Movie: Lars and the Real Girl
Like/Don't Like: Love. I would recommend it to anyone, including my mom.
I was at a church pot luck (the Mormon motto should be: Come for the spirit, stay for the casserole.) and Krii was telling us about this movie and the question on everyone's lips was, "Isn't that the one about the sex doll?" And Krii's answer was, "Yes! It's so great!" So naturally we planned a movie night.
And she's totally right. It's a great movie! Probably one of the sweetest movies I've seen. And it does have a sex doll, which no doubt makes you think, "Ew." But trust me, it's not really about her. It's about Lars. In a nutshell, he buys Bianca on the internet and imagines that she's real and tells everyone that she's his girlfriend. And everyone goes along with it. After the first 10 minutes you start to think of her as a real character. I kept waiting for squirmy eye-averting type moments and they never came. It just kept getting sweeter and more charming. By the end of it I wanted to give people hugs.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Bel Canto
Book: Bel CantoAuthor: Ann Patchett
Like/Don't Like: Like - with a sigh, but I'm not going to tell you what kind of sigh.
I love sweet peas. They are my favorite flower and I look forward to spring every year mostly because there will be sweet peas in my parent's back yard. They're just so beautiful and delicate. And they're the sweetest smelling flower around. Admit it. The sweet pea season only lasts for about a month. Maybe a little longer if we're lucky. But I never think of the end of the sweet peas. Them not making it beyond May never ruins my enjoyment.
It was the same with this book. I read the flap and instantly thought this can't possibly end well, even though there were a few moments of foreshadowing that it could, just possibly, turn out exactly as I hoped it would. I'm not giving anything away. You'll get the same feeling too. A group of foreign diplomats and business men and one opera singer are held hostage in a large home for 4 months. Those things never end with everyone happy. But knowing that it most likely wouldn't end well never once ruined my enjoyment of the story because it was sweet and delicate and beautiful. And I wished, like the characters, that it would go on for a little while longer (although I have to say that reading a 300 page book after reading a 1200 page book was like a glorious vacation for my brain with palm trees and sunshine and tan cabana boys bringing cool glasses of water.)
I think I've mentioned here before how it bothers me when a book jumps from one character voice to the next. I have found that few authors do it very well and instead of giving me lots of different points of view it just gives me a headache. So I think that the greatest accomplishment in this book is that she managed to make it not about 1 or 2 people but about 58 and doing it without any kind of style shift or page break. She would change to a different character mid-paragraph and half the time I wouldn't even notice. It became their story instead of his or her story. Which makes the point of the whole story have more relevance. That beauty and music and love make people happy, even when they don't speak the same language. And even when half of them are holding guns at the the other half.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A Room with a View
Move: A Room with a View (PBS)
Like/Don't Like: It was basically a view of a giant pile of poo. Don't Like.
I was just going to let Wendy do the talking because she said nearly everything that I wanted to say, only better, but I find that I can't keep my righteous indignation quiet.
About 15 minutes into this adaptation I pulled the book off of my shelf to make sure that I was right. And I was. I was absolutely right that the powers behind this movie COMPLETELY RUINED IT! And about 15 minutes before the end, after I realized exactly what I had been fearing was true, I wanted to throw the book at the tv. What rubbish.
I have two major beefs with it:
1.) They changed nearly every character into types: the Emersons, particularly George, were low class lugs; Mr. Beebe and Cecil were gay; Freddy was goofy; Mrs. Honeychurch was Elizabeth McGovern. It was maddening.
2.) The ending. Here, let me tell you how it ended. "Oh, don't bother," you say, "We know the ending. George and Lucy run away to Florence." Yes. They do. But you probably don't know that there is a "Room with a View. The Continuing Story." wherein George goes off to war and DIES and Lucy goes back to Florence and hooks up with the cab driver who originally took them all to see the view. Who knew?
Okay, and I'm going to add a third reason, which is not exclusive to this adaptation because even Merchant-Ivory got it wrong, but it's important nonetheless.
3.) I would just like to ask the very important question: how hard is it to plant a few violets? Huh? Because even with my pathetic memory for scenes in books, the one where George kisses Lucy is etched in my brain, even though it's only about a quarter of a page long, because of all the violets. It's suppose to be the well-head of all of earth's beauties but every time it's put on film it is always some brown field of wheat. If they had spent some of the cigarettes for Cecil budget on planting a few violets I would have been more forgiving of it's other flaws.
Like/Don't Like: It was basically a view of a giant pile of poo. Don't Like.
I was just going to let Wendy do the talking because she said nearly everything that I wanted to say, only better, but I find that I can't keep my righteous indignation quiet.
