossible. Too much going on at the periphery.
wv: rerob - They didn't get enough from the register the first time so they had to rerob the store.
'Dexter'
'The Good Wife'
'Mad Men'
FTW
I can't fathom why Mad Men didn't get more Althouse coverage.
We might see "True Grit" - but we're skeptical. Bridges for Wayne doesn't seem like an improvement.
I have grown so much these past two years and for that I think it is time for a group hug.
Awwww. Ain't love grand?
Don't think of it as a remake; it won't be.
If you have to go with Bridges vs. Wayne, then there has to be some consolation with Damon vs. Campbell. Or anyone vs. Campbell.
Bridges for Wayne doesn't seem like an improvement.
That depends. Has Bridges ever addressed a ROTC graduating class drunk? If you can find the audio of Wayne doing it, it's hysterical yet reaffirming.
You are a loved man, Titus.
TEMPLE GRANDIN was superb, and if it had been released as a feature in the theaters, Clare Danes would have deserved an Oscar nomination for best actress.
I liked EASY A, a light and intelligent teen comedy, with Emma Stone a sassy, sexy delight. I saw it twice to indulge a friend, and I easily enjoyed it as much the second time around.
"Or anyone vs. Campbell."
Exclude Bob Dylan from "anyone" and I'll agree.
I can't fathom why Mad Men didn't get more Althouse coverage.
Althouse doesn't like it. Its men like Don that turned her into a Hippie.
Inception was good, but there's a soul-less, technocratic feel to all of Nolan's work. He's a brilliant story technician with no idea how actual human emotion functions.
He's a "cool" or even "cold" filmmaker, like Hitchcock. And I grant you that Inception is not as emotionally engaging as it needs to be.
But to say Nolan has "no idea how actual human emotion functions"? Come on. The Dark Knight is fantastic art about terrorism and our society's response to it. How can you watch that movie and not feel anything?
Batman Begins? Memento? The Prestige? Nolan is a brilliant talent. For one thing, there's an obsessive quality to his work. He's obsessed with obsession, and how it makes us great, and how it destroys us. Almost all his characters are obsessive. And lost in their obsessions.
You don't make art like that unless you know quite a bit about human emotion.
rcocean said...
Its men like Don that turned her into a Hippie.
Althouse is like Midge?
wv = slapt
ouch!!
ScottM: "It's going to hurt Friday morning, but it will most likely be worth saving the $$."
Well, you'll most likely catch it before I do. You've got my e-mail, so drop me a line and tell me what you think of it.
I think some of the movies nominated are not in wide release yet or have just opened, such as The Fighter, Black Swan, and The King's Speech, so that might explain part of it.
The two movies I want to see - and I'm not sure what this says about me - are The King's Speech, and... Tron Legacy.
(I was 13 when Tron came out, so that's my inner teen geek talking.)
As I'm going primarily for the sensory experience on Tron, I'm going to be making heaps ("Science cannot advance without heaps") of allowances on the story and acting. The inner geek is in the drivers seat on this one.
All of the buzz so far, though, points to the positive. I send you something after I crawl into the office on Friday, though.
The King's Speech looks marvelous. Perhaps there IS something Vicki in Pasadena and I can agree on.
As for Tron Legacy, well, you got double the Jeff Bridges (old and young) so it's got that going for it (which is nice).
Don't forget the Daft Punk soundtrack.
Well you see you are trying to drop your Woody Allen lifestyle of hanging out in coffee houses and watching boring movies. You obviously want to be Sarah Palin and are busy kayacking, sking, hiking and living the out door life.
Next thing you know you are going to get up close and personal with a hallibut.
As far as the TV nominations are concerned, they reflect believe it or not a real elitist sensibiltiy.
The best and by far most influential TV shows are in fact reality shows which did not get a mention.
"Dancing with the Stars" was by far the best drama of the season.
And you have to a long way to find something funnier than "Jersey Shore."
I will say that "Glee" and "Modern Family" are great shows.
On the other hand, "Boardwalk Empire" sucks Al Capone's cock.
Interesting comment on Inception taken from David Bordwell"s film blog: "Inception constitutes an extended experiment in what you can do with a nested plot structure, motivated by the dream-invasion premise" If you want more dream invasion, you can read more at his site.
Made all the more interesting by the time dilation mechanic. Geometric increases in time depending on how many levels you were down.
I would have liked the main character's time in Limbo with his wife fleshed out a bit more though.
With three kids (5 2 and 2), the threshold for going out to see a movie is a lot higher than it was for me and my wife. I'm used to not _seeing_ a lot of the movies. What's unnerving is how many of these movies I hadn't even _heard_of_.
