What Movie Did You Just Watch? ... And Robin

[Goliath]

Watched a whole bunch of movies over the weekend:

Finally got around to watching the second half of Millennium- Part 1: Men who hate women (2009). The second half was certainly much more engaging. Blomkvist and Salander work best as a duo, which they didn't in the first half. It's a good murder mystery, but as I said before, doesn't live up to the hype. In fact, there's nothing particular different in this film from the many tv crime series I've seen. The reason to keep watching are the main characters, who are defined pretty well.

I refuse to use the American title The girl with the dragon tattoo, because it's much too generic and doesn't cover the content of the film. In essence, it's really about all sorts of men who hate women, and their hatred is the central theme through all the very different storylines, and what holds them together. That's why I disagree with jpanimation that the rape scenes with Lisbeth Salander were supposedly unnecessary. It's part of what/who she is, and what/who she has become. At the end of the film, it's also suggested that her father also abused her and that that's why she became violent and had to be committed --which led her to encounter her legal guardian to begin with. The rape theme is also in play in the murder mystery. So I'd say it's all connected.

The lawyer also comes back in the second installment I watched: Millennium- Part 2: The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009). Again, the first half of the tv version. I liked this one a little better, because I didn't have to be introduced to the characters, so the story could begin immediately. It didn't drag as much as the first half of the first film. I'm excited to see how it ends.

I also watched Sweet smell of success (1957), starring the late Tony Curtis, on the BBC. I can't figure out why this one gets an 8.2 rating at IMDb, because I was bored to tears with it, even though the thing only lasts for barely 90 minutes. I admit Lancaster and Curtis were great in their roles, but the story was really about nothing. It was just a whole lot of talking back-and-forth, with a ridiculous narrative of a guy who's so protective of his sister, it almost seems like he's in love with her. There were some very creepy things going on in that family, I bet.

And finally, Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), on Belgian tv. When I watched the opening, where Audrey Hepburn is strolling around New York City while 'Moon river' plays in the background, I had the feeling this was one of those movies where I (as I like to put it) can "crawl into" the thing and only "come out" when it has ended. But I was wrong. Not that it's a bad film -far from that- but it just didn't live up to its reputation. There are a lot of good moments in it, and Hepburn is incredible in her role, but frankly, I got tired of her character very quickly. Why the guy wanted to be with her, I'll never know. And then there's that awful 1920's stereotypical Japanse guy, 'played' by all-American Mickey Rooney. What, doing blackface is considered 'not done' anymore, but we can still portray Japanese people as cartoon characters in 1961? Why was he even in the story? He serves no purpose at all.

Ah well, at least not as bad as Indiana Jones...

[Escapay]

And finally, Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), on Belgian tv. When I watched the opening, where Audrey Hepburn is strolling around New York City while 'Moon river' plays in the background, I had the feeling this was one of those movies where I (as I like to put it) can "crawl into" the thing and only "come out" when it has ended. But I was wrong. Not that it's a bad film -far from that- but it just didn't live up to its reputation. There are a lot of good moments in it, and Hepburn is incredible in her role, but frankly, I got tired of her character very quickly. Why the guy wanted to be with her, I'll never know. And then there's that awful 1920's stereotypical Japanse guy, 'played' by all-American Mickey Rooney. What, doing blackface is considered 'not done' anymore, but we can still portray Japanese people as cartoon characters in 1961? Why was he even in the story? He serves no purpose at all.

Yunioshi isn't blatantly offensive in the original novella (at least not that I remember, I haven't read it since 2006 or so). It's something that definitely was translated very badly to the screen. He's generally useless and seems to only be there to give Holly somebody to piss off every so often.

Regarding the film itself, it was the third Audrey Hepburn film I ever saw (I saw My Fair Lady first in the mid-90s, followed by Wait Until Dark a couple years afterwards), I want to pinpoint the year to 1999 or 2000, and I absolutely loved it. I think because Holly wants to present herself as a strange and oddball character, when in reality she's just an average woman who wants attention and affection. The film is probably only in my top 10 of Audrey's films (and probably in the 6-10 range), my absolute favorite from her filmography is 1954's Sabrina.

albert

[jpanimation]

That's why I disagree with jpanimation that the rape scenes with Lisbeth Salander were supposedly unnecessary. It's part of what/who she is, and what/who she has become. At the end of the film, it's also suggested that her father also abused her and that that's why she became violent and had to be committed --which led her to encounter her legal guardian to begin with. The rape theme is also in play in the murder mystery. So I'd say it's all connected.

I still say it was unnecessary and slowed down the film from the major plot.

We see the way she acts and dresses, so we can start making assessments about her right away. Later we see her take care of herself in the subway, which seemed natural, so we know she has dealt with abuse before. After the reveal at the end about her father (the reason she was committed), we gather all we need to know about her and how she's grown. Introducing us to the parol officer, who we only see a couple of times and is inconsequential to the major plot, just slowed down the first half for me.