About 15 minutes into this adaptation I pulled the book off of my shelf to make sure that I was right. And I was. I was absolutely right that the powers behind this movie COMPLETELY RUINED IT! And about 15 minutes before the end, after I realized exactly what I had been fearing was true, I wanted to throw the book at the tv. What rubbish.
I have two major beefs with it:
1.) They changed nearly every character into types: the Emersons, particularly George, were low class lugs; Mr. Beebe and Cecil were gay; Freddy was goofy; Mrs. Honeychurch was Elizabeth McGovern. It was maddening.
2.) The ending. Here, let me tell you how it ended. "Oh, don't bother," you say, "We know the ending. George and Lucy run away to Florence." Yes. They do. But you probably don't know that there is a "Room with a View. The Continuing Story." wherein George goes off to war and DIES and Lucy goes back to Florence and hooks up with the cab driver who originally took them all to see the view. Who knew?
Okay, and I'm going to add a third reason, which is not exclusive to this adaptation because even Merchant-Ivory got it wrong, but it's important nonetheless.
3.) I would just like to ask the very important question: how hard is it to plant a few violets? Huh? Because even with my pathetic memory for scenes in books, the one where George kisses Lucy is etched in my brain, even though it's only about a quarter of a page long, because of all the violets. It's suppose to be the well-head of all of earth's beauties but every time it's put on film it is always some brown field of wheat. If they had spent some of the cigarettes for Cecil budget on planting a few violets I would have been more forgiving of it's other flaws.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Sense and Sensibility
Movie: Sense and Sensibility (PBS)
Like/Don't Like: Like. Dual or no dual.
Now, we all know that the reason why I started this blog was because I have a very pathetic memory. I can read a book 10 times and still not remember specific things that happen in it, even a week later. It's embarrassing but I've learned to live with it. Occasionally, someone, usually Katie, will mention a scene in a book or a movie and I'll nod my head and hmm wisely like I totally remember it but what I'm actually doing is stalling for time while the wee little pixies in my brain start uncovering layers of useless facts to get to that particular memory. You see, it's in there, it's just overwhelmed by information like the proper ration of oatmeal to water (1:2) and what the capital of Slovenia is (Llubljana).
Which made this adaption a little frustrating for me. I don't want to give you the wrong idea, because I really liked it. The actors were good and nicely cast, the scenery, music, and costumes were perfect. And it was a two-parter, which, in theory, I'm opposed to, but in this case, it's what I've been praying for since the very beginning of the whole Jane Austen on PBS thing started. But there were a lot of liberties taken. Or, at least, I think there were a lot because even though I've read the book 3 or 4 times, as recently as a year ago even, I can't for the life of me remember if half the things that happened in the movie actually happened in the book. But the whole time I had the suspicion that they hadn't. I can rattle off European capitals on demand but I can't remember whether or not Marianne went with Willoughby to Cum Magnum. Did she? Oh, who knows.
Even if Andrew Davies did make up everything I can't fault him too much because it really was a good movie. Sure, they had a few too many shots of the turbulent sea and maybe this Edward Ferris was more lucid and charming than we all know him to be. But like I'm going to complain about a guy being charming. I think you'll like it.
Fascinating side note: After it ended I went on imdb to see what the actors (specifically Lucy Steele)(She was Mrs. Beeton) had all been in and every one that I clicked on had been in a Mrs. Marple Mystery. I think it must be the British equivalent of Law and Order.
Like/Don't Like: Like. Dual or no dual.
Now, we all know that the reason why I started this blog was because I have a very pathetic memory. I can read a book 10 times and still not remember specific things that happen in it, even a week later. It's embarrassing but I've learned to live with it. Occasionally, someone, usually Katie, will mention a scene in a book or a movie and I'll nod my head and hmm wisely like I totally remember it but what I'm actually doing is stalling for time while the wee little pixies in my brain start uncovering layers of useless facts to get to that particular memory. You see, it's in there, it's just overwhelmed by information like the proper ration of oatmeal to water (1:2) and what the capital of Slovenia is (Llubljana).
Which made this adaption a little frustrating for me. I don't want to give you the wrong idea, because I really liked it. The actors were good and nicely cast, the scenery, music, and costumes were perfect. And it was a two-parter, which, in theory, I'm opposed to, but in this case, it's what I've been praying for since the very beginning of the whole Jane Austen on PBS thing started. But there were a lot of liberties taken. Or, at least, I think there were a lot because even though I've read the book 3 or 4 times, as recently as a year ago even, I can't for the life of me remember if half the things that happened in the movie actually happened in the book. But the whole time I had the suspicion that they hadn't. I can rattle off European capitals on demand but I can't remember whether or not Marianne went with Willoughby to Cum Magnum. Did she? Oh, who knows.
