Movie Time! 'Snow White and the Huntsman'

"In a twist to the fairy tale, the Huntsman ordered to take Snow White into the woods to be killed winds up becoming her protector and mentor in a quest to vanquish the Evil Queen."

I saw this movie last night on campus, so I thought that I'd share my thoughts with you!  You know, since I've been rather absent lately.

The entire film was exquisite in its cinematography.  Every image captured on screen was crisp and wonderful, just as any fairy tale captured on screen ought to be.  But once you get past that and look at the actual story, that's where it seems to be lacking.

The story focuses on the relationship between Snow White and the Huntsman (ergo, the title), but I didn't feel that there was much of a connection there.  He was sent on a task to retrieve Snow White, who had just escaped from the dark Queen Ravenna.  The Huntsman had a task and even though he changed and never brought Snow White back to the castle, there still wasn't anything to remark on as far as a relationship.

Kristen Stewart (Snow White) was awfully similar to Bella Swan in Twilight, what with her nervous blinking and heavy breathing all of the time.  Not to mention that both characters took a really long time to die... however, I feel that she's improved a bit as an actress since Twilight, so that's always a good thing.

William should never have been part of the story.  He was in Snow White's childhood and he came back towards the end of the movie to help her get to Hammond's castle, but really, he had such a small function in the movie.  I found it a little funny that he assumed he and Snow White would fall madly in love purely because they had history together.  When he kissed Snow White after biting the apple, it was really strange because they hadn't seen each other in like, ten years or something.  It just struck me as incredibly weird and the director/writer should have figured out a way to edit him out.

The Queen and her brother... ew.  The brother was so disgusting that chills were running up and down my spine.  He was just... gross.  From his haircut-gone-awry to his incredibly confusing relationship with the queen, it raised more than a few questions.

Questions were raised throughout the movie.  There were key things that I felt should have been known about each of the characters, but instead were not.  Why did Queen Ravenna want Snow White's father's kingdom (I believe his name was Magnus)?  What happened to the Huntman's first wife?  That was never really clarified, even though I know they addressed this at some point.  As a result, I really didn't care about any of the characters.  When and if they died or were severely injured, it didn't matter to me.

The ending.  Oh my god.  That was the most infuriating part!  There's no closure!  Snow White is crowned Queen, but we still don't know what happens with her and the Huntsman, the man who is supposedly her true love, given that he was the one to awaken her from the dead.  The movie ends with her coronation and the Huntsman is lurking in the background.

What the crap?!  I feel like there isn't a lot left for a sequel (if the writers and director think so, I'd be very interested in knowing their thoughts), so I'm left to assume that I'll never know exactly how this movie ends.  There is no closure and for me, that's very unsettling.  I'm left to assume that Snow White will fix the kingdom (because of some fickle power that movie-goers can't really see but is implied all the time) and the Huntsman will go back to doing what he's always done, despite being Snow White's true love (and really, who didn't see that one coming?).

Overall, I was disappointed by a lot of things in this movie, but the cinematography and the handful of great actors and characters really saved what could have been an absolute train wreck.  Instead, it was just a small train wreck.

Thanks for Reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Across the Universe'

"An American girl (Evan Rachel Wood) and a British lad (Jim Sturgess) fall in love amid the social and political upheaval of the 1960s in this movie musical from director Julie Taymor that features classic Beatles songs and a mix of live action and animation.  Or an excursion to America, Liverpool dock worker Jude (Sturgess) falls for Lucy (Wood).  But when Lucy's brother (Joe Anderson) is drafted, Jude and Lucy take a stand as anti-war activists."

The soundtrack to the Beatles fanatic's life!

I'm such a fan of this movie.  Where do I start?

I loved that the characters were given names from some of the Beatles' songs ("Hey Jude," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "Sexy Sadie," "Dear Prudence," etc.).  It was a really neat touch.

The music.  It's my belief that even if you're a Beatles purist and you can't appreciate anything but the original version of the various songs, you'll find at least one song in this movie where you can appreciate if not prefer the cover to the original.  The singing was phenomenal-- and not all of the actors had sung in this kind of setting before.  I think Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess were in bands or some kind of musical group before, but as far as having sung in big production musical or movie musicals, there was little to no experience.

The story.  I thought it was an interesting way to pull the songs together and relate them to one another.  Towards the middle, when the sixties were being represented, things became quite garbled and while most viewers will probably think, "What the...?" (I was among those viewers) everything is so visually pleasing that even if the plot doesn't make a lot of sense, this hot mess on screen beyond the veil of drug use is really, really beautiful.  And once more, the songs are good.

This movie is good for those who like musicals, are any level of a Beatles enthusiast, and enjoy being visually pleased.  A lot of effort was put into the making of this movie and in many ways, I think it really pulled through.

