Speed Racer Trailer, and other news...

I wouldn't normally subject others to an unwanted drug trip, but I feel as if the damage done to my brain should be shared. The trailer for the newest Wachowski brothers' flick Speed Racer... yes, *that* Speed Racer:

I love Emile Hirsch (if you want to know how much, look at the Into the Wild review), I love Matthew Fox, I enjoy John Goodman and Susan Sarandon... but this? This movie just looks like the biggest piece of shit ever made. It truly does.

And if things couldn't be any worse for the movies these days, the fucktards behind the Sex and the City movie have decided to make it into a goddamn trilogy. Trilogy. Of Sex and the City. Three movies with Sarah Jessica Parker. The movie industry hates me. This fact is supported by the horrible news that Wes Anderson (he of The Royal Tenenbaums, A Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and other movies about dysfunctional families accompanied by quirky soundtracks) is helming an adaptation of Roald Dahl's The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I... no... this... bad... mary... upset... no words... screaming.... forgive me while I use all caps for a moment, but REALLY COME ON NOW. WES ANDERSON YOU ARE ON MY SHIT LIST IF THIS MOVIE SUCKS. At least it's going to be an animated film. BUT, take a gander as to who's voicing the aforementioned "fantastic" Mr. Fox... George Clooney. GEORGE. FUCKING. CLOONEY.

Can't... process... childhood memories... ruined...

No Country For Old Men

No Country For Old Men is based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, and stars Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones as three men whose lives become intertwined by a drug deal gone bad. The film opens with the arrest of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), which results in him ruthlessly murdering his arresting officer and stealing the police car. This opening scene reveals that Chigurh is a cold-blooded killer with no remorse, and his method of killing: a cattle gun. The focus then turns to Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who, while hunting in the desert, stumbles upon several dead men, a stash of heroin, a dying man desperate for water, and two million dollars. Moss takes the money back to his trailer, then, feeling guilty about the dying man, returns to the desert with water. However, once there, he's ambushed by the drug dealers and chased through the desert. He puts his wife on a bus and promises to join her once everything has been resolved. The rest of the movie follows the cat-and-mouse hunt between Chigurh and Moss, and Sherriff Bell's (Tommy Lee Jones) attempt to catch up.

I haven't been a huge fan of the other Coen brothers' films I've seen, other than O Brother Where Art Thou?. I thought Raising Arizona was slightly ridiculous, but I feel as if I should give both Fargo and The Big Lebowski another chance, seeing as I saw both when I was either tired or just disinterested in seeing a movie at all. I haven't seen many movies that have caused me to sit tensely throughout the duration, biting my fingernails in anticipation, but No Country For Old Men now has that distinction. From the chase scene through the desert to the numerous scenes in motels with Chigurh relentlessly tracking Moss to the "conclusion" of the film (if you've seen it, you'll know what I mean), this film plays havoc with your nerves, in the best possible way.

The performances by all three main leads are fantastic. Considering the last movie I saw Josh Brolin in was Planet Terror, he does a great job with the desperate yet resilient Moss, and Tommy Lee Jones seems effortless in his portrayal of the weary sherriff. But it's Javier Bardem's performance that is the most memorable. Chigurh will most likely be remembered as one of the most frightening villains in cinematic history, with his lack of remorse, his relentless pursuit of his victims and his violent forms of murder. Considering that these men never actually interact face-to-face within the span of the film, the audience gets the sense that their lives will forever be intertwined.

The most interesting facet of this film is the lack of music. As most critics and fans of the Coen brothers' movies have noticed, the Coens put an emphasis on the soundtracks of their projects, almost to the point where the music plays a central role in the film. No Country For Old Men features little music except for a brief scene in Mexico. The lack of music allows for a more tense atmosphere, as the audience hears every rustle of the wind, every bark or phone ring in the distance, and every creak of the floorboards. The combination of this lack of music and the cinematography, which drinks in every vast landscape and grisly streets of Texas and Mexico, results in a visually stimulating and terrifying film that I would recommend to fans of suspense and Coen brothers' films.