Even if Andrew Davies did make up everything I can't fault him too much because it really was a good movie. Sure, they had a few too many shots of the turbulent sea and maybe this Edward Ferris was more lucid and charming than we all know him to be. But like I'm going to complain about a guy being charming. I think you'll like it.
Fascinating side note: After it ended I went on imdb to see what the actors (specifically Lucy Steele)(She was Mrs. Beeton) had all been in and every one that I clicked on had been in a Mrs. Marple Mystery. I think it must be the British equivalent of Law and Order.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Run, Fat Boy, Run
Movie: Run, Fat Boy, Run
Like/Don't Like: Like
I'm a sucker for funny British movies. And this is a funny British movie, which means that it's already at an advantage. Although, it didn't seem very British. Which made more sense at the end when I saw that Michael Ian Black wrote it and Ross Geller, um, what's his name, David Schwimmer, directed it. Not British. But still funny. It got a little muddled near the end but it was touching and charming and I laughed out loud a lot. That's a good sign. But, cover your eyes when the Very Large Blister Scene appears. You've been warned.
Like/Don't Like: Like
I'm a sucker for funny British movies. And this is a funny British movie, which means that it's already at an advantage. Although, it didn't seem very British. Which made more sense at the end when I saw that Michael Ian Black wrote it and Ross Geller, um, what's his name, David Schwimmer, directed it. Not British. But still funny. It got a little muddled near the end but it was touching and charming and I laughed out loud a lot. That's a good sign. But, cover your eyes when the Very Large Blister Scene appears. You've been warned.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Atlas Shrugged
Book: Atlas Shrugged
Author: Ayn Rand
Like/Don't Like: Like. Although I have already forgotten the first 700 pages.
Have any of you who haven't read this heard anything about it? It's always been on my list of books I should read and that I picked up on a recommendation but when I actually started reading it I realized that I didn't know a thing about it. This is unusual. I generally know at least the basic plot line of most well known classics. But I honestly had never heard a single thing about this one. Strange.
Well, now I know why. It's not the easiest plot to explain. It's easy enough to say that it's about capitalism, sort of, and big time industrialists vanishing, in a way, and a vicious commentary on socialism mixed in with economic theory and Aristotelian philosophy (Fact#1: I can promise you that this will be the one and only time I ever use the word Aristotelian, so you had better enjoy it. And please still be my friend. Fact #2: The only way that I actually know that Aristotelian is even a word is because there was this guy in one of my classes who used it EVERY TIME HE OPENED HIS MOUTH. And I wanted to shoot myself in the foot each time. And I want to shoot myself in the foot now for using it but I find, much to my surprise, that it actually applies in this case.) But the book is nearly 1200 pages so to say that it's just about these things is to say that Tyra Banks is just about smiling with your eyes. We all know that Tyra is so much more. (Fact#3: First time Atlas Shrugged has ever been compared to Tyra Banks.)
I was talking to someone the other day and explaining the book a little bit and she said, "That doesn't sound like anything you would even remotely read." Boy, is that true. Economics, business, philosophy, 1200 pages, a 60 page soliloquy near the end, basically all add up to being a book I would shun with a firm hand. But remember, I didn't know. And I'm so glad that I didn't because I loved it. It was a really incredible book. The story was great, the characters where strong, it moved along nicely (especially since I skimmed most of that 60 page soliloquy)(and I'm not making that up. See pages 1009 to 1069.) I think it helped that she was a screen writer also. She was great in her descriptions, although I did get a little tired of her describing nearly everyone at some point as having a blank expression but with very significant meaning behind it. I get to a point in every fatty book when I'm done with it and I'm ready to toss it, simply because I feel like I've dedicated enough of my time and want it to wrap up so I can get back to my life. It says something that that point didn't come until about page 1000. And really, once that soliloquy was done and the story picked back up I was ready to make a sprint to the end.
This is not to say that I didn't have my issues with it. Ayn Rand was definitely extreme in her views, which means that this book, which is, admittedly, a vehicle to explaining those views, is one of extremes. The philosophies where very black and white. Either you believed in Self over Society or Society over Self. She usually sacrificed anyone in the middle and that bothered me. The world isn't made up of extremes, but that's how she portrayed it. And by about half way through I started to say, "Yeah, I got it. Stop explaining." Because it wasn't too difficult to figure out who John Galt was and what he was up to. (You'll get a little tired of the question, "Who is John Galt?" I won't tell you who he is, but I will tell you he's a Chatty Cathy. See pages 1009 to 1069.)
