New Movie Review: The Woman in Black

As you might have guessed, I was very excited about seeing this movie. Did it live up to the hype in my head?

Not quite. But that was mostly my own fault. The movie was actually great looking, very atmospheric and pretty darned spooky. Unfortunately, I had just read the book. And therein, as they say, lies the problem. The writers took quite a few liberties with the plot, and I couldn't help making the obvious comparison.

Daniel Radcliffe (of Harry Potter fame) was a nice casting choice for Arthur Kipps, the young lawyer on a tragically unfortunate mission. He had one particularly strong scene in the police department where some young boys drag their deathly ill sister in for help. There was a true poignancy to the moment when Arthur tries to assist her. It was at this point that I thought that maybe the film would go in the direction of spooky and heart wrenching. There was certainly a great potential for that route given the fate of the town's children. Unfortunately, it did not go that direction, though it might have (and probably would have) provided a greater emotional impact if it had.

The book version of Arthur Kipps was a self-asssured guy with the mild cockiness associated with youth and a budding law career. He knew nothing of fear or tragedy. This experience was to be his lesson...and his undoing. The movie's Arthur was quite the opposite---withdrawn, melancholy, lost in the sadness of his wife's untimely death. I don't think this was necessarily a bad change, but it was ultimately tied up with a less than impressive new conclusion to the story.

Without giving away the whole ball of wax, there are a couple of scenes near the end that are quite cheesy and not very well done. They are part and parcel with this film's attempt at a semi-happy ending, but it really doesn't work very well. And the director's choices in depicting the scenes were hokey-pokey minus the pokey.

Still, I think I would have quite enjoyed the movie had I not just read the book, and had I not been distracted out of the necessary mood by a less than quiet audience.

I guess you'll have to see it for yourself. Enjoy the trip to the English countryside and the eerie marshes. That part was lovely, in a creepy way. And, of course, read the book!

NEW MOVIE REVIEW: One for the Money

"WHY on earth", you may ask, "did you even go to see this movie?" Well, I just had to see it for myself. That's why. Yes, I can read. I know that the critics hated this, and some think it's first in line for the worst film of the year. Still, I really enjoyed the books and, and ,and, well, I was just hoping maybe it would be a little bit fun.

A few years ago, some of my near and dear family members were reading these Janet Evanovich books---dumb dimestore novels---Suzy Petunia Mystery Stories or some such nonsense. I looked at a few pages, asked my sister why in the hell they were all into this 3rd grade reading level crap (a remark she will not let me forget). So, a few months later, she hands me a big Macy's bag full of these things...like 10 or 12 of them. Stephanie Plum Novels. Fine. I'll give one of them a try, but that's it.

So, 16 books later, I GET IT!! These books are pure entertainment. Stephanie Plum is a novice bounty hunter in New Jersey of all places. You have to laugh out loud sometimes. They employ quite a bit of humor, a smidge of mystery, a dash of action, and a modicum of sassy, sexy romance. It's fun!!  And I discovered that you have a great night's rest if you read this at bedtime. It completely empties your mind and eliminates that annoying ruminating that occurs in bed when you are trying to sleep.

Enter Katherine Heigl. Why is everyone so down on her these days? Meanies. Anyway, everyone on the face of the earth has said something about how terribly miscast she was. I didn't feel she was so terrible, but the direction was just not good. This movie should have been sharp, funny and fast-paced. No such luck. And almost everyone was miscast. Daniel Sunjata was miscast as Ranger, but nonetheless, he kind of grew on you by the end of it. Jason O'Mara, on the other hand, looks okay as Joe Morelli, but uck. His lines were just horrible in spots, and, although he can't help the script, his delivery didn't do anything to improve the situation.

Overall, it was kind of like a mildly amusing tv movie. So, you can thank me for saving you twelve dollars. I took the bullet for you. You're welcome.

MOVIES I LOVE : Go Rent Them

Movies I love...

