doesn't work

psycho (1998)




i know that there was no way this could come anywhere close the original, especially since the original is one of my all times favorites, not to mention a cinematic landmark. but i was intrigued by the idea of a film that is almost shot-by-shot true to the original and it features some decent actors (william h. macy and julianne moore (although i think she is slightly annoying)). but neither one of them was very good and anne heche and vince vaughn (before he was famous enough to only play himself in movies) were horrendous. i loved the bird theme in the original, especially the shots that made perkins look birdlike. they tried to do that with vince vaughn, but he is way too doughy and ended up looking like a rotting bloated corpse. his nervous laugh and attempt to act nervous made me feel so uncomfortable, and not in a good way. and i thought the addition of him masturbating while he was spying on marion was ridiculous. the thing that is so wonderful about hitchcock's films is how beautifully subtle they are. as much as this film strived to be true to the original, it failed at achieving that subtlety and in my opinion, this is why the film failed as a whole.

that and vince vaughn. yikes.

I realize that this was unrecommended.

I went to see X-Men: The Last Stand last night. It was free, because I used to work at the Penn Hills Cinemas, and Roy (the manager/projectionist/awesome guy) still works there, and was working there last night, and let me in without paying. But actually it wasn't free, because I had tried to see it on Friday night with my friend Andy at the Southside Works and we got 1/3 of the way through before it cut out twice, prompting us to ask for free passes (because refunds are a hassle) and leading to a night of eating in a fake feasting hall in a fake Irish pub and then renting the Princess Diaries 2 (must be seen to be believed).

I might spoil some things for some people here, so if you were planning on seeing X-Men: The Last Stand (is X-Men hyphenated?) then you may not want to read further.

My question is: how does blowing up a medical facility + unethically using a drug to defeat your enemy + killing a psychic lady + kidnapping a mutant = world peace? Brett Ratner thought he could just slip that one past us, or maybe he just thought, hey, it's been one-and-a-half hours and I just finished directing and editing a huge action fight sequence. It's a good a time as any to just slap an ending on there.

Another question to consider: Can we overlook the question raised in the previous paragraph and forgive the movie just because it has the gayest moment ever gayed in metaphorical cinema, ever? Not really. But it takes the sting away. A mild sting, as I wasn't really invested in the franchise to begin with.

Post Script: [edit: postscript deleted due to celebrity death threats]

I am not a Woody Allen fan. I did enjoy Sweet and Lowdown, but all of the other Allen films I've attempted to watch have just been attempts, usually resulting in me waiting for it to be over or me getting up and leaving the room half way through. But not with Match Point. I thought the cast was superb, the plot original, at least the twists (the connection between luck and the tennis ball on the net being connected to the ring he tries to throw in the lake which gets picked up by a homeless man - nice), and the acting was not bad. I can understand to a degree why someone would think the acting was bad. But only to a small degree. Compared to other Allen movies I think this has phenomenal acting. Usually Allen writes the script almost as if he wants to get such and such a point across and doesnt care how believable or realistic the lines are to get there. Melinda and Melinda, for example, felt like it could and should have been a play. As a movie it felt very staged and so hard to believe. Realism is just a given for today's movies. Say what you want about that. But for a movie to work, at least for me, the lines have to be said naturally and believably. A lot has to do with the writing, but there's the actor and the director there as well. I can see these actors in an Allen movie reading the script and thinking, "How am I going to say that?" So they get to the shoot, they simply say the line, somewhat expository, and Allen is like "Great, yeah that's umm, great. Ok the next shot..." Because he seems to me more concerned with themes and points then delivery of lines.

All that being said, see Match Point. It's filmed in the UK, but doesn't feel like it was made by an American. The theme is a good one, touching on Love vs. Lust and murder and Luck, and the acting is actually very good. Some friends of mine (Megan and Mat) think the acting was horrible. I just don't know what they were thinking. I guess people are entitled to their opinions. I mean, I suppose they are.

It's hard to choose my favorite Harrison Ford crush. The top three competitors are as follows:1. Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive. The scene in the tunnel where Richard transforms from grizzled to dark and dashing makes me heart sing. I also like the montage here.2. Han Solo. He probably has the best style of any Ford role. However, he's a bit too sassy for my liking.3. Indiana Jones; in all of the trilogy. You really can't go wrong with Indy.

Male Crush # 3. Jack Kelly of Newsies. What young gir'sl heart is safe from this stud with Santa Fe flair?

