Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Nine Lives
Nine Lives is a more ambitious feature than Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her. Garcia's screenwriting is still quite the same--tightly written vignettes, centered around female characters--but cinematically, Nine Lives goes a step further. The movie is composed of 9 real-time steadicam shots, each about 10 minutes long. I LOVE that kind of filmmaking, but not unconditionally. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. When a movie is all style an no substance, those long takes are excruciating, but as anyone who had to listen to me when I was writing my senior thesis knows, my favorite filmmaker, Catherine Breillat, uses just that technique to astonishing effect.
The effect of the cinematography of Nine Lives is not exactly astonishing. In fact, you probably won't even notice that each scene is in real-time, or that the camera never cuts. You might experience a strange sensation as the camera swings back and forth between characters, or glides from room to room, because, I would argue, the way we identify with characters on screen and the way we inhabit their perspectives through narrative suturing is disrupted when we never visually cut from character to character. There are no cuts. There is drifting. We do not have a chance to experience that cut and re-set our attention to the other character. Instead, our attention shifts and is sometimes confused and overwhelmed.
That's just my opinion, however. It's not standard spectator theory. There's not enough spectator theory out there, but I bet this movie would be a good one to use in an essay about spectator relations and long takes.
So, wanky film theory aside, this movie was a serious tearjerker. I thought the acting was phenomenal. The cast includes some of my personal favorites, including Canadian actress Molly Parker, whom none of you know starred in a seriously odd movie, Kissed, about a necrophiliac. The movie also features veteran greats like Robin Wright Penn (Ebert and I agree that she was the most phenomenal thing in the movie), Sissy Spacek, Glenn Close (who seems like she's been the same age for the past 20 years...creepy), and Holly Hunter. Two actresses who might not stand out, but should, are Elpidia Carrillo and Amanda Seyfried. I think Carrillo is a much better actress than she probably gets credit for, and I remember her from high school Spanish class, when our teacher didn't feel like teaching and would let us watch La Familia over and over again. What an awesome movie that is. Seyfried, on the other hand, is someone I'm sure you'll recognize as the most vapid Plastic from Mean Girls and as Sophie from one of the most abominable movies of all time, Mamma Mia. I assumed Seyfried would be pathetic, but I guess I underestimated Garcia's talent as a director. Seyfried was surprisingly receptive and fluid, allowing me to see what her character might be experiencing, even though I doubt Seyfried had any idea herself. That was impressive.
I would highly recommend Nine Lives, and even though The Passengers, Garcia's latest flick, got bad reviews, I still think he's a director to follow.
The effect of the cinematography of Nine Lives is not exactly astonishing. In fact, you probably won't even notice that each scene is in real-time, or that the camera never cuts. You might experience a strange sensation as the camera swings back and forth between characters, or glides from room to room, because, I would argue, the way we identify with characters on screen and the way we inhabit their perspectives through narrative suturing is disrupted when we never visually cut from character to character. There are no cuts. There is drifting. We do not have a chance to experience that cut and re-set our attention to the other character. Instead, our attention shifts and is sometimes confused and overwhelmed.
That's just my opinion, however. It's not standard spectator theory. There's not enough spectator theory out there, but I bet this movie would be a good one to use in an essay about spectator relations and long takes.
So, wanky film theory aside, this movie was a serious tearjerker. I thought the acting was phenomenal. The cast includes some of my personal favorites, including Canadian actress Molly Parker, whom none of you know starred in a seriously odd movie, Kissed, about a necrophiliac. The movie also features veteran greats like Robin Wright Penn (Ebert and I agree that she was the most phenomenal thing in the movie), Sissy Spacek, Glenn Close (who seems like she's been the same age for the past 20 years...creepy), and Holly Hunter. Two actresses who might not stand out, but should, are Elpidia Carrillo and Amanda Seyfried. I think Carrillo is a much better actress than she probably gets credit for, and I remember her from high school Spanish class, when our teacher didn't feel like teaching and would let us watch La Familia over and over again. What an awesome movie that is. Seyfried, on the other hand, is someone I'm sure you'll recognize as the most vapid Plastic from Mean Girls and as Sophie from one of the most abominable movies of all time, Mamma Mia. I assumed Seyfried would be pathetic, but I guess I underestimated Garcia's talent as a director. Seyfried was surprisingly receptive and fluid, allowing me to see what her character might be experiencing, even though I doubt Seyfried had any idea herself. That was impressive.
