Silver Screen in a Red Envelope: A Diary of Time Wasted

 This one's due back at the library really soon, so I made myself sit through it. It wasn't too difficult. The film contained some truly amusing images and Anna Friel (a favorite since Pushing Daisies ). The movie was funny on much the same lines as The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra  but where Lost Skeleton  mocks with pure and pointed satire, Land of the Lost  upped the budget, and lost the cult value. The script contained the obligatory sex jokes, but not to a nauseating extent, just enough to titillate the teens. It also contained some really funny moments, such as A Chorus Line , and a well-placed walnut. It was refreshing to see a CGI T-rex upstage Will Ferrell. Ferrell's humor and lines leaned toward the slightly overdone, but his comic timing still impressed me. Anna Friel seemed unfortunately to be playing second-fiddle. I can't be certain of her real lead potential, since she seems so often to be hiding behind her leading men. The third and fourth main character

 Because it was expiring tomorrow, I thought I'd just check it out. I'm actually pretty glad I did. Although this film takes blatant advantage of several simple facts unknown to non-users back in the nineties, the sequences most unrealistic are also strictly symbolic. The movie doesn't just fill in the boring blanks with nonsense, but they don't explain that it's symbolism either, leaving those familiar with computers to scoff and roll their eyes. To them I say, "It's a movie. Get over yourselves." It's the film equivalent of impressionism. It's not at all interested in reflecting reality, but certainly engaged in capturing how the eye reflects a kind of reality. The director paced this film differently than I'm used to. It wasn't necessarily boring, but it didn't follow the same threat/climax pattern we see in most techno-action stories. I felt that it benefited from this evenness, but sadly, not at the box office. Jonny Lee Mi

 The scene of Parker Posy having sex on a giant oak dining table must have remained burned into my unconscious since I first saw this film years ago. I'd forgotten all about it until just the other night. The film as a whole must have been entirely unmemorable, and yet when I'd finished, it seemed unforgettable. The resolution was much more satisfying than the usually bitchy-businesswoman flick. Julianne Moore's character actually softened several times, like Amy Adams's character in Leap Year , which she more than half resembled. As Moore's character toddled, dragging her suitcase on wheels, down the Irish road after the beat-up, rented car I even muttered "Is it your own self, Louis" and "Throw it in the wash, it'll be grand." Pierce Brosnan played a delightfully soft role here, with real emotional passion, and yet his character showed that lawyer zing only available to really successful jackasses. His character came across as nuanced and

 With beautiful music, and some truly wonderful dance scenes filmed with creativity and a great eye for everything but color, this film captured my imagination. The story is classic, with no real twists or turns, although a few moments made me flinch. This film was made in a time when Hollywood was just starting to become aware of its own race issues. The gypsy woman is obviously a caucasian in blackface, and Fernando Lamas is hispanic, but playing a character from a small, Germanic or French-speaking country. His voice is lovely, though, and I don't think they could have improved on it, although they might have made Marshovia nearer Spain or Portugal (or even South America). The costumer should be congratulated. Lana Turner's dresses were impeccable. Enthusiasm about the story itself requires belief in the "reformed rake" plot, which has never been a strong point for me. I prefer a nice, upstanding nerd.

I haven't watched many movies lately, but I've got quite a list waiting for me to get to, once the holidays are over and I'm done re-taking the GRE (I didn't realize they expired. Lucky me). In the meantime, television has been my distraction of choice, and here are my favorite distractions this year (I mean, except my typewriter, of course) ("Opry calls it multi-tasking"). Since I don't have any actual satellite, cable, or air television, I catch all of these shows LEGALLY online, streaming on the Wii, or by ordering the discs. 10. The Pretender  I watched this show briefly as a kid, and thought it ended pretty intriguingly, so I decided to give it another try, via hulu.com. I imagine it didn't win many awards, but for fluffy time-killing, it works just fine. Michael Weiss's acting does get a bit tedious, but I'm hoping he warms up in later seasons. The thing I find fascinating about this story, like most of the things I watch, is the villa

