Infinite thanks must be given to my good friend and former roommate Shelby for sending me the link to information about this show. I would have never known about it otherwise and I would have missed out on possibly the fangirliest experience of my life.
I have been an Animaniacs fan since the day it aired and I found out in retrospect that I've been a fan of Rob Paulsen since even before that. He's been voices in pretty much every cartoon ever, including Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (he played Raphael, the turtle I had a crush on until I realized Donatello was the smart one. Recently they recorded a pilot for a Turtles reboot; Rob Paulsen played Donatello in that one. Funny, that).
On top of that, he's totally dreamy. So there's that.
The woman sitting across from me at the show was a friend of Rob Paulsen's and he came up and said hello to her beforehand. I sat and quietly stared and internally freaked the hell out. In a good way. Shelby laughed at me, a grand time was had by all.
About twenty minutes later, very close to my head but slightly behind me I hear a very familiar cartoon character say "Hello! I'm Yakko," as a hand lands on my shoulder. I turned to find Rob Paulsen, who was walking around greeting everybody and thanking them for coming (how unbelieveably nice is this guy!) and ... well, my reaction was the epitome of fangirlity. The gasp that escaped from my mouth would have sounded overtly theatrical if it hadn't been one hundred percent sincere. Yakko told me not to throw up and Rob Paulsen thanked us for missing the opening of the Olympics for his show. I told him that this was far more important.
Now, as for the show itself ... sweet holy everything, it was fantastic. Randy Rogel wrote pretty much all the best Animaniacs songs and they played pretty much everything I wanted to hear. They started with Variety Speak; they played A Quake, A Quake; Hello Nurse; Yakko's Universe; Lake Titicaca; a song called The Geologic Clock (I think?) that had never made it onto the show; they played The Invasion Song from Histeria; When You're Traveling (my absolute favorite Animaniacs song; I nearly overturned the table with joy when it began); Noel ... probably some others but I'm forgetting them. Yakko's World, obviously, but I'm a little tired of that song and Rob Paulsen is very tired of it (which was kind of awesome to hear).
They were funny, they were informative, their banter was genuine, the stories they told were interesting, some of the song lyrics got flubbed, Rob Paulsen bad-mouthed his I-Pad, it was fantastic. (I don't listen to podcasts but you can be certain that I will be downloading this one.)
The place was packed with cartoon royalty: Andrea Romano, Maurice LaMarche, Tom Ruegger who read a heartfelt rendition of Lake Titicaca to Sherri Stoner, who added commentary by Slappy Squirrel. I'm sure there are other people I'm forgetting. I was a bit overwhelmed at the time.
And that's what I'm really having a hard time capturing, that overwhelmedness. That feeling of absolute fangirl bliss. I was in a comedy club watching my favorite voice actor perform my favorite songs from one of my favorite cartoon shows, songs written by my favorite of that show's songwriters. I was there with one of my best friends, one of her biggest interests in life is animation. There's no one better I could have gone with and the event itself could not have been more perfect.
After the show Paulsen, Rogel, Stoner and Ruegger signed my notebook for me and I got a picture with Rob Paulsen. They could not possibly have been nicer and Shelby pointed out that the evening was far better than Comic Con.
It was pretty much perfect, really. Experiences like this come about very rarely and it's wonderful when you get to have an evening where everything is exactly right.
End of line.
-Sally
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Brave
In old timey Scotland, princes of three different kingdoms gather to fight for the betrothal of princess Merida, who's having none of it and uses a loophole to fight for her own hand. All of that is in the preview and that moment is royally awesome.
However, rather than the rest of the movie really delivering what the previews promised (Merida winning the archery contest and then leaving home to have awesome adventures of her own) it instead decides to have a plot and a lesson and go all Emperor's New Groove on us (in a person-changes-into-an-animal way, not a wacky-humor way).
I did like Brave. I'd go see it again, which is more than I can say for a lot of other Pixar movies. I'm envious of Merida's bitchin' hair and now that I know what the plot is, I won't be bitterly disappointed by the lack of adventure the second time around.
