skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Despite my impending deadline for Moon Florida Keys, Dan and I have had a pretty darn good weekend. As promised in my last post, we ventured to a nearby movie theater on Friday night and enjoyed a double feature of The Crazies and Shutter Island. While such thrillers might not be for everyone, we liked both of them immensely.
As other reviewers have noted, The Crazies is a surprisingly intelligent horror film. Spanning just a few days in the life (and unfortunate demise) of a small town in Iowa – due to an inadvertent contamination of the communal water supply – the movie offers an effective balance between terror and tragedy. Part of the film's success can be attributed to the solid cast, adeptly led by Timothy Olyphant – a skilled actor who manages to insert moments of humor in an otherwise serious film about a fatal government mistake and the callous cover-up that ensues. But, as I told my mom on the phone tonight, it's also surprisingly less gory than I expected, a testament to the filmmakers' desire to keep story and character development paramount.
Shutter Island, which we saw afterward, is an equally entertaining film, based on a novel by Dennis Lehane. Despite the fact that the story's climactic twist is apparent from the beginning, the experience is still well worth the price of admission (which is, by the way, a heck of a lot higher in Los Angeles than in northern Michigan). Given that it's filmed almost entirely on an isolated island during inclement weather, the movie is certainly rich with atmosphere. In fact, director Martin Scorsese has effectively used the environment to heighten the story's tension, leading the main character, a troubled U.S. marshal, through dangerous settings, such as a blustery cemetery and a perilous cliff face. Beyond the atmosphere, the film is full of excellent performances, from the likes of Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams, Jackie Earle Haley, and Ted Levine, not to mention engaging cameos by Patricia Clarkson and Elias Koteas. Of course, the star of the film is Leonardo DiCaprio, who gives a heart-wrenching performance in what is ultimately a poignant psychological drama.
But movies weren't the only diversion we experienced this weekend. Last night, we attended a Lost panel discussion at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills. Part of this year's Paley Fest, an annual event hosted by the Paley Center for Media in celebration of modern television, the panel featured several members of the cast and creative team, including actors Terry O'Quinn (John Locke), Michael Emerson (Ben Linus), and Nestor Carbonell (Richard Alpert), plus executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse – all of whom offered amusing answers to the questions posed by the moderator and audience. Of course, no definitive secrets were revealed about the final season of this simultaneously compelling and annoying show, but we did get a chance to see a clip of next week's episode, which was cool. More than anything, I was delighted by the rapport between O'Quinn and Emerson, who play fierce rivals on the series, and frankly, I welcomed another night away from my laptop.
But, naturally, I'm hard at work today. Sigh.
Well, I hope your weekend was equally fun, wherever you went and whatever you did.
Things are starting to heat up in the Martone household. Besides the three blogs that I try to maintain on a regular basis, I’ve been working on freelance projects (articles and the like), beta-reading other writers’ manuscripts, and reviewing critiques of my own novel – in preparation for my much-delayed revision. On top of that, I just found out that Avalon Travel wants me to prepare a book proposal for another travel guidebook – and all week, I’ve been helping my husband finalize the line-up for our next film festival.
So, I’m definitely meeting myself coming and going these days – which means that I haven’t had any time to see any new films or finish any good books lately (although I am currently reading Barbara Kingsolver’s fascinating Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life). But that doesn’t mean you don’t have time to catch a movie or read a book. Here, then, are some of the review sites that I’ve recently perused:
Chick Plix: Jennifer Bennett offers pithy, up-to-date movie opinions from a “chick’s” perspective – and as a bonus, the site plays movie scores while you read. Recent reviews have included The Informant, Jennifer’s Body, and The Hurt Locker.
Funky Fruit Book & Movie Reviews: Christy and Kristi, two very different women, just started this review site. Their first review covers Carlos Ruiz Zafon’s book The Angel’s Game. Check it out!
Becky’s Book Reviews: For over three years now, Becky has been providing her readers in-depth reviews of modern and classic books. You’ll also find mini-challenges and author interviews here.
Roses & Thorns: Staff members of The Rose & Thorn Literary Ezine post various book reviews as well as writing/editing insights and author interviews.
Just Me & You: Martha Warner shares periodic book reviews with her readers. Her last review covered Bryan Gruley’s Starvation Lake – a book that I’d actually recommended to her.
