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.

Up in the Air

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) racks up miles flying around the country firing employees on behalf of companies. But he faces losing the job he savors to recent college grad Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) -- and losing the ability to escape emotional ties to anything. A connection he builds with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), however, might change his outlook on the future. Golden Globe winner Jason Reitman's smart comedy also stars Jason Bateman.

It should probably more accurately say "the ability to escape emotional ties to everything" because that is what it really seemed like he was trying to do. To be an island. (Also, I frequently mistake Jason Reitman and Jason Bateman, I know who both of them are...but their names are just too, too similar!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
For all those times my mother has treated me to movies, I treated her. So I paid $14. Interestingly enough, if we had gone to Cinema DeLux instead, that is what I probably would have paid for only one of us. Thank heavens for locally owned, independent theatres ;)

And what did I think?
When I see television ads for this movie they use a trite description that declares "Up in the Air is a movie for our time!" Except that is really, really, really is! It is an absolutely correct statement. Whether it is that I have never seen one, or that now I am much more aware of, well, everything, I have never seen a movie that so wholeheartedly encapsulates the zeitgeist of a point in time--specifically "these times".

Everyone in the film is so desperate for a connection. Isn't that sort of what popular culture is consistently selling us? All these dating reality shows--where 500 women fling themselves at one man because all of them so badly want that connection (or maybe they just want to be on tv...who knows?)--and the commercials for match.com and eharmony.com and dating.com, isn't that what they are telling us? That in today's world of go-go-go and digital communication instead of face-to-face communication, that we are really all very desperate to connect with people in a very real and authentic way? It seems like if someone wants to make a connection, they can't. And then those that are alone and like being that way, will realize that they actually don't really want to be alone.

So what does any of that actually mean? Well, as far as movie things go, the acting was excellent. Why? Because you really start out not liking the characters, or not caring about them. But at the end you are so wrapped up in them and their issues. It is funny and poignant and affecting. Everything about it was excellent. I don't know if America wasn't suffering from a recession, and the auto industry wasn't in the toilet, and people are trying to blow up airplanes on Christmas, that the movie would have been as absolutely spot on as it was. If the movie had been made in 2002 when Reitman started writing the screenplay it wouldn't have been nearly as excellent as it was when it came out in 2009.

I guess that can be the theme of today's entries. Right place, right time.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
The movie was absolutely crushing. Just the way I like them. It was exactly, exactly, exactly the sort of sad I like, because sometimes it feels like the sort of sad that my life is when I get to thinking about it. (I am actually a pretty happy person, not really emo at all, but I understand Ryan Bingham's dealy).

This will likely win Oscars--and probably whatever other stupid awards they do before the Oscars--and it will deserve them. But it isn't so stupid and simplistic that it is like the typical Oscar formula (at least, I don't think so). I'd love to read the book, because I love to see the way movies slaughter good books--but I don't think this one was really close to the book, rather more of an adaptation--and then see the movie again.

But for now, I will give it a 10. It is certainly my choice for awards this year. Not that Precious movie... I swear...*shakes head*

Precious: based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire

So what is this one about?
The 'flix says,

Viciously abused by her mother (a riveting Mo'Nique) and pregnant by her father, Harlem high schooler Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) has an unexpected chance at a different life when she enrolls in an alternative school. Teacher Blu Rain (Paula Patton) encourages her, but Precious must battle unimaginable barriers everywhere in her life. Lee Daniels directs his drama that features appearances by Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz.

That's a pretty accurate description.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I don't really remember, but I think I got in free for this one as well, at the Cinema Arts.

And what did I think?
What did I think? Hmmm.

Well, I see ads on the tv that call Precious "uplifting" and "inspiring" and I think to myself, um, did we see the same Precious? Would you call KIDS uplifting or inspiring? Dude, Precious was all kinds of effed up. I am sure you can tell that just from the Netflix description. This girl's life--this real girl, apparently--was beyond horrible. Two kids by her own father?? A mother who made her daughter her slave?? Oh yeah, that sounds real uplifting.

Would you like further proof? Let me provide you some more information from the description of the novel.