Movie Time! 'Tangled'

"Disney animators take on the classic Grimm Brothers story of Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), a long-locked beauty imprisoned in a secluded tower by evil hag Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy), who needs the rejuvenating powers of Rapunzel's tresses to remain young.  When a bandit in the lam (Zachary Levi) helps Rapunzel escape, the old crone plots to capture her and end her budding romance with the thief in this Golden Globe nominee for Best Animated Feature."

Have I told you that my Disney boyfriend is in this movie?  That's right.  I've laid claim to Eugene "Hotguy" Fitzherbert!

I'm a fan of the classic Disney movies, like 'Beauty and the Beast,' 'Pocahontas,' and 'Sleeping Beauty,' but 'Tangled' reached a new level of awesome.  The songs are great, the characters are so well-rounded it's not even funny, the art is cute, and the movie is hilarious when the stakes aren't so high for the characters.

Lately, as newer Disney films have been created, I've gotten a little nervous because in my mind, it's almost impossible to top the classic Disney films.  But really, the newer Disney movies aren't failures at all.  In this case, Disney presented a beautiful rendition of Rapunzel (unfortunately, I can't say how accurate it is to the original story... someone else will have to speak for that.  I do know that they got the hair part right.  That's the whole point).

If you're looking for a really cute movie that is hilarious and intense with awesome casting and characterization, this is absolutely the movie for you!  If I gave my movies ratings, I would give it five frying pans.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Rear Window'

"As his broken leg heals, wheel-chair bound L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) becomes absorbed with the parade of life outside his window and soon fixates on a mysterious man whose behavior has Jefferies convinced a murder has taken place.  Meanwhile, other windows reveal the daily lives of a dancer, a lonely woman, a composer, a dog, and more.  Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter, and Wendell Corey co-star in this Alfred Hitchcock-helmed classic."

I think this is one of my favorite Hitchcock movies so far.  It was much scarier than Vertigo purely because it centers on something that many of us can probably identify with whether we choose to voice it or not: looking or spying when we know it's probably not okay to do so.

What made it really suspenseful was you couldn't always see what was happening.  Maybe a character had to go downstairs (through the rest of the apartment building) in order to inspect something.  Maybe another character wanted their privacy and they pulled the shades.  That was one of the main neat things about this movie-- the set!  Everything needed to be so precise and relatively different from each other, since there were a number of different sets-- in many apartments).

I thought James Stewart was really good in this movie as he was in Vertigo.  The other actors were new to me, so I can't speak in comparisons, though I can say that I thought they did well in their roles-- especially the lady that comes to help L.B. Jefferies every day.  She was just a hoot!

Overall, an awesome, classic movie for the ages!

You will like this movie if you are a fan of Hitchcock, like a good and suspenseful movie, and enjoy classic films in general.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Best in Show'

"Mater mockumentarian Christopher Guest (Waiting for Guffman) is at it again with his snarky send-up of canine culture that traverses the galloping neuroses surrounding one highly competitive dog show in Pennsylvania.  Talented improvisers Parker Posey, Eugene Levy, Michael McKean, and Catherine O'Hara elevate this satire to the stuff of genius.  Fans of 'This is Spinaltap,' televisions 'SCTV'-- and dogs of course-- will find much to love."

I saw this with my boyfriend several weekends ago.  We both really liked "This is Spinaltap" because of the raw, almost off-hand humor.  Really, "Best is Show" was Spinaltap with dogs and  mildly insane humans.

I almost didn't want to review this because it has been sitting in my drafts folder for so long, but despite the time that has past, it was a movie that can't be forgotten no matter how good or bad you think that it was.  So I have no problems here.

I thought the build-up to the dog show was good.  It didn't last too long, I didn't feel like I was missing anything.  Good balance and a good way to set the stage, introducing us to the families and the atmosphere it takes to raise a show dog. There was quite a variety of families too, which was neat.  The dogs had all won some kind of prize before, but it was how the families reacted to their being a champion.

The humor was nice because it felt like the characters weren't trying to be funny, but oftentimes, the characters provoked a laugh or two.

The interview format is also the same as Spinaltap.

The drawback that I found to this movie is if you've seen Spinaltap, there are a few things recycled.  The type of humor and the way it is presented.  If you liked Spinaltap, there's a chance that you'll like this, but if you didn't, it's Spinaltap minus a band, adding a dog show.  Not a lot changed, which I find hard to appreciate.  It would have been nice to see the director/writer do something a little bit differently rather than just changing the story around the framework.

If you're a fan of raw humor, dogs, and a little insanity, this movie is for you!

Movie Time! 'The Pianist'

"Famed Polish concert pianist Wladyslaw Szepilman (Adrien Brody, in an Oscar-winning role) struggles to survive the onslaught of Nazi tyranny during World War II in this Roman Polanski-directed drama based on Szepilman's memoirs.  In spite of his well-known musical talents, Szepilman spends several years holed up in Warsaw, barely alive and subsisting on scraps, until grace comes in the form of a second chance-- at music, at freedom, and at life."