We have aspirations of rengin Inception someday, maybe, unless we rememeber that we already own Total Recall. Alice In Wonderland sounded god-awful, combining every bad idea Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have. Social Network--we waste enough time using Facebook, let alone an evening watching a movie about it.
Heard of Wall Street II, but, again, I think we own Wall Street I.
The animated features are where the action is. I took my daughter to Toy Story 3--she couldn't handle it when Buzz got reprogrammed and we had to bail. (She's a drama queen). My wife wanted to take her to see Tangled--it looked like Hercules for girls to me, a half-assed vehicle for adult in-jokes.
We've asked Santa for "DRagon", and we will be buying Despicable Me.
Movies are in eclipse as a cultural phenomenon. Or is it just the award-movies? Because we did hear of Twlight:Eclipse, we are motivated to see Harry Potter 7 Part I, we do want to see Iron Man II sometime, we did see Avatar in Imax, and we will go see the next Star Trek movie.
We have aspirations of rengin Inception someday, maybe, unless we rememeber that we already own Total Recall.
Whew. That's like comparing Last King Of Scotland with Driving Miss Daisy. Besides, Paul Verhoeven is crap. There's a nice little room in hell reserved for him for what he did to Heinlein.
I will say that "Glee" and "Modern Family" are great shows.
The show after Glee, "Raising Hope" has made us laugh out loud. This happens once every total eclipse of the sun. Wednesday nights, "Middle" is good. The "Big Bang Theory" has consistently been the best sitcom on TV since it started.
We might see "True Grit" - but we're skeptical. Bridges for Wayne doesn't seem like an improvement.
I was skeptical, but judging from the trailer is a *huge* improvement.
Heck, everybody looks to be an improvement. Plus, of course, the Coens have only made one or two bad movies ever.
We got Dragon for birthdays last month, Despicable Me arrived yesterday and is already wrapped for Christmas Eve putting under the tree for opening Christmas morning.
Toy Story III is already wrapped and Inception for hubby. Expecting Guardians on Friday.
I always miss some of the movie when we go to the theater because somebody always wants to go to the bathroom. I can see the bits I missed when we buy them on DVD.
wv: waisb
Plus, of course, the Coens have only made one or two bad movies ever.
BLASPHEME!!!
Pity the performances of Roy Winstone and Caterina Scorsce were overlooked from "Edge of Darkness"..Mel was pretty good too, playing a grieving man out to pay back the bad guys for a lost family member - for the 8th or 9th time.
"Boardwalk Empire" had some fine characters. Buscemi and McDonald are the best in their roles of people with depth - filling them out quite well. Actors playing Rothstein, the WWI vet with the mutilated face create memorable characters.
Inception is a better film than Total Recall but I'd rather watch Total Recall. It's a whole lot more fun.
Verhoeven was under no obligation to make his movie have anything to do with Heinlein's original story. If he goes to hell for it, he'll be sharing a table with Victor Fleming, for what he did to L. Frank Baum.
I haven't gone to an actual movie house in twenty years.
You can't watch a movie with the animals who go to scream and act out and smoke dope and fuck around.
Besides, if you have a plasma TV and suround sound like I do you freakin screen is just as big as the screen in the multiplex.
Scott M,
Crimewave?
That shows how freakin old I am.
"Movie House?"
WTF?
Verhoeven was under no obligation to make his movie have anything to do with Heinlein's original story.
What he did is akin to making Dracula without vampires.
What he did is akin to making Dracula without vampires.
What, like the Twilight movies?
It's more like Blade Runner. (Now! Dick free!) He made the movie he wanted to make: A subversive parody of foreign legion films.
Verhoeven is subversive. See Black Book for what's probably his best (and possibly his most subversive) movie.
I didn't like Tim Burton's Alice, but I can't bitch about it. It's completely in character.
I remember when going to the "Movies" meant you were going to a movie "Palace."
The Loew's Kings! The Loew's Oriental?
I remember seeing of all things "How the West Was Won" with my dad in the Loew's King with reserved seating.
The whole grammer school going there to see "King of Kings" before Easter one year. It was like we were going to a very special place. A museum of movie history or something.
The when I was punk kid going with some of the brothers who I played ball with would go to Forty Duece to catch "Coffy" and "Cleopatra Jones and the Temple of Gold."
Later we would hit Tad's Steak house for the $2 steak platter.
Movie going is a young man's game.
You'll brook no currency with me using Twilight references :) Besides, is there a character named Dracula in that universe? If not, it's not an apt comparison.
It's more like Blade Runner.
How? Blade Runner was based on a relatively obscure short story and became a classic in and of its own. Starship Troopers is a classic novel from the so-called "golden age" of sci-fi writing and cherished by a large segment of that genre's fan base. Verhoeven's movie was a big FU to that group.
