The Hobbit: An Unexpected Low

I have been living in Korea for almost six months, and I have only seen two movies in theaters. The first was Step Up Revolution (because my young impressionable host sister wanted to). It took me three months but I finally got that wretched taste out of my mouth by seeing the Hobbit.

After the wild success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the Hobbit has been one of the most awaited films this year. An avid LOTR fan myself, I have been waiting just as eagerly. The Hobbit is based on the book that came before the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the story of how Bilbo Baggins discovered the Ring.

Having read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I knew to expect a different flavor. While LOTR was dark and depressing and full of death, the Hobbit was pretty much a children’s story that foreshadows the doom that approaches Middle Earth. These stories are very different, so I’m trying not to compare the two, but that’s kind of impossible. I didn’t exactly hate the Hobbit, but I didn’t enjoy it near as much as I did any of LOTR.

First, the bad. What I loved about LOTR was that when I watched, it never felt like I was watching a fantasy movie. It was so rich in detail and artistry that nothing felt fake. It was more like watching a historical documentary, but much more entertaining. As I was watching the Hobbit, I knew I was watching a fantasy movie.

For more specific complaints, I had a huge problem with a scene in which two giant men made of stone were ripping mountains apart. During this sequence, Bilbo and his party of Dwarves are split up and have to jump across a huge rift. Sound familiar?  Almost the exact thing happened in the Fellowship of the Ring when the Fellowship was in the Mines of Moria, but that was better done. Come on Peter Jackson, get a little more creative.

I hated the Goblins. The monsters in LOTR were awesome. In my head, I knew they had a lot of make up and CG, but they were still scary and real. They were believable.  The goblins were not. The Goblin king was also given a few zinger lines that were supposed to be funny, but they weren’t.

The Hobbit was also filled with too many very cliche moments. I know LOTR had moments with cliche ideas in them, but they were done in a subtle enough way that didn’t make you want to groan. There were too many times in the Hobbit when I was being clobbered over head. Okay, Thorin is going to go battle his arch enemy. I get it. He doesn’t have to run through flames for 15 minutes. Yes, the Hobbit was brave and the Dwarves are surprised. Guess who isn’t?

I also think the beginning of the movie took too long. I know the introduction of The Fellowship took forever, but at least it was entertaining and interesting. In The Hobbit, not so much. I understand why Jackson brought back Elijah Woods and Ian Holmes. That was a great nod to the fans. However, it wasn’t really needed, at least, not as long as it took. A lot of that could be cut and no one would miss it.

Okay, now to the nicer part. Regarding the Dwarves. In LOTR, you only really get to know one Dwarf: Gimli, and he only serves as comic relief. Good comic relief, but I enjoyed how in the Hobbit, you get to see more of Dwarvish culture and get to understand them more.

And somehow, Jackson was able to make Dwarves sexy. I don’t know how he did it, but Legolas who?

The bits of the Dragon that you see were done very well. I am so glad Smog was not revealed completely. Viewers saw just enough to want to come back for more.

By far, however, my favorite part of this movie was the Riddle in the Dark scene, or the scene with Bilbo and Golem. That scene was straight from the book, and it was great seeing such an iconic moment from the book come to life. Golem was one of my favorite parts of LOTR, so seeing him again was great. Andy Serkis made an interesting acting choice here. We saw a different Golem, kind of. His Smegol side and his Golem side were more divided, as if the Ring hadn’t taken complete control over him yet, which added a whole new depth to his character, or characters depending on how you think of it.

As a huge LOTR fan, what I really loved was getting to go back to Middle Earth one more time, and see characters I fell in love with and meet new ones. However, had this movie been made before the Lord of the Rings, I am not sure I would have become such a huge fan. I give The Hobbit a 6. Although I do not regret seeing it.

Tree of Life: Can You Say Epic Fail?

So yesterday, I had a few free hours even though lately I have been wildly busy preparing for my year in Korea. I took this free time and said, “okay, I will watch a movie. Why not the Tree of Life?” Little did I expect what horror was awaiting me.

I only got through 45 minutes of this movie, so for your plot summary I will rely on Wikipedia. Tree of Life is an independent drama released in 2011 directed by Terence Malick. The movie begins with a family in the 1950’s with three sons. One of the sons dies. Because of this, the ill-tempered father (Brad Pitt) puts too much pressure on one of his other sons, Jack (Sean Penn) and despite his deep love of music, Jack ends up becoming an architect. Reflecting on this, Jack fights to realize who he really is.