A very remarkable (and true!) Holocaust survival story.  I haven't read his memoir just yet, though I plan to do so very soon (as soon as I obtain it).  So for this review, I will not make any book/real life to film comparisons.

I appreciated that the film showed life before Jewish citizens began to be deported.  It personally gave me a sense of normalcy, so there was something to compare all of this tragedy to.  This helped make the movie effective as opposed to just showing the parts about the Jewish ghettos.

The Ghettos were a very prominent part in this movie because Mr. Szepilman (pronounced "shpill-men") never actually set foot in a concentration camp.  He was deported from Warsaw so that he and his family could join other "deported" Jews in the ghettos that were assembled from old apartment buildings.  That's not to say that Mr. Szepilman didn't have his share of hardships.  He struggled to find people who we able and willing to help him, he struggled to find food and shelter, he struggled to stay sane.  As you can imagine, he was a pianist.  When one is in hiding and not trying to be found, playing piano isn't the greatest option for you, so he couldn't play at all while he was in hiding (he played piano in the ghetto after leaving the Polish radio station).

Mr. Szepilman's struggles really came through on screen.  No words were needed, Adrien Brody is such an experienced actor-- he's believable and he has acting instinct.  It's beautiful watching him perform.  I found a picture of the real Mr. Szepilman and then one of Adrien Brody to compare how they did as far as looks.  In this picture, he has longer hair, but in the movie is was quite short.  I think there's quite a resemblance!  So Kudos to the casting crew.

My favorite part was when a German discovers Szepilman while he is in hiding and the German listens to Szepilman play the piano (by the German's command).  The music was beautiful and complex, so I'm quite jealous that anyone can play like that.

I liked that this movie showed something about the Holocaust that didn't involve concentration camps.  It's not denying that they existed, but it's acknowledging that not everyone went to the camps (though it was rare).  This film showed a different kind of survival and struggle.

I look forward to reading this memoir and telling you all about it!

This is a true Holocaust film about a man that survived in the ghettos and rubble of Germany.  It shows a different kind of survival and is a very well-made film.

Thanks for Reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'American Beauty'

"While struggling to endure his perfection-obsessed wife (Annette Bening), an unfulfilling job and a sullen teenage daughter (Thora Birch), suburbanite Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) falls deep into a midlife crisis and becomes infatuated with one of his daughter's friends (Mena Suvari). Director Sam Mendes dazzles with this arresting blend of social satire and domestic tragedy that scooped up five Oscars, including acting honors for Spacey."


This was something I watched for my Literature and Film class.  I wasn't sure what to expect before actually watching it and I was nervous to see it after my teacher listed everything in the movie that made it rated R.  Believe me, it was quite a long list of legitimate reasons for making a movie rate R as well as arbitrary ones.


When movie started to play, it seemed as if this would be another movie about a suburban family being perfect.  And that's the point.  That's the facade this family was putting up for the world to see.  But once inside the house, we find out just how dysfunctional this family of three actually is.  


The mother, Carolyn, is controlling and possessed by perfection while the father, Lester, is at her mercy.  The daughter, Jane, is a typical teen, though maybe a more somber one, that hates her father and can't stand her mother.


The imagery and cinematography was beautiful.  The lighting towards the end in the dark room with Lester and Angela (Jane's friend) was just so beautiful.  The rose petals/roses that show up throughout the movie.  There were so many things that made this movie about beauty, well, beautiful.  That's the problem with beauty.  You can think of synonyms, but one can never seem to boil it down to its essence and explain it (at least not effectively).


One thing that I should mention though is how... I don't think 'graphic' is the right word, but it would be a step or two down from that.  There were uncomfortable things in this movie, no doubt about it.  Lester was infatuated with a sixteen-year-old girl, there are a few instances of nudity and other sex-related phenomena.  Maybe I'm not bothered by these things as much as I used to be because I know that the actors playing these roles are more than likely not like their character in real life.  While some things are a little bizarre and even disturbing, I don't think it's deterring from the overall film.


It's a wonderful debut from this screenwriter.  I was really surprised to find out that this was his first.


If you like awesome cinematography, a well-put-together cast, lovely imagery, and aren't distracted by bizarre and uncomfortable things in movies (that's not to say you will absolutely not be uncomfortable), than this movie is for you.





Thanks for reading!
--Jude

Movie Time! 'What Lies Beneath'

"When Clair Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer) starts hearing ghostly voices and seeing spooky images, she wonders if an otherworldly spirit is trying to contact her.  All the while, her husband (Harrison Ford) tries to reassure her it's all in her head.  But as Clair investigates, she discovers that the man she loves might know more than he's letting on.  Director Robert Zemeckis delivers twists and scares galore in this chilling thriller."