Since I'm way behind on reviewing movies I've seen in the past 3 months, I figured I'd combine them all in one post:

The Simpsons

Basically the movie is all about Homer screwing over the town, again, and finding a way to somehow resolve things by the end. It feels like an hour and a half long episode, and I mean that in the best possible way. And, like the majority of Simpsons episodes, the movie starts off with a certain plot, then evolves into something completely different. In this case, Lisa is campaigning to keep the Springfield pond clean, and the town votes to erect a wall around the pond. Homer, of course, decides to break through the wall and dump a homemade silo full of pig droppings in the water. The Powers That Be, after seeing how polluted Springfield has become, decides to isolate the town in a gigantic bubble.

Due to the fact that they revealed almost nothing about the plot in the trailers (except for the Spiderpig part, which was still hilarious), the movie doesn't noticeably lag. It's funny, familiar and worth seeing.

Stardust

Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust follows Tristan Thorn (Charlie Cox) as he struggles to win over his "true love" Victoria (Sienna Miller) by finding her a fallen star. The town in which he lives, Wall, England, is surrounded by, obviously a wall, that seperates the real world from the fantastical land of Stormhold. When Tristan sets off to find the fallen star, he travels into Stormhold and finds Yvaine (Claire Danes), whom he soon discovers is the star. After a rocky start, they set off, unaware that they are being followed by the witch Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer), who wants Yvaine's heart to stay young and the princes Primus (Jason Flemyng) and Septimus (Mark Strong), who are both after the necklace Yvaine has around her neck.

With the added bonus of casting Ricky Gervais, Peter O'Toole and Robert DeNiro, the cast is recognizably strong. The plot is fairly straightforward and the end is predictable, but it's an entertaining journey along the way, as Tristan and Yvaine run into various characters who teach them various things (a notable scene/montage is with Robert DeNiro as he teaches Yvaine how to waltz and Tristan how to duel). In short, I loved this movie. I loved it to pieces. I cannot wait until it is out on DVD.

Superbad

If you've seen either The 40 Year-Old Virgin or Knocked Up, you've already seen Superbad. Essentially the premise is Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) plan to hook up with the two girls they have crushes on at a graduation party. Similar to other movies about high school, the majority of the film takes place over one day. As they search for a way to get booze for the party (thus allowing Seth to impress the girl he likes), they get their friend Fogell arrested (although he ends up partying with the two cops, played by Seth Rogen and Bill Hader), almost get beat up a party and get into a fight.

It's a predictable movie, but it has it's hilarious moments, most notably the scenes with the two cops, who think Fogell's name is McLovin, the name on his fake ID. Since it's a movie about two guys wanting to lose their virginities, it's raunchy, with a lot of sex jokes and bad language, but there are scenes less adult in it as well, as Evan gets stuck having to sing for some coked-up guys at a party (with Bill from "Freaks and Geeks"!) and the cops having to chase the kids down at one point. I wouldn't say it's as funny as Knocked Up, but it's definately funny.

Into the Wild

I realise I haven't updated in about a month and a half, which means I am the worst blogger in the world, but no one really reads this anyway, so my care factor is pretty low.

For once, I've actually managed to get ahead of the game and see a movie two weeks before it gets released to the public. My mother and I were lucky enough to get free passes to see Into the Wild last week and, seeing as it was free and I'm rather fond of Emile Hirsch, we decided to go.

Directed by Sean Penn and based on the novel by Jon Krakauer, the story follows Christopher McCandless, played by Emile Hirsch, a recent graduate who donates all his savings to charity and takes off into the country in pursuit of his final goal: to live in the wild in Alaska. Along the way, he meets various people (Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, Kristen Stewart, Hal Holbrook) who feed him and often provide him with objects he probably should have procured before heading to Alaska in the first place. If you've read the book, or heard about McCandless' story at all, you know how it ends. And it really can't end any other way. But the journey to the end is entertaining, amusing and fairly touching.

Although the story drags a bit in the middle, the film is visually stimulating enough to distract from the lagging storyline. Sweeping shots of the Alaskan tundra, sunsets in the midwest and even just shots of McCandless sitting on the bus he finds or a broken sofa make the movie, and the story, as fascinating as McCandless himself. The soundtrack also adds to the feel of the film, as it's mostly just a man and his guitar. Surprisingly, Eddie Vedder does the entire soundtrack, and I've never really enjoyed Pearl Jam all that much, but I love this soundtrack. The guitar is fantastic, and it's even better when put in the context of the film.