Apparently, that is what the movie should have been about. However, there was so much random shit in Tree of Life that it didn’t seem to be about anything. For 95% of what I saw, my reaction was, “What the hell does this have to do with the story?” Pretty much, the entire 45 minutes that I watched were a bunch of abstract images plus some video footage of the actors thrown in and over-the-top whispered voice-overs saying stuff like “When did you first touch my heart?…And even then I knew my life held no meaning…And then I was aroused, but I wasn’t quite sure why…I became determined to live my life as a fish…”  I didn’t mind it for the first few minutes and thought it was just setting the tone, and soon stuff was really going to start happening. 45 minutes later, I realized that the entire fucking movie was going to be that way. And that is why I turned it off, because having to ask questions like “How does showing me a picture of The Horse-Head Nebula have anything to do with your son dying?” just pissed me off.

It would be easy for someone to point out, hey you didn’t see the entire movie, so how do you know it’s utter crap? Quite a valid point. However, a movie has to keep the viewer’s interest. And this movie obviously didn’t if I had no problem turning it off. If that happens with a movie, it has utterly failed.

What’s frustrating is that I usually like artistic movies, films that try new things and experiment and aren’t completely conventional. However, I feel as if Tree of Life was just so avante guard and abstract that it was completely inaccessible. If you can’t connect with a movie, with the story or the characters, you might as well be watching a slideshow of the vacation taken by someone you hate.

If I had to say one good thing about this movie, it would be that the images I did see were beautiful. They made no sense, but were in fact stunning. Completely uneccesary, yet pretty to look at. Very much like Paris Hilton.

Considering how angry this movie made me (I want those 45 minutes back!) I give it a 1. Try again Terence Malick. Better yet, don’t.

Moonrise Kingdom: For Those of us Who Have Always Wanted to See Bill Murray Throw his Shoe at Edward Norton

A few days ago my good friend Sara asked if I wanted to see the movie Moonrise Kingdom. Due to my preoccupations of preparing to travel to Korea, I had never heard of the film. When I heard Edward Norton was in it, I didn’t need to know anymore. Edward Norton is my all time favorite actor except for Geoffery Rush. I have never seen him in a bad movie.

This movie reminded me of why I love films, and why even though sometimes I feel inundated by Hollywood crap, every now and then, I can go to a theater and smile completely through a masterpiece. Moonrise Kingdom is an indie dark comedy directed by Wes Anderson. It is set on a New England Island in 1965. Two children, Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) have disappeared. They had met the previous summer, and decided to run away together. Sam’s scout master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), a police officer (Bruce Willis) and Suzy’s parents (Frances McDormand and Bill Murray) chase after them all over the island to retrieve them as a huge hurricane threatens in the distance.

When I watch movies, I look for the story. Because of that, I don’t particularly enjoy most comedies, because usually, comedies sacrifice the story for the sake of humor. However, that does not happen in Moonrise Kingdom. The humor is subtle, dry, and ironic. The style and situations of the movie are funny rather than a few cheap jokes. Because of that, the story has no need to be sacrificed. I also just tend to prefer this humor. It’s clever and witty and more powerful. Moonrise Kingdom has moments in which it makes fun of itself in a subtle enough way that doesn’t clobber you over the head like Sasha Baron Cohen. In most conventional comedies, you see the movie once and then it’s no longer funny. I feel like I could watch this movie over and over and still find it hilarious.

Edward Norton lived up to my expectations. He was just outrageous enough to be funny and yet also seem to be sincerely acting. And Bill Murray was a joy to watch. I think this has to be one of my favorite roles I’ve ever seen him in (except for Ghost Busters and Groundhog’s Day of course). I hope to always remember him only wearing pajama bottoms, carrying an ax and saying “I’m going to go chop a tree down,” in the middle of the night. And then I also must mention Bruce Willis. You might have read my earlier post on type casted actors (http://hereslookinatyousquid.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/the-top-ten-most-type-casted-actors-9-2/) in which I listed Bruce Willis as number one. Before seeing Moonrise Kingdom, I have just never really seen Bruce Willis in a movie and thought, “Wow, he’s such a good actor.” He seems to play the same character every time. But tonight he surprised me, which is something I never thought I would say. I will not claim he was the best actor ever in Moonrise Kingdom (Edward Norton always steals the show) but he was better than in any movie I have ever seen him in. I didn’t keep thinking “So why aren’t you in an action movie right now?”.

