Play Misty for Me

So what is this one about?

The beloved Netflix* tells us,

Silver-tongued radio disc jockey Dave (Clint Eastwood) can't help but notice the persistent calls from a female to "play 'Misty' for me." But when a chance meeting with infatuated fan Evelyn leads to a brief and steamy love affair, Dave quickly learns he's in for more than a little night music. Evelyn will stop at nothing -- even the return of one of Dave's old flames -- to have him all to herself. The film marks Eastwood's directorial debut.

Sweet, ain’t nothing I love more than one of those woman scorned/stalker psycho movies! (see Fatal Attraction, Swim Fan—especially good, The Crush, etc. And don’t forget that bizarre variant, the man scorned/ stalker psycho, see Fear)

*did you know that Microsoft Word recognizes Netflix as a proper noun and capitalizes it? Well it does!!

And how much did I pay to watch?

Gah! I think when I watched this I was also watching In Treatment, so maybe less because there was some serious disc shuffling. But, maybe I paid $16.99 (per month) Who knows?

And what did I think?

Well, if you didn’t know (I don’t know how that would be possible) I love Gran Torino. Kudos to Clint and all his amazingness! Then I watched The Changeling, which was also another awesome Clint movie. After that I decided to add a ton of Eastwood movies to my Netflix queue. This was one of them, I thought it sounded the most fun. Plus, it wasn’t a western, and it was his directorial debut. Well, let me tell you two things.

1) Clint Eastwood was a serious hottie when he was younger.

2) His directing skillz have VASTLY improved since his first days. And thank heavens for that!!

Play Misty for Me was so ridiculous I couldn’t believe it at times. It is funny when I watch a movie alone (which is where I watch most of them…you know, so I don’t get distracted by outside stimuli) and I laugh out loud at parts that aren’t even supposed to be funny.

I truly don’t know what Clint was thinking with this one. There is a lot of potential with the story—as we’ve seen in other movies—and the acting wasn’t horrible… Clint was good, the person who played crazy Evelyn was goodish, and the person who played his girlfriend was a little/lot annoying. But, the actual direction of visual shots and the addition of music was so irritating there were multiple times I almost (or did I?) fast forwarded through the visual/audio vomit I was experiencing.

What is that you’re saying? You don’t understand what I’m talking about since you haven’t seen this movie? I will give you an example, taken straight from Wikipedia. “The film features a romantic montage backed by Roberta Flack's recording of "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face."” And when you follow that link over to the song wikipage you learn that the flipping song is 5:22 long. JESUS. Is that really necessary?? A five minute+ long montage where two characters are making out/doing it in the forest? I will answer for you. The answer is NO. Never is that sort of thing ok. Well, maybe in a porno, but that would be a different blog all together.

Another example? Sure. Wikipedia says “It is also notable for its use of location shooting, mostly in the area of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, where Eastwood has long made his home, and where he was elected Mayor in 1986. Additional scenes were shot at the Monterey Jazz Festival in September 1970, featuring jazz greats Johnny Otis, Cannonball Adderley, and future Weather Report founder Joe Zawinul.” All those location shots were overly long and romantical. Soft focus and all that shit. And good god, if there is one thing I hate in movies (even in movies I like, like the Sound of Music) it is flipping soft focus!! So, add up the overly long shots of boring scenery that adds nothing to the plot and the ridiculous use of crappy music and you’ve got a movie that Julia did not like!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)

Even Clint couldn’t save this silly movie from ending up in the bottom part of my scale. I will give it a 4, because even though it wasn’t even passable as a halfway movie, it did have Clint.

I swear. *shakes head*

Outbreak

So what is this one about?

Netflix tells us “As take-charge Army virologist Sam Daniels (Dustin Hoffman) strives to thwart a global biological meltdown in the form of a killer virus that has infested a California community, he must also battle those who say the only way to stop the disease is to firebomb the town. Silver-screen luminaries Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman, Donald Sutherland and Kevin Spacey join Hoffman in this edge-of-your-seat, doomsday thriller.”

Basically, this movie is about a fake Ebola virus. SWEET!!!!!

And how much did I pay to watch?

Some amount on Netflix. Lord, I have been SO slow in movie watching lately. (And not just watching, but UPDATING. I am ashamed)

And what did I think?

Well, if you know me IRL then you will know that lately (past month and a half –two months) I have been very interested in science books/ ebola. I read Panic in Level 4: Cannibals, Killer Viruses, and Other Journeys to the Edge of Science by Richard Preston. This book was FASCINATING! As someone who doesn’t really like science, I tore through this book…read it in less than a week! Then I read Preston’s The Hot Zone in less than a week too! And, as Wikipedia tells us, “The Hot Zone served as the loose basis of the Hollywood movie Outbreak (1995) about military machinations surrounding a fictional "Motaba virus." Huzzah! So, I figured I should watch this.

