I don't play video games, but I've watched my kids play them often enough to know how it goes: You die and get thrown back to a "save point." And that's pretty much this movie.
Tom Cruise is Major Cage, and he's also a major coward. Aliens have taken over a large chunk of Europe, and there is an ongoing war to defeat them. But when the United Defense Force tries to send Cage to the front lines, he attempts to defect. Only to get arrested and sent to the front anyway.
Turns out the aliens have advance knowledge of the coming attack. Cage dies and finds himself thrown back to that "save point." After this happens a few times, he gets the attention of Rita (Emily Blunt), known as "The Angel of Verdun." She helped turn the tide of the war, or so it seems.
Except, as things unspool (and re-spool), we find out Rita had the same thing happen to her as Cage is having happen now: she relived that day again and again until she "got it right." And even then, Rita is convinced the aliens allowed the humans to win.
At this point we get the mumbo jumbo about how killing an Alpha alien and getting its blood on you gives you a kind of power to reset the day and start again if you die. And how it also links you to the Omega, the central "brain" of the aliens to which they're all telepathically connected. If Cage, who was killed by an Alpha, can use his power to figure out where the Omega is located, they have a chance to go kill it and end the war for good. In the meantime, living the day over and over (and being the only one with the ability to remember, kind of like that awesome episode of Stargate: SG-1), gives Cage the chance to train and become combat ready. Just like how, in a video game, if you do it enough times you can anticipate the moves, act and react appropriately, and get further along.
Really, there's a class of movie that forces a person to just say, "Yeah, okay, whatever. I'll just go with it." And Edge of Tomorrow is one of those. It sets up an internal logic of sorts, and one pretty much just has to take it on a certain amount of faith (without looking too hard) that it makes sense. So long as the movie adheres to its own rules, okay, fine.
So I was with it up until the end. It seems the drive for a "happy ending" forced them to step outside their own logic. Or maybe I just didn't connect the dots. See [spoiler alert], Cage does finally kill the Omega. Rita is killed during the same mission. But after Cage kills the Omega, an Alpha lashes out and . . . Cage is able to reset time again? So he wakes up at a different save point earlier even than before.
And yet the war is already won? Because the Omega has been killed. Except it hasn't already been killed, has it? If this is the past?
I guess one could argue that Cage got the power from the Alpha after the Omega's death, so . . . Well, but didn't the Alpha's power originate with the Omega anyway? If the Omega is dead, there should be no "Kronos power," or whatever you want to call it.
I dunno. The whole point of this ending is clearly to allow Cage and Rita to have their lives back and probably some kind of relationship. But I have trouble respecting the decision to circumvent the movie's own internal rules just for that. (Please, if I'm missing something, enlighten me in the comments.)
All in all, an entertaining movie that was more or less exactly as expected.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
10.18.2014
8.07.2013
Books: The Secret Keeper by Kate Morton
I hesitate to say if you've read one Kate Morton book you've read them all, but I've read two, and they are very much alike.
You might recall I really enjoyed The House at Riverton. But when I picked up The Secret Keeper, I developed an almost instantaneous sense of déjà vu. The books are structured in very similar ways, what with the modern-day frame story and the flashbacks to an earlier time. It's a fine formula, I guess, but having read Riverton, I had The Secret Keeper's secret(s) figured out well ahead of the characters, turning what might've been an intriguing mystery into a kind of trudge toward the inevitable. All the details of the prose, which are indeed lovely, became obstacles to be skimmed as I skated toward the conclusion, trying to divine whether I'd been right in my guesses. (Answer: yes.)
Still. It's a solid piece of writing with very neatly drawn characters. The one I feel like we could have used more details on was Vivien. She more than the others felt a bit more hastily cobbled, relying in large part on literary gesticulation. Something about her just didn't ring quite true . . . As if she were too good to be true, maybe.
The story, for those who might wonder, is of how aging actress Laurel and her brother Gerry strive to piece together the mystery of their dying mother's shadowy past. They have other sisters, but these women pass through and around the narrative, and it is Laurel and Gerry who have the particular connection because when they were younger they witnessed their mother [insert inciting incident here]. And while they've gone on with their lives keeping this childhood secret, apparently there's no better time than when Mum is on her deathbed and more or less incapable of answering questions to start dredging up all that kind of thing.
Again, flashes of Riverton, wherein a dying woman relates to her grandson the true story of a murder that occurred in a house she'd worked in. Just so similar in style and technique, these two books.
So I have to wonder if I'd have liked Riverton less if I'd read it second? Because while The Secret Keeper was good, it wasn't as good, and I'm inclined to believe I feel that way because reading it felt a bit like eating warmed over leftovers.