But the actors I really need to talk about are the two leads, the star crossed lovers Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward. This is both actors’ first movie. I think Kristen Stuart should take some lessons from Hayward. And Jared Gilman also achieved capturing my heart. I have no idea how Anderson was able to find two actors who could work so well together and feed off each other’s energy while still being so young. They should get together and make a baby, because that baby would be the best actor ever.

And everything else about Moonrise Kingdom just seemed so perfect, from the acting, to the soundtrack, and even the special effects.  So for once I don’t really have anything to complain about. Just listen to me: go see this movie! It is awesome. I haven’t seen a better movie in theaters all summer, or perhaps even all year. Unsurprisingly, I give this movie a perfect 10.

Comparing Mirror Mirror to Snow White and the Huntsman

I doubt it has escaped the notice of most people that in quite a short span of time, two movies based on the fairytale of Snow White have been released to theaters. Mirror Mirror was released in March, and Snow White and the Huntsman came out June 1^st. I have decided to do a double review and then compare the two. Because I can.

Mirror Mirror

Mirror Mirror was a comedic fantasy directed by Tarsem Singh that really plays with the original fairytale. The evil Queen (Julia Roberts) realizes she is poor and decides marriage with a rich prince will save her. The prince she sets her heart on however, Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer) falls for the beautiful Snow White (Lily Collins). The evil Queen decides to have her killed. Snow White escapes, making it to the dark forest where she comes across a band of dwarf thieves. Snow White joins them and gathers the strength to take back her kingdom.

While this movie was mostly geared toward children, I mostly enjoyed it. I thought the interpretation was very creative. My favorite part was that instead of the prince kissing Snow White to awaken her, in Mirror Mirror, Snow White kisses the prince to awaken him from thinking that he is a dog. And for the most part, Snow White fights for herself, rather than the Prince fighting for her. Although I didn’t like how in one scene Snow White feels the need to tell the Prince just that. It made me feel like I was being clubbed over the head. However, considering that this movie is for children, I can understand it.

However, I found the characters very shallow. Even the most interesting character, the evil Queen is a flat cut out. The movie does not explain why she does what she does. Obviously she wants to be beautiful and powerful, but we need to know why. and possibly by poor acting or sloppy writing (I guess both), the characters of Snow White and the Prince are just not that fleshed out at all. I give this movie a 4 because I like the basic adaptation, but the characters just don’t hold up.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Snow White and the Huntsman is a British and American film directed by Rupert Sanders. In this version of Snow White, The evil Queen Revenna (Charlize Theron) discovers that Snow White’s heart can make her immortal. So when Snow Whte (Kristen Stuart) escapes imprisonment, the Queen orders the reluctant Huntsman (Chris Hensworth) to hunt her down. Quickly realizing the Queen’s deceit, the Hunstsman fights to get Snow White to safety so she can strike against the Queen and reclim her throne.

This movie had some really awesome things about it. The first thing I think of is Charlize Theron. She was a great evil Queen, and a joy to watch. To my excitement, this version of the evil Queen was very fleshed out. The movie explains why she has become so bitter and evil: because she felt men use women until they were tired of them and then leave them to rot. So the Queen uses beauty as power.

I also loved most of the special effects. The scene when the Queen breaks up into a bunch of crows is amazing. I also loved the mirror, which is basically a metallic, gelatinous man. There are many more, but those are the two I remember most.

However, there were some problems. First of all, I had no idea what any of the dwarves were saying ever, which was quite frustrating. Even worse, other than the Queen, the characters were very flat. Even more than that, the relationships between them were shallow. There were quite a few moments where I felt there were a lot of missed opportunities. For example, when Snow White is reunited with her childhood friend who she has been separated from for at least ten years, wouldn’t you expect a scene which includes at most running towards each other across a field of daisies or at least an akward hug? And pretty much the entire movie sexual tension is growing between the Huntsman and Snow White. So when William, who clearly loves Snow White joins the group, that should disrupt the dynamic. I also felt the ending was very rushed and anticlimactic. However, the movie was already getting long, so I can understand these holes. I think to help this, the begiing sequence could have been shortened. It was a good sequence to be sure, but not all of it was needed.