I don't care how excremently subversive he is. He completely neglected one of the largest parts of the story, and played minimal lip service to the novel's political stance, agree with it or not. He could have easily just named it something else like 90210 In Space and told the story he wanted to. No, he had to take a classic and make it an satire about fascism. Epic fail.
Movie going is a young man's game.
Especially, when you could go with a young women to the local Drive-in.
Memories.
@rcocean said...
Especially, when you could go with a young women to the local Drive-in.
The multiple personality-types are harder to handle...
They once asked the great writer Elmore Leonard what he thought about the adaptation of his book.
The movie was very different than his book.
He said something like "Hey I got a check. The movie didn't change the book. It is the same book. The movie is just a different thing."
I think that is good advice. The movie is never going to be the same as the book.
HBO is adapting George RR Martins "Game of Thrones." There is no way in hell it is going to be anywhere close to the book. But it might be fun anyway.
Especially, when you could go with a young women to the local Drive-in.
If it's a murder of crows and aflock of seagulls, is it a gaggle of girls?
The multiple personality-types are harder to handle..
Chick,
Cut me some slack - I can't type and I'm lazy. Plus I'm in the office, supposedly working.
I went out with a girl with mulitple personalities once.
And not one of them wanted to bang me.
What a waste.
Movies have been so agenda driven the last few years and used so many anvils to tell their stories that I've become wary of wasting hours and $$ on another sermon. These days I wait for endorsements such as Scott's for Inception before I'm tempted. And I was once so proud of seeing movies before anyone else.
@DBQ, CastTV for Dexter. I agree the first season was the best.
I'm a big Sons of Anarchy fan and Katy Sagal has been unbelievably good. Her performance season one was amazing, only to top herself season two and still be ignored by those awarding prizes. This year was good, but not as strong. Looks like the Golden Globes finally caught on, two years late.
The Good Wife has exceeded all my expectations. Good performances and truly excellent writing.
rcocean said
Chick,
Cut me some slack..
What am I, your tailor? :)
You'll brook no currency with me using Twilight references :) Besides, is there a character named Dracula in that universe? If not, it's not an apt comparison.
I have no freakin' idea.
How? Blade Runner was based on a relatively obscure short story and became a classic in and of its own.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the putative source of Blade Runner, is not a short story.
Starship Troopers is a classic novel from the so-called "golden age" of sci-fi writing and cherished by a large segment of that genre's fan base. Verhoeven's movie was a big FU to that group.
Said group should have been used to that by then (much less now). They also need to get over themselves. Why should Verhoeven care about them?
I mean, I don't understand the logic, but Hollywood takes source material, then does what it wants, from being fairly faithful (Silence of the Lambs) to using a few settings and characters (Starship Troopers, this latest Alice) to using little more than the title. (Weirdly, with Blade Runner, they didn't even use the title and the connection with Dick's story is very superficial.)
Why? Because people will go see a movie if it has the title of something they've heard is good.
At least that's all I can figure.
Also, some people go to see a movie so they can get into a high dudgeon about how it wasn't as good as the book. (I think I first noticed this with Amityville Horror, when I realized everyone saying that sounded like a tool and decided not to do that any more.)
I don't care how excremently subversive he is.
So you probably have some grasp of his concern for you.
He could have easily just named it something else like 90210 In Space and told the story he wanted to. No, he had to take a classic and make it an satire about fascism.
It doesn't usually work that way. Warner Bros said "Hey, Paul, direct this." And he said, "OK." He probably could do just about anything but change the title.
Epic fail.
$133M world BO (adjusted for inflation) is not spectacular, but it's not bad either. Spawned two sequels. Gets heavy TV rotation. So, not really an "epic fail" in his or the studio's POV, I think. (And, as noted, your POV doesn't matter to them any more than theirs does to you.)
Not good enough to save his career after the true disaster that was Showgirls, however. Had it been delayed a bit longer, he probably never would have had the chance.
FWIW, Hollywood seems to have learned something about fan service in the last decade, and a lot of directors DO care these days about fidelity to source material, especially where hardcore nerds are concerned.
Note, however, that doesn't apply to Oscar-bait like "The Social Network", which is completely fictitious.
"Sons of Anarchy" is a great show but last season was far superior to this last season where they fell into this Irish boondoggle. The finale was pretty cool.
Check out "Justified" which is also on FX starting in January. It is way cool and is loosely based on a couple of Elmore Leonard stories. It is a perfect example of someone taking a story and working off of it to make a great show. Most of the gang from "Deadwood" shows up as Tim Olyphant (Marshall Bullock) plays the lead.
Best of all iit is full of Althouse Hillbillies. Just sayn'
re: Sons of Anarchy, I love that Katy is in the show, but can't get past the fact that she's got two eyes.
