March 9th, 2015

I have carried on a debate with people for some time about getting older, and whether in your old age you would rather lose your body or lose your mind?   I have seen first-hand both sides.   My Grammy, who lived into her late 90s, lost her body.  Her eyesight failed with cataracts and she had poor results from surgery late in life.  She had pain in her legs but refused pain killers because they made her “fuzzy”.   In the end she was in constant pain.   My other Grandmother, kept her body for the most part, but suffered from dementia.  In the end she did not know her family nor where she was.  She remained independent until the last moment possible, but had assisted living when she wandered the streets aimlessly from her St Clair condo.   The movie Still Alice explores the whole issue from the latter perspective, and does so very poignantly.

In it, we have a Best Actress Oscar Winner Julianne Moore, with a good supporting cast of Alec Baldwin, Kristen Strewart, and the almost unrecognizable Kate Bosworth (eat a sammich!!).   Moore plays a much awarded linguistics professor from Columbia University and just turned 50 yo!   I note fifty with an exclamation mark since this is not that far away for yours truly!    Anyway, she notices herself stumbling on words and forgetting the odd thing or appointment.   She gets lost running one day on campus.   She eventually sees her doctor, and a Neurologist who suspects early Alzheimer’s disease.    The diagnosis is confirmed with MRI evidence and noted as rare “familial Alzheimer’s” which is genetic, and passed from one generation to the next.   If you have the gene, then you are 100% to get the disease.
We see this disease from early stages right along to its rapid progression as this woman struggles.    There are many quality scenes here, but this hits home and is thought-provoking on a couple levels for me.   First there is a personal level, where one wonders in middle age whether this would strike me down.  Where in essence we are, and consist of, little more than our experiences and our memories.   And what would we be if that was slowly and steadily taken away from us?   But there is the parental aspect of this too, where you could have a sibling or a parent be diagnosed.   The movie is very early Alzheimer’s but it is more a elderly disease.   But how cruel is it, to have your mind and memories taken from you?
In the debate I have with myself, I would rather lose my body.   I would like to keep my mind.   My reasoning is that I remain sharp and I am still “there”.   I could suffer the pain of a crippled body on my own and deal with it.   This is preferable in my mind than losing one’s mind and memories.   I think that those around you suffer more, as you are blissfully unaware and somewhere else.   Like Ally in The Notebook and countless other examples, I don’t want to put my loved ones through this.    This movie explores painfully and sadly what can happen and what a devastating disease this can be.   It is thought provoking, and it has stayed with me.   I have to admit that I really am not much of a Julianne Moore fan, and I did see her outside the theatre at TIFF where this was playing (in fact I walked right by her going to see another nominated film Two Days One Night with Marion Cotillard).   But this was a very good performance.   If movies are about bringing forward issues and casting new light on them, then this issue helps in the fight against Alzheimer’s.   In the movie, Moore’s character says that she would rather have gotten cancer.   Incredibly but truthfully, the reasoning is because cancer sufferers are thought of as victims and there are rallys and runs and things that people do.   For Alzheimer’s people around you just look at you and wonder what’s happened to you, and it’s not as galvanizing a cause.   Perhaps it should be.

February 17th, 2015

This past week has been a busy one to catch up on movies for the coming Oscars on Sunday night.  I have all but American Sniper watched (and I finished half of that yesterday).   I watched Boyhood last Thursday and then The Boxtrolls (animated nominee) and finally Selma last night.