When I got home last Friday, I brought in the mail and this was waiting for us from  Netflix.  So I watched it with my dad that night.

The movie starts with a family who is seeing their daughter off to college.  This part felt a little thrown in now that I have seen the rest of the movie.  It didn't really play a huge part in the movie other than giving the wife, Clair, a motive for being crazy in most people's minds.

After this, the movie still doesn't get started very quickly.  There's a lot of setting the scene.  We find out that Clair was in a car accident a year ago where she drove into a tree while going eighty miles per hour.  Again, I was like, "That's unfortunate, but why are they telling us this?"  This however, actually goes somewhere later.

Michelle Pfeiffer was phenomenal in this movie.  She was essentially two characters at once towards the late middle of the movie when things started to get interesting and began picking up pace.  We find out that this isn't going to be another 'Paranormal Activity' or 'The Haunting in Connecticut' movie, which was a lovely change.  We find out that this story is more about Clair and her husband, who turned out to be a better (more rounded) character than I originally anticipated.

Even if the beginning of this movie was really slow and a little confusing, it was worth seeing it through to the end.  But I don't want to give that away.

This movie is good for those that need a change from today's horror films.







Thanks for Reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Vertigo'

"One of Alfred Hitchcock's darkest and most compelling suspense films tells the story of police detective Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart), who has a crippling fear of heights-- and an all-consuming obsession with a married woman.  When an old friend asks him to tail his wife (Kim Novak), Scottie is drawn into a vortex of deceit and murder.  But that's only the beginning as a mesmerizing score draws Scottie to the film's haunting final shot."

This was my first Alfred Hitchcock movie!  Honestly, I wish we had watched more of his movies in Literature and Film class.  We had to write a paper on him in relation to his movies 'Vertigo' and 'Rear Window' (that review is coming soon!) and it was just so interesting to read about his life!  Did you know the first movie he directed was never finished?  And that the way he got into the movie business was by designing title cards for silent films?  And that his parents sent him to jail with a note that he had been bad at home and should be shown what happens when you do bad things when you're older?  It's just so interesting!

Any way, the movie.

I liked the choice of James Stewart (I like him more since I've seen 'Rear Window') as the main actor.  He portrays someone with extreme Acrophobia and vertigo quite well-- I believed that he had it, in any case.

Things get more interesting when Madeleine came into the picture and Scottie (James Stewart) was asked to follow her to make sure that she wouldn't hurt herself as her husband feared.  I don't completely understand what happened to Madeleine, but it's still really intriguing and thought-provoking.  It was amazing how attached Scottie could become to one human being, especially when he met the other girl, her character's name was Julie (she's played by the same actress that played Madeleine in the first two-thirds of the movie).  His attachment to Madeleine became really uncomfortable to watch as Scottie bought her clothes like Madeleine's, asked her to bleach her hair and style it like Madeleine's... Madeleine was Scottie's drug.  He was on Madeleine withdrawal and he wanted her back so badly that he was willing to create her.  What made it so scary was that I had never really seen this kind of attachment before.  Scottie was just unable to let go.

When I die, I don't want people to become to attached to me as to try to bring me back through any means.

Technically-speaking, this was really interesting.  The ways Hitchcock filmed this movie were ground-breaking.  Zooming out and moving forward in order to zoom in?  Genius!  It was just beautiful.

Alfred Hitchcock is truly the Master of Suspense.  This was such a great film, even if it was uncomfortable to watch at times

I would recommend this movie to anyone who has never seen any Alfred Hitchcock movies but would like to (it's a good start), those who love movies with suspense, and those who like technically-brilliant movies.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'The Shawshank Redemption'

"Framed in the 1940s for the double murder of his wife and her lover, upstanding banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) begins a new life at the Shawshank prison, where he puts his accounting skills to work for an amoral warden (Bob Gunton).  During his long stretch in prison, Dufresne comes to be admired by the other inmates-- including an older prisoner named Red (Morgan Freeman)-- for his integrity and unquenchable sense of hope."

This is one of those movies that you could easily see several times.  Maybe it's the thought of getting a second chance in life or taking an interest in something that's yours that makes this movie so enticing.  Whatever it is that draws you in, it's the unbelievable amount of corruption that exists in Shawshank that keeps you interested and causes feelings of incredulous awe and shock.

What I found most interesting was how the prison functioned as a sort of city.  It's not at all like I imagined a prison could be like.

It was amazing to see the amount of effort put in to the play by the men who were forcibly confined there.  Andy's efforts in building one of the greatest prison libraries, putting his banking and number-crunching skills and knowledge to work (for benign and malevolent purposes).

What was startling was the corruption.  People died in this prison, and no necessarily from old age or because of the other inmates, but because of the brutality of the people in charge.  It was horrific and frightening.

