What do I say about this one? One of Alice's friends suggested that this was a great movie to watch so we rented it and watched it. I confess. It was a little strange. I had trouble getting into the movie but it compelled me to watch. Maybe that's the whole point. It was some kind of reality show documentary (or pseudo documentary) about this man (Nev Schulman) who gets into a Facebook friendship with Abby Pierce, supposedly an 8 year old child prodigy artist. She sends him paintings and they have phone conversations. As it unfolds, all of this is being taped by camera.
Nev questions the reality of Abby (and her sister, Megan) and decides to visit Ishpeming, Michigan, to meet the family. Abby really exists but is not really a painter and her mother, Angela, has created a number of Facebook characters and also "talks" for Abby and Megan. Her husband has two profoundly handicapped sons from a previous marriage and she cares for him and them as she also paints very well but attributes all the paintings to her rather ordinary daughter, the real Abby. She also claims to have uterine cancer.
Whoa! Is it a reality show or is it real life. Is it real or is it Memorex? The title of "Catfish" comes from a brief story that Angela's husband, Vince, tells. Years ago when live cod fish were being shipped to other countries the meat was bland and lifeless and, I guess, tasteless, until the shippers included Catfish in the tanks with them to keep them lively and on edge. Then the meat was much more tasty.
I guess I learned a lot from the movie. Trouble is, I was a reluctant learner...but I did learn to appreciate Angela, her made up world, her daughter and step sons and the whole reality that not everything is real. Some, I'm sure, would even question if this real-life documentary was real. In that sense, it reminds me of the movie "True Stories" which was not really true.
I probably won't forget the movie but I'm sort of glad our rental cost was only 85 cents.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Avatar (Part 2)
Back in February I posted some initial comments on "Avatar" and said that we would probably watch the rest of the movie that month. On April 12 we saw the rest of the movie. Recently someone said to me, "Oh, you have to see Avatar in 3-D...you won't believe how good it is." Hmm. Perhaps I really need to be wowed to get excited about this movie and I doubt if 3-D would have helped. I actually thought the first half was OK with the semi-paralyzed veteran becoming part of the story by "infiltrating" (and actually becoming one of the Navi people) but the incredible violence and death in the second half of the movie reminded me (us) of how much we hate war.
Colonel Miles Quaritch is the "kill and win" leader of the human forces who seems to have absolutely no redeeming qualities. Does he have a wife and children? What does he do for fun? I just didn't like this guy but found myself feelinig guilty that I was glad that he was killed by Jake's Navi "girl friend", Neytiri.
The destruction of Hometree, a wonderful central tree (Garden of Eden "type"?) made me very sad. How could someone be happy about destroying something that wonderful? It seemed to me that only Miles Quaritch was the truly happy person about that destruction and that was because he was an idiot. Perhaps this scene alone was designed to change the hearts of people to appreciate even more our natural resources and surroundings. Maybe it accomplished that purpose.
I'm sure that many people loved the movie and I realize that the cinematography was stunning but the sheer numbers of people, beasts, and foilage on the screen at one time was a little overwhelming at times. A big screen might have helped.
Life and death and death and life were constant themes in the movie and the resolution at the end with Jake bedoming a Navi was nice but unconvincing.
The movie was OK but I didn't like it that much.
Colonel Miles Quaritch is the "kill and win" leader of the human forces who seems to have absolutely no redeeming qualities. Does he have a wife and children? What does he do for fun? I just didn't like this guy but found myself feelinig guilty that I was glad that he was killed by Jake's Navi "girl friend", Neytiri.
The destruction of Hometree, a wonderful central tree (Garden of Eden "type"?) made me very sad. How could someone be happy about destroying something that wonderful? It seemed to me that only Miles Quaritch was the truly happy person about that destruction and that was because he was an idiot. Perhaps this scene alone was designed to change the hearts of people to appreciate even more our natural resources and surroundings. Maybe it accomplished that purpose.
I'm sure that many people loved the movie and I realize that the cinematography was stunning but the sheer numbers of people, beasts, and foilage on the screen at one time was a little overwhelming at times. A big screen might have helped.
Life and death and death and life were constant themes in the movie and the resolution at the end with Jake bedoming a Navi was nice but unconvincing.
The movie was OK but I didn't like it that much.
Hop
Hmm. What can I say about this movie, Hop? It was not a bad movie. It was certainly harmless fun with nothing dirty or objectionable. It really had very little to do with Easter and especially had nothing to do with the Christian celebration of Easter.
But, as I said, it was not a bad movie. It had its moments and fun and occasional humor. Someone next to me said the movie was "Weird" but this person did not say it was bad...it was just a little "Weird." Multiple scenes with Dave Hasselhof sort of cement this weirdness.
The premise is that the new Easter bunny doesn't want to follow in his father's footsteps and escapes from Easter Island (!) to Hollywood where he meets young Fred O'Hare who wouldn't really mind becoming the Easter "hare." Fred befriends E.B. (Easter Bunny, I guess) and helps him appear before a talent scout and Fred also upstages his own sister at a school Easter pageant. Ninja rabbits (or I guess they were called "pink berets") capture the human hero (O'Hare) and take him to Easter Island where an aggressive chicken wants to destroy the old Easter Bunny and O'Hare and deliver his own version of Easter in the form of worms and similar chicken food instead of candy.
