Loramir Of Gondor's Journal

Pleasantly Surprised

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:54:08 GMT

Just back from seeing New Moon and I must say I'm pleasantly surprised. I went in with abysmally low expectations and it wasn't nearly as bad as Twilight or as the assorted reviews I'd read led me to expect.

It was actually engaging and absorbing and funny - whereas Twilight was so awful I couldn't get into it because I was so busy cringing. Twilight seemed like a long series of very awkward conversations. New Moon seemed like a coherant film with an actual plot.

Rob still can't act. It was ever so slightly better than Twilight - he didn't sound quite as painfully slow. It sounded like he was actually having real conversations instead of struggling really hard to get the words out. But he's just so wooden and expressionless most of the time. Rather like Daniel Radcliffe, for that matter, although perhaps worse. They need to stop casting people who look the part perfectly but can't bloody act. But this time around he did actually smile a bit rather than looking tortured and emo the whole time. Also I was sort of amazed because one of the previews was for Remember Me, which stars him--and he seemed totally different. Animated, engaging! It even made me want to see that movie. So why not in the Twilight films? Apparently tortured and emo is just his interpretation of Edward.

Kristen seemed to be slightly improved. A lot less incoherant stuttering and stammering. She actually did pretty good. She was even funny at times (rather than unintentionally funny because of the awfulness). She still tends to be kind of...abrupt. She delivers lines sometimes like she's extremely nervous and can't say them fast enough, which kind of ruined a few key scenes in Twilight. It still annoyed me some in this one, but I don't recall it really ruining anything.

But Taylor Lautner was good. He was pretty much Jacob just as I pictured him, and he really brought Jacob to life. And he did it without seeming like he's trying so hard, like the others often seem to be. He seemed a lot more natural and comfortable and sincere--which is perfect for Jacob's character. Being hot doesn't hurt, either. I'd seen the pictures and thought he was cute, but on the screen - wow. The entire theater erupted in giggles when he took his shirt off the first time.

Jacob is so much more likable than Edward. I never really claimed a "team" here, mostly because it seemed very fangirly and silly. But also because it seemed rather like voting for the Green Party candidate in a presidential election--pointless. It's obvious, the whole series, that Bella will end up with Edward. Jacob never has a chance. It's written that way. What's the point getting fans to pick when Edward is the point of the whole series? If I was going to pick, I'd be Team Jacob, I suppose, because Jacob and Bella's relationship is so much more healthy than Edward and Bella's. Especially around Eclipse where Edward starts being all "protective," aka manipulative and controlling. But hey, if Bella wants her emo overprotective/controlling vampire, good for her. I'd take the sweet, loyal, honest wolf any day!

But anyway, the whole movie just came off as way more polished and professional and coherent than its predecessor. The plot flowed nicely, while Twilight seemed extremely abrupt at times (the terrible, terrible, terrible scene where he drags her off into the woods behind the school for the vampire revelation, for example, is painful even to think about. That one scene pretty much ruined the movie for me). The decision not to go into to much detail explaining backstory was a smart one. Not too many people who haven't seen Twilight would be seeing this one (and I'm sure many who did suffer through Twilight will not be seeing this one for the same reason I almost didn't), and even if you hadn't you can pick up most of the necessary stuff. Also, I liked that this one referred to things from that book that should have been in Twilight but weren't--Bella mentions Jacob's story about the Cold Ones, when in fact he never mentioned that term in Twilight; Jacob refers to the car he is building, which he was supposed to have mentioned at the prom in Twilight but didn't.

The wolves were done very well. I was a bit worried about the CGI wolves, but they were surprisingly realistic. The transformation was a bit lazy - no transformation at all, really. Just kind of a blur and a whooshing noise and poof - there's a wolf where there was a boy. They did a good job explaining the wolves, though - triggered by vampires, high temperatures, etc. without making Jacob just stand around and explain, which was good - Edward comes across to me as annoyingly preachy, always having to explain things to poor clueless Bella. Vampire history, how vampires work, why they don't kill humans, the Volturi, how vampires kill themselves, how vampires don't have souls, etc. Like the post-revelation scene in Twilight. Long explanations in his monotonous, slow speech are really dull.

The Volturi were a bit weird. But I suppose they were weird in the book. They didn't look at all how I imagined them. And the dark-haired one that wasn't Aro - Marcus? - had a really weird voice. And I don't remember all that fighting in the book. They seem to like to add fights in these movies. The Volturi are weird in the book, come to think of it. They put on a big show - and then suddenly back down, which was how the end of the Volturi scene in the movie seemed. But it seems like that fits - it's certainly how they come off in Breaking Dawn. That was the most dramatic letdown ever - all this huge build-up to the great Volturi confrontation, and then they just walked away.

Speaking of the Volturi, though, the scene leading up them was pretty good - the Volterra clock tower scene. Both actors actually managed to show some emotion and it worked pretty well. Although did Edward's pants need to be that low? You could see his hip bones, for heaven's sake.

The rest of the Cullen family was very good - I liked them even in Twilight. Everyone seems perfect for their part and very good, except maybe Nikki Reed, who is kind of blah. I really like Peter Facinelli as Carlisle - he fits the role perfectly and is just how I imagined him. Ashley Greene as Alice is also perfect - graceful and perky and cute. I liked Jasper better in this one, seeing as he actually got some personality. He even got to be funny! Though I think he's kind of weird-looking. I think on the whole they were well-cast - even in Twilight their scenes were some of the better ones, especially the baseball game.

So anyway, it's certainly not the best movie ever, but it is infinitely better than Twilight. It's not Oscar material, but its a lot more polished and coherant than Twilight, and simply much more enjoyable all around. I don't think I cringed at all! I actually laughed several times and was absorbed in the plot rather than being annoyed by the terrible awkwardness and abruptness and big changes that Twilight had. With the books, I always feel upon reflection that they really are terribly silly and that the relationship between Edward and Bella is dreadfully unhealthy--but when I'm actually reading them, I get absorbed and enjoy them anyway, because even if the writing stinks and the relationships are horribly codependent, they have a bit of heart and soul and humor. The movie of Twilight had none of that heart and soul, but New Moon succeeds in capturing a lot more of what makes the books absorbing and enjoyable, silly or not.

Also, most of the previews seemed kind of blah, but I must remember I want to see Remember Me and Letters to Juliet.

I really need to get a life

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:44:49 GMT

Yet another night on the couch with a movie. And I have to get up in about 6 hours to go to work.

But I loveThe American President. It is a mark of how good that movie is that I don't like the two lead actors very much and I really disagree with the politics--and yet I still love the movie and end up liking and rooting for these characters. As I said, I'm not crazy about Michael Douglas in general--he never fails to remind me of some species of rodent--or Annette Bening, but the supporting cast is outstanding, especially Michael J Fox and Martin Sheen, and the dialogue is amazing. There are so many great lines and moments in this movie. If it were just about the President and Sydney, it would be much less interesting, but the relationship between Andrew Shepherd and his staff is awesome, especially with AJ, Martin Sheen's character, who is his best friend and also his chief of staff. Some of the exchanges between them are really funny ("She didn't say anything about me?" "No, sir, but I could pass her a note before study hall"), and sometimes very meaningful, as AJ has to balance being the President's friend with being his advisor ("You were the best man at my wedding, for crying out loud. Call me Andy." "Whatever you say, Mr. President").