The novel is set in Harlem in 1987. Precious Jones lives with her mother, an invalid, and her father, a drug addict. She is obese, illiterate, and pregnant with her second child. In the beginning of the novel, she explains that she has been repeatedly raped by her father since she was seven, and is pregnant with her second child by him. She even tries to commit suicide to get away from it all but it does not work. Her father is married to someone else and living with Precious’ mother, who lives off of public assistance and social security checks she receives for Precious’ first child, "Lil' Mongo", who has Down Syndrome and lives with Precious’ grandmother. Precious cooks, cleans, and waits on her mother constantly.

Charming.

So, I was also interested to see this movie because I read somewhere that Mariah Carey is unrecognizable. That is a fallacy. I picked her out right away.

So, to return back to the novel, and it's plot which was shown in the movie,

While in the halfway house, Precious joins an incest support group where she meets other people who have suffered, finding solace in knowing that she is not alone. Attempting to transition to life on her own, Precious' mother unexpectedly appears to tell her that her father has died from AIDS. Precious discusses this with her friends at school and they convince her to get Abdul and herself tested. Abdul is negative and Precious is positive. In the end, Precious finds her freedom and security in knowing that she can care for her son and herself on her own.

Wow. How uplifting.

And look at me. I don't even feel bad to spoil this for you. It isn't like you don't see it coming.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I guess it was good enough, but I wouldn't really recommend this to anyone. I give it a 5.

An Education

So what is this one about?
The 'flix tells us

Jenny's (Carey Mulligan) Oxford-bound teen life is undistinguished in 1961 London until she's given a different kind of education after being immersed in the beguiling but hazardous world of cultured and much-older David (Peter Sarsgaard). Even Jenny's father, Jack (Alfred Molina), is intrigued by him, but her school's unimpressed headmistress (Emma Thompson) works to keep Jenny's entire future from crumbling under David's influence.

le sigh. ooooh David.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because my comrade at Cinema Arts let me in for free. And not just me but my mom and my host sister.

And what did I think?
In some ways, I'm a little jealous of the main character, Jenny. A guy like Peter Sarsgaard--so hot--and he opens her young eyes to fancy places, in glamorous clothes, with cosmopolitan friends, and the possibility of big adventure and happy ever after. How could I not possibly be wildly jealous, actually? Why can't I find a fabulous man like him. Even with his secrets, and his issues. Even though it all gets ripped away. Why can't I find someone like that? It'd be fun.

Actually, now that I think about that, I think it might help me have a more favorable opinion of this movie. If I were Jenny, thin, glamorous, with Peter Sarsgaard in love with me, I would maybe make the same decisions as her. EXCEPT--and maybe my pity for her is waning-- I wouldn't act like I was too fucking cool for school, too cool for my parents, too cool for everyone around me. That is why I don't feel bad for her.

Now, if it were me, and I were dating a guy who um {SPOILER} was dating someone else--or was married--and i HAVE dated someone who was dating someone else, and I had no idea, and I was sad. I mean, it just makes you feel so shitty that you were tricked. And you had no idea. And I had no idea. Now, I would know that I could come back from it, and I did. But it might have taken a while. Or it actually didn't because I was able to think to myself "Um, wtf? I am not wasting a second more thinking of him" Then again, I didn't tell everyone else in my life to eff off because I picked a guy over every other thing in my life.

So, the question is, Why did everything get to end so well for her? I mean, sometimes when you make really really stupid decisions you have to work harder then she did in order to come back from it. Everything was solved for her so easily. And it pissed me off.

It was hard to hate her because she was so adorable. like Jenny Lewis and Zooey Deschanel, sort of weak in appearance but a real fireball underneath. But that sort of made it easier to hate her, because why did everything get to be so perfect for her?

Not fair. Then again, what is?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, I liked it. The clothes were gorgeous. And the people were quite good looking. Especially my love Peter Sarsgaard. And I was surprised to find out David's secret.

But, like I said, I didn't have much sympathy for Jenny. Because she was an unapologetic bitch.

So I give it a 7.

