Movies, pt. II

Since I've been in a happy place for quite a while now I don't really have anything to whine about. So I figured I might as well make post of the movies I've seen after the previous movies post.

Margot at the Wedding
I really liked this one. I preferred it over The Squid and the Whale but then I think I should probably watch that one again. I didn't really get into it, perhaps it was because of where and when I saw it. This is my problem, I need to be in a good mood and comfortable to be able to enjoy a film. I think I might have even enjoyed the first Spiderman movie had the circumstances been a bit better. But back to Margot at the Wedding; I think perhaps the best thing in this was that I really enjoyed Jack Black in it. And I'm usually simply annoyed by him.

Mister Lonely
I thought this one sounded good; a punch of impersonators living together. You could make that into an interesting film. But oh how miserably it failed. It was rather predictable when it wasn't just plain boring. I didn't really understand what was the point of the whole film. The only good things were the storyline following the priest played by Werner Herzhog and Samantha Morton, just because she's well hot, especially as Marilyn Monroe.

Shine a Light
I don't think there's that much to say about this. The boyfriend wrote a review of it, you can read it here. I thought it was really beautiful and a very good concert film. Keith Richards is such a dude. And Mick Jagger's (I first wrote 'Migger Jack's') bum is just way too tiny and it seems that he used to be a lot more laid back and funny when he was younger. Oh well. It was still very enjoyable, there was a point when I had to stop myself from singing loudly along. I thought it wouldn't have been allowed in the cinema.

Persepolis
This was very good. Although at times I thought it was a tad boring. Anyway, I'm now reading the graphic novel, which I do think is better than the film, eventhough the film is very much just the book. But then there are bits in the book that I find very interesting but they didn't end up being in the film.

The Oxford Murders
Because I refused to spend Vapunaatto on a pub crawl, we decided to go to the cinema instead. And because a certain friend of ours is very much into his maths we went to see The Oxford Murders. It was quite horrendous. Although, the good thing was that it reached the level of bad that made it quite funny. If you know what I mean. Anyway, the boyfriend wrote '5 Reasons Why The Oxford Murders Did Not Completely Suck' check it out, it's pretty good.

Iron Man
I liked it! And not only because Robert Downey Jr. is one of the hottest men in the WORLD (although not according to the picture on his wikipedia article, for a better one check this, it's the eyes, me thinks). Anyway, I thought it was very entertaining and had beautiful people in it and eventhough I wasn't at all familiar with the story of Iron Man it did not matter. It's up there with the Batmans fighting for the top spot in my list of best movies based on superhero comics. Although, it must be said that not all of the Batmans are that good and I've still to see Batman Begins.

Il Conformista
This was actually shown at the cinema and we went to see it. It was very good. But it's the kind of film I'm not very comfortable in saying anything about it, and to be honest, I've forgotten what I actually thought about it. It had some very cool shots though. (How lame does that sound?! I'm sorry.)

Planet B-Boy
This was AWESOME. I think my mouth might have been open in awe for about 85% of the running time. Also it made me miss the times I used to do street dance a lot. It didn't even matter that the colour seemed to be a bit well... fucked when they showed it. I didn't really even realise there was something wrong with the colour. Just go and check the videos on the official website, it's a fantastic documentary. And have a look at this too, in fact you should at least watch this, it is full of AWESOME:


Sex and the City
I'm not a Sex and the City fan, whatever that even means. I've seen a few episodes including the series finale double episode twice and cried my eyes out both of the times. However, I've never thought that the series was amazing just harmless entertainment when there was nothing better on tv. Anyway, I still wanted to see the film and eventhough it did make me cry a bit, it didn't really do anything to me. I was really irritated by the r'n'b theme (I mean WHY r'n'b?! It's not like the girls are into it or anything.) and otherwise I though it was just too calculated and slickly produced. In a way it was flawless, but flawless in a very bad way. Plus it was too long. And there was not much of Charlotte, it seemed as if they didn't really know what to do with her character. Plus Kim Catrall really would deserve more money than SJP. And I used to prefer Carrie over Sam, but in the film, Sam was the star. ... One last thing, this dress was gorgeous though.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I loved it. It felt like it was the natural continuation of the old trilogy. It didn't feel new it felt like it was part of the old ones. I had some problems with the story, but I won't specify because maybe not all of you have seen it yet. All in all, I thought it was very good. And since I don't particularly like Raiders of the Lost Ark, I thought it was better than it. Perhaps even better than Temple of Doom, eventhough I really do like it.

Joy Division
This one I saw yesterday. It was half good, half not so good. I thought it felt a bit too pretentious in parts and it sort of fell apart towards the end. And it did turn into just being about Ian Curtis in the end. And I do see why it is a big part of the whole Joy Division story, but given the first half where I though it did talk more about Joy Division the band and not Ian Curtis and the other dudes that aren't that important. It did have some good laughs though, but over all it was a bit of a disappointment. The end of it just felt a bit too much likeit was just straight out from Control.

Oh dear, Simon...

I'M SORRY IT'S BEEN AGES since the last post. I had my exams and told myself not to blog during revision and all that.

However, during exam time I came across this hilarious article. (I should probably give credit to the boyfriend who linked me to it.)

It is terrible. And it saddens me that it actually got published in the Guardian. In fact, it was the front page story in the Film & Music supplement. Just read through the article please, I hope you agree with me.

Basically, what annoys me in this one is that the interviewer is just not acting professionally. I strongly believe that a good journalist will be able to set their own emotions aside and despite their own opinion can conduct a balanced interview with someone. I also believe that respect (even if it is faked respect) is important when interviewing someone.

In a way I can respect Simon Hattenstone's honesty as he wants to tell Ewan that he doesn't like the film. However, it seems pretty obvious that he did not give enough thought to how he would tell him that. Also, would it not have been better to wait until the end of the interview to say that? There's no need to write up all the awkwardness that follows from the confession. The worst part is that he doesn't just say, 'sorry, this movie didn't really appeal to me' but he goes on and on about it.

At the end of the movie, I tell him, we had to rewind to the opening credits to make sure it really was a Woody Allen film and that we hadn't been taken for a ride. "Right, right, right," he says again, like a psychiatrist listening to a particularly disturbed patient. I say it's not your fault - it was the direction and the script. "Is it because of the dialogue? Or the heaviness of the film? Or the tragedy of the film?" No, I say, it's because it seems like a terrible stage production of a terrible film that never belonged to a time or place.

What happens then is that he seems to realise his stupidity - Oops. Time to change the subject. I ask about his family. He tries to ask Ewan about his personal life?! That is simply IDIOTIC. You'd think that any self-respecting journalist would know that Ewan likes to keep his private life PRIVATE. I mean, I knew it and I really don't know much about Ewan McGregor. So what is Ewan's reply?

"I won't discuss that with you, so you could ask me another question." Why won't he discuss it? "I've never discussed it with a journalist and I'm not about to change that."

Well done Ewan! What annoys me most about the article is, that Mr. Hattenstone screws up the interview by seemingly not being well prepared and then tries to turn it around by hinting that Ewan McGregor is a bad person because he doesn't want to talk about his private life. From the headline ('Oh dear, Ewan...') onwards it's trying to make us believe that it is EWAN MGGREGOR's fault that the interview was a total disaster.

I'm wondering how on earth I'm supposed to get to the bottom of McGregor when he is prepared to reveal so little of himself. But in a strange way, I think, perhaps he has shown more than he intended to.

UGH. I just want to say this: I'm sorry Ewan. I hope The Guardian at least sent you a letter of apology. I still can't believe they actually printed it too. Oh dear, Simon...

------
All paragraphs in italics are taken from the article linked to at the beginning of the post.