Breaking Dawn - Part 1

You know, because there are two parts to this epic, epic... um... wait. First off lets look at Twilight's predecessor Harry Potter (it's more successful, better written, and just plain smarter predecessor) and the fact that for Deathly Hallows they decided breaking it into two was not only cost effective - yay more money for the same shoot - but necessary to be "true to the book." They didn't want to leave out any of those long, boring scenes in the woods where nothing happens - the parts of the book where I found myself skipping around or falling asleep. Those scenes are, apparently, movie magic. So they made part one as boring as possible and shoved all the action into part two. So guess what Twilight did? Three things happen in Breaking Dawn Part 1: 1)Edward and Bella get married (in one of the more lavish fake weddings I've ever seen - take that Kim K.!) 2)They go on their honeymoon and (gasp!) have sex, and 3) Bella gets pregnant and has a baby. Hold onto your hats people! Now if this were a movie about someone I cared about or had an affection for, someone I wanted to see settled or happy, a relative maybe, I'd go to their wedding and get them a nice gift and then of course congratulate them on their first child (probably would not want to know what they did on their honeymoon) but is this really a movie? And since I don't care about two random actors playing fake people I may as well have watched the Kardashian wedding special for free on television rather than paying ten dollars to see this one. Not to mention the bad, bad, really bad, fantasy scenes imagined via Bella (not in the book and totally unnecessary) along with the flashback scenes via Edward (he used to be bad guys, he killed people, he was a human eating vampire, you should feel sorry for him). The only moment where something actually happens is at the very, very end and then the movie is over. If this is my "cliffhanger" you can suck it. I apparently have to see the last movie because I want to see an actual MOVIE not someones home video collection. "Look, this is when little Billy rode his bike for the first time. Isn't he cute?"

No.

Crazy Stupid Love and 50/50

Yes, yes I realize I am a lot behind on this little blog but I'm having a baby so cut me a break. I went to see 50/50 with a friend and her husband who decided 2/3rds of the way through it to start fighting about whether or not he was crying during one of the more heart-wrenching scenes. I honestly didn't care if he did or not I just wanted them both to shut up so I could watch the rest of the movie. They did not do me that small favor. Ugh. The movie was good. There were some things I hadn't seen done before - a very cute scene with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's love interest and her messy car and some genuine acting on Seth Rogan's part. If you can handle Seth Rogan's oh-so-annoying chuckle which occurs far too often in any of his films, it's worth watching.

Crazy Stupid Love seemed over-edited to me. The rapid pace at which "playa" Ryan Gosling is transformed into devoted boyfriend reeks of scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. And all the subplots came to a collision in a very abbreviated and somewhat melodramatic "fight" scene that wasn't nearly built up enough to count as the climax of the film. The denouement that follows is dull, expected, and undeserved. Anything that was funny was in the previews and despite all the high class and expensive cast I was less than impressed. Marisa Tomei still can't break out of her extreme acting - "My biological clock is ticking like this!" And Steve Carell just isn't believable as super-dad. He leaves his kids alone every night to go to the bar and yet the babysitter is impressed by his devotion to his children? I didn't buy it. Wide-eyed Emma Stone is in every movie these days and yes she's cute, but she has zero range. If my lesson in watching the film was not to give up on love I'm afraid I remain unconvinced.

No movie today

The start of another semester is looming. A few meetings in the next two weeks and then it's showtime on the 29th. It really is a lot like performing because you can't be yourself, you need a syllabus going in - read script- and your critics are plentiful. But I hate to admit I usually enjoy myself. Granted there are always one or two in every class that make my life hell for weeks on end but there are also really sweet, really talented students who make them feel inconsequential. I hate grading, not the process of it just the assigning a letter to a person, defining them in some way, as if I could ever possibly know them well enough to dub them of a certain category, but it's not as bad as having a manager or punching a clock. Hey I can have class outside if I feel like it. But being a teacher is hard. It takes everything out of you. I think all those politicians who continually take funding away from schools should try it out for awhile. It's even harder to see the administration sweating out every penny trying to pull together faculty and classes and lectures, working toward bettering a department that may not exist soon enough. Who needs Humanities right? We just need to pump out those engineers to make us bigger bombs. Never mind that not a day goes by that someone misspells some basic word like sense or you're but no one leaves the country, no one has an interest in other cultures or history or really even thinking on a level that goes beyond what they want on their cheeseburger. But that's the really hard part about teaching, the depths of depression you climb out of just to keep showing up. Just to keep receiving those blank stares and pained looks because you are just getting in the way of what a "real" life entails. I guess as long as people keep asking me to teach I'll do it. I get to talk about books for a living and for people like me that is pretty awesome.

Sorry. No movie today. I have a cold and I'm pretty sure it's stress induced. I spent a lot of last week crying about people making dumb decisions with their life - you know things I can't do anything about. I wish I could only worry about whether or not I wanted ketchup, I really do.