And then, I’m sure you were all expecting this, I have to complain about Kristen Stuart. She kind of seemed dazed and confused the entire movie. And even when she gives an inspiring peech, it seems as if she is thinking “Oh, I actually have a voice?” As my friend Kinsey said, Stuart was really good at letting the other actors act around her. Although I will admit she could have done a much worse job. But it wasn;t good enough. I suspect she was chosen because the film makers thought that if they chose Bella all the Twilight fans would come see the movie.

So taking everything into account, I give Snow White and the Huntsman a 6. And it is worth seeing, even if all you do is drool after Thor.

Comparison

Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman have an interesting relationship. Mirror Mirror is a comedy meant for children while Snow White and the Huntsman was very dark and meant for young adults and up.

Obviously, both films are extremely different. However, both attempt to make the fairytale more relevant to today by making Snow White more active and assertive, thus making the story have more feminist appeal. I don’t think either truly succeeded, but I think Mirror Mirror got the closest. As I said before, Snow White is determined to fight for herself and she kisses the Prince rather than him kissing her. However, even though he says she doesn’t want to depend  the Prince’s help, she pretty much does.

Snow White and the Huntsman tries to do this to an extant. Snow White rides into battle with her army. She kills the Queen. However, this adaptation still has the awakening kiss, which is extremely misogynist if you understand the symbolism. It basically says that women need to wait until true love (aka a husband) before their sexual awakening. However, unlike Mirror Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman does not end in a wedding, but rather Snow White’s coronation, making the story seem more about her instead of Snow White and the Huntsman together. I wonder if an adaptation of Snow White can be made in which there is no prince or romantic interest. But then it would be very far from the original fairy tale.

In conclusion, I would say Snow White and the Huntsman is the superior movie. It’s more dramatic and visually interesting. However, I think the story of Mirror Mirror is a more creative adaptation of Snow White.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

I just watched the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. I am happy to report that I think I found a movie that can knock Sucker Punch off my list of The Top Ten Best Mind Fuck Films.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was released in 2009 and directed by Terry Gilliam. I think its two main claims to faim are the fact that it was the last movie Heath Leger was ever in, and I think it is one of the most imaginative movies ever made. Suck it James Cameron.

In this modern version of the Faustus myth, Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) made a deal with the devil (Tom Waits) to become immortal, with the proviso that should he ever have a child, at the age of 16, he or she would become the devil’s property. Well, of course, Parnassus eventually has a daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole) and as her 16^th birthday comes up, he dreads when the devil comes collecting. However, the devil offers Parnassus a wager. If Parnassus can collect five souls, he will save Valentina’s life. Parnassus fears it’s an impossible feat, but then he and his traveling sideshow save the life of a strange man named Tony (Heath Leger). When he is roused, he jumps at the chance to repay the kindness by helping Parnassus acquire the five souls.

This is one of those movies that have so much depth that you kind of want to watch it again so you can make sure you understood it all. If a movie can do that, make you feel like there’s more to it that you have to find, it’s incredible. That is why I love movies, because they can have that power.

I would like to mention that this movie came across a very tough challenge. During filming Heath Leger died. There have been precedent for such a situation. Plan 9 From Outer Space (yes, the movie considered by some to be the worst ever made) cast Bella Lugosi to play a vampire, and he died three days in. What they did was cast someone new and simply told the actor to hold his cape in front of his face the entire movie. Which I would like to believe started that image of a vampire.

But anyway, the makers of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus decided to cast not just one, but three more actors to finish playing Tony: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. In the context of the film, Tony changes to one of these actors when he ventures into the imagination of Dr. Parnassus. The movie doesn’t explain explicitly why Tony morphs in Parnassus’s imagination, but I think it was hinted that he did because he has a fractured personality. It is incredible that the movie makers could take such a tough set back and work it into the plot.

And of course, I have to mention the artwork in this movie. It was stunning. I literally felt as if I was wandering in someone’s imagination. I have never seen a movie before that had such fun, fanciful imagery. I kept wanting to see more, and was upset when the movie ended.

Despite all these good things, I think over all, the movie jut isn’t completely in synch. It’s like the pieces of the story were forced together in a kind of off-kilter way. Which can be expected considering Leger’s death. I’m sure lot’s of unpredictable changes had to be made because of that, making the story kind of go out of wack. So I can understand that.

I give The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus an 8 for it’s creativity. If you like innovative films and interesting art, this movie is right up your alley.