There are very few critics who are bashing this movie at the moment, and I don't think that will change much once it's released on October 5th. It's a great story, with great music and incredible acting, and probably one of the best I've seen in a while.

So here's the trailer:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

I realise I haven't posted any reviews in about a month and a half, and that's not due to not having seen any movies recently, I've just been ripping through books instead of films lately.

That said, here's some month-late musings on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

Given that I saw this at a midnight showing, I may be a little hazy on some of the details. I do know, however, that this is my favourite of the movies so far (the previous one being Prisoner of Azkaban). Regardless of what others say, I thought the fourth movie was weak, but I disliked the fourth book as well (thought Harry was too whiny for most of it), so I may have been biased from the get go. The fifth book, I think, showed a marked improvement by J.K. Rowling in both writing style and character developement, as the kids are forced to grow up quickly in the face of the coming threat of Voldemort. Personally, I think the movie reflects that.

Most people have already read the book, or seen the movie, so I won't go into too much detail with the plot. Harry, Ron and Hermione are in their fifth year at Hogwarts, and the movie begins with the trio, plus the other Weasleys, Sirius Black and various other characters in the Black household, otherwise known as the headquarters for the Order of the Phoenix. Harry finds out that the Order knows that Voldemort is trying to look for a weapon, but they won't tell him what it is. With that in the back of his mind, the trio return to school to find that a) everyone thinks Harry is nuts, and b) puberty sucks. As per usual, there's yet another Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Professor Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), who turns out to be a conniving witch with a lust for power.

Her numerous changes to school policy result in Harry forming a group meant to teach real defensive spells, in order to protect themselves against Voldemort and his cronies. Meanwhile, Harry catches the eye of one of his fellow students, Cho, and they share an extremely awkward-to-watch kiss shown in most of the trailers. Blah blah blah, things happen, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville and Luna end up in the Ministry of Magic and a battle ensues. Honestly, I would go into more detail, but there's no point, is there?

The point is, the movie is great. Granted, they left out some of my favourite bits from the book (the swamp left in the corridor, the cleaning out of Grimmauld Place, and the Quidditch matches that lead to the "Weasley is our King" chants). I understand not being able to fit everything into a 2 and a half hour movie, but those were the little things I missed. This is more of a fault for the fourth movie, but where are Bill and Charlie? I mean, Bill turns out to be a relatively big character in the sixth and seventh books, so shouldn't they have looked ahead and tried to include him? I guess it means another two guys having to dye their hair red, but it's a small price to pay. I have to say, I'm impressed with how much the actors have improved. Daniel Radcliffe was actually convincing in most of his scenes and Rupert Grint is turning out to be quite good. I'm still not sold on Emma Watson... she seems to have the same expression for every emotion, which isn't too impressive.

Great movie though. Unlike the fourth one, which I still haven't purchased on DVD, I can't wait for this one to come out so I can snatch it up right away.

DVD Review: Casino Royale

I'm not going to lie and say this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen... but I definately wasn't as entertained as I should have been, considering it's supposed to be one of the better Bond films of late. After the utter shit that was Die Another Day, I was really hesistant to go out and waste my money on this in the theatre... so I'm glad I waited until one of my friends rented it.

First of all, let me just get this out of the way: I have never, still don't and never will agree with the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond. A) He's blonde, B) he's a beefcake and C) just... blech. Never in my mind will he stack up with Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore and god help me, George Lazenby. I'm only expressing this so you understand how I felt going into this movie.

So it starts with... er... oh wait, I remember, in black and white, to which Maggie (who'd never seen a Bond film before) goes "is this whole goddamn movie in black and white? *sigh*", which was pretty funny. Anyway, so there's this dude, and he goes into his office, but of course Bond is sitting there being like "I'm a 00 agent now, so I'm going to shoot you in the head because I already killed your associate and it takes two kills to make me 007 and naner naner naner" etc etc. So I'm already bothered by the fact that Bond has mercilessly killed this guy in cold blood by drowning him in a bathroom sink because James Bond is supposed to be all quippy and dry wit when about to kill an enemy. But I digress...