This movie is just as uplifting as it is violent and corrupt, but that's only part of what makes it so good.  The characters are excellent too!  Each is so different.  Most claim to be innocent-- that they were framed or wrongfully convicted.  They aren't (all) bloodthirsty.  They're people trying to keep their minds busy in a place that initially didn't allow them to do anything but work, sleep, and read the bible.  Andy Dufresne is relatively quiet, yet outspoken when he needs to be, Red is crafty and honest... those are the two main inmates.  The warden is God-fearing, unforgiving, and under the surface, utterly psychotic.  The guards are sadistic.  There are two opposing sides and they are laid out quite well.

The ending was exciting and uplifting.  It's probably one of my favorites!

You will like this movie if you don't mind film violence, if you love the concept of triumph over evil, and if you like a clever movie.

Thanks for Reading!  There are still many reviews to come!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Star Wars Episode1: The Phantom Menace'

"In this Star Wars prequel, jedi Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) must protect Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) from the evil clutches of Darth Sidious and Senator Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid).  Along the way, they meet Anakikn Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), a child who shows intimations of a great gift.  Terence Stamp and Samuel L. Jackson so-star amid spectacular CGI scenery in director George Lucas's sci-fi epic."

To be honest, before I started the movie, I wasn't expecting to see a very good movie.  But I pressed on because I've grown up with the original three Star Wars movies, not to mention that I have seen the two most recent prequels (not including any of the cartoon versions).  But I was pleasantly surprised to discover that this was a decent movie.  The light-saber fights were exciting (I love Darth Maul's two-handed light-saber.  It's pretty ingenious) and the Pod-Racing caused a bit of an adrenaline rush in me as I watched it.  I kept getting scared that little Anakin Skywalker was going to take a wrong turn and impale himself on a mountain on Tatooine.

Amidala's costumes were beautiful in a really strange and flashy way.  That's one thing that I've always loved about the Star Wars movies.  That and the hair of the women.  I wonder how much hairspray and/or false hair was involved in the most unique hairstyles.

I wish that there had been more action from Qui-Gon.  He seemed to act as the wise man until the end and then all of that just... stopped.  Qui-Gon was the Legolas of the Jedi.  He totally deserves a bigger part in the series.

Compared with the other Star Wars films, this isn't the greatest one, but it was still a great film to set up everything that comes afterwards and it will not disappoint.

Thanks for Reading!

--Jude

P.S. Jake Lloyd is freaking adorable in this movie!  I want him to be my little brother.

Movie Time! 'Blood Simple'

"In a jealous rage, Texas tavern owner Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya) hires unscrupulous private detective Loren Visser (M. Emmett Walsh) to not only tail Marty's two-timing spouse, Abby (Frances McDormand, in her big-screen debut), but also murder her and her bar-keeping paramour (John Getz).  Events take a surprising turn, however, when the gumshoe double-crosses his client.  Joel Coen directs this stylish shocker co-written with brother Ethan Coen."

As I mentioned on Thursday, my Literature and Film class has been learning about Film Noir.  'Blood Simple' is a more modern Film Noir.  It was directed by the Coen brothers who are from Minnesota, the state that I live in.

This movie is rated R for persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, and adult activity.  Just keep this in mind if ratings are important in your decision to watch a movie.

The beginning, before the story even begins to unfold, was very neat.  The light patterns were very interesting because of the rain and the bright flashes of the car headlights that flashed by.  It was cinematic excellence!

The movie was generally quiet.  There were a lot of suspenseful pauses as one character would creep around a corner (unknowingly) towards another character.  When the normal sounds joined the quiet and the sound of boots on the floor, it was enough to cause a number of people in my Lit and Film class to jump out of our seats!

The silence also made the film quite eerie and, for me, a little hard to watch because they were a bit long for my attention span.

The murders and double-crossing made the move very interesting (it wouldn't be a true Noir without the murders).  I'm just in love with Noir because of the crime and because of the lack of light.

The beginning of the movie (other than the very beginning when Abby and Ray (John Getz) were in the car together) wasn't terribly interesting, though the information was very important. When the characters started dying, everything became more tense, suspenseful, and interesting.

Obviously, this isn't a family film, but if you're looking for a good suspenseful thriller and you don't mind a bit of sexuality, this movie is for you!

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Double Indemnity'

"Smitten insurance man Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) plots the perfect murder with femme fatale client Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck): staging her husband's 'accidental' death to collect double indemnity on his life insurance and absconding with the loot.  But before their scheme can pay off, the lethal duo must first get past a crafty claims investigator (Edward G. Robinson) who senses something isn't kosher."

I'm currently taking a Literature and Film class, so I'll be posting more informed movie reviews (I hope!).  Lately, we've been learning about Film Noir.  This particular Noir film is one that I found more charming, compared with the film that I'm reviewing on Saturday called 'Blood Simple.'  While it is charming (referring to the classic 40's movie with the beautiful women that look similar enough to be twins), it is also a very good example of the typical Film Noir format: a crime, a femme fatale (essentially, a woman who uses her sexuality to get what she wants), rain, and murder.