The movie has a very real feeling - though of course I have no idea what it's like being the President, this film seems like it could be pretty accurate. The question it poses - what if the President was a widower, and met someone he liked? - is intriguing. The villain, in the form of Richard Dreyfuss playing a very Dick Cheney-like senator, is both evil ("I don't even know what we call her. Is she the First Mistress?") and amusing (how far would Obama have gotten if his great campaign slogan had been "My name is Barack Obama and I'm running for President!"?). And the conclusion, with Shepherd's big speech, is also great (up until he starts in on his crime bill, anyway), and has a some great (and very true) thoughts about America.

Anyway, it's not one of my obsessive favorite movies, but it's one I always enjoy. It has an interesting premise, a lot of wit and humor, engaging characters, and a nice romance to boot. Even if I do disagree with President Shepherd's politics.

You had me at hello

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:41:11 GMT

Nope, I still don't get it. I mean, Jerry Maguire is pretty good, it's entertaining, I'm not bored to death watching it - but I don't see what all the fuss is about. You'd think, being me, I'd at least enjoy the classic romantic moments, but I just don't seem to find it very satisfying. I never really feel Jerry and Dorothy as a couple. You don't really see them falling in love gradually, building a relationship - she's pretty much in love with him from the start, and he just kind of goes along with it. At the end, after they separate, they're apart - how long? It didn't seem like very long - and he suddenly realizes he loves her? Just being apart for a while somehow overcame all his issues? And I was not completely convinced he didn't just want her back because of his phobia of being alone. Meh. Doesn't do it for me.

Oh, well. It's a good movie, it's funny at times, and definitely entertaining... but not the greatest movie ever, as a lot of people seem to feel.

Although it did make me want to go download "Freefallin'."

Show me the money

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:51:36 GMT

I'm bored to death at present, and I just saw a trailer for it, so I've decided to give Jerry Maguire another chance. It's one of those movies that lots of people rave about and I just really didn't get what was so great.

I was watching Postcards From the Edge as part of my recent Shirley MacLaine binge. I watched Terms of Endearment the other day, then that made me want to watch Steel Magnolias because it's so much better! And then I watched The Apartment on YouTube.

I love The Apartment. It's such a weird dark comedy, and Shirley MacLaine and Jack Lemmon are both awesome in it. It's unusually edgy for 1960 - some rather dirty jokes and a lot of references to sex and a surprising three curse words. Not bad curse words, but surprisingly casual usage of them for such an old movie - usually you only hear "hell" in old movies when someone's saying something profound like "War is hell" or actually referring to hell as a place, but in The Apartment Baxter tells Fran "You've got to get the hell out of here!" which surprised me because it was so casual and unnecessary - I wonder how they got away with it. I guess this was after the Hays Code and such (Hm, just looked it up and it wasn't - the Hays Code lasted till 68), but still... I also like the technology you can see in The Apartment. I haven't figured out what half the machines Baxter uses at work are, but his TV tuner fascinates me. It's not exactly a remote control but a box connected to the TV by a cord (I think?) which has knobs that he uses to turn it on and off and change channels from across the room. I'd never seen anything like it. I didn't know they had that sort of thing in 1960. Anyway, watching Steel Magnolias and The Apartment back to back and then trying to connect crotchety old Ouiser with adorable waifish Fran is amusing. Shirley MacLaine definitely changed over the years, but is awesome at any age!

Anyway, so today I watched Postcards, which threatened to derail my Shirley binge into a Meryl binge - she's so pretty and awesome in that movie, especially singing "Checkin' Out" at the end! But then it had a trailer for Jerry Maguire so I randomly decided to give that another shot. As Good As It Gets was the other trailer, which was also a film everyone but me loved - I just never could get to like Jack Nicholson's character at all in it.

But anyway. I am so bored tonight. Seems like all I do is watch movies lately. I haven't been getting as many hours at work and when I'm home I'm bored, especially when my roommate's away (which is almost every weekend).

Ha.

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:05:32 GMT

I would simply like to record that I have triumphed! Terms of Endearment did not make me cry. I bought it eons ago from the $5 bin at Walmart because $5 is almost always a good deal on a Shirley MacLaine movie, and never got around to watching it. Partly because I'm seldom in the mood for a tearjerker and I'd always heard it was extremely tragic and everyone always cries their eyes out over it.

But I thought it was kind of blah. I really liked Shirley's character, and her relationship with Jack Nicholson's character, but I didn't find it that sad. The only thing that almost got to me was Emma's youngest son Teddy because he was so adorable and sweet and sad. But then, this is me, who considers Steel Magnolias to be hilarious, while my mom and aunt have to leave the room because they're sobbing.

Anyway, Ebert seemed to like Endearment better than Steel Magnolias, but I definitely prefer Steel Magnolias.

And randomly, Debra Winger reminded me at times of Kristen Stewart (other than the fact that she could actually act, and speak in complete sentences without stammering like an idiot). I guess it was the dark hair and the husky voice.

So, three movies in four days. I've been doing nothing lately. Just laying around or either working. Monday night I watched North & South, the BBC miniseries of Elizabeth Gaskell's novel. That got me in a costume drama mood, and people are always comparing Mr. Thornton and Mr. Darcy, so I went on to P&P, the BBC version. I think they're about equally good, just very different. N&S has a lot more depth and substance, while P&P has a lot more charm and wit and humor. And while I adore Colin Firth, Richard Armitage is stiff competition...that voice! Mmm....

Anyway, off to bed!

shudder

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:36:48 GMT

Argh, I was all set to watch The Sound of Music, which I've been looking forward to all day because I've been wanting to watch it for a while... when my darling cat came running in from the screened porch carrying a fairly large roach!

Here's a hint for you - don't bother with Black Flag brand roach spray! It's cheaper than Raid for a reason. This one still wasn't totally dead when I vacuumed it up after about 15 minutes of spraying it. Kills on contact indeed. I think it was finally incapacitated from drowning in the stuff rather than from being poisoned. It would not die.

*shudder*

Now I am trying to impress upon the cat that if she finds roaches on the porch, for heaven's sake leave them there! Or better yet, kill them out there. Although I think the ones around here are mostly too big for her to kill. Ugh.

I think it must have come up through the floorboards on the porch. I suppose only 3 roaches in two and a half months in this apartment isn't too bad? And I think one of them came in one of my roommate's boxes, so only 2 that were already here...

Now I'm all creepy-crawly and grossed out.

Hm. LJ is lacking in suitable moods. It doesn't have grossed out, horrified, or disgusted. I suppose I'll use a custom mood.

So bad...

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:45:21 GMT

OK, did I just say Twilight the movie wasn't so bad? I take it back. I'd forgotten. It's so bad. It makes the book look like a masterpiece.

The beginning in particular is awful, but everything's just so...awkward. It's like everyone's very self-conscious. Bella's always stammering and stuttering (the scene in the hospital at the end is the worst - honestly, what does the script actually say there? "Bella stammers incoherently"?) and always sounds very expressionless, and conversations sound like everyone's struggling to think of something to say, rather than working from an actual script. And the kids at Forks High are dreadful. Did Eric seriously say "Chillax," at one point? Although to be fair, they don't sound much worse than real high school students, I suppose.