You might recall I really enjoyed The House at Riverton. But when I picked up The Secret Keeper, I developed an almost instantaneous sense of déjà vu. The books are structured in very similar ways, what with the modern-day frame story and the flashbacks to an earlier time. It's a fine formula, I guess, but having read Riverton, I had The Secret Keeper's secret(s) figured out well ahead of the characters, turning what might've been an intriguing mystery into a kind of trudge toward the inevitable. All the details of the prose, which are indeed lovely, became obstacles to be skimmed as I skated toward the conclusion, trying to divine whether I'd been right in my guesses. (Answer: yes.)
Still. It's a solid piece of writing with very neatly drawn characters. The one I feel like we could have used more details on was Vivien. She more than the others felt a bit more hastily cobbled, relying in large part on literary gesticulation. Something about her just didn't ring quite true . . . As if she were too good to be true, maybe.
The story, for those who might wonder, is of how aging actress Laurel and her brother Gerry strive to piece together the mystery of their dying mother's shadowy past. They have other sisters, but these women pass through and around the narrative, and it is Laurel and Gerry who have the particular connection because when they were younger they witnessed their mother [insert inciting incident here]. And while they've gone on with their lives keeping this childhood secret, apparently there's no better time than when Mum is on her deathbed and more or less incapable of answering questions to start dredging up all that kind of thing.
Again, flashes of Riverton, wherein a dying woman relates to her grandson the true story of a murder that occurred in a house she'd worked in. Just so similar in style and technique, these two books.
So I have to wonder if I'd have liked Riverton less if I'd read it second? Because while The Secret Keeper was good, it wasn't as good, and I'm inclined to believe I feel that way because reading it felt a bit like eating warmed over leftovers.
5.03.2013
500 Channels and Nothing's On: DaVinci's Demons, This is 40, Spies of Warsaw Strike Out
Actually, it's more like 900+ channels, never mind all the streaming and such. But let me just discuss our Odyssey of attempting to find something palatable this evening.
We started with DaVinci's Demons, which airs on Starz but we sought it out On Demand because we've missed the first episodes. Turns out we haven't been missing much. Thing is, it's such a cool concept. And David S. Goyer has a decent track record. We loved FlashForward (but were apparently some of the only people on the planet who did). Still, after 10 or so minutes of DaVinci, we were done. The show simply tried too hard. Out of the gate it was piling on this conspiracy plot, not letting it build so much as throwing it at us; if it had been a comedy routine, it would have been a pie in the face. Meanwhile, Leonardo's dialogue was some clunky exposition about not being able to remember what his mother looked like. And then, while going through a marketplace, his speech became patently designed to show us how forward thinking he is as he went on about cultures and heresy. Ugh. Why not try developing the characters? Instead of serving them up on platters?
The look of the show, too, with its all too obvious digital effects, moments of sped-up film, over-saturated colors . . . It looked a bit like those old Hercules and Xena shows. And that's not a compliment.
Okay, so we turned that off and moved on to This Is 40, thinking maybe we were more in the mood for some laughs. This is a Judd Apatow movie, one that stars Paul Rudd and got pretty good reviews. Turns out it's not at all funny though. And there's no real plot. It just sort of meanders along as Rudd and his wife face turning 40. Mid-life crisis stuff. Family and money problems. After 20 minutes we realized there were still two more hours to go, and unable to face it, we turned it off.
Last batter: Spies of Warsaw. Because I'll watch David Tennant in just about anything. And this has been sitting on the DVR for a while now. But . . . I just couldn't focus on what was going on. Not in the right frame of mind. Didn't get even 10 minutes into this one before turning it off and saving it for later.
We decided it wasn't a TV night and went in for Trivial Pursuit (Classic Rock version). Which, as it turns out, we play as if Scott were Jeff on Community and I were Annie. By which I mean, he tries to give me hints and I try to make educated guesses, but I'm smart in all the wrong ways for such a game. And he tries not to laugh at me and hurt my feelings, and he pats me on the head a lot. But I won! With a fair number of hints, anyway . . .
Truth is, with so much out there to choose from, television shows and movies really do have to step up their games. I no longer have time, nor am I inclined to waste valuable time on anything that's just "okay." A few years ago I probably would have stuck out something like DaVinci's Demons, if only for something to watch/do. But there's so much out there I enjoy more—better shows, other things to do (like board games, reading, writing, enjoying the weather)—a middling show will no longer cut it. I already watch Game of Thrones; do I really need or have room for something like DaVinci on my schedule? Answer: not if it's not great.
And that's hard for shows to do. A lot of programs get shot down because they don't build fast enough, don't start out of the gate at a run. We turned off This Is 40 for that reason. But then I see something like DaVinci and it tried too hard to grab and go, and that's just as bad as not going at all. It should seem effortless. A show should be interesting in the way a conversation at a neighboring table in a restaurant might be interesting: you find yourself listening in spite of yourself. You come in somewhere in the middle, but you gather just enough context to follow what they're saying, and you're hooked. You almost want to get up and go over and join the discussion. That's what a good television show does to you. If you catch on that the whole conversation has been staged, designed to draw you in—hey, I know a phony when I hear one. That's just bad acting (and writing, and directing, etc.).
