Watched the first half of Notorious yesterday. Yeah, not good. But I liked learning a bit more about Biggie's life; and I discovered I enjoy his music more than I originally assumed when the only song I had heard by him was the radio-friendly version of "Hypnotize". I thought the guy who played Biggie was adorable, and he did a good job making him complicated. (Don't get me started on the kid who played Baby Biggie--cutest thing I've ever seen!) The ladies who played Lil' Kim and Faith Evans scared the crap out of me to a degree I feel would be authentic were I ever to cross the real-life LK and FE. Also, the guy who plays Puffy (and his jackets) is hilarious. Almost as hilarious as the real Puffy and his real jackets.
Still, this movie sucked. I give it my worst review ever: Seven Thumbs Up.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Support Lt. Dan
Click here to tell a panel of Colonels not to fire Lt. Dan Choi from the military just because he's gay.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Movie Review 2: Hating the Protagonist
Saw Lakeview Terrace last week with some friends. Not my idea. I wanted to watch Daddy's Hands (gotta love this trailer); but someone thought it would be creepy. What?!
Anyway, my opinion about LVT is that it's crappy and not worth the time it spent to order it on Amazon's Video on Demand service. I think it had some promise: Cop (played by a Kobe Bryant hating Sam Jackson) gets all uppity because an interracial couple moves in next door. I think that's a pretty good premise; I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of what happens when those who are supposed to protect become the ones you need protection from. Who watches the watchers and all that.
But the writers, director, producers, or God knows who else took that interesting premise and allowed a camel to shit on it six times. First, the interracial couple is so unlikable as sickingly cute yuppie boneheads that I was kind of rooting for Sam the whole time. Now, that could have been an interesting plot point: Rooting for the bad guy because the good guys are nauseating. But, no, that was not what the movie wanted for us. (I know; I asked the movie). Instead, they made Sam's character go from a controlling dad who takes his responsibilities a little too seriously to a lunatic who creates his own demise after the white neighbor tricks him in, essentially, a "Your Momma" call-out. Ridiculous.
This movie exemplifies something I'm noticing in movies, TV shows and literature lately: What's up with protagonists being total abhorrent slags? But there's no wink-wink, nudge-nudge from the creator to indicate to the audience that (s)he thinks the protagonist is an asshole, too, so the whole time you're consuming this media you're thinking, "F! Does whoever created this think this person is cool? UGH!" Maybe (very likely, in fact) there is a wink-wink that I'm too slow to pick up on. Anyone with me on this? C'mon people, write back! Contribute!
Anyway, my opinion about LVT is that it's crappy and not worth the time it spent to order it on Amazon's Video on Demand service. I think it had some promise: Cop (played by a Kobe Bryant hating Sam Jackson) gets all uppity because an interracial couple moves in next door. I think that's a pretty good premise; I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of what happens when those who are supposed to protect become the ones you need protection from. Who watches the watchers and all that.
But the writers, director, producers, or God knows who else took that interesting premise and allowed a camel to shit on it six times. First, the interracial couple is so unlikable as sickingly cute yuppie boneheads that I was kind of rooting for Sam the whole time. Now, that could have been an interesting plot point: Rooting for the bad guy because the good guys are nauseating. But, no, that was not what the movie wanted for us. (I know; I asked the movie). Instead, they made Sam's character go from a controlling dad who takes his responsibilities a little too seriously to a lunatic who creates his own demise after the white neighbor tricks him in, essentially, a "Your Momma" call-out. Ridiculous.
This movie exemplifies something I'm noticing in movies, TV shows and literature lately: What's up with protagonists being total abhorrent slags? But there's no wink-wink, nudge-nudge from the creator to indicate to the audience that (s)he thinks the protagonist is an asshole, too, so the whole time you're consuming this media you're thinking, "F! Does whoever created this think this person is cool? UGH!" Maybe (very likely, in fact) there is a wink-wink that I'm too slow to pick up on. Anyone with me on this? C'mon people, write back! Contribute!
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Movie Review: Tripp, Why Didn't We Make our Friends Perform a Talent Show in our Honor Before our Wedding?
I love movies! Love 'em! We haven't watched many lately, what with a baby up at all hours; so I'm psyched we've been able to watch a few recently.
We recently saw Rachel Getting Married, a flick about recovering addict, Kym, coming home for her sister, Rachel's, wedding. Really good movie, highly recommend it. I had my doubts about her ahead of time, but Anne Hathaway doesn't suffer from Kerri Russell syndrome (pretty yet terrible actress): She's very convincing as a self-loathing/centered addict. Great story, absolutely LOVED the Dad despite (or, maybe, because of) his enabling of Kym, and thought casting a militant African overlord lookalike as the husband-to-be was an interesting and unconventional choice.
HOWEVER. Now we enter what I call the "What the Hell. . .?" Segment:
+What the hell was up with the the dozens of circus folk friends moving into Kym and Rachels' parent’s house a month before the wedding to prepare the house for the festivities?
+What the hell was up with the talent show friends and family put on the night before the wedding (one "act" involved a guy standing on stage directing half the audience to repeat, "Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. . ." while the other half repeated, "Sydney, Sydney, Sydney. . ." in a trance-like monotone)?
+What the HELL was up with the, literally (well, maybe not, but close to literally) hour of footage of people dancing, singing, rocking out, etc. with NO dialogue?
+And, finally, this one's for Tripp, who was thoroughly bothered by this: What the hell is up with white people pretending to be Indian? (Rachel and her bridesmaids wore saris to the wedding.)
Thoughts, people?
We recently saw Rachel Getting Married, a flick about recovering addict, Kym, coming home for her sister, Rachel's, wedding. Really good movie, highly recommend it. I had my doubts about her ahead of time, but Anne Hathaway doesn't suffer from Kerri Russell syndrome (pretty yet terrible actress): She's very convincing as a self-loathing/centered addict. Great story, absolutely LOVED the Dad despite (or, maybe, because of) his enabling of Kym, and thought casting a militant African overlord lookalike as the husband-to-be was an interesting and unconventional choice.
HOWEVER. Now we enter what I call the "What the Hell. . .?" Segment:
+What the hell was up with the the dozens of circus folk friends moving into Kym and Rachels' parent’s house a month before the wedding to prepare the house for the festivities?
+What the hell was up with the talent show friends and family put on the night before the wedding (one "act" involved a guy standing on stage directing half the audience to repeat, "Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. . ." while the other half repeated, "Sydney, Sydney, Sydney. . ." in a trance-like monotone)?
+What the HELL was up with the, literally (well, maybe not, but close to literally) hour of footage of people dancing, singing, rocking out, etc. with NO dialogue?
+And, finally, this one's for Tripp, who was thoroughly bothered by this: What the hell is up with white people pretending to be Indian? (Rachel and her bridesmaids wore saris to the wedding.)
Thoughts, people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)