This list could go on forever, but I'll start here. Please let me know if you take my advice and then hate the movie. That's always an interesting phenomenon. I think that happened recently with a book I recommended to my sister.

Okay, so here we go:

THE GHOST AND MRS MUIR :  This one's from 1947. I really love this movie. It is supremely charming and romantic.  Rex Harrison is a sexy, sea-faring ghost. And Gene Tierney is just breathtakingly beautiful.

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD: (1962) This, for me, is just the greatest of all movies. More than any other movie, this one (combined with reading the book) was an unforgettable and unmatched experience starting at probably age 9 and continuing through adulthood. It is the only movie during which I could close my eyes and simply listen---the writing and the voices of Gregory Peck and Company are that wonderful.

PAN'S LABYRINTH: (2006) Part fantasy, but mostly a story of war and brutality. Heartbreaking and utterly gorgeous. (Spanish language film, so you will have to do subtitles).

THE ORPHANAGE : (2007) The most poignant ghost story you will ever see. I did not cry the first time I saw it, but I cried every time after that. (Also a Spanish language film).

KLUTE: (1971) Jane Fonda is a call-girl and a stalking-victim. Donald Sutherland is a private detective. This movie has brilliant performances (Jane took home the Oscar for Best Actress), killer direction, and one of the creepiest scores put to film. Honestly, I do not recommend that women watch this while alone in the house at night. It could totally mess with your mind. But I still recommend it, because it is AWESOME.

HOUSEBOAT: (1958) This is a light, romantic comedy brought to you by the 1950s---along the lines of those Tammy movies (which I love) and those Doris Day flicks. But this one has Sophia Loren and Cary Grant. 'Nuf said. Two of the most good-looking people you'll ever see in film.

MEMENTO: (2000) This movie could drive a person crazy. You are somewhat trapped in the mind of a person who has no short-term memory. It requires an almost exhausting concentration effort in order to keep track and not get lost, but it is totally worth it. Who doesn't love a good head trip?

UNFAITHFUL: (2002) Great, great, great performances by Diane Lane and, rather surprisingly, Richard Gere. Do not, no matter how tempting, cheat on your spouse. Nothing good can come of this. Although, honestly, it would be extremely difficult to pass on Olivier Martinez; he's the definition of hot in this movie.

NOTES ON A SCANDAL: (2006) Two riveting performances by two great actresses (Dame Judy Dench and Cate Blanchett). This was a stunner for me. There was more than one point in the film where I was thinking, "Holy Crap". I love that.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS: (1995)  Kevin Spacey is just great here. Plus Pete Postlethwaite---gotta love him. Also, I really enjoy Benizio Del Torro and his weird-ass speech impediment. It's a confusing plotline at times, but the end really pays off bigtime.

Okay, a start. I'm sure there will be more to come...

NEW MOVIE REVIEW: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Gary Oldman is the BOMB (remember that one---from the nineties!) in this movie. He portrays George Smiley, a shrewd retired agent of the British version of the CIA---an organization fondly referred to as "the Circus". The thing about Oldman here is that he takes stoic to a-whole-notha level. Consequently, the few (like maybe three) times he does show some emotion, it really packs a wallop.

Examples:

1. When he observes his wife making-out with another man---for 2 seconds he really looks like he's going to have a stroke.
2. When he is "pressing" a wayward colleague for information, he doesn't actually press or act threatening at all. But at one point, he simply leans into the guy's ear and says, "Tell me the address" in a quietly persuasive tone. He has just the smallest smirk about him and it is chilling---like bbbbrrrrrrrr.
3. When he returns to his home after the whole mess is over, his whole body just kind of drops when he sees his wife in the kitchen. We only see her forearm.

The setting is the 1970's. And these ain't your James Bond or Jason Bourne kind of secret agents. Nobody is super-strong or has snazzy equipment. There are no car chases, no roof-jumpings, no explosions. These are more the real deal guys who steal government secrets and occasionally kill people.