Yentl: Barbara Streisand Does Drag

Yentl is a musical about a woman who decides to dress up like a man to be able to study. There are actually quite a lot of stories out there involving women disguised as men simply to enjoy their privileges. I read a book about Pope Joan once, who the Catholic church denies ever lived, but they still had a Pope throne for years with a hole in the bottom so that people could check all the right parts were there. And during procession, there is a spot in the Vatican where the clergy turns their backs because that is apparently where Pope Joan gave birth, thus revealing that she was a woman (You’d think someone would have caught on before then).

 Shakespeare in Love, a movie about a woman who dresses up as a man so she can act on stage, is one of my favorite movies.

And then in my Women in America class when I was a sophomore in college, I learned that a significant amount of women dressed as men to fight in the American Civil War. Very few were recognized because the uniforms were loose, and simply no one was looking for them. I read one story that said one disguised woman gave birth and fought in battle right after. Talk about tough.

And of course there is Mulan, the Disney movie about a Chinese woman who dresses up like a soldier to save her father’s life.

The point is, women disguising themselves as men is not unheard of in movies, literature, or even history.

 

Yentl is a musical from 1983 directed by and starring Barbara Streisand “Who woo o woo o!” based on the play of the same name. In the film, Barbara Streisand plays a young woman in Eastern Europe during the early 20^th century. According to Talmudic law, women could not receive an education, but all Yentl ever wanted to do was study. After her father dies, she goes to a new town disguised as a man and begins her studies. Things get a lot more complicated when her sexy study partner Alvin (Mandy Patinkin) wants her to marry Hadass (Amy Irving) the woman he loves but cannot marry himself.

Despite how much ridicule she receives from Southpark, I’m actually a Streisand fan, because you have to admit that very few other women can belt like she can. So I did enjoy this movie. 1. Barbara Striesand. 2. Hot love interest. Yes, he may be hairy with a beard, but I have a thing for facial hair. 3. I haven’t seen a musical like this before. In most musicals, everyone sings and there’s dancing in the streets and coordinated animals and people carrying giant cakes. In this musical, Streisand is the only person singing, and she’s not dancing. The songs reflect her mind and inner conflicts and nothing more. It’s a much more realistic form of a musical. You know, relatively speaking.

I do like always have a couple of complaints. Eventually Yentl decides to tell Alvin about her secret by basically thrusting her boobs in his face. Despite this, Alvin has quite a violent reaction and yells at Yentl and pretty much calls her a demon. And then he screams “Why!” and Streisand collapses in his arms saying “Because I loved you!” Then instantly, Alvin tells Yentl that he loves her too! What the fuck? He was just calling her Satan and suddenly loves her! It doesn’t work like that! It would be more realistic if he pulled an Othello. Well, in this case, I guess it wouldn’t even be an Othello because Alvin didn’t even know Streisand was a girl. So let’s say it’s an Othello in which Othello kills Cassio instead of Desdemona. “Papa can you hear me?” No. No he can’t, because this part of the story just doesn’t make sense.

I also felt that the songs all kind of sounded the same, and there was one song that Striesand sang when she saw Hadass and grew jealous of her, and she sang it it seemed like 5 times and I was getting very tired of it.

And just for randomness, I have to share a personal anecdote. I watched this movie with my little sister who I turned into a Streisand freak after showing her Hello Dolly. After telling her I was writing a post on Yentl for my blog, she said I needed to refer to Yentl as lentil, and when I said no challenged me to a tonge twister battle by rapidly repeating the word “lentil” over and over. I totally won, by the way.

Anyway, for Streisand belting power but a break down of sense, I give this movie a 6 out of 10.

The Tempest

As an English major, I love Shakespeare. Just to explain what a nerd I am, in high school I use to memorize his soliloquies for fun. Yeah, I didn’t have many friends then. But I digress. Because of my love of Shakespeare, I really wanted to see this movie, based on the Bard’s famous play of the same name.

In this 2010 rendition of the Tempest, directed by Julie Taymor, the Sorceress Prospera (Helen Mirren) attempts to exact her revenge on her brother Antonio (Chris Cooper) and the King of Naples (David Sthrathairn) for stealing her duchy of Milan from her. The King’s ship sails by the island Prospera inhabits with her daughter Miranda (Felicity Jones) and she uses her magic to create a tempest to sink the ship, washing the men to shore. Prospera doesn’t count on the King’s son Ferdinand (Reeve Carney) falling in love with her daughter.