The Death of Alice Blue (Part of Spooky Movie-- The Washington DC International Horror Film Festival)

So what is this one about?
So, The Death of Alice Blue was screened along with four short films--Death in Charge, Thorns, Orla's Song, and Elder Song. Taken from the Spooky Movie website, here are the descriptions of all five films.

DEATH IN CHARGE – Don’t tell Mom the babysitter’s Death...The Grim Reaper is mistaken for a babysitter and learns a thing or two about life. (15m, U.S.A.)

THORNS – A gorgeous woman and an eccentric man spend a romantic evening together. The man is haunted by the memory of his past lover, and the woman’s seduction yields unexpected results. (7m, Czech Republic)

ORLA’S SONG – A sacrificed child calls for revenge from beyond the grave. (20m, United Kingdom)

ELDER SIGN – If you suffer from an overwhelming sense of dread brought on by the realization of your own insignificance in the universe, then you need Elder Sign. (2m, Canada)

THE DEATH OF ALICE BLUE - Alice Blue is a new creative intern at Raven Advertising. Unfortunately for her it’s run by vampires. A group of eccentrics enlist her aid in thwarting their nefarious schemes. But there’s a complication. There’s the possibility that she herself may be genetically predisposed to being the greatest vampire ever, and the only one who can save the dying breed. Alice is forced to confront herself and make a stand, whatever the outcome. One of the most original and exciting features that we have screened! (86m, Canada)

Ta dah!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing! I was surprised that one of my old Cinema Arts friends from high school was back working at the theatre. I don't want to say too much more because I don't want to get him in trouble.

And what did I think?
Well, of the short films Death in Charge was the best. It was pretty clever. Orla's Song was ok too. Thorns was atrocious and Elder Sign was ridic.

As for The Death of Alice Blue, it was also entirely ridiculous. Probably one of the baddest movies I've seen. Not as in bad topic, but as in silly plot, silly scenery, and high camp factor.

There was an incredibly good looking actor in the film. Most of the men were ok looking--those silly Canadians. So, the actor in question was Kristen Holden-Ried. That is an actor? A male? Yes, and a good looking one. And when I got home I looked at him on imdb and realized that I knew him from somewhere else. He was in The Tudors! He was the hot one from the 1st season who died of the sweating sickness. You remember, the hot gay one! Yesssssssssssssssssss!In addition to KHR, the other high point of the movie was the single greatest line I've ever heard in a movie. The line was so great I wrote it on a post-it note and put it up in front of my desk so I can read it and chuckle whenever I want. What was the line? It was said by Alice's mom to Alice on her birthday at dinner. "My god Alice, you look like the ugliest girl in Toronto!" LOVE IT!

So, the plot of the movie was so ridiculously silly, apparently Alice needed to stop the vampires who were running the company she was working for. And all around the office the vampires were spacey and had iv bags full of blood for them to "eat" during the day. This was definitely the most B-movie I have ever seen.

But the scene where Alice was dancing the KHR's character in the club was hot, hot, hot!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I have to give this movie credit. It is a totally indie film made by Canadian film makers and it takes place in Toronto. I give it a 5 because it sure tried.

If you want to watch something silly, watch The Death of Alice Blue.

Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (The Baader Meinhof Complex)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Uli Edel directs this Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nominee charting the birth of West Germany's Red Army Faction, a radical left-wing terrorist group formed in the late 1960s amid a climate of revolution and a fallen generation. Staging a series of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations, the RAF waged a war against fascism with a direct assault against the powers of American imperialism and the fledgling German democracy.

Oh, I see.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I watched at Cinema Arts (nearly two months ago...jesus) at night so it probably was something like $8.

What a deal!

And what did I think?
Well, I thought it was quite quite long. 150 minutes. In fact, that was my major problem with it. I think the film makers likely tried to adapt the book too closely (which i bet you never thought you'd hear me say) which meant it covered too many years. I wouldn't be surprised if it covered nearly 20 years, though the information I can find on wikipedia indicates it covers only 10. Well, then I think it was too in depth. The stories told in the film would have been better told in a mini series format. And trust me, I know mini-series.