The way Edward talks drives me crazy. He sounds so very...slow. It reminds me of someone very dumb, like Rocky or something. He also always looks and sounds like he's in pain. Possibly this is supposed to remind us that is difficult for him to be around Bella but it just looks dumb. Combined with how slow he sounds it makes it seem like it's painful for him to think, or something. So much for his beautiful musical voice.

There are some great touches - the graduation caps, the Cullens' house, the Cullens cooking. The baseball game is awesome - extremely well done, and everyone looks so cute in their old-fashioned uniforms. But on the whole everything's just so awkward it makes you flinch. They butchered so many scenes - the scene where Bella realizes what Edward is, in the woods, followed by him dragging her off to the meadow is among the worst.

And finally, my ultimate movie pet peeve - the montages. It's such a complete slacker way of establishing a relationship. The book is full of great romantic lines. They're right there, in the book. Why not put them in the movie? No, instead let's just show a nice montage of silent scenes of people laying around in meadows and gazing at each other. That's so much more meaningful.

On the other hand, possibly this is a good thing, since Edward would just say all of the nice romantic lines like he was in great pain and also concentrating very hard, while Bella would just stammer and stutter. So maybe it's just as well.

The second half of the movie is much better than the first - after the meadow scene it gets a bit better, but still...so very bad.

I do hope New Moon is better. Maybe at least it will have a better budget. And it's a different director, so maybe that will help. Although I don't image they'll be able to do anything about Robert Pattinson's awful delivery.

Behind the Times

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:41:22 GMT

So, having finished 3 books in 3 days, I've finally caught up on the Twilight saga. Yes, I first read Twilight like 2 years ago. Yes, I specialize in being way behind on the current trend (also the reason why I've only recently discovered Friends). I reread Twilight about two weeks ago, dawdled for a while, then finally read New Moon Tuesday night, Eclipse Wednesday night, and Breaking Dawn yesterday.

I'd always liked the first book fairly well, though I was dubious about the insane hype of the rest of the series. I found that as a whole the series is neither as good as the crazy fangirls would have you believe nor as abysmally dreadful as the equally vocal detractors would claim. The writing is not the greatest, but the plot is engaging and kept me interested all the way through. My main complaint is that for all it is worshiped (Firefox spellcheck insists this has only one P, but it looks wrong...) as the ultimate epic romance--and yeah, there was lots of romance--I didn't find the romance terribly satisfying, for a number of reasons.

Bear in mind here that I am seriously the most diehard romantic you will ever find.

So, here are various thoughts. Books are henceforth referred to as T, NM, E, and BD because I'm tired of typing italics tags...

Criticism:

A) Edward and Bella are really pretty dull. Edward is way too perfect. I mean, pretty much his only flaw is a tendency to overprotect Bella, a desire to drink her blood which he seemed to pretty much overcome after the end of T, and some concern about her soul, which he seemed to get over really quickly when it came right down to it in BD. Bella's whole personality often seems to be reduced to obsessive love for Edward and her constant self-doubt.

B) Which leads me to: true love is great and all that, but Edward and Bella's relationship just doesn't seem healthy. To love someone, want to be with them, even feel you're not good enough for them - that's understandable. To be so completely dependent that without them you a) turn into a lifeless hollow shell of person who cannot even function (and put yourself in physical danger just to hear their voice in your head), or b) try to kill yourself very melodramatically - that's not good. Is this really a good example of a mature romantic relationship for the zillions of teenagers who are obsessed with these books? It seems rather telling that the books Bella loves and refers to most often are Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights - two books about extremely dysfunctional and insanely codependent relationships.

C) A final thing that seemed to detract from the satisfactoriness (yay, invented words) of Edward and Bella's relationship was the whole immortality thing. I mean...immortality is something people always seem to want, but when you have forever, where's the value in each day? Wouldn't it get boring? I'm not one to go on about living life to the fullest and making each day count, but isn't that really what it's all about? How can a relationship be very meaningful if it's guaranteed to go on forever? Talk about taking things for granted. Surely the good things in life are made all the better for knowing that they are fleeting? If they lasted forever, they'd lose all their meaning and cease to be special at all. It would be like having to eat your favorite food every single day - after a while, it's not so special, and eventually, surely you'd get sick of it.

Maybe vampire romantic bonds are stronger than human love and don't fade over the centuries, but still, spending eternity with your ageless family, watching the human people you love age and die while you stay 18 forever - that doesn't sound like happily ever after to me.

Etc:

And yet despite all this, the books are enjoyable. I guess the main thing is suspension of disbelief. Once you get into them, unless you're just being critical, you can overlook the more unhealthy bits and just enjoy them as a silly, extremely escapist fantasy or fairy tale, or I could, anyway. It seems to bother some people more than it did me.

Other than the somewhat dull main characters, a lot of the supporting ones are interesting and engaging. The Cullen family, the Quileutes, the assorted vampires from around the world - they all keep it interesting and often funny. I would say Stephenie Meyer is much better at plot and character development than actually translating those into writing. The plot and characters are pretty inventive, with lots of little details that really bring them to life, and lots of unexpected twists (or they would have been if the Internet had not completely spoiled pretty much the whole series). The Cullens and the werewolves and the other characters were quite interesting and brought a lot of much-needed personality and humor to the story.

The actual writing tends to be repetitive (stone! Everyone is made of stone, granite, ice, steel, etc) and kind of blah. I actually liked Jacob's narration in BD the best - it lacked all of Bella's constantly repeated worship of Edward and his perfection and his topaz eyes and bronze hair and granite skin - we get it. Jacob also provided a new perspective and attitude and an outside view of Bella and Edward's relationship. The decision to give the narration to him for that critical part of the story surprised me, but I think it was a good decision.

The non-conflict with the Volturi at the very end was also an unexpected decision. Maybe it was supposed to be a surprising plot twist, but I'd gotten so caught up in the tension of the confrontation and impending fight, and then it was like, "Wait, what? After all that, they're just walking away?" Maybe she's just leaving room for sequels (Early Morning, or perhaps Noon?).

So yeah, I had some issues, but I still enjoyed the books. I will not be getting "And so the lion fell in love with the lamb" tattooed anywhere, or devoting my life to making mix CDs or music videos devoted to Edward and Bella*. But I'll probably read them again sometime when I want a nice romantic fairytale that is utterly escapist and completely absurd in terms of real life. Which is actually pretty often. I get enough real life in my actual life - I'll take nice silly fantasy in my literature, thanks. The Twilight saga will probably go in my 'guilty pleasures,' category, for books and movies and music that are so silly I really shouldn't like them, but I do :) (10 Things I Hate About You, Dirty Dancing, Empire Records and songs like "Copacabana" and "Billy, Don't Be a Hero" are also in this category...)

*(although last night right after I finished BD, when I was still in a nice daze from reading, I played around 100 games of TriPeaks while listening to music, and had some silly fun attempting to relate songs to the series. I have a very wide mix of things like oldies and bluegrass and country and 40s jazz, so this was interesting. If this sounds extremely fangirly--in my defense, I had way too much caffeine at work last night and was rather giggly...