It has officially joined the list of Pixar Movies I Actively Like (upping the grand total to four) and is the only Pixar movie I can think of that doesn't have a segment that tears your soul out. But I am still a little pissed at the previews for making the movie look morecool and adventurous than it ended up being.
End of line.
-Sally
However, rather than the rest of the movie really delivering what the previews promised (Merida winning the archery contest and then leaving home to have awesome adventures of her own) it instead decides to have a plot and a lesson and go all Emperor's New Groove on us (in a person-changes-into-an-animal way, not a wacky-humor way).
I did like Brave. I'd go see it again, which is more than I can say for a lot of other Pixar movies. I'm envious of Merida's bitchin' hair and now that I know what the plot is, I won't be bitterly disappointed by the lack of adventure the second time around.
It has officially joined the list of Pixar Movies I Actively Like (upping the grand total to four) and is the only Pixar movie I can think of that doesn't have a segment that tears your soul out. But I am still a little pissed at the previews for making the movie look morecool and adventurous than it ended up being.
End of line.
-Sally
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Dream Casting: Rock Of Ages
I guess this was inevitable. Let's say they didn't keep the play's plot (because I have the movie's character list in front of me and not the play's) but they did let me cast it. What would I have done differently?
I'll put the restriction on myself that I can't cast any of the people I saw in Rock Of Ages on stage or keep any of the people who were in the movie, unless I put them in a different part. I liked some of the cast, but I'm changing them all around. 'Cause I feel like it.
The two leads were the hardest for me to cast because 1) I don't really like either character, 2) I'm not familiar with young actors and actresses (and especially not ones who sing), 3) none of the singers I like would be right for the part. So I just picked young-ish actors I know have been in musicals.
Drew (male lead) - Daniel Radcliffe (I can't picture it, but it's a fun bit of stunt casting, I guess)
Sherrie (female lead) - Alexa Vega (can't really picture her, either, but she was good in Repo!)
Stacee Jaxx (rock god) - Eugene Hutz
Dennis Dupree (bar owner) - Tim Roth
Lonnie (bar owner's assistant) - Johnny Galecki (or possibly Jospeh Gordon-Levitt)
Mike Whitmore (politician guy) - Chris Hardwick (a nod to the workshop cast I loved so much)
Patricia Whitmore (politician guy's protester wife) - Lady Gaga (more stunt casting, but it'd be hilarious)
Paul Gill (Stacee's manager) - Nicolas Cage
Constance (reporter chick) - Catherine Zeta-Jones
Justice (strip club owner) - Tia Carrere (I liked Mary J. Blige and would have kept her if I hadn't put the no-same-actors restriction on myself. Queen Latifah might also be good, but it seems a bit like a rehash of her character in Chicago)
End of line.
-Sally
I'll put the restriction on myself that I can't cast any of the people I saw in Rock Of Ages on stage or keep any of the people who were in the movie, unless I put them in a different part. I liked some of the cast, but I'm changing them all around. 'Cause I feel like it.
The two leads were the hardest for me to cast because 1) I don't really like either character, 2) I'm not familiar with young actors and actresses (and especially not ones who sing), 3) none of the singers I like would be right for the part. So I just picked young-ish actors I know have been in musicals.
Drew (male lead) - Daniel Radcliffe (I can't picture it, but it's a fun bit of stunt casting, I guess)
Sherrie (female lead) - Alexa Vega (can't really picture her, either, but she was good in Repo!)
Stacee Jaxx (rock god) - Eugene Hutz
Dennis Dupree (bar owner) - Tim Roth
Lonnie (bar owner's assistant) - Johnny Galecki (or possibly Jospeh Gordon-Levitt)
Mike Whitmore (politician guy) - Chris Hardwick (a nod to the workshop cast I loved so much)
Patricia Whitmore (politician guy's protester wife) - Lady Gaga (more stunt casting, but it'd be hilarious)
Paul Gill (Stacee's manager) - Nicolas Cage
Constance (reporter chick) - Catherine Zeta-Jones
Justice (strip club owner) - Tia Carrere (I liked Mary J. Blige and would have kept her if I hadn't put the no-same-actors restriction on myself. Queen Latifah might also be good, but it seems a bit like a rehash of her character in Chicago)
End of line.
