Candy

(*note* I started writing this review immediately after I watched this film. Weirdly, this was over two months ago, on September 9. I keep thinking I will be able to say something profound about this one, but I just keep turning over the same things in my mind. And if the point of writing this blog was so I could remember what I thought of movies I watched, I guess I should write my opinions after I watch them. So, if some of the stuff in this entry is oddly tensed, or has an odd timeline, well, thats why. Here it goes...)

So what is this one about?
My beloved tells us about one of Heath Ledger's last films. They say,

Two young bohemians hooked on each other -- and on smack -- head down the path to perdition in this potent drama directed by Neil Armfield. Giddily in love, Dan (Heath Ledger) and Candy (Abbie Cornish) soon find themselves swept up in a vortex of addiction that inexorably unravels their relationship and their lives. Geoffrey Rush is outstanding as the indulgent chemistry professor (and functional junkie) who supplies the couple with heroin.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I paid $1.30 with my monthly Netflix. I was shocked to calculate this because it hasn't seemed like I've watched much. Between four discs of The Tudors, two lost/damaged discs, and one movie I got for my mom to watch while I was in New York, it doesn't seem like I've seen much. I guess I have though and I've just been terribly lazy at updating this guy.

And what did I think?
Well, I still can't figure out Abbie Cornish...you know, fat face/skinny body (see Stop-Loss) but she was really quite surprisingly amazing as Candy. She played tortured, conflicted, weak, crazy, and sad so well. it was quite amazing.

In fact, Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish together were amazing. They had this energy between them. I guess they had good chemistry. But not sexual chemistry, they had this sparking intensity between them. It really was like they were the characters. It was like they had all these levels between them, like the audience would really think they were watching real people with a history. I guess as an actor you can fake that intimacy, but I can't imagine that it is easy. Yet, watching them it seemed like they were so effortless. It was also quite amazing.

It was a little odd to watch Heath Ledger. I guess I probably yapped about that when I did The Dark Knight, but I will repeat a bit here. It is truly bizarre, because I wasn't a huge fan of his. I mean, he is a good actor. Was, I mean. But watching him more closely now because he is dead I see that he is an effortless actor. Everything was so natural, and he was so layered. It was also amazing. I kept thinking to myself, yes, I really was, "wow, it is like watching a fallen angel". And if you know me in real life you'll know I wouldn't say things like that. But that is what I kept thinking.

This movie is based on a book, of the same name, written by Luke Davies. I am going to read it, because the movie was so good, I imagine the book will be just as excellent.
I guess that is how the book was written, really.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Rating this film is hard, because I can't think of much I would change about it. That leads me to believe that it was a perfect film, which I am sure it wasn't. But the acting was so extraordinary. I mean, it was some of the best acting I've seen in forever. And overall it was just so beautiful.

But hot damn, the acting. The acting deserves a 100. It was fantastic.

I will give the movie a 9, because I don't think it was a 10, but it was sure good.

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.

Shutter

So what is this one about?
My wittle Netflix friend tells me,

This American remake of a Thai horror blockbuster follows the Shaws, a young newlywed couple who become haunted by strange shadowlike images in the photographs they develop after their involvement in a car accident. As more terrifying supernatural occurrences befall them, they begin to wonder whether the photographic ghosts are connected to the accident -- and to question whether they can survive learning the truth.

But, mostly I just rented it because I was curious to know what the heck was going on in the commercials I saw for this one on the FIOS network channels.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Yikeso-rikeso! I know I haven't been watching many movies in the last 30 days, but after checking my account I learned I have only gotten out 6 discs in the last month. That means it cost $2.83 for this one. I think that is the highest price I've ever paid.

And what did I think?
Good God Almighty. Joshua Jackson is one hot ass mother. I mean, on Dawson's Creek, lets face it, we all wanted Joey and Pacey to get together because Pacey's chemistry with any woman is explosive. I mean, he is just so hot. Not just hot though, but sexy too--and sexy is a word I absolutely hate, I actually save it for people who are. He is just so intense and emotes so well, he is just so sincere and romantic all the time! (Or, at least the things I've seen him in) And while is isn't unattractive, he is no Leonardo DiCaprio. But I am just so attracted to him. (God, I sound like a total pyscho!) But seriously, lets look at him.
mmmmmmmhmm. Hot hot hot.

The lady in the movie was totally hot too. Distractingly hot. You know the type. Oh, and she is Australian...big shocker.

The other thing I really liked about this movie was the focus on photography. It was like photographer porn to watch hot hot Joshua Jackson take beautiful photographs.

Then, the thing that saves the movie from being typical and dull was the fact *SPOILER ALERT* that the main character was actually a bad guy. I mean, it was sort of obvious that that was the direction the plot was going to take, but it was still reassuring, especially because his wife was so horrified by him.

Oh yeah, and David Denman (aka: Roy from The Office) was in it, and who doesn't like to see Office folks out of their office environment?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I mean, it was pretty basic. It wasn't that scary, but it was REALLY pretty visually. I mean, pretty, pretty, pretty. And the actors were beautiful, especially Josh Jackson. I think probably I'd watch anything he was in...though I haven't watched Fringe (thats the name of the show, right?). Lets face it, I only have time for TV on dvd, The Office, and Mad Men. I cannot be distracted.

Anyway...that was rather tangential, right?...I give the movie a 7.5...if only for JJ's hotness.

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.

Not movie related.

You may or may not have noticed that I have been very absent from movie commentary. I've got those three movies I haven't reviewed that are in the sidebar and I've been slogging through this five hour, 1930s, French version of Les Miserables. Man, that shit is taking FO.EV.ER! shisse.

Anyway, the point is that my stupid ass flipping laptop is busted again. Yes, again. Like, when I was in Hungary and my computer died because the hard drive just all of the sudden didn't want to communicate with the computer, and then I had to send it back to the US. Well, that was October 12, 2007, and then again on October 8, 2008 the EXACT. SAME. THING happened. And the assholes at the Apple store acted like jerk stores and were wildly unhelpful. Now, I think I was able to get most of the stuff off the computer and put in on an external hard drive, thanks to Disk Warrior. (Except, that my mom closed the computer and it turned off before I could disconnect the EX HD and make sure everything was hunky dory and now it wont turn on at all...)

Anyway, the point is, I think the computer is busted for the time being.

Just know, I will be trying to watch movies--which has become exceedingly difficult because I work at 4:30am and I like to watch movies before I go to bed--and I will be updating. I swear.

See you at the movies!