Fiction Groupie: Among her plethora of interesting writing-related posts, Roni occasionally offers reviews of romance, paranormal, urban fantasy, mystery/suspense, horror, and young adult novels.
I have a confession to make. After all my blathering in the blogosphere a couple weeks back about the thrill of driving two hours to see the 3-D spectacle The Final Destination, I must admit that I was less than thrilled – even despite very low expectations. True, it didn’t help that the couple that went with me and Dan walked out halfway through the film. After all, I tend to be overly sensitive about disappointing people – despite the fact that I didn’t make the movie, that I warned them it could be bad, and that the male half of the couple has notoriously bolted out of 20 percent of the movies he’s seen. What can I say? I’ve always been affected by other people’s moods.
But beyond all that, it’s just a horrid movie. First off, the acting is fairly dreadful – even from the likes of Mykelti Williamson, who’s usually good in everything he does, from Forrest Gump (1994) to August Rush (2007). Secondly, the kills are pretty outrageous, even by Final Destination franchise standards. Lastly, due to poor writing (as well as poor acting), I really didn’t care about any of the characters – which means I really didn’t care if anyone lived or died. Whether you like horror movies or not, you can probably agree that the more you care about the characters involved, the higher the stakes and, therefore, the scarier the film. Scoff if you will, but that’s what I like about the first three films – true, they’re gory and outrageous, but each one also has at least one character for whom I can root – though, admittedly, the films have gotten progressively worse in regards to character development.
Going into this fourth film, my expectations were super-low. For one thing, while the first three films focus on tragic accidents that terrify most folks in the modern age – plane crash, highway pile-up, and roller-coaster snafu – this one begins with a rather ridiculous fiasco at a racetrack – which I’ve feared less during my lifetime than getting hit by a wayward puck at a hockey game. The other thing that concerned me was that I suspected the filmmakers would be so preoccupied with setting up elaborate death scenes that made the most of the 3-D technology that they would fail to concentrate on something more important – the screenplay – and sadly, I was right.
So, I guess even my low expectations just weren’t low enough. And yet, despite the fact that the movie was mediocre and our friends’ sudden departure perturbed me, I’m glad that we saw it. ‘Cause the 3-D technology was indeed well done – and boy, did we laugh! It might not have been billed as a comedy, but it sure does seem like one. In its own way, it also respects the franchise audience – even having a unique opening credit sequence that uses skeletons to demonstrate kills from the previous three movies. And there are a couple scenes that genuinely freaked me out – guess I’m not the only one who finds escalators and automatic car washes terrifying.
As a bonus, this curious experience has made me reflect on the nature of expectation: how, sometimes, high expectations can ruin a perfectly good movie (like Signs, which I hated the first time I saw it and have now grown to love) and how the opposite can also be true – that low expectations can often heighten the movie experience. That’s what happened with this summer’s Star Trek remake. Despite some serious doubt, I enjoyed the heck out of that flick – especially Karl Urban’s spot-on performance as the insufferable Bones.
So, have expectations played a role in your movie-going experiences? If so, what film overcame your lowest expectations, and which fell far short of your hopes?
Well, poop. I was all set to discuss my reaction to District 9, Peter Jackson’s latest producing effort, but my pal Weronika beat me to it. No worries, though – a film this good deserves lots of positive reviews. And isn’t that the point of blogs? To spread the love around?
On Monday, Dan and I decided to visit our local movie theater – which lies twenty miles away from our house (!) – for a couple hours of mindful entertainment. We could have opted for G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, but as much as we both adore Dennis Quaid, we were in the mood for a grittier action tale – something with a bit more soul. And we definitely got our money’s worth with District 9, the grim saga of an unsympathetic corporate field operative who, while trying to evict alien refugees (derisively known as “prawns”) from South Africa’s District 9, contracts a mysterious virus that alters his DNA, allows him to utilize alien weaponry, and subsequently makes him the most hunted and most ostracized man on Earth.
Now, I realize that the documentary style and strange content of this poignant sci-fi flick might not be for everyone – even my brother-in-law, who saw the film at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, had lukewarm feelings about it. But, without further ado, here are the top ten reasons (in no particular order) that Dan and I appreciated this movie:
1. We pretty much love everything Peter Jackson has written, directed, and/or produced – from Dead Alive (1992) to King Kong (2005) – and we could definitely see his creative influence in this movie. [Incidentally, the only Jackson film that I will never see again is his first, an alien flick called Bad Taste (1987), and anyone who’s witnessed the vomit scene might understand why.]