Resuming a long forgotten project. Female Character Crush # 2: Amelie; A fairly typical crush, I know. Oh well.

paul schneider can salvage anything.






anything.

and by salvage i mean i watched it the whole way through and sincerely laughed-and not at how ridiculous it was.

look, here is my beef with most movies i end up not liking. they are filled with characters that i don't care about AT ALL. if there is nothing to a character, i'm not going to be involved in the story, no matter how good it may be. in my opinion, that's why so many horror films fail...too much effort is put into special effects, and plot "twists" (which seem to be getting lamer all the time), but no character development. so i don't care if they get kidnapped or tortured or killed; quite honestly, most characters in horror films are so poorly developed and obnoxious that i'm relieved when they are killed and kind of pissed when they survive. i have never written a screenplay or done any real acting, so i guess i can't say that it is easy to create good characters, but i feel that there could at least be a bit more effort put into that aspect of the writing and development of films.

and i really do feel like the writing is to blame, not the actors. reason being nicolas cage, adam sandler, and jim carrey- actors who i didn't take seriously until i saw adaptation, punch-drunk love, and eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (ok, i also thought jim carrey was good in man on the moon.) they all did fantastic jobs in those films, but most of their other work involves them playing a character which is the same in every film. it can be entertaining, but not what i would classify as good acting. which is why i'm not really into see films for the actors in them anymore. there's certainly actors i like, but it seems completely obvious that most actors are only as good as the scripts they are given. if you need proof, check out owen wilson in the minus man. wow. i really enjoy owen wilson, but that was painful to watch. i will cut him a break since it was one of his first films.

having said all that, if how to lose your lover was anything, it was proof that paul schneider is in a very elite group of actors, in my mind anyway, who have the charm and comedic ability to make the moments they are on screen pure enjoyment, even in the midst of bad writing.

and believe me, htlyl was bad...

the broadway hush

for the past six months i have been obsessively listening to page france and have had the pleasure of seeing them twice. whitney and michael, page france singers and musicians extradonaire, have a side project called the broadway hush. if you love whitney's vocals or find her adorable in general (ahem, teresa, jason) you will love them! they're a lot like page france, maybe a little less quirky, a little more poppy and cute, but how couldn't it be with whitney doing the singing! i can't wait for the release of a full length, but for now their songs on myspace will have to do.

memoirs

i always find myself reading memoirs and i end up really enjoying them. here are the last three i've read and really liked:




name all the animals by alison smith

i don't think i have read any memoir that wasn't a coming-of-age story; maybe i should seek one out for my next read. anyway, yeah this is the story of a girl who's brother is killed in a car accident and how she deals with the loss. i read it a few months ago so i don't remember it perfectly, but i do remember that i really enjoyed it.



goat by brad land

reading goat was probably the most unique reading experience i have ever had. it's strange to meet someone, actually spend a little time with them, and then read their work. it was terrible to read about the horrible, violent things happening to brad, when hours before we were hanging out and laughing with him. but i think regardless i would have found his book to be painful yet completely engrossing. his terse writing style may not be for everyone, but i loved it.


jesus land by julia scheeres

just finished this one yesterday. a great book about growing up in a religious home, racism, abuse, and the bond between siblings, even if it isn't through blood. julia is white and her adopted brother david is black. the first half of the book is about the abuse they experience at school and at home. it gave me a stark opposite to my childhood in a christian home, but here and there i found things that were familiar. i felt grateful that i did come from a loving family, rather than one that wields religion as a tool of hate and cruelty. the second half deals with the year that julia and david spent at a reform school in the dominican republic. as all of these books are, it is heartbreaking, but not void of hope.

bonus memoir!

an american childhood by annie dillard


i read this one five years ago and it's one of my favorite books ever. many thanks to troy for reading it, thinking of me, and following that through by sending me a copy. a great book on it's own, but even better to read if you have lived in pittsburgh. my favorite part is when dillard writes about her fascination with the giacometti sculpture at the carnegie art museum. it was and is one of my favorite pieces at the museum as well. i savored this book for months.

if anyone has any memoir recommendations i'd love to know!

Unrecommendation.

A very happy 41st. birthday to the great John C. Reilly.
I liked when you played Tucker in What's Eating Gilbert Grape the best.

This weekend I read/looked at Scrapbook and Summer Blonde by Andrian Tomine. I enjoy his work. For example here is his poster for the Japanese release of Adaptation (it was also used for the dvd insert).

diabolique

i hit the jackpot with my movie choices from the library this week! the back of the box for diabolique said more about hitchcock than the actual film, but the comparisons between the two directors (henri-georges clouzot being the director of diabolique) are rightly made. unlike the first time i saw psycho, i didn't know the ending to this film, which made it much more enjoyable. i enjoy my suspense movies to have a twist, but not for the sake of having a twist, which seems to be the direction most modern suspense films have taken.

the bicycle thief

another great film that i had never seen. now i have.

that's right we watched jurassic park tonight...




...what of it?

jules et jim

there are so many films that you're "supposed" to see. while most of the time i can understand why these films are important, especially when viewed in the context of when and where they were made, often times when watching these "essential" film, i'm bored silly and watching them feels like a chore. so i'm happy to say that jules et jim was not a chore and kept me captivated beginning to end. i'm embarrassed by how long it took me to see this film. jean-pierre jeunet borrowed a lot from truffaut's style and manner of storytelling. this is actually the film that amelie is watching in the theater when the narrator tells us she likes noticing the small details that no one else sees. it's joyful and sad and everything a good film should be. if you love cinema, you need to see this!

Happy Mum's Day!

This was an amazing book...

...I have my fingers crossed.