Catching Ducks

Original Sin is about a man (Antonio Banderas) circa 1900, who brings a bride from Delaware -- that he's never met -- to his home in Cuba. Angelina Jolie plays the bride, in one of her earlier roles.

The movie didn't look as expensive as I would like from a costume drama, and the plot and style of the movie were more noir than Merchant-Ivory. To a certain extent, it felt like the point of the movie was to watch Angelina Jolie have sex with men. Look, it's Angelina Jolie having sex with Antonio Banderas. Look, it's Angelina Jolie having creepy sex with her foster brother (played by Thomas Jane). Look, it's Angelina Jolie getting raped. (Thankfully that last one took place mostly off screen.)

I'm not sure why I even kept watching; I guess I wanted to see what happened. This sort of movie is about plot and atmosphere. The plot was interesting enough, I guess, but the atmosphere tried to be steamy but came off as cheap.

Labels: review: movie

Darcy is the best part of the movie.

I mean, really, she is. "I'm not going to die for six college credits!" She's just the best.

(Runner-up is Hawkeye's brief appearance: "I think I'm starting to root for this guy.")


But more seriously:

The first time I watched it, I enjoyed the parts of the movie that took place on Earth, with the Jane/Darcy/Erik story, and the Thor-stuck-on-Earth adventures. Everything taking place on Asgard was just a bunch of CGI boredom.

The second time through, it was slightly more interesting, because I knew gb jngpu Ybxv. Xabjvat gung ur jbhyq orgenl Gube znqr uvf rneyl fprarf zhpu zber jngpunoyr.

The details of the plot are a little murky, but the motivations of Thor and Loki are clear, so the details don't seem as important. Thor has some nice character development. Jane is much more interested in her research than a romance, which is a refreshing change of pace. Also, there's Darcy. Did I mention she's awesome? Because she is.

Two items of note: 1) None of the female characters are ever undressed or even half-dressed. Even Sif's armor is cleavage-free. There is, however, a long shot of shirtless Thor. 2) This movie -- unlike The Avengers (which I love) -- passes the Bechdel Test. Jane and Darcy have several conversations that have nothing to do with a man. (See the aforementioned "I'm not going to die for six college credits!")

Overall, I think this is the second-best Avengers movie. (The Avengers is the best, of course.)

Labels: Avengers, review: movie

I think this is one of the best book-to-movie adaptations I've seen. The book is solely from Katniss's point of view, with a lot of introspection. The movie does a nice job of focusing on Katniss her journey, while at the same time expanding the scope to see conversations between President Snow and the Gamemaker, the behind-the-scenes of the Gamemaker's crew, the reactions from the districts, etc.

Visually the movie is stunning. They did a wonderful job contrasting the drabness of District 12 with the opulence of the Capital. The clothes of the residents of the Capital are just as ridiculous as described in the book.

There are some wonderful touches created by the movie makers, like the reaping area of District 12 being hosed down to clean it before the reaping ceremony.

The casting is great, especially Elizabeth Banks as Effie. She really nails Effie's well-meaning cluelessness. Stanley Tucci is also wonderful as Caesar Flickerman.


Spoiler:

Zl snibevgr bayl-va-gur-zbivr zbzrag vf jura Xngavff naq Crrgn qrpvqr gb uhag sbe sbbq, naq Crrgn fnlf fbzrguvat yvxr, "V'yy gnxr gur obj". Fur tvirf uvz n "Jung gur uryy?!?!" ybbx, naq gura ur tevaf naq fnlf, "V'z whfg xvqqvat".

Labels: review: movie, The Hunger Games

Is the plot of this movie predictable? Yes.

Is the humor hit or miss? Yes.

Do I care? No.


Weird Al's movie UHF is just so earnest and fun and weird that I can't help but enjoy it.


[It's also fun to play spot the future (and one almost unrecognizable former) TV star.]

Labels: music, review: movie

Nothing makes me feel more like an outsider than watching an almost-universally beloved movie and saying, "meh".

I mean, it wasn't horrible. It was fine. There were plenty of good jokes. The villain was fun. The hero was both a bad-ass and a smart-ass. And it wasn't ruined for me by too many references in pop culture.

But as I sat there watching it, all I could think is, "This is it? This is the famous 'Die Hard'? Shouldn't I be more entertained?" Clearly, I am not the right audience for that movie.

Labels: review: movie

I don't have the best history with Disney & Pixar movies. I've known many people that rave about them, so I always think I'll love them, but that's rarely the case. For instance, I loved Finding Nemo, but I couldn't even finish Up.

I was particularly nervous about Frozen, because I kept hearing it described as a great female-led movie -- but I'd heard that about Brave and I didn't like that movie at all.

Fortunately, I enjoyed it much more than Brave. The songs were tiresome, but the story was pretty good. The Anna character really was great and very funny. And not only did the princess save the day, but focus of the movie was the bond between the sisters, not a romance.

But too many songs. That were all too long. Really, enough with the songs.


Spoilers:

V nyfb ybirq gung gurl gbgnyyl znqr sha bs gur vqrn bs "gehr ybir ng svefg fvtug". Obgu Xevfgbss naq Ryfn gubhtug Naan jnf evqvphybhf sbe jnagvat gb zneel n zna fur'q bayl xabja sbe n qnl.

Labels: review: movie

For some reason I saw the 1996 movie Diabolique (sharring Sharon Stone and Chazz Palminteri). It was back in the late 90's, so maybe I saw it when I was in college? Anyway, I knew that it was a remake of an older movie, so I decided to track down the original.

The original movie is French, in black & white, and was released in 1955. (Which means it was filmed just a decade after WWII ended, which is a little weird to think about.) (It also means I'm not going to worry about spoilers.)

There's a cruel man running a school, and his wife and his mistress team up to kill him. A simple plot, but with lots of tension.

I enjoyed the unlikely friendship between the mistress and the wife, which is why I didn't like the ending of the movie, when you discover the mistress faked the murder to kill the wife, so she and the husband could get the wife's money. In retrospect, it makes sense. The mistress was always much more confident about the plan than the wife, and the mistress could have left the school/husband in a way that the wife couldn't. So for her to be faking it to swindle the wife fits. But I was still bummed.

I was quite surprised that the retired police detective was actually a good guy. I just assumed he as a bad guy, possible in league with the husband.

Overall, a creepy thriller.

Labels: review: movie

This movie was released in 1944, so I'm not going to worry about spoilers...


A little murder mystery, where the victim is later one of the suspects. Interesting enough to watch to the end, but not something I'm inclined to re-watch.

At the beginning of the movie, I thought the old guy seemed creepy, and had an unhealthy fixation on Laura. I was pleasantly surprised when he turned out to be just as creepy as I had originally thought. Since this movie is seventy years old, I wasn't sure if that would be the case.

Remember the Bechdel Test? This movie passes it, but just barely. (Laura has a conversation with her maid, to explain that she wasn't really dead, that it was just a mix-up, and could she make some breakfast please?) But this is one of the very few movies that doesn't pass the reverse Bechdel Test. There are three male lead characters, and they talk to each other a lot (most of the movie, really), but they spend the entire time talking about Laura!

Labels: review: movie