I found the initial level of flirtation between Phyllis and Walter really uncomfortable.  One look was all it took.  There was so much sexual tension that you could cut it with a knife and still not reach the other side.  I'm not bothered by sexuality of any kind in a movie, but what made it so uncomfortable was the fact that everything moved forward so quickly between them.  Walter and Phyllis haven't known each other a week and they're already plotting to kill Phyllis' husband.

The crime part was excellent.  The way they executed the murder (what a violent sentence) and covered everything up was good-- using the train, etc.

This movie was quite clever.  The title makes sense as they delve into the insurance side of the movie.  This was quite admirable.

I liked how the characters started at the end and basically retold their story from the beginning.  It was an effective way to tell the story.

The ending was very satisfying-- I won't divulge it here, because maybe you'll be able to predict it, but if you can't, it's good.

This movie is good if you're interested in watching a not-so-violent, classic, crime film.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude




P.S.  Has anyone else noticed that Barbara Stanwyck doesn't really move her teeth or mouth when she talks in this film?  Ugh... that really distracted me...

Movie Time! 'Black Swan'

"In director Darren Aronofsky's psychological thriller, ambitious New York City ballet dancer Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) lands the lead in 'Swan Lake' but soon thinks her dreams of stardom are threatened by a rival ballerina (Mila Kunis).  As opening night nears and the pressure to be perfect builds, Nina's obsession descends into paranoia and delusion.  Portman won an Academy Award for the film which also nabbed an Oscar nod for Best Picture."

It's definitely rated R for a reason.  Several, actually.

If you're familiar with 'Swan Lake' or 'The Swan Princess' (at least up until the very end of the movie), you'll be quite familiar with the general story.  If you're not familiar with either the ballet or the cartoon movie, don't worry, you'll be caught up soon enough.  What's nice is that they (the directors) don't target the ballet-going audience, but anyone interested in a creepy, psychological movie about dancing.

I thought it was really clever that they basically told the story twice.  The catch is, it's told in two different ways, which I thought was totally cool!

I ended up watching this movie three times in one weekend.  It's not a light movie, so I went back to catch anything I missed before.

There's a decent amount of gore in the movie.  I don't mean "rip your guts out, shoot-'em-up" movie, but enough to make you squirm in your seat.  It was quite effective.

The casting of this movie was amazing.  While I was only familiar with Natalie Portman, I thought that the cast had chemistry, no matter how big or small of a part any given actor/dancer had.  Dance companies need to have chemistry (I'm not in a dance company and I've never danced except at school dances, but chemistry seems to be important) in order to make the story they're performing believable.  To be able to do this under the pretense of a movie seems to be quite impressive.  Sure, these people can act, but can they dance?  Or vice versa.

The sets were beautiful too!  Mostly the stage sets, but the apartment where Nina lived was beautiful too.

Actually, now that I mention her mother, I realize that that was my next topic.  Nina's mother is a scary, scary lady.  I don't understand why Nina is in her twenties (at the very least) and still living with her mother who treats her like a child, cooking for her, waking her up in the morning, sometimes undressing her.  They have an interesting relationship.  And it only became more interesting as the movie wore on.  It kind of weirded me out...

What was also really interesting was figuring out what parts of the movie were "actually happening" and which weren't.  Did Nina really go out and do drugs?  Did she really have sex three times in one night or just two (Note: this particular part largely contributes to the rated R rating.  If you're sensitive to sexual themes, this is probably not the movie for you)?  Did something happen at all?  What happened in the dressing room at the end (I know what happened, but how did it happen to her?)?  What about Beth?

This was an excellent movie that will make you cringe and swoon.  It's completely worth rewatching.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Labyrinth'

"Journey into the fantastical world of LABYRINTH, starring David Bowie and a cast of incredible creatures created by Jim Henson and produced by the Master of Myth, George Lucas!

Frustrated with babysitting on yet another weekend night, Sarah-- a teenager with an active imagination-- summons the Goblins from her favorite book, 'Labyrinth,' to take her baby step-brother away.  When little Toby actually disappears, Sarah must follow him into the world of the fairy tale to recuse him from the wicked Goblin King (Bowie)!


Guarding his castle is the Labyrinth itself-- a twisted maze of deception, populated with outrageous characters and unknown dangers.  To get through it in time to save Toby, Sarah will have to outwit the King by befriending the very Goblins who protect him, in hopes that their loyalty isn't just another illusion in a place where nothing is as it seems!"

Hmm... kind of a twisted 90's movie... it's like nothing I've ever seen before.

For a 90's movie I struggle to decide whether it was good or bad.  It was good in that the story was interesting and there was tons of glitter to appease the masses, but it was bad in the sense that the directors didn't really know how to use green screen, so it was super obvious when they tried and the various costumes and puppets as well as the Sarah character... very questionable.  The music was good, so gold star for David Bowie.