 Featuring what must potentially be Cillian Murphy's bare backside, this film walked a thin line between brilliantly amusing and marginally pointless. I adored all the movie references (and I recommend the '59 Body Snatchers), and despite what that might say about me, I don't at all feel the need to run around wreaking havoc on any kind of level whatsoever. The envelope it came in described the female character as  "femme fatale" - most likely to compare her to the noir films referenced so often, but she wasn't nearly so sinister. Technically, yes, she got the "hero" in trouble (some pretty deep trouble, if you consider it realistically), but the entirety of the plot did not include any larger events, murders, artificial inflations of that kind, etc. It was simply (or complexly?) a romance between a sedentary nerd and a marginally abusive lunatic, both of whom were fairly brilliantly acted, but don't tell Cillian; he'll get a swollen head.

 The contrast between sex and romance in this film amazed me. Strong elements of real emotional romance made strong appearances and held the plot together well, and yet throughout the whole thing, in the ending especially, the director reduces that potentially epic romance to its most crass. I felt disappointed. Russell Crowe impressed me significantly. His performance, though obviously not the focal point of the film, showed real skill and nuance. Bridget Fonda was adequate, though not at all impressive. I always enjoy watching her anyway, for some reason, even knowing that she's simply not as good as her name makes her sound. The magic in the movie had the same problem as the romance, in a kind of profound parallel. Although it had the potential (with a slightly higher budget, I must assume) to sweep the audience off it's feet, like the romance, it was reduced to a sausage and a ring. [insert naughty joke here]. The camera work irritated me. The filming locations were n

 Obscure. Obscured. Obscuring. MASH seemed blurry, unnecessarily complicated, and difficult to unpick, like some three-pound knot entirely in thread. I had an extremely difficult time understanding the significance of several of the shots - even to the point where some of them seemed like abstract photography, without the innate art value. This film has undisputed cultural significance for the seventies, and the career of the director, but thematically, several elements emerge as gallingly un-PC. The sexism specifically appalled. It really sort of explains bra-burning, which I never quite understood. Again, just like in Hitchcock's The Trouble with Harry I find myself sympathizing with the obvious antagonists. Major Hoolihan may have been written as a ridiculous and limited character, but the indignities she suffered at the hands of her co-workers could never be justified, even to protest a war. And when she acts justifiably hysterical, she is ignored by her superiors, and mocke

Clearly Harry Potter is much less whiny in this film than in the book. I didn't absolutely hate him. I thought it was actually sympathetically played, and surprisingly, well-played. I didn't enjoy hating Imelda Staunton, whose acting has always impressed, which was a switch, since I thoroughly enjoyed hating David Tennant in the previous film, and I'm an immortal Whovian. I love Luna. The director did very well distilling a complex story into a couple of hours. Die-hards will naturally complain that their favorite scenes were left out. I don't recall watching Harry and Cho make out in the film more than that first kiss (although I admit, Nanowrimo distracted me), which is certainly a blessing. We get it. All of the facts included in the film make sense in the realm of the film. I can only imagine the nightmare that would have been for a conscientious director. The effects were a bit confusing, which I think was the idea. Crisp wizard battling might have become a b

 Just a sidenote, I think "chalice" is a better word than "goblet," especially in this context. This movie actually made me laugh more than the others. I'm glad. I need a light note before I launch into The Order of the Phoenix tonight. Goblet of Fire definitely pivots the entire series. Up until this film, the series has been light, and adolescent. From this point on, from Cedric's death, it's all misery and allegory. It's a difficult note for a film to end on, and it certainly showed the strain. The ending didn't even seem bitter-sweet; it wasn't deep enough for that. It felt. . . empty, like the director was in shock when he filmed it. Like the audience was when they watched. The colorfulness of the wizarding world no longer seemed cheerful and wondrous, but turned into something a little more Tim Burton (or Edward Gorey) than the audience perhaps expected. It's dark Disney. It's a twisted childhood. I remember loving the fl

 Apparently I've got a thing for Claire Forlani, but she keeps getting stuck in all these unfortunate movies, playing the same character. Still, I'm going to blame the directors and/or writers. I think the only movie Ms. Forlani really stands out in is The Medallion  with Jackie Chan. Loved that one! Anyway, this film is necessarily more romance than thriller, although it had its intense elements as well. The chemistry between characters/actors really impressed me. I think the moment I found out it was based on a book by Nora Robers, I knew where it was going, and sort of tried to ignore the inevitability of it all. I knew whodunnit by the second scene, and I HATE figuring it out. I go out of my way to NOT figure it out, but it sort of thumped me on the head early on anyway. Unless you're in the mood for a pretty intense romance (or you're Miriam), skip this one. I don't even care what rottentomatoes gave this film.