-Sally
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Rock Of Ages
All right, about seven years ago my friend Lauren and I went to see the workshop production of Rock Of Ages in Los Angeles. And I loved it. It was brilliant. The songs were awesome, the cast included Chris Hardwick, Kyle Gass, Tom Lenk and other cool people I'm not remembering right now. We had an absolute blast at that show. So this review is probably going to be more of a comparison than a true review.
And the odds are not in the movie's favor.
Because ... Okay, if you were casting a musical, don't you think for the female lead you'd try to cast a woman who can actually fucking sing? 'Cause I would. But apparently the people who were in charge of casting this movie didn't feel that was necessary and instead cast a woman who sounded like a fucking Chipmunks record, but not in an amusing, novelty way. More in a stab-yourself-in-the-ears-so-you-won't-have-to-listen-to-her-wretched-voice kind of way.
They also decided to cast as the reporter (a role that didn't exist in the play) an actress who looks exactly like the actress who plays Sherrie, the female lead. I didn't actually know they weren't the same person until the end credits. I don't have prosopagnosia or anything (I actually have an easier time distinguishing faces than a lot of people I know) but I sincerely had no idea they weren't the same actress. So I feel like that was a poor casting choice.
Also, I just want to point out that having the character still be named Sherrie but not use the song Oh Sherrie, but to still use the song Sister Christian in reference to her in spite of the fact that it isn't once mentioned in the movie that her last name is Christian, is confusing.
Not one of my favorite lines from the play ("I have a diamond driveway!;" "I'm blonde, not retarded;" "I'm not gay! I'm just German!;" "No, yawn, that's a dude, I'll be hungry again in an hour;" "Remember the time we fucked that llama?;" "Wow. A vest made out of jeans. You're rad.") ended up in the movie (although it's possible that at least two of those were improvised and never in the script at all).
Now, I have been complaining since the moment I found out about it that Tom Cruise was chosen to play Stacee Jaxx in the movie. Over and over I said "How the hell do you go from Chris Hardwick to Tom Cruise?!" And I still don't understand the progression. But I do have to say, Tom Cruise was not as terrible as I thought he'd be. He definitely had a different take on the character and I wish he would have put on a fucking shirt (I have the same problem with Tom Cruise that Lauren has with the guy who plays Captain America: it makes me physically ill to look at him) but he had the whole sleazy thing down, and he was actually a pretty decent singer. So, good for him!
On the other hand, there's an aspect of Stacee Jaxx that I feel like is incredibly important that Tom Cruise just doesn't have: charisma. The whole point of the guy is he's charismatic and women are drawn to him in spite of the fact that he's a complete and utter slimebag. So, while on one level I was impressed with Tom Cruise's performance, he didn't have that one quality that I feel really makes the character work. At one point I found my mind wandering and wondering who I would cast if Chris Hardwick was not an option.
The answer: Eugene Hutz. Of course. Because it's me and I think he should be in everything. But the man is absolutely made of charisma and I think seeing him play someone so ridiculously smarmy would be hilarious because nothing about him in real life seems sleazy like that. It'd be fun, he'd have the magnetism that the character needs and nobody would mind that he wasn't wearing shirt. He never wears a shirt anyway; no one would notice the difference.
Anyway, let's see, what else is there to say?
So much of the plot was changed that it barely seemed worth keeping the title Rock Of Ages. The whole Sherrie-sleeps-with-Stacee-Jaxx-who-proceeds-to-ruin-her-life thing was traded for a forgettable-male-lead-thinks-Sherrie-slept-with-Stacee-Jaxx-even-though-she-didn't-romantic-comedy-misunderstanding-bullshit-that-I-hate thing. The whole Germans-trying-to-buy-up-the-Sunset-Strip thing was replaced with a politician's-wife-trying-to-close-down-the-Sunset-Strip thing which was just as awkwardly shoehorned in as the play's subplot but wasn't quite as effective. Which is too bad, because I actually really like Catherine Zeta-Jones, even if she isn't any good at faking an American accent.
