Elf

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

When young Buddy falls into Santa's gift sack on Christmas Eve and is inadvertently transported back to the North Pole, he's raised as a toy-making elf by Santa's helpers. After growing up to be a misfit who never quite fits in, the outsized elf (Will Ferrell) decides to go to Manhattan and find his real dad. Co-stars Ed Asner, Mary Steenburgen, James Caan and Bob Newhart. Directed by John Favreau.

I should have known. Flippin' Jon Favreau...the filmmaker, not the Presidential speech writer.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I didn't pay anything. I watched this when I went to go visit Lori in Athens, GA. This is amusing for two reasons. I went to visit her over New Years...which was nearly two months ago! Second, well, not as amusing, she is Jewish but loves Christmas movies. She has been telling me to watch this one forever...so I finally did.

Oh yeah, but it cost nothing, because it was her dvd.

And what did I think?
I guess I see why she has been telling me to watch this for so long, because it was such a nice little holiday movie. Even though I watched it after Christmas, it made me feel all Christmasy.

Will Ferrell is really hit or miss, I find. I often find myself thinking, "Okay Will Ferrell, we get it. You're funny. You don't need to make a crappy film every year in order to remind us. Just make one good one every two years and that will be fine." But, he was funny and endearing as Buddy. Now, Zooey Deschanel on the other hand, was as irritating as I usually find her. She is just so overly spacey in every role. BUT, she was super cute and we--as the audience--really wanted her to get together with Ferrell.

It followed a predictable story line, but it was endearing none the less. I even got a little misty at the end. It was nice to have all the people who are normally grumpy jerks, believe in something. esp, Santa.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was a nice little Christmas movie filled with childlike wonder. It was certainly not an award winner, but it was nice, and amusing, and sweet. How can you not like that??

I give it a solid 7.

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 Tudors: Season 2

So what is this one about?
Remember that song from elementary school? "I'm 'Enery the Eighth I am I am, I'm 'Enery the eighth I ammmm, I was married to the widow next door, she's been married seven times before, and all the kids say 'Enery, 'Enery, 'Enery the Eighth I ammmm" Yeah, remember that? Well, this is sort of like that. Except a little different.

Netflix tells us,

Hollywood icon Peter O'Toole joins the cast for a second season of the hit Showtime series. After King Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) secretly has his marriage to Katherine (Maria Doyle Kennedy) declared invalid and weds Anne Boleyn (Natalie Dormer), Pope Paul III (O'Toole) moves to excommunicate the king. Meanwhile, some of Henry's old friends and allies fall out of favor. The critically acclaimed drama co-stars Jeremy Northam.

Oh yeah, also, [NOT A SPOILER] Anne Boleyn gets hers. Thats what you get man! (sic semper tyrannis, bitches!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I gots this shit on the 'flix. It is four discs. According to my history I actually got nine discs this month (is that possible? I've been so lazy lately with the movies...) so they each cost $1.88 (woah) and then times 4 is $7.55 total. Certainly cheaper than giving my money to Showtime by buying the discs, AND more reliable than watching it on the internet (since I always feel like the internet is trying to trick me and will mess up the episode order or something. I think that makes me paranoid.)

And what did I think?
What did I think? I think "Ooooooh, look at me, I'm Jonathan Rhys Meyer. I'm a good actor because I can yell a lot. I played Henry VIII who was clearly weak minded and could be influenced at the slightest change of will, or the drop of a hat." That Henry, man, I keep looking at wikipedia to see if anyone adds anything about him being bipolar or something. He was ridiculous!

And Anne Boelyn, I spoke last season of how she was pretty much the worst person ever. This didn't really change with the second season, however, you did feel a little bad for her in the season finale, if only because she acepted her death, even though she had truly done nothing wrong. It was hilarious [spoiler] that the only person who actually did have carnal knowledge of her was not sentanced to death. Hilarious.

And that Jane Seymour...seriously, who was that bitch fooling?? She wasn't that innocent. Bitch please.

But other than the weird characters, I found this season much less annoying than last season. Maybe it was because I knew what to expect, or maybe I had just become desensitized, but it seemed like there was less gratutious sex in this season. Which I thought was good. I mean, since Jane Seymour was so "innocent" she certainly wasn't going to do it with him. suckah.

The historical stuff was a little less interesting (no sweating sickness, not really using leeches to "heal" people), what with the reformation and such, but I still found myself looking at wikipedia a lot to get more historical information. This season also took place over a much shorter span of years (it was odd to see Princess Mary age so rapidly when Henry barely aged at all) so it was a little less odd to see the passage of time. Or not. (see above).

I am very interested to see what happens in Season 3 (are they even making a season 3?) if only because it is very interesting to see history unfold--even if it is a total lie. Because lets face it, I am a history nerd who likes movies.

One thing I do have to say about this stupid ass show was that the bonus features were the suckiest thing ever! I mean, there was this segment where Natalie Dormer (who plays Anne Boleyn) went to see where Anne was kept in the Tower of London, was beheaded, and was buried. She then proceeded to go on and on about how brave and amazing Anne Boleyn was. Get over it. Come on.

OH! I just remembered something that was awesome about this season...there were more gay men. And one of them was Anne Boleyn's brother!!! SCAN-DAL!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good. Amusing for sure, and I didn't find it nearly as irritating as Season 1. I gave it a 4 on the 'flix so I will give it a 7.5 here.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

David Fincher directs this adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic tale set in the early 20th century that follows Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), a man who was born in his 80s and continually grows younger. The story throws linear conventions upside down to explore love, loss and memories from the perspective of a character living under incredibly unique -- and unexpectedly difficult -- circumstances. Cate Blanchett co-stars in this Oscar nominee for Best Picture.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, as like all the other theatre films I have watched recently, my mother paid. So it cost me nothing, but it cost her $8.50x2.