It's not a bad kind of bad, but a nostalgic bad, if you know what I'm trying to get at.

If you're planning on having a nineties party or a nostalgically bad movie party any time soon, definitely put this on your list.  If you're looking for something kind of corny and cute, put this on your list.  If you're feeling a little down one day, pop this into your DVD player (or VHS player, if you're still awesome enough to have kept yours) and this movie will cheer you right up, I promise!

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'The Roommate'

"While acclimating to campus life, college freshman Sara (Minka Kelly) begins to realize that her new roommate, Rebecca (Leighton Meester), is becoming obsessed with her.  When the unhinged Rebecca starts targeting Sara's friends and loved ones, can she save them-- and herself?  This tense psychological thriller also stars Cam Gigandet, Danneel Harris, Alyson Michalka, and Frances Fisher.

This was a movie made up of a lot of creepy factors that make you cringe.  Everything else would have been much scarier all the way through if they had shown exactly what was happening (though I'm really glad the directors decided not to... it was creepy enough as it is).

I'm really curious about what exactly Rebecca has.  I know she was taking medication because she was a psychopath or a sociopath, but those aren't names of diseases or disorders, just a way of being, right?  If you know, could you share your knowledge?

I watched this movie with my friend Marie from France and we watched it around 11 or midnight.  Perfect time to watch such a creepy, cringe-worthy film.

You will be put on edge as Rebecca confronts anyone that she sees as a threat to Sara and/or their roommate relationship.  And really, the scary part is that it doesn't take much to get on her bad side.

The plot thickens when we pay a visit to Rebecca's house.

Quite a good movie.  I'm not a little afraid to get a roommate...

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Insidious'

"After moving into a new home, Josh (Patrick Wilson) and his wife Renai (Rose Byrne) confront terrifying tribulations when their son Dalton (Ty Simpkins) falls into a coma and his body starts to attract malevolent forces from a mysterious netherworld.  But when the family decides to move again, hoping to leave the evil spirits behind, they realize that their problems are just beginning.  James Wan ('Saw') directs."

While I enjoyed this movie immensely, I thought the timing was bad for it.  There are so many paranormal movies that have been made in the past five years at least.  It's too bad that it didn't come along sooner, because it's better than those movies.

I liked that it wasn't like either of the Paranormal Activity movies or Paranormal Entity, in that it didn't look like an amateur had shot the film and it actually had a plot to work with.  I appreciate both of those things.  Also, while I know this movie isn't reality happening and being caught on film, it made it feel real.  Not like those fake-feeling paranormal movies.

I didn't find this terribly scary, though I'll admit that I did jump a few times when creatures jumped out or doors randomly opened.  Also, dead old ladies are just plain creepy.  Just saying.

The whole "empty shell" or "body as merely a vessel for the soul" concept was great.  In my (admittedly minimal) experience as a movie watcher (I watch a lot of movies, but not a great variety), I can't say that I've come across this idea before and it was really interesting to see how everything turned out.

 The pacing at the beginning of the movie was a little questionable.  At times it felt like things were moving too slowly-- the family would turn around thinking that they saw something, and then dismiss that something as a trick of the light.  Of course for a horror film like this, that's necessary to do, but you can only drag it out so long before it's boring or it doesn't work any more.  Other times it felt like things were moving too fast-- jumping to conclusions and deciding to immediately take action.  Oh yeah, and Dalton's grandmother is involved.

As far as characterization, I wasn't too connected with the characters, but I wasn't totally disconnected either.  A little more back story from the other characters (not Josh, because he's such a big role in this story) would have helped.  I would have cared more.  Josh's mother was a cheesy character, acting like the warm grandmother one moment and then taking on a darker and somber woman with a secret.  Those things made her feel like two different characters.

Overall, a good movie to watch.  You certainly wouldn't be wasting your time, because this movie has so much to offer, despite what I mentioned above.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'The Time Traveler's Wife'

"Due to a genetic disorder, handsome librarian Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) involuntarily zips through time, appearing at various moments in the life of his true love, the beautiful artist Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams).  Also starring Ron Livingston as Gomez, the soul-stirring romantic drama was adapted from the best-selling novel by Audrey Niffenegger by Bruce Joel Rubin, the screenwriter behind the beloved weepy 'Ghost.'"

What a beautiful film!

As of yet, I can't comment on how accurate this movie is compared to the book that shares the same title (fear not, I've recently acquired it, so that's in my reading cue).  But as a movie separated from the parent, it was splendid!

You must pay attention when watching this.  Henry jumps through time quite often and it's hardly ever in any kind of chronological order.  One moment, Clare is a young girl and the next she is a grown woman, upset because Henry has been missing in action for two weeks.