@Blake
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the putative source of Blade Runner, is not a short story.
Point taken.
Said group should have been used to that by then (much less now). They also need to get over themselves. Why should Verhoeven care about them?
If memory serves, specifically from an interview I read prior to the movie's release, Verhoeven was not handed this moving and told to "do it". He went after it and decided it was the best vehicle for his childhood anti-Nazi angst.
I'm not sure why you think I care what PV or the studio thinks of me and I'm not quite sure what led you to go down that line other than some innate desire to take a swipe at me. The man is in the business of making very public art. He is open for criticism by definition.
I thought they did pretty good with the "Lord of the Rings" as far as being faithful to the book but they left a lot of stuff out
(Like Tom Bombadil)that freaked out the fan boys. But you can't put everything from a book into a movie.
That's why "Game of Thrones" is just not gonna work. Too dense. Too many strong characters. Too much action.
But I am really looking forward to Peter Drinkwater as Tyrion.
(You always need a midget these days)
Sorry I got Peter's name wrong. It is really Peter Dinklage not Drinkwater.
I didn't mean to sell the guy short. So to speak.
Plus he posts all the time here as ironrailsironweights.
You can understand his whole deal if you are looking at his vantage point. I mean that stuff is right at his eye level. So to speak.
The problem with "Sons of Anarchy" is that the "heros" are really bad guys. So they have to go up even worse guys if you are going to root for them. So they had to bring in the Nazi's and the Aryan Nation and the IRA. It was the same problem the Soprano's had. It's hard to root for scumbags and evil people. You know like the problems the Democrats are having right now. Just sayn'
Trooper -
Agreed on Sons of Anarchy. I was definitely iffy on this season with the Irish trip, but the last couple episodes, especially the finale, made up for it in my mind.
Plus the music on the show always seems to be awesome.
Yeah the music is great. I loved how they did the theme song in an "Irish" style at the opening.
And Tig is one of my favorite characters on TV today. What an animal. Hee.
If memory serves, specifically from an interview I read prior to the movie's release, Verhoeven was not handed this moving and told to "do it". He went after it and decided it was the best vehicle for his childhood anti-Nazi angst.
Sure, just like Burton decided Wonka was the best vehicle for his Daddy issues.
I'm not sure why you think I care what PV or the studio thinks of me and I'm not quite sure what led you to go down that line other than some innate desire to take a swipe at me.
Any swipes were incidental. Just pointing out that your ideal interpretation (if you can call it that) wasn't his.
The man is in the business of making very public art. He is open for criticism by definition.
I never suggested otherwise. Your very public comment on a blog is just as open to criticism, wouldn't you agree? (That is, within the small audience of blog commenters?)
It's that I don't feel your pain. I didn't care much for the novel, true—though I like it much better than RAH's later stuff—but I can rant over Lord of the Rings.
Even so, I don't think Peter Jackson owes me anything or deserves to go to Hell for it.
Tig was so creepy in the beginning (implied necrophilia, bestiality, etc.) that it was funny.
They've seemed to tone that stuff way down lately. I don't know what to think of that.
Dammit,
It's NOT that I don't feel your pain.
Check out Justified this January. The music on that show is awesome too.
"You will Never Leave Harlan Alive" is a great freakin song.
HBO is adapting George RR Martins "Game of Thrones." There is no way in hell it is going to be anywhere close to the book. But it might be fun anyway.
No Way!!!
Does this mean that Martin finally got off of his ass and finished the series. We all have been waiting for the next in the series A Dance With Dragons for years now.
Despite initial hopes of A Dance with Dragons being published quickly after A Feast for Crows, the writing and revision process for this fifth novel proved more difficult than anticipated. On January 1, 2008, Martin published an update on his website saying he hoped to have the book published in the autumn of 2008, but that it was only a hope.[25] As of October 2010, the author has published no further updates on his website. Martin has in the past announced finishing dates for earlier works on his blog, and in the last several years also announced the genesis of other projects, which has caused some fans to wonder if he has lost interest in writing A Song of Ice and Fire. Martin has said that this is not the case.[citation needed] He insists that he will not be bullied and continues to work at his own pace, on this and several other projects, to make sure they come out as good as he can possibly make them.[not in citation given][26] Since then he has made several comments on progress in his LiveJournal [27][28] On Oct 11, 2010 it was confirmed by GRRM’s editor Anne Groell that Martin has finished all but five chapters for A Dance with Dragons, and that the five chapters remaining already exist in partial form. She also teased the hope of the publisher that the manuscript will be finished by Christmas 2010.[29]
Maybe if they pay him enough for an HBO series he will finally finish!!!
Yeah they did kind of tone down Tig because he was way over the top.