I would highly recommend Nine Lives, and even though The Passengers, Garcia's latest flick, got bad reviews, I still think he's a director to follow.
The Fountainhead
King Vidor, Patricia Neal, Gary Cooper and Peter Lorre do a bang-up job making this movie thoroughly watchable, in spite of Ayn Rand's insipid, illogical, extremist, didactic script. Should you watch it? Only if you've got some time on your hands and would like to see some hilariously subversive sexual tension between Neal and Cooper.
I read The Fountainhead in high school, and it was a pretty entertaining novel, and I thought it had a lot of interesting ideas and a lot of messed up ideas, but it wasn't until I got to college and had to read real philosophy, real social theory, and real critical theory that I realized everything Ayn Rand wrote was a bunch of bullshit. So the script of this movie, if you have half a brain on your shoulders, will feel clunkier than Mighty Ducks 3, but the acting, and King Vidor's direction, won't disappoint. Just don't forget while you're watching that WE HATE COMMIES. DON'T LET THEM INFILTRATE. YAY CAPITALISM!
I read The Fountainhead in high school, and it was a pretty entertaining novel, and I thought it had a lot of interesting ideas and a lot of messed up ideas, but it wasn't until I got to college and had to read real philosophy, real social theory, and real critical theory that I realized everything Ayn Rand wrote was a bunch of bullshit. So the script of this movie, if you have half a brain on your shoulders, will feel clunkier than Mighty Ducks 3, but the acting, and King Vidor's direction, won't disappoint. Just don't forget while you're watching that WE HATE COMMIES. DON'T LET THEM INFILTRATE. YAY CAPITALISM!
Friday, March 20, 2009
Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her
Rodrigo Garcia wrote and directed this lovely, subtle film, the latest installment in the chick flick series. It has some regulars: Glenn Close (is she to chick flicks what Gerard Depardieu is to French flicks?), Holly Hunter, Amy Brenneman and Kathy Baker (who were both in The Jane Austen Book Club). The cinematographer is a pretty awesome guy who has some diverse movies on his rap sheet, from Like Water for Chocolate to Reality Bites to Meet Joe Black to Burn After Reading. The music is by Edward Shearmur, whom I remember from The Governess, one of the odder movies I've enjoyed despite it's many flaws, mostly due to his soundtrack, which is full of ethereal, beautiful Sephardic music.
The writing, cinematography, and directing only set the stage for the phenomenal acting showcased in the movie. Even Cameron Diaz, who generally irritates me, is startlingly funny. The movie itself is startlingly funny, even during the more tragic stories. So these are the things I love about Things You Can Tell, in order of importance:
1. The color burning and vignetting during many shots of the movie, most noticeable during Holly Hunter's storyline. I can't describe exactly what feeling it adds, but it's palpable, like some sort of malaise that's creeping down the frame.
2. Cameron Diaz's character. Diaz does a pretty great job of reading the lines, but the real credit goes to that fantastic writing! Every single character, no matter how minor, is so carefully etched. It's easy to see that the director is the son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It really shows.
3. The loose-but-engaging interconnectedness of the stories. It irritates me when the interconnectedness of vignette-movies is too contrived, but it also irritates me when the interconnectedness is haphazard and uninteresting (see Paris, je t'aime). This movie strikes the perfect balance.
4. The male characters are neither perfect, nor villains. There is often a danger in chick flicks of the male characters being too one-dimensional. This doesn't necessarily bother me because in the rest of movies female characters are often one-dimensional. Garcia, however, has made every character interesting and nuanced, without giving too much away, because, after all, this is a movie about Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her, not by her telling you everything about herself.
5. I can't lie, I get such a thrill from the midget story, "Someone for Rose." I just can't stop giggling.
The writing, cinematography, and directing only set the stage for the phenomenal acting showcased in the movie. Even Cameron Diaz, who generally irritates me, is startlingly funny. The movie itself is startlingly funny, even during the more tragic stories. So these are the things I love about Things You Can Tell, in order of importance:
1. The color burning and vignetting during many shots of the movie, most noticeable during Holly Hunter's storyline. I can't describe exactly what feeling it adds, but it's palpable, like some sort of malaise that's creeping down the frame.
2. Cameron Diaz's character. Diaz does a pretty great job of reading the lines, but the real credit goes to that fantastic writing! Every single character, no matter how minor, is so carefully etched. It's easy to see that the director is the son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It really shows.