However difficult it was to keep up with where in time Henry was (of course this statement is relative to each person who sees the movie), it was easy to become attached to each of the characters.  Clare, when she wants nothing more than to bear Henry's child.  Henry as he struggles to keep up with where he is in time and take on a household as best as he can... their struggles are both relatable and not, but that hardly matters because all of their problems register on an emotional level.

But the movie wasn't all sad and not all the scenes were inconvenient (I'm thinking of when Henry travels).  There were also many parts where humor was brought in, particularly surrounding the wedding, and there were parts where is was quite suspenseful (again, the wedding, and towards the end of the movie).

Overall, a beautiful film that will appeal to those that love a good romance.

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'Water for Elephants'

"In this captivating Depression-era melodrama, impetuous veterinary student, Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) joins a celebrated circus as an animal caretaker but faces a wrenching dilemma when he's transfixed by angelic married performer, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).  An affinity for elephants brings together the young pair, but the warmth between them sends Marlena's cruel husband, animal trainer August (Christoph Waltz), into a frightening fury."

I was quite impressed with how this movie was done.  I was sort of anticipating this movie to be... well, less than desirable.  But that wasn't the case.  I was concerned about the casting decision of Robert Pattinson.  Mostly because of the 'Twilight' movies.  But now it's been made plain to me that this guy isn't the problem in that series.  But I won't get into that now.  Robert Pattinson proved to me that he's capable of portraying very strong emotions-- I've always appreciated that in an actor.  In my head, Robert Pattinson has made a similar comeback to Zac Efron.  Efron had 'High School Musical,' but then moved on to movies like 'Charlie St. Cloud.'  Pattinson had 'Twilight' and moved onto greater films such as this one.

Reese Witherspoon was absolutely stunning, as always.  It was different seeing her outside of 'Legally Blonde.'  But she's such an amazing actor that it doesn't matter what part she plays, she just makes it amazing.

Stepping away from casting decisions, I was quite impressed with how certain scenes turned out.  Putting down one of Marlena's horses, the hotel room, August finding out what was going on between Jacob and Marlena... They were great!  They kept me engaged in the movie and I thought they fit well.  The director/writer wasn't just referring to the book the entire time.

I was a little disappointed that they left out parts that took place in the nursing home, including the part where another old guy claims that he used to carry water for the elephants in another big circus.  So anyone that hasn't read the book might be a little confused because the title doesn't seem to make a lot of sense with the rest of the movie without that scene, but then, I don't know how they would have fit it in otherwise.

Overall, there was very little I was actually disappointed in.  A very well-done movie!

Thanks for reading!

--Jude

Movie Time! 'It's Kind of a Funny Story'

"Being a teenager is too much for 16-year-old Craig (Keir Gilchrist), who shocks his parents (Lauren Graham and Jim Gaffigan) by checking himself into a mental health clinic for a little R&R.  But when the youth ward is unexpectedly closed, he's forced to live among the adult patients.  Zach Galifianakis, Viola Davis, Emma Roberts, and Aasif Mandvi co-star in this quirky drama written and directed by the screenwriters of Half Nelson."

And based on the novel written by Ned Vizzini!  Netflix conveniently forgot to mention him, though the directors didn't.  Allow me to explain... in the late beginning of the movie, Craig is explaining what kind of people are in his school.  He introduces this random girl with test scores higher than the moon, a boy that does a whole bunch of smart-looking stuff for extracurriculars, and then himself, who is holding one of Ned Vizzini's books that I recognized as 'Be More Chill.'  I couldn't finish that book... I think that I should try again sometime.  When I'm in that sort of state of mind.  Maybe.

I really liked the format of this movie.  Transitions were sort of laid out like they are in 'The Shining' where they tell you when a day has passed (they never go to specific times though).  Not only the transitions, but also the strategic pauses in the movie that are used to help Craig explain certain things (the dreams where he jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge), to emphasize points that come with the tangents he sometimes goes on (why he was attracted to Nia.... mostly because she was hot), and also to have a stealthy speed-up of time (towards the end).  I feel like it really worked for this story.  It seemed to mirror the jumbled thinking of someone with a lot on his mind and a lot of baggage to deal with, so it was perfect.

From what I can remember, it was mostly true to the book.  Of course it's not a carbon copy, the writers and directors added new scenes and their own touches, but I really believe that what they added didn't crush the integrity of the original story.

The romance, while at one point felt like it was going too far (because that's how it went in the story), was innocent; just the beginning of falling in love, which is the greatest feeling one can hope to experience.

This movie was funny on many occasions as well!  I found myself laughing out loud several times.

This movie was also humbling because of the stories of these characters.  Solomon who did too much acid at once, Bobby who is very secretive and hard on himself, Noelle and her scars... they've been through a lot, whether that's what life handed to them or because of the choices that they made.

Overall, this movie will make you laugh, despite the serious undertones.  A very well-made movie!

Thanks for reading!

--Jude