Insidious

I should preface this by saying I am not a horror movie fan, yet I've now watched this one twice (once in the theater and once in my living room) and I enjoyed it both times. Although I would make the argument that there are so many sub-genres of horror (slasher, gore, hauntings, zombies, vampires, werewolves, thriller ...) that one could like some of them but not necessarily most. My husband for instance is all about zombie movies, alien takeovers, and of course the classic Freddy, Jason, and Michael Myers films but he doesn't find gore all that entertaining - he's more invested in the joke/slapstick element (Jason slamming a sleeping bag against a tree for instance). My mother on the other hand was obsessed with Stephen King and ghost stories. I myself love a good possession. If you believe in good you have to believe in evil right? Granted it doesn't take much to scare me or keep me up all night staring into every dark corner of my bedroom, but Insidious had me thinking about it for weeks. It did some new things - and trust me I have seen quite a few from this genre - and included an interesting cast of characters. Was there stuff that could have been better? Sure. And most people I talk to about the film didn't like the ending. I myself could have done without the nod to old school horror films with the loud violin playing and flashing pictures, but compared to most of the garbage labeled horror instead of snuff I enjoyed it.

Winnie the Pooh

I took my daughter to her very first movie. She made it just about 3/4ths of the way through - which is impressive for her - and really put away some serious popcorn. I honestly think she preferred the popcorn to the movie and I can't say I blame her. If you've seen any version of A.A. Milne's classic you've seen them all. I thought they might put a modern spin on it but it was essentially a remake with more familiar voices. It's cute if your kids aren't familiar with Pooh Bear and his adventures.

Rango

Just to preface this, I had no intention or desire to see this film but my movie buddy Jeanne was insistent. She has some leopard geckos and a thing for animals, although the characters being animals did little for the plot and actually worked against it at times. A chameleon cannot survive in the desert or a desert-style aquarium - once again Hollywood sacrifices doing it right for doing it easily.

So in case you don't get it when the animals continue to say, "It's a metaphor" it's a metaphor. It's another adult movie disguised as a child film. Think what Happy Feet, or Ice Age 2 did for global warming...nothing. You cannot reach an audience this way, I promise you! The people that get it, get it already. The people that don't will not see through your veiled metaphor! Give up the shtick, it's annoying and not at all entertaining. Also, Rango's message was all over the place. They were very blunt about big business being the new bad guy, replacing the old western style bandit, but a little vague on their stance on Christianity. They keep the people weak and powerless by controlling the water (i. e. money) and having them worship the crank on the faucet (the cross) but later when the animals are out working for the system retrieving the water that was stolen they hold hands and have a prayer circle - which to me read as though religion was a good thing, a rock for people during times of hardship (which sure, totally cool with that but then why mock it in the beginning?) Maybe it's religion is good if it's used appropriately, bad if business uses it to manipulate people?

Then there is Vegas - is Vegas as in big business gambles with our money? As in Vegas is Soddam and Gamorrah? As in Vegas has destroyed the environment? You lost me there movie people.


The best part was the dream sequences which were a clever nod to Depp's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as well as Pirates of the Caribbean.

If you like animals it's all over the place and most of the animals are unrecognizable, if you are a kid it's too scary, and if you are an adult like me it's just long, boring, and slaps you in the face with "hidden messages".

Inception

Yes, I realize it's been awhile. Blogging is hard, especially when there are 87 other commitments that come before it. And no one reads this...so...

I've seen a lot of movies since my last entry, I did make it to see Love and Other Drugs and was very very disappointed - go ahead and miss that one (unless you have a thing for Jake or Anne because they are naked pretty much the entire film and if they aren't naked they are either dressing or undressing). I went to see Blue Valentine since my sister was an extra in the film, and you see her which is cool, but man was that depressing. My friend and I cried pretty much from start to finish.

But onto Inception, the dream within a dream within a dream, within a dream? That's not confusing at all right? Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor and without him this film would probably fall apart and at this point if I see Ellen Page in one more film I may gag. I need a break from her, Hollywood has a serious too-much-of-a-good-thing problem. That or Ellen Page just works her butt off. I'll be happy when she gets a big enough paycheck to just do one film a year. I enjoyed this movie, the special effects, and trying to figure out just how messed up DiCaprio's character really is, and it didn't hurt that I was writing a paper on dreams the day I watched it, but I wouldn't necessarily watch it again. The action sequences were numerous and often hard to keep track of. I understood what was happening but never really the why behind it. Why would this technology exist? If it's for pure pleasure that seems really unlikely - it makes people too vulnerable. It didn't blow me away or change my life and I really didn't care if the end was a dream or not - it seems like it doesn't matter anyway. This one's good for entertainment purposes and I'm sure looked good and worked fabulously on the big screen.