And what did I think?
Halfway through watching this film I thought to myself, "this is absolutely perfect." Without having read the short story I was certain that the screenplay adhered to his story perfectly because it so accurately captured the feel of Fitzgerald's writing style. He is beautifully flowery, and dreamlike, and wonderful. So, I was absolutely shocked when I consulted wikipedia after I got back from the movie to learn that other than the backwards ageing there are pretty much no commonalities between the film and the short story.

Well, here I proclaim for everyone to see, KUDOS. Kudos to Eric Roth and Robin Swicord, the writers and screenwriters. Kudos to cinematographer Claudio Miranda. Kudos to art directors Kelly Curley and Tom Reta. It had the absolute feel of F. Scott Fitzgerald. I was shocked to learn it was supposed to take place in Baltimore, MD. The second I head the southern accents I was sure that Fitzgerald had picked a southern city. The little cut aways to show black and white flashbacks in the style of the Smashing Pumpkin's "Tonight, Tonight" video--that sort of spacey 1920's feel--I was positive that Fitzgerald wrote those in. It was an inspired choice to add those. Everything that the art director, and cinematographer, and writers chose was like they were channeling Fitzgerald. I simply cannot comprehend that the film deviated so much from the book!! I cannot fathom it.

And I think that is what I found so stunning and perfect about the movie. Because, when I think about it, I suppose it is a little trite. Perhaps I would feel this excited if I had seen Forrest Gump in the theatre when it was released. I think, one of the reviews I found in wikipedia sums up my concern. They say,

Ashley Scrace from the Sheffield Star noted that: "It is a good film, but one of contradictions, some of which are far beyond the story of young versus old. It is surprising yet clichéd; sad yet hollow; visually impressive yet ordinary." He goes on to add "I just hope this year’s Oscars do not follow a tired formula: biggest budget, plus biggest stars, equals biggest awards."

And I agree. I mean, its sweeping in scope, and time, and place. And that seems to be something that people accept as a successful formula. And, yes, the visual effects were amazing. Astounding. I have no idea how they put Brad Pitt's face on a puppet-like oldman body. It looked like a puppet. I bet it was...

For me, it wasn't what the film was saying as much as the way they said it. The story with the clock going backwards was so perfect that I just knew it was Fitzgerald's (which it wasn't). Setting the story in New Orleans, with the backdrop of Hurrican Katrina, was perfect. The flooding from the storm enabled the story to end up wrapped in a neat package. Man, it was just perfect.

I think Benjamin Button was better than Slumdog Millionaire. But, I see that it is typical. However, Slumdog Millionaire's happy ending was more typical than Benjamin Button.

Maybe I am still just grumpy that Gran Torino wasn't gd nominated.

P.S. Brad Pitt is retardedly attractive. Really, he is so good looking it is stupid. Jesus god up in heaven. I swear.
So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Ok, now as I have been writing this I realize what I think was perfect about this film. Maybe it wasn't the whole film itself, though I enjoyed it a lot. What was perfect about this film was that it so accurately encapsulated F. Scott Fitzgerald--who I think is one of the most beautiful writers of the 20th century.

But, as I have shown on this little movie blog, I don't give 10s to just extraordinary movies. I give 10s to movies that are 10s to me.

So, 10.

Pu-239

So what is this one about?
This is another film that Netflix recommended to me. One thing you might not know is that my recommended film categories on the 'flix are (in order) TV Sitcoms, Films from Russia, HBO, Films from France, and Films from the United Kingdom. (This shouldn't be surprising if you've been reading what I've been reviewing)...so, this movie combines Russian and HBO (sort of). Netflix describes it as

While staving off a power plant disaster, Russian worker Timofey (Paddy Considine) is exposed to radiation and blamed for the accident. With days to live, he steals some plutonium and tries to sell it on Moscow's black market in an effort to provide for his family. Along the way, he gets help from a low-level thug, with whom he forges an unlikely connection. Radha Mitchell co-stars in this gripping HBO adaptation of Ken Kalfus's short story.

Neato, an HBO adaptation of a short story?? Count me in!

And how much did I pay to watch?
All I will say about this one, is that this was shipped to me on the 18th of November. NOVEMBER!! Lord, it takes me a long time to watch movies!

And what did I think?
Well, as I was watching the movie I was thinking, "Man, the Russian who wrote this book is awesome." Joke is on me though because the guy who wrote this is totally from New York. Thus, I am very impressed with his ability to capture the essence of Russian-ness (or something). So, all in all I liked the feeling of the movie.

However, the narration was tough to follow (this is a good example of taking narration from a book that was beautiful and not being able to adapt it successfully to a film) though that might have been due to the lead actor's bizarre Russian accent. One thing I hate about films that are supposed to take place in non-english speaking countries is that they aren't always consistent in their use of English language or accents. For example, in Enemy at the Gates all the Russians are played by Brits with British accents and all the Germans are played by Americans with American accents. However, for some reason they thought it would be logical (why?) to have newspapers in cyrillic. Why? I mean, as an audience we are suspending disbelief that Russians and Germans are speaking English, so why do we need to bring Russian into the picture?? Well, in Pu-239 all the actors spoke in English with Russian accents. But, the accents were somewhat unintelligible. Why was this necessary?

I found the main character to be rather annoying, and the secondary characters to be more awesome. I wanted to know what was going to happen in their poor Russian lives, because it was clear that Timofey was going to die. Shoot, even the Netflix description says so!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I just thought that the director, or hbo, or the filmmakers, or the writer did such an excellent job of capturing the Russian essence.

However, I didn't find the film itself to be that captivating. SO, it gets a 7.