None of these viewings changed my mind as to the Best Picture for 2014.  It is still The Imitation Game for me.   I enjoyed both Boyhood and Selma for different reasons.   Both are worthy nominees for Best Picture.
Boyhood was long and plodded along.   It was an ordinary story about everyday life in South central US.  In this case Texas.   Young boy in the beginning grows and ages over time and we see most of that in his hair style.    Those around him do as well.   Mom, older precocious and overly-talkative sister and then Dad (already separated from Mom when we meet him).   Dad is finding his way early.  Not really there, exploring music and not seeing his kids much.   We find out that eldest daughter wasn’t exactly planned.   Mom moves into an educational mode going back to school and hooks up with a couple wrong men – hard drinking men who are abusive in different ways.   Meanwhile boy grows and find out what interests him.   He is an interesting kid.   Quite a commitment from a Director to sign him on for 12 years.   I wonder how much of the story was scripted out in Year 1.  Likely most.   But how much leeway was there for shaping it  to the kid’s interests and personality?    For me, this is Best Director.   I do not see the Supporting Actress nominations here.  Hawke nor Arquette.   Neither of the roles is an emotional stretch.   There are not many powerful soliloquies, except Mom who selfishly and incredibly takes away from son’s life event moment of going off to College.   Sad really.
Selma was last night and I see the thievery from the Academy for David Oyelowo who is cast as MLK.   Our much talked about discussion on bio-pics runs true here.   You can watch the MLK speeches in Montgomery Alabama.   Can watch the other very public aspects of King’s life at this time.   Yet Oyelowo finds more than home movies here.   More than newsreel footage.   You see real emotion and angst as he struggles at home and with those who are losing loved ones based upon his direction and his commitment to non-violence.   It’s powerful.   Much like Stephen Hawking the life is well known.   It’s in the spotlight.   But to have him not even nominated, it is a travesty.   Plain and simple.   I cringe at the fast that most of the Academy is American.   It puts good films not focused on the US (like Imitation Game at a disadvantage) but one would think that it would assist with a Best Actor nomination.    Overall, quality performances with a powerful story.  As a lawyer, the legal “right” to something clearly can be usurped by ill-intended clerks and local administrators who can prevent basic rights – like voting which have a ripple effect on judges, juries and the whole legal system.   Here too, we have Lyndon Johnson, who I don’t think that history has treated kindly (justifiably so) showing more fortitude ultimately than I think was there.  If it is true, it is amazing how much communication took place between the President and MLK directly.
Finally the Boxtrolls.  Here is a Sheridan College grad directing and old school animation piece – with stop animation where every movement is done by hand and filmed one frame at a time.   Not computers.    This is very nice looking.  Remarkable in look and feel in places.   The story suffers.   This is not Finding Nemo or Beauty and the Beast.   It is a decent tale, but it did not grab my 10yo’s attention.     I am still amazed that Lego Movie got snubbed.   Not even nominated.    There is no accounting for taste it would seem.    Does the father figure and mayor of the town really care more for CHEESE than his own daughter?    Think on that.

February 9th, 2015

So based upon the favourable reviews, the number of nominations (including Best Picture) and the win at the Golden Globes and BAFTA awards for Eddie Redmayne for Best Actor I finally had a chance to see The Theory of Everything.  I share in many of Alison’s views (previously shared) about biopics and the acting challenge that it requires.    In the last 10 years, there have been 6 biopic Best Actors award winners and 4 non-biopic.  The last six years it has been alternating between biopics and not.   Last year was NOT with Matthew McConaughey.  The year before was Yes for Lincoln.   Then The Artist (No), Kings’s Speech (Yes), Crazy Heart (No), Milk (yes) and Last King of Scotland (Yes).   If the pattern continues, and it will, this year we have a biopic winner.   But history aside, what about the movie?

I had heard mixed reviews about the film.   All the nominations quite frankly surprised me.    The two key performances with Redmayne and the Wife (Felicity Jones) are solid.   This is a story of remarkable resilience for a man who was given a death sentence (“two years to live”) early on in his life.    We see his struggles and the brilliance of his mind.   Much like Daniel Day Lewis with Christie Brown in My Left Foot, you have a physical transformation of the man as he succumbs to the disease.    His body folds away underneath him and settles uneasily into a wheelchair ultimately.   There is a scene of tremendous struggle where he tries to get up a flight of stairs to his bedroom with his young toddler son watching.   Another after he loses the power of speech.   Still, he has the love and support from his Wife.  She is good as well.  Although for the older scenes as she ages, she is just a little too young looking still.   I was awaiting her Jennifer Connolly A Beautiful Mind moment where she explodes from frustration in dealing with her everyday life, but she doesn’t.   Maybe that is a strength in the performance, but somehow I think that more range can be shown.  Or perhaps it comes from the fact that this movie is based upon Jane’s own book of living with Stephen.   It reminds me of The Affair (just begun for me to see on a plane this weekend – where perspective plays a huge roll and the same scene is shown to different eyes and lens).   Maybe that is HER interpretation of events with him.   Redmayne has to show range through his face, and body language as his character loses speech fairly early on.    I did find it predictable as a story, and I cannot think of this as the Best Picture.    I like Imitation Game and Birdman more than this –unfairly comparing completely different films.    But back to Alison’s point, Professor Hawking is still alive.  There is much footage about his life and his history.   In many ways Redmayne is replaying old home movies.    To that end, I am still backing Cumberbatch as a better performance and gets my vote for Best Actor.     Redmayne will likely win.  But to me, there is more to fill in (and act) for a character who was not as well known.     In the end we will see.

