Tolkien Snob: Thoughts on The Hobbit

I went into this movie with very low expectations because of all the soap boxes I got onto during the development of this movie (especially the announcement that it was going to all of a sudden become a trilogy). For the most part, my biggest problem with what I KNEW Peter Jackson was going to do was make The Hobbit NOT about the hobbit, Bilbo, thus making a movie that's more about how bright and shiny Middle-earth is than it is about my favorite character. How could Bilbo actually be overshadowed in his own story when he's the title character?! It was an infuriating idea, but was something I knew would happen and I prepared myself for it.

Spoilers below I guess. 

In the end, here are my thoughts on the film:

The Hobbit should be The Hobbit, but since I knew it wasn't going to be about that going in, I lowered my expectations and so it was ok. I liked it. I loved parts. I disliked parts. It's more about the Rise of the Shadow in Middle-earth than The Hobbit storyline, but again. I already knew that was going to happen. Also, anything that gives Andy Serkis more "screen time" can never be a bad decision. When Gollum happened I had too much of a fangirl reaction to be normal. I love Andy Serkis and I am not ashamed.

Had I not been a Tolkien fan, this movie would have dragged on and on. I loved the beginning because there was Frodo and old Bilbo, but then the introduction of all the dwarves took forever. I did end up liking them all much more than I expected, save for Thorin who I didn't like at all, though I wish I had. Regular movie-goers (opposed to book nerds) probably felt like dozing the entire beginning. They wanted a journey, but we were still in Bag End an hour after the film started.

The last fight scene was so over-the-top slow-motion dramatic I am sure you could hear my eyes rolling. The pale orc was way overdone as well. I hated all that extra stuff that basically just added fake tension and minutes to the film. Hated it. It didn't add anything for me because it felt regurgitated and contrived. If PJ had been able to present that extra stuff in a better way, maybe a more original way than cookie cutter bullcrap from LotR, maybe I could have dealt with it. And if they had added something to Thorin's character other than just making him seem petulant and bitchy, sure that would have been good, too. But it did not work. Not for me, and many others at least. I know it was trying to beef up their story, but it didn't add what it should have. 

Also, it was unnecessary because as cool as the dwarves are, they aren't supposed to be the stars, so beefing them up to overshadow Bilbo was never going to work for me. But I had at least hoped what they did would be better than what it actually turned out to be. Azog, the pale orc, just needs to GET OUT. 

That's not to say I wasn't surprised by how much I loved some of the dwarves. I really enjoyed them. Especially Bofur and Bilbo's exchange near the end. I felt that and it was so sweet. It's really just all the extra stuff they added and tweaked for Thorin that pissed me off. Like... do we really need a history lesson at the campsite with a flashback of Thorin's life while he broodingly pouts across the way? We've seen that before PJ! Find a new trick. Ugh, PJ is such a sap and overly self indulgent and he reminded me of that at ever turn.

However, I enjoy it for the most part, and especially these:

• Gollum was the best part of this movie. 
• Gandalf was absolutely badass. 
• Bilbo was precious, but as I suspected, there was not enough of him.   
• There was Frodo at the beginning and he checked the mail and I died. 

The Dark Knight Rises: The Ending

This started as a small response about the ending then turned into kind of a mini-break down Bruce's relationships with the people close to him and a mini-character analysis of Selina... WHOOPS, I don't know.

Seriously read at your own risk, it completely ruins the ending, but I really want to discuss it so...

CLICK THE READ MORE TO READ...MORE. :)

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

I can only really express my feelings for this movie with bullet points... so here we go:

MEGA Spoilers below...

• I absolutely ABSOLUTELY loved this dang movie.. sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. I JUST... lk;fasjdlkfajsdl;kfajwefncihxg;e rijkg[pflht

Ok now actual things. 

• I CRIED
• I enjoyed Bale as Bruce more in this movie than ever before. I felt like there was so much more playful writing for his character than there ever has been. 
• I was very sad when Alfred left Bruce.
  
  And then I was sure Alfred was going to die... bc Bane knew who Bruce was, so I was sure he'd use Alfred against him. So glad he didn't.
• IT WAS SO VIOLENT. I know that's redundant for a super hero movie, but I've never seen Batman get beat on like he does in this movie, and I was NOT okay with. Nope. Nope. Nope. 
• ANNE HATHAWAY ... she was like... good. I was so skeptical the whole lead-up to this movie about her being Catwoman, but the way they did her.. she was fabulous. It was great. GREAT. 

(Let me preface the next "feels" by this, Catwoman and Batman were the cake toppers at my and my husband's wedding, srsly)

•     BATMAN AND CATWOMAN KISS
      IN COSTUME
      AND OMG
      lkasjdl;fkjdflkwjekrlfjpbdfbj;lkcvjb
• And Catwoman even begs Batman to come with her because they could go anywhere and be anything together and GOD OH GOD OHOOOGFGG GODDDDD

Here are all my ending feels:

• THE ENDING. THE FLIPPING ENDING OF THIS MOVIE... OH MY GODDDD. 
• I was stifling sobs. It was... almost like Snape-crying. 
• They absolutely tricked me. 
• And then the funeral... and Alfred CRIED and said he was sorry he failed the Waynes... and I just... fg;lehcjgnjsdhjg NO NO NO ALFRED NO. 
• Then JGL quits the force... and then they give Batman a statue in the city... 
• Then Alfred goes on his little trip... and we find out JGL's REAL NAME IS ROBIN AND Asdj hcgnfpaieudfnghkdjfvnlksajfghbkljdh 
• Then Alfred SEES SELINA AND BRUCE HAVING LUNCH BC THAT FLIPPING SHIP IS FINALLY CANON.... 
• SELINA AND BRUCE WERE ENDGAME FOR THIS SERIES!!! 
• THEY NEVER END UP TOGETHEERRRR BUT THEY FINALLY DID 
• A HAPPILY EVER AFTER SELINA AND BRUCE OMG
• I kept having feel after feel after feel until I died of emotions.
• The ending was everything I never knew I was allowed to want and especially didn't think we'd get.
• I was SURE Bat and Cats would not be in love. I was sure they were going with the Talia thing as the love interest. Period. So I was SO surprised and happy kldjfgldaksjghenhgbcxjd nfxhvjm
• Nolan it's like you wrote your ending after digging through my HEART

Titanic Reflection: Why Does it Work?

