Shutter Island

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

World War II soldier-turned-U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) investigates the disappearance of a patient from a hospital for the criminally insane, but his efforts are compromised by his own troubling visions and by Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley). Mark Ruffalo, Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer and Max von Sydow co-star in director Martin Scorsese's plot twist-filled psychological thriller set on a Massachusetts island in 1954.

Mmmmmm, Leonardo DiCaprio AND Max Von Sydow?!?! Sign me up!!!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Erm. Well, my mother and I went to go see this at Cinema Arts. I don't remember if she paid. I think she might have, and then I bought some snacks. mmmmmmm, Cinema Arts popcorn! So, i think I paid nothing.

And what did I think?
Well, the more I think about this movie the more I like it. Interestingly enough, when I first watched this I didn't really like it as much. It really wasn't what I expected from the ads. I wanted it to be much, much, much scarier. (Love me some scary movies!)

But now that I think about the movie, and its "twist" I think it is very smart. I'd like to see it again to see if there were any clues to figuring it out while the plot was moving forward.

And I love Leonardo DiCaprio and Max VonSydow. Yumm.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Like I said, the more I think about it, the more I like it. So I'll give it a 7. Or maybe an 8. Something like that.

9/11

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us

This heartfelt documentary was created by award-winning French filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who simply set out to make a movie about a rookie NYC fireman and ended up filming the tragic event that changed our lives forever. The program includes additional footage and interviews with the heroic firefighters, rescue workers and the Naudet brothers, providing exclusive insight to their extraordinary firsthand experience of the day's events.

Woah. Talk about right place, right time.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Got it on the 'flix. But I am not sure how much I paid.

And what did I think?
Well, I rented this one because The Bob and Abe Show recommended it as Bob's favorite (or was it Abe's favorite?) documentary of the decade. (As you have seen, mine would be considered Children Underground). I was interested in what these guys saw in this film.

Now, as I said, right place, right time, for sure. I found the two Frenchie filmmakers very sympathique (as the French would say) and entirely adorable. It was actually the relationship of the two brothers that I found more affecting than the actual 9/11-New York stuff. I am pretty sure that doesn't make me an awful American. (It isn't that I find 9/11 stuff in general un-affecting, but for some reason this movie just didn't really do it for me. Now, if you want to see some 9/11 stuff that just rips your heart out, you gotta come to Washington, to the Newseum--yes, the museum of news--to the 9/11 Gallery sponsored by Comcast: Chronicling the Attack on America and the 11 minute video they have. Talk about the waterworks!)

The conclusion of the film was very shocking. But it was shocking in a nice uplifting way. It was really unexpected--maybe that is why I didn't find the movie that affecting?

I don't know. The footage was amazing. Like nothing you would ever imagine. Ever. I suppose the film is really worth watching for that alone. What was it like on that day on Ground Zero? This is 100% the closest you would ever get if you weren't there (which, of course, I was not. I was safe in my dorm when the 2nd plane hit and was away from Washington in my Political Science 101 class when the plane hit the pentagon--a mere 15 miles from my home) and for that insight this film deserves all the credit it has been given.

I suppose that is the thing about documentaries, eh? The filmmakers don't write scripts, and sometimes the things that happen in the subject's lives write the film and take it in a new direction. For this reason, I suppose, it is one of the truest documentaries that was made in the 2000s, if not in the 20th-21st century. The filmmakers explain in their narration that the events of the day really did change the direction of their film. So, kudos to them for being able to do so very well.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
For all of the reasons above, I think this film deserves at least an 8. Like I said, it was the relationship between the filmmaker brothers that I was so intrigued by and for some reason the other "plot lines" weren't as affecting. However, it was an excellent achievement brought on by pure luck on the part of the filmmakers (maybe not so lucky for America) and by their ability to take what they had an make it work.

Two Lovers

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

"After his engagement falls through, Leonard Kraditor (Joaquin Phoenix) juggles the affections of Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), his beautiful, self-destructive neighbor, and Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), the attractive, sensible daughter of his father's business associate. Writer-director James Gray's beautifully nuanced romantic drama is set in Brooklyn and also stars Elias Koteas. The film was nominated for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival."

tah freaking dah!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nerfffffffin. I watched this bad boy on netflix's view it now option. Well, I guess I did pay something, because if I didn't have my flix subscription then I wouldn't be eligible to watch this, but lets just ignore that for this moment.

And what did I think?
What I thought was that I loved that there were no value judgements from the director. In a story that is sort of complex like this one, with complex and damaged characters, it was SO entirely refreshing that the director or writer didn't write any of the characters as "the bad guy". There were really repugnant things about all the characters, really sad things about all the characters, and endearing things about all the characters. It left the action of judging who was good and who was bad and who deserved what to the audience. And it was likewise refreshing that the filmmakers thought the audience would be smart enough to decide who they liked and who they didn't. Filmmakers don't seem to give audiences enough credit these days.

In the same vein of this being complex, as a viewer it was hard for me to pick who I liked and who I didn't. I think that is quite an accomplishment. Usually I pick someone in a film I like--usually someone I can relate to for some reason--but I couldn't pick anyone. I just felt sorry for everyone. Sorrier for some, but I felt sorry for all of them. They were just so damaged.

The film also took place in Brighton Beach, so there were tons of Russians and other Eastern Europeans, and the weather was so overcast and depressing--the settings really seemed to match the story. I assume that was done deliberately. I give the production team a lot of credit on this one.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I think you should watch this. Sometimes I think that my opinions on film are sort of bizarrely skewed--I don't know why. But I thought this one was really good. It isn't the type of film I would buy and watch over and over, but I thought it was really good. Nuanced. (I love that word).

I gave it a 4 on Netflix, so I will give it an 8 here.

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!

Crazy Love

So what is this one about?
Netflix told me

This documentary from director Dan Klores chronicles the disturbing true story of an obsessive relationship gone awry in 1950s New York between Burt Pugach, a married lawyer, and his twentysomething mistress, Linda Riss. In a shocking reversal of the traditional "woman scorned" formula, it was Pugach who came unglued when Riss broke up with him -- and the subsequent fallout made headlines across the country.

And it was available on view it now, plus I was waiting for my laundry to wash, so I watched it.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, it is included in my membership fee, so, there you go. Also, I think I am getting back into the swing of watching more discs, so the cost will go down soon.

And what did I think?
Well, it was a little bit like a Lifetime movie or one of those episodes of Oxygen's Snapped (which is a show I really like). But it was still interesting, and shocking. I really don't want to say anything about what happened in the movie because I think there are people who read this who will really find it interesting.

Just go ahead and watch it...and then discuss it with me on the comments.

It was pretty well done for a crappy sort of low rent, low budget documentary (though I was unable to find any internet proof that the movie was cheap to make...I did find out how much it made though, which was just over $300k.) It also had the ability to make the audience react to what they were seeing. I can't say for sure what my reaction to the whole documentary was, but it was certainly something that was visceral. Yikes.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It gets an 8. It was so surprising and good in its own way...a documentary that makes you think or feel while also learning about something new is always my fave type of documentary.