Another film started but not finished for me was The Judge.  Another TIFF film with Robert Duvall and Robert Downey is his most smart-ass like self acting as a lawyer separated by life from his family.   They don’t get along, and he and his Judge father do not talk.   But his Mom dies and he needs to pay his respects to this backwater town in Indiana to bury her.    He meets up with younger and older brothers.   He exchanges groans with Dad until Dad is charged with hitting a local everyman with his car and killing him.   Step in Robert Downey and let the clichés rain on down.   I did not even see the ending, but I know how this ends.    Let’s just say the youngest brother in the family finds a way to film his way into saving the day!   That is a total guess on my part so I cannot be said to give it all away.    But I don’t feel the need to finish this film as it was going through the motions.    Billy Bob Thornton is admirable as a cocky Prosecutor.   And there is Vera Farmiga who should work more, and so should the woman playing her daughter.   But I am glad that I did not pay $25 to see this film.

Incidentally, having seen Episode 2, 3 and 4 of The Affair that won best drama in TV for Golden Globes I am enjoying the story.    I like the perspectives taken, and the intrigue.   I will watch more episodes.

January 26th, 2015

Oscar season is upon us, and to that end there are a number of films for me to catch up on.   I saw for a second time Imitation Game this weekend and re-confirmed what I had been thinking; that this is one of the Best Films of the Year.  So far it is my pick.  And although it is a biopic, and agreed on my part with Alison, that it isn’t as much of a stretch for an actor (here we have a man, Turing who has been dead since 1954).    I like the various themes here, and the notion that it was women (not only Joan Clark but the receiver of messages on the wires) as well as this gay man who solved Enigma and shortened the war effort by a couple years.

I saw Birdman and also Cake this weekend.

Birdman was really good on a number of levels.   Michael Keaton was really good and so was Edward Norton.    I typically am not an Emma Stone fan, but she was also very good in a supporting role.    It is an interesting view on fame, relevance, the theatre and critics.   All at the same time.   It is well acted, with some extraordinary interactions.  It is beautifully filmed in NYC, and in a theatre with great use of lighting and colour.   The music too adds much to the whole feel of the picture.    Here we have a tortured narcissist and actor who had been a great comic book movie star, but has done little since.   He is looking to become relevant by creating an original play for Broadway (writing, acting and directing).   Norton re-affirms what I already knew about him; he is a great actor and needs to work more on quality projects.    The interaction among the characters is its strength and it has great writing.    Worthy of its’ many nominations (Best Film, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor and Actress).

Cake was okay.  A rather simple story really of a woman in chronic pain after an accident of some kind.   A fellow woman in pain therapy had taken her own life (Anna Kendrick) and that leaves this woman trying to understand herself and this other woman’s motivations.   Can’t say that this was an Oscar performance, and Aniston was not nominated (although she got a Golden Globe nomination).   It was a bit slow, and I can’t say that the acting (beyond showing pain) was over the top excellent.  Here like Birdman is a protagonist who has internal voices, or those who speak to them that are not necessarily there.

Guess I need to see The Theory of Everything at some point.

January 5th, 2015

Welcome to the first edition in 2015 for Mondays.   It was a great holiday break is year filled with many movies.   Great times.   And some time away from the office.   For movies there was a lot of quality that was seen.

