This movie ended and I felt that rare feeling that comes after those special films. I would type a colon and the exact word that fits the description, but that word doesn't exist. And no, I'm not being snarky. I really, really enjoyed this film. Of course, John Corbett was in it--so that's a win right there. Love him dearly.
No, really. The happy, warm feeling that came to after this catchy flick reminded me of that which I felt after memorable others. I will list them now for you: What a Girl Wants (2003), She's the Man (2006), Hairspray (2007), (Why do all of these films star Amanda Bynes?) Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging (2008), and others that end happily-ever-after and are based on books I adore/star adorable men who get the good girl in the end. Those are about the qualities I like in a down-right no-doubt-about-it good film. I mean, no, these are not American Beautys, Shakespeare in Loves, or West Side Storys, (the three best films of all time if you have not met me before) but they do their job and do it well.
Ramona and Beezus will remind you of Danny Devito's Matilda. This is not a bad thing. I liked this movie much better, but I never much liked that brat who was in Matilda and that shitty-ass remake of Miracle on 34th Street, which itself has fallen to the all-time-worst films-ever list since it is all about Macy's. Stupid Macy's. Macy's is so horrible in every way...wait...I got off track somewhere...oh well.
I do hope that a great deal of young people see this film and then go out and read the nineteen or so books associated with it. That would be a big day for film inspiring literary! I mean, it's nice when a good movie is made, like say Cold Mountain and it inspire fourteen people to read the amazing novel off which it was based, but this movie could really start some life-long reading. Go see it. It will make you smile.
12 December 2010
13 November 2010
Grown Ups
Can anyone tell me for sure, did Adam Sandler write most of this film back in his SNL days and the Kevin James role was originally intended for Chris Farley?
As far as movies go, it was half-way decent. Funny at times. Gross-out humor used as expected. No plot. What I really liked was that it had a good moral and a happy ending. That's a rarity in the Happy Madison genre.
C+
As far as movies go, it was half-way decent. Funny at times. Gross-out humor used as expected. No plot. What I really liked was that it had a good moral and a happy ending. That's a rarity in the Happy Madison genre.
C+
26 October 2010
Actors
Just as I was thinking, "Why isn't Danika McKellar entertaining me more often with her talent and beauty?" she popped up on a rerun of How I Met Your Mother tonight on lifetime, which is, by the way, my new favorite thing. I looked her up on IMDB to see what I've been missing and get this--she's listed again in a more recent episode of How I Met Your Mother under a different character name.
Que?
Que?
24 October 2010
21 October 2010
Macbeth at Krannert
The University of Illinois theatre arts program put up a production of Mackers the other weekend and I went to see it.
It wasn't good. I was really frustrated. The only player who, I felt, really understood the character they were playing was the graduate student playing Mackers himself. All the other players stumbled through their lines as if Shakespeare's language wasn't something they had the opportunity to work on for six weeks prior to this show. I mean, how can you put emotion into words you that don't know the meaning of? You can copy another's performance ( mediochre undergrad cast as Banquo) but you don't succeed. And don't anyone give me lip for saying Shakespeare's easy. I'm not saying that. It takes work. But it is the responsibilty of the player to put in that work.
Though I liked some of the choices in direction--there were indeed sensational stage pictures...but how difficult is that when you have fourteen people or more on stage? you can make 'em look fancy--the play was boring. And it is TOUGH to make Macbeth boring. It takes serious effort to make a play that is so textually rich, action-packed, and intellectually stimulating as boring as that production was.
I think that the designers had a good idea, but it did not a bit translate to the stage. Here was the problem: the elements had no harmony. The costumes didn't make sense with the set, the set with the lights, the costumes with the sound, makeup, hair, props...there were no complementary elements. The concept for the play (if Baz Lurhmann's Romeo + Juliet was Eiffel Towel high concept, this was Sears Tower high concept) was never apparent to me. And, I spent most of the show (while I was bored) trying to add up all the bits and figure out exactly what the concept was. And, sorry to be arrogant, but I'm usually pretty good at concepts. This is what I did determine: the director and designers never determined a year/era in which to set the show. This is a cop-out.
So, listen: You are not an artiste just because you cant' nail down a period. Shakespeare's universality of his plays will come through without your "I'm a grad student and I have a vision and I don't care if you don't get it" attitude and lack of explicitness in setting and date.
Lame.
The thing that they got right was that Mackers and Lady Macbeth are all about sex. Sex, sex, sex, and doin' it. The bang-titty-bang-bang-bang. The picketa-picketa-picketa. The hibbity-dibbity. All of their interactions in Act I and most of Act II is about sex and there's no way around it. That part was all well done.