Incidentally, if you are not a thirteen year old girl and like some nice escapist romance that is much more mature and realistic and involves a much healthier relationship and no immortality at all, read Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series, which are quite possibly my favorite books in the world. The Outlander series is also a very epic romance, with a fantasy angle, and to me, anyway, extremely satisfying for many of the reasons Twilight is not.

Also, if you like really good vampire books - which I don't actually, except for Twilight and this - definitely read Robin McKinley's Sunshine. For that matter, read anything by Robin McKinley, including her blog. Sunshine is her only vampire book, though. And it is very good. Just don't bug her about a sequel. This makes her very annoyed(see the aforementioned blog).

Ha. I've just noticed where she mentioned some books she recommends for "any squashy romantics I meet who don’t know them yet." Squashy romantics! That is totally me!

Off to watch the Twilight movie, just to complete my Twilight binge. Not a huge fan of Robert Pattinson, or at any rate the way he talks. He looks all right, I suppose. In the movie, anyway. Both he and Kristin Stewart seem to enjoy looking like homeless heroin addicts in real life. The movie is not as good as the books, but it's not bad.

Life's Not Fair

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:09:26 GMT

My whole family, plus my mom's childhood friend who is visiting for the weekend, have just left to go to the beach for the day. I, meanwhile, am getting ready for work. Argh. My mom's friend, whom I like and would like to spend time with, is only here for the weekend and I am working every day. Fortunately only working evenings, but it still kind of ruins things. Especially since they're probably going out to eat at one of the really good restaurants at the beach.

Argh.

I am totally getting Zaxby's on the way to work. I am entitled to unhealthy fast food in return for having to work while they're all at the beach. Hmph.

Awww!

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:02:20 GMT

OK, so I'm kind of meh on Dan Radcliffe as an actor, but how sweet is this?

"Actually sir, after all these years I just sort of go with it."

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:35:13 GMT

So: HBP!

Just got back from the midnight showing. It was awesome! I didn't even know Sumter had that many HP fans diehard enough to go to a midnight showing!

Anyway. It was great! I'd forgotten how great HP movies are. I can't remember the first thing about OotP. I have lots of small nitpicky things and several big things that bothered me, but on the whole it was really good. Funny and still very dark, close enough to the book not to give me a heart attack, suspenseful, well-shot and good cinematography and special effects...

One problem of course is that I haven't read the book in ages, so exactly what is and isn't in the book are a bit hazy at times.

Probably trying to put this into organized paragraphs is a lost cause, so here are thoughts, in no particular order:

--The beginning was very abrupt. Why exactly was Harry in a cafe in a tube station? And how did he suddenly know to look at the exact spot Dumbledore was about to appear? Also, nitpickily, it annoyed me that he was reading a Daily Prophet in a very populated Muggle area, and then when Dumbledore appeared, he left it there! Sure that violates the Statute of Secrecy or something? Probably you just weren't supposed to notice, of course...

--Still, very abrupt. Harry reads about how he's Chosen One, gets flirted with by a unintelligible Cockney waitress, runs into Dumbledore in a tube station, and the next minute they're off to find some guy pretending to be a chair. Although Harry's quote is brilliant: "Actually sir, after all these years I just sort of go with it."

--Also, Slughorn claims he's hiding some Muggles' house. If so, why are all of his pictures of his "collection" there? Does he bring them along and display at all of his hideouts from the Death Eaters?

--It would have been great if they'd had the scene with the Muggle Prime Minister that starts the book. That scene was really interesting, revealed a lot about Muggle-wizard relations, AND showed very well just how powerful Voldemort had grown (enough to cause problems in the Muggle world as well).

--Harry & Ginny's relationship I thought was handled fairly well. I'm a bit iffy on the scene where Harry and Hermione confide in each other about their respective crushes, which I'm fairly sure was not in the book. Plus wasn't Harry supposed to be all agonizingly secretly in love? Ginny seemed to know pretty quickly seeing how she was always hanging around and stuff. I really liked the kiss scene in the book better, where Harry kisses her in front of everyone without thinking (after a whole book of agonizing), and then has to deal with Ron and stuff afterward.

--Lavender Brown was pretty good. Very annoying, but then she was supposed to be.

--While I'm on relationships: LUPIN AND TONKS!!! Well, the most I can say is...they were there. They had such a beautiful scene in the book, with the whole "Too old, too poor, too werewolf" thing, and I LOVED it. The movie reduced their entire relationship to her grabbing his arm and saying "Sweetheart" at one point during the minute or so they were onscreen.

--Fenrir Greyback was also THERE, but largely superfluous and not at all explained. Unless you happened to catch sight of a "Wanted" poster in Knockturn Alley as the camera panned past it AND connect it with him, you had no idea who he was, and no mention at all was mentioned of him being a werewolf, other than him requesting to kill Dumbledore "my way." But then I guess since Bill wasn't around to be bitten and there was no big showdown at Hogwarts with Lupin present, I guess it didn't matter.

--There did seem to be a number of things that weren't explained much and assumed you were familiar with the content. Spinner's End, for instance, didn't make very clear who "Cissy" was, unless you know Draco's mother is Narcissa. Wormtail was present for about three seconds with no explanation as well. In general a lot of people were not introduced at all. However, this was fine with me, since most people are familiar with everyone.

--Also, the Inferi in the cave place - since we didn't see any of Snape's DADA classes, they weren't identified at all. Also, they looked a lot like Gollum.

--A lot of people were also completely forgotten. Some, like the Dursleys, Percy, Bill, Fleur, etc. were simply left out of the movie. Others, like Neville, were just ignored. I think I saw Neville once just before the trio encountered Katie Bell and her cursed necklace, but that was it. Even Seamus got one line! Poor Neville, after all his heroism in OotP.

--Slughorn. I never really formed much a picture of him in the books, so I thought he was pretty good.

--Potions! The scenes where Ron ate Harry's love-potioned chocolates was hilarious. Also Harry's scene with Felix Felicis whatever. The whole theater was laughing at him and Slughorn by the greenhouse.

--The whole "Half Blood Prince" aspect was practically ignored. Everyone wonders briefly who it might be, then forgets altogether. And then they decide the book is evil and chuck it in Draco's vanishing cabinet. Snape tells Harry at the end that he is HBP, but that's that. What about that whole backstory with Lily and stuff? Isn't that in the book? Who tells Harry about that? Or is that later? Or am I thinking of the Shoebox Project?

--Regarding Draco's vanishing cabinet... I thought the Room of Requirement shows different things to different people. So how come Harry and Ginny can see Draco's vanishing cabinet? I guess they needed/required it? Meh. Also, how did a vanishing cabinet with a twin in Borgin & Burke's just happen to get there, or was that Room of Requirement magic too? This is probably in the book.

--Draco! Tom Felton was really good! Better than ever, I think. Especially since he had some actual depth to his role besides sneering at Harry all the time and pretending to faint, get attacked by hippogriffs, etc. He really made you feel a bit sorry for Draco, in over his head with Voldemort. And he looked really good, all gangster-like in his black suit!

--I liked the penseive bits - the way they appeared and disappeared was neat. Leaving out the Gaunts and stuff was fine with me, since I can't ever remember that part much anyway, although it made Dumbledore's hand a bit...unexplained (well, he did finally say it was from destroying the ring Horcrux).