Anyway, then there's some stuff in other places with guns and bad guys and chase scenes and people getting blown up, which is pretty typical of Bond movies... the good ones anyway. James Bond goes back to London, breaks into his boss' house, which she doesn't seem to perturbed about, and they decide he should go join a high-stakes poker game (or some other card game, who the fuck cares really) so that he can catch the bad guy. He meets a lady on the train, thinks she's pretty, makes some joke about her ass, or his ass, or something, I quickly make the call that she's either evil, or dead meat. Card game goes on, James Bond gets a drink (NOT a martini shaken not stirred). Blah blah blah... with most Bond films you can sum the plots up in about 5 seconds, and this one is no different. So I was a little thrown when along comes this 20 minute long sequence (could have been longer, or shorter, either way it felt like waaaaay too long) of Bond and the evil/dead girl being schmultzy. Gross.

I'm going to stop with the summary here, partly because I really don't remember a lot of the details and partly because I don't want to ruin the entire thing for those who haven't seen it yet. For those of you who *have* seen it, spare me the whole "but it's to explain WHY Bond is the way he is in the other movies" argument. I do. not. care. For that argument to hold up, this movie would have to take place in the past, not the present... frankly, I think the space-time continuim just got a little fucked up because of it. Isn't the world supposed to explode when that happens? I mean, how hard is it to base a movie about spies in the 1940s? You could have Bond fighting the Nazis! And he could earn his 00 status while retrieving ancient relics while his crotchety Scottish dad goes around and - oh wait.

The DaVinci Code

The DaVinci Code

I've seen a bunch of movies lately that I just haven't been in the mood to review (X-Men 3, The Proposition, The Break-Up), but since I saw The Da Vinci Code again yesterday, I might as well post something about it.

Alright, so I've read about a bajillion reviews for The Da Vinci Code, none of them being particularly kind. Some critics lauded it as the "thinking man's action movie" before it was actually screened for the media. Frankly, the hype killed this movie. Everyone was wetting themselves in anticipation for it, and when it finally hit theatres, the press just went "meh". Well you know what, movie critics? You can suck it. I liked it. Everyone I know who went to see it didn't think it was the piece of crap that you thought it was. So just suck it. I didn't like you before, and now I know that you're all just a bunch of prissy know-it-alls who think they have their fingers on the pulse of today's movie-going population. Clearly you don't, considering every reviewer of The Break-Up said it was a piece of shit, but it's still raking in the dough at the box office.

Uh, anyhoo...Firstly, the translation of the book into movie wasn't really all that successful, so I'm going to blame that on Ron Howard, simply because he deserves a kick in the groin every so often just for being him. And also because he has millions of dollars. But I digress... They skipped some integral scenes from the book that I thought deserved to be in the film, such as the fact that there was another cryptex inside the first one... although I doubt they would have had time to add those extra clues, especially with all the damn flashbacks they decided to put it. The entire movie was flashbacks that weren't necessarily needed. And frankly, the filmmakers should have either elaborated on Silas' background (which explained nothing in the flashback to those who hadn't read the book) or they should have left that scene for the editing room floor. Other than that, the movie lacked the fun and mystery of Dan Brown's book, which is odd, considering it practically read as a script. All it needed was the sound effects in italics, which you can usually find in Matt Reilly's books (which, incidentally, would be awesome movies). But, given all that, it was still an entertaining movie. And not in the way that Mission: Impossible 3 was (ie "this is entertaining because I'm laughing at how STUPID Tom Cruise is and how this movie has no plot *bizarre insane laughter*"). It may not be "the thinking man's action movie" but it's intelligent, and it's got action. I've heard people complain that they thought it was too slow-moving, but to be fair, the movie wouldn't make any sense if it wasn't for the scene where Langdon and Sophie are in Teabing's study (which I'm sure is what people are complaining about).