First and foremost we start with the most recent film watched.  Last Friday at VIP cinema.   The Imitation Game simply needs to be seen.   It is, I think, and also predict the best film of the year.  It won the TIFF prize.  It is also a first rate story with quality performances.   Benedict Cumberbatch is superb and plays this quirky role with aplomb.  Keira Knightly brought more to her role than I would have expected.   This movie is a human story but also deals with deeper issues like how do you keep the knowledge of cracking an uncrackable encryption from the enemy, thereby keeping him using it.   First rate.  Highest rating.
Into the Woods was a musical that girlfriend and her theatre friends were eager to see put on film with the assembled cast including Meryl Streep.   Emily Blunt has a golden globe nomination.  Anna Kendrick is also here.   I knew nothing of the story.   Youngest son came as well.  He was bored.   I found the story slow.   There were no songs to leave humming but clever song writing.   The two princes song was funny and good.   The Cinderella song very clever.   Sondheim does multiple voices well.  Still it was a story that did not entreat.   Girlfriend enjoyed more as it was a trip down memory lane.  She had played the Baker’s Wife role (Blunt) and knew every word of the performances.  For her it was true to the play but good not great.   A fair evaluation to me.  A rental.
A Good Lie.   Saw this Christmas Eve on video and enjoyed it thoroughly.  An engaging story well told of Sudanese refugees.   Don’t fool yourself about Reese Witherspoon.    This is not her film.  It is about these young men and their struggle.   Their resilience.   Overcoming obstacles.  Staying true to themselves and persevering.  I liked them.  I respected their choices and their desire to follow through with their family.   The human spirit can be a remarkable thing.   I think that Unbroken will show this as well.   To be seen and reviewed by me (I just finished reading the book and enjoyed it).
Equalizer.   Denzel as you had pointed out and disappointing.   It becomes formulaic.  And there is the nasty Russian mob who bullies a helpless hooker and Denzel rides in to make it right.  But it becomes ridiculous when he flies to Russia to take out the “big boss”.   (Cough) bullshit!!!   Just sayin.
More to come as Selma beckons me as well as American Sniper.  Likely Foxcatcher too.   But the nominations will come out soon and there will be much still to see.   Oscar is on the horizon.

The Giver.  Please, take it back.

Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges (in Bridge’s best marble-in-the-mouth voice)….here is a movie that Meryl has no business making.  It is a Divergent rip off.   It is not done as well.   It is forgettable, utterly and completely.   It was a FREE movie Thursday (note: every thursday you use Promo Code THURSDAY and get a free movie in a Red Box).    This was not a good movie.   Cannot recommend.
Boyhood is now on the Red Box and I need to see it.   All 3.5 hours of it, but still need to see.
I am still trying to figure out all the love for The Theory of Everything.   Redmayne wins the Best Actor.   I had heard from the reviews that it was simply average.
I am disappointed to read about American Sniper.   Eastwood usually puts forth good work.
I was pleasantly surprised to see JK Simmonds win.   Grand Budapest simply makes me shake my head, and Lego movie losing to Dragon 2??!!?  Huh?!!

Here was the joke from The Aristocrats that got me going:

A pianist and composer walking down the street sees a sign outside of a piano bar that reads, “Pianist wanted. Inquire within.” So he goes inside, speaks to the bartender, and sets up an audition.

For his audition, the pianist plays the most amazing jazz piece ever. The bartender is just floored. He sees that this pianist is going to triple his business. So the bartender asks, “Who wrote that?”

“I did,” says the pianist.

“Wow!” says the bartender. “What’s it called?”

“I fuck goats on Sunday,” replies the pianist.

The bartender does a double take, and almost throws the pianist out of the bar, but instead asks to hear another piece. So the pianist plays a magnificent classical piece that is sexy and suave at the same time.

“Wow,” says the bartender. “Who was that? Fuckin’ Mozart or something?”

“No,” says the pianist. “I wrote it! It’s called ‘Your mother is a two-bit whore but she gave me half off!'”

“Hey, man,” says the bartender. “Your stuff is awesome, but do you have anything without an obscene title?”

The pianist thinks for a minute, and then says, “Nope.”

The bartender thinks for a minute himself, then agrees to hire the pianist as long as he *never* tells anyone the title of his songs. The pianist agrees, and thus begins a wonderful relationship. The bar is packed, the pianist gets quite a following, it becomes one of the most happening places in town.

One day, the pianist is playing one of his particularly sexy pieces, and he sees an attractive girl at the bar eyeing him quite suggestively. So after finishing the piece, the pianist winks at her and heads to the bathroom. She follows him in, and gives him a blowjob. He finishes up, she gets up, leaves. A minute later, he heads back out to start playing again.

Everyone in the bar is staring at him. He thinks it’s because they all realize that he just hooked up with a really attractive woman in the bathroom. But then one of the patrons shouts out, “Hey, Piano Man, you know your zipper’s open, your dick’s hanging out, and there’s jism on it!?!”