--Dumbledore. Oh my goodness. I simply cannot stand Michael Gambon. I'm sorry. He's just WRONG. Richard Harris was the PERFECT Dumbledore. Friendly and twinkly and jolly (and yes, I realize, Dumbledore's not always supposed to be friendly and jolly) and wise. Michael Gambon was okay in PoA, but he really lost me in GoF when Harry's name came out of the Goblet and Dumbledore yelled at him. Maybe that was the scriptwriters or something, but that's just NOT Dumbledore. Dumbledore doesn't yell at people. He regards them very solemnly and sorrowfully over the top of his half-moon spectacles until they feel guilty. And occasionally he makes grave pronouncements. But he doesn't YELL. And then in OotP one of the small things I do remember is at some point a bunch of students were somewhere and he was all, "Don't you all have some studying to do?" and angry and stuff. So while he didn't do any of that dramatically out of character stuff in this one, he's just so brusque and curt and not DUMBLEDORE. I do think he did a pretty good job on the cave scene. And the final confrontation with Draco, Snape, etc.

--Speaking of which... Dumbledore's death was pretty well done, I think. It, or at least the events surrounding it, were pretty different from the book. The whole epic confrontation with Death Eaters at Hogwarts was pretty much not there, the Order did not show up, etc. The Death Eaters just kind of dropped in, trashed the dining hall, watched Snape killed Dumbledore, sent up a Dark Mark, set Hagrid's hut on fire, and left. I'm not really sure how the whole school ended up outside at the end, for that matter.

--Snape really is just awesome. I'm not really a fan of him as a character, redeemed in DH or not, but he's just so...cool. Alan Rickman is, anyway. His voice! He's just absolutely perfect for the part. Someone described Snape in one of the early books as swooping around like an overgrown bat, and that is exactly what he does. Alan Rickman is excellent at swooping.

--On a random side note: why can Death Eaters zoom around like black smoke? I seem to recall this from the OotP movie as well. How come they can do it and not the good wizards? (Although maybe I do remember the Order doing it as well at the showdown at the Ministry in OotP)

--Also: when the Burrow was on fire in that totally random, not-at-all-in-the-book scene, couldn't someone have done something magic-wise to like, put it out? Harry used magic to produce water in the cave later - couldn't they have done something similar? They're wizards. Dumbledore fixed a whole trashed house with one wave of his wand!

--There were some great little details that I really liked. Just small stuff from the books that caught my eye - like Mr. Weasley's plug collection when he's talking to Harry in his shed, and the dish of lemon drops on Dumbledore's desk.

--McClaggan or however you spell it... I remember him from the book, but does it say where he comes from? Or was he just around for six years and never mentioned?

--I was afraid they'd manage to leave out Dumbledore's line "I do love knitting patterns," but they didn't!

--Speaking of which, McGonagall always gets cheated out of her awesome snarky lines. Especially in the last movie. She didn't get to say "Cough drop, Dolores?" OR "It unscrews the other way." And wasn't it in OotP she went after Umbridge and got hit with a bunch of stunning spells? McGonagall is awesome. But all her cool scenes get left out of the movies.

--The very end was a bit weird. It seemed odd that Harry & Hermione would be talking while Ron hung back and looked sulky. I think it was meant to indicate he was feeling weird about Harry and Ginny, but it just looked kind of weird. It was also weird how they were all sad about Dumbledore, fake Horcrux, etc, and then abruptly changed the subject to Harry and Ginny. I was glad Ron finally wandered over to join them, since it seemed fitting that they should all be together at a time like that.

Well, it's nearly 4:30 AM. So, conclusions: definitely very well done. I think it's tied with PoA for my favorite. It was just the right balance of humor and darkness. It would be very easy for it to be too dark and depressing, but it wasn't. It maybe wasn't dark enough, really. You didn't really see just how grim the Voldemort situation was and how much his power had grown, at least not as much as you did in the book. And if you didn't know what happened at the end, it maybe kind of came out of nowhere.

But anyway. I think it struck a good balance overall. The humor wasn't as forced as it has seemed in some of the movies, they did a good job of showing how the gang is growing up...

Anyway, I could probably go on for ages, but I must go to bed! Now I'm looking forward to reading the book - must finish GoF and get through OotP (aka "HP and the Teenage Angst!").

Anticipation!

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:50:34 GMT

And it's Harry Potter Day once again!

I have to work from 5-10, plus an hour's drive home (can't wait till I move to Columbia), but then me and my brother are going to a midnight showing!

I really wanted to reread the book, because I've only read it once or twice, and once was in a huge rush to find out what happened when it first came out. I can't ever remember who all those Gaunt people are and all the details about Slughorn and and Fenrir Greyback and stuff.

But I got stuck on GoF, possibly my least favorite book, and lost momentum with my re-reading. According to IMDb, though, the Gaunts were dropped anyway. Although weren't they kind of important? But whatever. The reviews sound pretty good and now I'm all fangirly and excited.

I hope they don't ruin the ending. I also hope they can make me care enough about Dumbledore to even care about the ending, because thus far I have hated Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, especially in GoF when he yelled at Harry after his name came out of the Goblet of Fire.

(This reminds me - I ought to go back and reread the journal I was keeping as I read HBP for the first time. I stopped every few chapters to record my reactions. There are lots of capital letters and exclamation marks and question marks and some very large "NOOOOO"s toward the end.)

I wonder if Dan's acting has improved any. I've never been particularly thrilled with him. Rupert, when he gets to do something besides stupid-sidekick-comic-relief stuff, and Emma are pretty good, but Dan's always been rather wooden. I don't hate him, but he's just kind of blah. He seems to have two main emotions - stoic and angry. However, since he's playing Angsty Teenager Harry now, perhaps those will serve him pretty well.

I remember how obsessed I used to be with HP. It's kind of faded over the years, but new movies and things still make me all fangirly!

Utterly mystified

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:27:28 GMT

So we just heard Sparkle, my cat, crying from down the hall. She doesn't make much noise at all unless something's wrong, so I went looking for her. The cries were coming from my brother's room, which she never goes in, so I figured maybe she was stuck in his closet or something. We searched all over his room, and were wondering if she'd maybe crawled inside his box springs - my other brother's box springs has a hole in the bottom cover and she occasionally hides inside it.

But then she meowed some more and finally we found her -- down inside the covered air vent in the floor.

It turned out that the cover had somehow been pried off the vent in my bedroom, and apparently she'd crawled down in that one. But how??? I mean, it's flush with the floor, so it would take some prying to get loose and out of the floor. We have had company - my aunt and uncle, two young cousins, and my aunt's childhood friend and her husband from Washington state...but I really don't think any of them would randomly mess with an air vent. Even the kids - for one thing, the vent in my room is on a very dusty part of the floor behind my bed where even I seldom go. For another, my cousins are veteran cat owners, obsessed with kitties, and very good at cat-proofing things (they've just gotten an indoor kitten) - so I'm fairly sure they'd realize the danger of Sparkle going in an open vent.