3. The loose-but-engaging interconnectedness of the stories. It irritates me when the interconnectedness of vignette-movies is too contrived, but it also irritates me when the interconnectedness is haphazard and uninteresting (see Paris, je t'aime). This movie strikes the perfect balance.
4. The male characters are neither perfect, nor villains. There is often a danger in chick flicks of the male characters being too one-dimensional. This doesn't necessarily bother me because in the rest of movies female characters are often one-dimensional. Garcia, however, has made every character interesting and nuanced, without giving too much away, because, after all, this is a movie about Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her, not by her telling you everything about herself.
5. I can't lie, I get such a thrill from the midget story, "Someone for Rose." I just can't stop giggling.
Evening
Evening was incredibly disappointing. It was another addition to the ongoing chick flick series I've been watching with Annie, but it was so subpar. I thought it could deliver some cheese, some embarrassment, and a few laughs, if only because it had SO many chick flick regulars: Vanessa Redgrave, Toni Collette, Natasha Richardson, Glenn Close, fucking MERYL STREEP, Hugh Dancy (from The Jane Austen Book Club! So cute!), Paul Wilson (ok, he's not necessarily a regular yet, but "Angels in America" was so gay it was a chick flick by default, right?) ...
Nope. Michael Cunningham (The Hours) was also involved, and even that didn't help. Claire Danes was in it, unfortunately, and Annie and I despise her both as an actress and on principle, because we are both fiercely loyal to Mary Louise-Parker and think Claire Danes is a homewrecker.
So, these are my problems with Evening, in order of importance:
1. Bastards stole the last scene from The Way We Were without adding anything interesting or unusual to it, or even bothering to make it an homage or commentary.
2. The flashback story that you're supposed to get into was flimsy and stupid and was never adequately related to the daughters, so it's really implausible that the daughters reconciliation was in any way connected to the flashback story.
3. Meryl Streep was only in the LAST TEN MINUTES. She was amazing, though, as usual.
4. Eileen Atkins was wasted, too.
5. The whole story seemed like it was gleaned from "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall," and translated from page to screen with as much incoherent stream-of-consciousness plotting. Hmph.
Nope. Michael Cunningham (The Hours) was also involved, and even that didn't help. Claire Danes was in it, unfortunately, and Annie and I despise her both as an actress and on principle, because we are both fiercely loyal to Mary Louise-Parker and think Claire Danes is a homewrecker.
So, these are my problems with Evening, in order of importance:
1. Bastards stole the last scene from The Way We Were without adding anything interesting or unusual to it, or even bothering to make it an homage or commentary.
2. The flashback story that you're supposed to get into was flimsy and stupid and was never adequately related to the daughters, so it's really implausible that the daughters reconciliation was in any way connected to the flashback story.
3. Meryl Streep was only in the LAST TEN MINUTES. She was amazing, though, as usual.
4. Eileen Atkins was wasted, too.
5. The whole story seemed like it was gleaned from "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall," and translated from page to screen with as much incoherent stream-of-consciousness plotting. Hmph.
Holiday
I don't even feel like I need to write any sort of review of Holiday because I can't think of a single thing to say about it that's not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and Katie Hepburn !!!!!!!!!!!!!
and Cary Grant !!!!!!!!!!!!!
and George Cukor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This movie makes me chuckle and cry and knocks my skinny tie askew. It's so beautiful.
and Katie Hepburn !!!!!!!!!!!!!
and Cary Grant !!!!!!!!!!!!!
and George Cukor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This movie makes me chuckle and cry and knocks my skinny tie askew. It's so beautiful.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Mystery Train
Stranger Than Paradise was the first Jim Jarmusch movie I ever saw, and no Jarmusch movie I've seen since has compared. They've all been awesome in their own ways, but for some reason they can't even compete with Stranger Than Paradise. Mystery Train is really enjoyable in its own right, but is not nearly as fabulous as Down by Law or Dead Man. That said, I would highly recommend it. I loved the way Memphis was shot, and I especially loved the very last shot of the movie, where the train carries everybody away through a jungle of kudzu. The South would not be the South without kudzu.
I also found the Nicoletta Braschi really charming, and I liked her story. It had such a sad undercurrent (you see her at the beginning of her story signing off for a coffin at the airport), but managed to be really funny, then touching again when she does something at the end of her story that reveals who died. Braschi was also in Down by Law and you probably saw her in Life is Beautiful (she's married to Roberto Benigni, a Jarmusch regular).