So, Titanic has just been rereleased into theaters after fifteen years. It was one of the most successful movies in history and began the careers of what we can now say are two of the most accomplished and talented actors of our time. Yet, despite all of that, plus the enormous fan base this film still has, there are tons of detractors who claim this movie is terrible. Are they right? Actually, they're onto something. Despite its success and the big name actors that are involved, there is a lot wrong with this movie. Which begs the question, then: why does it work? 

Why I Love It 


I watched Titanic for the first time as an 11-year-old, was deeply affected by the tragedy/story, became fascinated with the history, and fell in love with Leonoardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet. I think a huge amount of the people my age (mostly the girls) probably had similar experiences with this movie, and so it played a huge part in our adolescence. Nostalgia is most likely the reason why 99.8% of people are paying $14 to wear stupid 3D glasses and sit for three hours to see a movie they probably own on DVD. I know when the movie began in my theater, I clapped my hand over my heart and I was in 6th grade again. Same heart pangs and everything.

The movie gets me every time, even when I start out completely convinced I'm not in the right mind-set to cry. It's no use. The following is a glimpse into my mind as I relive watching the movie: Basically from beginning to the middle of Titanic my heart is exploding with rainbows because I love Jack and Rose SO much, and there is all this sexual and romantic tension and … LEO’S BEAUTIFUL PERFECT FACE BEING ALL IN LOVE AND STUFF...

HIS FAAAACE

..but THEN they hit the iceberg and immediately I’m all, “I REGRET THIS DECISION. MISTAKE MISTAKE. ABORT MISSION.” And by the end…I'm weeping for the remainder of the week day. 


Obviously, I adore Titanic. However, while I adore this movie and have no resistance to it's inexplicable charms, there is no way you'll ever hear me describe it as "genius" or "masterful" or "spectacular" in terms of film making.


What's Wrong With It?

James Cameron loves to plaster his name all over this film and make sure to remind everyone that he invented the Titanic -er, that he made the movie Titanic. As the credits began to roll, the first thing that flashed across the screen is "Written and Directed by James Cameron." He's really proud of what he's accomplished, and I guess he's earned it because, as I said, it's ridiculously successful. But I am under the impression that Cameron thinks it's because of him and his writing, which I have to proclaim to be false. 


He writes in circular symbolism and irony that is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not hard to get it upon first viewing, let alone multiple viewings. It’s not “genius” or deep in any way. It’s just… obvious. The characters are all flat, two-dimensional beings and only a fraction of them are dynamic.  It's nothing that another writer couldn't produce with his/her eyes closed. It's not earth-shattering by any means.


I love this movie in spite of how shallow the characters and dialogue are. The love story is done well, but I think it has a lot to do with the arrangement of events created and how they’re acted, not how the events and dialogue are written. 

The dialogue can sometimes be so self-indulgent and cheesy that, if it weren’t Kate and Leo saying the words, I’d roll my eyes. But then there are moments that are meant to pander to the audience, yet they still work for me and make me smile. Blast James Cameron, because some of his cheap tricks still work on me, even though I acknowledge that a trick is what it is. But, again, that doesn't mean it's good film making. It just means Cameron knows the tricks to manipulate.

I had this poster hanging in my room when I was 11. Srsly.

Why It Works

The reasons Titanic works, in my opinion, are these things:


Firstly, the history it’s based on is tragic, fascinating, and unique; naturally people are going to be drawn in by it. If I refuse to give James Cameron credit for most of the things he did with this film, one credit I cannot withhold is how much research he did to make it as real as possible. He immersed himself in the history, studied picture after picture of life on Titanic, even recreated some of the most iconic images in the movie. The sinking of the ship was well-thought out and wonderfully executed. When it comes to film making, Cameron excels in special effects and details. 


He also showed forensic details as well as emotional details of the disaster. What would it look like from a technical standpoint when "A" happens to the ship? What would it feel like from a victim's standpoint? etc... We see horrifying images of the lights blinking on and off, strange groaning as the ship is bent by the pressure of the water. We see haunting images of unused China shattering in piles, an old couple holding one another in bed, knowing they can't make it to a life boat. In that way, Cameron didn't miss a beat. Watching the the last 45 minutes of this movie is enthralling because Cameron has recreated something only the actual people on that ship had seen up until this movie was released, and however morbid that might be, it is also fascinating.


Another reason it works is because the characters are archetypal so it makes them easy to relate to. There are no characters in the movie that are multi-dimensional (unless you want to argue in favor of Rose which would be a skimpy argument, overall). They are mostly vague versions of people and therefore it's easy for many viewers (rather than a small specific group) to latch onto the good guys and abhor the bad guys. 

And lastly, it works because the love story is something many, many people root for. They want to believe a love like that of Jack and Rose can really exist. I was reading some movie responses for Titanic and many said they don't believe that a love like this can exist anymore, which was rather sad to me. One in particular spoke about how materialistic and selfish current day culture is and that it doesn't foster this kind of devotion, claiming that the time in which a love like this maybe could have occurred is gone forever. 


That perspective just drives my point home further that people really want to believe in this kind of love, and if they don't believe they can find it in real life, then where will they go? Maybe... to a movie, where they can cling to the hope they feel when they watch a girl give up her millions to be with a penniless artist who wants nothing more than to make sure she's going to be okay, because nothing is more important to either of them than the other person.   

Movie Review: Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

I went into this movie having not read the book, and also being slightly uninterested in seeing it. However, I knew there was immeasurable hype surround both the book and the movie, so I knew I needed to see it. I was excited to see what all the fuss was about and went in with an open mind.

The movie begins with what may seem like incredibly odd opening credits. As someone who knew nothing of the story and barely anything about the characters I was about to meet, the oddness had no context and so it didn't really work. As I left the movie, I remembered the opening and chuckled to myself because, even after knowing everything, it still seemed out of place. It may have worked better as part of the closing credits instead... who knows?