The pace is very slow, but engrossing, as Smiley attempts to ferret out who among the top members of the Circus is actually a double-agent working for the Russians. It's a lonely life working in the spy business. You can't trust anyone, it would seem. I liked that this movie was very realistic in that way. The life of a secret agent appears to be kind of a sad one. This job not only didn't seem glamorous, it seemed like knowing you could get killed at anytime was the only real "excitement". People who like that brand of excitement are kinda nutz. Hence, by Jules logic, people who work for the CIA and the like are kinda nutz.

Still, a cool film. 4 stars. Go see it. George Smiley is a strange bird, but you really appreciate him.

NEW BOOK REVIEW: Affinity

Several posts ago, I reviewed The Little Stranger by Sarah Waters. In that review I really struggled---and failed--- to articulate a solid reason why I found that book so compelling.  Now, after reading Affinity, I have a better handle on what makes her books successful sellers. 

First off, as with The Little Stranger, Affinity moves along very slowly toward its climax. After an initial event involving a ghost and a death, nothing terribly exciting happens for quite some time. Still, you are pulled into the day-to day workings of a very specific and detailed place in time. The images and voices of the period are so well drawn that you become immersed. It's truly an unfamiliar world for most of us, and Ms. Water's has a way of letting you hear, see, feel and even smell that world miraculously without becoming bogged down in descriptors. She gives just the right amount of information. It's the next best thing to being there.

She also uses first person narration to great advantage in both books. While the gentleman narrator in The Little Stranger seemed a very "normal" sort of person, the two narrators in Affinity are both very troubled women. One is a curiosity, for sure. The other, though, is someone we can easily relate to, understand, and sympathize with. In each case, your interest is piqued and held even as you seem to travel with them through their daily routine comings and goings.

Both books are psychological ghost stories. Is this real? Is it imagined? Is it mental illness or a cruel hoax? They are not, then, overtly scary, but more worrisome, sorrowful and melancholy.

A bit about the subject matter in Affinity. I'm just gonna be blunt here. Most of us are not lesbians--estimates go as high as 8% or so, I think. I'm in California, so I feel like there are more, but the fact is that probably 90% of  women are straight.  So, even the subtlest of Victorian lesbianism is interesting, I think. It's something we don't know much about. Besides not having the life experience, we haven't read a lot on the subject either. I can safely say this is my first Victorian lesbian romance, and I suspect that is the case for most of the readers. But, hey, it won't necessarily be my last. It is not the same thing as hetero romance. There are commonalities, of course, but it's different and, hence, more interesting on some levels. 

I hope that doesn't scare anyone off. It is the subtlest of subtle, truly. Give it a whirl!

On A Personal Note

RIP Morris ~ You were very loved and will be sorely missed ♥

The One You've Been Waiting For: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Why an American film version?

Boy, talk about your hotly debated remakes. Firstly, the Swedish film version of 2009 was quite popular in the U.S., so I don't hold with all the talk about Americans being too lazy or stupid to deal with subtitles. If some people find that having to read subtitles detracts from the full film experience, that makes them neither lazy, nor stupid. It's simply an experiential debate, in my opinion. Anyway, plenty of us lazy, stupid Americans managed to read the subtitles for this film. I don't think the remake was in any way meant to pander to Americans who dislike subtitles. Actually, I think the popularity of the Swedish film, combined with the popularity of the Steig Larssons's book, is largely what drove the remaking of this movie. It's an opportunity to make money. It's also an opportunity for filmakers to have their way in interpreting the source material. Have at it, fellas. Why not an American version?

The Inevitable Comparison

I feel as though I won't be able to fairly compare the two films without watching both this version and the Swedish version one more time. However, I am not going to do that right now, so this unfair comparison will have to suffice. I'll start with the pet peeve.