A lot of the songs were different from the ones in the play I saw (I would like to reiterate that I saw the workshop production, which means it's possible what I saw wasn't anything like the play it became, which would make all my complaints even more petty and ridiculous), but they did keep one of my favorite moments (SPOILER): Lonnie and Dennis singing Can't Fight This Feeling to each other. It's just so sweet.
Which leads me to the subject of Russell Brand. Why is it that, in my Monty Python documentary, I want to smack him for being pretentious but in every movie I've seen him, I find him charming and lovable? I guess I just like him as an actor. (I've heard he's a very nice guy. But he really did seem to be trying too hard to sound smart in the Python documentary. And I have a hard time respecting anyone who would legally bind himself to Katie Perry (I know that's not how she spells her first name; I deliberately use the more common spelling because I despise her), who I find offensive in all ways. She's possibly the only woman on the planet who has a worse singing voice than the chick who played Sherrie.)
Eli Roth had a cameo for no discernable reason, the plot went off on a tagent about Forgettable Male Lead joining a boy band circa 1991 in spite of the fact that the rest of the movie takes place in 1987, Alec Baldwin wasn't as good as Kyle Gass, Bryan Cranston may as well have not even been in the movie for all they gave his character to do, the female lead absolutely cannot sing in any capacity and I fucking despise her and her goddamn Chipmunk voice, Stacee Jaxx wasn't funny at all but somehow Tom Cruise may have put in the best performance in the movie (which is pretty sad for the movie), Paul Giamatti (who I usually like) was disgusting (which I guess just means he's a good actor) and, more than anything else, this movie really made me miss the play.
And it's gone. The play that I saw does not actually exist anymore. The cast have all moved on and are doing other things with their lives and I have no idea how much of the script changed between the workshop and the Broadway (off-Broadway?) production. It's gone. And I'm bummed because now the closest I can come to ever seeing it again is this stupid movie.
And the movie is nothing like the play I saw. It has the same character names and the same basic idea on which they built their plot, but they built an entirely new plot and completely changed many of the characters's personalities. So I'm bummed.
I feel like there has to be an upside. There has to be something nice I can say about the movie other than "Tom Cruise was better than I expected" and "Russell Brand continues to make characters likeable." Um. Mary J. Blige was good as the strip club owner but they didn't give her much to do. Some of the songs were done well. It was bright and colorful, which I enjoy.
Overall, I'm disappointed in the movie. It would have been better if they'd kept the play's plot and if they'd let me cast it. And if they'd kept the play's plot. I hear tell elements of the story were changed so the audience would like Sherrie more; I guess middle America doesn't like it when starstruck fans have sex with rock gods. But I actually like that aspect of the play. It's more interesting to have characters make mistakes than have Sherrie be "perfect" and throw in the stupid romantic comedy misunderstanding cliche. (SPOILER: And I think it's much more in character for Stacee Jaxx to use I Want To Know What Love Is as a ploy to get a girl to sleep with him than to have him actually mean it and end up with that girl at the end of the movie.)
The movie was too glossy, and not nearly as interesting or as fun as the play.
And I know I sound like such a Rock Of Ages hipster; "I liked it before it was cool." But I can't help it; I did like it before it was cool. And I continued to speak and think highly of it when it became a hit in New York (although I did continue to insist that no matter who they got to play Stacee Jaxx, there's no way he could top Chris Hardwick. And I stand by that).
End of line.
-Sally
And the odds are not in the movie's favor.
Because ... Okay, if you were casting a musical, don't you think for the female lead you'd try to cast a woman who can actually fucking sing? 'Cause I would. But apparently the people who were in charge of casting this movie didn't feel that was necessary and instead cast a woman who sounded like a fucking Chipmunks record, but not in an amusing, novelty way. More in a stab-yourself-in-the-ears-so-you-won't-have-to-listen-to-her-wretched-voice kind of way.