Rooney Mara was awesome. For me, she was absolutely the best part of the entire movie. I read somewhere that she is "the next Kristen Stewart" which is too cruel a comparison to be real. Rooney is much more dynamic, talented, genuine, and explosive as an actress than Stewart could ever hope to be, but the hype that statement was meant to express is true. Rooney certainly proved that she should be the next big thing. 

I also enjoyed Daniel Craig in this movie. He portrayed Blomkvist as likable and down-to-Earth. He was another part of the movie I really liked, which helped pull me through some of the stuff I did not. However, I did not enjoy a lot of the movie and all the reasons have to do with the choices Fincher made as the director, not the story itself or the acting. The film was uneven, unbalanced, and I felt a lot of it was choppy. For viewers who have read the books, it may seem different to you because you know what's coming and you know all the stuff that was left out, therefore, it may flow more easily for you. But for a viewer who has not read the books, not only did the story not flow, but the big reveal of the mystery and events stemming from that seemed anti-climactic.


Basically, the rest of the film never lived up to the intensity of the rape scene, which happened in the first 30 minutes, was exposition, and had hardly anything to do with the main story line. I feel like Fincher paid too much attention to that scene and less to others he should have highlighted. That scene was so powerful, so meticulous, and so obviously choreographed to the finest detail/camera angle/sound effect that it made me wonder why Fincher didn't spend that amount of effort on other, much more important events in the story. 


I wanted the rest of the movie to be that meticulous. I wanted the film to show me that amount of intensity and focus, but no other scene ever really did that. When the most fierce scene has already happened in the first 30 minutes, the rest of the movie doesn't pack a punch. Many people have said to me "Well, the rape scene is that intense because it's like the book" but my issue is not about being faithful to the book. My issue is that the way Fincher dealt with that scene is what made the rest of the movie unbalanced, in my opinion. Why spend so much time highlighting a piece of exposition, then later skimming over actual important plot points and events? 

It raised questions in my mind of what Fincher was thinking when he was editing and why he didn't think to allude to more and show less of the rape scene, so that later he'd have time to pay more attention to things that mattered more to the story. The same things could have been achieved for Lisbeth's character had he edited that scene down; I am not saying it should have been cut altogether.


OR if the climactic moment of this movie had been done with as much care as the rape scene, I probably would have no issue with it at all. I would have felt that the ending was satisfying and the movie more balanced. Either way, in order to fix this problem, one of the two things I've mentioned needs to have been changed. 


Overall, I would say that there was too much hype around this movie and not enough delivery. I think if I had read the book I may have enjoyed it more, but as a neutral viewer, the story fell flat with the way Fincher presented it. If you love the book, see it! If you like action mysteries, you may enjoy this movie. If you are neutral and don't care one way or another, don't waste your time. If you can't handle rape scenes, run far, far, far away. 

Movie Review: 50/50

This is one of the first movies I have seen since the summer that I absolutely adored from beginning to end. It was so enjoyable that is surprised me. I remember thinking in the middle of it, "I cannot believe how good this is."

What I really loved about the movie is that it wasn't a cliche. Most movies that deal with serious stuff like cancer usually flower up the sickness. Instead, 50/50 shows a very honest interpretation of what it means to be struck with something so bleak and doesn't shy away from the fact that it really sucks. Because they didn't try to dress it up, I felt as an audience member much more connected to the story. But what is really amazing is it still manages to be funny. Needless to say the writing is just wonderful. Even when Adam is going through the worst of it, the tone never crosses the line into territory that's too dramatic. There is a perfect balance of comedy and tribulation to keep you from being pulled too far one way or the other. It's kind of astounding how they managed to do that.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was just wonderful in this role. I loved the way he played his character, kind of insecure and a bit awkward. He was the perfect lead for this story because, he's so likable, you cannot help but care for him. I don't know what kind of award he should get, but walking out of the theater I just kept thinking... "He really deserves some kind of recognition for that!" Seth Rogen was also really good. He played his usual character, but with a touch of vulnerability we don't usually see in him.

Overall, it was just such a wonderful movie. I made it to about the middle without crying, but then I teared up. By the end I was very noticeably crying, but even so I still burst out laughing through my tears. It is slightly hard to know what to expect from a film like this, but all I can say is expect to feel lots of things, and I mean that in the best way! 

PS. I tweeted my mini-review to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and he reposted it and sent me emoticons back! Haha!

Movie Review: Last Night

I was so excited to see that this movie was on pay per view. It's coming to the Dallas Angelika in 2 weeks, but I just couldn't wait. I had to watch it as soon as I had a spare moment, which just happened to be tonight. I have been waiting to see this movie for about a year and a half. The release was delayed a few times because of the problems Miramax was having, but thankfully, it finally made its way to me! Keira in a modern time period? I hardly knew what to do with myself! Unfortunately, I am unable to write a review about a Keira movie without spoilers.

This movie begins at a fast pace, showing the dynamics of characters and background of couple. Immediately you can see the chemistry between the two leads and how comfortable they are in their relationship. They've been together for a while, even though they are still newlyweds (married for 3 years). Keira (Joanna) was completely lovable and genuine in her role, and surprisingly, Sam Worthington (Michael) was even tolerable. (This is a big deal because I have pretty much despised him in everything else I've ever seen him in.)

Eva Mendez's Laura is hard to connect with because she is presented in a way that makes you dislike her on principle, but eventually I did end up feeling for her. The only character I never really connected with was Guillaume Canet's Alex. It's hard to say why, but it could have had to do with the fact that the whole time I kept expecting him to speak with an Irish accent but he was most certainly French. It never ceased to throw me off, and that's just my own stupidity. But also, I found his character to be the only one who never became more self-aware nor did I feel that his intentions were ever anything but selfish.

The story takes place as a side by side as Joanna's husband goes on a business trip. The actions of one spouse mirror the actions of the other, both in similar situations, just in different parts of the country. (The film cleverly does a few camera tricks with mirrors to drive home this motif.) Both spouses deal with equal temptations at the same time. Neither are really the bad (or should I say worse) guy because they are both doing things that they know are wrong or shady, both feeling guilty, and having to decided moment by moment what to do in their own specific temptation. When asked by Laura if he is happy in his marriage, Michael replies, "You can be happy and still be tempted."