Coraline

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us

Curious young Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) unlocks a mysterious door in her family's new home and is transported to an alternate universe that strangely resembles her own -- only better. But when her Other Mother (Teri Hatcher) doesn't want Coraline to return to reality, our heroine must summon all her courage and ingenuity to go home and save her family. The breathtaking stop-motion animation is based on the best-seller by Neil Gaiman.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I saw this bad boy in 3-D because I heard that is the only way to see it. And 3-D at Cinema DeLux was $12. Or, at least it was on February 20, 2009...which was when I watched it (errrrrrrrrrr)

And what did I think?
Well, I think probably 3-D was the only way to see it. I've only seen a movie or two in 3-D lately (I think only Beowulf in Budapest) and this one was much much better. I think something that is a little more cartoonish is better in 3-D than "live action" movies (Beowulf wasn't really live action because it looked like it was computer animated live action...) Also, apparently Neil Gaiman wrote Beowulf...innnnnnteresting [Apparently the process is called "performance capture" and is explained here,

The cameras recorded real time footage of the performances, shots which Zemeckis reviewed. The director then used a virtual camera to choose camera angles from the footage which was edited together. Two teams of animators worked on the film, with one group working on replicating the facial performances, the other working on body movement. The animators said they worked very closely on replicating the human characters, but the character of Grendel had to be almost reworked, because he is a monster, not human.

Man, you're getting more production info than you'd have ever expected on this blog, aren't you?]

Anyway, Coraline was done in animated stop-motion

"an animation technique to make a physically manipulated object appear to move on its own. The object is moved in small amounts between individually photographed frames, creating the illusion of movement when the series of frames are played as a continuous sequence. Clay figures are often used in stop motion animations, known as claymation, for their ease of repositioning."

Interesting, right?

The 3-d in Coraline made it really spacey, and that is what the other world was supposed to feel like, so it worked really well. The story was interesting enough, but what I enjoyed about this movie was the way it actually looked. I mean, it was probably worth watching the movie just to see how it looked. Sort of like The Corpse Bride. I liked the other mother, and all of the characters in the other world.

I think this movie probably appeals to the kiddies who really like those spacey, sort of goth-ish movies and comic books. But for a straight-laced girl like me I liked the art of it all.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Yeah, so this def gets points because of how cool it looked. It gets an 8.

If you're gonna watch this you should watch it in 3-d...but now that it is out of the theatre I don't know how that is possible. Sad face for you...

Defiance

So what is this one about?
You know, I was going to use wikipedia's description of this film, because I was sure Netflix would not say that the film took place in Belarus...BUT IT DID! So yay Netflix, they say

Daniel Craig stars as Tuvia Bielski, one of four Jewish brothers who escape from Poland into the forests of Belarus during World War II to lead a band of resistance fighters and create a safe haven for Jewish refugees. The real-life sanctuary established by the Bielski brothers saved more than 1,000 Jews from persecution and death. Edward Zwick directs this moving historical drama that also stars Liev Schreiber, Jamie Bell and George MacKay.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I have my movie ticket from, wait for it, February 6, 2009 from the good ol' Georgetown AMC and it tells me that I paid $10.75. Now I can throw this receipt away...since I only hung onto it because I knew I could refer back to it on this hurr bloggy.

And what did I think?
Now, Ima tell yous a secret. The first time I saw this preview I knew, I MEAN KNEW, it took place in Belarus. Now, how would I know that? Well, maybe two reasons. 1) I wrote my masters thesis on Belarus...so of course I am an expert. But, the real reason is 2) I once saw this movie, Idi i Smotri (Come and See) in this class I took in grad school called "Comparitive Totalitarian Culture" that is about how poor Belarus was absolutely slaughtered by the Nazis. And the color in the film was SO reminiscent of what I was seeing in the trailer for Defiance. (Have I written about Idi i Smotri before? I feel like I have...) Well anyway, when I saw this I thought, "If this isn't about Belarusian Partisans I will eat my hat!" but, it was. So there, my hat is safe.

Back in the day when I was working at the 'bux, I had this customer who always talked about movies with me. She said I absolutely had to see Defiance because she thought it was so amazing (she hadn't seen Gran Torino yet, but after she had she wanted to go see it again the next day). I disagree with that, and in all honesty I didn't think it was that amazing. I mean, it was ok, but perhaps because I knew the story of Belarusian Partisans I wasn't as taken because it wasn't as surprising. In fact, sitting here three months later I can't remember much I found very extraordinary about Defiance. I did like the girl who got preggers, and Billy Elliot (Jamie Bell) getting a forest wife. And the music was pretty good, but I didn't find the film especially moving or affecting or amazing.

On the wikipedia entry on Defiance they point out something that I missed in the film, but adds so much excellence and authenticity and is something that I would have given the filmmakers so much credit for that I am embarassed I missed it. Well, apparently it was on the entry when I first read it in February, but now it is gone. So, on imdb they talk about it a little... they say,

When Russians or Germans speak, there are subtitles, but the Bielskis speak English to each other, what language are they supposed to be speaking?

The Bielskis' native language is Yiddish, which is influenced by German, Russian and Hebrew. While growing up, the Bielskis learned Belarussian from their neighbors and also experienced various occupations by Russians, Poles and Germans. To varying degrees, they picked up other languages out of necessity. Tuvia also learned German during World War I when the Germans occupied their land.

So, what was the point of that? The old wikipedia entry explained that the English that the Bielskis spoke was supposed to be Yiddish and all the other languages would have had to have been subtitled for that. (Did you know you can go back and see edits on Wikipedia? Well you can...here is what I wanted to show you originally...

The movie was filmed primarily in accented English to represent speech by the Jewish characters that would have been in the Yiddish language.Whenever the dialogue was not in English, for instance when a Jewish character was speaking to a non-Jewish character or when a non-Jewish character was speaking, the dialogue was in the Russian language. The only exception to this were German soldiers who spoke in German. Some Polish reviewers have criticized this decision, arguing that many of the locals in the area would have spoken Polish and not Russian or Belorussian and that the Bielski partisans did not know Russian or Belarussian as well as or Polish. The actors' accents in English have also fallen under criticism because they were not distinctively Yiddish but instead varied and seemed to represent a general Eastern European accent.

Well, that long explaination was barely worth it. Harrumph. But it does illustrate my unecessary and undying love for authentic languages being spoken in movies. This is way going off track, but one movie that the use of language drives me nuts in was Enemy at the Gates. All the Russians were played by Brits with English accents and the Germans were played by Americans with American accents, but for some unexplicable reason when there were announcements over speakers they were in Russian, or when a newspaper was printed it was in cyrillic. Why?? WHY!?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
So, on netflix I gave Defiance 4 out of 5. I would have given it a 3 but I said the extra star was because it was about Belarus, and Belarusian partisans. So, I'll give it an 8 here, because Belarus gets no love, and maybe it will introduce a wider audience to Belarus during World War II.