When I first heard that Daniel Craig was cast as Mikael Blomkvist, I was concerned that he would be too athletic, too macho, and too damned good-looking to portray the middle-aged journalist. Lisbeth Salander is the action hero of this story, not Mikael Blomkvist. I must say, though, that Craig did a fine job with the role. He gave a controlled, believable performance. However, they did him no favors by dressing him so well.  He can't help that he has a very taut body (or actually, maybe he should've tried to gain a few donut pounds), but the wardrobe director did not have to make it so obvious. Did you get a load of how his clothes fit? Puleeeez. I guess Swedes get even their down jackets tailored.

For the general public, Rooney Mara as Lisbeth seemed to strike the bigger casting controversy, but I have to say, I think she was fine. I think the Swedish film did more to enable the audience to understand Lisbeth's character, but I thought Mara did well with the road traveled in this version. I think she could actually be great in the 2nd and 3rd films, which I presume (and fervently hope) will be made. Not taking anything away from Noomi Rapace, though, who was fantastic in her own right.

Apparently, some folks took issue with the length of the almost 2 3/4 hour American film. I actually loved the pacing and loved the detail. I'm probably in a minority, but even 3 hours would have been fine with me. Some thought the piece at the end (after the mystery is resolved) was unnecessary, but I found it useful. All except the bit at the the very end. I don't think Lisbeth had any romantic expectations of Mikael, and I don't think she would have been the least surprised, much less bothered, by his spending time with Erika, his longtime lover. More true to Lisbeth's character: Walk right up and hand him a gift in front of Erika.

As with all great stories, understanding the motivation of key characters is critical. I feel the Swedish version did a better job with this. Prime example is the plotline involving Lisbeth and her public guardian.

Why would Lisbeth, a hard-as-nails survivor, allow any man to force or manipulate her into doing anything she did not want to do? You would expect her to say 'f*ck-off' and thrust her knee into his crotch. What on earth could he do or say to force a different reaction? The Swedish film made it very clear, both in set-up and in action, that he had her truly cornered. He had something she could not do without. We understood that, and also understood that Lisbeth was somehow accustomed to getting nasty jobs done in order to get what she needed.

Another example is the relationship between Harriet and Henrick. There was a lot of love and support in that relationship; that was clear. Why would an adult Harriet not inform her uncle--and the police, for that matter-- about the events of her youth? The Swedish film did a much better job of detailing the grisly nature of events, the abject terror that ruled Harriet's young life, and the guttural pain and lasting fear that would lead a person to completely put away that part of their life forever---even at the cost of the lives of others.

Other little things in the film were also missing, for me. I think it makes for a more effective mystery if you cast suspicious light on a number of characters. This version, I felt, did less of that. We needed more contact with Harald and the other Vangers. They were all apparently horrid people, so the guilty party could have been any one of them, or any two or three of them. Let us have a chance to look at them with suspicion.

All in all, though, this was a good film. Very engrossing and a perfectly legitimate take on the story. The greater thing that will come of this, I hope, is that the 2nd and 3rd films will be made. The Swedish made-for-tv versions were okay at best---not even close to the quality of the first film. The lazy, stupid Americans have a great opportunity here to do justice to those stories. I can hardly wait!

The Golden Globes and Other Notes....

The Golden Globes Nominees are out. Sadly, I have seen only one of the films nominated for Best Picture/Drama. I did really enjoy the one that I saw. It would be very hard not to enjoy The Help. Despite some faults, it was, in the end, a beautifully shot, well-acted, touching film. 

I did see three of the five films nominated for Best Picture/Musical or Comedy.  I didn't love Bridesmaids as much as some folks, but there were a couple of hilarious moments. Melissa McCarthy definitely gave the breakout performance of that film.  I am surprised she was not nominated.  I also saw 50/50, and enjoyed that quite a bit. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is hard not to love. But the winner for me? Midnight in Paris. I enjoyed that so much that I'd hop in an imaginary car at midnight and go see it again. As far as the best actor award in the same category (musical or comedy), I'd give it to Ryan Gosling for Crazy, Stupid, Love. He was quite awesome playing a truly yuck-o, lounge lizard for the new millennium. 