The stance this film takes on cheating is that a person can't always be blamed for being attracted to another or having feelings for another. The true betrayal is subjecting your loved-one to the knowledge or the image of your desires for another. Joanna mentions a few times that Michael should have "spared" her from seeing his attraction to Laura. She wasn't upset that he was attracted to her, she was just mad that he didn't try to hide it better. She retorts, "I would've spared you." This is a kindness to be dealt your partner, in her eyes. Later, even Laura mentions the things she could never get our of her mind, when she was cheated on, were pictures she saw on a computer. Not the infidelity itself. "I could have done without the visuals." The images of cheating are more hurtful than the actions. If you have to see it, it's more of a betrayal, in this story.

As well as speaking with candor like this, the two main characters were also very self aware. They know themselves well enough to verbalize things many others wouldn't be able to. Joanna is very honest with Alex when he begins to ask about why they never have worked out. She says, "I don't know that this would be what it is on its own." She loves Alex because she idealizes him and she likes it better that way. What's rare here is she knows that's why she loves him. She won't allow more to happen because he'll become too real and the ideal will end. For a person to step out of their own head and admit this to themselves is very rare. This made her such an interesting character.

The entire movie is building up to the part where both our lovers make a decision about what to do in their temptation, creating a turning point on either front. The voice overs from one scene laid across the others' bring the actions together, even though they are geographically far apart. It links them seamlessly and makes them feel like they are happening in the same room. It's very affective and cleverly done.

In the end, the degree of betrayal on either side will have to be judged by each individual viewer. Michael has a physical affair, Joanna has an emotional affair. Which is worse? No matter what you decide, I think the film is really asking this: Is it better to know or not know when you have been betrayed in a relationship? Is it selfish to admit to it, subjecting your lover to this horrible news to clear your own conscience, or is it noble, being honest to try to work it out? And in all that goes into a marriage, how would you define betrayal?

Movie Review: Hanna

I cannot describe how excited I was for this movie to come out. Not only is it another Joe Wright film (I've said in the past that he is my Director-soul mate), but Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana, and Saoirse Ronan are all in it. Usually Cate Blanchett alone would be enough to get me to anticipate a movie, so this line up was overwhelming. I've been excited to see Saoirse do more ever since Atonement, but especially since having seen The Lovely Bones and learning that she will play a role in The Hobbit (probably my most anticipated movie of the next 2 years). I realized just how excited I was as the lights dimmed in the theater and I got a little nervous. I leaned over to Justin and said, "Justin! What if it isn't good? I'm going to be SO disappointed."

Luckily, this movie was NOT a disappointment. Saoirse's ethereal look coupled with her bad-ass ways was just visually confusing enough to grab me in right away. The opening scene (which is mirrored in the last scene) let me know that this was absolutely something new and fresh from Joe Wright. It's hard to place what genre this movie goes in, but it's not really a drama, it's not fully an action movie, and it's not a comedy. Behind all the action is a film that deals with characters and their stories. The characters ultimately drive the movie, which makes it borderline drama. It's a little bit of everything, and it does each part well!

Of course, Cate Blanchett was completely wonderful, as always. She is supposed to be a character that you dislike, maybe even hate. She does some despicable things, and yet, with every scene she was in I couldn't help but love her more. She is just so fantastic! In this role, you love to hate her (and I secretly just loved to love her). Saoirse Ronan was wonderful, too. I was severely impressed and it made me so excited that she is going to be in The Hobbit (yes it's a made up role, but whatever... and that's another blog post, altogether)!

Half way through the movie I thought "This is such an awesome role for a young girl to have!" It's a type of character you hardly ever see for young actresses. Rarer still is an entire movie built around this type of character without some other character partnering with her (usually a man). Hanna spends almost the entire movie on her own, finding her own way, and defeating her own bad guys. In a few small ways, it reminded me of Kill Bill (I said SMALL ways, no one take that comment the wrong way, haha). Either way, it will certainly do wonderful things for Ronan's career. She deserves many more amazing roles in the future. She is so versatile.


Overall, Hanna is a very entertaining film. I loved it! It's fun to watch, but also raises questions about society, government, and morality. The performances are solid and the direction is great (so glad to see him do something so different!), plus the music really added another level to each scene. I highly suggest this one. Go see another side of  Joe Wright and Miss Saiorse Ronan.

Movie Review: Blue Valentine

I saw Blue Valentine a week ago and was just unable to get the review out before the Golden Globes took me as a prisoner. Luckily I have my original reaction to the film in writing so I can give you guys an honest first impression. I feel the same today as I did leaving the theater.

The movie made me angry, which could be argued that that was the purpose of the film. It's provocative and frustrating and it's supposed to get a rise out of you. However... there were a few things that I thought were off. I left feeling frustrated, not just because of the story, but also how it was told. 


First of all, the story is about the demise of a relationship and it's told in flash back with scenes from the beginning of their love interspersed throughout scenes from the ending of their marriage. As characters and plot go, I don't have much to complain about. It was a passionate, tragic, raw look into what it's like to watch a relationship fall to pieces. I was frustrated within these constraints for all the right reason. My perspective was that the character, Cindy (Williams), wasn't fair to her husband. All Dean (Gosling) wanted to do was love her, and she was so closed up and noncommunicative that she made him bitter, which eventually lead to them not being able to work together. She should have communicated her needs and he would have done anything for her.

It was easy for me to pick Dean's side because Cindy's character seemed selfish and cowardly while Dean would have changed whatever it took, if she had only spoken the words. However, she spends years NEVER voicing her issues. Despite my frustrations with the characters (which is a testament to the actors), they were played to perfection. The performances are amazing and worthy of awards. It's a TRAVESTY that Ryan Gosling didn't receive an Oscar nom for this role. Especially with his precious interpretation of love that he does so well. The story and portrayals were great. No complaints there. Those parts achieved all they were meant to.

On the other hand, there were two things that bothered me about the film itself. Firstly... the dialogue was... to be desired, for lack of a better description. So many times when these two characters were talking to each other, they could only barely express themselves, and when they did they just repeated one of two phrases over and over again. "Babe! Babe!" "I can't do this! I can't do this!" BE SPECIFIC. Now, I understand that this is truly how many real couples communicate when in a fight, and I understand that that was the point. I get it. HOWEVER, even if that's true, in a movie they need to have a script with a few better lines than that, because I became distracted away from the story because I was so frustrated with how repetitive it had become.