I'm contemplating whether it's possible that Bella, the puppy, did it (she's a very big puppy, probably close to 35 or 40 pounds now). I'm not sure if she'd have been able to do it or not. I really don't want to be like my dad who blames everything on the cat, but Bella does get into everything and I am biased against her because she has ruined several pairs of shoes and various other possessions. I don't have much patience with her, cute or not. My main concern was, if it was her, it could happen again.

So. Completely baffled. As my brother says, we need the Hardy Boys.

Sleepy!

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:39:01 GMT

Started screencapping The Sting, which I just watched last night, but I have suddenly become overwhelmingly sleepy. First day at my not-really-new job today - I've started back at my old job in Columbia. Not the greatest job on earth, but I did rather like and am glad to be back.

I have two other sets of caps uploading now, and might cap Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken, which I have from Netflix because I'm a dork and I love that movie (left over from my pre-teenage horse obsession). Hopefully I'll get the ones uploading now up tomorrow, but I don't know. I'll try to get them all up the near future, anyway.

So anyway, though it is unheard of for me to go to bed this early, I believe I shall. Good night!

Drama

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:46:24 GMT

So my dad is currently stuck on the side of the road somewhere south of Fayetteville, NC, with 3 Berkshire pigs in somewhat makeshift trailer.

And his cell phone is dead. So this is wonderful.

Some of my uncle's employees, who are no doubt thrilled, are on their way to get him, but in the meantime we have no news. We also don't know precisely where he is, other than somewhere near a gas station at exit 41 on I-95, where he accidentally put gasoline in my uncle's diesel truck.

So he can't go find a phone, since he can't leave his pigs. IF he's on 95, maybe someone will observe a man in a truck with pigs has broken down and will call the police? We're not really worried (well, I am, because I worry about everything), but we do need to know where he is and he probably would like some food, seeing as he's been wherever he is since 7:40-ish.

My family always has the weirdest drama.

I've Had the Time of My Life

Sun, 14 Jun 2009 05:45:16 GMT

...and the Dirty Dancing obsession continues. I'm so weird about movies. There's tons of movies that I watch ones and like, even like well enough to buy, and then, out of the blue, there are several that I watch once and get completely obsessed with.

The ones that I watch four or five times in the first week, have to download or rent to fill my craving until I get my hands on a DVD, obsessively watch bonus features of, get all fangirly about, and talk incessantly about (or am forced to LJ incessantly about if no one in RL wants to hear)... It doesn't happen very often - thus far, it's been really only Walk the Line and Mamma Mia! I'm not sure what exactly it is about these movies that does this to me. Eventually the mania wears off and I get a bit sick of the movie and don't watch it for a while, but it always stays among my absolute top favorite movies.

Dirty Dancing now seems to be one of them. I think I've watched it four or five times since I first saw it, which was last week or sometime not that long ago. My lovely 20th Anniversary Special Edition DVD arrived today and I just finished watching all the special features. I am well-versed in random trivia about the actors and film-making.

I wonder what it is about these three movies - Walk the Line, Mamma Mia!, and Dirty Dancing. I think part of it is the fact that they never fail to leave me feeling just incredibly happy. Well, I know a large part of it is that they are wonderful love stories, which I am an absolute sucker for, but all three of these movies just pick you up and carry you along in the story and leave you still flying at the end.

This is not to say that a movie HAS to have a happy ending for me to like it. I like a bunch of ones that don't. I've been trying to analyze what makes me like certain movies and failing horribly. Some I click with, some I don't. Things like Anna & the King, with a sad ending and not very well-regarded critically, I am nonetheless madly in love with (though I haven't seen it in years, come to think of it). I like a number of movies that are completely insane and somewhat embarrassing to admit to at my age, such as 10 Things I Hate About You and Empire Records.

My list of favorite movies includes popular things that lots of people love, like Casablanca, The Breakfast Club, The Princess Bride, Beauty and the Beast, etc. It also includes some weird things that much fewer people have heard of, like Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken, Two For the Road, Guarding Tess, What the Deaf Man Heard, and Friendly Persuasion.

And yet if you ask me to explain why I like most of them, other than being great romances as most of them are, I can never say. I don't know. I just do.

Anyway, enough rambling. My DD obsession is still in effect, though now I've got the DVD it'll probably start to fade pretty soon. It's just such a fun, happy movie though, melodramatic abortion sub-plots notwithstanding. And it's a great romance, of course. I love what somebody over at Cinematical said about it: "I love the entire dynamic of the film -- two people who each believe, for utterly different reasons, that the other one is way out of their league, yet they fall in love anyway." *sigh*

And on that note, I'm off to watch the final "Time of My Life" scene one more time :)

Information goblets

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:01:21 GMT

My family has decided we should start calling flash drives "information goblets," which is what my dad called one today when he couldn't think of the name. He does this all the time - uses completely random, entirely unrelated words when he can't of the right one. He once called a watermelon a lawnmower, and a plate of sliced tomatoes, umbrellas. This causes much hilarity and many inside jokes.

Off to have dinner at my aunt and uncle's house. Maybe more later.

"Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:05:30 GMT

What exactly did that line mean and why is it so famous?

I finally watched Dirty Dancing, which I'd never seen before. Yes, I know it's a classic, especially of the cheesy fluffy chick flick category, which is my specialty, so it's positively tragic I hadn't seen it.

And of course, I loved it! I'd have maybe preferred if the 80s-ish music hadn't kept interfering with the 60s vibe, but I loved it anyway!

A nice fluffy romantic movie, exactly the kind I like! And with very hot Patrick Swayze! Man, I don't think I've ever seen a Patrick Swayze movie, come to think of it, but wow! The dancing was great and the whole movie was very sexy!

But that "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" line - I don't get it. Why is it famous? Having heard the line a million times with no context, I always imagined maybe somebody was threatening Baby, you know - had her cornered? But in context, it doesn't really seem to make sense. Presumably no one forced Baby to sit in the corner. I guess maybe he meant she shouldn't be ignored, hence the ensuing dance with her? I still don't really get the line, nor see why it's famous.

But other than my puzzlement about that line, it was awesome. The sort of movie that leaves you happy, which is the kind I like!

Which, incidentally, is part of why I didn't care for the apparently much-acclaimed Once. I was gypped! All the hype, including the Netflix envelope, went on about the romance - and then the ending was most disappointing. Not sad, but not happily ever after. Yes, I know I'm a baby, but real life is depressing enough. I'll take happy endings in my movies, please!

Once was just a bit too gritty, too slow, too indie, if that makes any sense. There wasn't enough dialog (montages again), too many long disjointed handheld camera bits, etc. The music was not my type, and the film was just too lowkey and blah. It was difficult to stay awake. It wasn't awful. I rather liked the characters, especially the fact that they weren't gorgeous actors, but actually looked like regular people (although I confess, given the choice I'll take super-hot Patrick Swayze over ordinary people any day).

So I liked the characters, but the "falling in love" that IMDb's plot description mentioned seemed more like "gradually growing somewhat fond of each other." There didn't seem to be much chemistry between them although I believe I heard they were together in real life? The music was all so blah (to me, bearing in mind that I have very weird taste in music and am an avid bluegrass fan) that I can't remember any of it at all. No real romance, no action, no suspense - it seemed like nothing happened. Overall: meh.