Anyway, on to the actors. As soon as I heard that Tom Hanks was cast as Robert Langdon, I cringed. Why? I asked myself, Why would they choose someone who clearly doesn't fit the "Harrison Ford in Harrison Tweed" image that Dan Brown uses within the first 30 pages of the novel. I'm not a huge fan of Tom Hanks. Mainly because I feel like he doesn't play anyone other than himself in any movie he's in. He never plays a bad guy... at least in any film I've seen. And those who know me well know that I love actors who can play a wide range of roles (take David Wenham in The Proposition and compare it to his role in Dust or The Bank; Colin Firth in Shakespeare in Love or Circle of Friends compared to his roles in Pride & Prejudice or Love Actually). Tom Hanks always plays Tom Hanks... he may pretend to be a bad guy, but by the middle of the movie, it's always revealed that he has a heart behind that annoying receding hairline face of his (read: You've Got Mail). I hated Forrest Gump. So consider my SHOCK when I didn't mind him as the film's main character. He wasn't that bad. Hell, even his "serial killer hairstyle" didn't bother me.

The film really belonged to the secondary characters though. Ian McKellen steals the show in every movie he's been in lately. Jean Reno was excellent. But the real stand-out was Paul Bettany as Silas. Not only was he dressed the part, he was creepy as hell. Even his fake Italian accent won me over. Critics were so-so about Audrey Tautou as Sophie, but I really can't see anyone else doing as good a job as she did.The music was great, though I won't be rushing out to buy the soundtrack anytime soon. I just mean that it added to the movie, which is what a great soundtrack does (not just annoying the HELL out of audiences because it's 8 notes over and over in stupid breaks in the plot... UGH fucking Brokeshit Mountain). The locations they shot at were, obviously, amazing... actually, the best part about seeing this movie the first time was the fact that I had been to Westminister Abbey that day, although we couldn't go right up to Sir Isaac Newton's tomb, like they do in the movie.

As for how pissed off people are getting at the book, leave it alone. I mean, honestly, it's FICTION. That's why it's in the FICTION section in bookstores. No one got pissed when he wrote Angels & Demons. Or when Christopher Moore wrote Lamb, which takes the Christ story and puts sex, demons and kung-fu into it, along with the stupidest angel God could find.The bottom line is that the movie is good. It's entertaining, it's actually worth the 10 bucks, in my opinion, and you won't be sorry if you skip The Break-Up to go see The Da Vinci Code instead, because at least Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou don't scream at each other for 2 straight hours.

Brokeback Mountain

Brokeback Mountain

Ah, Brokeback Mountain. Why are you getting so much praise? Is it because you really are a great movie with an equally great story? No. Is it because the great acting overcomes the overall shittiness of the script? No. Is it because you're about a couple of gay cowboys during the 1960s, a story which hasn't been done yet? Most likely.

I don't want to overexaggerate, but this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. None of the actors in this hackneyed piece of crap should have signed on to be in it. I have lost respect for both Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal for acting in this. My opinion of Michelle Williams, however, has improved, seeing as she was the only one who actually displayed any emotion or talent during the almost 3 hour marathon crapfest. Although, I do think Anne Hathaway did a good job with a role that was unlike anything she's done before. Kudos.

Firstly, Heath, man, when you're in a movie, there's something called pronounciation. You know how you do this? You open your GODDAMN MOUTH! I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't understand a single word Heath Ledger was saying. Gone are the days of 10 Things I Hate About You, when you were a gorgey long-haired Australian who projected your lines. Instead, you've elected to adopt an accent completely unlike your own, and close your mouth, clench your jaw and make the audience guess at your lines. At least Jake Gyllenhaal was understandable! He should be getting the Best Actor nod, not you.

Secondly, this movie is supposed to be about "two cowboys who fall in love"... I saw nothing but their selfish need for sex. There was absolutely NO chemistry between the two characters (I won't go into the lack of chemistry between the two actors because, well, neither of them are gay, so of course there wouldn't be a lot of chemistry, but I digress...) and the only emotion displayed was when a) Jake Gyllenhaal got pissed because he discovered he wouldn't be getting any gay lovin' for a few months and b) Heath Ledger starts crying when he finds his disgusting slightly bloodied shirt in Jake Gyllenhaal's closet. The emotional outburst at the end was, in my opinion, completely out of the blue.

