Sunday, July 06, 2008
In the movie WALL-E, 700 years in the future, humans float around in chairs everywhere, have view screens right in front of them all the time, and are completely taken care of by a company called Buy-N-Large. because of these things, everyone of them is fat; plus, 700 years of idleness has bred smaller and weaker bones. This might be obvious, but how do you think this speaks to our present state of human-ness, especially as Americans?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
The Third Best Indiana Jones Movie????
Uh-oh. The reviews have started pouring in for Indy IV, and they're not too positive.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
What'll Be Great In 2008
To put it simply, what is everybody excited about this year that's hitting the local theater? And no, "I don't know what's coming out" is NOT an acceptable answer. The IMDB
is there for a reason, and nobody on this blog has severed fingers (the last time I checked, anyway.)
is there for a reason, and nobody on this blog has severed fingers (the last time I checked, anyway.)
Monday, March 10, 2008
Juno's kid
One of my favorite movies of this past year has been Juno. It's smartly written, well-acted from all involved, is pleasantly quirky, and finds the humorous side of a subject that wouldn't inspire much laughter. However, it is not without its problems. While Juno MacGuff does the best possible thing with her baby considering her situation, I have some issues with the way it was done.
** SPOILER ALERT **
Vanessa and Mark break up and start divorce proceedings, but Juno still gives the baby to Vanessa as a single mom. After that, no more mention is made of Mark. After his exit from the relationship, he's a non-issue. My first thought was, "Hey! Now the baby's not gonna have a father!" The movie seemed to imply that a male role model and father figure is not important to the development of a child. It's fantastic that Vanessa achieved her goal of motherhood, but she's only one half of what the child really needs.
Also, the biological father of the baby is Paulie Bleeker, whom Juno ends up dating by the end of the movie, but before that, the fact that he's the father of the child seems like little more than an afterthought. When Juno says she's gonna have an abortion, Paulie just (figuratively) shrugs his shoulders and says "that's fine," and doesn't think twice about the fact that he had a hand in creating this situation. IMHO, he should have a hand in resolving it, too, i.e. being a man and taking some responsibility for his own actions, and stepping up to the plate of fatherhood. Instead, the movie doesn't make him take ANY responsibility, and more or less just has him there as a happy ending for Juno, as well as good genes for Juno's kid. What I'm unhappy about is the movie's generally apathetic attitude about fatherhood.
Agree? Disagree? In the middle? Let us discuss! :-)
** SPOILER ALERT **
Vanessa and Mark break up and start divorce proceedings, but Juno still gives the baby to Vanessa as a single mom. After that, no more mention is made of Mark. After his exit from the relationship, he's a non-issue. My first thought was, "Hey! Now the baby's not gonna have a father!" The movie seemed to imply that a male role model and father figure is not important to the development of a child. It's fantastic that Vanessa achieved her goal of motherhood, but she's only one half of what the child really needs.
Also, the biological father of the baby is Paulie Bleeker, whom Juno ends up dating by the end of the movie, but before that, the fact that he's the father of the child seems like little more than an afterthought. When Juno says she's gonna have an abortion, Paulie just (figuratively) shrugs his shoulders and says "that's fine," and doesn't think twice about the fact that he had a hand in creating this situation. IMHO, he should have a hand in resolving it, too, i.e. being a man and taking some responsibility for his own actions, and stepping up to the plate of fatherhood. Instead, the movie doesn't make him take ANY responsibility, and more or less just has him there as a happy ending for Juno, as well as good genes for Juno's kid. What I'm unhappy about is the movie's generally apathetic attitude about fatherhood.
Agree? Disagree? In the middle? Let us discuss! :-)
Monday, February 25, 2008
According to the Academy...
After viewing the Academy Awards last night, I found myself mulling around some questions.
1) Is "knowing" an actor/actress (i.e. having more exposure the person and more experience with his/her work) an important part of judging a person's acting? How important/unimportant?
2) Is the public's judgment of quality filmmaking better or worse (or just different) than the judgment of those in the business (in other words, the Academy)?
1) Is "knowing" an actor/actress (i.e. having more exposure the person and more experience with his/her work) an important part of judging a person's acting? How important/unimportant?
2) Is the public's judgment of quality filmmaking better or worse (or just different) than the judgment of those in the business (in other words, the Academy)?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
What Movie Do You Wish To Destroy????
Everybody's seen something that made them wish that they could get that hour and a half back. But if you could wipe a movie from existence, what could it be? What film do you hate that much?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Not My Kind of Movie!
Bonjour!
After discussing my feelings about the movie Michael Clayton, I am wondering what types of movies does everyone NOT like. For example, I can see the movie Michael Clayton being one that people enjoy with really good acting, but I just didn't like it. I was bored. In short, law suspense movies are not my kind of movie.
After discussing my feelings about the movie Michael Clayton, I am wondering what types of movies does everyone NOT like. For example, I can see the movie Michael Clayton being one that people enjoy with really good acting, but I just didn't like it. I was bored. In short, law suspense movies are not my kind of movie.