But you know he boned that home care attendant after they killed her. Or least Stephen King did when he showed up to dispose of the body. Talk about creepy!
"I went out with a girl with mulitple personalities once.
"And not one of them wanted to bang me.
"What a waste."
When everyone has a problem with you, it's not them...it's you.
Oh, I watched Justified from the beginning. I loved Deadwood, and Walton Goggins (who plays the bad guy who turns into an evangelist after he got shot, I forget his name in the show) was great in "The Shield."
I reread Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS a year or so back. It wasn't as gripping as I remembered it, and it certainly isn't as good as Verhoeven's spectacular take on it.
Conversely, BLADE RUNNER was vastly inferior to Dick's source novel.
He's a "cool" or even "cold" filmmaker, like Hitchcock. And I grant you that Inception is not as emotionally engaging as it needs to be.
But to say Nolan has "no idea how actual human emotion functions"? Come on. The Dark Knight is fantastic art about terrorism and our society's response to it. How can you watch that movie and not feel anything?
I agree with your assessment of The Dark Knight , however I would contend the problem lies not with the stories' connections to the audience on an emotional level, but on the inter-personal relationships of the characters. In Nolan's films I don't find them as believable as I want to. In Inception I struggled to give a damn about DiCaprio's relationship with his deceased wife and his children, even though they were central to the plot.
There's something missing, and I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's simply a stylistic thing — his films are too 'clean' and relationships are messy.
@RC
See...we can agree and disagree honestly on politics, but when you say Verhoeven's "take" was "spectacular" and better than the book...well, now I have to assume you're insane. Ditto on the Blade Runner reference.
Can we all just, at least, agree that Tron will be the eye-candy of the year?
"When everyone has a problem with you, it's not them...it's you."
That is very true Robert. Do ever think about that in the reaction of everyone to your posts.
(just kiddin dude)
No, Trooper, I'm the exception to the rule here.
I know Robert. I always appreciate your take. It makes me think.
The problem with dating a woman with multiple personalities is that you buy one persoanlity a drink by the time she is finished another personality shows up and you have to buy her a drink. It gets kinda expensive you know what I mean.
Rules are for little people...
Don't tell that to Peter Dinklage.
And by the way, I loved "Showgirls." Just sayn'
Robert Cook said:
No, Trooper, I'm the exception to the rule here.
Confuscious say: he is cook, fief, wipe & lubber all lol'ed into one.
Don't tell that to Tex Antione.
(obscure NY referance)
Showgirls, which would have been a flop no matter what, I think, suffers from timidity.
They meant to go way over the top, but as they approached the summit of sleaze, they chickened out.
Well they didn't want to make an
X-rated movie. But it is pretty much a foreshadowing of what strip clubs have become. Dinseyland with naked tits.
Some girls have multiple personalities. Like Pat, she's Irish. I love her but she's a mean drunk - like all the Irish, especially the 'real' Irish.
Y'know the Italians are wonderful people but some don't have their head screwed on straight, like Nancy Pelosi
Where was I....
Hardcore strip clubs have a very different vibe than what you got with Showgirls.
Showgirls was really just a remake of "A Star is Born."
The Bada Bing in the Soprano's is a lot more what hard core joints are like. The drugs, prostitution, mafia guys, gambling and loan sharking are the vibe.
Not that I know anything about that world. I just hear things. I swear.
A Star is Born or Valley of the Dolls?
Nah it is definitely "A Star is Born."
Or maybe a dash of "All About Eve."
All I know is that any movie with Robert Davi is usually a lot of fun. Just sayn'
Yeah, Davi is great.
I missed the big deal about Berkeley though. Never watched..."Saved By Degrassi" or whatever.
All I know is that any movie with Robert Davi is usually a lot of fun. Just sayn'
For a second there, I thought you meant Robert Duvall. Then I thought of that huge, gaping, painful hole in my soul that's been there since seeing The Road.
Nightmare material for adults.
Think Miley Cyrus playing a stripper and you just about have it.
Which she will in another year or so.
It's called Lindsey Lohanism.
If you want to see how they wind up check out Kim and Kyle Richards on the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills."
Everything you need to learn about life you can find in a reality show.
Shouldn't it be Berkleyism, since EB was first?
Or maybe...Darlaism? No...wait...which Mousketeer did the nude photos?
wv: dariesse
No you name the disease after the most famous person who gets it.
I mean Lou Gerhig wasn't the first to get "Lou Gerhigs disease."
Inception is very good.
It is definitely not a movie you just lay back and "enjoy"-- it challenges the viewer in ways that action/epic movies generally do not.
Definitely not the kind of movie that deadens the senses.
I think you would like "Winter's Bone". Jennifer Lawrence is incredible in it.
blake said.....