So, motaba is a hemorrhagic fever where the infected person bleeds out of all their orifaces and their guts turn to liquid. Sweet. But, it didn’t look a gross as I would have imagined it would. But, when I watched a documentary about Ebola, I was also surprised about how ungory the infected were. (Man, whenever I say “infected” I always think about zombies, sick.). But other than the lack of goriness, everything else in this movie was a hyperbolic form of its real world self! And I LOVED IT!

I found myself giggling at times that should have been suspenseful because the movie was just so extreme at times! For example, ebola tends to kill people within 7 to 10 days of infection, but this silly motaba virus killed people within like 24 hours…or maybe it was 2-4, I cannot remember, but it was super hyperbolic. And the Donald Sutherland character, he was the general, and he wasn’t just a mean general who was trying to mess up Dustin Hoffman, no, he was trying to [SPOILER ALERT] kill the whole town!!!! And the music was super, like, suspenseful and was supposed to be very dramatic. The whole thing was really just very silly.

And let me get this straight, I am supposed to believe that Dustin Hoffman (troll) and Renee Russo (not a troll, fairly good looking actually) were in love and married at one point. Um… what?? I cannot think of anyone not only less attractive, but less sexy, and appealing than Dustin Hoffman. (well, I probably could, and since I am typing this at work it isn’t like I don’t have so much time on my hands that I could just stare off into space for 15 minutes trying to think of someone else…but I digress). Maybe you should comment and leave me suggestions for who is less appealing than Dustin Hoffman.

Anyway, it was amusing.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)

So, was this as interesting as The Hot Zone? No way!!! Was it sort of fun anyway? Sure! It did take me quite a few sit downs to get through it (which might have had something to do with me being tired, because once I got into it, it was fun!) So, I’ll give it a 6. It gets that extra point because the disease ridden monkey was cute.

OH, and because Kevin Spacey was in it! (is he gay? I feel like I read somewhere that he is… weird)

In Treatment: Season 1

So what is this one about?
In so many ways I feel like anything I say wont do justice to this show. So, instead of using the netflix description, I will show you what I saw, a preview from an hbo dvd, that made me want to watch this show...


And how much did I pay to watch?
You'll likely be shocked to find out, as I was, that this show is 9 discs. Nine. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Now, I watch a lot of tv on dvd and I have never seen anything so long. So, nine discs over a time span that went from May 4 to June 27...probably cost as much as my membership for two months, because apparently for two months (or nearly so) this is all I have watched. I suppose I could have bought the dvds, but, well, too late now.

And what did I think?
One thing I like about Mad Men is that it is a show for grown-ups. Now, as it has become more popular, and as Season 2 smashed my heart to bits, it has gained more of a following. And the following isn't only grown-ups (this is probably one of the few, if only, times you will hear me refer to myself as a proper grownup adult). Now, In Treatment, on the other hand, is a show for proper grown-ups. It is slow. It is subtle. It is simply watching people talk. And of course because it is an HBO show it is flawless.

Gabriel Byrne's acting is so subtle and nuanced. His patients are full of pain, and are repressed, and are so exquisite in the way they hold themselves together sometimes. And Byrne is the same way. And lets face it, he is beautiful. The whole show is simply a masterpeice of acting, and writing, and storytelling. And pain. It is so striking to see such amazing acting which communicates so explicitly what the characters are supposed to be feeling. And as an audience we are pulled in. We feel for the characters when they hurt. We may feel like they've brought it on themselves. And we so badly want for everyone to be happy.

But, I suppose in therapy, as in life, that isn't always the case. And even if someone deserves and desires happiness, or love, or contentment, sometimes that doesn't happen. Sometimes people remain lost even if they are good people. And I suppose that is what I mean by the show is for grown-ups. Grown ups realize that life isn't always perfect, or happy, and sometimes even if you have all the access in the world to happiness and love it just may not happen.

I suppose it is the continuing on the path, the going back every day--or as in treatment, every week--that shows you are a grownup.

(And I suppose this meandering, vague, overly flowery description is why I don't tend to write reviews right after I have finished watching something. Usually I am too full of love and elation to seperate the way I feel about the show from what it is. However, in this case, the way I feel about the show is the way the show actually is. Magnificient)

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Months ago when I had first seen the preview for this show I had mentioned it to my friend Joe. He told me that the show was stunning. I had the feeling it would be, and I was right.

Everything about this show is extraordinary. In fact, sometimes I found myself marvelling at the acting, because it wasn't really a therapy session I was watching--a therapy session full of raw emotions spanning the whole spectrum--no, it was only a tv show.