Secondly, I thought some of the shots were too tight. I understand the idea behind it, that in present day the two lovers felt suffocated, and the tight shots were to help us feel that way, but it was TOO much. There was a line and they crossed it. They should have pulled back in a few places and I would have been more emotional about it and less distracted or irritated. It gave me a headache at one point. 

In the end, it was ALL great, and I think I liked it, though, they went a centimeter over the line on all the things I am annoyed about. It is not enough to make me dislike it but enough for me to notice and leave upset and confused about it. Had it been slightly tweaked, I think I would have left much less distracted and much more devastated and satisfied by this film.

No matter what, it is worth seeing at least once, no matter your reservations, because these performances were beautiful. (If any of you were worried about the original NC17 rating, they cut one of the scenes that made it that way, and everything else is pretty neutral. It's not outrageous.)

Movie Review: The Social Network

I had been so uneasy about going into this film because there was SO MUCH HYPE. I didn't see it for forever (obviously, since I am just now writing my review) specifically because of all the over-stated, ultra-hyped comments I had heard about it. I knew there was NO WAY it could live up to all of that. Thankfully, a friend of mine who usually has the same taste and reactions to films as me saw it and said she was unimpressed. I was relieved, honestly. That made me feel like I could go into it with lower expectations and no pressure for me or the film.

Turns out the hype and/or my low expectations were irrelevant. The movie is intoxicating in a way I cannot explain, and I loved it. In fact, I saw it for the first time last Saturday, bought it on Tuesday and watched it again, and now I am watching it again (a night later) with cast commentary. Fantastic.

The opening scene of this movie is really great. Immediately I was impressed with the script. Writing for a cast of characters that are mostly ALL geniuses has to be incredibly difficult, and they did it amazingly well. Through the conversation with his girlfriend, so much about Mark is revealed. We see his lack of social skills, how incredibly smart he is and how it gets in the way of normal conversation, and then the fact that he can’t help but be pretentious and awful. We also see his need to feel accepted yet elevated to those around him. Then when the conversation ends with him pissing off whomever he's talking with, we see on his face that he’s frustrated and bitter, as though that seems to happen to him a lot. All of this we learn within the first 2 minutes.

From there we are driven into Mark Zuckerberg's quick rise to creator of Facebook. A few people have said that this movie is kind of cold, but I felt very connected to the human side of this story, and I think it had a lot to do with the subtle performances by this young, up-and-coming cast. Jesse Eisenberg isn't just playing a douche-bag. There is much more to him than that. As we saw in just the first scene, there are lots of factors at play here. Andrew Garfield stretches his acting legs, as well. He had perhaps the most endearing part to play and does it with charisma and a vulnerability that is so genuine, I felt it in my chest. Even with a script that is very event-driven, and technically-driven, these character anchor it. At least that is what anchored it for me.

People tend to feel like the Mark character is just the worst. However, I have a different perspective. JT comes in as Sean Parker, the creator of Napster, and we see Mark's face light up at seeing what life is like for the people allowed into the "exclusive" clubs. Pursuing this relationship was ultimately what caused him to screw over his only friend, Eduardo. Blinded by perhaps achieving the exclusive life he's always wanted, Mark allows Parker to be his mentor. Parker manipulated Mark into allowing him to have a piece of Facebook. Eduardo is left to tag along, is lied to, and eventually is dropped from the project. Parker says the first time he sits down to talk to Mark and Wardo, "I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just a fan who stopped to say hi," but that is obviously not true. He saw potential to get something out of it for himself, and he jumped at it. He is the most despicable character in the movie, in my opinion.

As far as Jesse's portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg, it's been said that it was an easy thing to do, that he was basically just playing a jerk. Plus, the character does things that are so unlikable, the easiest thing to do is to write him off as nothing more than a jerk. However,  I disagree. Jesse studied up and really dug deep for this role. The fact is, Mark hides all of his emotions under the surface. Anything Jesse shows has to be through layers and layers, which is something that is very hard to do, and yet he does it. It's very subtle, but it's absolutely there. The best summary quote for Mark as a character is "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be." Underneath the superiority, the bitterness, the brilliance, and the apathetic exterior are real emotions, and to be able to show that only after you have layered on all the rest takes true talent. Jesse is a real actor, and hopefully this role (and an Oscar nom) will break him of the "Michael-Cera-clone" stigma that exist. He certainly deserves better.

Andrew Garfield, for me, was the best part of this movie. He's so lovable the entire time, you can't help but want good things to come true for him. He's the nicest of guys and he makes it very easy for the audience to be enraged that, of all the guys in the world, he gets screwed over by his best friend. Throughout the movie, Andrew plays Eduardo as such a sweet guy who always wants to do the right thing, always wants to be there if he's needed, and who sincerely loves his best friend. Which makes it that much harder to know he's being used and manipulated. But also, the fact that he is so (I'll say it) precious the whole movie makes it that much more awesome when he explodes at Mark and Parker at the end. Without contest, that is my favorite scene of the entire movie, especially the line "I love standing next to you, Sean. Makes me look so tough." If there was any question for award voters that this kid deserves nominations, I bet that was the scene that tipped the scale in his favor.

See this movie. If for no other reason except you know that you'll have to in order to follow the rest of this awards season. Yes there is hype, yes it's ridiculous, yes it's because the movie is actually good. Check it out and see for yourself. I am immeasurably glad that I did, even though I didn't want to, at first. WORTH IT.

Movie Review: True Grit

Most everyone knows my feelings about the Coen brothers. I am not their biggest fan. However, as the opening weekend of True Grit got closer and closer, I kept feeling like I needed to see it. For some reason I had a hunch that I would like this Coen film, and I have to say that following my gut worked out. I really enjoyed it!