And the big nominee for me? Best Television Drama: American Horror Story. Now I am not saying that it should win (because I can't entirely argue with some critics who have called it a big ole mess), but I completely understand those who love it. This is the most entertaining, "ohshi*didthatreallyjusthappen" show on television.

Very soon I shall be seeing The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. And, yes, despite my concerns about Daniel Craig being too good-looking and too testosterone-y to play Mikael Blomkvist, I am very, very excited.

HOLY SMOKES!! My Latest TV Discovery

Look, here's the thing: I don't have cable, or a dish, or anything else which would allow me access to a lot of tv channels. It's sometimes sad when I don't know what's going on in the world of the Kardashians---just kidding---but the lack of tv channels is probably a very good thing for me. I can become a little engrossed, if you know what I mean. (Yes, I do have a problem dragging myself away from the Law and Order marathons.)

So, today I was perusing the internet when I came across the name of a newish tv show that piqued my interest: American Horror Story. Does any one remember the tv show American Gothic? Fun stuff. So, in the interest of discovering new diversions (i.e. work-avoidance), I decided to watch the pilot. Which resulted in my watching all the other episodes available. HOLY SMOKES.

There is a truckload of stuff going down in this series, and I don't want to give too much away, but let's just say there's Jessica Lange at her crazy-Southern best, Dylan McDermott sans pants, the lady who played the mom in Six Feet Under, Vera Farmiga's little sister (Taissa)---who has some serious acting skills, teen romance, a lovely creepy house, spooky old photographs, dead babies, deformed children, body parts in jars, and a considerable amount of sex.

Yeah, and that's only the tip of the turret.

I really don't know if they can keep this up and still keep it compelling. Sometimes when there is too much going on, there isn't enough character development and you get into a situation where you don't give a crap about these people because you don't know them well enough to care. So far though, that is not a problem. There are quite a few interesting plot turns and you definitely want to find out more of the backstory of these characters. 

I was glued to my computer, so much so, I had a hard time removing myself to watch Once Upon a Time on television. American Horror Story kinda knocked my socks off. It's got a very strong cast to boot. If you aren't faint of heart (or faint of stomach), I'd say give this a shot. It's a wild ride; so far so good.

NEW MOVIE REVIEW: Tower Heist

"If it had provided me with nothing else, "Tower Heist" would have afforded me the sight of a solid gold automobile being lowered from the penthouse of the Trump Tower with Matthew Broderick dangling from it. Sometimes you appreciate such simple human spectacles. To be sure, Trump Tower has been renamed "The Tower," and the man dangling from the car isn't the Donald, but this is an imperfect world."  ~ Roger Ebert

Look, the plot is ridiculous, but who cares? If the plot had been more clever, would this have been a better film? Sure. But this isn't that kind of movie, and nonetheless, it was still entertaining and funny.


First off, the whole penthouse lifestyle (as in rich---not as in naked) is fun to imagine for those of us who have never had, and will probably never have, the opportunity to go inside one of those high rise apartment buildings occupied by the NYC elite.  It sure would be fun to spend a weekend there. 


Next, the cast was enjoyable: Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Alan Alda, Judd Hirsch, Michael Pena. I didn't care too much for Gabourey Sidibe and her Jamaican accent, but everyone else was pretty funny. For some reason Matthew Broderick as a middle-aged sad-sack particularly struck my funny bone. He just looked funny. Tea Leoni, was also likable, even though I'm usually not crazy about her. 


The movie moves along at a quick pace. There were couple of slow spots for me (oddly enough, during the actual heist), but overall it kept me engaged.


I hate it when critics write a review and most of it is actually a synopsis. LAME. So, you won't get that from me. You can look up the synopsis at IMDB or Wikipedia or something. Consequently, this review is short, but you get the point. Tower Heist is a glossy production---nonsensical, but amusing. And that's fine as long as you weren't expecting something more.