They also decided to cast as the reporter (a role that didn't exist in the play) an actress who looks exactly like the actress who plays Sherrie, the female lead. I didn't actually know they weren't the same person until the end credits. I don't have prosopagnosia or anything (I actually have an easier time distinguishing faces than a lot of people I know) but I sincerely had no idea they weren't the same actress. So I feel like that was a poor casting choice.
Also, I just want to point out that having the character still be named Sherrie but not use the song Oh Sherrie, but to still use the song Sister Christian in reference to her in spite of the fact that it isn't once mentioned in the movie that her last name is Christian, is confusing.
Not one of my favorite lines from the play ("I have a diamond driveway!;" "I'm blonde, not retarded;" "I'm not gay! I'm just German!;" "No, yawn, that's a dude, I'll be hungry again in an hour;" "Remember the time we fucked that llama?;" "Wow. A vest made out of jeans. You're rad.") ended up in the movie (although it's possible that at least two of those were improvised and never in the script at all).
Now, I have been complaining since the moment I found out about it that Tom Cruise was chosen to play Stacee Jaxx in the movie. Over and over I said "How the hell do you go from Chris Hardwick to Tom Cruise?!" And I still don't understand the progression. But I do have to say, Tom Cruise was not as terrible as I thought he'd be. He definitely had a different take on the character and I wish he would have put on a fucking shirt (I have the same problem with Tom Cruise that Lauren has with the guy who plays Captain America: it makes me physically ill to look at him) but he had the whole sleazy thing down, and he was actually a pretty decent singer. So, good for him!
On the other hand, there's an aspect of Stacee Jaxx that I feel like is incredibly important that Tom Cruise just doesn't have: charisma. The whole point of the guy is he's charismatic and women are drawn to him in spite of the fact that he's a complete and utter slimebag. So, while on one level I was impressed with Tom Cruise's performance, he didn't have that one quality that I feel really makes the character work. At one point I found my mind wandering and wondering who I would cast if Chris Hardwick was not an option.
The answer: Eugene Hutz. Of course. Because it's me and I think he should be in everything. But the man is absolutely made of charisma and I think seeing him play someone so ridiculously smarmy would be hilarious because nothing about him in real life seems sleazy like that. It'd be fun, he'd have the magnetism that the character needs and nobody would mind that he wasn't wearing shirt. He never wears a shirt anyway; no one would notice the difference.
Anyway, let's see, what else is there to say?
So much of the plot was changed that it barely seemed worth keeping the title Rock Of Ages. The whole Sherrie-sleeps-with-Stacee-Jaxx-who-proceeds-to-ruin-her-life thing was traded for a forgettable-male-lead-thinks-Sherrie-slept-with-Stacee-Jaxx-even-though-she-didn't-romantic-comedy-misunderstanding-bullshit-that-I-hate thing. The whole Germans-trying-to-buy-up-the-Sunset-Strip thing was replaced with a politician's-wife-trying-to-close-down-the-Sunset-Strip thing which was just as awkwardly shoehorned in as the play's subplot but wasn't quite as effective. Which is too bad, because I actually really like Catherine Zeta-Jones, even if she isn't any good at faking an American accent.
A lot of the songs were different from the ones in the play I saw (I would like to reiterate that I saw the workshop production, which means it's possible what I saw wasn't anything like the play it became, which would make all my complaints even more petty and ridiculous), but they did keep one of my favorite moments (SPOILER): Lonnie and Dennis singing Can't Fight This Feeling to each other. It's just so sweet.
Which leads me to the subject of Russell Brand. Why is it that, in my Monty Python documentary, I want to smack him for being pretentious but in every movie I've seen him, I find him charming and lovable? I guess I just like him as an actor. (I've heard he's a very nice guy. But he really did seem to be trying too hard to sound smart in the Python documentary. And I have a hard time respecting anyone who would legally bind himself to Katie Perry (I know that's not how she spells her first name; I deliberately use the more common spelling because I despise her), who I find offensive in all ways. She's possibly the only woman on the planet who has a worse singing voice than the chick who played Sherrie.)