This movie received many mixed reviews, and I myself have pretty mixed feelings. There are some really awesome things about it, and other things that are less awesome.

On the good side, if you are also a Shakespeare fan, or have ever read The Tempest, you know that in the original play, the main character is a man named Prospero. Changing the character into a woman, especially one played by the indomitable Helen Mirren, is an inspired choice that brings a whole new dynamic to the story. Who says old writing can’t be made new? And even if that isn’t recognized, I just love watching Helen Mirren act anyway. I am one of the only people I know who actually enjoyed the film The Queen, and I correctly predicted that she would win the Oscar for Best Actress. She also does an Elizabeth I that rivals Judie Dench and Cate Blanchett. And she does a mean Prospera. There are moments you can tell she is full of hatred and you know not to mess with her, and others that she is vulnerable and you want to reach out and hug her. Or maybe that’s just me having a weird Helen Mirren crush.

As far as bad, I mainly did not like the score. This movie attempted using rock and roll, although at least it did a better job than Marie Antoinette. God awful movie. Anyway, the score was basically made up of steel guitars, and it sounded so out of place. I didn’t mind that the music was anachronistic, it just sounded wrong. I think the main problem was in quite a few scenes the guitars got really loud, and was more distracting than anything. It probably would have been a lot better if they were just quieter.

Most critics had problems with the special effects. I honestly thought some of the special effects were beautiful and interesting and added to the story, but some of them were in the case of fiery dogs that chased after Caliban,  done so poorly that all you could do was laugh at them, or just so overdone that they were  distracting and detracted from the story by competing with it. However, I especially loved the special effects used for the spirit Ariel, one of Prospera’s slaves. The effects make Ariel seem weightless and constantly underwater. The images help you understand his character. As a spirit, he’s ethereal and not of the earth. But, I do agree with most of the critics that Taymor really needed to dial it back on most of the other CG elements. Less is more. Yes, I’m talking to you, Michael Bay.

Since my feelings are very mixed, I give The Tempest a 5 out of 10. I would recommend any Helen Mirren fans and especially any Shakespeare fans to give it a try. It is a lot of fun.

Midnight in Paris: YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!

I didn’t see this movie when it came out because I am not a fan of Owen Wilson. He’s not that great of an actor, and I can’t look at his nose. I am fully aware what a shallow bitch that makes me, but anyway, I digress. I eventually heard a lot of good things, And I actually went to Paris in January, so I finally decided to take a chance. And I’m so glad I did.

Midnight in Paris came out in 2011, and was directed by Woody Allen. Gil (Owen Wilson) is a writer in ParIs with his pleasant (not) fiancé (Rachael McAdams). One night, Gil somehow stumbles into the 1920’s and meets Zelda and Scott F. Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway.

This was pretty much my instant reaction to this movie: OH MY FREAKIN GOD THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I must acknowledge that this has mostly to do with personal connections I had. First, I recently went toParis. During the film, when I’d recognize a part in the city I had been, I’d say “Oh, I’ve been there!” But most of all, I loved this movie because of its portrayal of so many authors and painters that I have loved for years. As an English major, I have read Fitzgerald and Hemingway (although I’ll admit I’m not a huge fan of him). Gertrude Stein is one of my favorite writers, and I can’t think of a better woman to play her than Kathy Bates. But I also have a deep love of art. And seeing Picasso, Degas, Lutrec, Guagan and more… it was incredible.

But to be more objective, I think it was still a pretty good movie. I would say though that I personally don’t believe that anyone would date Rachel McAdam’s character, because she’s a total bitch. The again, she is Rachel McAdams. So I guess I can understand it.

On the whole, this movie was creative, witty, fun, and also effectively showed the doubts and insecurities of Gil, and then his transformation to a confident man. I loved every minute of it and was sad when it was over. I give Midnight in Paris a perfect 10. I would recommend it to everyone.

Men in Black 3, or to the 3rd Power or Whatever

I didn’t have very high expectations for this movie. Honestly I only saw it because I was bored. The second MIB sucked and bringing in time travel easily jumps the shark. And there were some significant problems. However, the movie was definitely better than I thought it would be. Which just means I didn’t completely hate it.