One other thing, though, is that not everyone thought the Bielskis were freedom fighters. If you're interested, you can see that history always has two sides. Just like Sarah yelled at Areta for her paper on the UPA, some people think the Bielski brothers were "Jewish-communist bandits" not great freedom fighters and heroes.

Milk

So what is this one about?
If you have been under a rock, Netflix will tell us what this one is about.

Sean Penn (in an Oscar-winning role) stars in this fact-based drama about Harvey Milk, the openly gay activist and San Francisco politician who was murdered along with mayor George Moscone (Victor Garber) by disgruntled city employee Dan White (Josh Brolin, in an Oscar-nominated role) in 1978. Director Gus Van Sant's compelling biopic (nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award) co-stars Emile Hirsch, James Franco and Diego Luna.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because Devin bought my ticket.

And what did I think?
There were basically two over-riding things I thought of while watching this one. 1) Sean Penn is such an incredibly talented actor. He is just fabulous. 2) Good god this movie was better than stupid, stupid Slumdog Millionaire. You may be able to tell that I saw this before the stupid Oscars, because those were my two immediate thoughts.

Other than those, though, I suppose I did have some other thoughts. I liked that Josh Brolin played the guy who killed Harvey Milk. I liked this because the last role I saw Brolin in was playing George W. Bush in W. Haha, George W. Bush hates gay people and kills them. Oh wait, that is just Josh Brolin. I also liked that the whole story was new to me. I suppose I knew that Harvey Milk was killed, but I didn't know how, or when, or why, or by who. So I liked that. I also liked that it was filmed in San Fransicso...cause hey, I've been there!

I thought the acting was very good. In fact, I thought all the actors were great!!

It was also whispered in my ear that the woman at the begining of the film who says that Milk and Moscone are dead was Dianne Feinstein, and that this basically catapulted her carrer. Or, well, thats what Devin said. I thought that was interesting, and the wikipedia article even refers to it. So, again, it must be true.

On the other hand, though, besides the awesome acting and the fact that it was much better than Slumdog, I think I might have to admit that I am getting a little sick of gay movies. I love gay people. I think they are great. I think they should have all the same rights as straight couples, and all of that goodness (and be serious, how adorable are Ellen and Portia? they are amazing!) but really, I am getting kind of bored of these movies. I guess they just don't tug at my heart like they used to. Maybe I am becoming horribly cold. But maybe I'm just getting bored.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Milk was good. Milk was great. Penn deserved his Oscar, because dude let's face it... he is so talented.

Overall, it was very good. 8.

Scener ur ett atkenskap (Scenes From a Marriage)

So what is this one about?
Widely considered one of Ingmar Bergman's best, this intense drama follows the marriage of Marianne (Liv Ullmann) and Johan (Erland Josephson) as it deteriorates. When Marianne learns of Johan's infatuation with another woman, the relationship unravels, yet through it all, a deep, underlying love keeps the couple connected. This is the theatrical version of the film; also included is a theatrical-TV comparison and other extras.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Some amount on my Netflix account (aka: I am too lazy to figure it out)

And what did I think?
When I watched the extra features explanation I realized I may have gotten the wrong version of this movie. There are two, one is the theatrical version (the one I watched) and the other one is the miniseries. I think I might have enjoyed the miniseries version better. But, the third episode, or vingette (since I got the theatrical version, not the television version), titled 'Paula' was beyond shocking. I couldn't believe it! I think I actually gasped!

I guess one of the interesting things about this movie was that it showed how complex relationships, and marriages, are. These characters, the husband and wife, were so tied to each other in so many ways, it was impossible for them to completely detach from each other. Even if they wanted to!

Overall it was a very interesting film. I can see why American audiences of the time liked this movie so much, I don't have much experience with Swedish film but I thought this was a good introductory film (though I have seen some Bergman, including The Seventh Seal, which is amazing!!!!!)

Also, the actors weren't what I expected of Swedes. They were less Aryan than I expected them to be. Though, when I went to Norway (the fatherland) I had the same problem...

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good--long, but good. I give it an 8. Watch more Bergman. He is amazing.

Revolutionary Road

So what is this one about?
Well, I took the movie poster from wikipedia (since again, I couldn't find a poster on google) so I may as well take their summary.

Set in 1955, the plot focuses on the hopes and aspirations of self-assured Frank and April Wheeler, who have forsaken life in the city in order to raise their children in the Connecticut suburbs, where they see themselves as very different from their neighbors in the Revolutionary Hill Estates.

April is an aspiring actress who has grown dissatisfied with her life as a suburban housewife and proposes a move to Paris to her husband as a means to reinvigorate their fading marriage. Frank, who despises his job, initially likes the idea, and it is as though a whole new life has been breathed into their relationship. But when the healthy salary increase connected to a promotion at Knox Business Machines makes his position there easier to bear, he becomes less enamored with his wife's proposal. He begins drinking too heavily and engages in an affair with a young secretary from the office in celebration of his 30th birthday, while April has a tryst of her own with neighbor Shep Campbell.

As the Wheelers try to free themselves from their dull existence, their marriage slowly dissolves into an endless cycle of bitter arguments and jealous recriminations while they struggle to maintain a facade of domestic bliss. Only John Givings, the institutionalized son of local realtor Helen and her husband Howard, is able to see what's simmering beneath their surface.

And I would say that is pretty accurate of a description for the film, focusing on what Sam Mendes focused on in his adaptation of Richard Yates' book.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because my mom and I trucked it to Bethesda in order to see it (because it wasn't showing anywhere in Virginia) and she paid. Per usual.

And what did I think?
Well, as everyone who reads this little bloggy here likely already knows, I have been dying to see this movie since I saw a preview for it during an episode of Mad Men Season 2....so that was easily three months ago. Then I read the book over Halloween and that just solidified my desire to see it. Dang dang dang. So, its about dang time. My expectations for this film were high, probably unmatchably high--unless I had directed it, of course--and it didn't meet them. It was quite good though, and the longer it went on the more I warmed up to it. So, without futher ado...here we go!! Revolutionary Road...

While I was reading the book I could just imagine Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank and Kate Winslet as April...they were perfectly cast in my mind. However, due to some changes in the plot from the novel to the film, we as the audience missed out on some serious character exposition of April. However, Kate Winslet made up for it a little bit towards the middle/end by showing her character development. Though, maybe I just thought that because of the narration that I was missing. Leonardo DiCaprio was also good...so terrified at the end for his wife, but at the very end he didn't seem as dead inside as I would have liked. Again, because there was no narration (Frank is the narrator in the book) the audience didn't understand how carefully calculated some of his actions and words were, so he came off as a bit of a clod.

At the begining I was disappointed that the actors didn't portray their characters the way I imagined them, but towards the middle and end they really snapped into their roles. Kate was on fire as angry April and Frank was scared and yet, not scared for the right reason. And good lord, the actor who played Helen Givings' son John was amazing. He stepped into his role and became the narrator, explaining to the audience what the hell was going on. He was amazing. AMAZING. [EDIT: He did get nominated (Michael Shannon, who played John Givings), but he is also up against everyone's fave, Heath Ledger. But, He should win, he was amazing in this movie!!]