I couldn't believe how much fun I had during this movie. I laughed throughout, and I can honestly say that I was not expecting that. Jeff Bridges is was so rough and tough and yet very lovable. I adored his slurred speech and accent for his character. From the very beginning, there was no doubt in my mind that he was a true ace, but it was obvious he had a soft side, too. Matt Damon's Texas Ranger was just the perfect balance of cocky and clueless. He was charming a lot of the time, but then he'd get a little bit in over his head and have to be taken down a few notches. And Hailee Steinfeld was an absolute enigma, the heart of the film! This young gal has never been in a movie before this one, and she blew it out of the water. First time out, and she's an Oscar contender. Talk about batting 1000...or a hole in one... or whatever other sports analogy you can think of that equals perfection. Hailee was absolutely fabulous.

I couldn't believe how easy it was to connect to this movie. Usually, I have found the Coens' films to be cold and detached, however, I really loved the characters and felt linked in. One of the driving forces of the film is Rooster Cogburn's obvious attachment that increases for Mattie throughout the movie. He tries not let her in, but she's so persistent, and so relentlessly and effortlessly awesome, she cracks her way into his heart. Also, the hilarious banter between those two and LaBoeuf is the icing on the cake. Even in moment where I didn't expect and feel it was appropriate to laugh, I had to, because of some of the great one-liners.

"Where's Mr. LaBoeuf? Is he ok?"
"Indeed, even a rock to the head cannot quiet him but for a few minutes."

It's an old fashion western, but doesn't feel dated. I must now eat my words, because lo! and behold, a Coen brothers movie finally exists that I truly enjoyed and want to see again. And, dare I say, I also would like to own this movie one day? I think that might be true as well.

Movie Review: The King's Speech

I went to see this movie with my mother over Christmas break because I knew that we both love Colin Firth. There aren't many women who can resist him as the original screen-Mr. Darcy in the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice. Also, after his Oscar nomination last year and all the buzz for his role in The King's Speech for this year, I knew I just HAD get on board. (It's been my goal to not fall down on the job this year and actually see as many Oscar movies as possible. I've done well so far!)

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie because I hadn't read up on it. I only knew that Helena Bonham Carter was also in it and had some Oscar buzz of her own. Also, somewhere along the line, I heard Geoffrey Rush was in the movie, but I had forgotten that fact until he appeared on screen. (It was quite a happy surprise. I think I may have squeaked in excitement.) This movie was SUCH a delight. It is a period drama, but the history and stress of the surrounding plot is secondary to the human story. This is truly a story about a man who has to overcome a huge struggle and defeat his fear. In doing so, he is able to be the man he needs to be, but also he makes a life long friend. It's very inspiring, and when the credits rolled, I had felt so many emotions throughout: amusement, sadness, empathy, and triumph. It was truly a joy to watch.

Colin Firth's performance was mesmerizing. Of all the actors who could fit in the "Best Actor" category this year, my vote is for Firth to win. He is my personal favorite for that. But the thing that really kept the movie going was the chemistry between Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. Those two together are what make the film so enjoyable and make it easy for us to relate to and love these characters. Not to mention, their banter is hilarious. I would suggest that anyone who wants to see a truly awesome performance and a nice, inspirational film should rush to the theaters to see this one before it is gone. And if it is not near you, Netflix it as soon as you can.

THE BALE (aka: Movie Review: The Fighter)

Happy New Year to you all! I know it's been an eternity since I wrote a real blog with substance, but that ends NOW! Over the break I was able to see a few great movies, and this entry will be dedicated to telling you about the first one, The Fighter.

My friends and I have gotten into the habit of referring to Christian Bale as "The Bale" since he is beyond awesome and mostly rules in all ways possible by a human being. He's stunning to look at, has about a million different dialects and accents he can use, and is enormously talented as an actor. Even his outburst a few years ago was turned into a hilarious and epic dance remix that should be found on youtube. To me, Christian can do no wrong, and never has. Even in movies like Laurel Canyon or Little Women, The Bale can't help but be a true BAMF to the core. Not only does he have more cult classics than most any other actor (American Psycho, Equilibrium, The Newsies, Velvet Goldmine), but he also does pay his dues in indie films like The Machinist and Rescue Dawn. Not to mention, he could drink your milkshake even as a kid (12 years old) when he was hand picked by director Steven Spielberg, and starred in Empire of the Sun. As if that wasn't enough, he also has been a part of the biggest revival of an American icon in film history (at least in my humble opinion) by being Batman, the ULTIMATE hero. Not just anyone can play Batman. And Christian is not just anyone.

However, Christian has never received an Oscar nomination. No... I did not say he's been nominated but never won, he's never even been NOMINATED. The injustice is too cruel. But fear not, there is hope, for I have seen The Fighter and have come to report today that INDEED Christian Bale's performance is OSCAR-LISCIOUS. Get ready Academy, there is no other supporting actor that even compares to this man's rendition of a cracked-out, pseudo-hero brother of a losing boxer. Bale has this tied DOWN. He's won every award for this role so far, and I don't think we'll be seeing the guy slowing down. And it's about TIME, too. Go on wit' ya bad self, Bale, and enjoy the sweet victory. You deserve it!

But seriously, Bale captures this character so well, at the end when they showed us the real person he had portrayed I was shocked. Dicky sounded and acted just like what I had seen Christian play for the last 2 hours. It was said that while he and Mark were filming this movie, they acted so much like the brothers that they were mistaken for the brothers by people who were used to seeing them around town. That is a big testament to what a wonderful job these two actors did in these roles. And I was especially excited, because in each film Christian has been in lately, it seems he's been overshadowed by something or someone else. I believe my exact words as I left this theater were: "Finally, Christian is in a movie were he steals focus!"

As far as plot goes, The Fighter isn't anything ground breaking. You can probably guess how things are going to go. However, even though it was a sports movie with adversity and triumph, a plot we've seen before, I still enjoyed seeing this story play out. The script is good and entertaining, and the acting, as I have said, was superb. My only complaint was that Mark Walberg's character, Mickey, was portrayed as kind of a wimp in life. Not talking boxing, I mean how he let everyone near him push him around. He let his sisters bully him, his mom bully him, he let Dickey walk all over him him, he let his sisters bully his girlfriend. By the end I just wanted to shout at him. Thankfully, in the end, we know how things go for Mickey.

So, if you are in for a movie that gets you jazzed up, go see The Fighter. If nothing else, go to see Christian Bale's most awesome performance to date. Awards season can not be more exciting for me this year!