The pianist grins widely and says, “Do I know it? I wrote it!”

December 15th, 2014

My 17yo daughter saw the Fault in Our Stars and did not like it.   She felt as though she was being manipulated.  She was not a fan of Shailene Woodley.  As a result my expectations were low.   I must have been coming to this picture from a different place I suppose.   First I like Shailene and liked her work in The Descendants a great deal.    I think that she has an edge to her and that she has a presence.    Second I am a parent of a young child who had cancer.   Early on in the film I felt as though the relationship with the parents to the daughter here was given short shrift, I think that as the movie progressed it improved.   We dove more deeply into that relationship.    This was a good thing as Laura Dern was good here.    She carries and shows that uncomfortable balance that the adult as when dealing with a child who has cancer;  you stay strong, remain positive, and then support the child as fully and best as you can.

Here the daughter is justifiably depressed at her condition and Mom looks to have her improve her attitude and life.   She attends a cancer support group run by a Bible thumping guitar playing hippie.   Then she meets the ex-basketball star who lost a leg from cancer.   The rest explores their relationship.    They explore a book together written by a guy in Amsterdam.   They learn and grow and become attached.   Then things happen for which I won’t proceed further.   There is indeed some manipulation here.   If you haven’t reached for a tissue a little past midpoint, then there is a couple more belts to your tear ducts.   They are ALL after all, so very young.   The adult in me wishes that young people didn’t have to face such moments as this.  But they do.   My time in Sick Kids Hospital showed that time and again.    There is a good message here though, on why are we all here?   And what is important and what does it mean to leave an impression and make a difference?   I like the answer.     Maybe because I agree with the perspective I liked the film more than my daughter.   But I did like it.    I like the young man here and find he was more interesting than Shailene.

December 17th, 2014

I don’t need any more trips to Middle Earth.  I have decided this.   As Monty Python would say it” ‘Tis a silly place”.

It’s silly because it is slow and meandering and takes forever to get from one place to another, like the books.    The books delve far too much into song and poetic prose, the movies linger aimlessly on get-togethers in the Shire and just having a pint or two.

The third, and mercifully last, installment of The Hobbit which comes out today, I saw Monday night courtesy of a free preview from me being a proud VW driver.   The movie was on them!

It is yet another long movie at 2.5 hours.   But it takes 2.5 hours to tell, and finish, what is a simple tale.    Add to this the already supplemented story so that this ties more directly into Lord of the Rings and it’s overwrought and tiresome.

The most interesting aspect of the story as I remember it was the dragon, and the battle with the dragon.   Here our dragon who prattled on incessantly in the second movie about how all knowing and all powerful he was nary stays for a spot of tea before being dispatched.    I trust I am ruining nothing to divulge that gem of the plot.    Best so since it’s over in the first 25 minutes.   Then we have endless squabbling and battles amongst the various “armies”.  From dwarves, and elves, and orcs and others.   All in enormous numbers.    Then they fight in massive battles shown at a distance with CGI.    Impressive CGI I suppose, but graphics that don’t carry any emotional weight for me.  It becomes a video game.    And then it’s remarkably silly.   Silly because itty bitty dwarves who ride pigs (yes pigs) are taking down scores of huge and ferocious orcs all dressed in heavy steel armour.   Some orcs are felled by someone throwing a stone at them.  Really?   Where did it hit them?   Then other elephant-sized creatures are taken down by an arrow or two as they fall backwards and crush those behind them.   This goes on and on.    It is ridiculous.    Add to this, Legolas (Orlando Bloom) running up a falling stone bridge to fight a battle, and the ridiculous becomes the hilarious.   One always needs to suspend the level of disbelief in fantasy movies, but there is a tipping point where it’s just too much.     I think it was Roger Ebert who wrote about certain CGI and how it didn’t work because the characters had no weight to them.   It might have been a superhero movie like Spiderman.      Again here, I lose the emotional attachment and grow weary of the sword play and little people (dwarves and hobbits) deciding the fate of so many.    There are swings in momentum, like a sporting event, reminiscent of Star Wars, but still I was shifting in my seat and had seen enough.