As for Spies of Warsaw, I'm sure it's very good. I just don't know if/when I'll be in the right mood for it. Seems like more fall/winter fare. Might try it again then.
We started with DaVinci's Demons, which airs on Starz but we sought it out On Demand because we've missed the first episodes. Turns out we haven't been missing much. Thing is, it's such a cool concept. And David S. Goyer has a decent track record. We loved FlashForward (but were apparently some of the only people on the planet who did). Still, after 10 or so minutes of DaVinci, we were done. The show simply tried too hard. Out of the gate it was piling on this conspiracy plot, not letting it build so much as throwing it at us; if it had been a comedy routine, it would have been a pie in the face. Meanwhile, Leonardo's dialogue was some clunky exposition about not being able to remember what his mother looked like. And then, while going through a marketplace, his speech became patently designed to show us how forward thinking he is as he went on about cultures and heresy. Ugh. Why not try developing the characters? Instead of serving them up on platters?
The look of the show, too, with its all too obvious digital effects, moments of sped-up film, over-saturated colors . . . It looked a bit like those old Hercules and Xena shows. And that's not a compliment.
Okay, so we turned that off and moved on to This Is 40, thinking maybe we were more in the mood for some laughs. This is a Judd Apatow movie, one that stars Paul Rudd and got pretty good reviews. Turns out it's not at all funny though. And there's no real plot. It just sort of meanders along as Rudd and his wife face turning 40. Mid-life crisis stuff. Family and money problems. After 20 minutes we realized there were still two more hours to go, and unable to face it, we turned it off.
Last batter: Spies of Warsaw. Because I'll watch David Tennant in just about anything. And this has been sitting on the DVR for a while now. But . . . I just couldn't focus on what was going on. Not in the right frame of mind. Didn't get even 10 minutes into this one before turning it off and saving it for later.
We decided it wasn't a TV night and went in for Trivial Pursuit (Classic Rock version). Which, as it turns out, we play as if Scott were Jeff on Community and I were Annie. By which I mean, he tries to give me hints and I try to make educated guesses, but I'm smart in all the wrong ways for such a game. And he tries not to laugh at me and hurt my feelings, and he pats me on the head a lot. But I won! With a fair number of hints, anyway . . .
Truth is, with so much out there to choose from, television shows and movies really do have to step up their games. I no longer have time, nor am I inclined to waste valuable time on anything that's just "okay." A few years ago I probably would have stuck out something like DaVinci's Demons, if only for something to watch/do. But there's so much out there I enjoy more—better shows, other things to do (like board games, reading, writing, enjoying the weather)—a middling show will no longer cut it. I already watch Game of Thrones; do I really need or have room for something like DaVinci on my schedule? Answer: not if it's not great.
And that's hard for shows to do. A lot of programs get shot down because they don't build fast enough, don't start out of the gate at a run. We turned off This Is 40 for that reason. But then I see something like DaVinci and it tried too hard to grab and go, and that's just as bad as not going at all. It should seem effortless. A show should be interesting in the way a conversation at a neighboring table in a restaurant might be interesting: you find yourself listening in spite of yourself. You come in somewhere in the middle, but you gather just enough context to follow what they're saying, and you're hooked. You almost want to get up and go over and join the discussion. That's what a good television show does to you. If you catch on that the whole conversation has been staged, designed to draw you in—hey, I know a phony when I hear one. That's just bad acting (and writing, and directing, etc.).
As for Spies of Warsaw, I'm sure it's very good. I just don't know if/when I'll be in the right mood for it. Seems like more fall/winter fare. Might try it again then.
4.14.2013
Television: Doctor Who, "Cold War"
My first thought was, Shouldn't they be speaking Russian? Truthfully, until The Doctor and TARDIS showed up, it seemed like the dialogue should have been in Russian with English subtitles. It's the little things, you know.
My next thought was, That's the guy from Game of Thrones . . . And that one, too. Just another sign of the incestuous nature of the UK production system. But I won't rant on that again here.
And then: David Warner! Because I love David Warner. He's had a great career, but he'll always be Bob Cratchit to me, first and foremost. Anyway, good to see him; I like reminders that he's still alive.
As for the episode itself . . . I was bored. The utter lack of character development on any side made it impossible to care whether these Russian submariners would survive. (We knew The Doctor and Clara would, of course.) Only David Warner had any spark in that he was given the added depth of being a fan of Duran Duran. I'm sure the juxtaposition of a really old guy loving a "young people's" band was meant to be funny. Like the Barbie and the twine. I didn't find any of these things very amusing, but knowing a character's musical preferences does at least add some color.
The angry Martian story line wasn't terribly interesting or compelling. Neither was The Doctor's speech about mercy, or his threat to destroy the submarine to keep Skaldak from using the nuclear weapons against the world at large. It just wasn't believable; Smith didn't sell it. At no point during the episode did I honestly feel any tension or suspense.