I actually recognized several actors from this film. For an indy, this film gets a passing grade, although I'd hate to see it on a curve up against big studio films. The plot was regrettably predictable. I admire the periodicity of the thing, though. The crew caught the fifties pretty well. See it only as a curiosity, not for any real criticism. (incidentally, this film rated a whopping 78% on the tomatometer. I can't really see why, unless the film gets a bonus for being indy). I'm afraid Nanowrimo is going to cut my entries short for November, but fortunately, I don't see any really important films on my queue for a while, so it shouldn't make a difference. Stephen, I promise to make an exception for any Harry Potter films I see.

The third of this series reminded me quite forcefully why I dread these stories. Bad things happen. We're talking endless misery bad things. I HATE stories like this. And honestly, the occasional light moment doesn't really make up for it. This movie bodes very ill for the remaining five. I almost stopped watching entirely halfway through. I thought Black was a character that could certainly have been better developed, but I understand the time constraints in film-making (as well as half a dozen directors who ignore them entirely). I hope I make it.

 Dobby frustrated me extremely, as he did in the books. The child-acting was still pretty stinky, but making some improvements. It felt odd to have Ginny, the center, play so little part leading up, although I suppose that would be something of a giveaway. Unfortunately, as it is, it seems like the writer couldn't make up her mind who she should finally make the culprit, although making her an innocent seems to be a clever move. I loved Moaning Myrtle. I thought the Basilisk was clumsily done. This film was neither as funny, nor awe-inspiring as the first, but good enough to be getting on with.

 I recently began re-watching the Harry Potter films to so I could finally catch up. I'm afraid I have only seen up through film number four. My little brothers convinced me I was missing out, although I distinctly remember the books being agonizing. I found the first film noticeably well-done for a children's film. Although the acting made me cringe several times (I had already known Daniel Radcliffe to be a terrible child-actor, after having seen him in David Copperfield ), it didn't really spoil the movie, as the adult acting and the special effects really were a thoroughly amusing ride. I think conceptually, this first film is the most amazing for the wonder it produces as a distressed young boy learns that he is special. Although I still have moral issues with creating any kind of idealistic fantasy in which children are not born equal (see "Percy Jackson"), I got over it for this movie.

I have always had a fascination for Lovecraft, and this indy film captured his style and periodicity quite well. Although no high tech special effects were even attempted, the camera work held the suspense and horror with remarkable veracity. The acting was nothing noteworthy, but all of it was perfectly adequate to hold the audience. And how am I supposed to draw attention to a film for being perfectly adequate? Lovecraft afficionados and true horror fans will certainly be interested already, and anyone else would be ill-equipped to appreciate the work. How 'bout this? It's only forty-five minutes long - the length of a current television episode. I'd recommend investing the time.

 Anne Hathaway managed not to ruin this particular film, but only because she wasn't in it. Although I never really found Madeleine at all sympathetic, this iteration was as unobtrusive, even in her acting, as Dickens wrote her. I liked it. It didn't scream "I'M FAKE!" . James D'Arcy as Nicholas managed his role quite well, although I'm afraid I compare him at moments unfavorably with the RSC giant Roger Rees. Where Rees played Nicholas as one truly headstrong, if not outright violent, D'Arcy underplays that part of his written character and so comes off as just slightly misunderstood. The director amped up the violence and sexuality of this film to reflect our no-longer-Victorian times. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I understood completely. It did not detract from the film as a whole, but rather supplemented interpretations for a current audience who may not fully sympathize otherwise. This version seemed a little abrupt. I felt that