Anyways, I agree with you about the American title. I just use those in my reviews but I really think it's stupid.

[pap64]

And finally, Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), on Belgian tv. When I watched the opening, where Audrey Hepburn is strolling around New York City while 'Moon river' plays in the background, I had the feeling this was one of those movies where I (as I like to put it) can "crawl into" the thing and only "come out" when it has ended. But I was wrong. Not that it's a bad film -far from that- but it just didn't live up to its reputation. There are a lot of good moments in it, and Hepburn is incredible in her role, but frankly, I got tired of her character very quickly. Why the guy wanted to be with her, I'll never know. And then there's that awful 1920's stereotypical Japanse guy, 'played' by all-American Mickey Rooney. What, doing blackface is considered 'not done' anymore, but we can still portray Japanese people as cartoon characters in 1961? Why was he even in the story? He serves no purpose at all.

Yunioshi isn't blatantly offensive in the original novella (at least not that I remember, I haven't read it since 2006 or so). It's something that definitely was translated very badly to the screen. He's generally useless and seems to only be there to give Holly somebody to piss off every so often.

Regarding the film itself, it was the third Audrey Hepburn film I ever saw (I saw My Fair Lady first in the mid-90s, followed by Wait Until Dark a couple years afterwards), I want to pinpoint the year to 1999 or 2000, and I absolutely loved it. I think because Holly wants to present herself as a strange and oddball character, when in reality she's just an average woman who wants attention and affection. The film is probably only in my top 10 of Audrey's films (and probably in the 6-10 range), my absolute favorite from her filmography is 1954's Sabrina.

albert

Escapay said it best.

The way I see it, the reason George Peppard's character is so fascinated with Holly is because when he first meets her she is very odd, sloppy and silly, yet oddly charming. I mean, the first time they meet all he is doing is asking for information. The next thing, he is inside her house, playing with her cat and she is talking to him as if she had known him for ever, including telling him details about how she goes to Sing Sing to meet this guy and then she asks him how does she look.

Men often don't expect women to charm men that easily, so George's character is dumbfounded by Holly. But what truly captures him is the vulnerability she rarely exhibit except around him. When she is sleeping with him and mentions her brother, her personality changes completely. She becomes a very complex character, one that fascinates George, then she takes on pity on him and then develops into love. Which why it is frustrating when Holly keeps ignoring her emotional needs in favor of money. In fact, the cab ride scene is very important in wrapping the story up. When she tosses Cat out of the car and into the rain, that is pretty much Holly tossing aside her real dreams, happiness and true person in favor of something that she isn't.

Breakfast at Tiffany's does appear to be a silly and simple story, but when you get right down to it it is a great love story, and perhaps one of the best romantic comedies ever made. It is so much better than most of the modern romantic films that are released today.

Regarding Mr. Yunioshi, I agree completely. Ignoring his stereotypical nature for a while, the character doesn't play a role in the story. He is simply there to bother Holly and try to end her charades. His only mayor contribution to the story is that he calls the police near the end of the story, which does set a series of events that culminates in the dramatic ending.

Worse, it tarnishes the film's overall value since people don't want to see him. Despite all the regrets and apologies, including a lengthy feature on one of the DVDs that talks about the character's impact on the Asian community, people won't forgive that, and that hurts because this is a movie that deserves to be seen at least once for its great performances and touching story.

[Lazario]

Generally- it's a smart and confrontational thriller. But I grew tired of it very quickly and an unfortunate scene of animal cruelty took over the entire movie for me. I was never able to get over it. It was too graphic, too disturbing. And the characters bounce back from it much too quickly. I didn't watch this alone. I was with a friend and this scene stopped everything for both of us. It was far too nasty.







"Silly" movies never get the critical respect they deserve. Has anyone else noticed this? Only, perhaps, Mel Brooks' older comedies (and the occasional Farrelly brothers' movie). But since the late 70's? Forget it. Sure, the story here is of almost no consequence. But it's performed so DAMN well that the scenes are still highly effective through the public's often snotty attitude of 'only freaks like this'. When I first saw it, I freaked out during Eddie's death (and did the kid thing of thinking it was more violent than it really was). And when I was a teenager, I was emotionally moved by "I'm Going Home" (even now that it seems the filmmakers were trying to get some laughs as a response to it instead of tears, I still find it insanely beautiful). And every time I see it, I'm fascinated by the characters and what little about them that is explained. As well as marvel at the sets, costumes, music... And, yes, it impresses me how out-there this movie was for the 70's and 80's. Screw everyone who doesn't agree- this film is great (and no, Glee could never do it better!). It is what it is. Susan Sarandon is hilarious ("yes... it's raining", and her eyes), Richard O'Brian is a great singer (oh, and watch his face during the sequence where Furter is whipping him in the elevator), Patricia Quinn gives an astounding performance with her creepy theatricality and deadpan closeups (her reaction shots add a whole new voice to the "I'm Going Home" sequence that I'm not sure I noticed before), Barry Bostwick is a surprisingly good singer and dancer, Little Nell is sweet, sassy, and completely sympathetic, and Curry rocks the whole house. As though the other performers didn't engage my emotions, he actually makes me smile and laugh (but his performances in Clue and It clearly prove this as well - I saw them before this). MeatLoaf is the only person who shows up and I have no opinion about him (he really could have used a little more screentime, if he was meant for anything more than his one song).