Don't bother with this. Unless you enjoy a slow-moving, long, slightly boring movie that features completely dislikeable characters, don't bother. It's not worth the money or the time, and I personally don't understand why it's garnering such great opinions.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Being the longest book in the series, it was pretty clear that the script writers weren't going to include every single scene from the novel, unless they wanted the film to be 7 hours long. In my opinion, books rarely translate well to the big screen, with the exception of the Lord of the Rings series, mainly because they got rid of all the stupid singing, and the part with Tom Bombadil. But I digress...
Maybe I was predisposed to be disappointed since I didn't like the fourth book, but the Goblet of Fire movie just wasn't as visually stunning as the third movie. Mike Newell did an okay job, but he lacked the creativity that Alfonso Cuaron brought to the Prisoner of Azkaban. Granted, the effects were still great, but the scene with the dragon really didn't have to last that long. They could've shortened that scene and inserted the scene where Barty Crouch Junior explains how he escaped from Azkaban, because the characters are always asserting how impossible it is to escape, and the lack of explanation makes the viewer assume that escapes are commonplace.
The acting was a lot better, however. These kids are improving brilliantly, and are getting to be quite talented. But the film overall was a disappointment. Sure, there were the humourous bits, and the quintessential action scenes, but there was nothing overly unique about it. The fourth book was distinctly darker than the third, but the third movie ended up being darker in nature than the fourth one. Let's all hope the fifth movie doesn't disappoint.

Pride and Prejudice

Pride and Prejudice

So I really seriously believed I would detest this movie, simply because I adore the 1995 miniseries, Colin Firth and I thought they had miscast pretty much everyone in this version. However, I left thinking it wasn't too bad and, upon further reflection, I realised it's pretty damn good (though obviously can't hold a candle to the BBC version).

The pros:

• Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet: I don't know how this man does it. He's 70 years old and he still kicks ass. He made Mr. Bennet a lot wittier rather than simply long-suffering.



• Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet: Brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant.



• The cinematography: They chose absolutely beautiful locations to film. Although I wasn't a fan of how slummed-down they made Longbourn, they kept Pemberley very much how I pictured it.



• Matthew MacFadyen: Yes, yes, he's no Colin Firth, that's for sure, but he still did a good job. I didn't think he was too handsome at first, but he really does grow on you, especially since he doesn't give up on Elizabeth even after she pretty much bitches him out for things he didn't do. There were certain moments between him and Elizabeth that I just loved too, such as when he gives her a hand up to her carriage after she stays at Netherfield with Jane, and when he walks away, he flexes his hand a bit. I don't know why I love that scene so much, I just do. It's very simple, but it conveys a lot. The scene where he goes to the Collins' house to see Elizabeth (and in my opinion, to propose) is great too, because it still retained the character's anxiety that Colin Firth did so well in the BBC version. I have to say, by the end, I thought Matthew MacFadyen was pretty hot, but that's probably due to the fact that I LOVE the character of Mr. Darcy, so it wouldn't matter who the hell played him as long as they did it relatively well. He also did an excellent job with the heated stares that Colin Firth did in the miniseries. No woman can resist a heated stare from Mr. Darcy (don't believe me? watch the miniseries/this movie)



• The Chemistry: Even though Ms. Keira disappointed me (see cons), I have to say that the two leads had some amazing chemistry. Even in the beginning, when she's supposed to hate him, you can still sense the underlying attraction between them.



• The fact that it's 2 hours long instead of 6: This is important. I have actually sat down and watched all 6 hours of the BBC miniseries in one day. It's definately still the best adaptation, but, with this film, you don't have to commit to all 6 hours in order to get the gist of the story. They had all of the important moments and it was still enjoyable. Granted, the passage of time wasn't as apparent as it is in the miniseries, but they do a pretty good job of trying to convey it in certain scenes.



• Not enough Wickham: Don't get me wrong, I hate his character, but there were too few scenes with him. You can't judge his character within the two main scenes that he's in. You don't even get the feeling that he "hates" Mr. Darcy as he's supposed to (though you definately feel the hatred from Mr. Darcy). Plus, he looked like Orlando Bloom's ugly cousin... and that's not a compliment.



• Improvement with Jane Bennet: No offense to Susannah Harker, but you are not, as Mrs. Bennet says, the beauty of the family. In the words of Alanna, she looks like a dinosaur. Jane is supposed to be the most beautiful of all the Bennet's daughters, but Elizabeth was definately the prettiest in the miniseries. I think they improved on that with this film. Rosamund Pike is noticeably prettier than Susannah Harker and, in my opinion, prettier than Keira Knightley, though that may be because I'm just sick of Keira Knightley's face plastered everywhere.
  