Men in Black 3 is of course the third installment to the Men in Black movies. Even though I’m not a huge fan of this series, I have grown up with them. I was 7 when the first came out, and 12 when the second one was released. Interestingly, even at that impressionable age I knew it was a piece of crap. But anyway…

Men in Black 3 was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld and follows J (Will Smith), an agent in a secret government organization that monitors alien activity. One day, J goes into work and discovers his partner, agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) is no longer there, and has inexplicably died in 1969. J has to go back in time and work with the younger K (Josh Brolin) in 1969 to prevent him from dying, and of course, saving the world in the process.

So before I start tearing this movie to shreds, let me throw out some deserved props. One of the best things about this movie was how incredibly similar Josh Brolin is to Tommy Lee Jones, and not just in appearance. Brolin noticeably took on Jones’s performance of K and all of his mannerisms. So even though I knew they were two completely different people, sometimes it was easy to forget. Such a feat is acting at its best.

I also loved the appearance of the villain Borris played by Jemaine Clement (don’t worry, you’ll hear about the actual character later). He was much more intimidating than Zurlina in the 2^nd film. And the actor did a good job with him.

But the character that stole the show was Griffin, played by Michael Stuhlbarg. Griffin was not just comic relief. As an alien that constantly weighed the probability of future events, he was interesting and creative. He was a joy to watch, and without him the movie would have imploded into a ball of flames fueled by Tommy Lee Jones’s formaldehyde.

And now my favorite part: the problems. I’d say the first 30 minutes of the movie were sloppy and boring. Basically, until J goes back in time, I did not see any reason to pay attention and was reviewing my Korean vocabulary. Nothing was interesting.

Also, for a movie advertised as a comedy, there were quite a few funny moments that were not funny at all. And the ones that were actually funny had been advertised so that they weren’t that funny anymore. I did not laugh very much at all during this movie. I’d say it was the least funny of the trilogy.

And while I liked the appearance of Boris, the character was quite weak. Yeah, he wants to get back at K for turning him into a gimp. I get that. But why is he an assassin at all? For the money, or he just loves killing people? In fact, I think all the Men in Black villains are pretty simplistic, but I haven’t seen the other two in a while, so I could be wrong. Then again, I do not plan on watching them to find out for sure.

But, on the whole, it wasn’t a complete waste of two hours. The movie eventually picked up pace and became more interesting. I give it a 4 out of 10 only because of my love of the character of Griffin.

Metropolis: The Future According to People From the 1920′s

This was my first silent film ever, and I quite enjoyed the experience, mainly because the actors have to exaggerate so much, and that is very entertaining. Especially when the main actress thought that groping her own breasts was the best way to denote distress. And I’m pretty sure I saw characters grab their heads in despair every two minutes. But most astonishingly, the look of the main character gives proof that Johnny Depp is immortal. I knew he was a little off. I bet it had something to do with Helena Bonham Carter.

Metropolis comes all the way from 1927 Germany, and is directed by Fritz Lang. It is a sci-fi dystopian film about a futuristic city in which the rich live in sky scrapers while the poor live and work underground. Privileged Freder (Gustave Frolich) decides to join the workers underground. He meats the beautiful Maria (Brigette Helm) who preaches peace to the workers and tells them to wait for the mediator who will unite the hands (the workers) and the brains (the rich). However, the mad scientist Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) creates an evil robot woman who looks exactly like Maria, and watches as chaos ensues.

I enjoyed watching this movie. As my first silent film, it was a very interesting experience. And I feel Metropolis was very ahead of its time. But if you forget the beautiful cityscape and special effects (in context of the time) I do have a few complaints about the story. It was quite simplistic, and the characters extremely flat. Freder, the hero, only goes underground because he sees Maria and thinks “Boobs! I must follow!” Then he sees the workers and suddenly becomes the legendary mediator. That is an important transformation that is not very well established.

Even worse, the audience is not told at all who Maria is. You first meet her when she’s preaching in a cathedral, so you can only guess she’s an important religious figure. But the film doesn’t even try to provide a background for her, or establish motivation for her actions. But I forget. This movie came from the 20’s, when women weren’t important.

And even Rotwang, the mad scientist character is just a flat cut out. He wants to make Metropolis fall, but we are never told why.

Despite all these problems, I think Metropolis is still worth seeing. Especially if you’ve never seen a silent movie before. It’s a very interesting experience. Taking into account this movie’s story limitations but also it’s very innovative artistic appeal, I give this movie a 4 out of 10.