Eli Roth had a cameo for no discernable reason, the plot went off on a tagent about Forgettable Male Lead joining a boy band circa 1991 in spite of the fact that the rest of the movie takes place in 1987, Alec Baldwin wasn't as good as Kyle Gass, Bryan Cranston may as well have not even been in the movie for all they gave his character to do, the female lead absolutely cannot sing in any capacity and I fucking despise her and her goddamn Chipmunk voice, Stacee Jaxx wasn't funny at all but somehow Tom Cruise may have put in the best performance in the movie (which is pretty sad for the movie), Paul Giamatti (who I usually like) was disgusting (which I guess just means he's a good actor) and, more than anything else, this movie really made me miss the play.
And it's gone. The play that I saw does not actually exist anymore. The cast have all moved on and are doing other things with their lives and I have no idea how much of the script changed between the workshop and the Broadway (off-Broadway?) production. It's gone. And I'm bummed because now the closest I can come to ever seeing it again is this stupid movie.
And the movie is nothing like the play I saw. It has the same character names and the same basic idea on which they built their plot, but they built an entirely new plot and completely changed many of the characters's personalities. So I'm bummed.
I feel like there has to be an upside. There has to be something nice I can say about the movie other than "Tom Cruise was better than I expected" and "Russell Brand continues to make characters likeable." Um. Mary J. Blige was good as the strip club owner but they didn't give her much to do. Some of the songs were done well. It was bright and colorful, which I enjoy.
Overall, I'm disappointed in the movie. It would have been better if they'd kept the play's plot and if they'd let me cast it. And if they'd kept the play's plot. I hear tell elements of the story were changed so the audience would like Sherrie more; I guess middle America doesn't like it when starstruck fans have sex with rock gods. But I actually like that aspect of the play. It's more interesting to have characters make mistakes than have Sherrie be "perfect" and throw in the stupid romantic comedy misunderstanding cliche. (SPOILER: And I think it's much more in character for Stacee Jaxx to use I Want To Know What Love Is as a ploy to get a girl to sleep with him than to have him actually mean it and end up with that girl at the end of the movie.)
The movie was too glossy, and not nearly as interesting or as fun as the play.
And I know I sound like such a Rock Of Ages hipster; "I liked it before it was cool." But I can't help it; I did like it before it was cool. And I continued to speak and think highly of it when it became a hit in New York (although I did continue to insist that no matter who they got to play Stacee Jaxx, there's no way he could top Chris Hardwick. And I stand by that).
End of line.
-Sally
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Enter The Void
Enter The Void is shown from the point of view of a guy named Oscar. Literally. Like, everything will go dark for a second every time he blinks. There's a moment near the beginning where he's looking in a mirror that I cannot for the life of me figure out how they shot.
Anyway, he dies and most of the movie is his ghost floating around, watching everyone's reactions to his death and reliving his life. There's not much of a plot to speak of, it's mostly just a pantheon of drugs, joyless sex and death. Visually parts of it were interesting but I didn't focus much on the movie while I was watching it. My mind wandered a lot.
And all the thoughts it wandered to were lonely, unhappy ones. I had a hard time falling asleep and I woke up in a completely lousy mood.
Thinking about it now, I can't figure out what the point was. I can't just write everything off as "no reason" like Rubber did. It seemed very much like the director was trying to make a point. But it was so aimless, almost entirely plotless and left me feeling completely empty. It took forever to say nothing; I really don't see why it needed to be two and a half hours long.
Fuck you, movie.
(Credit where credit is due, though: the opening credits are fucking awesome.)
End of line.
-Sally
Anyway, he dies and most of the movie is his ghost floating around, watching everyone's reactions to his death and reliving his life. There's not much of a plot to speak of, it's mostly just a pantheon of drugs, joyless sex and death. Visually parts of it were interesting but I didn't focus much on the movie while I was watching it. My mind wandered a lot.