And then, too, I had to wonder why Skaldak bothered to come free of his armor if he was able to break the chains (as he did later). To have better run of the sub? To what end, if in his armor he could have been impervious?
The excuse of the HADS system "upgrade" for the TARDIS' unscheduled departure rang false as well. Just too much of a convenient device.
All told, a weak episode. Looking more forward to the haunted house next week. I do love a good ghost story.
My next thought was, That's the guy from Game of Thrones . . . And that one, too. Just another sign of the incestuous nature of the UK production system. But I won't rant on that again here.
And then: David Warner! Because I love David Warner. He's had a great career, but he'll always be Bob Cratchit to me, first and foremost. Anyway, good to see him; I like reminders that he's still alive.
As for the episode itself . . . I was bored. The utter lack of character development on any side made it impossible to care whether these Russian submariners would survive. (We knew The Doctor and Clara would, of course.) Only David Warner had any spark in that he was given the added depth of being a fan of Duran Duran. I'm sure the juxtaposition of a really old guy loving a "young people's" band was meant to be funny. Like the Barbie and the twine. I didn't find any of these things very amusing, but knowing a character's musical preferences does at least add some color.
The angry Martian story line wasn't terribly interesting or compelling. Neither was The Doctor's speech about mercy, or his threat to destroy the submarine to keep Skaldak from using the nuclear weapons against the world at large. It just wasn't believable; Smith didn't sell it. At no point during the episode did I honestly feel any tension or suspense.
And then, too, I had to wonder why Skaldak bothered to come free of his armor if he was able to break the chains (as he did later). To have better run of the sub? To what end, if in his armor he could have been impervious?
The excuse of the HADS system "upgrade" for the TARDIS' unscheduled departure rang false as well. Just too much of a convenient device.
All told, a weak episode. Looking more forward to the haunted house next week. I do love a good ghost story.
2.20.2013
Television: Parade's End on HBO
For those who didn't get to see it when it aired in the UK, the miniseries Parade's End is coming stateside to HBO next week. Though instead of showing it in one-hour blocks over five weeks, HBO is cramming it down viewers' throats in three days' time . . . A morbid curiosity is tempting me to watch it to see what edits, if any, have been made for the US audience, but the better, stronger part of me is certain I could go the rest of my life without ever having to watch it again. And there are better things airing those nights anyway.
Variety liked it perhaps a bit more than I did, but even still found it a slog. As you may recall, if you read my commentary (and you can always search this blog and find it; oddly enough, it's one of my most-read series of posts), I had to resort to making my own fun while watching because the characters are somewhat unbearable, especially when one is exposed to them in large quantities.
It's been suggested Downton Abbey fans will enjoy Parade's End, but my guess is the main audience here will be the growing list of Cumberbatch admirers, people who are willing to sit through just about anything he's in. And they'll get their fill. Well, so much as bottomless pit fans ever can.
Go on, then. Gorge yourselves. I'm off to have a doughnut. And to watch something with characters I can stand to spend any amount of time with.
Variety liked it perhaps a bit more than I did, but even still found it a slog. As you may recall, if you read my commentary (and you can always search this blog and find it; oddly enough, it's one of my most-read series of posts), I had to resort to making my own fun while watching because the characters are somewhat unbearable, especially when one is exposed to them in large quantities.
It's been suggested Downton Abbey fans will enjoy Parade's End, but my guess is the main audience here will be the growing list of Cumberbatch admirers, people who are willing to sit through just about anything he's in. And they'll get their fill. Well, so much as bottomless pit fans ever can.
Go on, then. Gorge yourselves. I'm off to have a doughnut. And to watch something with characters I can stand to spend any amount of time with.
10.08.2012
Television: Upstairs, Downstairs
I started watching this by accident. (And I do mean the current one, not the show from the 1970s.) I switched the Apple TV back over to the cable box last Sunday evening, and Upstairs, Downstairs was starting. Next thing I knew, I was completely drawn in.
Now, I've only ever watched three episodes of Downton Abbey. I did that out of a sense of duty, and because so many of my friends love that program. It's the kind of thing I would normally really like. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind at the time, or wasn't able to concentrate, and I should give it another shot. But whatever the reason, I was entirely able to get into Upstairs, Downstairs in a way I so far haven't been able to for Downton Abbey.
Last night I remembered Upstairs, Downstairs was airing and made a point to watch. It hadn't been a fluke; I liked it just as much this time, though the episodes had not been in sequence. (Apparently I'd seen the premiere episode and last night's was the first of Series 2 . . . But I read online that I had only missed two episodes since the first series only had three.) As opposed to being a full-on retread, this Upstairs, Downstairs is a kind of continuation from the 70s serial that was so popular. As things stand, Britain is now on the brink of World War II. Still, as they say, the more things change . . .
