For Your Viewing Enjoyment...Or Not

We spent considerable time watching movies this past holiday season, either in the theater or at home. I don't have time to write individual critiques and some might find it interesting to learn what my family watches.

A couple of caveats: with the exception of DD#2 who is 16, my "children" are adults. My antennae are not quite so finely tuned to the occasional swear word (although overuse of the "f-bomb" bothers me) or sexual situation.

Plot holes to big to ignore, however, are another story...

Avatar: DD#1 summed this movie up nicely--Pocahontas with aliens. Only Pocahontas had better songs.

The graphics were stunning. The acting, with the exception of Sigourney Weaver when she was being a diva of a xenobiologist, was serviceable considering the characters were little more than one-dimensional. At one point during his impassioned soliloquy, I fully expected the hero to yell, "They may take our planet, but they will never take OUR FREEDOM!"

How bad was the story and the acting? When the xenobiologist dies, I didn't cry. Throughout the entire movie, while I marveled at the vision and the special effects, I kept thinking, "Imagine what Ursula K. LeGuin (whose father, Alfred Krober, earned the first Ph.D. in anthropology in the U.S. and founded the department of anthropology at Cal) could do with this!" I rather wish James Cameron had decided to forgo the story all together and just made a film about Pandora and the indigenous population, the Na'vi. An xenopological study, as it were. Ms. LeGuin did that with one of her books, which included a cassette tape of the "natives" playing their songs.

The rest of the family was able to overlook the lack of story and was blown away by the effects. We had several discussions on the importance of story and plot, believability, and internal consistency in fantasy and science fiction.

On the March Hare scale: 2.5 out of 5 Golden Tickets. Go for the razzle dazzle, so spend the bucks to see it in 3D IMAX. Go to the bathroom before the film starts; it's a long one. Definitely not for younger children or those who are sensitive to loud sounds and violent action.

The Princess and the Frog: Hubs was off with the older kids, so I took DD#2 to this one. I've been curious about Disney's "return to classic animation" since Hubs & I went to Disneyland this summer and saw the trailers.

I was impressed. The Disney magic is definitely there and the twist on the old story is clever and well-done.

Set in 1920's New Orleans, there is food and music and lush scenery everywhere. The heroine is Tiana, a young African-American (Creole?) girl whose mother sews for a white family. The daughter of the white family, Charlotte (or Lottie), loves princesses and the movie opens with Tiana and Lottie listening raptly while Tiana's mother reads the story of the frog prince while she finishes the latest princess gown for Lottie.

Historically accurate relationships between blacks and whites are ignored. Lottie's father, The Colonel, treats Tiana's mother respectfully. On the trolley home, Tiana and her mother sit in the middle of the car. They live in a modest home and there is a hard-working dad who comes in just after they do. Dad is proud of his daughter's precocious cooking skills and invites the neighbors over when she makes gumbo. His dream is to open a restaurant, called "Tiana's Place", and he shares that with his daughter. And while she may wish upon a star, like Lottie does, her parents remind her that success takes hard work.

Work she does, two jobs as a waitress, carefully saving her tips in coffee cans so she can put a payment down on the old sugar mill that she wants to convert to a restaurant. Meanwhile, Lottie is looking forward to the arrival of a Prince and the chance to become a "real" princess.

The Prince loves jazz and parties and hates to work.

There is voodoo, a gator whose ambition is to play jazz with Louis Armstrong, a Cajun firefly, an old blind "Mama" in bijou with mysterious powers. There is music--I especially liked the zydeco number. But while there is black magic and white magic afoot, the message about working hard to achieve your dreams and the satisfaction it brings is always present. Along with messages about the importance of love and family. No fairy godmother magically resolves our heroine's problems: she does the heavy lifting herself, with help from her friends. Oh--the Prince learns a few lessons, too. But DS#2 would definitely categorize this as a "girl film" based on the system he set up when he was four or five.

There was plenty of wit and humor in the dialog to keep the adults in the audience entertained. DD#2 enjoyed it as well.

On the March Hare scale: 4.5 out of 5 Golden Tickets

Sherlock Holmes: Honestly, with eye candy like Robert Downey, Jr., and Jude Law as Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson, even if this movie was horrid, I'd still want to see it.

I read my first Sherlock Holmes story when I was ten and was hooked immediately. I've read the canon as well as some of the "undiscovered" stories, like The Seven Percent Solution. I don't have quite the same familiarity with the movie version, although I've seen several.

But I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this version. Robert Downey, Jr., is definitely too short and stocky and Jude Law is too thin, but they captured the essence of their characters. The movie takes place after Holmes and Watson have become a team; in fact, Watson is moving out as he plans to marry his Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). And Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) shows up with barely an introduction--you have to listen as clues about who she is and her importance to Holmes are dropped throughout the movie. (Unless, of course, you've read the stories.)

But this story is not based on any of the stories of the canon, although it uses details from many of them. Someone is killing prostitutes and Sherlock Holmes is on the trail, which leads to a secret society and Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). He is convicted and before his death, he asks to see Holmes. He tells Holmes that three more will die. The next day Blackwood is hanged and Dr. Watson pronounces him dead.