Movie Review: Black Swan

Black Swan has finally made its way to the Metroplex, and I was lucky enough to get to see it this weekend! I've heard so many things about this movie, so I was really pumped to see it, and it didn't disappoint. I'll give a general impression of the film for anyone who hasn't seen it, spoiler free!

From the moment the poster leaked online, I knew I was going to be interested in this film. I've never seen Natalie Portman in such a light before, almost unrecognizable. When I found out that Darren Aronofsky was going to direct, I was slightly frightened because his movies are ALWAYS hard to watch. They are unapologetic and raw. I was mostly basing this conclusion on Requiem for a Dream, which, to this day, is a movie I can hardly re-watch. However, as the opening grew closer, buzz for Portman's performance grew louder, and I knew there would be no question of whether or not I would see it, even if I was scared of what might be on screen.

Some of you may have heard that it is classified as a horror movie. This, I can attest to, because even though it is a psychological thriller, there are moments I absolutely did jump because of some frightening images. Also, there is a bit of gore. I didn't know just how much feet and finger nail violence would upset me until this film. Others of you may have heard it classified as a "sexual thriller," which is a term I didn't even know existed until this weekend. As for this label I would say I not only just learned of its existence, but now fully understand its meaning. There is a lot of sexuality in this film. It's not really gratuitous as sexuality is a huge catalyst to some things Nina (Portman) does, why she does them, and why she goes through what she goes through. However, I can understand if you are sensitive about sexuality (or maybe not even sensitive, but just moderate about it) you may not enjoy this film. You cannot escape the sexuality. It is throughout the entire film, so take this into consideration before stepping into the theater. You must be prepared, to give this movie a fair chance.

As for my impression, it was amazing. It's very rare to see a movie that is so beautiful and terrifying at the same time. Plus, blood, sex, and scares don't really bother me. Natalie Portman's performance should get her an Oscar nod, at least. And Mila Kunis was nothing to sneeze at. It was easy for the audience to believe that she was either or both a playful, care-free girl or a scheming, jealous understudy. As a fan of The Texas Ballet Theater and as a person who has seen Swan Lake at least 3 times, it was a frightening look at what might be going on behind the scenes, haha.

I was impressed by how the story is very straight forward with what is going on. Nina is already losing her mind as we enter the story. There is never any question of what is real and what is in her head. It's fairly obvious. And yet getting from the beginning (where I honestly guessed how the end would go) to the actual ending, you are still shocked by what you are seeing. It's nearly perfectly done. The camera work, the lighting in every scene, spot on for the mood and tone every time. Perhaps this is Aronofsky's most complete and best film to date. (Though that's hard for me to say, as I adore The Wrestler so much.)

A+! Now bring on the Awards Season!

Movie Review: Inception

Just like most everyone else, whose review I've glanced through, I had to see Inception at least twice before I even thought about starting my review. I also thought of waiting until I see it a third time, tomorrow, but I decided to go ahead with it. My general impressions will be the same, regardless of how much more of the mystery I can uncover by further viewings.


Going into this movie, I didn't know what to expect. I knew the cast was stacked pretty deep with wonderful actors, that Nolan was directing and had written the script, and that from the looks of the trailers it was more than likely going to blow my mind. But I didn't know what the plot was really about and what kind of story it was going to try to tell. I went in with a very open mind, trusting and believing that Nolan would never let me down, and my faith was rewarded. Inception was fantastic in pretty much every way.

I always love the way Nolan casts his movies and how he enjoys reusing some people over and over, like Ken Watanabe and Michael Cain. And, I suppose, Cillian Murphy can be counted too! But I also love that he finds new talent and new ways to use it. I think the casting of Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon Levitt was so interesting and wonderful. Both are doing a role that the general public (general as in most, as I understand that both have done roles similar to these that their biggest fans have seen) are not used to seeing them in, and yet seem to fill them perfectly. I also think part of my adoration for Page's part is that I love her character's interaction with Leo's character so much. Ariadne was a character that Cobb needed, but she seemed to me to be such an unlikely character to fill that role. It was very unique and, in my opinion, sweet. Plus, what a role of a life time to play side by side with Leonardo Dicaprio? (I'm really trying hard to keep my fan-girl at bay, here.)

Which leads me to Mr. Dicaprio's performance. Of course he did a great job. I don't know that I've seen a performance where I didn't think that about him. He's just a fantastic actor all around. Leo has played characters like this many times: tortured with guilt, can't escape the past even as he's trying to, and with some sort of family tragedy that's completely shaped him. Sounds a little like Shutter Island's Teddy to me. I thought that this Inception role wasn't as good for him, as far as Oscar nominations go, as his role in Shutter Island but he still knocked it out of the park as Cobb.


No one can review this movie and not talk about the amazing visuals. creating a dream world can't be an easy thing to do, especially for a director like Nolan who doesn't use CGI ever, unless it's the very last resort. So the fact that this movie looks so dream-like, and yet uses the least amount of CGI possible is amazing. And not only that, but the way he was able to capture the true feel of dreams itself really impressed me. I've had dreams where I've tried to recreate them through writing or explaining them the next day, and yet there was no way I could. And yet Nolan was able to put an image on the screen that depicts similar moments that I've felt in my dreams with no trouble (though I'm sure, with lots of hard work)! Amazing.

What really blew my mind was the entire concept of the dream within the dream, and how what could be happening in one dream will affect the other dream. And also, how time is so different in a dream. Blew my mind, and yet it's something we already know. We dream for what seems forever, and we wake up and we've only been asleep for 15 minutes. Nolan just brought that to the screen and made it seem tangible.

It's something that I would have never in my life thought of or wondered about, until now. Now, that Nolan has made dreams into this logical reality on screen. It's so amazing and refreshing to know that in a world filled with movies based on remakes, tv shows, and regurgitated romance stories, etc... there is still a director who is writing fresh, unique scripts, with amazing depth and insight. I think one of my favorite parts for sure was the fight the Joseph Gordon Levitt has as the hotel is flipping and he actually fights this guy on the walls and ceiling! And this is happening to the dreamworld because the dreamer is in a van that's flipping. Mind. Blown. I love it.