[pap64]

I wouldn't worry about that, Lazario. Rocky Horror has went on to become a near mainstream classic. I mean, Glee, one of the most popular shows around right now, is doing a whole episode based on the movie. Note that the show is aimed at an audience that may not have heard of the movie before, so this might be the opportunity for Rocky Horror to reach an even bigger audience.

Plus, Rocky's appeal has been chronicled many times, including a VH1 special, interviews with the cast and many more. Also, the American Film Institute honored it as one of the best comedies of all time, and I think it was nominated as one of the best musicals as well.

While the movie may not have the same popularity as other movies it certainly hasn't been forgotten, and perhaps that means a lot more than the approval of an old critic.

[Lazario]

While the movie may not have the same popularity as other movies it certainly hasn't been forgotten

That's not my problem. The cult will keep it alive for awhile. But my problem is today's generation of stupid kids who want to see it thinking they're open minded and then go "it sucks" because it's old and things were different back then. Will they call it old? No. They'll just criticize Tim Curry and Richard O'Brien for not being the young ultra-prettyboy types that usually sing on American Idol and Glee. Where honestly these days does this crowd get to watch really popular, unconventional looking men singing and dancing in mainstream entertainment?

[pap64]

While the movie may not have the same popularity as other movies it certainly hasn't been forgotten

That's not my problem. The cult will keep it alive for awhile. But my problem is today's generation of stupid kids (no offense to anyone here who might read this) who want to see it thinking they're open minded and then go "it sucks" because it's old and things were different back then. Will they call it old? No. They'll just criticize Tim Curry and Richard O'Brien for not being the young ultra-prettyboy types that usually sing on American Idol and Glee. Where honestly these days does this crowd get to watch really popular, unconventional looking men singing and dancing in mainstream entertainment?

In all fairness, no one went to see it the first time back in the day either. As great as Rocky was it was never meant to be a mainstream phenomenon. The reason it got such a following was because it spoke louder to people outside of the mainstream, thus that understood the concept of being weird and appreciated its camp value.

I may be wrong with this, but that has always been the case with the movie.

[Lazario]

Yeah but, Grease was campy and that film was fairly successful. The men were not exactly the most manly types in the world. Then, look at the difference between the two. Grease isn't nearly as sexually wild as Rocky Horror was. Yet both films were about things from the past. Though one movie was much more about other films and the other about fashions and trends. I honestly think it's not the campy aspect as much as it's the transvestite aspect and songs about sexuality that have nothing to do with teens using cars to score.

[pap64]

Yeah but, Grease was campy and that film was fairly successful. The men were not exactly the most manly types in the world. Then, look at the difference between the two. Grease isn't nearly as sexually wild as Rocky Horror was. Yet both films were about things from the past. Though one movie was much more about other films and the other about fashions and trends. I honestly think it's not the campy aspect as much as it's the transvestite aspect and songs about sexuality that have nothing to do with teens using cars to score.

The thing with Grease was that it was already a popular musical before it was a movie in America. Yeah, Rocky was a popular musical as well, but that was in England (I am also aware that popular musicals not always equal popular movie, case in point The Producers musical movie). Not to mention that during the 70s there was a bit of a 50s nostalgia craze with shows like Happy Days, so maybe that helped Grease out a bit.

I think you said it best. Rocky is gothic, creepy and very free about sexuality, and those kind of things aren't popular with everybody. But let's be thankful that the movie has gained enough of a cult following that it has gained some awareness from the mainstream media, as many movies of this kinds are lucky to even get noticed the first time around.

[dvdjunkie]

Watched How To Train Your Dragon, on Blu-ray, for the umpteenth time. I love this movie, and it doesn't get to far from the Blu-ray player. Today I spend a lot of time with all the extras and had a blast. This is one of the best Dreamworks Animation films, ever!!!

[Lazario]

The thing with Grease was that it was already a popular musical before it was a movie in America. Yeah, Rocky was a popular musical as well, but that was in England (I am also aware that popular musicals not always equal popular movie, case in point The Producers musical movie). Not to mention that during the 70s there was a bit of a 50s nostalgia craze with shows like Happy Days, so maybe that helped Grease out a bit.