The next day, the groundskeeper of the cemetery swears he saw Lord Blackwood walk out of his grave. Holmes and Watson are called in to investigate. As the investigation continues, we also see the relationship between Holmes and Watson and how dependent Holmes is on Watson to keep him grounded and how Watson relishes the excitement Holmes brings to his otherwise conventional life.

Dr. Watson walks with a limp, keeping with his injury in the Afghan wars. Holmes has no use for social graces or conventions; he seems to enjoy insulting everyone he works with, even Watson. True to form, Holmes's knowledge is eclectic, encompassing esoteric poisons, botany, chemistry, biology, and music. He is a master of observation and of disguise. He smokes a pipe, though not a meerschaum, and he wears hats, though not a deerstalker cap. Watson is no intellectual slouch, either, having learned much while accompanying Holmes on his "adventures."

I thought the director, Guy Ritchie, did a terrific job recreating Victorian London through the judicious use of CGI as well as capturing the spirit of Sherlock Holmes without slavishly recreating him. Purists may disagree.

Hubs enjoyed it--there was plenty of action and he was able to follow it, although he is not as familiar with the Holmes-verse as I am. DD#2 also enjoyed it; DS#2 was the only one who thought it was just "okay."

I wish Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Downey, and Mr. Law return for another romp. (I hope Ms. McAdams does, too.) However, I don't think Sherlock Holmes will bring the kind of revenue or buzz to encourage a second one. Plus, Mr. Downey is in the midst of a multi-series, Iron Man, and he may not be eager to commit to another. Too bad--I enjoyed the clever story and the witty dialog.

On the March Hare scale: 4 out of 5 Golden Tickets.

Julie & Julia: DD#2 and I came home and later that night ordered this movie from the Comcast On Demand menu. The movie is based on the experiences of Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a mid-level government employee dealing with the aftermath of 9/11, and Julia Child (an amazing Meryl Streep), the wife of a diplomat assigned to Paris who finds herself at loose ends. Their stories intersect when Julie decides she is going to write a blog as she cooks her way through all the recipes in Julia Child's, Mastering the Art of French Cooking. As Julie blogs, the movie cuts to Julia Child's life in France (and beyond). After taking classes in hat making and bridge, Paul Child (Stanley Tucci) asks Julia what she likes to do. She replies, "I like food. I like to eat!" Her first day at the famed Cordon Bleu was less than successful. The class, Julia carefully explains, is too basic. She wants the more difficult class. That class, she is told, is for professional cooks, is all men, and is very expensive. No problem to Julia, who finds herself in the class, but behind in some very basic skills. Undeterred, Julia practices and perseveres.

Julie, too, perseveres. Her blog begins to gain readers other than her mother. Suddenly this isn't just a small thing she is doing--her goal and her blog are dominating her life, causing stress instead of relieving it.

Both Julie and Julia have supportive husbands. There are several small scenes where Julia and Paul show their shared grief over their inability to have children. Julie and Eric Powell (Eric Messina) have a rockier relationship--Julie is a drama queen and a bit neurotic and Eric puts up with her histronics patiently (for the most part).

Meryl Streep does an amazing job capturing Julia Child's voice and her physical presence. DD#2 commented how annoying it was and I told her that was how I remembered it. She was also a pioneer: the first woman to graduate from the Cordon Bleu, writing a cookbook making French cooking accessible to American women (which took eight years and while living in a different city, then country from her co-authors), then bringing cooking instruction--live!--to American T.V.

Amy Grant makes Julie Powell cute and endearing and plays some of her foibles for laughs. There is a gratuitous slam against "Republicans" by Julie's boss (as well as a scene where Paul Child is questioned by a Congressional committee about his time while serving in the OSS in China during WWII); otherwise this movie is really about food, finding your passion, and the amazing places that can lead.

This movie is also available on DVD.

On the March Hare scale: 4.5 out of 5. Made me want to get my own copy of Mastering the Art of French Cooking and trying out the recipes. But then I had a drink and came to my senses. :)

crossposted at The Mad Tea Party

Movie Review: Control (2007)

***Cross-posted at Good News Film Reviews***


Should I see it?
Yes - if this is your thing.

Short Review: Here's a shocker, a musician who's a depressive and selfish jerk. Wow, that's so unique, we better make a movie about him.


I've never been interested in Joy Division's music and never had much need to know anything about them. I come to this movie as a completely disinterested party. Actually, that's not true, as someone who has seen a lot of movies, I did come to this with the hope that this wasn't going to be yet another self-absorbed jackass who finds success and then destroys his life just like Walk the Line, Ray, The Doors, and Sid & Nancy. Although I liked these movies, they tend to be very predictable, overly sympathetic to the artist and just plain depressing. This movie sticks to the template but cuts out the sympathy. This is a predictable film for anyone with cursory knowledge of English pop culture, Curtis has been dead for 28 years now, we know how this is going to end. Where this film breaks from the crowd is in its warts-and-all look at the man. Where Walk the Line and Ray are splashy, epic feeling odes, this is a gritty examination of the artistic mind and the often dark results it produces.