THEORIES AND INTERPRETATION

Which brings me to the part where we have to talk about theories and interpretations. After seeing it and reading a few articles and talking to all my friends about the possibilities, I have come up with my own interpretation of this film. Many people have tried to convince me that Cobb, at the end of the movie, is actually stuck in a dream. I don't believe that. I don't think that he was trapped. I think he found his way home, in the REAL world. I'll explain why.

Now, I read this amazing article (click to check it out!), that actually argues not only that Cobb is stuck in a dream at the end, but that the ENTIRE movie is a dream from beginning to end. I don't agree with that part at all, but this article also points out a fantastic allegory of film-making that this movie may portrays. He says that this movie is about how Nolan makes movies, and each character represents a part of the movie-making process. Cobb is the director (Leo based his performance on Nolan, he said), Arthur (JGL) is the producer, Ariadne (the architect) is the screen-writer, the chemist is the techie, Tom Hardy's character is the actor, and Cillian Murphy's character (the man they are trying to convince of these dreams, or the 'movie') is the audience. It's a wonderful idea, and it fits perfectly, and I rather enjoy believing that Nolan is really telling the story of what it means to him to make movies. The article also points out that Mal (Marion Cotillard, who is frighteningly beautiful in this film) represents what Nolan as a director brings in of himself to a film. Because Mal sabotages most everything Cobb tries to accomplish, it seems Nolan views a director bringing himself into a piece as a bad thing, which the article points out as unique, and that most directors may have written Mal as what helps Cobb succeed, instead. This is an interesting look at the kind of director Nolan is/hopes to be.

From all this, the article explains that the message Nolan is trying to show in Inception is that the catharsis a person feels from a dream is just as true as the catharsis that can be felt from a movie as the catharsis that can be felt in real life. I absolutely loved this idea. If you know me at all, you know that I believe in this, especially as a fantasy nerd. A world or story doesn't have to be real to create real emotion and healing, because those emotions you feel are real. Even if you are yearning for or missing a character that doesn't exist, even if you wish you could go to a place that isn't real, even if you have some sort of real healing because you can relate to a story that never happened, all of those feelings and revelations REALLY happened. In this way, the article is saying that even if Cob IS lost in a dream world at the end, it isn't a tragedy, because the joy he feels at the end is real.


That's where I disagree with that article, obviously, because I believe he made it out. I saw this movie last night with a few of my friends, and one of them had read another article about Inception (click to see!) that talked about some other observations I hadn't thought about. One of the key things was that the top was not Cobb's totem, but it was his wedding ring. When he's in a dream world (and we watched for this last night) he's wearing it, when he's in reality, he doesn't. In fact, Cobb never even says what his totem is. It's clever editing that makes the viewer assume that the top is Cobb's totem, but he never says that the top is his totem or what object is instead. Spinning the top isn't about checking reality. Spinning the top is an action of guilt, maybe to remind himself of what he did, or the last piece of Mal he has in the physical world, but it's not his totem. (This last thought was brought to you by my husband.)

I suggest looking over this 2nd article to gain more evidence of this, because it is wonderfully put together and makes it pretty clear that this wedding-ring theory is onto something. For example, he compiled this list:

• "On the train before Saito wakes up. No Ring.
• All of Mombasa. No Ring.
• Yusuf’s basement, after dropping his totem. No Ring.
• Paris workshop . No Ring.
• Aridane’s first experience with Dream sharing. Wedding Ring.
• First Class cabin scene. No Ring.
• ALL of the inception. Wedding Ring.
• Final scene of the film. No Ring."

This was no accident that Nolan had Cobb wearing his ring in some scenes but not others. It absolutely means something, and since a totem is supposed to be something that's specific to you, that only you know that weight and feel of... what is more personal than your wedding ring? It's right to assume that this must be Cobb's. Also, this same article even has a screen cap of IMDB, where it shows that they cast 2 different sets of children to play Cobb's kids because they age 2 years, from Cobb's dream version of them to when he comes home at the end. Like the article says, why cast 2 new kids unless it's important to show that time has elapsed?

And to further disprove the idea that the ENTIRE thing is a dream, I'd have to say there is just TOO much logic for it all to have taken place inside a dreamworld. The way time is effected and played out within each dreamworld, the exactness required to make sure they all reach the kick, the way JGL's character was affected by the gravity and lack there of... etc. I just don't see how all of this LOGIC, albeit dream logic, could have been dreamt up the entire time by Cobb, while he's off doing other things. No. I really believe there was a true reality in this movie. And that at the end, Cobb finally reaches it.

Overall, I obviously loved this movie. It's another of Nolan's wonderful pieces, and in my opinion, is one of his best so far. I can't wait to continue to follow his career and see what other great works he comes up with! Oh, and please keep using Hans Zimmer. The Inception score is TOTAL WIN.

Movie Review: Sylvia

I've recently gotten obsessed with adding bio-pics and documentaries to my queue on Netflix. Tonight I watched the first of many on the list, Sylvia, starring Gwyneth Paltrow.


This movie chronicles part of the life of the poet, Sylvia Plath, and her turbulent love affair with fellow poet Ted Hughes. I thought it was not bad. Good movie, and especially great performances from Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig.

My biggest problem with this movie was I thought it should have shown much more of her early life to give a true depiction of her life. Unfortunately, they start the story at the very moment she falls in love with Hughes and from then on it looks like everything she does has to do with him. It seemed that Hugh was the only influence over Plath's poetry and writing when in reality there was much more to it. Also, they made her out to be both needy and insecure. It may have been better if they had also shown how strong and sassy Plath was. How playful she was about suicide and not necessarily always so desperate and distraught.

I wanted there to be more of her poetry, too. They quoted other poets almost as much as they quoted her. I was also disappointed not to see Anne Sexton as a character in the film, but that was just a personal hope. I guess I'd need a documentary to get all the little tidbits I was hoping for. Haha!

I know I sound really critical, but I really did enjoy the movie. It's hard to reduce someone's entire legacy to a 2 hour film, and this movie did just fine. One thing especially that I was impressed by was how close the main actors looked like the actual people. They did a great job casting!

Overall, I really liked this movie. I thought that some of it wasn't completely accurate, but it made for a great movie. Gwyneth Paltrow was wonderful and so was Daniel Craig.