Fred rescues everyone and saves the day. Ultimately, the new Easter bunny (who also wants to be a drummer) joins with Fred as co-Easter bunnies to deliver the yearly goods when the egg baton passes.
Hey, it's a buddy picture (once again...is this becoming a Hollywood trend?) with Fred's parents happy that he finally has a decent job.
As I said, it's not a bad movie but is probably just one step above "made for TV." It seems to have family values with a lot of saying "I'm sorry" and a lot of forgiveness. You won't have to hold your children's eyes and ears and adults won't fall asleep during the movie. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that!
But, as I said, it was not a bad movie. It had its moments and fun and occasional humor. Someone next to me said the movie was "Weird" but this person did not say it was bad...it was just a little "Weird." Multiple scenes with Dave Hasselhof sort of cement this weirdness.
The premise is that the new Easter bunny doesn't want to follow in his father's footsteps and escapes from Easter Island (!) to Hollywood where he meets young Fred O'Hare who wouldn't really mind becoming the Easter "hare." Fred befriends E.B. (Easter Bunny, I guess) and helps him appear before a talent scout and Fred also upstages his own sister at a school Easter pageant. Ninja rabbits (or I guess they were called "pink berets") capture the human hero (O'Hare) and take him to Easter Island where an aggressive chicken wants to destroy the old Easter Bunny and O'Hare and deliver his own version of Easter in the form of worms and similar chicken food instead of candy.
Fred rescues everyone and saves the day. Ultimately, the new Easter bunny (who also wants to be a drummer) joins with Fred as co-Easter bunnies to deliver the yearly goods when the egg baton passes.
Hey, it's a buddy picture (once again...is this becoming a Hollywood trend?) with Fred's parents happy that he finally has a decent job.
As I said, it's not a bad movie but is probably just one step above "made for TV." It seems to have family values with a lot of saying "I'm sorry" and a lot of forgiveness. You won't have to hold your children's eyes and ears and adults won't fall asleep during the movie. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
"Heaven Can Wait"
As we were channel surfing on Sunday afternoon and I was just getting ready to attend a funeral visitation we came across a movie that had just started. The character was in hell meeting with "His Excellency." The movie was on WTTW Prime and, without commercials, never mentioned the movie's name. I tried to check the WTTW schedule and it said that it was "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. I knew none of the actors was Beatty and we were puzzled about the name of the movie. Today we found out it was the original "Heaven Can Wait" with Don Ameche, Gene Tierney, Charles Coburn, Marjorie Main (who had been Ma Kettle in other movies) and several others.
I read a couple of reviews of the movie and they were very positive about the movie. Oh, it was in glorious color and the scenes were excellent but, in my opinion, the premise of the movie left a lot to be desired. We were taken through the life of Henry Van Cleve starting with his tenth birthday until the time he was in his 70's. Henry (Don Ameche) is in hell and addressing Satan ("His Excellency" played by Laird Cregar) and Henry assumes that he belongs in hell. He relates his story to an interested Satan and it is obvious that his character flaw is that he is a ladies man and general rogue.His wife, Martha (Gene Tierney) puts up with his antics and at one point accepts him back, despite his indiscretions and decides that she will just accept him for what he is.
It's never clear what Henry does for a living. He is just rich and his grandfather is constantly taking care of him and providing for his needs. His wife's parents are pig farmers from Kansas who at first disown their daughter for forsaking her first love (Henry's cousin) and marrying Henry.
Henry eventually is sent to heaven since Satan (His Excellency) doesn't think that he qualifies for hell and muses that Henry may have to spend some time in some kind of holding area until he is accepted into heaven.
The movie was clean and seemed to be well-acted. Like many movies that touch on a religious theme, it troubles my sensibilities. Hey, the movie is not a theological treatise and, once again, I'm just puzzled how to take it. We enjoyed watching it on a lazy Sunday afternoon but weren't really sure what to do with the movie. I suppose that the remake might be better but I'm not sure I want to take the time to watch it.
I read a couple of reviews of the movie and they were very positive about the movie. Oh, it was in glorious color and the scenes were excellent but, in my opinion, the premise of the movie left a lot to be desired. We were taken through the life of Henry Van Cleve starting with his tenth birthday until the time he was in his 70's. Henry (Don Ameche) is in hell and addressing Satan ("His Excellency" played by Laird Cregar) and Henry assumes that he belongs in hell. He relates his story to an interested Satan and it is obvious that his character flaw is that he is a ladies man and general rogue.His wife, Martha (Gene Tierney) puts up with his antics and at one point accepts him back, despite his indiscretions and decides that she will just accept him for what he is.
It's never clear what Henry does for a living. He is just rich and his grandfather is constantly taking care of him and providing for his needs. His wife's parents are pig farmers from Kansas who at first disown their daughter for forsaking her first love (Henry's cousin) and marrying Henry.
Henry eventually is sent to heaven since Satan (His Excellency) doesn't think that he qualifies for hell and muses that Henry may have to spend some time in some kind of holding area until he is accepted into heaven.
The movie was clean and seemed to be well-acted. Like many movies that touch on a religious theme, it troubles my sensibilities. Hey, the movie is not a theological treatise and, once again, I'm just puzzled how to take it. We enjoyed watching it on a lazy Sunday afternoon but weren't really sure what to do with the movie. I suppose that the remake might be better but I'm not sure I want to take the time to watch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)