Some of the cinematography choices really hit home one of the themes of the film (the surburban cookie cutter depressing repetition) and did it in a very subtle but hard hitting way. Kudos. Also, the fact that they made Leonardo DiCaprio a little fat was an awesome choice.

I suppose it is hard to cut a book into a movie (though I'd like to try someday) and there are parts that need to be edited. However, I was very pleased with the cutting of this book into a script, it was able to keep most of the plot integrity and yet make it shorter. Oddly enough, the movie seemed much shorter than I expected. And, as far as awards talk goes, I don't think Winslet will win for this film. I think she has a better chance for her acting the The Reader. And DiCaprio may get nominated, but he probably wont win either (because there are lots of bigtime male actors this season). But, the guy who played John, holy crap, he should get nominated and win for best supporting actor. He was top notch. Flipping top notch.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Who am I kidding? My expectations were way too high for this film. I thought, and hoped against hope, that it might be able to, but it couldn't. It was no American Beauty, afterall.

I give it an 8.

Let this be a lesson to everyone, never get your hopes up too high for an excellent book that is being made into a film. Even if Leonardo DiCaprio is attatched to it [see World War Z]

The Reader

You cannot imagine how impossible it is to find a movie poster for this film...
thanks wikipedia, you have the only one on the whole internet!

So what is this one about?
Netflix describes this film as

Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) reflects on the formative sexual relationship he had with older woman Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) as a young teenager in this poignant drama (nominated for a Best Picture Golden Globe) set in post-World War II Germany. The passionate affair ended when Hanna disappeared. But years later, Michael learns she's on trial for horrific Nazi war crimes. David Kross plays the teenage Michael in this film based on Bernhard Schlink's best-seller.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing. Because I am a baller who has friends who work at movie theatres and let me and my mom (who is so pumped for these events) in fo free!

And what did I think?
You know, I am always torn. I see a preview for a movie that looks excellent: The Reader, Revolutionary Road (*angels sing*), The Constant Gardener, etc. Then I don't know if I should read the book before I see the movie, or see the movie before I read the book. You pretty much always know that the book will be better. Books are better forms that films. A film maker can put so much less in a film than is in the book...I mean, just look at the Harry Potter films for proof! But, if you see the movie first, it is all new, and can therefore have the punch you in the stomach goodness that you rarely get when you read the book (except, of course, when Dumbledore died in HP6...sorry if you haven't read it!)

Well, I read The Reader before I saw the movie, and I think this one is a good example of the book ruining the movie. Now, don't get me wrong, the movie was good and the book was great... but, when I saw my mom reacting to the plot with absolute shock, I couldn't, because I already knew what was going to happen. Not only that, but I kept thinking in my head that Steve Daldry didn't take advantage of the amazing narration that Bernhard Schlink wrote. It was beautiful.

And there are things in the book that cannot translate to film without seeming contrived. Michael Berg, as the narrator in the book, communicated things to the readers that would have been impossible to show--his memories of Hanna, his confusion about his role in the guilt of the Holocaust (as a German). However, there were things that the film showed that the book couldn't, like how Berg felt once he heard what Hanna had done in the camps. In the book one can only imagine his reaction, but on film he reacted in a way I hadn't imagined. And seeing it in person I realized that his acting of the situation really couldn't have been any other way. It was spot on.

But, film is a different medium than the written word. And, I love film (big surprise), and I love these actors. Man oh man.

I thought it was really funny that the young actors were all Germans but when they were adults they were all British. And David Kross was amazing--as he is in everything--as was Kate Winslet. But, Kate Winslet is amazing in everything too. She is a goddess. She is perfect in everything she is in. But, this isn't supposed to be an entry that is a love letter to Kate Winslet...when I finally see Revolutionary Road, I am sure that entry will be. (God, I cannot wait to see that one!) And, the funny thing is, Kate Winslet was originally asked to play Hanna, but she had to decline because of RR. Then Nicole Kidman was cast, but she had to drop out because she got preggers. Then Kate Winslet could be in The Reader because she was done with RR. God, can you imagine if Nicole Kidman had played the role of Hanna Schmitz? It would have been a fucking disaster! Comparing Nicole Kidman to Kate Winslet is acting like Britney Spears will win an Oscar. (god, more talk of Oscars....ugh) I mean, she isn't that bad, she's been downright delightful in things, but Kate Winslet is amazing.

Anyway, like I said, I think the problem with this movie was that I read the book first. The emotional impact of this film comes from it being a total, knock you off your feet suprise. Don't read the book first. Go see the movie first. Then read the book.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Even though it didn't have a big impact on me, I can tell this movie was good. I am going to give it an 8. I was gonna say a 7, but I will give it an 8, because my sadness of already knowing what was going to happen doesn't say the film wasn't good.

It was. It is going to be a big deal this awards season. Kate Winslet is going to win an Oscar, it will be exciting!!

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Season 3

So what is this one about?
I am using netflix, rather than FX, to tell you about this show (like you don't know what it is, already)

The gang from Paddy's Pub return for more offbeat, hilarious humor in this cult favorite's third season. This year, Mac (Rob McElhenney), Dennis (Glenn Howerton) and Dee (Kaitlin Olson) try out for the Philadelphia Eagles, Dennis inherits the ultimate party house, Frank (Danny DeVito) believes Mac is a serial killer, a restaurateur kicks Paddy's off the list for the annual pub crawl, and Charlie makes the pub a prize in a dance marathon.

ta freaking dah.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I would like to point out that I had to wait over a month to get this one on dvd. Stoop netflix and it's dvd sending structure. But, it is three discs, and at $2.83 per disc it cost $8.49 to watch all three. I guess it would have been cheaper (read: free) to watch it on hulu, but i feel like stuff I watch on the internet isn't official and I am afraid I have missed something. I am odd. I admit it.

And what did I think?
Hmm, what did I think. I was entertained. This show is certainly something else. It is so, um, scandalous and offensive (to people who are offended by tv) and yet amusing as well. I love the shit all way that Mac and Dennis (and Frank, and I guess Charlie) treat Dee. You will remember, of course, that I was compared to Sweet Dee by two people from my high school, so of course I feel some comraderie with her. Even when she makes mistakes and is no better than her cruel brother I still like her. I mean, come on, we've all gotten addicted to heroin before, right? right?? and made a crippled preist's life miserable, right? right.

This season was not as good as season 1, I thought. I had fewer laugh out loud times. But, it was still entertaining. There were plenty of quoteable moments, like "Day Man" and "Night Man" and "fatty McGee". I mean, if you have seen the show you know that these guys are trying to basically be in the poorest possible taste. BUT, if that is your scene, you'll like it.