Anyway, got to get up earlyish to go look at apartments in Columbia with Rachelle. I am quite excited to be independent (ish) again! Next movie up should be Lost In Austen, from Netflix. Might be a while though, due to my YouTube Friends marathon. I'm almost done with season 7 (Monica & Chandler's wedding is coming up!), which is further than I've gotten in any TV show except As Time Goes By, which doesn't count because there's like 10 episodes per season. I'm madly obsessed with Friends, especially Chandler :) More on that later!

Last Chance Harvey

Thu, 14 May 2009 06:36:19 GMT

Just watched Last Chance Harvey with my mom. I'd been wanting to see it solely because of its stars, Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman, and the promise of a love story. It was worth the wait!

It wasn't an epic, passionate, sweep-you-off-your-feet love story (though I love those too - see Australia...). It's a very simple, appealing love story about two completely normal people who fall in love when they least expect it.

Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman completely make the film. If it weren't for them, I think it would completely fall flat. But through the combination of them being outstanding actors, being totally charming together, and being so completely believable, they really hold it together.

It's a bit hard to describe, the way the movie made me feel. It's not as if you're on the edge of your seat, or crying your eyes out, or laughing hysterically. It's just pleasant. And at the end, you're maybe not raving, but you're just happy. It's not a great emotional roller coaster, though it probably is for the characters.

The characters are what really makes the film so nice, because they are totally someone you could walk past on the street on your way to work or live next door to. They're not glamorous or young or speaking in clever one-liners (though you might expect them to, being Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman). They're not Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio or Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell/Renee Zellweger/Julia Roberts. They're just ordinary people, having a bad day. They cross paths, he is rude, they meet later and he apologizes, they sort of connect, and very quickly realize they're in love. When you think about it, it's such a movie cliche, that kind of love story, and yet they play it so low-key, so hesitant, and so genuinely that it is real, and it could happen, even to you. :)

I said before it was an emotional rollercoaster for the characters, but thinking again, I don't think it is. At first I thought when they met in the pub that he was so pushy, especially when he kept following her around and seeking her out. But on further reflection, I think it works. They are both very lonely, but somewhat resigned to it, both having an awful day (though I think his is rather worse), and when their hesitant conversation turns out to be enjoyable, a bright spot in a bad day, they are reluctant to let it go, so they just go with it and find they have a connection.

The way they react to the growing realization of that connection is very well played. Being two middle-aged (somewhat past it, maybe, in his case) people, accustomed to being alone, they are certainly not expecting to meet someone out of the blue. This is maybe where the emotion roller coaster kicks in, when they have to face these feelings. The reaction of Emma Thompson's character, Kate, is very realistic, I think - fear. It must be rather scary to have someone suddenly come along and turn your whole well-ordered life around, even if it's not a particularly happy life. And fear, too, that this is just a movie cliche: "This isn't real life," she protests. I think the movie shows very well what a chance you take when you fall in love, especially at the characters' ages. Yet despite that, and though the movie (to its credit) makes no attempt to tie everything up neatly and jump to the happily-ever-after, the prevailing message is hope: that you never know when or where you might find love, when you're least expecting it.

The film's tone is very nice, a combination of hope, humor, and melancholy. There are a few very touching moments, such as Harvey's speech at his daughter's wedding. One of the moments I found rather affecting was when Harvey, describing the failure of his marriage, says "I always had this feeling in my stomach, that I embarrassed them," and when he points out that his daughter, his ex-wife, and her husband seem to look right, to go together, while he never seemed to fit. There is some humor too, though it's mostly fairly subtle. The subplot with Kate's mother and her Polish neighbor is mildly amusing, but does, as Roger Ebert said, seem out of place. I like the dialog between Kate and Harvey, which is sometimes amusing, above all because it's intelligent. It's not dumbed down romantic comedy one-liners, it's real, meaningful conversation between two intelligent people.

On the whole, I agree with Ebert, as usual (my one major point of contention with him is Anna and the King, which he gave zero stars). In particular, though, I would like to wholeheartedly agree with his condemnation of "that ancient standby, the Semi-Obligatory Lyrical Interlude." I hate when they fade of into a montage of the happy couple laughing and chatting or kissing or frolicking (? how do you spell that?) in fields of wildflowers or *ahem* laying in meadows staring at each other and sparkling. I didn't find too much fault with the use of it in Last Chance Harvey, though it did irk me slightly (so did Kate being taller than Harvey, which is completely ridiculous - my being annoyed, not her being taller). But it just about killed Twilight for me. All the lovely romance from the book was gone, reduced to...lying in a field. Staring at each other. And sparkling. In general it just seems like laziness. Can't be bothered to actually write dialog or shoot scenes to establish a relationship - nah, we'll just through in a cheesy montage. It's so overdone and so completely shallow. It doesn't develop the characters or their relationship at all and it clearly says (to me, anyway) that the filmmakers just can't be bothered. What? Actual dialog might make their film a bit longer? Well, if it's a good film, people wouldn't mind, if they actually put some effort into it and stopped trying to placate us with montages...sorry, it's one of my pet peeves and I was delighted to see Ebert address it in this review. I was pointing emphatically at my screen and hissing "Yes! Yes! Exactly!" (I'd've shouted instead of hissing, but it's 2 AM...).

So, yes, I really liked Last Chance Harvey. I seem to have a thing for middle-aged romances. I love As Time Goes By, for example. And in Mamma Mia!, Sophie and Sky completely annoy me, while I love Donna and Sam. Odd. But I guess I love about them what I love about Last Chance Harvey, that sense of hope, maybe.

Anyway, in closing, I would just like to reaffirm my adoration of Emma Thompson. She is seriously awesome. I believe she is my favorite modern actress. She's certainly the one I would most like to meet in person. She always seems to so down to earth and normal and friendly. And funny! Her commentary for Sense & Sensibility was hilarious at times, though also very insightful and interesting.

ANYWAY, this couch is really hot and I've been up late the last few nights, so I believe I will go to bed.

Spring cleaning

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:07:49 GMT

My LJ has been overhauled! I've gone through and retagged everything so the tagging more or less makes sense. I've fixed the icon posts, as the tables I'd originally used didn't work in the new layout. Screencap posts now have the gallery graphics from my site instead of tiny previews. I have a lovely new P&P mood theme - I must make an effort to use a bigger variety of moods instead of "cheerful" all the time.

So anyway, it should now be easier to find screencaps, as they are all tagged. I don't have enough icons to bother with classifying them much, so they're not tagged by specific movie or subject, really. The "squee" tag applies to rather fangirly posts, LOL, mostly to do with Walk the Line.

I've realized, reading back through my journal, that I should post more. Even if no one else reads it, I find it interesting to remember things I'd forgotten about from several years ago...

Conflicting tastes...

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:03:01 GMT

I have just indulged my rather varying taste in movies by watching two extremely different ones back to back: Empire Records and Sense & Sensibility (1995).

The first is an old favorite from my high school days, which I still love due its general insanity and the considerable hotness of Anthony LaPaglia. I was looking for a mood theme for my journal and found where someone had made an Empire Records one, which made me realize I hadn't seen it in years.