Or maybe...Darlaism? No...wait...which Mousketeer did the nude photos?
That would be Cubby.
In Inception I struggled to give a damn about DiCaprio's relationship with his deceased wife and his children, even though they were central to the plot.
There's something missing, and I can't quite put my finger on it.
I think I can. You know how the worst ending in a movie is when the character wakes up and it was all a dream? That's like Inception. The whole movie is a dream. A dream within a dream. We're dreaming about a dream. Your subconscious is screaming, "It's not real!" So it's hard to engage emotionally.
Kurosawa's Dreams are (supposedly) filmed versions of actual dreams that he had. But the stories themselves are just like any other movie. So it works. In Inception, the movie references dreams more than any other film I've seen in my life. The characters are literally asleep for two thirds of the movie. I've never seen so many sleeping people in a movie.
It's a "cool" movie, and an awesome spectacle. Kinda like Avatar. You have to see it once. And I see why people geek about it, but it's not the sort of film you go back to again and again. Emotionally it's way too distant and detached.
Winter's Bone was great.
I turned in final grades this morning, so I'm looking forward to movies. True Grit and The King's Speech are up next.
The Landmark theater downtown was sold and turned into a hoity toity thing where each theater is smaller, with comfy reclining seats, little tables, and dinner service. Wowza! I've enjoyed it, but I'm worried about the first time someone decides to get chatty. There's no darkly anonymous shushing when there's only 30 people in the room. Fight breaks out at upscale theater! Artisan flatbread pizzas flung, champagne bottles cracked over eggheads!
I liked a lot about Inception but the sound was ruinous, and I got the feeling over the course of it that someone had taken a few common movie pitches - caper movie, lost love movie, hero's journey movie - and figured, hey, we can make all of these in one, wrapped up in a cool sci fi layer of perception. None of the interlocking plots was original, but their layering was intricate.
Love Justified and The Glades too.
Movies on the list that I've seen: RED was excellent & loud escapism. Mirren was good, if predictable casting (I would prefer Mirren to Dench as M), but Malkovich stole the movie. Alice in Wonderland was a huge disappointment, although the design was vintage Burton, and lastly the squishy "The Kids Are All Right", meh.
We stream Netflix & Amazon video more than rent or buy DVD's now.
We watch a less and less live TV. We enjoyed "The Big C", but I can't see where the story line goes after the final episode this season. "Mad Men" was a must-Tivo until this season; they've jumped the shark.
We listen to XM, and read in bed...TV can really mess up your sleep pattern, especially as you age.
Winter's Bone is great. I've got The Kids Are All Right sitting on top of my TV, haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was funny and cool. The Town is awesome. Iron Man 2, Please Give, Centurion, From Paris With Love. I've heard people bitching about the movies this year, but it seemed to me to be a typical year. It'll take a couple of years to discover the best movie of 2010.
The Oscar nominations go to the movie with the best p.r. department, the best distribution deal, the best drama. The Academy usually skips over comedy, suspense, horror, independent films, art films, animation, foreign. They skip over a lot of frickin' movies.
Black Swan looks cool. But I haven't liked any Aronofsky movie I've seen. Here's a funny mash-up of Showgirls with the Black Swan trailer. Pretty hilarious.
http://vimeo.com/17679018
When anyone internalizes the notion that the problem's with him, him is dead. Go through life with the problem is them and you'll die a happy camper.
My guess is The King's Speech is gonna be a huge hit if for no other reason than it's a throwback to traditional movie making for which there is a tremendous built up hunger.
A non entity gave awards to failures so they can see themselves as the saviors of those american barbarians . No matter if the only country were american commercial movies are below 99% is France . And and they use state force to get that result
Husband and I saw RED. Laughed a lot. Total escapism.
Younger friend was telling us it was "ok."
It helps to be mature.
;-)
We go to the movies very very rarely.
Have found a little local theater that reminds of when we were growing up. Makes going to the movies more fun. Less of a production.
I'm with Scott M. "Starship Troopers" was an atrocity.
Ridley Scott made significant changes to DADoES, but then again he also changed the title. If Verhoeven had titled his movie "Space Legionaires" and simply had a "based on the book 'Starship Troopers' by Robert Heinlein" in the credits I wouldn't complain. Using the title of a book for a movie utterly different FROM the book is false advertising, in my opinion. I would have seen it in the theater based purely on the Heinlein connection, if a friend hadn't warned me off.
$133M world BO (adjusted for inflation) is not spectacular, but it's not bad either.
Well, no, it IS pretty bad considering the budget was $100 million; it probably would have needed to earn $175m to earn a profit. Yes, it spawned two direct-to-video sequels (which reportedly were a lot better than the original, actually). But don't take that as evidence that the original film was a success; the Dungeons and Dragons movie also spawned two direct to video sequels after stinking up the box office.