Then, you get to the dagger speech and the curtains open and the audience (seated on the stage looking at the closed, dirty backside of the grand drape until now) see the empty audience seats of the Colwell Playhouse. However, on the apron sit three ladders. It made no sense. I even asked the appeared-to-be-somewhat-educated-and-cultured-based-on-my-eavesdropping group of boys in the row behind me about it and they had no clue. I finally came to the conclusion that the techie accidentally opened the curtain and the ladders were preset there for the scene in which they were later used for an area for the father and son to have their discussion. (It's not an important scene in the play. Don't worry about it.) I came to this conclusion to give the director a bit of a break because that was straight lunacy otherwise.
Now, I am biased because I did see Mackers at Folger. I acknowledge it and I've kept it in mind all along. And that production did indeed set the bar at the highest possible setting; however, this play was the twig that wasn't good enough, big enough, and developed enough to even be the bar.
D+
It wasn't good. I was really frustrated. The only player who, I felt, really understood the character they were playing was the graduate student playing Mackers himself. All the other players stumbled through their lines as if Shakespeare's language wasn't something they had the opportunity to work on for six weeks prior to this show. I mean, how can you put emotion into words you that don't know the meaning of? You can copy another's performance ( mediochre undergrad cast as Banquo) but you don't succeed. And don't anyone give me lip for saying Shakespeare's easy. I'm not saying that. It takes work. But it is the responsibilty of the player to put in that work.
Though I liked some of the choices in direction--there were indeed sensational stage pictures...but how difficult is that when you have fourteen people or more on stage? you can make 'em look fancy--the play was boring. And it is TOUGH to make Macbeth boring. It takes serious effort to make a play that is so textually rich, action-packed, and intellectually stimulating as boring as that production was.
I think that the designers had a good idea, but it did not a bit translate to the stage. Here was the problem: the elements had no harmony. The costumes didn't make sense with the set, the set with the lights, the costumes with the sound, makeup, hair, props...there were no complementary elements. The concept for the play (if Baz Lurhmann's Romeo + Juliet was Eiffel Towel high concept, this was Sears Tower high concept) was never apparent to me. And, I spent most of the show (while I was bored) trying to add up all the bits and figure out exactly what the concept was. And, sorry to be arrogant, but I'm usually pretty good at concepts. This is what I did determine: the director and designers never determined a year/era in which to set the show. This is a cop-out.
So, listen: You are not an artiste just because you cant' nail down a period. Shakespeare's universality of his plays will come through without your "I'm a grad student and I have a vision and I don't care if you don't get it" attitude and lack of explicitness in setting and date.
Lame.
The thing that they got right was that Mackers and Lady Macbeth are all about sex. Sex, sex, sex, and doin' it. The bang-titty-bang-bang-bang. The picketa-picketa-picketa. The hibbity-dibbity. All of their interactions in Act I and most of Act II is about sex and there's no way around it. That part was all well done.
Then, you get to the dagger speech and the curtains open and the audience (seated on the stage looking at the closed, dirty backside of the grand drape until now) see the empty audience seats of the Colwell Playhouse. However, on the apron sit three ladders. It made no sense. I even asked the appeared-to-be-somewhat-educated-and-cultured-based-on-my-eavesdropping group of boys in the row behind me about it and they had no clue. I finally came to the conclusion that the techie accidentally opened the curtain and the ladders were preset there for the scene in which they were later used for an area for the father and son to have their discussion. (It's not an important scene in the play. Don't worry about it.) I came to this conclusion to give the director a bit of a break because that was straight lunacy otherwise.
Now, I am biased because I did see Mackers at Folger. I acknowledge it and I've kept it in mind all along. And that production did indeed set the bar at the highest possible setting; however, this play was the twig that wasn't good enough, big enough, and developed enough to even be the bar.
D+
15 October 2010
TV
Why do all the best TV shows get cancelled? I have a number of examples to share that will prove my point. They are:
My So-Called Life
Pushing Daisies
Better Off Ted
Undeclared
Freaks and Geeks
There are more out there that I cannot think of at this moment.
My So-Called Life
Pushing Daisies
Better Off Ted
Undeclared
Freaks and Geeks
There are more out there that I cannot think of at this moment.
14 October 2010
Opportunities
Opportunities should always be something you are eager to jump at.
They aren't.
Sometimes, you have an opportunity that you can't avoid taking.
Sometimes, you have an opportunity you don't want to take but you do anyway.
Sometimes, you have an opportunity you can't decide to take and wish someone else would take for you, therein making your decision for you.
Sometimes is exactly that. Sometimes.
They aren't.
Sometimes, you have an opportunity that you can't avoid taking.
Sometimes, you have an opportunity you don't want to take but you do anyway.
Sometimes, you have an opportunity you can't decide to take and wish someone else would take for you, therein making your decision for you.
Sometimes is exactly that. Sometimes.
12 October 2010
11 October 2010
People
People should be the opposite of The Other Boleyn Girl. They should follow through on their promises and high expectations.
10 October 2010
The Day After the Beginning
Things should be like My So-Called Life: reliable in excellence, yet surprising in depth.
They aren't.
They aren't.
09 October 2010
The Beginning
Things should be like American Beauty: rare and extraordinary, awful and poignant.
They aren't.
They aren't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)