In any case, I can recommend it as very engaging and with just the right amount of humor. From what I understand it's no big hit or anything, but I consider it a solid show, perfect for a Sunday evening.
Now, I've only ever watched three episodes of Downton Abbey. I did that out of a sense of duty, and because so many of my friends love that program. It's the kind of thing I would normally really like. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind at the time, or wasn't able to concentrate, and I should give it another shot. But whatever the reason, I was entirely able to get into Upstairs, Downstairs in a way I so far haven't been able to for Downton Abbey.
Last night I remembered Upstairs, Downstairs was airing and made a point to watch. It hadn't been a fluke; I liked it just as much this time, though the episodes had not been in sequence. (Apparently I'd seen the premiere episode and last night's was the first of Series 2 . . . But I read online that I had only missed two episodes since the first series only had three.) As opposed to being a full-on retread, this Upstairs, Downstairs is a kind of continuation from the 70s serial that was so popular. As things stand, Britain is now on the brink of World War II. Still, as they say, the more things change . . .
In any case, I can recommend it as very engaging and with just the right amount of humor. From what I understand it's no big hit or anything, but I consider it a solid show, perfect for a Sunday evening.
9.22.2012
Television: Parade's End (Episode 5/5)
How awful.
It would have been so much better if Christopher had died in the war. I really don't think it was right to reward Valentine's ridiculous, school-girl idea of love by getting to be Christopher's mistress at the end of it all. I realize Sylvia was spiteful, but she had a right to be in my mind. And the fact that Christopher gets to have his cake and eat it too? Just goes to show the gender bias. Every man wants a happy-go-lucky little young thing that fawns over him. None want to take on the work that is required to handle a real woman. Sylvia ends up being slandered, used, and tossed aside. Too bad since Rebecca Hall was the one bright spot, the actress seeming to be the only one of the entire cast who knew what she was doing and why; even though her character was not meant to be sympathetic (at least, I'm sure she wasn't, in order to cop the "happily ever after" for Christopher and Val), Hall's fantastic turn made Sylvia compelling and sympathetic nonetheless, leaving Christopher's and Val's actions—already wrong, even if you expect me to believe their love was "true"—to look downright inhumane. Look, I'm no moralizer, but this just turned my stomach.
In the end, I hated the whole thing. The way it finished out made me sorry I wasted my time on it.
It would have been so much better if Christopher had died in the war. I really don't think it was right to reward Valentine's ridiculous, school-girl idea of love by getting to be Christopher's mistress at the end of it all. I realize Sylvia was spiteful, but she had a right to be in my mind. And the fact that Christopher gets to have his cake and eat it too? Just goes to show the gender bias. Every man wants a happy-go-lucky little young thing that fawns over him. None want to take on the work that is required to handle a real woman. Sylvia ends up being slandered, used, and tossed aside. Too bad since Rebecca Hall was the one bright spot, the actress seeming to be the only one of the entire cast who knew what she was doing and why; even though her character was not meant to be sympathetic (at least, I'm sure she wasn't, in order to cop the "happily ever after" for Christopher and Val), Hall's fantastic turn made Sylvia compelling and sympathetic nonetheless, leaving Christopher's and Val's actions—already wrong, even if you expect me to believe their love was "true"—to look downright inhumane. Look, I'm no moralizer, but this just turned my stomach.
In the end, I hated the whole thing. The way it finished out made me sorry I wasted my time on it.
9.15.2012
Television: Parade's End (Episode 4/5)
In which a very long game of "Doughnut, Not a Doughnut" is played by bored officers at camp in Rouen. There was, in fact, quite a bit of fighting over the doughnuts Sylvia had been suspected of smuggling in from England. It was very entertaining.
Meanwhile, the real question is whether the emergency sonnet ever got translated into Latin?
I'm hoping Christopher dies and they find the sonnet in his pocket and spend their time wondering what it's all about. (It's about doughnuts, of course. What is Latin for "doughnut"?)
You see? Here, as in World War I camps, we make our own fun.
Meanwhile, the real question is whether the emergency sonnet ever got translated into Latin?
I'm hoping Christopher dies and they find the sonnet in his pocket and spend their time wondering what it's all about. (It's about doughnuts, of course. What is Latin for "doughnut"?)
You see? Here, as in World War I camps, we make our own fun.
9.10.2012
Television: Parade's End (Episode 3/5)
There's no one to like in this program, and I think that's what really bothers me. (That was the very reason I couldn't be bothered to finish Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, either; I just wanted everyone to die.) What's worse, I think I'm supposed to maybe feel sympathetic toward or sorry for Christopher and Val, as if they have some kind of true love connection that's being denied them by convention and the fact they are both, at heart, very good people, but . . . No.