And all the thoughts it wandered to were lonely, unhappy ones. I had a hard time falling asleep and I woke up in a completely lousy mood.
Thinking about it now, I can't figure out what the point was. I can't just write everything off as "no reason" like Rubber did. It seemed very much like the director was trying to make a point. But it was so aimless, almost entirely plotless and left me feeling completely empty. It took forever to say nothing; I really don't see why it needed to be two and a half hours long.
Fuck you, movie.
(Credit where credit is due, though: the opening credits are fucking awesome.)
End of line.
-Sally
Monday, June 18, 2012
Rubber
"Ladies and gentlemen, the film you are about to see today is an homage to 'no reason', the most powerful element of style."
Rubber is about a tire who goes around blowing stuff up with his mind. Because he's a scanner, I guess.
The thing is, Rubber isn't really about that at all. I mean, I guess that's the closest I can get to describing the plot without giving anything away, but the movie isn't really about the tire. It isn't about the police trying to catch the tire (who has been blowing up people's heads) and it isn't really about the spectators, who are sitting around in the desert and watching the "movie" through binoculars as it plays out.
I mean, it is about all those things. But it isn't. It isn't really about anything. It's just a weird movie for the sake of weird movie. It really is all about 'no reason.' And the opening speech explaining that was by far my favorite part of the movie.
The rest of it was good, the rest of it was interesting, the rest of it was worth seeing and I'm going to probably recommend Rubber to a lot of people. But I'm glad I watched it on Netflix rather than buy it. I don't know that I'd want to watch it all that often.
I probably wouldn't mind seeing it again. It's probably funnier a second time. But even though it's strange and interesting the whole way through, it's also sort of boring and aimless. Nothing really happens.
I think Rubber would make a good double feature with The Bed Sitting Room.
End of line.
-Sally
Rubber is about a tire who goes around blowing stuff up with his mind. Because he's a scanner, I guess.
The thing is, Rubber isn't really about that at all. I mean, I guess that's the closest I can get to describing the plot without giving anything away, but the movie isn't really about the tire. It isn't about the police trying to catch the tire (who has been blowing up people's heads) and it isn't really about the spectators, who are sitting around in the desert and watching the "movie" through binoculars as it plays out.
I mean, it is about all those things. But it isn't. It isn't really about anything. It's just a weird movie for the sake of weird movie. It really is all about 'no reason.' And the opening speech explaining that was by far my favorite part of the movie.
The rest of it was good, the rest of it was interesting, the rest of it was worth seeing and I'm going to probably recommend Rubber to a lot of people. But I'm glad I watched it on Netflix rather than buy it. I don't know that I'd want to watch it all that often.
I probably wouldn't mind seeing it again. It's probably funnier a second time. But even though it's strange and interesting the whole way through, it's also sort of boring and aimless. Nothing really happens.
I think Rubber would make a good double feature with The Bed Sitting Room.
End of line.
-Sally
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The Hunger Games
I could start by pointing out the plot similarities between The Hunger Games and Battle Royale but everybody's already done that. So I'll just mention that I noticed it, too, and move on.
When this movie came out, I read that a lot of people were all up in arms about how violent and gory it was, which set up an expectation that did not deliver. It could have used more gore.
I have not read the books but I think maybe I ought to. Maybe they'll live up to my violence expectations. Also, then I won't have to look at dead-eyed Jennifer Lawrence through the whole thing. And what kind of fucktarded name is Katness? Ugh.
Okay, so I guess I should point out that I did enjoy the movie. But I sort of enjoyed it peripherally, if that makes sense. I loved the outlandish makeup and costumes on the people who live in the Capitol and my favorite characters were all people who work for the hunger games: Elizabeth Banks's weird duchessy spokeswoman lady, Woody Harrelson's jaded alcoholic mentor, Stanley Tucci's smarmy commentator talk show host and Lenny Kravitz's sympathetic costumer (I do not like Lenny Kravitz as a musician but he was great in this movie). They were by far the most interesting and entertaining characters and I'd rather watch a movie about them.