The film follows the rise and abrupt fall of Joy Division's front man Ian Curtis. Curtis is a mopey fellow with a haunting voice. As his band climbs through the ranks for the Manchester music scene, he hastily marries his girlfriend Deborah. Like clockwork, as Ian's fortunes rise, his marriage falls apart. This collapse is plain to see given the two appear to be far to immature when they tie the knot and Curtis is obviously too selfish to be in a relationship. They crank out out a child and the pressures of life begin to weigh the singer down. On top of this, he is stricken with epilepsy which intrudes on his band's live performances as well as his private life.

The implosion of Ian Curtis is reminiscent of Jim Morrison in many ways. Both were deeply selfish men who were spurred on by their associates and fans. Both preferred to look through the back end of life instead of trying to see anything actually beautiful in existence. Both cruelly tormented those who loved them. And both could have been spared their fate by getting some help. Director Anton Corbijn (known for his work making videos for U2 and Depeche Mode) does well to connect Curtis to the pantheon of rock stars. He clearly lines Curtis up with the likes of Morrison, David Bowie and Lou Reed and the film is very successful at establishing Joy Division's worth. He also does a fantastic job at getting at the sorrowful man's private life and choices. The film doesn't give Curtis any sympathy at all, in fact, he comes off as a horrible person, not for who he is but the ultimate choices he makes. Again and again, he is given a chance to be redeemed , to be something - to live for someone other than himself. In his depressive stupor, he keeps choosing to feed his own needs and eventually finds himself completely isolated. Corbijn, in his feature debut, handles the subject with a gentle but unflinching hand and gives us a film that, while a little slow, is nonetheless enthralling.

The performances are as strong as the direction. Sam Riley is mesmerizing as Curtis. Much of Curtis' issues are internal and Riley gives light to these dark thoughts in a quietly intense performance that is worthy of a best-actor nomination. Opposite Riley is Samantha Morton (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) as Curtis' estranged wife Deborah. Usually, in these stories of imploding artists, the girlfriend or first wife is a cursory character who is pushed aside once the narrative moves along (see Walk the Line for a great example of this, Vivian Liberto, is cast aside by the film like yesterday's trash). In this story however, the abandoned wife clings on and we see the devastation brought on by the artist's myopia. Morton is brilliant in this role and honors Deborah Curtis with fair and moving performance. This woman obviously had to deal with a huge amount of pain being married to this man. Overall, this movie is depressing and not for everyone. I recommend it but only if you're into watching depressing, independent flicks about self absorbed jerks. Being a former self absorbed jerk myself, (now I'm just a jerk,) I can enjoy aspects of this film. I'd be surprised if there is a large audience for this kind of film.


Cautions: Foul language abounds but it is all contextual. It is a part of the culture shown and hardly gratuitous. Although there is a adulterous affair in the center of the story, it is handled with care. Corbijn is thoughtful director and doesn't play the more lurid parts of this story for cheap thrills.

***Spoiler Warning - I may ruin aspects of the film from this point forward***

Worldview: Curtis was clearly a troubled guy, that's an understatement. The opening scenes show Curtis as a teen in his dingy bedroom with pictures of David Bowie and Lou Reed hanging on his wall. Racked with teenage angst, Curtis loses himself in music and going to concerts. His trouble isn't unique or spectacular - he's just another Goth kid in the making. Your artsy types are a temperamental lot. The teenage years come to a close with Curtis dressing himself in glam rock style, mascara and frills, gender bending in the safety of his own bedroom. From early on Curtis is at odds with himself. You don't begin emulating Ziggy Stardust because he's cool, one does it because they want to escape what they really are - normal. As Curtis gets older and his band succeeds its precisely the normality of life that seems to drag him down. He has a lovely wife, a beautiful daughter and makes a living honestly helping people by locating jobs for the disadvantaged. Everything the man needed to be a complete person, a happy person, was at his fingertips. But Curtis was blinded by is angst, unimpressed with normality, he reveled in his torment thinking it was valuable.

His torments seem to come right from the verses of Ecclesiastes 2:17

17 So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

His troubled mind wasn't petty but it was littered with the results of looking for peace in the wrong place. Worshiping rock stars and actors and looking to them for leadership is foolish. When you seriously consume messages of anger, depression and spite, the way you see the world will be affected. Curtis replicated what he consumed and became another sour lyricist projecting his sorrow in his music. His music, as interesting as some of it may be, does nothing to improve the world. He, like many artists, believed the lie that he needed to coddle his depression and denounce the world in order to be authentic. In the end, his disintegration was not surprising. When we deny the beauty of the world - a world created by God ,the meaningless of existence will overcome the best defenses and self-loathing and bitterness will be the result. The real shame of suicide is its angering senselessness. Curtis' death destroyed a number of lives beyond his own. All he needed to do to was turn his pathetic self around and see the real world around him.