If anything, I feel bad for Sylvia, which sounds insane except that I absolutely understand her. She is childish in her attempts to manipulate some kind of action from her husband, but I can at least understand her motivation. She's looking for some show of affection from Christopher, she wants to prompt him into feeling. Anything would be better than his seeming indifference to her. That makes sense, even if Sylvia's methods leave much to be desired. She's tried to make him jealous, she's tried to be "good" by being chaste, but there seems to be no pleasing him. She cannot please him, he does not want her, so her frustration is valid.
But God, the whole Christopher and Val thing is insipid. I cannot like the way the story gives them carte blanche to take up with one another—Sylvia practically gives Christopher permission, and then Christopher's brother Mark even strives to arrange for it—even if it doesn't come to pass. It's not because they've stopped themselves, only because they've been prevented, so there's no saving grace in the lack of consummation. It's something of a hypocritical story in turning Sylvia into a beast for her indiscretions but making it okay for Christopher. Is it because he's supposedly really, truly in love? That makes it worse, not better. A woman might be able to forgive a man who strayed once or twice, so long as his heart is at home. Emotional affairs, however, are not to be countenanced.
Anyway, at this point I'd rather Christopher get a bullet in the head at the front lines or something. Put us all out of his misery.
If anything, I feel bad for Sylvia, which sounds insane except that I absolutely understand her. She is childish in her attempts to manipulate some kind of action from her husband, but I can at least understand her motivation. She's looking for some show of affection from Christopher, she wants to prompt him into feeling. Anything would be better than his seeming indifference to her. That makes sense, even if Sylvia's methods leave much to be desired. She's tried to make him jealous, she's tried to be "good" by being chaste, but there seems to be no pleasing him. She cannot please him, he does not want her, so her frustration is valid.
But God, the whole Christopher and Val thing is insipid. I cannot like the way the story gives them carte blanche to take up with one another—Sylvia practically gives Christopher permission, and then Christopher's brother Mark even strives to arrange for it—even if it doesn't come to pass. It's not because they've stopped themselves, only because they've been prevented, so there's no saving grace in the lack of consummation. It's something of a hypocritical story in turning Sylvia into a beast for her indiscretions but making it okay for Christopher. Is it because he's supposedly really, truly in love? That makes it worse, not better. A woman might be able to forgive a man who strayed once or twice, so long as his heart is at home. Emotional affairs, however, are not to be countenanced.
Anyway, at this point I'd rather Christopher get a bullet in the head at the front lines or something. Put us all out of his misery.
9.03.2012
Television: Parade's End (Episode 2/5)
Okay, I really do just have to say I don't see how even one woman could be in love with this Christopher fellow, much less two. (We are supposed to believe both his wife and that girl are in love with him, aren't we?) He's such an insufferable sop. Perhaps knowing what's coming is part of my problem, as I can't countenance that kind of misbehavior. I understand his wife was unfaithful, but she's begun to rectify that, and two wrongs and all that.
In any case, I made this episode much more entertaining by pretending it was all about doughnuts. If you take all those lingering shots of people's expressions (particularly Cumberbatch's, but others' as well), and imagine they are reacting to doughnuts—or a lack thereof—it makes the whole thing really quite fun to watch. Perhaps I'll carry on in the next episode by pretending the entire war is over doughnuts. Or maybe I'll imagine Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson showing up in the trenches. That could be a good time.
Then again, I get the sense we might not actually see much of the war itself in this. Which is fine because (a) I don't much like war shows/stories, and (b) this Christopher stands to be the Worst. Soldier. Ever. . . Gag. He's already the worst husband and/or would-be lover and probably father or whatever, so . . . Why is there a whole five-hour show about him exactly?
Or maybe the real question is, why am I watching it?
Well, that's easy. I'm watching it for the doughnuts.
In any case, I made this episode much more entertaining by pretending it was all about doughnuts. If you take all those lingering shots of people's expressions (particularly Cumberbatch's, but others' as well), and imagine they are reacting to doughnuts—or a lack thereof—it makes the whole thing really quite fun to watch. Perhaps I'll carry on in the next episode by pretending the entire war is over doughnuts. Or maybe I'll imagine Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson showing up in the trenches. That could be a good time.
Then again, I get the sense we might not actually see much of the war itself in this. Which is fine because (a) I don't much like war shows/stories, and (b) this Christopher stands to be the Worst. Soldier. Ever. . . Gag. He's already the worst husband and/or would-be lover and probably father or whatever, so . . . Why is there a whole five-hour show about him exactly?
Or maybe the real question is, why am I watching it?
Well, that's easy. I'm watching it for the doughnuts.
8.25.2012
Television: Parade's End (Episode 1/5)
It's no secret I like Benedict Cumberbatch. Or I did like him once. I can't decide now whether I still do.
I also like Tom Stoppard, for what it's worth. I'm not so familiar with Ford Madox Ford's work, but I looked him up and was happy to see he and I have the same birthday (though not the same year, as you might guess, because I am not old and dead).