Starship Troopers, the movie, actually made fascism look attractive, after seeing that movie, I wouldn't mind if voting was restricted to military veterans.
Perhaps the Professor should show more interest in movies. 150 comments on a non-Palin thread. Not bad!
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was funny and cool.
Funny, but so far, SP has been my favorite movie of the year. Edgar Wright is a heck of a director. The end was a little hacky, but it was one of the few instances I've laughed out loud in a theater. I would definitely prefer SP for a Musical & Comedy nod over the dreadful Alice in Wonderland.
I'm with Scott M. "Starship Troopers" was an atrocity.
Sure. So were James Whales' Frankenstein movies, Day of the Triffid, War of the Worlds, Coppola's Dracula--any of the Dracula's, really, Truffaut's Farenheit 451, etc. Basically, the entire history of movie sci-fi, contrasted with speculative fiction as literature, is an atrocity when the consideration is how it hews to the source.
In other words, it's a totally predictable atrocity.
Ridley Scott made significant changes to DADoES, but then again he also changed the title.... Using the title of a book for a movie utterly different FROM the book is false advertising, in my opinion.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it, is that he bought the rights to the title "Blade Runner" and made a completely unconnected movie to that title. On top of that, he changed his mind and wanted to call it Gotham City--how's that for false advertising? (Bob Kane refused.)
And he never read Dick's novel.
If Verhoeven had titled his movie "Space Legionaires" and simply had a "based on the book 'Starship Troopers' by Robert Heinlein" in the credits I wouldn't complain.
Unless, of course, you don't know the book. (See Blade Runner.) Which is the only point I'm making: Hollywood has always regarded SF fans--to the extent they regarded them at all--as marginal cases.
I would have seen it in the theater based purely on the Heinlein connection, if a friend hadn't warned me off.
Heh. How naive are you?
Well, no, it IS pretty bad considering the budget was $100 million; it probably would have needed to earn $175m to earn a profit.
My understanding is that production costs for most movies are covered up front through the sales of worldwide and television rights. This was probably somewhat less true in '97, but I have no doubt that Starship Troopers made money when you factor in world-wide box office, and TV and video sales.
In any case, it's hard to argue "epic fail" consider the guy's preceding picture was Showgirls. Now that was an epic fail.
And I am one of the few (maybe only) who defends Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake. The original was relatively plot-less, had very little character arcs (and growth) and Dahl reportedly hated it. (even though he is credited with the screenplay) Gene Wilder's performance saves the film.
Depp's performance is much better than people give him credit for, considering he is playing a man-child who has had very little personal contact in 20 or so years.
The daddy issues helped give Wonka a story arc (he is the protagonist, while Charlie, who doesn't change at all, is the hero.)
The Slugworths of the new film serve as an impetus to close the factory to human contact, and thus gives us the strange, disconnected, out-of-touch Wonka, and the necessity for the Oompa Loompas to exist. Unfortunately, Burton misfired on the Oompas.
John August wrote the remake, and is one of the most consistent writers working today.
His blog is an invaluable resource for aspiring screenwriters.
I haven't seen everything, but my two favorites of the year so far are Winter's Bone and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.
I liked Starship Troopers when it came out. Now I have to go watch it to see if I still like it...
(available for streaming on Netflix)
Oh, and Toy Story 3 would be a surprise favorite too.
Winter's Bone is at the top of my list though. Hard to beat.
--I know from other sources that "Inception" has some big problems in the "making sense" department.
Sorry, but it made perfect sense. The people who didn't get it might not have been capable of keeping track of it all, nor liked the dream-quality to some of it.
Inception was the only movie we saw this year, and it was the only movie worth the $30 we paid to the sitter plus the $20 we paid for tickets and junior mints.
But one reason movies aren't much fun anymore is that they are always trying to teach us something they think is important. Movies were/are art when they leave what's important up to us.
And I am one of the few (maybe only) who defends Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake.
None of what I have said should be construed as attacking the films in question.
I thought Burton's Charlie was okay. The sound mix was off--the music is unintelligible; and I disagree with Burton's drive to turn heroes into victims. But there were some very good parts as well.
The original was relatively plot-less, had very little character arcs (and growth) and Dahl reportedly hated it. (even though he is credited with the screenplay)
I believe what he hated, specifically, was that Charlie was made to cheat. That element, much like the stuff you praise in Burton's version, provides drama not in the original story--but it also defeats the entire point out the story.
Gene Wilder's performance saves the film.
Music. Sets. Peter Ostrum. Julie Dawn. Jack Albertson.
Depp's performance is much better than people give him credit for, considering he is playing a man-child who has had very little personal contact in 20 or so years.