2. We both liked the journalistic style of filmmaking, which allowed us to immerse ourselves in this made-up world, added to the believability factor, and seemed a lot more genuine than similar styles in movies like Cloverfield (2008) – where we just kept screaming for that stupid kid to drop the camera already and get the heck out of New York.
3. The film constitutes an engaging social commentary about racism (or species-ism, to be more specific), corporate immorality, and the dearth of human compassion.
4. The unknown actors – especially Sharlto Copley, who plays the tragic main character, Wikus Van De Merwe – are not only excellent, but they also make it easier to believe that this story could actually happen. No Oscar winners, heartthrobs, or starlets to distract from the “truth” of the tale.
5. The special effects, as with all of Peter Jackson’s films, are stellar – the alien spacecraft, the alien weaponry, and the aliens themselves all mesh well with the live actors. And when you consider the relatively small budget ($30 million), it’s even more impressive.
6. The dialogue is sparse and necessary – no fluff in this sci-fi saga.
7. The editing is equally tight – adding to the tension of many a scene.
8. The main alien and his son are truly engaging characters – despite the fact that they are essentially special effects with voices [much like Sonny in Alex Proyas’ underrated I, Robot (2004)].
9. The director – a young South African named Neill Blomkamp, whose short film Alive in Joburg (2005) is the basis for this feature-length flick – doesn’t hold back on the necessary violence – which makes the story all the more real and the fictitious humans in charge all the more vicious.
10. Without giving anything away, there is a definite sense of justice in this film. In other words, some of the least likable, most amoral characters get exactly what they deserve.
So, all in all, Dan and I enjoyed our recent excursion to the theater, and we’re delighted that we were able to experience District 9 in all of its larger-than-life, surround-sound glory. Whether or not you’re a fan of science fiction, I highly recommend seeing this film as soon as possible. If only to appreciate the tight writing, the skilled acting, and the underlying lessons about hate and intolerance.
As other reviewers have noted, The Crazies is a surprisingly intelligent horror film. Spanning just a few days in the life (and unfortunate demise) of a small town in Iowa – due to an inadvertent contamination of the communal water supply – the movie offers an effective balance between terror and tragedy. Part of the film's success can be attributed to the solid cast, adeptly led by Timothy Olyphant – a skilled actor who manages to insert moments of humor in an otherwise serious film about a fatal government mistake and the callous cover-up that ensues. But, as I told my mom on the phone tonight, it's also surprisingly less gory than I expected, a testament to the filmmakers' desire to keep story and character development paramount.
Shutter Island, which we saw afterward, is an equally entertaining film, based on a novel by Dennis Lehane. Despite the fact that the story's climactic twist is apparent from the beginning, the experience is still well worth the price of admission (which is, by the way, a heck of a lot higher in Los Angeles than in northern Michigan). Given that it's filmed almost entirely on an isolated island during inclement weather, the movie is certainly rich with atmosphere. In fact, director Martin Scorsese has effectively used the environment to heighten the story's tension, leading the main character, a troubled U.S. marshal, through dangerous settings, such as a blustery cemetery and a perilous cliff face. Beyond the atmosphere, the film is full of excellent performances, from the likes of Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams, Jackie Earle Haley, and Ted Levine, not to mention engaging cameos by Patricia Clarkson and Elias Koteas. Of course, the star of the film is Leonardo DiCaprio, who gives a heart-wrenching performance in what is ultimately a poignant psychological drama.
But movies weren't the only diversion we experienced this weekend. Last night, we attended a Lost panel discussion at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills. Part of this year's Paley Fest, an annual event hosted by the Paley Center for Media in celebration of modern television, the panel featured several members of the cast and creative team, including actors Terry O'Quinn (John Locke), Michael Emerson (Ben Linus), and Nestor Carbonell (Richard Alpert), plus executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse – all of whom offered amusing answers to the questions posed by the moderator and audience. Of course, no definitive secrets were revealed about the final season of this simultaneously compelling and annoying show, but we did get a chance to see a clip of next week's episode, which was cool. More than anything, I was delighted by the rapport between O'Quinn and Emerson, who play fierce rivals on the series, and frankly, I welcomed another night away from my laptop.