So, I'm going to recommend this book but with a warning that the 60-pager was the longest but was not the only multi-paged personal manifesto.
Author: Ayn Rand
Like/Don't Like: Like. Although I have already forgotten the first 700 pages.
Have any of you who haven't read this heard anything about it? It's always been on my list of books I should read and that I picked up on a recommendation but when I actually started reading it I realized that I didn't know a thing about it. This is unusual. I generally know at least the basic plot line of most well known classics. But I honestly had never heard a single thing about this one. Strange.
Well, now I know why. It's not the easiest plot to explain. It's easy enough to say that it's about capitalism, sort of, and big time industrialists vanishing, in a way, and a vicious commentary on socialism mixed in with economic theory and Aristotelian philosophy (Fact#1: I can promise you that this will be the one and only time I ever use the word Aristotelian, so you had better enjoy it. And please still be my friend. Fact #2: The only way that I actually know that Aristotelian is even a word is because there was this guy in one of my classes who used it EVERY TIME HE OPENED HIS MOUTH. And I wanted to shoot myself in the foot each time. And I want to shoot myself in the foot now for using it but I find, much to my surprise, that it actually applies in this case.) But the book is nearly 1200 pages so to say that it's just about these things is to say that Tyra Banks is just about smiling with your eyes. We all know that Tyra is so much more. (Fact#3: First time Atlas Shrugged has ever been compared to Tyra Banks.)
I was talking to someone the other day and explaining the book a little bit and she said, "That doesn't sound like anything you would even remotely read." Boy, is that true. Economics, business, philosophy, 1200 pages, a 60 page soliloquy near the end, basically all add up to being a book I would shun with a firm hand. But remember, I didn't know. And I'm so glad that I didn't because I loved it. It was a really incredible book. The story was great, the characters where strong, it moved along nicely (especially since I skimmed most of that 60 page soliloquy)(and I'm not making that up. See pages 1009 to 1069.) I think it helped that she was a screen writer also. She was great in her descriptions, although I did get a little tired of her describing nearly everyone at some point as having a blank expression but with very significant meaning behind it. I get to a point in every fatty book when I'm done with it and I'm ready to toss it, simply because I feel like I've dedicated enough of my time and want it to wrap up so I can get back to my life. It says something that that point didn't come until about page 1000. And really, once that soliloquy was done and the story picked back up I was ready to make a sprint to the end.
This is not to say that I didn't have my issues with it. Ayn Rand was definitely extreme in her views, which means that this book, which is, admittedly, a vehicle to explaining those views, is one of extremes. The philosophies where very black and white. Either you believed in Self over Society or Society over Self. She usually sacrificed anyone in the middle and that bothered me. The world isn't made up of extremes, but that's how she portrayed it. And by about half way through I started to say, "Yeah, I got it. Stop explaining." Because it wasn't too difficult to figure out who John Galt was and what he was up to. (You'll get a little tired of the question, "Who is John Galt?" I won't tell you who he is, but I will tell you he's a Chatty Cathy. See pages 1009 to 1069.)
So, I'm going to recommend this book but with a warning that the 60-pager was the longest but was not the only multi-paged personal manifesto.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Penelope
Movie: Penelope
Like/Don't Like: Like.
Am I alone in thinking that maybe Christina Ricci's head was a little too large for her body? Anyone? It's like she lost all of this weight and she always has her hair pulled back with rather severe bangs. It just makes her look a little bit like a lollipop. I'm not going to lie, it has always scared me a little. So, maybe it was the fetching hair style, or possibly the pig nose, but her head didn't look nearly as large in this movie. In fact, she actually looked really cute in it. Which made the premise that she was so ugly that possible suitors would leap out of second story windows to get away from her a little far fetched. But whatever, this was a cute move. Cute Christina Ricci in cute clothes with cute music playing behind her in a cute storyline. And cute James McAvoy. Cute, cute, cute. Dear James McAvoy, You are cute. Love Rachel.
Like/Don't Like: Like.
Am I alone in thinking that maybe Christina Ricci's head was a little too large for her body? Anyone? It's like she lost all of this weight and she always has her hair pulled back with rather severe bangs. It just makes her look a little bit like a lollipop. I'm not going to lie, it has always scared me a little. So, maybe it was the fetching hair style, or possibly the pig nose, but her head didn't look nearly as large in this movie. In fact, she actually looked really cute in it. Which made the premise that she was so ugly that possible suitors would leap out of second story windows to get away from her a little far fetched. But whatever, this was a cute move. Cute Christina Ricci in cute clothes with cute music playing behind her in a cute storyline. And cute James McAvoy. Cute, cute, cute. Dear James McAvoy, You are cute. Love Rachel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)