It's a fine if slightly off-putting performance. It's also completely opposed to Wonka-as-hero.
The daddy issues helped give Wonka a story arc (he is the protagonist, while Charlie, who doesn't change at all, is the hero.)
Sure. If you like that sort of thing.
Which, again, goes back to my point: Burton's gonna do what Burton's gotta do. Same with Verhoeven.
John August wrote the remake, and is one of the most consistent writers working today.
John "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" August?
Sorry, but it made perfect sense. The people who didn't get it might not have been capable of keeping track of it all, nor liked the dream-quality to some of it.
Or maybe, the other way around? People who claim it made sense didn't notice the problems?
e.g. The time dilation that everyone loved. I loved it, too, in theory. In practice, there was no way the ratio expressed at the beginning of the movie mapped to what was shown in each of the layers.
Or for another, waking up when you fall backwards: At one point, the characters (in the deepest layer) tumble down a hill higgeldy-piggeldy. None wake up.
A combination of both conflicts in one shot: The van falling into the water. It took way too long AND they were falling the whole time. Why didn't they wake up the instant the van started to fall? (Because it's more dramatic to have the van hit the water, I presume.)
It set up the rules and didn't follow them. Most people don't seem to mind. I probably wouldn't have cared either, but I had that same detached feeling others have described.
John "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" August?
Established writers (of which at that time August was not ... I'm not sure he is now.) can call their own shots. A Ron Bass can pick and choose his spots. Sometimes, you take the jobs you can get, to get paid. It's hard to envision a Charlie's Angels sequel to be, well, exceptional, no matter who is behind the keyboard.
Yesterday i have seen "Faster" movie in which Rock as a main character.i really like that movie in this year from the Hollywood.such a nice movie.
- 2Pac
A combination of both conflicts in one shot: The van falling into the water. It took way too long AND they were falling the whole time. Why didn't they wake up the instant the van started to fall? (Because it's more dramatic to have the van hit the water, I presume.)
I don't know if this helps explain the time issues you have.
And I'm not sure if the music that gets played before the jolt has anything to do with conditioning the dreamers that it's time to wake up or whether or not it was just a cue.
I was teasing about the "Charlie's Angels" things. (He wrote both of them.)
But since then, he's written four things: Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride and The Nines. Consistent? Maybe, it's hard to tell with screenwriters.
Yeah, that YouTube thing shows exactly--the guy making it had to cut stuff out because there was too much of it at layer one.
It also shows one of the things that bugged me the most: At 4:27 the van turns over in layer 1, causing the cool special effects in layer 2, while in layer 3? Nothing. Not a twitch.
I'm willing to suspend disbelief that the van tumbling end over end doesn't count as "falling backwards" because they're all shown securely bobbing in their seatbelts (lol). But meanwhile Gordon-Levitt's in a fist fight where he's getting thrown every which way, and what...none of that woke him up? Really?
They should've just gone with "if you die, you wake up". Way more binary.
Now, I admit that I could have this totally wrong: Nolan is a precise filmmaker, and maybe it all works out on paper. But it sure didn't seem that way to me.
This was cool, though:
Inception music.
Kicked myself for not hearing it in the movie.
Blake,
It's a dream.
Why don't you wake up when you start falling in a dream? Don't you have the outrageously common experience of waking right before the impact, not at the beginning of flying off the overpass, or falling off the building, or whatever?
Have you never experienced strange effects with time in dreams? Have you never experienced inconsistencies?
let me say it again: it's a dream.
Allison,
Actually, no, in those cases where I have dreamed of falling backwards, it's usually the backward sensation that wakes me, not falling for a long time and then hitting something.
Which is how they described it in the movie. It wasn't the impact, or that would have limited applicability in the non-dream world.
Eh. I'll go watch "Dreamscape" again or maybe "Nightmare on Elm Street". You guys enjoy your movie!
Professor, I think you would dig Please Give. The writer/director is the brilliant Nicole Holofcener, who did Walking and Talking, which is really cool, one of my favorite indy movies.
Please Give has to be the most awkward movie I've ever seen in my life. It's filled with awkward moments, people saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. You're not sure whether to laugh, or what to feel. It's so damn quirky and interesting. And Catherine Keener is amazing. I'll watch her all day.
Got 6 minutes? You can see a whole bunch of this year's movies in this montage.
Life happened to your interest in the movies.
Life pretty much prevented me from going to the movies for a decade or more, and I didn't miss them. It always amazed me that that was what so much dinner party conversation was about. I wanted to say to people, "Get a life!"
Now I can go to movies. After seeing Fair Game tonight, I tweeted: "A movie puts you through this neat little 2-hour emotional workout. I guess it is to life as the gym is to hard physical labor."
Post a Comment