I was least interested in Joe Strummer's story--it was supposed to be the outright comedy in the movie, but I only found it funny occasionally, and the moments that were supposed to feel sad, empty, and touching in that Jarmuschian way left a lot to be desired. I feel like Buscemi was kind of wasted here. That said, I thought Joe Strummer was a perfect Jarmusch character--hip, kind of goofy, kind of retro. It makes perfect sense for him to be in a Jarmusch movie.
The BEST THING EVER. Hands down. Is Screamin' Jay Hawkins. Man oh man were the scenes between him and the bellhop hilarious. They barely did anything the entire movie but sit at that desk together, but they were so unbelievably funny. I loved that Jarmusch cut to them all the time, even when they weren't doing anything. It gave the movie even more structure (and one thing I love about Jarmusch is how beautifully structured his movies are, how clean and precise) and it was obviously done because Jarmusch is such a fan. Sometimes singers can't act and are put in movies anyway, just because the director's a fan, but Jarmusch is discriminating: Joe Strummer really can act, in a lumbering sort of way, and Hawkins doesn't even HAVE to act. All he has to do is sit there and look tired or surprised, and he's incredibly funny. He's got a great filmic presence. That's not to brush aside Cinqué Lee, little brother of Spike Lee, who is pretty adorable as the bellhop. He and Hawkins work wonderfully against each other.
The story that surprised me the most, however, was "Far from Yokohama." Two Japanese teenagers, obsessed with rockabilly and Elvis Presley, come to Memphis, barely speak a lick of English, and spend a lot of time in their hotel room not relating to each other. I thought the writing here was just beautiful--very few words spoke volumes about their relationship, their alienation from each other, and their strange affection for Memphis, a place where they are so obviously dis-placed and could never fit. Their story was somehow quite sad and touching, much like that of the Italian displaced in Memphis for a night.
The last reason why I would recommend Mystery Train is the atmosphere, the sense of place. It's got some of the most depressing shots of Memphis, so depressing it'll make you want to take a road trip there right afterwards, listening to Carl Perkins and Roy Orbison along the way. The shots alone might not have accomplished that, but Jarmusch is aware of how much the soundtrack creates atmosphere. Jarmusch regular John Lurie did the soundtrack and it was lovely, as per usual. I always love the soundtracks of Jarmusch movies, because they lend so much emotional weight to what would otherwise be underwhelming scenes of emptiness. Melancholy, spaced-out rockabilly underscores long takes of the various displaced characters walking through the empty, overgrown, faded streets of Memphis.
I also found the Nicoletta Braschi really charming, and I liked her story. It had such a sad undercurrent (you see her at the beginning of her story signing off for a coffin at the airport), but managed to be really funny, then touching again when she does something at the end of her story that reveals who died. Braschi was also in Down by Law and you probably saw her in Life is Beautiful (she's married to Roberto Benigni, a Jarmusch regular).
I was least interested in Joe Strummer's story--it was supposed to be the outright comedy in the movie, but I only found it funny occasionally, and the moments that were supposed to feel sad, empty, and touching in that Jarmuschian way left a lot to be desired. I feel like Buscemi was kind of wasted here. That said, I thought Joe Strummer was a perfect Jarmusch character--hip, kind of goofy, kind of retro. It makes perfect sense for him to be in a Jarmusch movie.
The BEST THING EVER. Hands down. Is Screamin' Jay Hawkins. Man oh man were the scenes between him and the bellhop hilarious. They barely did anything the entire movie but sit at that desk together, but they were so unbelievably funny. I loved that Jarmusch cut to them all the time, even when they weren't doing anything. It gave the movie even more structure (and one thing I love about Jarmusch is how beautifully structured his movies are, how clean and precise) and it was obviously done because Jarmusch is such a fan. Sometimes singers can't act and are put in movies anyway, just because the director's a fan, but Jarmusch is discriminating: Joe Strummer really can act, in a lumbering sort of way, and Hawkins doesn't even HAVE to act. All he has to do is sit there and look tired or surprised, and he's incredibly funny. He's got a great filmic presence. That's not to brush aside Cinqué Lee, little brother of Spike Lee, who is pretty adorable as the bellhop. He and Hawkins work wonderfully against each other.
The story that surprised me the most, however, was "Far from Yokohama." Two Japanese teenagers, obsessed with rockabilly and Elvis Presley, come to Memphis, barely speak a lick of English, and spend a lot of time in their hotel room not relating to each other. I thought the writing here was just beautiful--very few words spoke volumes about their relationship, their alienation from each other, and their strange affection for Memphis, a place where they are so obviously dis-placed and could never fit. Their story was somehow quite sad and touching, much like that of the Italian displaced in Memphis for a night.