This is a 10. Perhaps one of the highest 10s I have given. It is an amazing example of the skill and talent that HBO uses to make their incredible shows.

Kissing Jessica Stein

So what is this one about?
My beloved Netflix tells us,

Jessica (Jennifer Westfeldt) is a single, straight, successful New York journalist who, like most of her female friends, has had a history of dating (male) creeps. But when she answers an intriguing personal ad from Helen (Heather Juergensen), Jessica finds herself intensely drawn to her. As Jessica explores this new side of her sexuality, the two begin a friendship that ultimately leads to romance.

Isn't that the way it always works?

And how much did I pay to watch?
Zero dollars because I own this movie. It is one of my faves.

Though, back in the day I did see this in the theatre. I saw it with my mom at my belov'd Cinema Arts. And when the movie was over, do you know what my mom said to me? She said "You remind me of Jessica Stein." And to this day I have never been able to figure out what she meant. Though, it does make me feel a bit odd for her to say that to me.

And what did I think?
Well, here is the thing. Despite this movie being one of my faves, upon watching it I realize it isn't all that spectacular. What makes this movie so appealing is the characters.

It is empathizing with the characters that makes the whole thing relate-able. Hmm, how can I say this in a way that doesn't make me sound totally gay? Hmmm, see, the thing is, how can you--as someone who has likely met someone (no matter what gender) who is utterly intriguing--dismiss this film just because the storyline is somewhat gay? Answer: you cannot. If you think about it, of course you can relate to it.

It is like that line in Chasing Amy,

The way the world is, how seldom it is that you meet that one person who just *gets* you - it's so rare. ... And to cut oneself off from finding that person, to immediately halve your options by eliminating the possibility of finding that one person within your own gender, that just seemed stupid to me. So I didn't.

I mean, that, I think, is what Kissing Jessica Stein is about. It isn't about, like, realizing you are a lesbian, but it IS about opening yourself up to all that is out there.

Now, other than that, I realized way way later that John Hamm, of Mad Men fame, is in this movie, since Jennifer Westfeldt is his longtime girlfriend. But let me tell you, even as an avid Mad Men watcher, if I hadn't know he was in this, I never would have realized it was him. He is so much hotter in the 1960s than in the early 2000s.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, I love it. For realzies. But, I realize it isn't a 10. So I give it an 8, though it still remains one of my favorites!

Changeling

So what is this one about?
Well, Netflix tells us

Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie, in an Oscar-nominated role) is overjoyed when her young kidnapped son Walter is brought back home. But when Christine suspects that the Walter who was returned to her isn't her actual child, the police captain (Jeffrey Donovan) has her committed to an asylum. John Malkovich co-stars as the crusading reverend who comes to Christine's rescue in this gripping, 1920s-set drama helmed by ace director Clint Eastwood.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Probably around $4. I guess it is still less than the $4.99 that I would have paid if I had watched it "on demand"...but still it is much more than it should be with my netflix love.

And what did I think?
Well, my love for Clint Eastwood has grown out of control (just like kudzu...). This movie looked exactly like something he would direct. It had this beautiful clear, yet smoky grey quality. It was slow and deliberate. He is an AMAZING filmmaker. In fact, I have added so many Eastwood directed films to my queue, so if there are a lot of his movies in the coming soon section, that is why.

So, what did I think? Well, when I saw the preview for this movie I thought it looked really interesting, because did her boy actually change, or was it not her son at all? I wont really give it away, I suppose, but it was rather unexpected. This movie even brought in my interest in both true crime stories and Canada! Joy! Oh yeah, and citizen activism...take that Los Angeles County!!

The costumes were amazing. I read on wikipedia (maybe) that Eastwood wanted to cast Jolie because he thought her looks fit the time period. Let me tell you, as someone interested in both decorative arts and costume/historical fashion the casting of Jolie as a woman of the late 1920s was absolutely spot on. She is the CLASSIC 1920s-1930s model type. She was a bit more glamourous than the normal woman in that time period, but I suppose Angelina Jolie has a hard time not being glam.

Eastwood even composed the music! What can that guy not do?! I will tell you what he can't do, he cant seem to get an oscar nomination for the amazing recent movies he is made. That is a flipping tragic injustice! Also, across the board, the acting was amazing. Jolie, Malcovich, Harner, and even Amy Ryan. They were all so nuanced and perfect. So subtle and powerful without being at all cartoonish. Fantastic!!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Changeling is pretty amazing. It is just perfectly spot on and I assign most of that to Eastwood and his incredible attention to detail and perfect astehtic eye. I give it a 9.