RHPS also had a run in Los Angeles before the movie was made (so says Roger Ebert).

If Grease had an unfair advantage because of any kind of reputation and not because of the material itself... I'd say it was John Travolta and the rest of the hip young cast. Almost any of whom could have been stars in their own right.

[Atlantica]

St Trinians : Finially got this movie on DVD after renting it a lot. LOVED this movie; excellent cast, script, and wonderfully executed. Rupert Everett is a scream as the headmistress of the school, and the ever wonderful Gemma Arteton (sp?) is wonderful as the head girl.

A must for anyone who are fans of the series, and all the newcomers !

[Flanger-Hanger]

Also, the American Film Institute honored it as one of the best comedies of all time, and I think it was nominated as one of the best musicals as well.

I believe it also made their 2007 nominations list for greatest film too.

As for Glee "remaking" it, the plot of the episode from what I understand involves the school musical being Rocky Horror so I don't see it as any worse than any other high school production of the play. And it sorta fits as the Glee Club members are not exactly all idolized by the student body of the show's school. It's not meant as a replacement for the movie which the cast enjoy.

There will always be those who don't understand or like the movie for their own reasons. But their opinions have not stopped it from becoming the longest-running theatrical release in history, have they? I wouldn't stress about what they think too much.

[jpanimation]

A couple of movies from my childhood were on HDNet Movies over the past couple of days. First was The Jetsons Movie, which I only saw the first few minutes of and then I had to go to work. Then was We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story, which I turned off after a few minutes, as I find I can't stand it anymore after watching the Nostagia Critic critique.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) 8/10 - I love this movie more and more with each viewing. It almost seems like the movies I didn't like as a kid I like more as an adult and vice versa (as a kid, you don't realize how comedically brutal the "Kidnap the Sandy Claws" number truly is). The music, the characters, the art direction, the stop-mo style and the incredible original story make for what had to be a major surprise upon it's release in 1993. Considering how crappy Tim Burton's recent movies have been, I'm not sure if we should be crediting Selick or Burton for the quality of the final product?

BTW, this movie looks freaking gorgeous in HD.

Balto (1995) 7/10 - the last film produced by Spielberg's Amblimation before it was converted into what we now know as DreamWorks Animation. The film's director, Simon Wells, wouldn't direct again until The Prince of Egypt in 1998. I have to say this was the best thing to come out of Amblimation and was the closest they got to equaling Disney quality (which carried on over to the early DreamWorks Animation productions). With that said, it's still a flawed movie but enjoyable none the less. The story is solid (if not tired), the characters are well developed, and both the character animation and art direction are gorgeous (very high quality). It ranges from expressing mature themes, hinting at mortality of the children, all while still bombarding us with sidekick characters for the kiddies (at least they weren't that bad). I just feel the live action bookends were a bad choice, as they take me right out of the movie (you're supposed to make people forget they're watching an animated film), although I realize what they were trying to accomplish with their inclusion. So while not memorable, it's still a solid effort by this studio, that thankfully whent out with a bang instead of a whimper.

[blackcauldron85]

Last night I went to a free screening of Conviction starring Hillary Swank. I had seen the trailer before, but I didn't know that that movie was this movie, so I was pleasantly surprised, since I had wanted to see that movie (the one I saw in the trailer)...am I making sense? Anyhoo, I really liked the movie. Very much a feel-good-type movie, surprisingly.

[dvdjunkie]

Turned back the clock in the Junkie Home Theater and stopped watching my Halloween Hundred movies and watched A Perfect World starring Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. Directed by Eastwood this is a marvelous story about a prison escapee (Costner) who kidnaps a nine-year-old boy and the Texas Ranger (Eastwood) who is hunting him down. It has a very good story, and some marvelous comedy sequences to lift the tension a little, but not get in the way of the story. If you haven't seen this one, put it on your list of "must-see" movies this year.

[PixarFan2006]

Evil Dead II - I am still not sure if this one or the first Evil Dead is better.

[Goliath]

Walt Disney's The Sword in the Stone (1963)

I have misjudged this film in the past. While it's certainly not the best of Disney's, the character animation is outstanding, the 'acting' is both broad and convincing, the characters are hilarious, and the plot is filled with a whole bunch of great gags. I laughed 'till I cried. Especially the duel between Merlin and Madam Mim is a delight. I watched the Dutch dub tonight, and to hear these old familiar voices again was a real treat. Many times I laughed out loud, not necessarily to the action on the screen, but the Dutch voice work and expressions.

[Lazario]

Evil Dead II - I am still not sure if this one or the first Evil Dead is better.

The first !