Oh yeah, and the episode where Dennis (hot) tries to be a hippie but just ends up screwing the other hippie's gf and then dumping her....CLASSIC! I like those episodes where you think any of the five might be doing something good but then you are an idiot, because these are the five worst people in the entire world. I mean, yeah, they're tv characters, but be serious.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I gave season 3 4 stars on netflix, which is what I gave season 1 and 2. Thus, I will give Season 3 of IASIP an 8. It is funny, and amusing, not amazing, but still totally awesome.

MSNBC's "Witness to Jonestown"

So what is this one about?
I am going to go real lazy on this one and have MSNBC describe this for me. Afterall, it was Lester Holt's preview of the film on Nightly News that made me super excited to watch it!



And how much did I pay to watch?
I didn't pay anything! I watched it on a DVR that my mom recorded on TV. I don't pay for the cable, and I didn't pay for the disc. Because I am a mooch who still lives with my parents. Go me!

And what did I think?
I normally wouldn't review a tv documentary. I really, really wouldn't. However, one thing you might not know about me is my unfailing dedication to NBC and its networks, its anchormen (I'm looking at you Brian Williams), and its programming (except not Dateline or To Catch a Predator...I have to still be picky, I mean, be serious). This one, however, was totally worthy of a review. It demonstrates what happens when people have no more options. It was amazing.

I didn't know anything about Jim Jones or his People's Temple. I only vaguely understood that when people said things like "drink the kool-aid" they meant to fall in line. And one time when I was in middle, or maybe even elementary school, my family went on a trip and stayed in Johnstown, PA. They had a big flood there, and our hotel room looked out over a cemetery. And then I remember that when I heard Jonestown I thought I had been there because I thought Jonestown, Guyana and Johnstown, PA were the same place. What can I say? I am dumb. And then I remember this amazing episode of The X-Files, called, the "The Field Where I Died" that was about a religious cult/commune where everyone ended up killing themselves. It was one of my absolute favorite episodes of that show. So, to actually learn about the event, in the form of a documentary, (which I LOVE) was super cool.

The program itself was actually very well done. Using former members of the People's Temple and surviors of Jonestown gave the documentary a very authentic feel that wasn't from a judgemental newsperson point of view. And it was just SO fascinating!

So fascinating, in fact, that I had to go and get another Jonestown documentary from netflix.

I will probably go into what I think Jonestown means for society in the review of the other film. But, for now I will say, if you want to borrow "Witness to Jonestown" let me know. It is seriously awesome.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I know I said it is seriously awesome, but, lets keep in mind that it is an NBC doc. I would never ever slander NBC, but, it is what it is.

I give it an 8.

Les Miserables (1934)

So what is this one about?
Well, as you may or may not know, Les Miserables is not only one of my favorite books but also my absolute favorite musical. It is an amazing and touching story about the goodness of people no matter what their background. It is about forgiveness and absolution. One of my favorite lines of the musical is "to love another person is to see the face of god" and then also, (and this is a line that chokes me up when I have to say it outloud) "He let me eat my fill, I had the lion's share" (because "He" is in reference to a preist who let Jean Valjean--a former convict--stay at his house, despite the fact that he was a convict, and treated him like anyother, "he gave me his trust, he called me brother, he told me that I had a soul...") Anyway. You can read about the actual novel Les Miserables here, and then the musical here. But the movie, well, the movie has many incarnations...including a shittay version made in the 1990s with Liam Neeson as Valjean and Uma Thurman as Fantine (LAAAAAAME)

Anyway, my beloved told me that this movie was one of the most accurate adaptations of the over 1200 page novel. They said,

After serving a prison sentence for stealing a loaf of bread, Jean Valjean (Harry Baur) attempts to start a new life. But relentless lawman Javert (Charles Vanel), driven by Valjean's minor parole infraction, hunts him down in an unending pursuit. Helmed by revered French director Raymond Bernard, this five-hour epic is considered by many to be the finest film adaptation of Victor Hugo's literary classic.

So, I said to myself, sure, I have five hours. I'll get it!!

And how much did I pay to watch?
I've said it one time if I've said it 100. I haven't had as much time to watch movies. Between the two discs of this movie I'd say it took nearly two weeks to watch the whole movie. But, it cost about $5.66 for the two discs. Yikeso!

And what did I think?
Oh, what did I think? Well, I totally agree that it was pretty accurate as far as the book goes. Translating a 1200 page tome to a five hour movie is difficult, and I will admit that there were big chunks cut out of the story. Thankfully, the parts that were cut out had a lot to do with the Cosette/Marius love story plot line. Now, because I am such a terrible hag who hates love and people being happy, it didn't make me unhappy to cut out the superflouos love story plotline. The important plots in this book/movie/musical revolve around Valjean and his redemption and the student revolution.

The adherence to the Valjean storyline was flawless. It was super duper. Just fantastic! (The movie was divided into three parts, the first of which was entirely devoted to Valjean, and the second of which was at least half dedicated to him. The revolution plotline was sort of unclear. If I hadn't already been familliar with the plot I would have been confused as to what was going on. Finally, as for the romantical plotline, they left out a huge chunk. I would be forced to beleive that these two lovebirds met and were just in love automatically--which is what the muscial leads me to believe as well--which is not what Hugo tells us. However, I don't really care. Mostly, because the actress who played Cosette was 100% annoying and ridiculous. Now, as far as the actor who played the other characters, Valjean was amazing. At first I thought the actor was too bulky and ridiculous (because most of the Valjeans I have seen in the musical are more dimuntive and huge...like short but stocky and muscular) but I really found him to be endearing. The other actors were only so so.

One of the extraordinary things about the film was the film itself. I have no idea how, who, and when the film was restored, but unlike other movies from the 1930s that I watch on dvd, this one was of such high, clear quality that it easily could have been a movie that was made in the 1970s. The copy was so clear, and fresh.

The quality of the filmmaking was quite good as well. There was this scene that was supposed to be doing an aerial shot of Paris, but it was clearly a model that was filmed. Now, the model and the switching of the scale model to the actual street shot of Paris was flawless. It stands out in my mind as one of the most incredible parts of the film, considering the year it was made.

One of the only problems I had with the acting was some of the characters/actors propensity to yell rather than speak in a normal voice. I chalk that up to the year the film was made and that perhaps "talkies" were still a fairly new type of film.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good. I will give it that. Other than the musical, which takes artistic liberties with the longass stor, it is the best adaptation I have seen. I mean, practically perfect.

The fact that I knew the story made watching this long movie more understandable. My background of the music made me hum the music along with where it would belong in the film. That actually made it more enjoyable.

Now, despite the fact that I have very little negative to say about it, it doesn't stick with me as something extraordinarily amazing. So, I give it an 8.

The Tudors: Season 1

So what is this one about?
Unsusprisingly, Showtime's website is worthless for a description of the entire show. Seriously though, what did I expect? I had to turn to my beloved Netflix for a proper description. They say,

This superb and visually lush Showtime series provides a look at the world of the Tudors in the days when King Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) was a handsome, charming, athletic 25-year-old. Inheriting absolute power at a young age, the king indulges his voracious taste for ladies-in-waiting, hangs out with his entourage of young nobles and makes momentous political decisions. The stellar cast includes Jeremy Northam and Sam Neill.