The problem with The Hunger Games's teenage pro- and an- tagonists is the same problem with those in the Harry Potter universe; they're divided into Clearly Good and Cartoonishly Evil. The people from Districts One and Two are the Slytherins, District Twelve is Gryffindor, that kind of thing. I hate that. When I read the Harry Potter books I eventually get fed up and shout at them for doing things that way; in real life there's no way all Slytherins are evil. But it's easier to have clear heroes and villains, so they just turn certain characters into over the top assholes and it pisses me off. The Hunger Games does that, too.
Which sort of ties into my other big complaint about the story; we only really learn anything about the two kids from District Twelve. There are twenty two other kids involved in these games and we, as an audience, learn that one other one is nice, four other ones are unrealistically evil and the rest are maybe given one line of dialogue if they're lucky. It just wasn't interesting to me. I guess I prefer ensemble casts; I'd rather know everyone's backstories and follow everyone's journeys through the games. I'd probably care more that way when they start getting killed off.
I guess that's not the point of this story. So I guess I didn't care so much about the point of this story.
Actually, I spent a lot of The Hunger Games thinking about what I would have preferred to see or what I would have done differently. I would have ended it differently, too. I can't say when I would have ended it, out of respect for people who have not seen it (or read the books, I guess) but plan to. I will say that my ending would have been more ambiguous and more bleak. (I also would have stopped at one; there are two more books.)
As it stands, I suppose I ought to read the books. As far as the movie goes, it was fine but clearly I had some problems with it.
End of line.
-Sally
When this movie came out, I read that a lot of people were all up in arms about how violent and gory it was, which set up an expectation that did not deliver. It could have used more gore.
I have not read the books but I think maybe I ought to. Maybe they'll live up to my violence expectations. Also, then I won't have to look at dead-eyed Jennifer Lawrence through the whole thing. And what kind of fucktarded name is Katness? Ugh.
Okay, so I guess I should point out that I did enjoy the movie. But I sort of enjoyed it peripherally, if that makes sense. I loved the outlandish makeup and costumes on the people who live in the Capitol and my favorite characters were all people who work for the hunger games: Elizabeth Banks's weird duchessy spokeswoman lady, Woody Harrelson's jaded alcoholic mentor, Stanley Tucci's smarmy commentator talk show host and Lenny Kravitz's sympathetic costumer (I do not like Lenny Kravitz as a musician but he was great in this movie). They were by far the most interesting and entertaining characters and I'd rather watch a movie about them.
The problem with The Hunger Games's teenage pro- and an- tagonists is the same problem with those in the Harry Potter universe; they're divided into Clearly Good and Cartoonishly Evil. The people from Districts One and Two are the Slytherins, District Twelve is Gryffindor, that kind of thing. I hate that. When I read the Harry Potter books I eventually get fed up and shout at them for doing things that way; in real life there's no way all Slytherins are evil. But it's easier to have clear heroes and villains, so they just turn certain characters into over the top assholes and it pisses me off. The Hunger Games does that, too.
Which sort of ties into my other big complaint about the story; we only really learn anything about the two kids from District Twelve. There are twenty two other kids involved in these games and we, as an audience, learn that one other one is nice, four other ones are unrealistically evil and the rest are maybe given one line of dialogue if they're lucky. It just wasn't interesting to me. I guess I prefer ensemble casts; I'd rather know everyone's backstories and follow everyone's journeys through the games. I'd probably care more that way when they start getting killed off.
I guess that's not the point of this story. So I guess I didn't care so much about the point of this story.
Actually, I spent a lot of The Hunger Games thinking about what I would have preferred to see or what I would have done differently. I would have ended it differently, too. I can't say when I would have ended it, out of respect for people who have not seen it (or read the books, I guess) but plan to. I will say that my ending would have been more ambiguous and more bleak. (I also would have stopped at one; there are two more books.)
As it stands, I suppose I ought to read the books. As far as the movie goes, it was fine but clearly I had some problems with it.
End of line.
-Sally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
