Search This Blog
Friday, April 26, 2024
Please Don't Destroy: The Treasure of Foggy Mountain
Sunday, April 21, 2024
Civi War
Friday, March 29, 2024
Louis Gossett Jr
Sunday, March 24, 2024
40 Years On
Saturday, March 23, 2024
On The Line
My own take? I largely agree with YaYa, as did Lisa. There are a few cheesy moments of dialogue early on, and the hyper-crisp, high def visuals were distracting.. But the story itself was solid, Gibson made a point of displaying his acting chops, and the twist - I didn't see it coming.
It's worth a watch!
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Dune Part Two
On Sunday night I ventured out on my own to see Dune Part Two by my lonesome at the Avalon.
Those who know me know that I am a big fan of Dune, having first read the novel in fifth grade (the largest book I had read up to that point - I finished it on the sly during a Cub Scout Pack meeting!) I enjoyed the 1984 film and the little of the miniseries that I saw, and I thought part one of this film was excellent.
So my verdict on part two?
Visually stunning, well-acted, and just plain well-done.
My beefs echo those of many Dune fans. I do not understand the need to truncate the narrative into a single calendar year, a decision that minimizes the difficulty of Paul's ascension, and forces the script to keep his sister a (as yet) unborn child, despite her role in the original novel. It's a pointless decision.
Nor am I a fan of Chani's pouty opposition to Paul; it completely contradicts the novel. Again, why? To stress the "false Messiah" message for the audience? Do it through your storytelling. Or was it to give a shallow nod to women by "upgrading" a loving and supportive partner into a sometime opponent? If so, it was terribly unneeded, as strong and powerful women abound in Dune.
Those complaints aside, it was wonderful. I rate it an A-
Friday, February 2, 2024
Carl Weathers
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Man From Earth
Last month, at LuLu's suggestion, I watched Man From Earth. It's a film set largely in a single living room, where five friends come together to say goodbye to a departing colleague, John Oldman. At the party John tells his friends that he is 14,000 years old, a survivor of the Stone Age who changes location every ten years to avoid detection. What follows is an intellectual discussion among the group that occasionally rises to the level of anger and violence, as they try to determine whether their friend is a medical marvel - or a liar.
This movie is highly lauded, and Lu enjoyed it, but I thought it missed the mark. It wasn't bad, it was just . . . well, awkward.
The small setting, the cast of friends that are suspiciously diverse in attitude, thought, and personality, the dialogue-driven script, it all says "stage play" to me, not movie.
Which is fine, but even as a play I think it falters. Remember what I said about the friends, how they were all so different as to make you wonder why they are friends at all? As the story goes on and they settle more into archetypical roles the friends feel more and more like they are there to justify to the audience why John is speaking; no, lecturing.
SPOILER:
I was also annoyed by the random brushes with the famous: Van Gogh, Columbus, Buddha, and let us not forget his assertion that he himself is Jesus Christ. Here, you may rightfully wonder if the film lost me with John's sacrilegious boast. No. Perhaps it would have, had the claim not struck so many other sour notes with me. He's of European ancestry, going back 12,000 years at that point, studied under Buddha, dismissed the idea of God, or at least an active God - yet he somehow chose to immerse himself in ancient Israel, living the life of a devout Jew? For what? Why? How did he pass? Not for the purpose of "becoming Jesus," because he makes it clear he wanted nothing of the sort. Nonsensical.
END SPOILER
My beefs aside, it was entertaining enough, and I don't regret seeing it. I grade this a C+