Now, what I did like about the movie were the actors. Including both Bruno Ganz and Alexandra Maria Lara--who were both in Downfall. The acting was just spot on with the actors consistently demonstrating their characters and the changes they went through.

I went to see this film because there was a Law and Order Criminal Intent episode about a similarly motivated group in New York City. The motivations of both the RAF and the group in the CI episode were so irritating. I have so little patience for these "revolutionary" groups who resort to violence before trying anything in a civilized way. So, of course, watching a movie about a group like this was sort of trying on my patience.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good enough. I was surprised to see that it was Germany's entry for the Oscars last year, not so much surprised that it didn't win.

It'd have liked it a lot more as a mini-series, I wouldn't recommend it so much as a movie--unless you wanna sit for three hours.

yikes!

I give it a 6.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

So what is this one about?
This one is about the movie version of my favorite Harry Potter book!! I love the sixth book, it was unquestioned my favorite. (The other favorites were 4 and 2...in that order. You know, just FYI) So, in case you've been living under a rock or (for shame) haven't read the Harry Potter books (come on, just do it. I read them when I was 25!! It is ok!! Just join in the fun!!) I will provide the 'flix descrip...

The sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry kicks off with a bang for young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) when he inadvertently discovers a mysterious book that sheds light on the sordid life of the evil Lord Voldemort. Preparing for inevitable battle, Harry and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) turn to professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) for help in pinpointing the weakness in Voldemort's forces.

Ta dah!

And how much did I pay to watch?
You know how my mom pays for a lot of movies I watch? Well, when I went to Toronto I accidentally used my parent's credit card to pay for the luggage fee (question: do you realize how incredibly messed up it is to have to pay luggage fee on an international flight because Toronto is considered "domestic" despite the point that you have to check in at the international flight desk?!)--theirs looks just like mine, so she said I could pay her back by paying for Harry Potter.

I think I paid like $12 or $13. I think I went with the student price for me and the adult price for her.

And what did I think?
What did I think?! I thought that I was horrified at what the horrible, atrocious film maker did to my favorite Harry Potter book!!!!! And it doesn't make any damn sense! The fifth movie was my 2nd fave of the movies (I really liked #1 because it was just so magical and whimsical!) it was so dark and evil and scary and unfair, just like the book. Delores Umbridge was the most annoying, worst person ever. And the whole audience hated her! It was a faithful and amazing adaptation of the 5th book (my 4th fave of the series) and David Yates directed it. Man, when I was watching this one (the 6th one) I thought to myself, "Jesus! What sort of half assed, bullshit, nonsense director has mangled my beloved Half Blood Prince so badly?! I hope this shitwad doesn't doesn't have anything more to do with the Harry Potter franchise!!"

Well, joke's on me! You will imagine my horror when I found out that the director was the same as the 5th! A faithful and authentic version of the book. And you will imagine my immense horror when I saw that David Yates is also directing 7, parts 1 and 2!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! Why?! Why?!

So, what was it that I found so offensive in this movie? I will tell you. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (the book) was scary, and slow, and you didn't know what was going to happen (aka) suspenseful, and so sad at the end (SPOILER: Do you know what happens at the end? I don't think I'm actually going to spoiler it, because when I read it I was just so, so sad and shocked!) And I have a very strong emotional association with the book because I was reading it while I was studying abroad in Hungary and then when I was on the train to Ukraine, and back, and on the plane back to the US. And like I said, sitting next to that old couple, with me in the aisle seat, I just couldn't believe the end of the book. I think I even teared up.

But the movie, oh, the movie, was frivolous, and teenager-y and not even serious! The stuff in the book was deadly serious but the movie was just like "oh, teenagers have crushes, and something really big happens at the end but it isn't a big deal because teenagers are emo!" God, it was horrible! And the scene where Harry and Dumbledore go out into the lake wasn't scary at all. Even the book was scary. Man, scary, scary, scary. But the scene in the movie was uninspired.