I don't know about all that, but I will give them this, it is visually lush.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Welp, since I've been working a bunch, and therefore going to bed sickeningly early, I haven't been watching as much. Therefore the movies I do get cost more on Netflix. In the case of the a tv show with four discs it not only takes me a long time to watch, but it costs more. The cost per disc was $1.69, so with four discs it cost me $6.79.

And what did I think?
First, man, Showtime sucks! Showtime wishes so much that it were HBO. HBO is like what god makes compared to Showtime. Showtime is like what the dog chewed and then vomited back up. Showtime attempts to cover up that they have poor writing and poor acting by making everything really sex-y. And I don't mean sexy, I mean, like sex sex sex porn-tastic. Now, granted, I have really only seen The L Word and The Tudors, but I feel like I am watching really soft-core porn. Not that I have a problem with it, really--I mean, I am not offended or anything. Its just that it seems like they put it in when it is entirely unnecessary to distract from the weak points of the shows otherwise. Like, when the first scene in the entire series was Henry VIII doin' some maiden from behind. I mean, is that really necessary? Or is it really what Showtime wants viewers to think of immediately? It probably is. Lame. Showtime is lame. HBO forever!!

With that editorializing out of the way I can actually talk about the show. I sort of hate all the main characters on the show. Anne Boelyn and Henry, man, I want nothing but bad things to happen to them. Now, Catherine of Aragon and Cardinal Woolsey, I want nothing but good things to happen to them. The fact that the other characters make things suck for the ones I like makes me hate them even more! And it seems ridiculous to call the characters, well, characters, because they are real people from history! And I was very sad, like, suprisingly sad, when SPOILER ALERT...they killed Cardinal Woolsey. Assholes.

Man, I was so glad when they added some gayness to the show. I got an inkling, and I thought to myself, "self, you know what would make this mildly pornographic show even better? Some gay characters getting it on with eachother!" then lo and behold. GAY!!! God, I was so excited.

But then, the episode where my fave gay character died was so sad. But it was awesome, because I got to learn about "the sweating sickness" which was wild, and I knew nothing about because I don't do ancient, or imperial history of any sort. Hah.

Oh yeah, and everyone on the show is oddly unattractive. I would classify it as sexy ugly. Or, well, they aren't like classicly attractive, but they are sort of mesmerizing.

Oh the one gay guy is kind of attractive. But, well, then he died. Damn.

Also, Johnathan Rhys Meyer is freaky deaky. He has zombie eyes, "milky blue eyes...you know, its not really the eyes that make them look all cloudy, it's actually tiny dust scratches on the surface, thousands of them, because Zack [Army slang for zombie] doesn't make any tears"(World War Z, page 278) like many others, namely Flyer's goalie Martin Biron, but JRM is odd additionally. Its like, because he has a shaved head he looks like a maniac! It is bizarre.

Now, I've been so self-obsessed for long enough that I understand my eyes can border on zombatic (thats my new word...meaning, zombie like; having zombie qualities) as well. As evidenced below, but luckily for me it really depends on the light and the colors surrounding me. (Interestingly enough, and getting WAY off topic, my eyes always look completely void of color at the place where I get my hair cut)

OFFFFFFF TOPIC!!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It is really annoying, because as I write this I have lots of complaints about the show, but it was really mesmerizing and I did always run to the mailbox to get the new disc when it arrived.

Those tricky assholes at showtime. I did the same thing with The L Word. I didn't really like it, and I found some of the characters absolutely miserable. I mean horrible, and I wanted only bad things to happen to them. And then I feel the same way about the Tudors, but I am dying to see what happens in Season 2, even though I know from history that Anne Boelyn bites it--TAKE THIS BEYATCH--but I am dying to see how they treat it.

Damn jerks, I give your stupid show a 7. I want to give it an 8, but I'll stick with a seven for now.

Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq

So what is this one about?
Maybe one day I will pay for cable and get HBO. Everything they produce is fabulous, and they are so helpful with descriptions on their website. Thanks HBO!

In a war that has left more than 25,000 wounded, ALIVE DAY MEMORIES: HOME FROM IRAQ looks at a new generation of veterans. Executive Producer James Gandolfini interviews ten Soldiers and Marines who reveal their feelings on their future, their severe disabilities and their devotion to America. The documentary surveys the physical and emotional cost of war through memories of their "alive day," the day they narrowly escaped death in Iraq.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I've been pretty busy lately. I haven't been able to dedicate as much time towards watching movies because I've been traveling, hosting guests, working on my thesis paper (which is done....YAY!), and redoing my room. I have only gotten 11 movies from Netflix in the past 30 days, which puts the price of the disc at $1.54. (still pretty cheap though, right?)

And what did I think?
Well, I was very interested in watching this when everyone in the news world (Brian Williams) was talking about this new documentary by James Gandolfini. And kudos to HBO for getting it on dvd so quickly.

It was an interesting film which told ten different and interesting stories. It was a good film that would demonstrate to citizens the cost of war. A cost that likely they don't see. The idea that 25,000 soldiers have been wounded is kind of shocking.

However, though the film tries to demonstrate the human cost of war I never got an "anti-war" vibe from the film. Rather, Gandolfini did an excellent job of laying out a narrative that could let the audience decide for themselves what they think of war. I think this is hard to do in a war time documentary, but this one managed to stay pretty unbiased.

I also thought it was important that Gandolfini used two female veterans. Many war films or documentaries seem to only focus on the male soldiers, and this does a disservice to the female soldiers.

Last, one of the soldiers (I think he was second)has been covered on Nightly News. It was a few weeks ago, in a story that told about New York firefighters help him with this physical therapy at home because he couldn't (as in didn't want to, not as in wasn't able to) stay in the military hospitals anymore. And compared to what we saw in the film, he is doing much better now. That was a nice part of the story.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Rating movies is sort of odd, because it is impossible (probably) to separate my feelings about a film from the actual goodness of the film in terms of film. If that made any sense. I think what I would change about this film was its length. It was only an hour long. I would have liked to see more.

Other than that it was pretty interesting. I give in an 8.

El Espinazo del Diablo (The Devil's Backbone)

So what is this one about?
My beloved provides us with this description,

Twelve-year-old Carlos (Fernando Tielve) is the latest arrival at Santa Lucia School, an imposing stone building that shelters orphans of the Republican militia and politicians during the last days of the Spanish Civil War. Carlos gradually uncovers the dark ties that bind the inhabitants of the school: hidden riches, sexual intrigue and the restless ghost of a murdered student, who may be the only one to provide resolution.

The film, of course, is written and directed by Guillermo del Toro... the man who can't get enough of the Spanish Civil War and orphanages... and who looks nothing like what you would expect.

And how much did I pay to watch?
well, I got it from netflix, so some small ammount ;)

And what did I think?
First, I loved the blood coming from the dead boy's (Santi) head. It was amazing and spacey and captivating.



