I'm through apologizing when I start a blog entry, apologizing because it has been such a long time since I wrote anything. That's just the way it is. Business as usual. Saw four movies over my "fall break," all of two days -- last Thursday and Friday. So, four days with the weekend. Here are my thumbnail reviews:
The Jane Austen Book Club **
Definitely a chick flick, but a good one to rent. Not one to spend money on and see on the big screen. Lots of Jane Austen talk. I thought it would bore my friend who wasn't familiar with all six novels, but she liked it just fine. One really good performance -- Emily Blount -- playing an American, a very neurotic one. Very convincing. Reminded me of someone I know.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age **1/2
Everyone else in the world seems to love this movie, and, yes, Cate Blanchett, does a wonderful job as Elizabeth. She is a powerful prince. The costumes are stunning; the special effects are effective; the music is, well, a bit overbearing. Clive Owen is a hottie as always, but seems a bit out of place in the movie. My problem: I didn't see a story here. Now, I know there's plenty of history, but not a story. The Raleigh/Liz thing seemed forced and just not there. Where is Errol Flynn when you need him? OK, I realize Errol played Essex against Bette's Liz and Vincent Price was Raleigh, but at least there were sparks with Errol. Geoffrey Rush as Walsingham didn't seem like the same guy from the last movie. I realize the character is a lot older, but he seems to have lost his pizazz. And here's my big problem (and I realize there are good arguments for why this shouldn't be a problem -- as in THIS IS A MOVIE, NOT HISTORY). Anyway, I didn't like the way the writers etc. played around with history. When Cate as Joan of Arc was trying to control that horse she was on before the battle, I thought she might launch into the "Once more into the breach" speech from Henry V. OK, I'll admit I don't know history that well, but would she have worn a suit of armor like that? And I can't believe she stood on some cliff in her nightgown and watched the Armada burn. I think that cliff was why the credits thanked "Ryan's Daughter" for footage borrowed. Bigger problem: Mary Stuart. First, supposedly she was devastatingly beautiful. Samantha Morton isn't unattractive, but she's no belle of the ball. Also, she spoke like a Scottish lass. Now really, didn't the woman spend her formative years in France speaking French? Wouldn't that have been her accent? As I said, I'm no historian, but there was something off about the movie.
Michael Clayton ***
Ah, George Clooney. Not tough to look at at all. Terrific acting in this movie. George did well and Tilda Swinton was a woman on the edge doing terrible things. I also love Sydney Pollack; his roles are always in a certain range, but he does them so well. Tom Wilkinson is his usual amazing self. It was all very well done, but I felt the movie plot was somewhat derivative. It reminded me of The Verdict, Silkwood, and The Insider to name a few. I would, however, recommend spending the $9.50 this one.
Eastern Promises ****
I admit that I really like Croenenberg's movies. History of Violence is up there with my all time favorites. And not just because of Viggo. I must admit, though that Viggo naked trumps George with clothes on any day. Incredibly graphically violent. I had to cover my eyes. Again, masterful acting. Viggo was stunning and in control of the screen whenever he was on it. Naomi Watts was excellent and it was good to see Sinead O'Connor, who should be in more widely distributed films. Armin Mueller-Stahl was disturbingly venal, unbelievably evil. His son, played by Vincent Cassel was a walking disaster -- he did it well. I did figure out what was really going on early in the film, but that didn't spoil the viewing experience at all. All in all, an amazing film -- much beyond the ordinary.
The Jane Austen Book Club **
Definitely a chick flick, but a good one to rent. Not one to spend money on and see on the big screen. Lots of Jane Austen talk. I thought it would bore my friend who wasn't familiar with all six novels, but she liked it just fine. One really good performance -- Emily Blount -- playing an American, a very neurotic one. Very convincing. Reminded me of someone I know.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age **1/2
Everyone else in the world seems to love this movie, and, yes, Cate Blanchett, does a wonderful job as Elizabeth. She is a powerful prince. The costumes are stunning; the special effects are effective; the music is, well, a bit overbearing. Clive Owen is a hottie as always, but seems a bit out of place in the movie. My problem: I didn't see a story here. Now, I know there's plenty of history, but not a story. The Raleigh/Liz thing seemed forced and just not there. Where is Errol Flynn when you need him? OK, I realize Errol played Essex against Bette's Liz and Vincent Price was Raleigh, but at least there were sparks with Errol. Geoffrey Rush as Walsingham didn't seem like the same guy from the last movie. I realize the character is a lot older, but he seems to have lost his pizazz. And here's my big problem (and I realize there are good arguments for why this shouldn't be a problem -- as in THIS IS A MOVIE, NOT HISTORY). Anyway, I didn't like the way the writers etc. played around with history. When Cate as Joan of Arc was trying to control that horse she was on before the battle, I thought she might launch into the "Once more into the breach" speech from Henry V. OK, I'll admit I don't know history that well, but would she have worn a suit of armor like that? And I can't believe she stood on some cliff in her nightgown and watched the Armada burn. I think that cliff was why the credits thanked "Ryan's Daughter" for footage borrowed. Bigger problem: Mary Stuart. First, supposedly she was devastatingly beautiful. Samantha Morton isn't unattractive, but she's no belle of the ball. Also, she spoke like a Scottish lass. Now really, didn't the woman spend her formative years in France speaking French? Wouldn't that have been her accent? As I said, I'm no historian, but there was something off about the movie.
Michael Clayton ***
Ah, George Clooney. Not tough to look at at all. Terrific acting in this movie. George did well and Tilda Swinton was a woman on the edge doing terrible things. I also love Sydney Pollack; his roles are always in a certain range, but he does them so well. Tom Wilkinson is his usual amazing self. It was all very well done, but I felt the movie plot was somewhat derivative. It reminded me of The Verdict, Silkwood, and The Insider to name a few. I would, however, recommend spending the $9.50 this one.
Eastern Promises ****
I admit that I really like Croenenberg's movies. History of Violence is up there with my all time favorites. And not just because of Viggo. I must admit, though that Viggo naked trumps George with clothes on any day. Incredibly graphically violent. I had to cover my eyes. Again, masterful acting. Viggo was stunning and in control of the screen whenever he was on it. Naomi Watts was excellent and it was good to see Sinead O'Connor, who should be in more widely distributed films. Armin Mueller-Stahl was disturbingly venal, unbelievably evil. His son, played by Vincent Cassel was a walking disaster -- he did it well. I did figure out what was really going on early in the film, but that didn't spoil the viewing experience at all. All in all, an amazing film -- much beyond the ordinary.
George Clooney it is, then -- tomorrow!
ReplyDelete