The cons:

• WHAT DID YOU DO TO MR. BINGLEY????????: *ahem* Seriously. What. Did. You. Do. Mr. Bingley is not a tongue-tied mentally deficient moron with exploded hair and bulging eyes. I can understand the stammering. He's so in love with Jane that he can't control his speech, etc etc. But really... give him so pomade for god's sake! He honestly comes across as someone who can't think for himself, and only FINALLY proposes to Jane because Darcy told him to.



• Keira Knightley: I'm sorry my dear, but frankly, you sucked. Okay, sucked is maybe too harsh a term, but you certainly didn't win me over. I don't know what it was... maybe it's just because I've gotten so used to seeing Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet that I just can't possibly accept anyone else playing her. But I don't think that's it. I think it's because you sucked.



• The fact that she was in every scene: See above. If I thought she sucked, the fact that she's in almost every scene didn't do all that much to try and persuade me otherwise. They should have included the scene where Darcy goes and finds Wickham and Lydia and forces them to marry. Colin Firth did that bit SO well. Angry Mr. Darcy was so awesome.



• Costumes: Not a very big negative. They were still good, but just not as good as they were in the '95 version.



• The fact that it's only 2 hours: Yeah yeah, this was in the pros, so sue me. There are so many small scenes in the 1995 version that I've gotten attached to that weren't in this movie, and that really disappointed me. Such as the scene where Mr. Darcy gets all fussy about his clothing before he goes to meet with Elizabeth because he's planning to propose again (at least that's what I believe), or even the scene just after he proposes for the first time and both characters reflect on what they said to each other.



• Lydia Bennet: Lydia is supposed to be British... not fake American-British. Why they decided to use Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet is beyond me. They did a great job at getting newcomers for Mary and Kitty (Talulah Riley and Carey Mulligan), so why the hell did they use her??



• Charlotte Lucas: Speaking of miscasting. God. Charlotte may not be the pick of the batch, but my GOD.



• SAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN "well then": I don't know why this part bugs me as much as it does. One of the last scenes has Mr. Darcy basically re-professing his love for Elizabeth (absolutely beautifully shot). Anyone who's seen the miniseries or has read the book knows which scene I mean. Poor Mr. Darcy pours his heart out in a very romantic fashion, telling her that she's "bewitched him body and soul" and that he loves her... and all she can say is "well then". WELL THEN. Forgive me, but if I had someone as hot as Matthew MacFadyen tell he wanted to be with me forever: I think I'd say more than "well then".

One thing I'm not sure about is how I feel about how they portrayed Mr. Collins. He was a bit more likeable in this version, but he's more of a boob in the BBC version, which is more fun. He's also more smarmy in the '95 version.
So overall, I think it's worth going to see. I'll probably end up going to see it again, and will most likely buy it when it comes out on DVD. And if you don't go see it, Mr. Darcy will frown at you:

Sahara

Sahara

Summary: Matthew McConaughey swimming, Matthew McConaughey beating the crap out of some dudes, Penelope Cruz pouting, Steve Zahn cracking jokes and losing hats, Matthew McConaughey blowing up crap.......
I hate to be a downer AGAIN, so I will try and point out the good parts of the movie:
Steve Zahn - everything and anything he says. He is not only attractive, he is freaking hilarious too
The iron ship thingy they are searching for
The town they visit in the desert - it's all adobe style, pretty sweet
Ummm.... the bad guy in it, he was pretty cool
The banter between Steven Zahn and Matthew McConaughey (aka Al Giordino and Dirk Pitt)
William H. Macy playing Admiral Sandecker
Ok, I ran out of stuff... and now the bad points:
Matthew McConaughey playing Dirk Pitt
Matthew McConaughey cracking jokes as Dirk Pitt
Matthew McConaughey
Penelope Cruz
Matthew McConaughey using a plane as a windsurfer
The ridiculous idea that an iron ship could make it's way to a river in Africa
The severe lack of Al kicking butt
The severe lack of Delroy Lindo
The severe lack of William H. Macy
I gotta cut this review short since I'm getting more and more inebriated as the night progresses... It's not a BAD movie per say, it's just not what I pictured a Clive Cussler book-to-movie film to be like. I did NOT picture Matthew McConaughey as Dirk Pitt. I did not like the fact that he played Dirk Pitt as a pretty happy guy, considering Pitt is a pretty tortured individual who flits from girl to girl (like Bond) after the woman he loves dies in the first book. They're fun books to read... they did an alright job of transferring the action to the big screen, I just think it could have been a LOT better. And apparently Clive Cussler feels the same way considering he's sueing the filmmakers. HA TAKE THAT!