Even the love stories between Harry and Ginny was uninspired. I mean, who cared?! It didn't even make any sense! And what the hell was that scene in the field outside the burrow?? There were other scary scenes in the book...just. adapt. them!!!

I swear to god. I want to forsake my MA and the entire field I studied to start adapting books into screenplays, because I cannot imagine that it is as hard as everyone seems to think it is. Jesus, the horrible book to movie adaptations (in general) there is just no excuse for them!!

le sigh.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
You wanna know what redeems this movie? I will tell you. Daniel Radcliffe is hot, hot, hot. And Emma Watson is so glorious, and effortless, and angelic. But Daniel Radcliffe is hot. Ginny is nowhere near hot enough for him. And that storyline wasn't even good!

So what redeems the movie is Daniel Radcliffe. So whereas I want to give this movie 4, because I was appalled by it, I cannot, because it is Harry Potter, and it is Daniel Radcliffe.

So I grudgingly give this a 5.

Alls I gots to say is 7 parts 1 and 2 better be better than this horrific adaptation!!! Work. it. OUT David Yates!!!

harrumph.

Frost/Nixon

So what is this one about?
"I'm saying, when the President does it, it's not illegal!" (and then I shake my face around while I'm saying it, like a horse...) it is a pretty accurate impression.

But, what it is actually about will be told to us by the 'flix.

Ron Howard directs this adaptation of Peter Morgan's popular Broadway play centered on a series of revelatory TV interviews former President Richard Nixon granted British talk show host David Frost in 1977. Nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture, the film stars Frank Langella, reprising his Tony Award-winning stage role, along with a stellar cast that includes Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Toby Jones, Kevin Bacon and Oliver Platt.

And if you want more information about the play, or the film, OR the interviews!, the 'pedia (nice one, right?) has good information.

And how much did I pay to watch?
My mom paid for our trip to the movies, and she paid $14 total. So it cost $7. But, I didn't pay. As I've said, as per usual... besides, when we go to that theatre she normally expects that my friend will let us in for free.

And what did I think?
I think what was so different and awesome and refreshing about this movie as compared to Oliver Stone's W was that Ron Howard (or maybe the playwright, since this is another film based on a play) didn't try and smash his value judgments into the storyline.

Instead, an actual character was used to demonstrate the different opinions that people may have had about Mr. Nixon. One of the characters--an academic who judgementally wrote negative things about Nixon-- an American, was so pissed at David Frost, a Brit, because he felt that Frost was trying to build sympathy for Nixon. Now, what actually happened in the movie/play/real life was that Frost absolutely skewered Nixon in his interview. And then the public/audience felt bad for Nixon. Even though Frost got Nixon to admit that he was a jerk, and a liar, and a bad guy it was in admitting this that the public felt bad for him. Awesome. Howard/ Morgan (the playwright, Peter Morgan) didn't need to inject their value judgement, because they probably thought the audience would be smart enough to figure it out. Whereas Oliver Stone thought that he somehow needed to force some sort of judgment about George Bush down his audience's throat (now, as I said when I reviewed it, I could figure out if he was serious, or mocking the whole administration...bad job suckah!)

Now, otherwise the movie was rather slow. Just like during Doubt, I may have drifted off for a few minutes during this one (Keep in mind though, that I do wake up at 3:35am...so, it might just be that I am tired). I think what is tough about watching a movie that you know is a play (at least for me, since I did theatre in highschool) is that I think about what the play would be like. And I have come up with the idea that this play would be bor.ing.

As a movie it was passable, but, it isn't going to win the Oscar for Best Picture either. *mumbles*stupidslumdogmillionaire*mumble*

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Not too bad. A little better than average because it didn't force a value judgment on the audience. So, I'll give it a 6.

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!!

Mamma Mia!

So what is this one about?
Once again Netflix comes through with a much better description than both imdb and wikipedia. (Come on guys...)

Based on the international hit musical featuring the songs of pop superstars ABBA, this charming tale centers on a bride-to-be (Amanda Seyfried) and her plan to uncover her father's identity by inviting three of her mother's (Meryl Streep) former lovers to her wedding. Produced by Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, this big-screen adaptation also stars Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgård and Christine Baranski.