So I am thankful that I saw this for free.   I truly wish the free tickets were for The Imitation Game (Bennedict Cumberbatch voices the dragon, but the better film of his is where he acts).    But alas, it was not to be.   I saw this with a non-LOTR fan nor watcher of the earlier Hobbit films.   She was brave.  She sat through it, and I could sense and feel her waver in interest.    When the short story gets chunked into three pieces, there is much lost in terms of plot and moving forward.   She is a trooper and I will be happy to see other movies to her liking in repayment for her patience.     I cannot recommend this film.   I was thankful that it was over, and we can move away from Middle Earth finally.

December 11th, 2014 – bonus posting

What makes for a good romantic comedy movie?    The memorable movies that are quoted and speak to relationships for many?   Classics like When Harry Met Sally, The Princess Bride, Four Weddings and A Funeral all have likeable people that are also funny.  There is chemistry of course where you need to feel that these people really like each other and should be together.  But for me, it is the writing.   Good dialog between the main characters and how they interact.    A playful repartee that often has keen insight into relationships in general.   Often too, there is the supporting characters that provide this insight and also more comedic relief (like in Notting Hill for example with the bizarre roommate).

On Tuesday I watched The F Word with Daniel Ratcliffe and Zoe Kazan, in IMDB and the US they are now calling it “What If”…what-ev-ah!!  I enjoyed this film a great deal.   It is also a really good showcase for the city of Toronto.   Memorable places like the Bluffs and downtown and the parks near the DVP.   The premise is simple.   A guy with a broken heart meets a girl at a party and they have a good conversation.   They end up walking home and she announces that she has a long term boyfriend as they say goodnight and exchange phone numbers.     Then there is an exploration of whether men and women really can be friends.    And can you remain friends with someone who you are romantically attracted  to?   Harry and Sally explored this.   Now these two do as well.    I liked that there wasn’t an effort like in some films (Wedding Singer comes to mind or Serendipity) to make the current boyfriend out to be a clutz or a dick or an unappealing cad.   Where no one sees why the two characters would ever be together.    Here it is handled better and more realistically portrayed.   There isn’t a villain.   There are people sorting out their lives and where they feel most comfortable.  There is the supporting cast with Adam Driver and Mackenzie Davis who are very good at pressing at trying to get the two principals together.    In the end you enjoy this movie based upon the characters and the situations.    And so I can recommend this film as light entertainment and some insight into relationships when you are looking for an evening to decompress.

I would not say that this movie is a “Classic” like those mentioned, but it was fun and I laughed more than a few times.

A colleague, to put it in perspective, hated this film.    So your mileage may vary!
I do like the banter and the banter well delivered.   Radcliffe was very good at that….but then so was she….

December 1st, 2014

Life in the Old West was hard.  It was especially hard for women.   Full stop.  Roll credits.

These two statements could sum up what took Tommy Lee Jones two hours to explore and state in the movie The Homesman.   For all he has claimed to have learned from working with Clint Eastwood on other films (like Unforgiven and Space Cowboys) may I state categorically, and borrowing heavily from Ronald Reagan, “Mr Lee Jones, you are no Clint Eastwood…”  Stick to acting, and stay away from screenwriting especially.

This is a dark, slow and tiresome story that enlightens somewhat in showing the Old West for what it probably really was moreso than the Hollywood glamourization of it in other films.    Yet, oh man, it is painful to watch.

Here we have a small town (and town is being generous) in rural Nebraska.   For various reasons three of the local women folk have lost their minds.   “Somebody” has to take them to a place in Iowa, so they can seek help.   Turns out, the only somebody who has the cajones to ante up is a single woman.  Played by double Oscar winner, Hillary Swank, she is a straight laced, practical and no nonsense woman.  Single. “Bossy”.  Living and working a farm that could be a ‘family farm’ but that is not clear.    My main objection about her is the premise, since as a woman in the 1800s, she did not have any legal standing and could certainly not own land.   She seeks a husband and looks for any bloke that breathes to fill that role but she is unsuccessful.   She volunteers to assist these women who need a driver.

Off she goes in a paddy wagon and gets the women.   Then she adds, by happenstance, Tommy Lee Jones, who is a little wacky himself but he would be the Homesman who assists with horses, directions and keeping the women in line.  There is a journey.  Long and hard.   Tough weather.   For days, and days.   Not much happens.   And then a little more doesn’t happen.    Then the plot turns and ultimately the destination is reached.   There is an interesting side story with Lee Jones finding himself some food with a side order of revenge with an innkeeper but otherwise that is it.