I decided to watch S&S after watching the new and less satisfying one last night. This has definitely confirmed my preference for the 1995 version over the 2008 one. Also, I watched it with the audio commentary by Emma Thompson and Lindsay Moran, the producer, which has only served to massively increase my admiration for Emma Thompson. She really is hilarious! Her behind-the-scenes stories about the day Alan Rickman's horse had gas and fainting sheep were wonderful, as were her more serious thoughts about the film and discussion of the process of writing and filming it.

One thing she mentioned quite a lot was how much she wanted to make sure it was funny and ironic, which is what I really like about that film. The humor really gives it more depth and appeal - without it, the newer one seems so blah. It also reinforced my opinion that Alan Rickman is the infinitely better of the two Cols. Brandon. With him you could really see the love and longing and pain and all that, which I just never could with David Morrissey.

Incidentally, after hearing Emma talk about them in the commentary, I went to watch the deleted scenes from S&S. I was highly amused to realize the DVD menu for the deleted scenes from S&S contains two scenes - "True Love's Kiss," and "Mrs. Dashwood Converts Elinor." The first is Elinor & Edward's kiss, which was cut because it didn't fit either the characters or the point in the film where it would have gone. It was rather awkward and I think the film is better off without it. The other one, however, contains Mrs. Dashwood and Elinor talking in the garden after hearing that Edward is married. As it turns out, Mrs. D is not converting Elinor, but comforting her. I keep imagining the misunderstanding that resulted in that typo! You'd think someone would have caught it before they released the DVD!

Sense & Sensibility

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:47:05 GMT

Last night I watched the new(ish) version of Sense & Sensibility. My ultimate verdict: meh. Parts of it I liked and parts of it I didn't. Overall I don't think it can compare to the 1995 Ang Lee version with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. Perhaps one shouldn't try to compare, but when both films tell the same story, it's almost impossible not to.

Characterwise, I think there were some hits and misses. Hattie Morahan as Elinor was excellent - perhaps not quite as brilliant as Emma Thompson, but extremely good. Charity Wakefield as Marianne annoyed me. I don't know if it was her acting or the script - maybe both - but she came across as much more of a spoiled, selfish, childish brat than I remember Kate Winslet being, until the very end when she suddenly matured. She was just snotty a lot of the time ("We're very unfortunately situated"? I really wanted someone to kick her then - would she rather be living on charity with John and Fanny, or with the gypsies as Margaret suggested? Sure, Sir John Middleton and Mrs. Jennings are a bit obnoxious, but they gave her family a place to stay out of sheer kindness!). I know Marianne is supposed to be young and naive and somewhat selfish, but I don't remember Kate Winslet getting on my nerves or making me roll my eyes (or want to kick her) quite as much. Lucy Boynton was cute as Margaret. I loved Janet McTeer as Mrs. Dashwood. She was outstanding, and you really saw in this one how much of a change moving to the cottage was for the family and how much of a struggle it was, particularly for her.

I finally got used to Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars, and I think I've decided he was at least equally good looking as Hugh Grant. Acting-wise, he was fine. I didn't feel that he and Elinor had terribly good chemistry, or at least they didn't have enough time together. I didn't really see that much of a deep connection between them at Norland, as I felt you did in the 1995 version. I did find the ending between them much more satisfying. I'm a dialog person - I'd much rather hear people actually say what they're feeling than cut to a romantic montage (*ahem* Twilight). So I was glad you got more of their conversation/proposal rather than just cutting to the jolly happy wedding scene.

Dominic Cooper as Mr. Willoughby... I guess the bottom line is that I just don't like Dominic Cooper. He's ugly, although this seems to be contrary to popular opinion. His face is all scrunched and weird! I felt like Mr. Willoughby should be handsome and dashing so that the audience is taken in along with Marianne, but here he seemed like a sleazy, insincere manipulator the whole time. But possibly this is simply due to me not liking Dominic Cooper.

Oh, Colonel Brandon...my third favorite Austen hero after Mr. Darcy and Captain Wentworth. I was not pleased. Alan Rickman pulled off middle-aged and sexy. David Morrissey just managed middle-aged. And his haircut was terrible. It was almost a mullet. It annoyed me every time he appeared. His acting was tolerable, but I just felt rather "meh" the whole time. I didn't feel that he had enough emotion, the whole desperately-in-love-with-Marianne thing - I just didn't feel it. Also, that brief duel seemed really random and I never did figure out if it was meant to be a flashback, and over Eliza, or now, and over Marianne. I hope it was about Eliza because otherwise it's insanely melodramatic.

Plotwise - well, it's S&S. I don't recall any major changes. They told the story well, and it was beautifully filmed. It just seemed rather flat. Part of the charm of the 1995 version was the warmth and humor in it. The relationship between Edward and Elinor seemed much more real in that one, even at Norwood, such as when he found her crying while listening Marianne's piano and silently handed her a handkerchief. All the relationships seemed much more real in that version, I think. Willoughby was much more convincing, Colonel Brandon was much more plainly smitten with Marianne, who was much less bratty... I also loved Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood's dry sense of humor in the 1995 version, especially when responding to Marianne's romantic flights of fancy. The humor in that version made it come alive. The 1995 version is funny, as Austen should be. Sure, there's just as much drama and heartbreak as this version has, but just look through the memorable quotes page at IMDb. This version doesn't have a memorable quotes page, and with good reason.

So, again, my final verdict is: meh. It was not bad. It just wasn't particularly good. If the 1995 version didn't exist, this one might have been good, but compared to that version, it just falls flat.

Also, I thought for the DVD they could have taken out the credits and the "Next time" preview bits and just done it as if it were a movie, like they did with the 1995 P&P. I found that a bit annoying, especially the preview bits.

Mom's fishing for husbands...

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:46:27 GMT

I was amused just now to see ghostlybohemia had made an icon of the cover of the edition of Jane Austen's Persuasion that I have...which is truly horrendous. So I commented to tell her about my equally (if not more) horrendous edition of Pride & Prejudice, and she expressed a desire to see it.

So I've scanned both the front and back covers. The back cover is rather plain, but I had to scan it, you see, because if I told you what the back cover copy is, you seriously wouldn't believe me.

And so, here it is, in all it's horribleness:

Yes, I actually paid for this, in a real bookstore! It was the cheapest edition at Waldenbooks. I think it was $2.99 or $3.99. I was going to get a slightly prettier one, but this one was so incredibly hilarious I had to buy it.

As if Mr. Darcy would ever wear a purple coat and turquoise waistcoat...

Caps 034 :: Australia

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:10:12 GMT

I've been dying to see this movie ever since I missed it in theaters, so I finally got it the other day from Netflix. Definitely a new addition to my long list of favorite movies! It was incredibly good! I loved the 40s setting, the story, the characters - it was just great, and really well done. It was beautifully shot - the scenery and colors were beautiful. The actors were really good too! Nicole Kidman was perfect, and the kid who played Nullah, Brandon Walters, was amazing for a 13 year old who's never acted before! And man, Hugh Jackman is incredibly hot...

So, anyway, here's a TON of caps from Australia. Seriously, this is the most I've ever done for a movie - nearly 4000:

Over here at the gallery!

Caps 033 :: Pleasantville

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:53:40 GMT

I was looking for Pleasantville caps a while ago and was surprised not to be able to find many good ones. It's such a pretty movie! So anyway, I capped it myself.

Get them here!