The Notebook (old review)

The Notebook

Went to see The Notebook yesterday with Shel and here is what I think of it:

It starts out kind of crappy, since the beginning credits seem to take forever and the ducks seem quite computer-generated. Even the sunset looks kind of fake. And then it goes into the conventional voice-over of an old guy who claims he's "nothing special", when it's clear by the end of the movie that he is (or at least that's what you're supposed to think).

Anyway, then it goes back in time to go over this couple's summer romance. It's the typical "he's a poor country boy and she's a rich city girl". It's very sappy, but I couldn't help but feel that most of their conversations, even if just at the beginning, seemed realistic. There's a conversation between the two of them (Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams) on the street and both of them seem really nervous.
Then, of course, her parents bascially forbid them to see each other because he's "trash, trash, trash!!" and they blubber away. Then she goes home and, seven years later, *gasp*, gets engaged to someone who ISN'T RYAN GOSLING! that tramp. Meanwhile, he's joined the army and fought in the war, where he loses his best friend right in front of his eyes (though they don't bother to go into the certain emotional trauma he would have experienced because of this). He goes home and decides to rebuild a house in a vain attempt to draw Rachel McAdams back to him (must be the constant drinking that makes him think this). But, wait a second!, who's that in the driveway?? oh, how utterly cliche.
I don't care. I still loved it. It was predictable, sappy and most people in the theatre were bawling by the end of it. It's worth going to see simply for Ryan Gosling...

I was impressed by both Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams' acting. I already knew he was a good actor, but I was surprised by her, since the only movie I had seen her in was Mean Girls, which isn't exactly the most intellectually challenging movie.

I enjoyed it, even though the ending was incredibly stupid, simply because it was a chick flick, and every so often, you need a great chick flick to reassure you that you're not going to be alone forever and that you *can* get Ryan Gosling if you try hard enough... bwa hahaha

Troy (old review)

Troy

Yeah, went to see Troy on Saturday afternoon with Jacq, Jeffrey, Lauren and Shel. I have to say that it wasn't *that* bad for the kind of movie it is. For those of us who have read The Iliad, it was rather inaccurate.
Here are the pros and cons:

Pros:

• Amazing CGI


• Detailed costumes and scenery


• Peter O'Toole rocks as Priam and Eric Bana is an excellent Hector


• Nice man candy in Eric Bana, Sean Bean and Orlando Bloom (and please don't try to convince me that Brad Pitt belongs here too.. I am not a fan and Troy just reinforced that)


• There is a cool little allusion to Virgil's Aeneid near the end... if you've read it, you'll know what I mean
  

Cons:

• Not even freakin filmed in Greece, they cheaped out and filmed in Mexico (jaysus, even Gladiator shot inside the Colisseum)


• Speaking of Gladiator, there were many aspects of Troy that ripped off the fine Oscar-winning film... so much so that Jeff kept whispering "Roman Victor!!!"


• Dear Wolfgang, the Trojan war lasted 10 years according to The Iliad, not 17 DAYS... idiot


• Dear Wolfgang, don't try to redeem Achilles at the end by throwing in a pointless romance... sheesh... besides, rumour has it that Achilles and his cousin Patroclus were lovers *gasp*
  

I know that sounds like a LOT of complaining, but I usually hate movies that are based on books... at least, movies that are based on legends. I mean, come on, if they're historical texts that you read in school, or are in Mr. Leitch's infamous "canon", then you shouldn't fuck with it too much. My BIGGEST complaint with Troy was the time thing... Petersen could have snuck in somewhere that the war was longer than Brad Pitt's interest in some temple chick. Even if there was a small note between two scenes saying "9 Years of War and Troy still did not fall" or SOMETHING...
Anyhoo, yeah, well, I WOULD recommend this movie just for the entertainment value... and the eye candy (bwa hahaha)...