Even as a character story and not about the plot, I am not engaged.    I care about and have some sympathy for the Swank character.    I have sympathy for ANYONE who lived in that time, and in that place.   I certainly could not live then or there.   Yet, I don’t really feel the need to experience it for more than ten minutes.   Nor spend two hours with these people, who are in one form or another a little crazy.

I do not understand the 3 ½ star review from ebert.com.    And even though I saw this rather than Horrible Bosses, I really wish I had seen Birdman or Foxcatcher instead.   I struggle with the buzz over this film and it would be a great surprise to me to have any of these fine actors nominated for what was a forgettable film for me.  Meryl I have to expect you took on this role to give your daughter (one of the three crazy women) another role.

Incidentally, I also rented Sin City: Dame to Kill For and it was (generally) pretty to look at but also more of a pointless exercise.   This is a loose sequel to the previous film, which was better and you see Bruce Willis more in dream sequences.  Talent like Rosario Dawson is mostly wasted while Powers Boothe is likely the best.  Others like Joseph Gordon Levitt is wasted and Mickey Rourke.   I cannot in good conscience say anything negative about Eva Green as she is for the most part topless in her time on screen – but she plays a highly manipulative women who deserves all that she gets.   In the end it was FREE, as it was a Thursday promo event at RedBox….free movie every Thursday.   So I was only out my time.

I also watched Maleficent and enjoyed this more than I expected to;  expectations can be a marvelous thing.   I had heard that the CGI was excellent but the story only so-so.   I agree with the CGI, especially in the fairy world.   As for the story, I liked the take that they spun here and the journey is goes on.   The actress who plays the princess to me was a little wrong for it – but she interacted well with Angie.   I cared about the people.   Funny that buddy from District 9, where he was a hero is playing a baddie now (like with Elysium with Maaaaaatt Daaaamon).   I always found the animation and the story surrounding Disney’s Sleeping Beauty was weak.  Here gives it more colour and more context to better understand the motivations of the characters.    In all, a much more enjoyable evening in front of the TV than Sin City.
Finally I decided to re-watch 2001: A Space Odyssey given my recent experience with Interstellar.   I can see where Nolan borrowed heavily from the look and feel of 2001 with the music and ballet around the moving spacecraft.   2001 leaves far more to the imagination and leaves you more puzzled.   There is less closure and more interpretation as to what it all really means.   Still it is an iconic film and still holds the test of time (remarkable in this day and age of CGI) and there are some stunning scenes.  I am glad that I own this film so that it can be re-visited time and again.

November 7th, 2014 – Interstellar edition

I saw Interstellar at IMAX last night in a surprisingly crowded but not sold out theatre.   I am thinking that the 9PM start time on a Thursday with an almost three hour movie scared some people away.

This is a long movie but for a review one cannot disclose too much without giving too much away.   In short, I liked this film.  It is still with me this morning and I expect for a while to come.    It is ambitious and explores some very high level themes (where I wonder if Nolan could have an intelligent and reasoned discussion with an astrophysicist on the theory of relativity).   I suspect that he likely can.
The story if you have not gleaned from the trailer is that futuristic Earth is changing and there was past catastrophic event that lead to billions dying.  Dust storms rise and farming (feeding the people left) is more challenging.   Matthew is a single father to two kids.   He ultimately is asked to assist in going on an expedition to find a new home for humanity, the species.   Then he has an adventure that takes you ambitiously through his journey.
There are some stunning visuals here.  Many borrow heavily from 2001: A Space Odyssey.   I feel as though this movie requires a second viewing to put it all in perspective.    This is not unusual for Christopher Nolan with Memento and Inception amongst his films.   Once you know the premise and ultimate result, then you can piece together how it got there later.
At almost 3 hours, this movie is long and can feel long in places.  There are some scenes to me that could have shortened.  This is a big theatre movie.  It has emotion too, and a heart.    The cast and acting are first rate.  I somehow suspect that this film could suffer from being too smart for the general audience.   Those who seek out Pacific Rim and Transformers are likely to walk away scratching their heads and wondering what they just saw.    It remains a film worth watching.