The last reason why I would recommend Mystery Train is the atmosphere, the sense of place. It's got some of the most depressing shots of Memphis, so depressing it'll make you want to take a road trip there right afterwards, listening to Carl Perkins and Roy Orbison along the way. The shots alone might not have accomplished that, but Jarmusch is aware of how much the soundtrack creates atmosphere. Jarmusch regular John Lurie did the soundtrack and it was lovely, as per usual. I always love the soundtracks of Jarmusch movies, because they lend so much emotional weight to what would otherwise be underwhelming scenes of emptiness. Melancholy, spaced-out rockabilly underscores long takes of the various displaced characters walking through the empty, overgrown, faded streets of Memphis.
Lady for a Day
There's quite a backstory to this picture, and knowing it makes the picture more interesting. Frank Capra directed it with only B-list stars and some actual homeless people he picked off the streets of Los Angeles. He really wanted to win an Oscar, and tried his damnedest with the sentimental tripe that permeates an otherwise rather funny movie. He failed, and although it was nominated several times, Lady for a Day lost in every category.
Then, of course, Capra went on to sweep the Oscars with It Happened One Night, a far superior film that I could watch a hundred times. I like to watch the less famous films of directors I like, just to make sure they're not underrated and unduly ignored, because sometimes those films turn out to be hidden gems. I can see why Lady for a Day, while an admirable attempt, isn't a classic like It's a Wonderful Life or Arsenic and Old Lace. The movie did have some funny moments, but I was not touched by the sentimentality and the entire time I was watching the movie, I found myself waiting for those beautiful Frank Capra moments, which never seemed to arrive. I wouldn't recommend Lady for a Day unless you want to see every Frank Capra movie.
Then, of course, Capra went on to sweep the Oscars with It Happened One Night, a far superior film that I could watch a hundred times. I like to watch the less famous films of directors I like, just to make sure they're not underrated and unduly ignored, because sometimes those films turn out to be hidden gems. I can see why Lady for a Day, while an admirable attempt, isn't a classic like It's a Wonderful Life or Arsenic and Old Lace. The movie did have some funny moments, but I was not touched by the sentimentality and the entire time I was watching the movie, I found myself waiting for those beautiful Frank Capra moments, which never seemed to arrive. I wouldn't recommend Lady for a Day unless you want to see every Frank Capra movie.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A Date With Judy
A Date With Judy was a fluffy musical from 1949, which, though underwhelming as a musical, did feature some surprising stars. Elizabeth Taylor is notable in her first grown-up sex-kitten role, doing some serious eyelash batting and scene-stealing from the corners. Robert Stack plays a hunky sodajerk with high morals. Wallace Beery (of whom I'm really not a fan) got me to laugh several times as he attempted to learn the rumba from Carmen Miranda (!). Miranda is totally the best thing in this film. I feel the same way about Carmen Miranda as I do about Marilyn Monroe, although Miranda seems to have had much more agency in her career. They both are somewhat exploited, somewhat pigeonholed stars who exuded so much warmth and charm in even their most stereotypical roles that I've really grown to love them both.
Unless you're an ardent fan of one or all of the above, I don't recommend this movie. The story is dull, Jane Powell is pretty irritating, there are lots of dated teenage and family problems that don't entertain like they did in Bye Bye Birdie and don't relate emotionally like they still do in Douglas Sirk movies, and the musical numbers are not memorable. The direction is also kind of weak and uninspired.
Unless you're an ardent fan of one or all of the above, I don't recommend this movie. The story is dull, Jane Powell is pretty irritating, there are lots of dated teenage and family problems that don't entertain like they did in Bye Bye Birdie and don't relate emotionally like they still do in Douglas Sirk movies, and the musical numbers are not memorable. The direction is also kind of weak and uninspired.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Saving Grace
I started out watching "Saving Grace" (the TV series, not the movie, although the movie is a rare gem--something so funny but not-too-shocking that I could watch with my mother) solely for Holly Hunter. I will watch pretty much anything for Holly Hunter. She is one of the best actresses. Ever. I figured even if she's on a stupid TNT cop drama she'll still bring enough oddity and intensity to the part for me to enjoy it.
That did turn out to be true. Holly Hunter is totally awesome and even when the writing is horribly clichéd and uninspired and nauseatingly uplifting, she makes Grace such a tough, wry, earthy character, so I keep watching. The other actors are not half bad, and I rather like Laura San Giacomo, but I pretty much only watch for Holly Hunter.