Anyway, I usually also enjoy period pieces. Not war stories so much, but this first installment of Parade's End does not yet feature the beginning of World War I. And still, despite the lovely art direction, I found my attention wandering here. I mostly had the sense they'd given Cumberbatch a bit too much to carry, and the whole of the thing might have done better to spread its weight over other characters. Benny's lovely to look at (aside from a weak chin), but I'm starting to have the feeling he does a lot of the same kind of thing, plays a lot of the same kind of character(s) across many movies and shows. It does make me curious about Star Trek, though. Maybe that will be different.
Too, I'm beginning to notice a lot of his acting is done via a specific set of facial expressions. And that most of these are made by his moving his mouth in certain ways.
The problem is, once you see these things, you can't not see them and they become distracting. I suppose I could try to trick myself into believing it was all in my head and attempt to view the next installment with a fresh eye. I do intend to watch more in any case. I'm sort of hoping I'm wrong and that my first impression is off the mark. But I don't have the knack for simply liking something (or someone) because I want to like it (him/her). I can't help but think honestly and critically (something many fans lack the ability to do). Maybe it's the years of film school, but really I think I was always this way.
To sum up, I'd say it's a mediocre start. But I'll stick it out in hopes it gets better.
I also like Tom Stoppard, for what it's worth. I'm not so familiar with Ford Madox Ford's work, but I looked him up and was happy to see he and I have the same birthday (though not the same year, as you might guess, because I am not old and dead).
Anyway, I usually also enjoy period pieces. Not war stories so much, but this first installment of Parade's End does not yet feature the beginning of World War I. And still, despite the lovely art direction, I found my attention wandering here. I mostly had the sense they'd given Cumberbatch a bit too much to carry, and the whole of the thing might have done better to spread its weight over other characters. Benny's lovely to look at (aside from a weak chin), but I'm starting to have the feeling he does a lot of the same kind of thing, plays a lot of the same kind of character(s) across many movies and shows. It does make me curious about Star Trek, though. Maybe that will be different.
Too, I'm beginning to notice a lot of his acting is done via a specific set of facial expressions. And that most of these are made by his moving his mouth in certain ways.
The problem is, once you see these things, you can't not see them and they become distracting. I suppose I could try to trick myself into believing it was all in my head and attempt to view the next installment with a fresh eye. I do intend to watch more in any case. I'm sort of hoping I'm wrong and that my first impression is off the mark. But I don't have the knack for simply liking something (or someone) because I want to like it (him/her). I can't help but think honestly and critically (something many fans lack the ability to do). Maybe it's the years of film school, but really I think I was always this way.
To sum up, I'd say it's a mediocre start. But I'll stick it out in hopes it gets better.
3.13.2011
Movie Review: Atonement
Starring: James McAvoy, Keira Knightly, Saorsie Ronan
Directed By: Joe Wright
Written By: Ian McEwan (novel), Christopher Hampton (screenplay)
Universal, 2007 (limited release)
R; 123 minutes
2 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I realize I'm really late on this one. I recall trying to read an Ian McEwan novel--can't remember which--some years ago and being bored to tears within a handful of pages. So I didn't finish it and I never tried another. This one fact should have tipped me off about this movie, but it was so widely well received, I felt it deserved a chance. So one night when my husband was traveling, I watched Atonement via Vudu.
It was a waste of time, for me at least. The characters I might have liked or at least found interesting didn't get enough screen time or development. And the chief characters were difficult to like or care about. At the end of it all, I felt like I'd just watched a two-hour movie about a bunch of British people falling into various bodies of water. And I understand that water is recognized by literati as the token symbol of baptism and being washed clean, etc., but honest to God, talk about overkill. If it had been a pie-in-the-face comedy routine, there would have been a dozen pies and the audience would have stopped laughing long before it was finished. As it was, the movie is a drama/tragedy sort of thing, so it's both a downer and--with all that water--a drowner.
The catalytic moment in the story relies heavily on both coincidence and poor decision making. Several people must make a series of bad choices to get to the point where the main character finds she must atone(!) for what she's done and what has befallen the other characters. It's something of a stretch, and not even that compelling. By the time I got to what's supposed to be the Big Twist, I really didn't care any more.
Anyway, I can't look at James McAvoy and not think, Mr. Tumnus! I think I could have liked him in the film if I could've brought myself to care. Maybe something vital was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe the book really is better. Not that it would take much.
Directed By: Joe Wright
Written By: Ian McEwan (novel), Christopher Hampton (screenplay)
Universal, 2007 (limited release)
R; 123 minutes
2 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I realize I'm really late on this one. I recall trying to read an Ian McEwan novel--can't remember which--some years ago and being bored to tears within a handful of pages. So I didn't finish it and I never tried another. This one fact should have tipped me off about this movie, but it was so widely well received, I felt it deserved a chance. So one night when my husband was traveling, I watched Atonement via Vudu.