(The Internet Movie Database tried to slip this nugget into their summary... "Featuring the songs of ABBA and based on the worlds number one musical comedy which has people dancing in the aisles every night, this movie is sure to be the hit of Summer 2008!" Oh those imdb tricksters!!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
Mom bought the tickets. But they cost $5. Yeah Cinema Arts and their cheap early morning shows!

But, when I got home I did download 5 ABBA songs on itunes (yes ABBA, not songs from Mamma Mia the musical) so that cost $4.95.

And what did I think?
Well, let me just take a moment to tell everyone that I really enjoy a good musical. "Les Miserables" is my absolute favorite, and it is an excellent book too! Movie musicals are a little harder, but my favorites are Hairspray and Moulin Rouge! Oh yeah, and The Sound of Music. Oh yeah, and also Sweeney Todd (I forgot it because I just got in on dvd and haven't watched it hundreds of times like the other three)It is hard to take a stage musical and translate it to the screen, I think, and thats why we've never seen Les Miserables the Movie Musical (though I'd like to try).

One thing you may notice about these musicals though is that they use the music to tell the story. Rather than sort of stopping the action to interject a ridiculous song that doesn't advance the plot--which makes a musical very campy--these others use the songs as the explanations that advance the plot (ok, maybe The Sound of Music doesn't do that as much as the others, but we'll excuse it because it is from 1965 and it won a bunch of Oscars). For example, "A Little Priest" in Sweeney Todd explains to the audience that good ol' Mrs. Lovett is using people and putting them in her pies [oops, SPOILER ALERT!]. In Mamma Mia! (can't forget that exclamation point...ever notice how musicals like to use the exclamation point to denote FUN! ?) the plot is constantly stopping so music can be interjected.

It very much feels like whoever wrote this libretto was sitting listening to ABBA and then decided to somehow push their songs into some sort of form that would tell a story. The movie (and I'm going to assume show) feels very contrived. Besides the music the contrived feeling comes from the situation. I mean, dancing and singing, a wedding, a sunny Greek Island, a comedy of errors, and a gay guy. Thats like the formula for a musical. Pick a fun place (a Greek island), throw in some romance (wedding), then add a little confusion (comedy of errors), sprinkle in some singing and dancing, (preferably done by a character who has a "history" of doing them, and for good measure add a character who is gay and TA DAH! MUSICAL!! If thats not the formula then I don't know what is. (Oh yeah, [SPOILER ALERT] the gay character is played by Colin Firth. I don't believe that for one second. That is pure malarky!)

One of the reasons for this ridiculous screen interpretation, I think, was because Tom Hanks was one of the executive producers. The second I saw his name pop up in the ending credits (which were actually awesome!) I turned to my mom and said "I should have flipping known! This movie reeked of Tom Hanks!!!" Now, Tom Hanks as an exec producer in and of itself is not a bad thing. No. Tom Hanks as the executive producer of a musical is. Did we all see That Thing You Do! (notice the exclamation point?)? Well MM! and TTYD! were absolutely cut from the same campy, everything will turn out ok in the end cloth. And I for one do not need it!

Now, the music itself was not bad--which I guess is evident by my purchasing of the original ABBA songs--but some of the covers weren't great. With that said, though, Meryl Streep and Amanda Seyfreid (from Big Love fame) actually had pretty good voices. Actually, I'd say they were pretty great! Amanda really had a pretty voice.

While her singing was great, Meryl Streep's dancing and writhing during the film was uncomfortable to watch. errrrrrrr. As was watching her squeeze into the spandex bell-bottomed unitard (as seen at the top of the page).

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Musicals should be fun and let you forget the world for a time. This did that. Though, there were some serious times where I had to shake my head, smack my forehead with my hand, or throw back my head and heave a disappointed sigh. Some of the movie was just so ridiuclous I couldn't stand it. And musicals are SUPPOSED TO BE RIDICULOUS!!!

It wasn't awful. But, it wasn't that great. I give it a 5.