One thing I do like is how unabashedly Southern the show is. It really utilizes expressions and stories that would come out of Oklahoma City, and doesn't devolve into Oklahoma City-but-really-it's-just-Southern California, which many shows do. The sense of place is very palpable. Part of that is due to the writer/creator, Nancy Miller, who is from Oklahoma City, and part of it is due to Holly Hunter's delicious Georgia drawl.
The writing has improved much in the second season, and the humorous notes really do make me chuckle. The only thing that has grown increasingly alarming is Holly Hunter's musculature. Is she doing the same scary yoga routine as Madonna? She's more ripped than a detective ever needed to be. Sometimes her biceps scare me.
That did turn out to be true. Holly Hunter is totally awesome and even when the writing is horribly clichéd and uninspired and nauseatingly uplifting, she makes Grace such a tough, wry, earthy character, so I keep watching. The other actors are not half bad, and I rather like Laura San Giacomo, but I pretty much only watch for Holly Hunter.
One thing I do like is how unabashedly Southern the show is. It really utilizes expressions and stories that would come out of Oklahoma City, and doesn't devolve into Oklahoma City-but-really-it's-just-Southern California, which many shows do. The sense of place is very palpable. Part of that is due to the writer/creator, Nancy Miller, who is from Oklahoma City, and part of it is due to Holly Hunter's delicious Georgia drawl.
The writing has improved much in the second season, and the humorous notes really do make me chuckle. The only thing that has grown increasingly alarming is Holly Hunter's musculature. Is she doing the same scary yoga routine as Madonna? She's more ripped than a detective ever needed to be. Sometimes her biceps scare me.
Jane Austen Book Club
Annie had a craving for a real chick flick. I suggested The Jane Austen Book Club, which I hadn't seen, but which seemed to fit all the requirements: largely female cast, female writer/director, Jane Austen. The movie soundly delivers as a chick flick, but satisfies little else.
The plot is appropriately contrived, cute, corny, and comfortably wrapped up at the end.
The directing is uninspired but does allow the actors to shine when they can--Maria Bello in particular is hugely underrated, and Hugh Dancy's comedic turns are pretty adorable. Also HOW IS HIS NAME HUGH DANCY!? Doesn't that sound like a joke? It made me giggle when I watched the credits, beginning and end.
The characters are, for the most part, interesting and multifaceted, and the relevance between Jane Austen's books and their lives is interestingly explored and amusingly discussed within the film itself.
My only real critique--because by and large, this movie is successful within its modest genre--is the highly unnecessary and incredibly embarrassing lesbian subplot. The lesbian character is the least nuanced in the movie, but according to Annie every character played by Maggie Grace is that annoying, so we concluded that it must be the actress's fault that her character is so irritating and unsympathetic. I just get unreasonably angry about Gratuitous Lesbian Subplots. It really didn't need to be in the movie, and only made Annie and I squirm and roll our eyes, and not in the good way that the rest of the movie does.
That said, the movie itself was highly entertaining and engaging, especially for an Austen fan. I have no idea how entertaining it would be for someone who's not a fan, but I imagine it would still bring some pleasure.
The plot is appropriately contrived, cute, corny, and comfortably wrapped up at the end.
The directing is uninspired but does allow the actors to shine when they can--Maria Bello in particular is hugely underrated, and Hugh Dancy's comedic turns are pretty adorable. Also HOW IS HIS NAME HUGH DANCY!? Doesn't that sound like a joke? It made me giggle when I watched the credits, beginning and end.
The characters are, for the most part, interesting and multifaceted, and the relevance between Jane Austen's books and their lives is interestingly explored and amusingly discussed within the film itself.
My only real critique--because by and large, this movie is successful within its modest genre--is the highly unnecessary and incredibly embarrassing lesbian subplot. The lesbian character is the least nuanced in the movie, but according to Annie every character played by Maggie Grace is that annoying, so we concluded that it must be the actress's fault that her character is so irritating and unsympathetic. I just get unreasonably angry about Gratuitous Lesbian Subplots. It really didn't need to be in the movie, and only made Annie and I squirm and roll our eyes, and not in the good way that the rest of the movie does.
That said, the movie itself was highly entertaining and engaging, especially for an Austen fan. I have no idea how entertaining it would be for someone who's not a fan, but I imagine it would still bring some pleasure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)