Second, I loved the bad guy. I guess one of delToro's themes is the Spanish Civil War sucked and everyone was an asshole. But the bad guy was just so mean for no reason. I always like antagonists like that.

Third, I think I probably don't watch nearly enough spanish cinema, because, from the few I have seen, it is creepy and haunting. I guess the movies I watch most are French films, or Japanese.

Fourth, and a real "what did I think point", I like that this movie didn't resolve everything at the end. In The Orphanage there were no loose ends and it ended up being really annoying. It seemed like the director (who wasn't delToro) decided at the very last minute to make it all wrap up, and it just seemed unnecessary. However, in this movie the end wrapped things up just enough that the audience felt satisfied without feeling like they were being beaten with the obvious stick.

Fifth, I think delToro is a gifted director. His movies all have this slightly scary, foreboding, fairy tale quality to them. His films have lessons for the audience to learn and he presents them in such a simple and fantastical way that they are somewhat easier to extract. He deals a lot with the concepts of good and evil, and maybe how in wartime it is harder to tell them apart. They are very intriguing to watch.

Oh, and sixth, the title was stupid.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
This was very enjoyable. It was well made, and well thought out. I am really so impressed with del Toro.

This one gets an 8.

Mad Men: Season 1

So what is this one about?
AMC (yes, American Movie Classics) tells us about their show on their website.

Set in 1960s New York, the sexy, stylized and provocative AMC drama Mad Men follows the lives of the ruthlessly competitive men and women of Madison Avenue advertising, an ego-driven world where key players make an art of the sell.

The series revolves around the conflicted world of Don Draper (Hamm), the biggest ad man (and ladies man) in the business, and his colleagues at the Sterling Cooper Advertising Agency. As Don makes the plays in the boardroom and the bedroom, he struggles to stay a step ahead of the rapidly changing times and the young executives nipping at his heels. The series also depicts authentically the roles of men and women in this era while exploring the true human nature beneath the guise of 1960s traditional family values.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because my mom recorded it off the tv during a marathon and then I watched them all on dvr. Because we are a family of ballers who have a dvr.

And what did I think?
Well, there are plenty of things to say about this one. But my neftlix commentary accurately, if only in 200 characters, gives the basic explanation of what I think. I said, "This one is odd, because I can tell it is very good, but I feel as if I missed something. Like there was some chunk of exposition I missed...otherwise it is just too nuanced and goes over my head." Its weird. I guess it is how the show was designed, but it always seems like I've missed something. I guess AMC has decided to not work in a linear fashion which piques interest so people keep watching because they want to learn more about the characters, but perhaps my brain is too childish and stupid to understand what is going on. This is a very depressing realization for me. But I don't really get it, because I don't understand why characters do what they do, or even how the agency works (or even what the agency does!!).

But, I do keep watching.

Why? Oh, many reasons.

1) the costumes are amazing!! I mean amazing. And the sets! And the actors! Everything and everyone in this show is so beautiful, it is like watching a beautiful painting. (Just like Solyaris) And because I clearly only care about visually appealing things, because my brain is too puny to understand complicated things, this show is ideal for me.

2) I like seeing the 'moment in time' aspect of a show that is supposedly so spot on in it's description of 1960s life. I think a lot of people, including my mom, have a problem with the entrenched sexism in the lives of the women characters (or the gay characters), but I actually like it. I think it is really interesting to watch. And because I am so far removed from that sort of life/expectations/ blah blah, I don't find it offensive and it doesn't really make me angry. I just think to myself, "well, thats how things were"

3) Because some of the characters are so fascinating to watch in their development. I know this is completely contrary to what I said about the show earlier. Some of the characters--Peggy, Joan, Pete, and Betty--are just so intriguing to me. I think this has to be credited to the acting and the writing. For example, Pete is so irritating 95% of the time, but sometimes he is so sad and conflicted and as an audience you feel so bad for him! The fact that the writers can create someone who is so abhorrent and yet, the actor can make you feel so sympathetic for him...DAMN, its amazing!

4) Last but not least, because if I were a character in this show I would be one of the women who are the mistresses, not the wives. The men are always so tragically in love with the mistresses, and their wives are labotimized women who are totally sheltered. It all just goes to how romantic it all seems that the men are trapped in their lives, and their mistresses are the one bright point in their day. (That said, I don't condone real life people cheating on their partners) It just adds to the intense characterization that the writers have created. And, because as an audience member it pulls me in.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, now I understand that Mad Men is supposedly the greatest thing to happen to tv since The Sopranos. But I don't really like it as much. I don't think they are equivalent. (Well, maybe except that Don Draper is a sociopath just like good ol' Tony Soprano) As I have already communicated, I just feel like there is something missing from the show, some sort of explanation that helps the audience understand what is going on more.

So I sort of think all of the praise is a bit overrated. However, the show is amazing, like I would expect an AMC show to be, its like each episode is a little movie. And for that I really appreciate it.

This show is not a 10. But, I am drawn to watch to see what happens. I give it an 8.

10 Things I Hate About You

So what is this one about?
Basically,

Remaking "The Taming of the Shrew" as a teen romantic comedy, 10 Things I Hate About You puts a fresh spin on the tale, updating it to a modern high school setting. Bianca Stratford (Larisa Oleynik) is forbidden from dating until her older sister, Katarina (Julia Stiles), finds a boyfriend. But Katarina isn't even in the hunt, so Bianca has her work cut out.

Simple enough, right?

(thanks Netflix, for that concise description!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
I actually watched this on TV. Normally I would never review a movie that I watched on tv, especially not one that I watched on My20 (why isn't it just called Paramount, or whatever it was called, anymore?) Movies on basic cable are always edited weirdly (this one was), but, since I have seen this one a hundred times, and I had the dvd upstairs (I was tempted to go upstairs and put it on because the commercials were irking me) I figured I could cope with basic cable's editing.

So, because it was on tv, I paid nothing. But you know, I had been thinking about watching this lately. And when one of the movies you really like is on tv its like some weird affirmation that the movie actually is good, and even though you weren't going to watch it on dvd the fact that it is on tv shows you that the movie gods want you to watch it. (Now I sound crazy, har)

And what did I think?
One thing I love about movies--like certain songs--is that they can transport you back to specific times and places. For example, 10 Things transported me back to senior year of high school. We did The Taming of the Shrew and Kiss Me Kate as the fall and spring plays. We had on 10 Things constantly in the drama room.

It was so bizarre to watch this at my house, as a 25 year old, and be so deja vu about the whole thing. Especially the music. The music was like being in a 90s time warp. I heard songs that I completely forgot existed, and yet, once I heard them I immediately remembered the last time I'd heard them. (I remember listening to the 10 Things soundtrack on my and Lori's "Spring Break Virginia Road Trip 2001)

Back to the movie though. Teen movies are another genre of film that I tend to have very little patience for. Where romantic comedies are targeted at idiot women who think life always has a happy ending, Teen-flicks are marketed towards and audience that is too stupid to realize how ridiculous the movie they are watching actually is. But, there are a few exceptions in the teen-flick category and they are the ones that are either moderately intelligent or poke fun at the entire genre. I know this will be shocking but Not Another Teen Movie is actually really smart and funny (though it still has a very crass aspect which I have come to expect from the genre.)

