Insulting shorts and interesting movies
First off, I ran into an entertaining site yesterday: Hanzi Smatter - "dedicated to the misuse of Chinese characters in Western culture." I think my favorite is the dragon shorts... we always suspected, but now we know for sure. Wahahaha.
Last night Brion came over and we watched The Fountain (Widescreen Edition)
. I remember that back when the trailers were playing in theaters, Danielle was very, very excited about this movie. Unfortunately, the local movie theaters didn't get it, so she didn't see it until it was available on Netflix. As it turned out, she really didn't like it that well, so I figured, ehh, I guess I won't bother. Then yesterday my brother was talking to me about it and it turned out he owns it. He brought it over last night, and well... it was interesting. It is, of course, a beautiful movie. Casting Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz is certainly a good place to start, and they both did an excellent acting job; the cinematography is also impressive. I'm pretty sure what killed the movie in the box office was the story. The movie flashes back and forth between 1500 A.D., present day, and 2500 A.D. with very little explanation. Much like FLCL, it sort of blows you away with its weirdness but starts to make a strange kind of sense by the end. As my brother said, you have to get through the first 8 minutes. It has the potential to be really depressing, but I actually didn't get upset by it (as anyone who knows me can tell you, this is a miracle) because I tried to detach myself a bit from what was going on. At the end, I just sat there going ".....huh." My brother tells me that only one of his friends would even CONSIDER watching it, whereas the rest would get 2 minutes in and go, "what the heck" and turn it off. Ah well, this is what sisters are for.
....and for putting me through The Fountain (which I actually rather enjoyed), he then agreed to watch The Queen
. It was particularly interesting watching this having just seen Helen Mirren as Elizabeth I, and I do feel she deserved her Oscar for this role. The whole concept of the movie was a bit jarring because it's basically a historical film about people who are still living. I remember the events of this film, remember being at my parents' house, bickering with my brother in the family room when my mother came out of the bedroom and said "While you're sitting here bickering, Princess Diana has been in a terrible car crash and they're not even sure she will make it." I remember watching the funeral service, seeing her brother speak, and seeing the tv broadcasts showing the mountains of flowers placed in front of Buckingham Palace. This movie tries to delve far deeper than that, which is kind of... bizarre. The portrayal of the Queen, and the rest of the royal family, is shocking. The "current establishment" is most definitely painted in a negative light, while Prince Charles and Tony Blair come out smelling like roses. I suppose that overall this treatment fits what I know of the facts, or at least what the public saw. The royal family WAS slow in accepting that it was necessary to grieve for Diana as a nation, and not just "privately," and from what I remember, Charles did seem to acquit himself well in regard to his sons (and for the most part has continued to do so). I just don't like it when they create conversations and entire plot points (see: the stag) that I don't think they have any basis for. I CAN still step back and view the film outside of those concerns, though, and I appreciated what it was trying to do: show the royals as HUMAN BEINGS. And in the end, through the voice of Tony Blair, they showed great sympathy for the Queen's behavior. Just like "Elizabeth I," I enjoyed the movie for its costuming, setting, and acting, and took the history aspect with a grain of salt. And again, it made me want to learn more about the subject matter, my favorite result of any historical film.
[edit]
Kim omdog has just pointed out that I never talked about Stranger Than Fiction
.
I liked it. Harold Crick is likeable, and it was definitely a unique story. (side note: I didn't think his relationship with the bakery girl was that believable.) But I guess in the end I would have to agree with Dustin Hoffman's character that not killing Harold off gives it a rather weak ending. Really, I think that applies more to the movie itself and not the book Emma Thompson's character is writing, because in the FILM we know that Harold has learned of and ACCEPTED his fate, which is what makes the ending that much more tragic but touching. This is such a weird, weird viewpoint for me-I ALWAYS prefer the happy ending... but I guess it has to fit with the rest of the story for it to be truly satisfying.
[/edit]
Last night Brion came over and we watched The Fountain (Widescreen Edition)
. I remember that back when the trailers were playing in theaters, Danielle was very, very excited about this movie. Unfortunately, the local movie theaters didn't get it, so she didn't see it until it was available on Netflix. As it turned out, she really didn't like it that well, so I figured, ehh, I guess I won't bother. Then yesterday my brother was talking to me about it and it turned out he owns it. He brought it over last night, and well... it was interesting. It is, of course, a beautiful movie. Casting Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz is certainly a good place to start, and they both did an excellent acting job; the cinematography is also impressive. I'm pretty sure what killed the movie in the box office was the story. The movie flashes back and forth between 1500 A.D., present day, and 2500 A.D. with very little explanation. Much like FLCL, it sort of blows you away with its weirdness but starts to make a strange kind of sense by the end. As my brother said, you have to get through the first 8 minutes. It has the potential to be really depressing, but I actually didn't get upset by it (as anyone who knows me can tell you, this is a miracle) because I tried to detach myself a bit from what was going on. At the end, I just sat there going ".....huh." My brother tells me that only one of his friends would even CONSIDER watching it, whereas the rest would get 2 minutes in and go, "what the heck" and turn it off. Ah well, this is what sisters are for.
....and for putting me through The Fountain (which I actually rather enjoyed), he then agreed to watch The Queen
. It was particularly interesting watching this having just seen Helen Mirren as Elizabeth I, and I do feel she deserved her Oscar for this role. The whole concept of the movie was a bit jarring because it's basically a historical film about people who are still living. I remember the events of this film, remember being at my parents' house, bickering with my brother in the family room when my mother came out of the bedroom and said "While you're sitting here bickering, Princess Diana has been in a terrible car crash and they're not even sure she will make it." I remember watching the funeral service, seeing her brother speak, and seeing the tv broadcasts showing the mountains of flowers placed in front of Buckingham Palace. This movie tries to delve far deeper than that, which is kind of... bizarre. The portrayal of the Queen, and the rest of the royal family, is shocking. The "current establishment" is most definitely painted in a negative light, while Prince Charles and Tony Blair come out smelling like roses. I suppose that overall this treatment fits what I know of the facts, or at least what the public saw. The royal family WAS slow in accepting that it was necessary to grieve for Diana as a nation, and not just "privately," and from what I remember, Charles did seem to acquit himself well in regard to his sons (and for the most part has continued to do so). I just don't like it when they create conversations and entire plot points (see: the stag) that I don't think they have any basis for. I CAN still step back and view the film outside of those concerns, though, and I appreciated what it was trying to do: show the royals as HUMAN BEINGS. And in the end, through the voice of Tony Blair, they showed great sympathy for the Queen's behavior. Just like "Elizabeth I," I enjoyed the movie for its costuming, setting, and acting, and took the history aspect with a grain of salt. And again, it made me want to learn more about the subject matter, my favorite result of any historical film.
[edit]
Kim omdog has just pointed out that I never talked about Stranger Than Fiction
.
I liked it. Harold Crick is likeable, and it was definitely a unique story. (side note: I didn't think his relationship with the bakery girl was that believable.) But I guess in the end I would have to agree with Dustin Hoffman's character that not killing Harold off gives it a rather weak ending. Really, I think that applies more to the movie itself and not the book Emma Thompson's character is writing, because in the FILM we know that Harold has learned of and ACCEPTED his fate, which is what makes the ending that much more tragic but touching. This is such a weird, weird viewpoint for me-I ALWAYS prefer the happy ending... but I guess it has to fit with the rest of the story for it to be truly satisfying.
[/edit]