It was a waste of time, for me at least. The characters I might have liked or at least found interesting didn't get enough screen time or development. And the chief characters were difficult to like or care about. At the end of it all, I felt like I'd just watched a two-hour movie about a bunch of British people falling into various bodies of water. And I understand that water is recognized by literati as the token symbol of baptism and being washed clean, etc., but honest to God, talk about overkill. If it had been a pie-in-the-face comedy routine, there would have been a dozen pies and the audience would have stopped laughing long before it was finished. As it was, the movie is a drama/tragedy sort of thing, so it's both a downer and--with all that water--a drowner.
The catalytic moment in the story relies heavily on both coincidence and poor decision making. Several people must make a series of bad choices to get to the point where the main character finds she must atone(!) for what she's done and what has befallen the other characters. It's something of a stretch, and not even that compelling. By the time I got to what's supposed to be the Big Twist, I really didn't care any more.
Anyway, I can't look at James McAvoy and not think, Mr. Tumnus! I think I could have liked him in the film if I could've brought myself to care. Maybe something vital was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe the book really is better. Not that it would take much.
3.06.2010
Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds
Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
Written By: Quentin Tarantino
Universal Pictures, 2009
R; 153 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
In film school, we were required to view Reservoir Dogs. I hadn't wanted to see it, but I ended up really liking it. Which surprised me, since I generally dislike anything with gratuitous bloodshed.
That said, there haven't been many other Tarantino films that I've seen and enjoyed. I disliked Jackie Brown and found Four Rooms uneven at best. I didn't even make it through Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill; they bored me too much. Sacrilege! But how can I apologize for personal preference?
I was beginning to think Reservoir Dogs had been a fluke. But I did want to see Inglourious Basterds. All the Academy Award hubbub, PLUS: Brad Pitt! Whom I've loved since Interview with the Vampire. And I'm pleased to say that this movie did not disappoint. The violence was not so over-the-top as to disgust me, and the grimness of Laurent's turn as a vengeful Jew was nicely balanced with Pitt and Waltz, who added an odd, offbeat humor to the whole affair.
In short, Pitt plays Lt. Aldo Raine, who helms a small band of American soldiers known as "The Basterds." They stalk Nazi-occupied France and ambush Nazi squadrons. Meanwhile, Laurent plays the sole surviving member of a Jewish family that was massacred at the hands of Waltz's SS officer Landa. She has changed her name and now runs a cinema, and when her venue is singled out for a Nazi film premiere, she decides to use her dubious windfall as the jumping-off point for some serious payback.
It all comes together in the end, and I won't give it away. But Pitt is fun to watch, especially with his thick accent. I only wish he'd had more screen time. Waltz is surely the shoo-in for his Oscar category; he plays Landa with the perfect mixture of light-minded delight and megalomania, wrapped in self-assured narcissism. The viewer simultaneously wants to (a) invite him to a dinner party, (b) lock him in a cage and force him to perform like a trained monkey, and (c) put a bullet through his head. That takes talent. I'd be glad to see this movie win the whole kit 'n' kaboodle, but I'll take a trophy for Waltz at the least.
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
Written By: Quentin Tarantino
Universal Pictures, 2009
R; 153 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
In film school, we were required to view Reservoir Dogs. I hadn't wanted to see it, but I ended up really liking it. Which surprised me, since I generally dislike anything with gratuitous bloodshed.
That said, there haven't been many other Tarantino films that I've seen and enjoyed. I disliked Jackie Brown and found Four Rooms uneven at best. I didn't even make it through Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill; they bored me too much. Sacrilege! But how can I apologize for personal preference?
I was beginning to think Reservoir Dogs had been a fluke. But I did want to see Inglourious Basterds. All the Academy Award hubbub, PLUS: Brad Pitt! Whom I've loved since Interview with the Vampire. And I'm pleased to say that this movie did not disappoint. The violence was not so over-the-top as to disgust me, and the grimness of Laurent's turn as a vengeful Jew was nicely balanced with Pitt and Waltz, who added an odd, offbeat humor to the whole affair.
In short, Pitt plays Lt. Aldo Raine, who helms a small band of American soldiers known as "The Basterds." They stalk Nazi-occupied France and ambush Nazi squadrons. Meanwhile, Laurent plays the sole surviving member of a Jewish family that was massacred at the hands of Waltz's SS officer Landa. She has changed her name and now runs a cinema, and when her venue is singled out for a Nazi film premiere, she decides to use her dubious windfall as the jumping-off point for some serious payback.
It all comes together in the end, and I won't give it away. But Pitt is fun to watch, especially with his thick accent. I only wish he'd had more screen time. Waltz is surely the shoo-in for his Oscar category; he plays Landa with the perfect mixture of light-minded delight and megalomania, wrapped in self-assured narcissism. The viewer simultaneously wants to (a) invite him to a dinner party, (b) lock him in a cage and force him to perform like a trained monkey, and (c) put a bullet through his head. That takes talent. I'd be glad to see this movie win the whole kit 'n' kaboodle, but I'll take a trophy for Waltz at the least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)