10 Things, being an interpretation of a Shakespeare story already gets high marks from me in the intelligence factor. I only vaguely remember the other Julia Stiles Shakespeare movie O but I think I thought it was relatively smart too. This movie is absolutely a teen-flick, but because it has the underlying Shakespeare component that keeps it from seeming too brain-dead and formulaic.

Plus, I played Katherine in the Taming of the Shrew and there is another Julia playing her in 10 things I hate about you. She was bitchy, independent, and women's lib-y and how could teenage me not see herself so much in that character?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Sometimes you like movies that aren't that great because they strike some sort of chord in you. You just like them. The just make you feel good. 10 Things is only a little better than the average teen movie, but I really like it anyway. It is a good escapist film, helping you think about something else for 90 minutes.

It is certainly not worthy of a 10, but it is much better than a 5. I will give in an 8 (the extra .5 coming from my fond memories of this one)

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

"I've always felt that the real horror is next door to us, that the scariest monsters are our neighbors," filmmaker George A. Romero said in an interview with Barnes & Noble.com. "It's been a theme throughout my work--to bring the horror into our own homes, to fill the stories with brand names that we all use, beers that we like to drink, streets that look like our own."

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Picking up where Night of the Living Dead left off, this classic horror flick from director George Romero begins with zombies taking over every major city in the United States. Running for their lives, Peter (Ken Foree), Roger (Scott Reiniger), Stephen (David Emge) and Frances (Gaylen Ross) find refuge in a remote shopping mall, only to discover they must fight a motorcycle gang as well as the undead ghouls.

Simple enough, right? However, anyone who knows me in real life will know, and as my facebook 'about me' section can attest, "I love zombie movies with social commentary." Romero is king of this. His Dawn of the Dead speaks to his classic theme of racial revolution--with the strong black hero; womens rights, consumerism, and good v. evil.

There is the immediate layer of zombies, and then the deeper social commentary layer. It is amazing.

And how much did I pay to watch?
This one was a Netflix-er. Over the past 30 days I have rented 13 movies (one of which was damaged and unwatchable). At a price of $16.99 per month that evens out to $1.30 per movie. Not too shabby.

And what did I think?
Man oh man. This may be a long entry. My love and admiration for George Romero grows more and more with each movie I see and each time I hear his opinion about his works. I even ordered two books about him (though one of them got lost in the mail, gd!)

I'm not quite sure where to start. Well, I'd seen this one before. I watched it about three years ago when I was really starting to get into zombie movies. It was really hard to find back in the days of scouring Blockbuster for those hard to find titles. I had seen Dawn of the Dead (2004) in the theatre when it came out and I really wanted to see the original. (I will eventually end up doing a Dawn of the Dead (2004) review because it is one of my most watched movies that I own). I was actually already familiar with Romero because my parents had shown me Night of the Living Dead when I was much younger (I know that seems weird, but it was ok because it isn't that scary of a movie, and as a 12 year old I think I just thought it was lame because it was black and white.) Dawn of the Dead (1978) was a real disappointment initially. My original netflix 2 cents review read, "the color of the blood and of the zombies skin is so weird and technicolor. its bizarre." This original critique still remains factually accurate. The zombies had a disturbing (not scary, just shoddy) blue-grey color, and the blood (which I learned from the commentary was made by 3-M) looked like a magenta paint.

See here...

And here.


The "special effects" may have seemed bizarre and comic book, but that is how Romero wanted them. He says the film was meant to be a satire. That is one of the themes of all his zombie movies.

His social commentary was just as good in this one as it was in Land of the Dead and, his new one, Diary of the Dead. My favorite Romero technique is his use of the strong black hero. He is from Pittsburgh, and in coal mining Pennsylvania I would imagine that there was not a lot of positivity surrounding black men. Romero has always used a strong black hero in his films to go against stereotypes and has had this character be the most capable, the most pragmatic, and the best leader of all the other characters in each film. This one was no different. Peter is the hero in this one. (Interestingly enough, he is also in the 2004 version of this film, saying the same famous line, "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth", which I thought was beyond fabulous). He was also the realistic one.

One of the scenes I really liked in this film, for its social commentary, was a scene early in the movie. The four main characters are in a helicopter looking for a place to land or refuel. The pilot, Fly Boy, was commenting that they couldn't just land and take whatever they wanted like a bunch of scoundrel hooligans. Peter pipes up and says, "Wake up sucker! We're theives and we're bad guys. That's exactly who we are." This could be read simply in the plot, or it could be read into more deeply (in true grad student style). These four people have already killed dozens of 'people' (who are now zombies), they've left their friends behind so that they can save themselves, and they will do whatever it takes to survive. It is this casual blurring of the lines between good and bad that is one of the skills of Romero.

Another social commentary this movie makes is about the excesses of capitalism. The movie is obviously set in a mall. There were a few parts in the movie when characters were asking each other why and how the zombies managed to find their way to the mall. It was decided, and stated, that the mall had held a special value to them when they were alive. This, of course, speaks to the desire of most people in modern society to shop and own and consume things. Even in 1978 Romero was speaking to this. It is summed up fabulously in a scene where Peter and Roger have just run through the mall, and the horde of zombies, to make it to the JC Penney to pick up supplies. Once they get safely inside the store Roger asks "How are we gonna get back?" to which Peter gleefully replies, "Who the hell cares? Let's go shopping first!!" Even in a time of complete seriousness, the American urge to consume overpowers.

Romero also uses a motorcycle gang in the film to describe the desire to create chaos and destruction when the gang comes in, trashes the mall, and loots it for their personal gain (even though, in a land filled with zombies, what is the point...right??)

This version of Dawn of the Dead was part of a special dvd collection.... the Dawn of the Dead Ultimate Edition DVD. Each of the four discs and multiple versions of the film (including the much shorter European version) have commentaries by Romero. The one on this disc was fascinating, and because I'd already seen the movie, it was the part of this movie experience that I appreciated the most.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It is nearly impossible for me to rate this movie objectively. As I said already, my love for Romero's films makes it hard for me to critique them in any sort of deep way. I recognized that the makeup and special effects were unimpressive, but I pushed that aside with the realization that it was only 1978.

I liked the 2004 version of this movie much more, because it was scarier, more fast paced, and more realistic (I mean, as much as a zombie movie can be). However, without Romero's original vision that version of the movie wouldn't exist.

It is the mastery of social commentary masked under a horror movie that makes Romero a truly brilliant film maker. It can be just a horror movie if thats what you want, but if you want to look deeper there are smart and controversial layers.

The television spot for Dawn of the Dead says the film "is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." I think it is. On an intellectual level I would give this movie a 10. On a film level I would give this one a 5 or 6 (I had rated it a 3 on netflix [out of 5] originally). If I average those scores together I end up with an 8.

An 8 is a rating I feel absolutely comfortable with.